Exhibiting Classical Collections in UK University Museums:
Contexts, cultures and practices in gallery redevelopments
A thesis submitted to the University of Manchester for the degree of
Master of Philosophy
in the Faculty of Humanities
2018
Ifigeneia Anagnostou
School of Arts, Languages and Cultures LIST OF CONTENTS
List of tables 7
Abbreviations 8
Abstract 9
Declaration 10
Copyright statement 11
Acknowledgements 12
Chapter 1: Introduction 13
1.1. Research aim and origins of the thesis 14
1.2. Research context 19
1.3. The contexts of recent redevelopments 22
1.4. University museums as a context of study 26
1.5. Classical antiquity and its material culture: problems and current 29 challenges
1.6. Terminology and definitions 31
1.6.1. Defining 'classical' 31
1.6.2. Other terminology used in this thesis 34
1.7. Structure of the thesis 34
2
Chapter 2: Literature Review 38
2.1. Historical Context 39
2.1.1. Historical reflexions 39
2.1.2. Classical collections in the public museum 42
2.1.3. The impact of academic disciplines 48
2.2. Recent and current developments and contexts in the classical 55 disciplines and museum theory and practice
2.2.1. A changing landscape: academic classics 56
2.2.3. A changing landscape: museum classics 62
2.2.3. Museums today: contexts, influences, developments and 68 their impact on classical collections
2.3. Conclusion 76
Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework and Research Methodology 78
3.1. Adopting a theoretical approach 79
3.2. Conceptualising the construction of narratives in the museum 86 context
3.2.1. Museum architecture and use of gallery space 88
3.2.2. Exhibition design: color, light, atmosphere 90
3.2.3. Exhibition content, type and form 91
3.2.4. Object collection, classification and selection 92
3
3.2.5. Textual and other types of interpretation 93
3.2.6. The museum effect 94
3.3. Research Methodology 95
3.3.1. Adopting a case study approach 96
3.3.2. Selecting the case studies 98
3.3.3. Fieldwork - Data collection methods 101
3.3.4. Data Analysis 110
3.4. Concluding remarks 111
Chapter 4: The Ure Museum of Greek Art and Archaeology 113
4.1. Historical context 114
4.2. The collection of the Ure Museum 116
4.3. Framing the redisplay: contemporary contexts 119
4.4. Project background 121
4.5. Team, roles and professional identities 123
4.6. Consulting the public 124
4.7. Museum architecture 125
4.8. Display organisation and layout 126
4.9. Organisation of the objects 130
4.10. Interpretation 134
4
4.11. Themes, concepts and the rationale of the new exhibition 135
Chapter 5: Greece and Rome at the Fitzwilliam Museum 139
5.1. Historical context 139
5.2. The classical collection at the Fitzwilliam Museum 142
5.3. Project background 144
5.4. Conclusion 146
Chapter 6: 'Ancient Worlds' Galleries at the Manchester Museum 147
6.1. The origins of the Manchester Museum 148
6.2. Archaeology in the Manchester Museum 149
6.3. The classical collections in the Manchester Museum 150
6.4. The Mediterranean Gallery 152
6.5. Framing the redisplay 153
6.6. Consulting the public 155
6.7. Conclusion 157
Chapter 7: Conclusion 158
7.1. Contribution to knowledge 162
5
7.2. Conclusion and Recommendations for further research 163
Bibliography 164
Appendices 199
Figure 1: The building housing the Ure Museum of Greek Art and Archaeology
Figure 2: The entrance of the Museum
Figure 3: Gallery plan of the Ure Museum Figure 4:
Former Gallery Plan
Figure 5: The case devoted to the history of the museum and the collector
Figure 6: The two island cases exhibiting Greece and Egypt
6 LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: List of the prospective case studies
7 ABBREVIATIONS
AHRC Arts and Humanities Research Council
HLF Heritage Lottery Fund
UMAC University Museums and Collections
UMiS University Museums in Scotland
UMIST University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology
V&A Victoria and Albert Museum
VUM Victoria University of Manchester
GNM Great North Museum
8 ABSTRACT
This thesis examines museological approaches and display practices surrounding collections of classical antiquities in UK university museums, as these have emerged through recent redevelopment projects that have reshaped UK's cultural landscape since 2000. Despite the critical role University Museums have played in the formation, research and representation of the classical archaeological discipline, the fact that they hold important collections of classical antiquities, and their recently reinvigorated role as the public interface between Academia and the wider community, yet there is limited existing research concerning the contemporary display of classical antiquities, in general, and within University Museums, in particular. This research comes to address this gap by shedding light into the ways current approaches to classical collections are shaped by the interplay of disciplinary developments, practices of display production and socio-cultural contexts. The research draws on theoretical approaches emphasising context-specific readings of material culture, 'behind the scenes' perspectives, and the relational aspects of museum practice. Methodologically, it is grounded on qualitative research undertaken in three case study museums: the Manchester Museum (University of Manchester), the Fitzwilliam Museum (University of Cambridge) and the Ure Museum of Greek Archaeology (University of Reading): first, an overview of the collections' histories in the three museums situates each collection within their respective local institutional culture and traces shifts in its perceived role and meanings. Then, contemporary approaches towards classical collections are explored by examining both the processes of display production (here, the gallery redevelopment process) in each case study and the resulting exhibitions as finished products. The thesis provides an analysis of how the three museums responded to needs and realities of a changing socio-cultural landscape, which was heavily shaped by funding opportunities, governmental priorities and strategic agendas set by the institutions themselves and their parental universities. It also provides a discussion of the impact of the broader disciplinary developments and the engagement of each institution with the wider museum community on the interpretation and re-display of classical antiquities. This thesis acknowledges these factors as important in shaping approaches to classical collections. The thesis goes on to argue that the ways each institution has nevertheless approached its classical collections is also intimately linked with local contexts: these are provided by the institutional 'culture' of each case study, the professional identities of museum staff working with classical collection, the character and scope of collections themselves, the relationship between the museum with its parent university, and the community the museum serves.
9 DECLARATION
No portion of the work referred to in the thesis has been submitted in support for an application for another degree or qualification of this or any other university or institute of learning.
10 COPYRIGHT STATEMENT
I. The author of this thesis (including any appendices and/or schedules to this thesis) owns certain copyright or related rights in it (the “Copyright”) and s/he has given The University of Manchester certain rights to use such Copyright, including for administrative purposes. II. Copies of this thesis, either in full or in extracts and whether in hard or electronic copy, may be made only in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as amended) and regulations issued under it or, where appropriate, in accordance with licensing agreements which the University has from time to time. This page must form part of any such copies made. III. The ownership of certain Copyright, patents, designs, trademarks and other intellectual property (the “Intellectual Property”) and any reproductions of copyright works in the thesis, for example graphs and tables (“Reproductions”), which may be described in this thesis, may not be owned by the author and may be owned by third parties. Such Intellectual Property and Reproductions cannot and must not be made available for use without the prior written permission of the owner(s) of the relevant Intellectual Property and/or Reproductions. IV. Further information on the conditions under which disclosure, publication and commercialisation of this thesis, the Copyright and any Intellectual Property and/or Reproductions described in it may take place is available in the University IP Policy (see http://documents.manchester.ac.uk/DocuInfo.aspx?DocID=24420), in any relevant Thesis restriction declarations deposited in the University Library, The University Library’s regulations (see http://www.library.manchester.ac.uk/about/regulations/) and in The University’s policy on Presentation of Theses.
11 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research owes much to my supervisor and advisory panel. My first and biggest thanks goes Kostas Arvanitis, my main supervisor, for his invaluable insights and his belief in this research. Without his constant encouragement and support, this thesis would not have been possible. Many thanks are due to my advisory panel, Helen Rees Leahy and Nick Merriman for their constructive feedback, guidance and support. Karen Exell has provided advice at the early stages of this thesis and I would like to thank her for her contribution.
I also am very grateful to all those who agreed to participate and be interviewed for this research. My sincere thanks goes to Professor Amy Smith and Dr. Lucilla Burn for their warm welcome in 'their' museums, for providing access to archives and for sharing their expertise.
This research has benefited enormously from two research grants received by the A.S. Onassis Public Benefit Foundation, and the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC), respectively. I am deeply grateful for both, for making this thesis possible.
Great thanks goes to all members of museum staff in the case study museums for their help during my fieldwork. I would especially like to thank Brian Sitch for his contribution and for the provision of source material.
Last, but by no means least, I would like to thank my family and friends. My deepest thanks go to my parents and husband for all the love, care and moral support throughout this process. My dearest son, Alexander, came while this thesis was underway. His smile has been a motivation to continue in difficult times of this research.
12 Chapter 1 : Introduction
Introduction
Arguably, classical antiquities are one of the most common, sought-after and high profile categories of objects to be found in Western museums worldwide: from regional and local to private institutions; and from closed or open to the public university collections to high-profile national museums of international importance. In the UK, collections of classical art exist in all types of institutions outlined above and also in art galleries, country houses or museums of art and design, with notable example the V&A. Their great dispersal and the high status these objects have traditionally enjoyed within museums reflect the central position classical antiquity has occupied in the Western culture and museological and collecting tradition. At the same time, the sheer number of objects included in many collections points to the various power relations embedded in the processes of their formation. Further issues come to the fore regarding the ways these objects have been interpreted in museum displays.
There are complex questions arising in every research concerning classical antiquities in the museum context, primarily because of the inherently political character of these objects, their intricate biographies and the multiple values ascribed to them throughout their post-antique history (e.g. Beard and Henderson 2001). In recent years, the engagement of museums with classical antiquity has been undergoing notable changes. Major exhibition redevelopment projects throughout the UK have come to substantially alter -even remove- displays of classical collections which, in some cases have been untouched since the 1960s. In the meantime, the contexts within which museum professionals work today have substantially changed and so have the questions scholars ask about the classical world and its material culture. The need, thus, for a thorough investigation of current museological approaches around collections of classical art, particularly as these have taken shape in recent redisplays, has never been more appropriate.
13 1.1. Research aim and origins of the thesis
This thesis sets out to explore how UK museums currently interpret and display collections of classical art and, further to this, to reflect upon the narratives and views that are constructed today around the classical past in contemporary museum exhibitions. In particular, this thesis aims to unpack the museological discourse of classical antiquity as it unfolds present-day, through an investigation of exhibition practices and processes of display production that UK museums currently develop around classical material culture. In order to encapsulate current conceptualisations of classical collections and the museological practices involved in their display, representation and interpretation, this research will focus on university museums that have recently redeveloped their exhibitions of classical art. This provides two further dimensions in this study: first, by focusing on university museums, this research aims to examine how museological narrations take shape in a particular institutional context; second, by focusing on recent redisplays, the aim is to shed light to aspects of the redevelopment process through which museological interpretations of classical collections and constructions of the classical antiquity emerge.
In more detail, this thesis investigates the links between classical antiquity, its material culture, museological practice, disciplinary research, the people behind institutions and practices and, also, the processes through which these agents relate to each other and come together in museum exhibitions, in order to form certain narratives. As such, it aims to address a series of interrelated questions: How do academic disciplines affect museological approaches that develop around classical collections? How does the process of display production -and, for that matter, the gallery redevelopment process- impacts on the interpretive approaches and representational strategies of classical collections? How do various social actors - museums, universities, curators, academics, designers and the public- engage with classical antiquity and contribute in the construction of certain museological approaches, while pursuing their own interests or agendas? In exploring such issues, this thesis is not only about "relationships between people and people, between
14 objects and objects, and between objects and people" (Alberti 2005: 561) but also about between people, objects, disciplines and institutions.
The analysis pursued here in order to investigate these topics is interdisciplinary in nature. For my theoretical framework, I draw on insights developed within museum ethnography and sociology (e.g. Macdonald 2002), which emphasise the agency of the various actors in the museological process, as well as the processes and underlying mechanisms through which museum narrations emerge. My understanding of museum exhibitions - and the meanings of objects within them - is framed by the poststructuralist notion that museological representation and interpretation are context-specific social practices, implicit within and reflexive of the particular social, cultural and historical conditions, from which they emerge (Mason 2006). I also conceptualise exhibitions as sites that produce and mediate narratives, values and identities and I draw on museological and material culture- related literature, notably Corinne Kratz's notion of the 'Rhetorics of Value', to build an understanding of how they do so "through visual and verbal means and through 'designed space'" (2011: 22). For my empirical research, I have adopted a qualitative methodology, based on research undertaken in three case study museums: the Ure Museum of Greek Archaeology in Reading, the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge, and the Manchester Museum. My focus on recent redisplays (all dating between 2005 and 2012) was based on the idea they can potentially reflect recent and current approaches towards classical collections.
While the subject of this research is the museological representation and interpretation of collections of classical art in contemporary exhibitions, the institutional context that frames this investigation is that of the university museum. This allows this study to have a specific context in which to base its analysis, without however dismissing diverse perspectives, given the "bewildering variety and range" (Boylan 1999: 49) of institutional variations that exist within the University museum sector. By focusing on university museums, this research is interested in examining both how these institutions contribute in producing a certain museological discourse around classical collections and how they might affect it. This thesis also accepts that, while certain elements of university museums -for instance their explicit
15 academic orientation- are unique to them, as institutions they are nonetheless subjected to or implied within critiques, analyses, developments and changes affecting the whole museum sector. And like every other type of museum, their character is intrinsically political and ideological.
In considering the role of classical antiquity in the museum context, it is national, rather than University, institutions that have typically attracted most scholarly interest (among a long bibliography see: Duncan and Wallach 1980; Avgouli 1996; Wright 1996; Challis 2006; Mouliou and Kalessopoulou 2011). Regional perspectives have also been examined, most recently by Victoria Donnellan (University College London) in her PhD thesis The role of collections of classical antiquities in UK regional museums: visitors, networks, social contexts (2015). It appears, therefore, that although university museums hold some of the most important collections of classical art in the UK outside the British Museum, with notable examples including institutions such as the Ashmolean and the Fitzwilliam Museum, the ways these museums have approached their collections, especially after their recent redisplays, have not been subjected to the same critical analysis applied to other types of institutions (two welcome exceptions are: Cooper 2013; Walker 2013).
The 2014 international conference Classical Archaeological University Collections: present and future possibilities in Aarhus, Denmark, represented the first, according to its organisers, attempt to explicitly address the role of classical collections in the university museum context. However, and despite the multiple perspectives offered there, the overwhelmingly majority of papers focused on the uses of the collections in university teaching, research and public engagement activities, while only three out of the twenty two specifically addressed issues related to exhibiting classical art, highlighting the need for further research. Through its focus on this particular aspect, this thesis offers a much needed perspective in an area of research that has largely been overlooked and only recently started being explored in more depth. Such examination is all the more important considering that, over recent years, university museums have been undergoing a profound transformation in terms of their identity, purpose and role, as they are increasingly open up to the wider public and facilitate access and participation beyond campus (Boylan 1999; Tirrell 2000;
16 MacDonald 2009; Merriman 2012). It is particularly this shift of focus that makes them a fruitful ground to investigate and reflect upon the practices and approaches they currently develop around their collections, with specific reference those of classical art.
Although this research is preoccupied with classical antiquities in the museum context, it does not address all aspects of this discourse, as the topic is vast, indeed. While this thesis is interested in questions of ideology, it does not discuss issues of ownership and repatriation of classical material culture, as these topics have been extensively discussed elsewhere (Hitchens, Browning et al. 1997; Merryman 2006; Cuno 2008; Merryman 2009; Lekakis 2012; Tythacott and Arvanitis 2014). Matters of looting and illegal trade of classical antiquities are also not considered here, as such an examination falls out of the scope of this thesis (for relevant literature see: Gill and Chippindale 1993; Chippindale and Gill 2000; Chippindale, Gill et al. 2001; Rhodes 2007; Watson and Todeschini 2007; Cuno 2009; Gill 2009; Felch and Frammolino 2011). Furthermore, this thesis is not interested in addressing exhibitions from the visitor’s point of view; rather, museum visitors are viewed here in respect to their role as agents that could potentially shape certain museological agendas.
Before moving any further, it would be useful to introduce how this thesis grew. I became interested in matters of museological representation and interpretation of classical art when, as a graduate student of classical archaeology, I embarked for my own 'Grand Tour' in Italy as part of the student exchange programme Erasmus, studying and visiting museums for almost five months. During that time I came across a number of exhibitionary settings where classical art could be viewed. However, in most cases the presentation of objects provided little account of what they originally meant, what their significance was and how they related to the people that created and used them. For someone like me who studied archaeology, this approach seemed problematic. Why did objects, instead of being explained, have to speak for themselves? At that early stage, it appeared to me that there was 'something' about these objects that prevented them of being subjected to the same
17 rules of analysis and interpretation that applied, for example, to other collections I came across in Italy, in my own country (Greece) and elsewhere in Europe.
I have been excited, skeptical and occasionally frustrated by the various ways classical collections have been presented and interpreted from one museum to another. I found the "many faces" (Tzortzaki 2012: 667) of classical art in museum exhibitions both intriguing and fascinating and for that matter I decided upon a Masters on museum studies. It was then, when I was first exposed to heated discussions on the nature of museum exhibitions, the meanings of museum objects and the role of curators in the museological process. Upon my graduation, I started working as a curator, developing the permanent display of a Greek archaeological museum. This position offered me not only an array of 'behind the scenes' insights and perspectives, from which I draw throughout the present thesis, but also a useful distance from academia, which enabled me to reflect upon the meanings and roles of classical material culture in a practical museum context.
All these years there has been a constant 'personal struggle' between the familiarity and affection I developed towards these objects through my work as classical archaeologist, a museum professional and a casual museum goer and my skepticism towards the not-always-positive ideologies these objects represent, embody or are associated with, which I was uncovering the closer I engaged with them. I found, for example, the image of a mythified (classical) past to which these objects allude, and which is so carefully crafted and actively promoted by Greek universities and the State Archaeological Service (see Hamilakis 2007), highly problematic, as it opposes my firm belief that the past, instead of being worshiped, should be rather studied and understood. It is the more problematic aspects of classical material culture that I found captivating, and it is those that fundamentally motivated me to explore the issue further and decide upon a research that would specifically examine the interpretations, representations and narrations that develop around these objects in contemporary museum exhibitions.
18 1.2. Research context
Between December 1991 and May 1992 classicists Mary Beard and John Henderson curated a temporary exhibition in the Ashmolean Museum (Oxford) entitled '?The Exhibition?' or 'The Curator's Egg' (Beard and Henderson 1994). It aimed to explore the museum discourse of appropriation 'from the inside' and with specific focus to the representation of Greeks and Romans. Developed in a small room just before the permanent exhibition of classical collections, '?The Exhibition?' intrigued visitors to see with a 'different eye' what followed. The curators created an unconventional, thought-provoking, rather post-modern display, based on paradoxical and unorthodox installations and object commentary: cheap plastic Venuses were treated as priceless artworks; authentic objects were label-priced as everyday commodities; high quality and mass-produced objects were juxtaposed with each other; visitors were instructed to do non-sense things, such as to touch the impossibly-high-to-reach ceiling or to focus on the window view instead of the exhibits; photos of the curators featured alongside photos of modern classicists and ancient characters, gazing the visitors; labels were displayed as museum objects in their own right and many more.
'?The Exhibition?' brought to the fore an array of important questions of appropriation, institutional power and control, inclusion and exclusion, ideology, curatorial authority, classification, authenticity, gender, value and taste, which meant to problematise the ways classical art has often been framed, represented and interpreted in the museum context. The questions raised by the '?The Exhibition?' reflect the increasing impact of a critical museum theory, also cited as 'New Museology' (Vergo 1989: 3), identified with a "climate of increasing reflexivity within the profession" (Ross 2004) and a broader shift from museum 'methods' towards museum 'purposes' (Vergo 1989: 3; see also: Stam 2005; Marstine 2006; Macdonald 2006a). Today, museum studies "has come of age" (Macdonald 2006a: 1); it has "expanded and pluralized" (ibid: 6) and the literature on museums and exhibitions has grown enormously. Yet, until relatively recently, a thorough examination of exhibition practices, curatorial methods and museological narrations that develop around collections of classical art has largely escaped scholars' interest.
19 This lack of attention reflects not only the prolonged inward-looking character of classical archaeology, under the paradigm of which many exhibitions of classical art have developed, but also a certain ideology that viewed classical antiquity and its material culture as embodiments of wider cultural values and ideals: "the material culture of Greece and Rome has been uniquely freighted with moral value, and has come to play an ongoing role in the formation of western sensibilities" (Osborne and Alcock 2007: 2). It is particularly this view that has prohibited classical antiquities to be subjected to the same critical analysis applied, for example, to other types of collections such as ethnographic material (e.g. Karp and Lavine 1991; Ames 1992; Coombes 1994; Lidchi 1997; Simpson 2001; Kreps 2003; McCarthy 2007). This lack of attention further reflects the weight of a certain cultural tradition, the Classical, and the difficulties those working within its paradigm face in braking from established norms, practices and discourses (on the 'Classical Tradition' see: Kallendorf 2007; Grafton, Most et al. 2010).
Of particular importance to the present study is to examine the interrelation between disciplinary and museological practice, and its implications on classical collections. The professionalisation of museums over the past three decades, emerging along with a reflexive academic critique over their practices (Vergo 1989; Karp and Lavine 1991; Sherman and Rogoff 1994; Macdonald and Fyfe 1996; Macdonald 1998), have drastically altered the dynamic between collections and the public and came to challenge established power relations and dominant discourses manifested, for example, through curatorial authority and western-centric perspectives. These ongoing changes of the museum sector have been coupled with broader academic advances within traditional disciplinary fields preoccupied with classical material culture, such as classical archaeology: once "a dilettantish pursuit" (Whitley 2001: 12) and "a custodian of traditional values" (ibid: 10), the discipline no longer remains so, as a number of scholars "have attempted whole-heartedly to thrust Greek art and classical archaeology into the 21st c" (Smith and Plantzos 2012: 3). Such developments combined, have suggested new ways for museums to approach, interpret and display their classical collections, which have not been thoroughly covered by existing literature, and which this thesis aims to investigate.
20 Scholarly interest on classical collections has increased significantly over recent years, following the growth of museology as a distinctive field of academic inquiry and wider academic trends within it that expressed interest in such topics. However, and despite a growing body of relevant literature, most studies have tended to adopt a historical viewpoint, focusing primarily on antiquarian and (early) modern contexts and traditions (e.g. Haskell and Penny 1981; Alsop 1982; Jenkins 1992; Hepple 2001; Vickers 2001; Scott 2003; Beard 2012), while current museum approaches around classical collections have largely been overlooked. This picture is further corroborated by relevant work within classical reception, which has also mainly focused on 18th and 19th century perspectives (e.g. Coltman 2009; Nichols 2015). Indeed, as Siapkas and Sjögren confirm, "[t]here is … an apparent lack of analyses of contemporary exhibitions. Reception research has largely avoided to problematise present-day appropriations of the classical tradition" (2007: 153). This thesis aims to address particularly this: to explore the role of classical collections in contemporary exhibitions, shedding, thus, light in an area of research that has only recently started being explored in more depth (e.g. Siapkas and Sjögren 2007; 2013; Cohen 2014; Powers 2015).
A number of other studies have variously considered classical collections which offer important insights to the present research. Gazi (1993; 2008) and Mouliou (1997; 2008), for example, have examined the display of classical antiquities in the 19th century and during the post-war decades respectively, with reference to the Greek context. Their work points to the ideological and political character of these objects and the various ways the classical past has served as symbolic recourse through which notions of (national) identity have been constructed and reinforced in the context of exhibtions. Victoria Donnellan (UCL), mentioned earlier in the Introduction, explored the role of classical collections in UK regional museums through an examination of "the related concepts of outputs, benefits and meaning" and with a focus "on casual visitors to permanent exhibitions" (2015: abstract). Abigail Baker (Birkbeck, University of London) has investigated the impact of ancient texts and narratives in British museums demonstrating their ongoing on the way museums think about individual objects, wider history and their own role as public
21 institutions" (2015: abstract). Finally, in her thesis, Laura Jane Caroline Snook (University of Birmingham) has considered exhibitions of Greek architectural sculpture in ten European collections, focusing on "the target audience and the aims and objectives of the different institutions" (2015: abstract).
This thesis builds upon existing research and further advances the literature by focusing specifically on contemporary exhibitions within University museums, an area of research that has not yet been fully addressed. A better understanding of the current role and relevance of classical material culture in museums can, thus, be achieved. Through its focus on recent and present-day approaches of classical antiquity, this thesis is comfortably situated within classical receptions studies, focusing on "the ways in which Greek and Roman material has been transmitted, translated, excerpted, interpreted, rewritten, re-imaged and represented" (Hardwick and Stray 2008: 1). Also, this thesis' interest on museum narratives and issues of museological representation and interpretation further points to its wider relevance to the field of museum studies and highlights its contribution to museological literature focusing on such topics (e.g. Kreps 2003; McCarthy 2007). Through this dual focus, this thesis is of interest not only to museum academics and professionals, but also to classicists, classical archaeologists and all those interested in 'the future of the Classical' (Settis 2006), in general.
1.3. The contexts of recent redevelopments
The ongoing transformation of museums and their practices, briefly touched upon above, is matched with a physical updating of museums and exhibitions, resulting from large scale redevelopment projects that have 'swept' the country from 2000 onwards. MacLeod notes that "at no other point in their modern history have museums undergone such radical reshaping as in recent years" (2005: 1). While not exclusively restricted in them, yet a large number of redisplays featured collections of classical art. It would, thus, not be an exaggeration to argue that the large number of redeveloped museums and galleries has given rise to a 'new generation' of
22 exhibitions, which can now be studied as a single phenomenon. The recent redevelopment boom in Britain marks the beginning of a new museum dynamics. In light of these developments, former museological practices, processes and narrations have been revised, opening the way for new exhibitionary modes and interpretative approaches to emerge. Indeed, as MacLeod acknowledge, "as new museums have been built and existing buildings extended and remodeled, outdated displays have been replaced by brand new permanent and semi-permanent displays based, often, on new museum theories" (2013: 1).
The new museological reality has also prompted calls for a reassessment of the ways museums have displayed and interpreted so far their classical collections. In 2010, the then Director of the Fitzwilliam Museum, Timothy Potts, noted on the re- opening of the new exhibition after a 18 month-long redisplay: "This new presentation […] will offer many fresh insights, not only to new visitors, but also to those who are familiar with the collection" (Fitzwilliam Museum Website 2010b). Concepts of revising former approaches, transforming the display and re-interpreting objects were extensively propagated on the museum's website, according to which the redevelopment was conceived as "a long awaited and eagerly anticipated opportunity to refresh the Greek and Roman display" (Fitzwilliam Museum Website 2010a) and a means to "bring[s] the Fitzwilliam's antiquities collection into the 21st century" (ibid). In the context of this thesis the recent redisplays in UK University museums are treated as an opportunity to discuss current approaches that develop around collections with long and complex histories, such as those of classical art.
With regards to classical collections, advances within academia over the past three decades have generated new questions about the classical world and suggested new ways for museums to approach their classical collections. The changing character of classical archaeology, as a discipline, is one such example which exemplify these latest developments. However, while the academic world has progressed, museums have been rather slow in reflecting on these latest developments through their exhibitionary practice. This indicates a lag between the theoretical world of academia and the that of museums, observed also in other contexts (see for example: Bouquet 2001). Indeed, prior to this recent wave of museum redisplays, a
23 large number of exhibitions addressing classical collections dated back in the 1960s, reflecting thus outdated interpretive models that prevailed earlier in the 20th century. Shifting disciplinary contexts as well as wider debates concerning the role and position of classical antiquity in the contemporary world are central to this thesis, as they provide the essential intellectual and ideological background which frames current museum practices around classical collections.
While acknowledging their potential role in spurring innovative views of the collections, it is nonetheless unlikely these redisplays would have been materialised, if there were not enough monies to financially support such large-scale projects, in the first place. In the UK, funding bodies like the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) or the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) have been the driving force behind many exhibition redevelopments, including those of my own case studies, with HLF's individual contribution counting up to £995 million to "exhibitions, interpretation, collections management, learning and outreach programmes" (HLF 2014), from the time it was established in 1994 and up to 2014, when this thesis was underway (see also: Macleod 2013). These new streams of monies have made a huge difference to the previously underfunded museums of the so-called "Thatcherite decade" (Corner and Harvey 1991: 3), affording them unprecedented opportunities for development, improvement and expansion. For Paddon, funding bodies have facilitated something of a 'display Renaissance' in the UK, dramatically transforming the country's museological landscape "physically, financially and procedurally" (2014: 9).
Undoubtedly, funding has brought significant changes in buildings, galleries and exhibitions but has also placed "new demands and expectations" (MacLeod 2007: 72) upon museums. Indeed, it is now the case that funding applications set certain criteria and objectives, which the recipient institutions have to meet, in order to be granted the prospective monies. For example, funds cannot be accessed unless museums demonstrate measurable outcomes and benefits for their publics (Gray 2007; Fisher and Ormston 2011; see also: Hooper-Greenhill 2007). But how does this affect museological practice? Funding has presented museums with exciting opportunities for development, but also raises questions regarding the constrains it puts upon them, drawing attention to the ways it might regulate their activities and
24 interfere with institutional agendas, and others set by curators themselves or various stakeholders. A propos of this, MacLeod rightly observes that "museums and galleries today are shaped by architects, designers, engineers, funding bodies, regional development agencies and other interested parties" (2007: 72).
The contexts of recent redevelopments are also political. These are provided by the introduction of instrumentalist policies in the cultural sector and the increase, over recent years, of state intervention in cultural affairs (Gray 2007). Especially since the election of New Labour in 1997 the prevailing view of culture has been one that is "susceptible to accountability and subject to governmental priorities" (Hooper- Greenhill 2007: 16; see also: Gray 2007; Fisher and Ormston 2011). Like my own case studies, a large number of exhibitions that opened since 2000 were developed with an eye to fulfill political agendas, particularly those related to social inclusion and the provision of education, which were highly prioritised for the time being. Sandell (1998; 2003; 2004) and Tlili et al (2007), for example, have extensively reflected on how the demand for 'inclusivity' has prompted new exhibits that promoted access on all levels. In the same direction, Hooper-Greenhill (2007) has considered how education and learning-related priorities have underpinned the thinking behind a number of exhibits, partnerships and outreach activities.
Over recent years, the museological reality in the UK has been heavily shaped by large-scale redevelopment projects. Within this, agendas set by funding bodies and governmental policies have been widely acknowledged as having a significant impact on gallery design and collection interpretation, acting both as drivers for positive change and, potentially, as restricting factors for museums and their activities (e.g. MacLeod 2007; Paddon 2014). This thesis demonstrates that they have also had a significant impact on the redisplays of my case-study museums, with their particular contribution examined in Chapters Four to Six, when discussing the findings of the present research. To further contextualise this thesis, it is also important to obtain a better understanding of university museums as institutions: their origins and the social and cultural contexts in which they currently operate, the challenges they face and their changing role in contemporary society. These issues are the subject of the next section.
25 1.4. University museums as a context of study
University museums are the earliest public museums existing "in a recognizably modern form" (Boylan 1999: 43), with the Ashmolean in Oxford being the first to be established as early as 1683. Their development is closely associated with advances in scientific knowledge during the Enlightenment and processes of disciplinary professionalisation in the 19th and early 20th centuries, serving throughout their history as core aspects of academic research and teaching (Boylan 1999; Lourenço 2005). Indeed, many university collections of classical antiquities, including examples that will be examined here, were formed by university professors in order to support classical archaeological courses. In this respect, disciplinary histories, discourses and developments are, and have always been, embedded in the professional and exhibitionary practices and processes associated with university museums. Indeed, as Arnold-Forster has remarked, university museums "record (not only) the preoccupations and tastes of scholars, collectors and academics, but also the accumulation of basic teaching material over generations" (2000: 10).
The recent history of university museums reveals patterns of distinct decline, followed by a renewal of their relevance and status within their parental institutions. Structural changes in university teaching and research, coupled with reductions of university funding and the rise of market-driven models in the museum sector as a whole, have resulted in many university museums losing "their sense of purpose" since the 1980s (Merriman 2006: 225; Brown 2011). A 'crisis' affecting the sector has been a recurrent theme in the literature (Warhurst 1986; Willett 1986), with growing concerns over their "condition, resourcing, safety and future" (Arnold-Forster 2000: 10) being highlighted in a number of publications at the time (e.g. Tirrell 2000; Merriman 2001). Some university collections were sold, while others - notably natural history specimens - were left to deteriorate (Ucko 1998: 377; Boylan 1999). University collections of classical art did not remain unaffected but, certainly, they were not plagued to the same extend. As I shall discuss later in more length, in most occasions, the problems they faced related to issues of poor management, outdated displays, a sense of 'invisibility' and an under-exploitation of their educational
26 potential within their parental universities. Unsurprisingly, these problems were felt stronger in smaller institutions.
In response to these challenges, a series of initiatives was undertaken from the mid 1980s, aiming at strengthening the relevance of university museums and raising their public profile. The University Museums Group (UMG) was formed in 1987 as an advocacy body covering England, Wales and Northern Ireland, with a respective organisation established a year later for University Museums in Scotland (UMiS). The role of university museums was further highlighted in a number of publications, including Kelly's edited work Managing University Museums (2001) and two volumes of the UNESCO's Museum International Journal in 2000. A nationwide survey undertaken between 1989-2002 aimed to map university museums and collections across the country. Published in a series of reports, its findings highlighted both the great diversity of institutional contexts existing within the sector and the problems most pertinent to it. One of the most important initiatives involved the formation, in 2001, of the University Museums and Collections (UMAC) International Committee, a platform of collaboration between university museums, which actively serves their interests through the organisation of conferences, the publication of policy documents and the maintenance of an online database that serves the sector. Such initiatives contributed significantly in putting university museums back in the 'map', and have effectively led to a reappraisal of their value and role within their parental institutions and the wider museum sector.
In recent years university museums have been under the process of reconsidering their role. The most significant change involves a shift away from their 'ivory tower' associations and a redefinition of their relation to the community: "university museums in varying ways have increasingly sought to serve wider audiences: through exhibition and permanent displays, and through education and public services" (Arnold-Forster and Mirchandani 2001: 49; MacDonald 2000; MacDonald 2009; Curtis 2012). At the same time, like other types of museums, they now increasingly shift away from traditional collection-based functions and re-align their priorities towards "income generation, customer orientation and increased 'efficiency'" (Lawley 2003: 75; see also: Boylan 1999; Tirrell 2000; Merriman 2006).
27 As a result, they "are no longer driven by their curatorship but are adopting a more market orientated approach, finding out what people want and presenting it to them in the way they want to learn it" (Kelly 2001: 12).
Today, university museums operate in a complex and diverse socio-economic and cultural environment. As UK universities increasingly operate according to "market or 'quasi-market' lines" (Brown 2011: 13; Klemenčič 2011), university museums are accordingly understood through their role in enhancing external image of their parental institutions and advancing university mission and agendas, particularly in areas related to research, teaching, community engagement, widening participation in higher education and fundraising (Boylan 1999; Kim 2007; MacDonald 2009; Curtis 2012; Merriman 2012). This is all the most important if considered in the light of added pressures created through the increased competition among UK universities to attract more students and the great effort invested by them in climbing hierarchy 'rankings' (Brennan 2011). In this climate, in order to secure funding, university museums have to become more accountable to their stakeholders (Kelly 2001: 10). These may vary from their parental institutions to external parties, including funding bodies. At the same time, university museums also need to conform to broader governmental reforms and, not the least, to professional guidelines of good practice and standards of collections care, adjusting accordingly their practices, policies and access requirements. All these have a significant impact in the services they deliver, the contexts in which their curators operate and the ways they approach their collections.
Since the 1980s, university museums have undergone a substantial change in terms of their role, functions and identity. As academic institutions, they have been subjected to educational reforms and economic changes affecting the higher- education sector as a whole. At the same time, like other types of museums, the contexts in which they currently operate have also been defined by the need to adapt to an increasing commercialised cultural environment and, often, instrumentalist governmental policies. The exhibitions examined here have developed in particular institutional contexts, provided by each museum's historical trajectory and own 'culture'. However, their development should be also understood
28 as part of the broader cultural, social and economic reality of university museums in the UK, outlined above. In the remaining chapter, I discuss some of the most pertinent issues surrounding the current role of classical antiquity and collections within museums and academia, before I move on to address the terminology used in the present research and present this thesis' structure.
1.5. Classical antiquity and its material culture: problems and current challenges
Like every other object from the past, classical antiquities provide information about the societies that created and used them. However, classical material culture seems to operate in a much deeper and wider level: in relevant literature, Classical antiquities are portrayed as objects with "a lasting prestige" (Beard and Henderson 2001: 3), that have "influenced the history of western culture massively" (ibid: 5). The iconic status and cultural significance of these objects exceed the narrow boundaries of their countries of origin, making them both "national and global heritage" (Lowenthal 1988) and "symbolic capital" not only for the museums but indeed for the nations that possess and display them (Hamilakis and Yalouri 1996). Through their presence in the largest museums worldwide, these objects provide a "tangible evidence that 'we' had a civilized past and by displaying them and visiting them (that) 'we' have a civilized present" (Swain 2007: 3). Classical antiquity and its material production have become a metaphor of wider values and beliefs, representing what is now identified as Western culture and civilization.
At the same time, Western museums have persistently appropriated classical antiquity in its various manifestations – e.g. its material culture, its architectural language, its powerful imagery - in order to impose, reinforce and legitimise hegemonic ideologies and dominant views of culture (Duncan and Wallach 1980; Morris 1994c; Settis 2006). Classical material culture has played an ongoing role in the construction of political, social and cultural identities of Self and the Other and the classification of peoples, pasts and cultures (for further discussion see Chapter 2). These aspects and associations are the most problematic. If, however, museums
29 have repeatedly used their classical collections to construct dominant discourses, they have also come to question their own practices: in the climate of academic and institutional reflexivity museums operate today (Ross 2004; Stam 2005; Macdonald 2006a), the need for them to be more inclusive, multivocal and critical of their own biases and assumptions is more pronounced that ever. These developments pose great challenges to traditional western-centric perspectives that classical collections have repeatedly been associated with, and raise important questions regarding their current function, role and status within institutions.
Discussions over the status of classical collections in modern museums are situated within broader academic debates over the role of Classics and classical antiquity, more general, in contemporary society (for further discussion see Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2.). 'Gloomy' publication titles, such as 'The Classics in crisis', 'Can Classics Survive?' or 'Who killed Homer' (Beard 2013: 4) epitomise a heightened sense of concern among a number of classicists arguing upon Classics facing a perceived decline (Culham, Edmunds et al. 1989; Tanner 1994; Settis 2006; Beard 2013). In two recent publications Settis (2006) and Beard (2013) reflect on how the idea of the 'classical' came to be challenged in modern society. For Settis, the status of the classical past withered as the Western values that it embodies have become less relevant in today's multicultural world, where a "demand for 'strong' local identities" (2006: 3) competes with "the much feared and ill-defined realities of globalization" (ibid). Beard points to the fact that classical antiquity has often acted "as a convenient alibi for a whole range of cultural and political sins, from imperialism and Eurocentrism to social snobbery and the most mind-numbing form of pedagogy" (2013: 5). If anything, both writers conclude, the decline of classical languages within academia and several closures of classics departments worldwide is a mere reflection of a broader dissatisfaction of our modern society with what 'classical' essentially stood for.
Like Beard and Settis, a number of other scholars in recent years have aimed to strengthen our understanding on the topic by examining not only how classical antiquity has contributed to the development of western-centric discourses, but also how its study can contribute to deconstruct these narratives. For example, there is
30 now a growing body of literature that examines classical antiquity in post-colonial contexts (Goff 2005; Hardwick and Gillespie 2007; Bradley 2010; Greenwood 2010; Orrells, Bhambra et al. 2011). A public forum held at Trinity College Dublin in 2010, under the title 'Why Does The Past Matter? Greco-Roman Antiquity in 21st Century' also aimed to discuss the relevance of classical antiquity in the modern world. While such debates do not primarily address the current role of classical antiquity in the museum context, they nevertheless give a sense of the current position of classical antiquity within academia. This thesis aims to transfer these discussions in the museum context and investigate the current role, relevance and status of classical collections and the narratives emerging from their museological representation and interpretation, through empirical research.
1.6. Terminology and definitions
1.6.1. Defining 'classical'
The term 'classical' is neither fixed, nor straightforward. 'Classical', to paraphrase Smith and Plantzos, "has been defined in various ways, by various people, at various times" (2012: 4). I have already introduced the terms classical collections, classical art, classical antiquities when referring to Greek and Roman material culture, and the term classical archaeology to describe the distinctive academic discipline that studies these objects and the ancient civilizations that produced them (Morris 1996: 148). But what exactly 'classical' refers to?
Within the disciplinary boundaries of classical archaeology, 'classical' antiquity covers the period between the 8th century B.C. and the 4th century A.D. (Osborne and Alcock 2007), although no exact chronology has been unanimously accepted within academia (Smith and Plantzos 2012).1 In geographical terms, it encompasses the world inhabited by the Greeks and Romans in the above timeframe. Within the
1 Here I follow the chronological divisions proposed by Osborne and Alcock, in Osborne, R. and S. Alcock (2007). Introduction. Classical Archaeology. S. Alcock and R. Osborne. Malden, Oxford, Blackwell: 1-10.
31 domain of classical archaeology further distinctions have been proposed between Greek and Roman archaeology, on the basis of their different geographical and chronological focus (Osborne and Alcock 2007). Disciplinary catagorisations, however, are largely problematic. For example, scholars specialising in Roman archaeology of the northwest provinces "feel less and less inclined to affirm that Roman Britain was part of the classical world" (Whitley 2006: 16). Similarly, Aegean archaeologists tend to separate themselves from classicists, as they find "they have more in common with European prehistorians … than they do with experts in fifth- century Attic vase-painting" (ibid: 15-16; see also: Whitley 2014).
Within classical studies, the term 'classical' has been commonly applied to describe "all of Greek and Roman antiquity" (Stewart 2008: 2 (my emphasis); Hardwick and Stray 2008). For many scholars, however, the concept of unity masks important differences between the two cultures and is deeply intertwined with notions of cultural hegemony, authority, ideology and power. For Osborne and Alcock, for example, it reflects and perpetuates claims made by the Europeans "for the unique status of the ancient Greek and Roman worlds" (2007: 4). Similarly, Settis acknowledges that notions of a 'universal history' have traditionally served Westerns to legitimise and celebrate own values and cultural ideals (2006: 9-14). For some classicists 'classical' antiquity still evokes "stirring images of The Glory That Was Greece and The Grandeur That Was Rome" (Stewart 2008: 1) and the idea that "everything Greek and Roman was exemplary - a towering classical achievement that could only be imitated, not surpassed" (ibid: 2). Likewise, 'classical' archaeology "is not simply an archaeology" (Whitley 2001: 11); it is a "a title with strong, and not entirely positive, connotations" (Osborne and Alcock 2007: 1), as all too often it becomes "part of grander stories of art or reason or civilization or European origins" (Shanks 1996: 2).
It becomes, then, clear that 'classical' is a complex and highly 'contested' term that should be approached with care and by taking into consideration its ideological undertones and meanings. For Beard and Henderson 'classical' and 'classic' involve value judgments, shifts of value and matters of approval and admiration, not the
32 least, contemporary conceptualisations of classical cultures (2000: 108-109). As Beard has recently put it, the study of Classics and, by extension, of the classical past
is the study of what happens in the gap between antiquity and ourselves. It is not only the dialogue that we have with the culture of the Classical world; it is also the dialogue that we have with those who have gone before us who were themselves in dialogue with classical world (Beard 2013: 11).
In a similar spirit, Walter emphasise,
'Classical' means something old, which has stood the test of time and speaks to every generation as if it had been designed for precisely that generation (2006: 2).
While within classical archaeology Greek and Roman cultures are studied separately, in museological literature the term 'classical' is still being used in its traditional sense and invariably applies to both cultures. Therefore, for purposes of simplicity, but being aware of the connotations and ideological bearings of the term, in the context of this study I use the term 'classical' when referring to both ancient Greek and Roman civilizations and their material culture. That said, the present thesis focuses on Greek and Roman collections from the Mediterranean region. Greek Prehistoric, British Roman and Cypriot collections are excluded from this analysis, on the basis of their different epistemological focus. On acknowledging the difficulties and particularities surrounding the topic, however, these may be considered occasionally, if deemed appropriate or necessary. Collections of casts after the antique will also be considered when appropriate, on the basis that changing attitudes around these objects could provide useful insights to the examination of the current role and relevance of classical antiquity in the museum context.
33 1.6.2. Other terminology used in this thesis
There is a constant use of the terms 'exhibition' and 'display' throughout the present thesis. A distinct lack of a unanimous definition within academia with regards to their use reflects their arbitrary, complex and highly contextual nature (Dean 1994; various definitions and distinctions have been proposed, for example, in: Greenberg, Ferguson et al. 1996; Kirshenblatt-Gimblett 1998; Hooper-Greenhill 2000a). On acknowledging the polysemy of their meanings and the ambiguity surrounding their definitions, in this thesis I use the two terms interchangeably, but also conventionally, encompassing in my understanding the various interpretations each one assumes or may be associated with. Additionally, in this thesis, I constantly refer to the terms 'redevelopment', 'redisplay' and 'refurbishment', which I also use interchangeably. In this, I follow scholars who commonly and invariably apply them to describe the process of developing a new exhibition, by updating both physically and conceptually a gallery space (as, for example, do contributors in: Macleod 2005; MacLeod, Hourston Hanks et al. 2012).
1.7. Structure of the thesis
This thesis is organised in seven chapters. In the Introduction (Chapter 1), I have introduced the aim, origins, main themes, contexts, concepts and definitions which inform and frame the present thesis. This chapter has drawn attention to the various academic, museological and social considerations from which this thesis has emerged, indicating gaps in the literature that highlight the need for the present research. It has also sketched the contemporary museological reality in the UK, exploring some of the factors shaping recent gallery redisplays, and has reflected upon the recent and current contexts of university museums, the institutional locus of this investigation. Finally, it has introduced the terminology used in the present research and has touched upon the current role and position of classical antiquity and its material culture within academia and museums, outlining some of the
34 reasons why the status of the classical past became increasingly problematic towards the late twentieth century.
Research into classical collections and issues surrounding their role, representation and interpretation within museums cannot be fully contextualised without a consideration of the historical, social, ideological, academic and professional discourses in which they are embedded and from which they have emerged. Chapter Two provides the essential background of this thesis, offering a literature review on these topics. The chapter is organised in two parts. The first provides a critical historiography of how classical collections have been conceptualised and museologically approached from Renaissance and up to the mid 20th century. The chapter considers classical collections within antiquarian contexts and the public museum, highlighting their ongoing role in shaping the culture of European elites and in constructing and re-producing various ideologies and grand narratives such as those of nationalism, imperialism, colonialism and Western supremacy. Another central theme is the interrelation between disciplinary and museological research and practice, which is explored through an examination of academic developments in the fields of classical archaeology and (classical) art history and their impact on exhibitionary practice. The second part of the chapter focuses on recent and contemporary contexts. First, it addresses the changing landscape of academic Classics, with a focus on classical archaeology, and the shifting contexts in which museum Classics are performed today. It then moves on to consider the various social, intellectual and professional developments and discourses that shape the role of contemporary museums and their practices. The impact of these later influences on classical collections form an integral part of this examination and will reoccur later in this thesis, as part of the analysis in the selected case-studies.
In chapter Three, I introduce the main theoretical orientations and the practical methodology informing this thesis. The chapter is organised in three parts. In the first, I discuss the theoretical framework I have adopted in my research. This is provided by an interdisciplinary approach that draws on ethnographic and sociological approaches to museum practice. In particular, I draw on MacDonald's analysis of the Science Museum, emphasising the processual aspects of exhibition
35 production and the ways museum practice is shaped through the various interactions between individuals the material world that surrounds them (Macdonald 2002). Attention is also given to sociological perspectives, as these are provided by perspectives developed in fields such as Science and Technology studies (STS). Drawing on museological and other literature from the field of cultural studies, notably on Kratz's notion of 'Rhetorics of Value' (2011), in the second part of the chapter I address how museums construct narratives through practices of collecting, display, interpretation and classification. The concepts discussed in this part are then used to inform the analysis of the exhibitions in the case study museums. Finally, in the third part of the chapter I outline the methodology underpinning this thesis, which is provided by a case study approach, combined with the use of qualitative methods for collecting and analysing my data. The particular methods utilised in the present research include semi-structured interviews, participant observation and documentation of past and present exhibitions through in-situ visits to museums and archival research.
Chapters Four to Six constitute the analytical part of the present thesis. Three case- study museums with their recently redeveloped exhibitions of classical collections are examined in depth, with the aim to unveil the various narratives, values, ideologies and concepts underpinning their museological representation and interpretation. The chapters address respectively the redisplays of the Ure Museum of Greek Archaeology in Reading (Chapter Four), the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge (Chapter Five), and the Manchester Museum (Chapter Six). Current trends are traced through exhibition analysis and by shedding light into the complex forces and mechanisms informing the redevelopment process, from which the exhibitions under examination arose. It is suggested that contemporary approaches to classical collections are inasmuch a product of the particular contexts framing each redisplay, provided by different institutional contexts, professional practices and structures, and the circumstances surrounding each project, as they are of broader concerns and developments informing contemporary museum and disciplinary research and practice.
36 Chapter Seven constitutes the final part of this thesis, offering concluding remarks regarding the museological approaches, interpretations, representational strategies and narrations that currently develop around classical collections in the context of UK University Museums. The chapter provides an overview of the main concepts and ideas discussed throughout the present research, summarise its main findings and discuss their implications for future research.
37 Chapter 2: Literature review
Introduction
This chapter serves to contextualise the present research by considering the role of classical material culture in the museum context. The chapter reviews existing literature on classical collections and, wherever possible, draws on specific examples of museum practice, with the aim to examine how classical antiquities have been conceptualised and museologically interpreted and represented, as result of shifting historical and social contexts, prevailing perceptions and ideologies, academic orientations and critiques, and institutional and professional practices. The issues raised here are directly related to my analysis in the selected case studies, as they contribute to build an understanding of the past and present influences that have informed approaches towards classical collections within the wider museum context. In this chapter, ideas about the collections and their museological manifestations are framed as social and cultural constructions, shaped and transformed by contemporary tastes and concerns, as well as the various historical contingencies and tendencies of social life. In this respect, the concepts presented here align with broader post-structuralist perspectives, which emphasise contextual approaches to material culture, and change over time.
The chapter is organised in two main parts. The first has a historical scope, outlining developments in museum practice and classical collecting from Renaissance up to the decades following World War II. As part of this discussion, classical collections are examined within private contexts, the institution of the public museum and in respect to disciplinary developments occurring from the late 19th century onwards. Late 20th century has opened new possibilities for the representation and interpretation of classical collections, but also posed challenges regarding their current role and relevance within museums. These later influences are explored in the second part of this chapter, which aims to situate classical collections in their present-day contexts. To that end, discussion will focus on recent and contemporary debates and developments within academic and museum classics as well as the wider museum sector, addressing how these have been central in shaping or
38 affecting current perceptions and approaches towards classical material culture, which this thesis will further explore through empirical research.
2.1. Historical Context
2.1.1. Historical reflexions
Classical material culture has been collected in the Mediterranean region since ancient times. In ancient Greece the accumulation and display of objects in temples and sanctuaries served religious, social and symbolic purposes (Pearce 1995). In Roman times large quantities of Greek antiquities were transported to Italian ground and put on public display as war booties or adorned the private villas of wealthy patrons, as a means to demonstrate their secular power (Bounia 2004). Collecting the antique has declined but not entirely ceased during the Middle Ages, with objects occasionally found their way in church collections, while classical writers were regularly being studied among the scholar and monastic circles (MacGregor 2007).
In post medieval times, a systematic collecting of antiquities emerged in Renaissance Italy, in the context of European humanism. At the time, it was exclusively practiced in private settings, by and for European nobility. For early collectors, Vickers suggests, classical antiquities played primarily a symbolic role, serving to convey social and intellectual status to their owners and reinforce perceived links with 'a glorious (classical) past' (2001: 223). Ancient sculptures, in particular, were desirable collectables in the cabinets of aristocracy, primarily because of their intrinsic qualities. Their conceptualisation as 'unique objects' influenced representational practices: "it was rather the aesthetic dimensions, and particularly the represented motif/person, that functioned as the criteria for the display" (Siapkas and Sjögren 2008: 209). The display of Apollo Belvedere and Laocoon in the Belvedere court, Vatican palace, was a hugely influential example, widely emulated from private collectors across Europe (MacGregor 2007). Indeed, the Renaissance tradition of displaying antiquities in splendour interiors and gardens as architectural
39 ornamentations continues to inform current conceptualisations of classical antiquities as objects d' art and to enforce their status as 'canonical' masterpieces.
In England, an interest for the classical past stretches back to Tudor and Stewart periods (15th to 17th centuries) (Kurtz 2008). What was then known about classical antiquity came primarily from literary sources, contacts with Italy and the study of Classics, but material culture increasingly received significant attention. Starting around 1613, Tomas Howard, 12th Earl of Arundel, was the first British to collect antiquities, setting the standard for generations to come (Scott 2003; Angelicoussis 2004). For many British aristocrats, however, it was more a matter of 'fashion' or a 'tribute' to their classical education, rather than a genuine interest for the classical world, that often directed their collecting activity. Accordingly, when it came to the display of their collections, decorative schemes were mostly pursued (Scott 2003). Antique collectors have been particularly influential in shaping contemporary tastes as our current perceptions of the classical world (Beard and Henderson 2001). William Hamilton is case in point: his collection of Greek vases and its subsequent publications between 1766 to 1776 are today acknowledged not only for their contribution in advancing the study of classical art but, also for promoting neoclassical taste during the later part of the 18th century (Jenkins and Sloan 1996; Burn 1997; Coltman 2001).
Scott hails 18th century as the 'heyday of collecting' (2003: 85). In Britain, most antiquarian collections were formed through travels in Italy, in the context of Grand Tour (Wilton and Bignamini 1996; Marchesano and Paul 2000; Black 2011; Blundell 2012; Paul 2012). Sculptural collections, in particular, were formed to be displayed in country houses as part of larger decorative schemes, to impress visitors. As Grand Tour often served as a preparatory step for a political career, collections were also meant to reinforce political statements (Scott 2003). For Dyson, antiquities imported in Britain at that time "represented the largest transfer of classical art since the Roman looting of Greece" (2006: 7). A flavor of these great antiquarian collections can be obtained in Adolf Michaelis' study Ancient Marbles in Great Britain, published in 1882, almost a century after the Grand Tour era, but before these collections were absorbed by museums or sold in private hands in America. By the time of Michaelis'
40 publication, however, private collecting was already in decline, with public museums now emerging as the principal agents to channel collecting activity.
Coltman (2006a) situates classical collecting and representation within the broader Neoclassical culture of 18th century Britain. For Levine, this was a time when the "long-standing admiration of the cultural forms of the classical antiquity drew to a climax and inspired much direct imitation and appropriation" (2003: 136). Classical models were widely adopted by modern Britons, who pictured themselves 'as virtuous Romans', drawing analogies between their own hierarchical society and that of ancient Rome (Ayres 1997: xiii). Jenkins asserts that "all human creative expression, indeed alone said and did in polite society of the eighteen century was informed by the classics" (2003: 168). Dyson (2006) points to various developments during that time as being fundamental in spurring interest on everything classical. These include archaeological discoveries - notably of Herculaneum and Pompeii, travels to classical lands which now became more easy and, not the least, a growing scholarship on classical antiquity, made possible through the work of early antiquarians and members of learned societies, such as that of the Dilettanti, which were now regularly being formed across Britain.
The great antiquarian collections up to the 19th century have been thoroughly surveyed in the literature. Published in 1981, Haskell and Penny's Taste and the Antique still remains a monumental study in the historiography of classical colleting. Scott's work on British collectors (2003) and Coltman's books and papers, variously touching upon 18th century classical receptions (2006a; 2006b; 2009; 2012), provide valuable insights regarding the role and influence of classical antiquity and its material culture during that time, with reference to the British context. Individual collectors have also been considered, with numerous contributions made in the Journal of the History of Collections (e.g. Morris and Fifield 1995; Spier and Vassilika 1995; Angelicoussis 2004; Vout 2012; Noy 2013). These studies emphasise the aristocratic origins of classical collections and the pervasiveness of classical antiquity in the (British) elite culture throughout the modern period. Haskell and Penny's particular contribution lies in them revealing the extent to which a 'taste' for the classical - almost exclusively restricted to the lure of sculpture - has provided a
41 shared cultural language and a pool of aesthetic ideals to European aristocracy (who conceived themselves both as heirs and holdovers of the classical Tradition), to which they could constantly refer to and been identified with.
In 1764 German scholar J.J. Winckelmann published his History of the Art of Antiquity, a milestone in the study of classical art (Jenkins 1992; Potts 1994; Morris 1994c; Morrison 1996; Ferris 2000; Potts and Winckelmann 2006; Siapkas and Sjögren 2013). There, he developed a chronological scheme for the study of ancient art, based on a narrative of development from archaic origins, represented by the art of Egypt, to the eventual decline of the imitative art of Romans, through the Greek miracle of the 5th and 4th centuries BC. Through this classification, Greek art was recast as the highest achievement within Western cultural tradition, the very standard against which all other artistic production should be judged. Winckelmann's idealist conception of the classical art, exemplified in the form of the colorless nude embodying a 'noble simplicity' and a 'calm grandeur', along with the historicising scheme he invented, had a lasting effect in the reception of classical art for centuries to come. Today, Winckelmann is widely acknowledged as the 'founding father' of the modern disciplines of classical archaeology and art history. Him establishing such as close relation between the two, however, crystalised a tension between 'beauty' and 'system', art and archaeology, which constitutes according to Tzortzaki, "the basic framework for exhibiting Greek art ever since" (2012: 670).
2.1.2. Classical collections in the public museum
The modern institution of the public museum was born out of Enlightenment ideals of progress and the rise of Modernist thought (Foucault 1976; Hooper-Greenhill 2000b; Prior 2002; Anderson, Caygill et al. 2003; MacGregor 2007). Its creation forms part of a wider transition occurring in the late 18th century "from the personal to communal, from the astonishing to rational" (Anderson 2003: 1) and is a process typically identified with the absorption of formerly princely cabinets and collections onto the ownership of the state. In France, the opening of the Louvre as "the
42 archetypal state museum" (McClellan 1994: 2) came to symbolise the fall of ancien régime and the rise of a new order. In Britain, Enlightenment's ideals found their most profound physical manifestation into the establishment of the British Museum in 1759, through an Act of Parliament. Classical antiquities have been an important aspect of the museum's early years, as reflected in a series of important acquisitions including Hamilton's vase collection (1772) and Townley's collection of sculptures (1804). The expansion of sculptural collections, continuing throughout the 19th century, helped transforming the museum "from something resembling a cabinet of curiosity into an institution dedicated to the scientific pursuit of art history and archaeology" (Jenkins 1992: 9), that still remains today.
Enlightenment and Modernist thinking signified new forms of representation and classification for collections, which were now rationalised and became more and systematic, shifting away from the idiosyncratic displays of the curiosity cabinets (Foucault 1976; Hooper-Greenhill 2000b; Prior 2002; Anderson, Caygill et al. 2003; MacGregor 2007). A significant development for classical collections during that time is the introduction of the chronological sequence, an innovation linked to the rise of historicism, notably through the work of Winckelmann (McClellan 1994). The Glyptothek in Munich (1816-1830) was the first museum to implement his chronological scheme for the display of its classical collections. The collection, which included the Aegina marbles (acquired in 1811), was displayed in a richly decorated interior within a broader classicising setting designed by Leo von Klenze, in an arrangement that moved from Egyptian antiquities, through Greek sculpture, to Roman art represented primarily by portraiture (MacGregor 2007; Cohen 2014). For many museums, however, the adoption of the chronological method was a slow process that was not fully materialised until the growth of classical archaeology, at the later part of the 19th century (Siapkas and Sjögren 2008). Thus, for its most part, Renaissance and Neoclassical discourses emphasising the decorative aspects of antiquities continued to constitute the main interpretive approach:
"Mediations of classical legacy in museums during the 19th century were characterised by the attention they placed on the aesthetic dimensions. The exhibited objects were conceptualized and presented as the aesthetic
43 ideals which the visitors should venerate in order to be imbued with moral values" (Siapkas and Sjögren 2008: 209).
The establishment of the public museum is strongly associated with the nationalist discourse and the rise of modern nation-states (McClellan 1994; Abt 2006). Anderson (1991) has defined nations as 'imagined communities', tied together through perceived links of common cultural roots, history and ancestry. Museums, along with the nascent discipline of archaeology, have played an important role both in shaping and serving the idea of nation, mutually reinforcing these bounds and nurturing and promoting the idea of a collective, national past and identity (Kohl 1998; Diaz-Andreu 2007). While archaeology became a central 'device' in the provision - through excavational activity - of "the material truths necessary to forge a long antiquity for the nation" (Hamilakis 2007: 16-17), museums were established and evolved so as to provide the physical space in which this past could be amassed, stored and put on display and the essential institutional context in which archaeological activity would take place. At the heart of nationalist endeavour stood Greece and Rome: "Classical was associated with all that was right, good and useful, and the newly self-defined nations felt confident in considering themselves the true inheritors of Classical Greece and Rome" (Díaz-Andreu 2014: 5146; Diaz-Andreu 2007).
Nineteenth century nationalism motivated the formation of large national collections across Europe (Wright 1996), within which classical antiquities were enlisted to consolidate and make visible the idea of the nation (Duncan and Wallach 1980; Díaz-Andreu 2014: 5146; Diaz-Andreu 2007). Making visible the nation was further realised and enforced through a ceremonial museum architecture, which explicitly drew on classical models (Duncan and Wallach 1980). European imperialist expansion during that time, opened up the way for important acquisitions of classical art and large national museums like the British Museum and the Louvre foregrounded notions of national identity by publicly displaying their classical possessions for awe and instruction. For example, the purchase of Parthenon sculptures by the British Museum in 1816 marks, according to Evangelista, "an important moment in the assimilation of ancient Greece into the cultural identity of
44 the nation" (2009: 8). In a similar spirit, Challis emphasises, Parthenon marbles "became emblems of British national identity and have remained art objects allied to cultural nationalism in both Britain and Greece ever since" (2006: 37).
The arrival of Parthenon marbles in the British Museum marks a shift at the opening of the 19th century from Rome to Greece (Scott 2003). For Turner, this has also occurred when the values Europeans inherited from their Roman and Christian past began to decline (1981). The burgeoning ideology of Hellenism, underpinned in Winckelmann's writings, emerged as an alternative set of cultural ideals, upon which notions of 'European-ness' and western civilization were built. Hellenism glorified ancient Greece as "the birthplace of a European spirit" (Morris 1994a: 11), the cradle of Western culture, creating among European ruling classes a sense of a group identity and common origins. The values of Hellenism, build upon and disseminated through classical education, were central in the construction of Eurocentric ideologies and beliefs (Morris 1994c). With reference to Britain, for example, Bradley highlights the interconnection between Classics - material culture included - and "ideas, concerns and debates about British supremacy, nationalism and imperial ideologies" (2010a: 13). Myths of affiliation fit comfortably into imperial rhetoric since Victorian Britain, much like ancient Greece, was a successful nation that built its power and national confidence on commerce and colonial enterprise (Evangelista 2009).
During the 19th century, the allegedly superiority of the classical past lend great ideological, symbolic and social value to classical antiquities. With regards to the role classical material culture played during that time, Leoussi (1997; 1998) and Challis (2010), have also pointed to its contribution in the construction of racial theories. Concepts of racial superiority were essential to the imperialistic thought as part of the 'Othering' process,2 and the image of the 'classical body', in which all Europeans claimed some form of ancestry, was deemed as 'biologically perfect' (Leoussi 1997;
22 This involves a construction of non-western 'others' as an inferior cultural category that represents everything the West is not e.g. primitiveness, backwardness, underdevelopment, a process that ultimately served to legitimise Western control over the 'uncivilised' colonised peoples. Said, E. W. (1978). Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the Orient. London, Routledge and Kegan Paul.
45 1998). During that time, museums have been central in enforcing dominant ideologies and racial concepts through their classical collections, employing certain institutional practices: for example, the reorganisation in 1861 of British Museum's departmental structures into Greek and Roman, and Oriental Antiquities, was a move according to Bradley, "that sharpened [the] discursive schism between East and West and encouraged visitors to think about Britain's unique position in the world" (2010a: 7). Similarly, as Jenkins has shown (1992: 56-74), 'the chain of art', an evolutionary ordering of the Museum's collections from primitive origins to the miracle of Parthenon marbles, was meant to convey wider beliefs regarding the developmental state of the respective cultures being represented.
As nineteenth century progressed, new forms of citizenship and notions about civic life arose, which went hand in hand with a rapid expansion of museums across Britain (Bennett 1995; Hill 2005). Increasing urban populations, alongside the Industrial Revolution created an array of social problems - poverty, immorality, anarchy - prompting the need for the government to control the masses (McClellan 2003). Against this background, museums were envisioned not only as art repositories but also as venues having a wider political and social mission: that of promoting societal progress and 'improving' the working classes, through cultural provision (Hill 2005). Museums and culture, more broadly, were thus drawn into the service of the government, which wished to impose a more 'civilised' form of behavior onto the uneducated, effected through contact with the bourgeois in the context of museum visiting, and a museum architecture that would encourage self- discipline and improvement (Bennett 1995; Duncan 1995). Ideals of progress were now extensively propagated through exhibitionary practices empahsising principles of classification and evolution, in line with contemporary developments in natural sciences, soon to be applied also in classical collections (Bennett 2004).
As the pedagogic character of museums now became more pronounced, classical antiquities came increasingly to be seen through their didactic potential and their role in elevating public taste. Connor, for instance, points to an increase of cast collections during that period "for public delight and instruction" (1989: 187), an example being the one at the South Kensington Museum (later Victoria and Albert)
46 which was formed with an eye "at the promotion of art and skilled workmanship" (1989: 211). In a similar spirit, writing in 1882, Michaelis declared that classical artworks "[were] not created for the enjoyment of a few chosen spirits alone, but have a wider and higher mission of culture, to exercise a refining and ennobling influence on the public at large" (1882: 181). Outside public museums, the display of classical (cast) collections in commercial and leisure venues such as the Crystal Palace served at promoting industrial design and good consumer taste, communicating contemporary archaeological scholarship and popularising classical antiquity to a wider audience (Nichols 2015).
Hill suggests that, although in principle Victorian museums provided an educational space open for all, in practice, they functioned as markers for social hierarchies, serving an emerging middle class "to demonstrate authority, stamp their own values onto culture and provide suitable leisure for themselves" (2005: 36-37). As museums became increasingly associated with bourgeois identities, the masses they were originally intended to reform became less inclined to utilise their space to such a point, they effectively eliminated themselves from it. A new generation of industrialists and merchants now emerged as the principal collectors of classical art, with classical antiquities being obtained along with decorative arts, natural history and local archaeology material, as a means to declare the new wealth and evoke civil pride (Hill 2005). In Harris Museum and Art Gallery, Preston, for example, the display of classical collections in a neo-Grecian hall was meant "to invoke a set of qualities, primary beauty, monumentality, ownership and power; and to associate these with the museum setting, and those who provide it" (ibid: 118). The aesthetic presentation of objects and the lack of other interpretive media confirmed that, during that time, access to culture was still possible only to the initiated, well educated audiences, who could make the most of the exhibited artworks (ibid).
It can be broadly argued that the 18th century appropriation of classical models continued throughout the Victorian period, with writers like Jenkyns (1980; 1992; 2007), Turner (1981; 1989), Vance (2007) and Goldhill (2011) highlighting the influence of classical heritage -particularly that of Greece - in areas as diverse as politics, literature, arts, education, philosophy, architecture, even religion. In 19th
47 century Britain, the study of classics shaped the ideology of British elites. In English public schools, as in the ancient Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, Classics were the passport for a carrier in politics, the civil service or the church (Tanner 1994). Classics in 'Oxbridge' at that time, however, was more than just providing a sound education on the Classical world. Rather, as Stray highlighted in a number of occasions (1996; 1998a; 1998b; 1999a; 2007a; 2007b), it was also about imposing cultural authority, maintaining social identities and excluding outsiders. 'Oxbridge' Classics has been the "realm of male-dominated elite culture which many would rather not penetrate" (Stray 1998a: 2). Classical archaeology developed and matured within this boarder social and intellectual framework. Thus, the elitist connotations that both the discipline and its objects of study have often been associated or identified with comes as little surprise (Morris 1994a; Whitley 2006).
2.1.3. The impact of academic disciplines
For much of the nineteenth century, the display of classical collections was still very much conditioned by earlier antiquarian discourses that emphasised the visual qualities of objects. In the British Museum, for example, "conservative aesthetes committed to a traditional neoclassical system of fixed values" (Jenkins 1992: 9). The first display of Parthenon marbles in 1817 was visually pleasing, with objects playing primarily a decorative role, without any reference to their original context. In the Louvre, an aesthetic presentation of antiquities was imbued with nationalistic goals (McClellan 1994; Tzortzaki 2012). Aesthetics also prevailed in the classification of objects, with "materials and types of construction [being] understood as valid modes of classification within the broader aesthetic standard" (Tzortzaki 2012: 671). While in France an aesthetic presentation of objects was maintained as late as the 20th century, in Britain, as 19th century progressed, purely aesthetic approaches increasingly found themselves at odds with an emerging 'archaeological' culture, established and sustained "by "a new breed of professional archaeologists influenced by Darwinian evolutionism and radical science" (Jenkins 1992: 9).
48 From the mid 19th century, the strongest influence on classical collections came through the growth of classical archaeology as an established academic discipline. Stray views this period as one denoting a transition "from amateurism to professionalism, from classical dominance to a pluralized field of specialisms" (1998a: 12). Archaeological professionalisation was not a homogenous process: rather, as Dyson suggests, "it has […] developed in different ways in different countries, a reflection of national educational values and traditions" (2012: 698). German idealism and institutions, as exemplified through the traditional philological discipline of Altertumswissenschaft (Science of Antiquity), have been particularly influential in shaping the intellect and ideological foundations of classical archaeology (Whitley 1987; Morris 1994c; Marchand 2003), as have surviving antiquarian and aesthetic discourses of the 17th and 18th centuries (Siapkas and Sjögren 2013). In Britain, professionalisation involved a shift away from museums and towards the universities as the new loci of disciplinary activity (Bennett 2004). Other changes included the introduction from the 1880s of specialist classical archaeological courses, and the formation of respective academic departments and new professorships, first in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge (Dyson 2006).
Dyson associates archaeological professionalisation with an increase in the number of university museums and collections in both sides of the Atlantic from the mid 19th century, and the creation of curatorial posts for the ever increasing collections, to be occupied by trained classical archaeologists (2006: 168-170). As part of this process, cast collections also became very popular during that time, principally due to their educational potential (ibid; Dyson 2010). The Museum of Classical Archaeology in Cambridge, for example, was founded in 1884 to house such a collection, part of which originally belonged to private collectors with the rest been specifically purchased for teaching purposes. Right from the onset, the museum was conceived as an asset to university lectures on classical archaeology, which became part of the Cambridge Classics curriculum in 1879 (Beard 1993). Another important innovation during that time was the establishment of 'study' or 'specialist' collections, formed primarily by university professors as product of their scholar interests or their fieldwork activity (Nørskov 2002: 71-73). In Britain, the distinguished classicist Sir
49 John Beazley took advantage of his position at the Oxford University as Lincoln Professor of Classical Archaeology to create an extensive specialist collection of vases, most of which ended up in the Ashmolean museum, between 1912 and 1966 (Nørskov 2002).
From the later part of the 19th century a turn to 'science' within classical archaeology, is strongly associated with "the adoption of a positivist agenda" (Siapkas and Sjögren 2013: 16). Various development during that time have been particularly influential for classical collections: first, the strengthening of 'connoisseurship' and 'attribution' studies, notably through the work of scholars such as Adolf Furtwängler and Beazley on pottery studies (Shanks 1996; Whitley 1997; Rouet 2001; Siapkas and Sjögren 2013); second, the application of Danish C. J. Thomsen's Three Age model (stone, iron, bronze) for the chronology of archaeological artefacts and, finally, the introduction of typological method, inspired by Darwin's evolutionary theory (Bennett 2004). Other significant influences came through archaeological discoveries made in the context of 'big digs' (1870-1914), which shifted scholarly and collecting interest towards the eastern part of Mediterranean (Nørskov 2002). The growth of Aegean Prehistory around the same time, notably through the work and archaeological discoveries of Arthur Evans and Heinrich Schliemann in the sites of Knossos and Troy respectively, also generated an interest for early Greek art and benefit museums with extensive acquisitions, with Evans' Aegean collection donated to the Ashmolean (1941) being one of the most notable examples (Galanakis 2010).
For the new generation of classical archaeologists, "categories of artefacts formed the objects of analysis, and ordering them stylistically/chronologically was the main form of explanation" (Morris 1994c: 28). This was the time of 'hard' data, objectivity and rigorous scientific research. A hard core positivism is also observed in contemporary publications, most monographs and catalogues, focusing on object taxonomies (e.g. Payne 1931), and the excavational activity of the period, which now relied more on stratigraphy and the documentation of finds (Siapkas and Sjögren 2013). Classical archaeology, thus, established itself as a traditional object-oriented discipline and one that, until relatively recently, showed little interest in questions
50 related, for example, to society, ideology, economic process, gender and, indeed, the broader historical and cultural contexts within which classical material culture was created and used. An emphasis on objects with 'exemplary qualities' and a reliance on literary evidence for the study of material culture have also had an ongoing role within the discipline, that persists up to the present day (ibid).
Art historical research has also impacted on collections, with scholarly attention now shifting to stylistic issues and questions of formalist analysis (Shanks 1996; Siapkas and Sjögren 2013). Some of the most important contributions in this direction came through the work of Alois Riegl (1858-1905), Heinrich Wolfflin (1864-1945) and Erwin Panofsky (1892-1968), who all applied empirical methods in the study of objects (Podro 1982; Siapkas and Sjögren 2013: 29-33). Riegel's concept of Kunstwollen, empahsising that "objectives and ideals of art vary between different periods" (Siapkas and Sjögren 2013: 30) has been particularly influential, notably in shifting interest on 'marginalised' aspects of antiquity and in reassessing the status of Roman art, deemed as 'inferior' since the time of Winckelmann (Elsner 2002; Settis 2006; Siapkas and Sjögren 2013). In principle, classical art history during that time has been predominantly preoccupied with value judgments and authentication of artworks, attributions to creative personalities and artistic workshops, stylistic evolution and distinctions between high and low art, with the ultimate aim to provide "a rational account of the intrinsic aesthetic properties of a work and its style, and one which is universal, hence scientific" (Shanks 1996: 29).
New study methods introduced changes in exhibitionary approaches, with 'scientific principles' now being applied in the ordering of collections: for example, "objects were increasingly arranged typologically or in a manner that reflected the current understanding of the historical development of Greek and Roman art" (Dyson 2006: 167). The latter equaled chronological displays featuring a linear organisation of collections within space, which encouraged an understanding of knowledge as being objective and axiomatic and, thus, legitimate. During that time, the educational role of the collections also became more pronounced, prompting displays that would facilitate comparisons between objects. When in 1852 Thomsen organised the exhibition of classical collections in the National Museum in Copenhagen, the
51 material was grouped according to chronological criteria, being also the first mixed- media exhibition for classical artworks (Nørskov 2002). Similarly, in two displays of Greek vases in Berlin (1885) and Munich (1895), Adolf Furtwängler presented the objects in a 'scholarly manner', according to fabric, period and shape (ibid). A mixed- media chronological arrangement which would present 'the successive stages' of classical art and encourage the visitor "to make comparative studies between the various materials" (Richter 1917: xii) was also followed for the display of antiquities in the Metropolitan Museum, New York, organised during the 1910s by the renowned classicist Gisela Richter (Richter 1917).
Chronological displays were developed alongside thematic exhibitions. In these, however, the aesthetic considerations prevailing in antiquarian contexts were replaced by a cultural-interpretive approach, which promoted an understanding of ancient societies as a whole. A telling example is the exhibition Greek and Roman Life, organised by the British Museum in 1908, which focused on aspects of the public and private life. The exhibition aimed "to bring together a number of miscellaneous antiquities" (Briitsh Museum 1920: v) so as to illustrate "the purpose for which they were intended, rather than their artistic quality, their material, or their place in the evolution of craft and design" (ibid). Exhibitions empahsising 'archaeological' perspectives assumed greater significance during that time, in line with broader developments within classical archaeology and anthropology, according to which interest started shifting away from an idealised perception of classical antiquity, towards its more 'mundane' aspects and 'darker' sides (Jenkins 1986: 70). It was not until the later part of the century, however, that these became more popular, as result of new directions within classical scholarship informed by social approaches in the study of antiquity.
Siapkas and Sjögren point to a shift in the display of classical collections from the opening of 20th century: "the classical legacy was not viewed as the undisrupted artistic ideal anymore" (2008: 213-214; Siapkas and Sjögren 2013). Alongside scientific concerns, which now became more prominent, a prevailing modernist aesthetic during that time has also impacted on the display of collections. It dictated a minimalist approach that aimed to present antiquities "as clean and neutral as
52 possible" (Siapkas and Sjögren 2008: 214) and to eliminate anything that "could disturb the visual field of the visitor" (ibid), so as to facilitate their rigorous study. Emphasis was now placed on the intrinsic-formalist qualities of the objects, also in line with contemporary art historical research. Although the resulting displays still favored an aesthetic appreciation of antiquities, the Neoclassical aesthetic fell out of favor:
Red, and other dark, wall colors and elaborate ornamentations of the interior spaces were abandoned in favor of more neutral bright colors and ornamentations were dismantled or kept to a minimum. White, in different shades, emerged as the new preferred color in the interior of museums. Lightning arrangements were also re-organized. Aesthetic lightning, which cast sharp shadows on the exhibited sculptures, was replaced by scientific lightning, which gave an even flow of light with minimal shadows on each sculpture (Siapkas and Sjögren 2008: 214).
In order to stimulate the concentration of the viewer, many new displays gave objects ample space, isolating one from another. Important objects were exhibited on primary rooms, while the rest were placed on secondary spaces or in store. Knowledge was to be obtained through the visual strength of art and interpretation was reduced to the minimum, leaving the objects to ‘speak for themselves’. In the new aesthetic regime, the distinction between authentic and copies emerged as a fundamental concern, as reflected in the removal of plaster casts or antiquarian restorations from ancient statuary in a number of museums throughout this period, with notable example the removal of Thorvaldsen's 19th century additions from the Aegina marbles, in Glyptothek, Munich (Diebold 1995; Siapkas and Sjögren 2008). As a result, by the 1930s, "the classical art museum had come full circle and was once again a temple of the Muses, where the elite could contemplate eternal aesthetic values" (Dyson 2006: 171). However, 'classical' was now associated more with conservatism and cultural exclusion rather than creativity, as was formerly the case (ibid).
53 The post-war decades encompassed many of the epistemological questions and display practices of the prewar period. A paper entitled Modern trends of display in archaeological museums, published in 1953, provides insights in contemporary approaches with regards to archaeological collections, including classical, which continued to be arranged and classified scientifically, "by data, by provenance or site, by style or use, by material, by culture or by aesthetic quality" (McCann-Morley 1953: 2). In addition to these, a significant development during that time is associated with an increasing professionalisation of museological practice (McClellan 2003). This was articulated with growing emphasis of curators on the casual museum visitor and on how to make the material "more attractive, more understandable and more instructive to the general public" (McCann-Morley 1953: 2). In order to achieve this, many museums enhanced collection interpretation and started presenting objects together "with diagrams, models, reconstructions and explanatory labels which can have meaning for the layman" (ibid). Museums focusing on visitors increased significantly as 20th century progressed and now, more than ever, museums are clearly oriented towards making their collections more open, accessible and interesting for the wider public.
An important change took place from the 1970s onwards, when some museums started to arrange their classical collections according to their original functions and contexts. This approach was particularly evident in displays of Roman sculpture, in which a focus on the historical and archaeological contexts mirrored a general shift within classical studies "from formal analyses towards social interpretations of works of art" (Siapkas and Sjögren 2008: 208). Another telling example is provided by the 1980s exhibition of British Museum around Greek and Roman daily life which, like its 1920s predecessor, aimed "to bring together in one room a number of objects, of interest not so much for their artistic merit as the light they shed on the lives of people who made and used them" (Jenkins 1986: 70). Originally in the margins of museological practice, 'contextual' exhibitions of classical art assumed greater significance since the 1980s, reflecting the increasing impact of interpretive archaeologies on classical scholarship and museum practice. These later influences will be examined in more depth in the section that follows, along with broader
54 developments within academia and museums, having as a reference point classical material culture.
2.2. Recent and current developments and contexts in the classical disciplines and museum theory and practice
Introduction
So far this chapter has considered the role of classical collections from Renaissance and well into the 20th century, focusing on how classical material culture has been conceptualised, represented and interpreted, both in private collecting contexts and within the institution of the public museum, with specific reference to the UK context. Drawing on relevant literature and, wherever possible, using specific examples of museological practice, the first part of this chapter has provided the essential historical background of this thesis, drawing attention to a number of interrelated themes and issues, which include: the long tradition of classical collecting and its dominance in the British elite culture throughout the modern period; the ideological appropriation of classical tradition - material culture included - by western museums to produce western-centric identities and narratives of western supremacy and, finally, the impact of disciplines, notably those of classical archaeology and (classical) art history, in the ways classical collections have been negotiated in the museum context. Many of these associations continue to assert a certain influence on classical collections. Others, over recent years, have been revised, fallen out of favor or have been greatly challenged.
The following section brings the discussion into the present, by considering recent and current developments within the classical disciplines (with a focus on classical archaeology), museum classics and the wider museum sector. All three fields have been radically transformed over the past three decades, as result of disciplinary developments, leveled academic critiques and shifting institutional contexts, all deeply situated within and shaped by a climate of reflexivity and critical self- examination that has encompassed all areas of humanities at least since the 1980s. It
55 is the aim of the remaining chapter to outline these key influences in the later part of the twentieth century and their implications for classical collections, as these further contextualise the present research and directly relate to the ways objects are currently interpreted in the selected case-studies, shaping the intellectual, institutional and professional contexts within which the museological process is materialised and museum practitioners work.
2.2.1. A changing landscape: academic classics
From the 18th and well into the opening decades of the 20th century, the classical disciplines held a prominent position within academia and the British society, serving as a source of cultural and intellectual authority and markers of social distinction. Classical archaeology, in particular, retained a normative role as "providing a foundation myth for Euro-American civilization" (Morris 1994b: 3) and, within this, classical antiquities have typically been framed as "a class of objects superior to those studied by other archaeologies" (Whitley 2006: 15). Traditional research on the field, along with other undertaken within classical art history, has generated a distinctive framework to approach classical material culture, dominated by factual data, object classifications, judgments of style and aesthetics, wherein little room was left for theoretical problematisations and 'interpretive' questions like, for example, "how objects relate to each other and above all to people" (Osborne and Alcock 2007: 3). Within material culture studies, such concerns became more prominent from the late 1960s onwards, resulting from a heightened academic interest in social and anthropological approaches in the study of the past.
One of the most significant developments during that time occurred in the sub-field of prehistory and is associated with the rise of 'New' or 'Processual' archaeology (Binford 1962). Drawing its methods and practices "from human geography, economies, political science, sociology, and psychology, as well as ethnology" (Trigger 1989: 373), it emerged as a new epistemological paradigm, which stressed the need "to move away from empirical data collecting, to incorporate scientific and
56 social science theory into archaeology, and to create new models of field research" (Dyson 2012: 708). These developments would revolutionise the future of Anglo- American archaeology, by firmly introducing a truly interdisciplinary framework in the study of archaeological record. However, with some rare exceptions (e.g. Snodgrass 1971), they have only had a marginal impact on classical archaeology - what Renfrew has termed as the 'Great Divide' (1980) - which for its most part, remained an inward-looking discipline, attached to philology, connoisseurship and the traditional values of Hellenism (Dyson 1981; Snodgrass 1985; Dyson 1993; Morris 1994c). As Dyson confirmed in the late 1980s,
classical archaeologists have subconsciously accepted the major elements of the late nineteenth century founding ideology of their profession while dropping some of its most imaginative components and not replacing them with any new paradigms drawn from the social and intellectual experience of the last 75 years (1989: 129).
By the closing decades of the 20th century, the discipline had lost much of its earlier intellectual vigour and, indeed, the prestige it retained within the Humanities at least since the 19th century.
The declining status of classical archaeology and of Classics, more broadly, has been widely debated within academia over recent decades (Culham, Edmunds et al. 1989; Dyson 1989). For some, classical disciplines have lost their relevance in the modern society due to their inherent elitist, Euro-centric and conservative associations, which have prevented them from actively engage with current intellectual and social debates (Beard 2013). Tanner, on the other hand, interprets their falling prestige as part of wider disciplinary and societal changes, associated with a shift within higher education towards the social sciences and a relative decline of the 'West' in contemporary political and cultural order (1994). For Morris, the withering status of the discipline should not be viewed only as a clash between traditional and new academic orientations. Rather, it is linked to a broader erosion of the ideology of Hellenism in the late 20th century, which left Classics, in general, and classical archaeology, in particular, "without adequate intellectual justification" (1994c: 9).
57 For him, as for other classical scholars (Dyson 1993; Settis 2006), the crisis in Classics is fundamentally perceived as product of a broader transition from modernism to post-modern age, which has put into question established values, traditions and grand narratives, with Hellenism and its western-centric associations being one of them.
Since the 1980s, however, but more prominently from the 1990s onwards, the disciplinary and wider intellectual contexts for the study of classical material culture have profoundly changed. Within classical archaeology, this has been articulated with calls for a theory-rich practice and the adoption of a more critical stance towards both the discipline and its objects of study: in line with broader trends within archaeology and material culture studies (Shanks and Tilley 1992; Shanks and Hodder 1995; Hodder and Hutson 2003; Shanks 2009), much of the discipline's new rhetoric draws on post-processual archaeological theory and post-structuralist analyses of reflexive practice, emphasising contextual approaches, plurality of perspectives and questions of ideology and meaning in the interpretation of the past and of material culture (e.g. Morris 1994c; Shanks 1996; Alcock and Osborne 2007; Voutsaki 2008). Indeed, recent scholarship within classical archaeology, together with work in the related fields of classical art history and Classics, draws its perspectives from an array of theoretical positions and critical stances, including sociology and anthropology (e.g. Morris 1989), feminist and gender studies (e.g. Koloski-Ostrow and Lyons 1997), reception theory (e.g. Prettejohn 2006) and more, with many studies demonstrating a clear intention to blur disciplinary boundaries and shift attention from the objects themselves to the eye of the viewer (e.g. Stansbury-O'Donnell 2011).
Some of the most common themes and topics emerging in later classical archaeological literature include settlement patterns, agriculture practices, landscape and environment, technology and production, trade and ancient economy, myth and religion, death and burial practices, public and domestic space, cultural exchanges, diversity and ethnicity, and the creation and expression of identity (e.g. Alcock and Osborne 2007; Stewart 2008; Mee 2011; Smith and Plantzos 2012). With regards to sculptural studies, recent research has sought to situate
58 sculptures "in their various contexts: physical/archaeological context, political context, social context" (Stewart 2006: 190; for a summary of current approaches see also: Ridgway 2005), while the issue of polychromy of ancient sculptures has also received considerable attention (e.g. Bradley 2009). In pottery studies, emphasis has shifted away from Beazleyan connoisseurship towards "context, trade, shape, the technical aspects of production, the history of collecting, and theoretical approaches in interpreting the images" (Oakley 2009: 599). However, there still residues within the discipline a tension between 'art historical' and 'archaeological' approaches (Scott 2006; Siapkas and Sjögren 2013) and a bias towards Greek art over Roman and classical over other periods.
Scholarship emphasising 'dark sides' and the 'otherness' of classical antiquity also grew steadily during the 20th century (initially only in the margins of the discipline), with interest focusing on areas like slavery (e.g. Wiedemann 2004), sexuality (e.g. Hubbard 2013), social 'outsiders' (e.g. Cohen 2000) and elements of the primitive, archaic and irrational, as these relate to ancient societies (for important early contributions see: Dodds 1951; Harrison 1957). Drawing primarily on anthropological methods, such work has proposed alternative readings to the classical civilizations, offering perspectives that challenge or contrast the notion of an established classical 'ideal', as this has been constructed and articulated by classical archaeology and traditional classical scholarship (Kennedy 1994; Shanks 1996). In the same direction, important insights have also been provided by classicists working within the wider field of post-colonial studies, whose work has emphasised the 'black' or 'eastern' roots of classical civilization, providing thus a multicultural model of cultural origins that essentially moves away from Western-centric perspectives and, therefore, from the persistent humanistic idealisation of the classical cultures (e.g. Bernal 1987; Bernal 1991; Hobson 2004).
Undeniably, modern agendas within classical archaeology and classics, more broadly, have opened up new possibilities for exploring classical material culture, with objects increasingly being studied and understood in terms of what they can reveal about ancient societies and their social practices, beliefs and inner structures. While, to a certain extent, traditional positivist and art historical approaches are still pursuit by
59 some classical archaeologists, there is now a clear effort within the discipline "to reconstruct and understand the social context of material things, rather than stopping at their inventory, dating, classification and admiration" (Shanks 1996: 5) and to "reshap[e] the century-old tradition of artefactual analysis to give greater prominence to people in the past" (Morris 1994b: 7). The new directions in classical (archeological) scholarship are paralleled with a similar reorientation of research and teaching agendas within the wider higher education sector as, for example, is reflected to an increase over recent years in the number of interdisciplinary classical courses in both European and US universities, which have greatly reinvigorated the study of classical material culture, resulting in a "widening of horizons beyond old Hellenic enthusiasms" (Dyson 2012: 709).
Wider international trends associated with the rise of interdisciplinarity (Morwood 2003) and a broadening of the definition of "what counts as classical learning" (Gay 2003: 20) are also observed with reference to the UK context. Morwood suggests that the landscape of British universities has changed profoundly in recent decades, as universities have started integrating classics modules with the courses of other subjects, making thus the discipline more relevant and accessible "to students from across the whole social range" (Morwood 2003: 145). With specific regards to the teaching of classical archaeology, recent developments co-exist with residues of historical discourses related to how the discipline was established and developed as a handmaiden to classical philology. Of particular interest here is the fact that in most UK universities the teaching of classical archaeology is still very much integrated into that of ancient history. This is reflected in the large number of university departments that offer joint degrees in the two areas and the predominant role classical texts continuing to play in the understanding of classical material culture within university courses. However, with regards to the topics and areas covered, recent classical modules are more in line with the contemporary theoretical paradigms outlined above, in which much emphasis is placed on issues of gender, sexuality, archaeology of difference, ancient technology, identity, landscape and the reception of classical past in the modern world.
60 Outside the strict context of academia, recent years have also witnessed a rise of Classics in popular culture (e.g. Nisbet 2008), which has been paralleled with an increase in the number of non-specialist publications (e.g. Beard and Henderson 2000; Beard 2009; Beard 2013) and relevant internet-based resources that aim to make the discipline more accessible and relevant to a wider public. An important step in popularising classics over the last decade has been made through a number of documentaries preoccupied with ancient Greece and Rome, while the spread of internet and digital technologies have also contributed significantly in this direction, notably through the launching of relevant blogs and websites. Classicists like Mary Beard have been in the forefront of such developments both through her television work, in documentaries like Pompeii: Life & Death in a Roman Town (2010), Meet the Romans with Mary Beard (2012) and Mary Beard's Ultimate Rome: Empire Without Limit (2016), to name but a few, and by offering insights in her blog 'A Don's Life', focusing on the intersections of Classics with the modern world. While television productions on classical antiquity, including work of other classicists like Michael Scott,3 have tended to focus on well-known archaeological sites and also on aspects of the Greco-Roman cultures that have been thoroughly discussed within academia (e.g. topics on democracy, theatre, philosophy), they have nevertheless attempted to explore such topics under a new light by drawing attention, among other things, to the lives of 'ordinary' people of antiquity as opposed to the 'great' men of history or by utilising, for example, multidisciplinary perspectives including the use of anthropological evidence or new technologies that are now applied in the study of ancient world, much in line with recent trends within academic scholarship.
It has been suggested that "the way in which we look at Classical art today has been shaped by the particular ways in which classical archaeologists carry out their study" (Alcock and Osborne 2007: 441). Reflections on the current role of classical archaeology within academia and recent scholarly developments on the field, as outlined above, are suggestive of the "paradigm shift" (Snodgrass 2002) the discipline is witnessing nowadays towards a critical reassessment of its methods and
3 His work includes titles like Delphi: The Bellybutton of the Ancient World (2010) and Who were the Greeks? (2013).
61 practices, intellectual orientations and underpinning ideologies. These, however, are paralleled with a heightened sense of urgency regarding the current role of Classics in today's society. It is within this climate of self-reflexivity and critical introspection, on the one hand, and collective concerns about a perceived decline of the classical disciplines, on the other, that academic Classics are performed today. This thesis is interested in exploring the extent to which recent disciplinary developments within classical archaeology inform current museological approaches towards classical collections. Perspectives discussed in this subsection are intended to contribute towards a better understanding on the topic, which will serve to inform the discussion in the analysis of the case study museums.
2.2.2. A changing landscape: museum classics
As shown in section 2.2.3., for the most part of the 20th century the dominant paradigm for exhibiting classical art operated through a dialectic between archaeological and art-historical approaches, informed by scholarly research undertaken in the respective disciplinary fields. This has meant that classical antiquities could be represented and interpreted either as archaeological artefacts or as works of art, although, in practice, such classifications were never clear cut. Underlying both perspectives was a modernist approach to culture: the idea that world was hierarchical in its organisation and could be described scientifically through observation and analysis of 'objective' data, on the one hand; or the idea of an autonomous, universal art object that can be appreciated through its formal- intrinsic qualities, on the other (see: Hooper-Greenhill 2000b). In essence, both traditions offered an authoritative framework to approach classical antiquities, grounded on the premise that objects could be understood and interpreted independently of any social, cultural, historic, political or economic considerations and ideologies.
With the rise of post-modernist thinking, touching upon notions of subjectivity and relativism, scientific and universalist approaches to (material) culture have been
62 widely challenged, and so have notions of the 'canon' and long-standing divisions between high and low art that have traditionally framed classical material culture in museum context (Hooper-Greenhill 2000b; Macdonald 2006a). Approaches emphasising connoisseurship have also been called into question, notably on the basis they reproduce social distinctions between those familiar with the various cultural conventions underpinning museum practice - what Bourdieu has termed as 'cultural capital' (1984) - and those unfamiliar with them (Meszaros, Gibson et al. 2012). With regards to classical collections, it is chronological displays, in particular, that have fallen out of favor as they have increasingly been understood to offer fixed readings of material culture with evolutionary undertones and, also, because they assumed prior knowledge on behalf of visitors allowing, therefore, little room for them to construct their own meanings (Powers 2015).
The rise of contextual and anthropological approaches within classical archaeology and relevant developments in classical art history (for a discussion see: Newby 2006) have contributed to further considerations. Shanks, for example, has critiqued aesthetic displays that leave objects to speak for themselves as "an extremely dangerous threat to serious and critical understanding of artefacts" (1996: 58). Exhibitions of this type, he argues, not only dismiss the archaeological value of objects, but also rely upon the assumption that objects carry transcendent, timeless qualities - they embody a kind of 'spiritual truth' - which the visitor "need only approach with finely tuned sensibilities" (ibid). In this way, objects become detached from 'history', are denied their multiple identities and meanings and, effectively, turn into fetishes (see also: Shanks and Tilley 1992). On another level, privileging certain types of material culture as 'art' is not only projecting modern values to objects that do not necessarily correspond to the ways these were valued in antiquity (e.g. Vickers 1985; Gill and Vickers 1989; Scott 2006), but is also widely recognised as the driving force behind the destruction of many archaeological sites - the case of Cycladic figurines is a telling example - to feed the antique market (Gill and Chippindale 1993).
Shifting scholarly attitudes towards classical material culture are manifested in a number of exhibitions since the 1980s that propose a shift away from chronology
63 and towards a thematic organisation of the material, and in which special attention is given to the original functions of objects and the historical and social contexts within which they were created and used. An early example is provided by the 1989 redisplay of the classical collection in the National Museum, Copenhagen, which explored the "[m]ankind in relation to nature, society and spiritual life" (Nørskov 2002: 141), through mixed-media arrangements that featured "a cultural, historical and narrative substance" (ibid). Its rationale was outlined as such:
[The exhibition] should present the diversity of the collection, but at the same time reach behind the objects and through a varied exhibition provide a sense of what life was like for the people of Antiquity, how societies developed and how the cultural centres moved from one area to another through time (quoted in Nørskov 2002: 142).
Jessica Powers (2015) has discussed a number of other exhibitions that sought to incorporate recent research in classical archaeology, including The Color of Life (Getty Villa, 2008), which negotiated the theme of ancient sculptural polychromy and the exhibition I, Claudia: Women in Ancient Rome (Yale University Art Gallery, 1996), which explored representations of Roman women drawing on gender studies. Despite such developments and changing academic perspectives towards more interpretive approaches, an emphasis on aesthetics is still manifested in many exhibitions of classical art, including that of the new Acropolis Museum, Athens, which has repeatedly been critisised for its 'context-free archaeologies' and for perpetuating traditional narratives empahsising the timeless qualities of classical art (Plantzos 2011; James 2009). As Dyson has observed, "the world of museum archaeology has not changed much. The collecting of elite material and its presentation in an elite way still seems to be the driving force for most classical art curators" (2006: 251).
A number of studies over recent years have also drawn attention to the various ideologies, biases and epistemological contingencies embedded within and mediated through the display of classical collections. In Slaves and other objects, for example, reflecting on exhibitions around daily life, duBois points to "a troubling absence of
64 slaves […] in the presentation of the visual remains of classical Greek antiquity" (2003: xiii). What is mediated in museum displays, she suggests, produces and sustains a 'purified' image of classical antiquity deprived of alternative 'voices', and one that enforces "certain narratives of Western civilization, and the privileged status of the Greeks as exemplars and as origin" (2003: 81). Museum biases, this time with regards to gender, are also explored in the paper A sexist Present, a Human-less Past: Museum Archaeology in Greece. There, Kokkinidou and Nikolaidou (2000) expose not only the 'invisibility' of female archaeologists, whose contribution is hardly acknowledged in museum galleries, but also the explicit lack of a gender discourse in many installations in Greece, which "is not limited to the absence of woman only, but extends to male or any other genders that may have existed in antiquity" (ibid: 44). This thesis advances existing literature, by exploring both the underlying ideologies informing the representation and interpretation of classical collections in recent exhibitions, and the discursive frameworks and mechanisms through which these emerge.
In addition to these critiques, there has also been some observation of a diminished status of classical collections in museums, which corresponds to similar concerns raised within academia with regards to Classics. In her recent overview of displays of Roman sculpture in American museums, for example, Powers has pointed to an "elimination of curatorial positions dedicated to ancient art at several museums and the incorporation of important Greek and Roman collections into other departments" (2015: 60-61). In the UK, this trend is observed in the Shefton Museum of Greek Art and Archaeology: originally integrated within the antiquities department of the Newcastle University, the museum effectively changed status in 2009, when it became incorporated in the Great North Museum (GNM) (formerly the 'Hancock Museum') as part of a large-scale redisplay, which also resulted in the relocation of the collection in the current 'Shefton' gallery. However, and despite the gallery now constitutes one of the many possible attractions within the GNM, the collection's new setting has considerably increased its visibility (with visitor figures to the GNM reaching an impressive 2.1 million by 2014), and greatly enhanced its educational potential, as it is now being extensively utilised by groups other than its
65 traditional academic users, notably school-age children (Impact case study (REF3b) 2014).
In the UK, the introduction of the National Curriculum in 1988 has further increased opportunities for museums to use their classical collections and contributed in the expansion of audiences engaging with them to younger visitors. Despite the overall omission of Greek and Latin from its modules - something widely associated with the waning status of Classics within official education (Stray 1998a; Beard 2013) - the National Curriculum has nevertheless opened up the way for a broader engagement with the classical world beyond the focus on ancient languages, notably through creating demand for visits to museums, archaeological sites and other cultural venues. These were particularly encouraged as part of the obligatory study of the Ancient Greeks and Romans in the Key Stage 2 (KS2) History Curriculum (Department of Education 2011), but also in support of other non-compulsory areas of the secondary Curriculum, including the GCSEs and A-levels, in subjects like Ancient History and Classical Civilization (as these stood between 2005 and 2012, that is the time when the redevelopments under examination took place). In the context of this study, the National Curriculum has also been recognised as a significant driving force behind the recent redisplays of classical collections, underpinning museological choices and approaches, with a view the resulting exhibitions would fulfill specific areas of learning outlined in its modules.
This encouraging picture is further complimented by various initiatives many museums have undertaken in recent years to boost the popularity of their classical collections and enhance their relevance and public appeal. The Body Beautiful in Ancient Greece and Life and Death in Pompeii and Herculaneum are two telling examples of blockbuster exhibitions the British Museum has hosted since 2000,4 centred on its classical collections. Featuring around 100 objects including a copy of Discobolus as its centrepiece, The Body Beautiful explored representations of the human body "through ancient Greek eyes" (British Museum Website 2010). Since 2012, it toured throughout Europe, the Americas, Asia and Australia, attracting
4 Other examples include the exhibitions The Warren Cup: Sexuality in Ancient Greece (2006) and Hadrian: Empire and Conflict (2008), discussed in the section 2.2.3.
66 extremely large numbers of visitors, before settling at the British Museum, in 2014. The exhibition on Pompeii and Herculaneum (2013) was described as "the first such major exhibition in London for almost 40 years" (British Museum Website 2013). The exhibition drew a total of 471.000 visitors and was "the third most popular in the Museum’s history after Tutankhamun in 1972 (1.6million) and the First Emperor (850k)" (British Museum Website 2014). Its popularity increased further through the broadcast Pompeii Live at the British Museum, the first live cinema event produced by the institution, with 53.885 viewers within the UK and over 36.000, across fifty one countries worldwide (ibid).
In addition to temporary exhibitions, a number of museums in both Europe and the USA have recently reinstalled their permanent displays of classical antiquities, including the Museo Nazionale Romano (Rome), the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek (Copenhagen), the Villa Collection in the Paul Getty Museum (Malibu) and the Museum of Fine Arts (Boston) (Cohen 2014; Powers 2015). In 2007, the Metropolitan Museum, New York, restored its classical displays in full glory, after a considerable neglect the collection suffered when, during the 1950s, the Wing K, where it was originally installed, was transformed into a restaurant, resulting in a dramatic reduction of the number of objects on display and the space allocated to them (Picón 2007). Today the exhibition space devoted to classical art has more than doubled and entire categories of objects, previously in storage, are once again on show, "in a contextual display that combines works of many media" (ibid: 18). The significant attention the above exhibitions have received from both the press and the scholarly community, are suggestive of the ongoing role classical collections retain within their respective institutions and the public esteem they continue to enjoy up to date.
Situated within this wider trend are the gallery redevelopments examined in this thesis and other redisplays featuring classical collections that took place throughout the UK since 2000, with notable example that of the Ashmolean Museum. Completed in 2009 in designs of Rick Mather Architects of the 'Metaphor' company, the new exhibition featured a centralised interpretive concept under the all- encompassing title 'Crossing Cultures Crossing Time', which intended to reflect "the
67 museum as a whole, raising [its curators'] vision above departmental territories" (Walker 2013: 397). An important aspect of this approach with regards to classical collections has been a proposed shift away from Hellenic-centered perspectives and towards cross-cultural ideas: "Greek" is no longer a self-evident category", Whitley observes referring to the new exhibition (2014: 1493). Susan Walker (2013) has also referred to Ashmolean's new display as reflexive of a 'democratic turn', evidenced through the museum's efforts to engage with broader categories of audiences and widen access and participation to its collections. The Ashmolean's increased emphasis on explicitly addressing its publics and 'deconstructing' western-centric views reflects broader changes in museum practice over the past three decades, resulting from leveled academic critiques over the role of museums, broader social and political changes and the growth of museological professionalisation. These later influences and developments are examined next, along with their implications for classical collections.
2.2.3. Museums today: contexts, influences, developments and their impact on classical collections
In parallel with shifting scholarly and social contexts within academic and museum Classics, the role of museums has substantially changed over the past thirty years, "from an ivory tower of exclusivity" towards "a more socially responsive cultural institution in service to the public" (Anderson 2004: 1). Essential to this change has been a burgeoning critique within the sector, both academic and professional, which prompted calls for "change, relevance, curatorial reorientation and redistribution of power" (Stam 2005: 59; see also: Vergo 1989; Sherman and Rogoff 1994; Macdonald and Fyfe 1996; Macdonald 2006; Marstine 2006), combined with a broader turn towards "leisure and tourist opportunities" (Wilkinson 2012: 46) and political and economic pressures put upon UK museums since the 1980s to justify their existence, articulate their value and increase attendance (Wilkinson 2012). Patterns of increasing museological professionalisation have further contributed to this direction, notably through shifting attention away from traditional scholarship- and
68 collection-oriented priorities towards a heightened emphasis on museum visitors and the provision of public services. As result of these changes, "the collection holdings are no longer viewed as the primary measure of value for a museum; rather, the relevant and effective role of the museum to its public has become the core measuring stick" (Anderson 2004: 4).
At the same time, the growth of museology as a distinctive academic discipline, together with the introduction of theoretical perspectives in museum practice since the 1980s, have brought to the fore pivotal questions of representation and meaning. Post-structuralist, post-colonial and other analyses of reflexive practice have variously informed recent debates which, among other things, have drawn attention to issues of power and authority, identity and difference, inclusion and exclusion and the role of museums in constructing and enforcing these concepts, through institutional practices of collection, display and classification (Karp and Lavine 1991; Macdonald and Fyfe 1996; Hooper-Greenhill 2000a; Macdonald 2006a). In particular, authors have stressed the socially structured ways in which knowledge is shaped and articulated in the museum context, and the underlying values embedded within and mediated through museum exhibitions:
"Every museum exhibition, whatever its over subject, inevitably draws on the cultural assumptions of the people who make it. Decisions are made to emphasize one element and to downplay others, to assert some truths and to ignore others. The assumptions underpinning these decisions vary according to culture and over time, place and type of museum or exhibit" (Karp and Lavine 1991: 1).
Emerging from these considerations has been an increasing understanding of object meanings "as situated and contextual rather than inherent" (Macdonald 2006a: 2) and of museums as social institutions with an explicit 'ideological' (Duncan and Wallach 1980: 449) and 'political' role (Stam 2005: 5). No less, the so-called 'representational critique' - attesting to how certain voices have traditionally been marginalised or ignored from the museum context (Macdonald 2006a: 3) - has also stressed the need for museums to become more inclusive, and has further
69 highlighted the importance of consultation and stakeholder communities' input in the museological process (Peers and Brown 2003; Watson 2007).
Indeed, work on cultural representation has offered important readings, in which exhibitions are understood as "theoretical explanations of the world" (Whitehead 2012: 54), "a suggested way of seeing" (Macdonald 1996: 14) and practices with "cultural, social and political implications" (Macdonald 1998: 1), rather than as reflections of 'uncontestable facts' (ibid). Post-colonial writers like Ames (1992), Coombes (1994) and McCarthy (2007), have identified representations of cultures as manifestations of power relations, highlighting their role in the construction of cultural and national identities and colonial subjects. Writing from a Foucauldian perspective, others have explored the role of exhibitions and of museums, more broadly, in the construction of social knowledge (Hooper-Greenhill 1992), in the formation of class values and hierarchies (Hill 2005) and in 'civilising' the public by making visible -through 'disciplinary' modes of display- the idea of state (Bennett 1995). Edited volumes like those of Karp and Lavine (1991), Macdonald and Fyfe (1996) and Macdonald (1998) still remain influential within museology, analysing exhibitions in terms of politics, especially as these relate to the question of who controls museum representation and their role in defining culture and peoples, in shaping values and identities and in foregrounding power relations and subject positions.
Another significant change involves a major transformation in the role of the traditional keepers of museum collections, the curators. In the past, curatorship was understood as a 'top-down' process, with the curator being the single, most authoritative voice in how the collections should be displayed and interpreted (Anderson 2004). Much of this authority derived from academic subject-expertise and the authoritative context of museums as institutions, within which curatorial practice was exercised (Teather 1990). In recent years, however, "the monologism of the earlier curatorial vision" (Scott 2012: 3) has been widely challenged and so has the notion of disciplines as concrete ways of knowing the world (Knell 2004). In addition to voices pushing for a better recognition within museums, essential to this change has also been a rejection of authoritative communication models museums
70 inherited from their modernist past (Hooper-Greenhill 2000b), and the increasing acknowledgement that museum professionals work within specific historical, social and political contexts and epistemological paradigms, which their practice is reflective of and from which it cannot escape (Mason 2005; Macdonald 2006a). Resulting from these changes, has been a "new curatorial praxis" (Peers and Brown 2003: 1-2) - one that shifts away from traditional disciplinary concerns, to facilitate access, accommodate multiple perspectives and encourage dialogue for the benefit of the public.
Recent years also saw an increasing understanding of museums and exhibitions as sites of experience. In part, this results from a broader reorientation of museums towards leisure and tourism (Wilkinson 2012). This also linked with developments within museum education theory which saw a broader shift from the linear transmission models of modernism, to the experiential, constructivist ones characterising the 'post museum' (Hein 2006; Hooper-Greenhill 2007). Such developments are reflected in a wider move towards exhibitions empahsising 'free choice' learning (Falk, Dierking et al. 2006) and offering a plurality of learning contexts e.g. through the use of interactive exhibits (Witcomb 2006), which has been associated with a more democratic museum model and one that affords the visitor more agency. In museum literature, experience and learning are often viewed as interrelated and overlapping concepts. This perspective, for example, is emphasised by Falk and Dierking (1992; 2012), who situate the provision of experience within the broader context of museum learning, stressing also the need for the development of exhibits that could reinforce this mutual relationship.
Political contexts also shape museum practice and since the 1990s, calls for museums to become more inclusive and socially relevant have also developed in response to governmental initiatives and culture- and museum-related policies, particularly those advocated by the New Labour government (elected in 1997), which sought to reframe museums as non-elitist institutions, open and accessible to all (Sandell 1998; Sandell 2003; Tlili, Gewirtz et al. 2007) (see also Section 1.4.). With New Labour, an instrumentalist approach was applied onto the cultural sector, and one that afforded museums responsibilities that extended "well beyond their
71 traditional cultural role to encompass functions related to lifelong learning, identity and community building, public health, economic regeneration and social integration" (Tlili, Gewirtz et al. 2007: 270). A shift of policy would occur with the election of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition Government, in 2010. Certainly, the Coalition Government was not "prepared to take culture seriously" (Gordon, Powell et al. 2015: 54) and, although, for example, it would retain a commitment to issues of access, cultural sector as a whole would not be prioritised "as a mainstream political agenda" (Gordon, Powell et al. 2015: 54).
Changing perceptions on the role of museums, shifting professional, social and political contexts and a repositioning of museums with regards to questions of representation variously inform contemporary museum practice, creating new frameworks for the display and interpretation of collections, including those of classical art. The repositioning of visitors in the heart of museological practice has created the need to communicate with them in a more efficient and constructive manner (Hooper-Greenhill 1994; Falk and Dierking 2012). As result of this, much research over recent years has been centred around museum visitors, aiming to understand their different interests, motivations and needs (Merriman 1989; Hooper-Greenhill 1994; Hooper-Greenhill 2006). Perceptions of visitors as a "homogenous and rather passive mass" (Macdonald 2006a: 8) have also significantly changed. One effect of these developments has been an increasing emphasis placed on museum interpretation - be it the use of textual information, images, new technologies or other appropriate media - which is now understood as a complex, multilayered practice with disciplinary, professional and philosophical dimensions (Fritsch 2012). Another result has been a greater attention paid today to museum and gallery design:
Design is recognised more fully as an integral part of the visitor experience, with potentially more far-reaching implications for structuring the very nature of that experience rather than simply providing a more or less attractive medium for presenting content (Macdonald 2007: 150).
72 These developments also permeate much of the thinking informing modern installations of classical artworks as, for example, is reflected in the recent trend in Roman displays "to decrease the crowding of the galleries by displaying fewer objects, but giving them more attention, in the form of informative labels and appropriate lighting" (Powers 2015: 65).
Emerging also from current museum thinking, especially as this has been shaped in response to post-colonial writings (e.g. Ames 1992; Coombes 1994; Lidchi 1997; Kreps 2003), has been a reconsideration of the ways identity has been traditionally framed in the museum context. MacDonald argues that "we are currently living in a period in which the identities of the past are becoming increasingly irrelevant and in which new identities, and new identity formations, are being created" (Macdonald 2003: 1). Globalisation and post-modern challenges to 19th century conceptions of the national idea, she suggests, have resulted in a reworking of existing notions of identity, which are now being understood "not as universal but as historically and culturally specific" (ibid). In the light of these developments, "older narratives of empire, class, race and science are seen by professionals as inappropriate to the requirements of a pluralistic, multicultural society" (Ross 2004: 85). In a similar spirit, Bennett remarks how
new approaches to difference, whether of ethnicity, sexuality or gender, which stress their unfixed, relational, constantly mobile nature, have called into question the taxonomic approaches to difference which characterized museum practices throughout the nineteenth century and well into the twentieth (2006: 278).
Proposing a shift away from western-centric and other dominant ideologies, these developments are of particular relevance to museum professionals working with classical collections, not only because they challenge the ways classical material culture has typically been approached in museum exhibitions (see also Section 2.3.4.), but also as they urge curators to rethink how best to accommodate pluralist perspectives and alternative narratives through the display of these objects.
73 With regards to classical collections, shifting scholarly attitudes to issues of identity and difference have found their museological expression in exhibitions like the Warren Cup: Sexuality in Ancient Greece and Hadrian: Empire and Conflict. Organised by the British Museum in 2006 and 2008 respectively, the Warren Cup explored the theme of sex in ancient Greece and Rome having as a point of reference a Roman silver cup with scenes of male homoerotic love (Frost 2010), while Hadrian revolved around the contradictory image of the Roman emperor as a military man and also a homosexual (British Museum Website 2008). Both exhibitions gained great publicity, with Warren Cup, in particular, having a very positive public reception. According to the report Pleasure you can measure: Visitor responses to the Warren Cup exhibition (Hargreaves McIntyre 2006), visitors expressed great interest in the exhibition's "controversial" theme and Its "straightforward and friendly" interpretive approach (ibid: 34). The relevance of the exhibition to the present-day was also pronounced:
The theme was resonant with visitors, and the exhibition allowed visitors to make connections with attitudes and experiences in today's societies, helping visitors to engage by making the exhibition directly relevant to modern life (ibid).
Writing in 2006, Dyson pointed that "[h]ealthy, theory-driven debates go on about the history and purpose of the museum, and it good be good to see those reflected in the way museums present the Greek and Roman past to the public" (: 252). Examples like those outlined above demonstrate the great potential of classical collections to contribute to such debates and contemporary problematisations. The extent to which the redisplays under examination confirm or complicate this picture remains to be seen when discussing the findings of the present thesis.
In parallel with these, academic research undertaken within the broader field of museum studies has also suggested new ways for museums to approach their classical collections. For example, a scholarly interest on the history of collecting (e.g. Pomian 1990; Elsner and Cardinal 1994; Pearce 1995) and past modes of display (Rees Leahy 2012) since the 1980s, have inspired museum exhibitions which variously reflect these developments. Vases and Volcanoes: Sir William Hamilton and
74 his Collection is a case in point. Organised by the British Museum in 1996, the exhibition was meant to evoke "ways of interpreting [objects] that were current during Sir William's lifetime" (Jenkins and Sloan 1996: 10). To this end, part of Hamilton's collection of antiquities was presented alongside natural history specimens, in a way that emphasised "the many different ways that objects have been seen and valued in the past" (ibid). Enlightenment: Discovering the World in the Eighteenth Century was another exhibition by the British Museum, which drew on historical forms of representation. Completed in 2004 in the restored King's Library gallery, the exhibition aimed to recreate the idea of an 'Enlightenment' museum space using objects "then present in the Museum's collection" (MacGregor 2003: 7), and displayed "according to the interests of eighteenth century collectors" (Lord 2005: 150; Sloan 2003). Within this, sculptures, vases and coins from the antique featured amongst manuscripts, books and natural curiosities, following the neoclassical 'library tradition' (Nørskov 2002).
Lord situates these retrospective displays within a broader trend of museums to critically reflect upon their own histories, cultures and traditions. With reference to the Enlightenment Gallery she points out:
This is an exhibition where we are invited not only to look at and think about objects, but also to think about how they are organized and presented; to consider the governing principle behind their selection and arrangement; and to think about how and why museums represent things in certain ways" (2005: 150).
Institutional reflexivity and self-awareness is a predominant characteristic of museums today. For Prior, it is also one that has afforded them more 'agency' or "more powers of productive introspection" (2003: 68). As the image of museums as elitist and authoritative institutions is increasingly being challenged, room is opening up for new approaches to classical material culture to emerge. Collectively, these may involve a shift away from traditional disciplinary perspectives, aesthetic considerations and dominant ideologies. At the same time, there is an effort made by museum professionals to engage with wider audiences, to address contemporary
75 debates and present recent museological research through the display of classical collections. This thesis builds upon perspectives discussed in this section to investigate the extent to which current museological thinking and practice inform contemporary approaches towards classical collections, through empirical analysis of the selected case-study museums.
2.3. Conclusion
The present chapter offered a literature review on the role of classical collections within museums, situating them within their past and present cultural, social, political, ideological, disciplinary, academic, institutional and professional contexts. The first part of this chapter (section 2.2.) provided the essential historical background of the present thesis, addressing how classical collections have been conceptualised, represented and interpreted within antiquarian settings (Section 2.2.1.), the public museum (section 2.2.2.) and as result of disciplinary developments, notably in the field of classical archaeology and (classical) art history (section 2.2.3). The second part moved on to consider the contemporary contexts of classical collections. It discussed recent and current developments within classical disciplines (section 2.3.2.), the changing intellectual, social and broader cultural landscape of museum Classics today (section 2.3.3.) and the contemporary role of museums, as is shaped through academic critiques, socio-political conditions, and shifting professional and institutional practices (section 2.3.4.). As part of this examination, the implications of these later developments for classical collections were also addressed.
Underpinning this chapter has been the poststructuralist notion that ideas about collections and their display and interpretation change over time, as result of shifting social, historical, political and ideological contexts. The chapter has also shown that, as social and cultural constructions shaped by and within institutions and disciplines, practices of collection, classification, display and interpretation may affect the meanings and values of objects, contributing to the construction of wider discourses
76 and narrations around them. Finally, this chapter has brought to the fore several issues that will reoccur in the discussion of the case study museums. These include: the long and complex histories of classical collections and the various values and ideologies underpinning their formation and use; the influence of past discourses in current conceptualisations and approaches towards classical collections; the central role of (university) museums in disciplinary formations and processes of archaeological professionalisation; the central role of disciplines, and the ongoing tension between aesthetic and archaeological approaches in the display and interpretation of classical material culture; the challenges that museum professionals working with these objects face currently; and the new frameworks for approaching classical collections as these have been shaped as result of recent academic orientations within classical scholarship and the rise of a distinct 'museum culture' (Sherman and Rogoff 1994) since the 1980s.
The following chapter moves on to address questions of theory and methodology. The conceptual framework informing this thesis and the practical methodology adopted to investigate the main research question are considered as part of this investigation.
77 Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework and Research Methodology
Introduction
In the museological literature reviewed in the previous chapter, I outlined the roles of classical collections in the museum context and discussed issues surrounding their museological representation and interpretation historically and up to the present day. This chapter aims to further contextualise this thesis by presenting the main theoretical stances and orientations, as well as the research methodology that inform it. The overall research approach is interdisciplinary in nature, drawing on museological literature and literature focusing on qualitative research methods. It has been developed with the purpose to address the main research question concerning how UK university museums interpret and display their collections of classical antiquities in recently redeveloped exhibitions, together with a series of relevant interrelated questions, as outlined in the Introduction (section 1.2.). In the analysis that follows I unpack the theories and methods utilised here and argue why this 'bricoleur' approach of "picking those bits and parts we need and joining them with the appropriate spare parts of other projects" (Olsen 2006: 98) was considered suitable for this research.
The chapter is organised in three parts. In the first two, I outline the theoretical approaches framing this research. These combine post-structuralist notions of context-specific readings of material culture (Olsen 2006) with ethnographic and sociological approaches, emphasising the processual aspects of exhibition production and the ways museum practice is shaped through the various interactions between individuals and the material world that surrounds them (Macdonald 2002). Biographical approaches to museums (e.g. Alberti 2005; Hill 2012) and studies focusing on the materiality of objects (e.g. Dudley 2012b) also underpin this thesis' theoretical approach. These stances are discussed in the first part. I further develop my theoretical orientations in the second part of this chapter, where I outline my conceptualisation of how museums and exhibitions produce certain narratives. Perspectives developed here will inform the exhibition analysis in the empirical chapters that follow. Finally, the third part of the chapter presents the
78 research methodology used in this thesis. This is based on a case study approach, combined with the use of other qualitative methods for collecting and analysing data, including semi-structured interviews, participant observation, research on documentary sources and documentation of past and present exhibitions through museum visits.
3.1. Adopting a theoretical approach
This thesis is primarily concerned with questions of museological interpretation and representation. My focus is museum exhibitions, which are framed here as social practices of cultural significance, embedded within and reflexive of the particular social, historical, political and ideological conditions from which they emerge. This thesis further accepts that museum objects have multiple meanings that are never stable or unchanged, but constantly constructed and transformed in the face of shifting contexts, ideologies and values and through the various ways objects are museologically mediated. Previously, the literature review both drew on and unpacked these ideas through its attention on the changing meanings of classical collections and by taking into account the broader social, historical and cultural frameworks surrounding their display and collection. In the empirical chapters that follow, the thesis further utilises such perspectives, which largely build upon post- structuralist approaches that emphasise contextual readings of material culture and change over time (Mason 2006).
Post-structuralism brings to the present thesis an important set of tools to understand the discursive dimensions of museum practice and situate the collections under study within their broader, longer term histories. Originally developed within literary studies, post-structuralism suggests that no text exists outside its reader, heralding the production of meaning as a social and context-specific process (Olsen 2006). Transferred in the museum context, a post-structuralist approach particularly stresses the arbitrary nature of museological narratives and interpretation, drawing attention to the role of the curator in the museological process and the various ways
79 museum practice is shaped by the multiple contexts in which it takes places (Mason 2006). As Kreps notes, "museums and museological work do not exist in a vacuum, but are part of larger socio-cultural systems that influence how and why curatorial work is carried out" (2003: 312). These ideas are valuable as they help explain shifts in meaning and value of objects in different contexts and over time, enabling thus a better understanding of the changing cultural and social significance of classical collections. They variously inform my research approach, alongside other work stressing the 'politics' of display -how power relations are implicated in the production of social knowledge in the context of an exhibition and how these come at play through systems of classification, labeling and representation, or what Lidchi describes as museum 'poetics' (1997: 168).
A further contribution of post-structuralism to this thesis is that it suggests ways to interpret the redeveloped exhibitions through textual analysis. Borrowing concepts from narratology, this approach involves "reading the object of analysis like a text for its narrative structures and strategies" (Mason 2006: 26). A textual analogy offers a useful way to think of an exhibition as a language that could be 'deciphered' by analysing its individual components. This may involve, for example, a consideration of its spatial aspects including the gallery space and the building where the display is located, the collections on display, and things such as the interpretive media and secondary display apparatus (see Bal 1992; Lidchi 1997). One of the major advantages of the textual approach is that is recognises all aspects of an exhibition as equally important, drawing attention to narratives produced by the use and manipulation of space and those implicit in museum texts, images and other interpretive strategies. Textual approaches are also important in raising questions of authorship and 'voice', especially as these relate to "unintentional meanings, omissions, or contradictions present within displays" (Mason 2006: 27). These perspectives have been particularly influential in shaping my approach to exhibitions under examination and inform the analysis of the case studies.
Poststructuralist approaches and 'reading' exhibitions in terms of their 'poetics' and 'politics', usefully problematise museum representation as an act of signification and the role of museums as producers of social meanings and knowledge. Textual
80 analysis, however, are not without limitations, an important downside being their tendency to study exhibitions retrospectively, focusing principally on the final product. This way, little attention is paid to the 'creative agency' (Macdonald 2001: 118) of the museum staff involved in their making and in how and why an exhibition has taken its existing form. As Macdonald has observed, "[this model] ignores the often competing agendas involved in exhibition making, the 'messiness' of the process itself, and interpretative agency of visitors" (1996: 5). To address this, I have also sought to incorporate in my analysis ethnographic and sociological approaches, which direct attention to 'behind the scenes' perspectives and the processual aspects of exhibition production or, to put it differently, "the rather messy business of shaping cultural products" (Macdonald 2002: 94).
Macdonald's ethnographic study of the Science Museum has been particularly influential in shaping this thesis' approach (2002). Her account is based on her insider experience as a participant observer and combines a documentation of the institution's everyday life together with an exploration of the shifting social and intellectual contexts within which professional practice is exercised. In my research, I draw on her method of studying the making of an exhibition by examining its inner workings, "following the local players and trying to understand their concerns and their ways of seeing and doing" (2002: 7). That is to say, special emphasis is placed on the day-to-day practices and actions of those directly involved in its development, as well as on what she describes as 'successes' and 'failures' - all those plans, concepts and ideas that make it or not "across the boundary between back and front stage" (Macdonald 2001: 118). I aim to situate my case study institutions within their local contexts, without however losing sight of the broader intellectual and social trends shaping their practice. By integrating ethnographic and socio-cultural approaches, I conceptualise the museums under study as dynamic rather than static institutions, and I show how professional practice and museum narrations are intimately linked with and heavily shaped by past and present relations, traditions and discontinuities, local and wider histories, the 'messiness' of daily practice and broader historical processes.
81 Macdonald problematise exhibitions as the material outcome of complex negotiations between individuals the material world that surrounds them (2002). Central to her analysis are concepts of translation and the theme of agency, particularly as these relate to Actor Network Theory (ANT). A central strand within Science and Technology Studies (STS), ANT proposes a way of 'mapping' relations between various 'actors' through the concept of network (Latour 2005). Essentially a constructivist approach, ANT proposes a departure from traditional sociological approaches in recognising the 'social' as consisting of ties that have to be explained rather than exist in themselves: "everything in the social and natural worlds [is treated] as a continuously generated effect of the webs of relations within which they are located" (Law 2009: 141). These ties or relations are described as 'translations'. Macdonald and writers such as Mary Bouquet have applied the concept of 'translation' in museums to describe how, during the exhibition-making, abstract concepts and ideas are transformed "into knowledge for a lay public" (Macdonald 2002: 6) and "into design" (Bouquet 2001: 13). Similar arguments were put forward by Rachel Souhami in her doctoral thesis (University of Manchester), where she has considered exhibition development as "a complex series of transformations that have to be carefully negotiated in order to translate an idea for an exhibition in a three dimensional entity" (2012: 68). These ideas offer a useful way to think of exhibition production process and are explored in my research.
ANT further maintains that "all actions are simultaneously material and conceptual, physical and symbolic" (Byrne, Clarke et al. 2011: 11), stressing the complex ways in which humans, concepts and objects can shape and be shaped by each other, exercising multiple kinds of agency, that is to say their "capacity to act" (Ahern 2001: 109). Importantly, ANT recognises all actors forming a network as equally important, including human and non-human elements, like objects, processes and ideas (Byrne, Clarke et al. 2011: 11). These insights inform my study, highlighting the role of individual actors within the museum network: regarding the human actors, emphasis is placed to the role of curators and other museum professionals involved in the redisplays, for example, exhibition designers. Their ideas, plans and actions are considered here, alongside the contribution of non-specialists (e.g. museum
82 volunteers), with the aim to examine how the exhibitions under study have taken their existing form. The agency of collectors, donors and past museum personnel is also taken into account, especially with regards to their role in shaping institutions, collections and, where possible, previous display approaches. Museum visitors are equally important human actors; however, in the context of the present research, they are viewed as agents that may shape certain museological agendas, rather than being themselves the primary focus of analysis. As non-human actors this thesis considers museum collections -in this case classical material culture, the museum buildings in which objects exist, and other entities that may exercise agency, such as exhibition apparatus.
Latour and Weibel write of exhibitions as "highly artificial assemblage(s) of objects, installations, people and arguments, which could not reasonably be gathered anywhere else" (2008: 94). Originally developed in the sociological writings of Deluze, Guattari and de Landa to describe "a series of heterogeneous groupings in which the grouping itself could be distinguished as a whole from the sum of its parts" (Harrison 2013: 20), the concept of 'assemblage' has been recently taken up by cultural theorists to inform approaches in relation to museums (e.g. Harrison, Byrne et al. 2013). Assemblage offers a useful way to think of exhibitions, stressing their relational aspects and drawing attention to the ways in which heterogeneous elements -objects, people, concepts- come together and get organised "into distinctively configured relations to one another" (Bennett and Healy 2009: 4). Like ANT, this approach also emphasise the distributed nature of agency and the ways in which "things and people are involved in complex, interconnected webs of relationships across time and space" (Harrison 2013: 21). Indeed, as Macdonald argues, this approach is valuable because it helps us trace "the courses of action, associations, practical and definitional procedures and techniques that are involved in particular cases ... [by] tak(ing) into account not only the human and social but also the material or technical" (2009: 118). In this thesis, an assemblage perspective is useful in drawing attention to the coming together of people and things, and by means of pointing "less to finished ‘heritage products’ (in this case exhibitions) than
83 to processes and entanglements involved in their coming into being and continuation" (ibid).
The emphasis placed by Macdonald on the social relations between people, things and concepts links her work with object biographical studies. Based on the idea that objects -just like people- have their own 'social lives' which enact upon their value (Appadurai 1986; Kopytoff 1986; Alberti 2005), work on cultural biography emphasise associations between objects and people and the ways they are mutually transformed through their encounter: "people and objects gather time, movement and change, they are constantly transformed, and these transformations of person and object are tied up with each other" (Gosden and Marshall: 169). It is useful to think of classical collections in biographical terms, considering how their long and complex histories may shape contemporary collection practices, influence curatorial decisions, and enact upon objects' status, contributing to the production of all different kinds of narratives within museums. Biographical research of institutions, addressing histories of displays, galleries and buildings (e.g. Alberti 2009; Macleod 2013) has also suggested approaches for my work, notably in directing attention to how complex networks of individuals have transformed buildings and collections, while pursuing own agendas and shaping their personal and professional identities. These studies serve as a reminder that a museum development is never the achievement of a single individual but, rather, as Hill suggests, "is brought into being as a process of interaction" (2012: 2).
Understanding how museum practice is shaped through the interaction of individuals, objects and institutions requires an acknowledgment of the complexity of exhibitions as processes and of museums as institutions. Clifford's notion of 'contact zones' (1997) provides a useful conceptual framework to reflect upon these issues, especially as these relate to changing professional practice and the institutions' own shifting contexts. Originally articulated by Mary Louise Pratt in her work on cross-cultural exchanges in colonial contexts, the term 'contact zone' was later adopted by Clifford to describe the post-colonial museum as a dynamic space of social encounters, where people, cultures and ideas come together and power relations can be actively negotiated, contested and rewritten. Clifford offers an
84 'alternative' model of museum practice based on dialogue, shared practice and diversity without, however, denying the possibility of challenging implications entailed in the contact (Witcomb 2003). Conceptualising museums and exhibitions as 'contact zones' can usefully accommodate the complexities of cultural production, especially as these take shape either through "sharing and involving people" (Purkis 2013: 52) or through "contesting rather than collaborating" (ibid). Other authors have recently revised and expanded the notion of 'contact zones' to theorise -among other things- processes of collection reinterpretation, community projects within museums and communication in exhibitions (for a relevant discussion see: Purkis 2013). Like Clifford's work, these studies are useful in directing attention to how relations shape practice, an idea underpinning the analysis of my case studies.
This thesis is, finally, informed by perspectives emphasising the materiality of objects, an approach which essentially draws attention to the qualities inherent to objects themselves. What these theories propose and is of interest here is that "the thingness of things" (Dudley 2012a: 1) or their "distinctive sensual and corporeal qualities" (Byrne, Clarke et al. 2011: 12) are equally important as their life trajectories and, thus, essential to their understanding. As this thesis is primarily preoccupied with the museological representation of classical material culture, studying the materiality of collections is not an objective in itself. However, it is important to acknowledge that the physical properties of objects have agency in influencing museological interpretation and the values attributed to them by museum curators. To paraphrase Dudley, "the material qualities of objects -their shape, color, density, weight, texture, surface size and so on- [can] define [not only] our sensory responses to them" (2012b: 1), but also the ways they will be displayed and interpreted. A consideration, therefore, of materiality allows a greater depth of analysis and a better understanding of the objects and their role and meanings in museum exhibitions. After all, the lyrical descriptions of classical statuary handed to us by J. J. Winckelmann (see Winckelmann in Potts 2006) is nothing but an acknowledgement of the inherent power the 'physical form' of classical art has exercised over its viewers. One may start considering, however, the significant
85 impact of this 'form' in the museological approaches that developed around classical material culture at least since the 18th century.
At this point it is perhaps appropriate to mention that my own academic background as an archaeologist and my experience as a museum professional have also shaped my research approach. My previous working experience as a museum curator as well as my involvement in a number of collection-based projects in Greece for more than five years have, no doubt, influenced my decision to approach my case studies drawing primarily on methods that emphasise relations between people, things and institutions. Through my work, I became entangled in various museum networks and I also developed an 'insider' knowledge of the processes involved in the exhibition- making; going thus 'behind the scenes' was something I was familiar with. In developing this research, however, I became increasingly aware that overcoming my own expectations, assumptions and predispositions was essential, if I was to reflect critically on how museum practice is exercised in contexts different to those I have personally experienced. Indeed, as Macdonald warns: "one of the problems that an ethnographer working in a relatively 'unexotic' setting may face is how to defamiliarise the familiar" (2002: 7). The overarching ethnographic approach adopted here certainly builds on my previous professional knowledge and work, but goes beyond them, allowing me to acknowledge my own 'culture' as different, and separate my personal experiences from the social practices, processes, contexts and values I attempt to study.
3.2. Conceptualising the construction of narratives in the museum context
Introduction
In this section I develop the essential conceptual and methodological tools to 'read' exhibitions as finished products, combining 'poetics' and 'politics'. As this thesis is primarily concerned with museological narrations around classical collections, building an understanding of how narratives are produced within museums and exhibitions was considered important: my analysis draws on the idea that "museums
86 and exhibitions are themselves artefacts of culture that have been socially and materially engineered to (re)construct meaning in certain ways" (Roppola 2013: 4): I have drawn on Kratz's notion of 'rhetorics of value' (2011) and Moser's (2010) framework for exhibition analysis, which I have considered in conjunction with other museological literature. Perspectives developed as part of this investigation will inform exhibition analysis in my case study museums.
Having outlined the theoretical stances informing this thesis, the following section moves on to consider work that will help me analyse the exhibitions of my case studies. Two conceptual and methodological frameworks provided significant inspiration to this thesis. The first draws on Kratz's (2011) notion of 'rhetorics of value': originally developed to address how exhibitions construct and mediate values and identities, her model can be usefully applied to inform broader discussions concerning the production of narrations in the museum context. Kratz proposes readings of exhibitions in terms of 'poetics' and 'politics', focusing on their content and form as well as their discursive and political dimensions, addressing all the different elements through which museum meanings and values are produced and mediated. Attention is drawn to 'visual and verbal' communication means and the 'designed space' (ibid: 24), as these relate to "processes of circulation, recontextualisation, exhibition production and interpretation" (ibid: 23), which collectively constitute these 'rhetorics'.
The second model offered by Moser (2010) provides a structured framework of exhibition analysis that is intended to investigate how exhibitions create meaning and knowledge. Much like Kratz's work, Moser's account draws on a number of key attributes including museum architecture, gallery space and layout, exhibition style and design and museum texts which are considered as fundamental in shaping and communicating museum messages. In what follows I discuss how museums and exhibitions produce and mediate narratives drawing on perspectives from both models and other museological literature, which I have adapted, reframed and expanded to fit my own understanding.
87 3.2.1. Museum architecture and use of gallery space
One of the key ideas informing Moser's framework (2010) is that museum architecture and the use and manipulation of gallery space are critical factors for the construction of a certain museum rhetoric. Museum building and the way gallery spaces are organised provide an overarching context for viewing the collections and structure visitor experience. The articulation of museum space, however, also involves active choices and decisions which downplay certain elements over others, influencing the presentation and interpretation of collections and the ways objects may be perceived: It can thus be viewed as a rhetoric device that coveys curatorial intention and predisposition, ascribing to objects meanings and values that are not inherent in them. As Whitehead suggests, "the articulation of display space can potentialise the construction of different types of narrative" (2009: 27). Furthermore, Forgan points out, museum buildings "are constantly subject to reuse, adaptation and reinterpretation, both during their lifetime and by historians today" (1998: 198). This adds a further layer in the messages they produce and convey.
The discursive dimensions of museum space have been widely acknowledged within museum literature. Tony Bennett (1995), for example, describes how 19th century museums 'civilized' visitors and produced narratives of evolution and progress through the use of a spatial layout that encouraged 'organised walking'. Duncan (1995) has also explored the role of museum architecture and layout in producing a particular way of seeing -in this case art, elaborating on the notion of a carefully planned 'script': a predetermined kind of experience that resembles a ritual process, which visitors enact through their movement in gallery space. Authors have also highlighted the symbolic dimensions of museum architecture, revealing the extent to which wider ideas concerning an institution and its collections' status and cultural significance are inscribed to the architectural form of its building, with notable examples including buildings that draw on the classical tradition, which are typically viewed to reinforce Western-centric narrations and values, and the power of the imperial nations that produced them (Duncan and Wallach 1980; Giebelhausen 2006).
88 The agency of spatial layout in realising different museum narrations has also been highlighted by authors working within the field of space syntax studies (e.g. Psarra 2005; Hillier and Tzortzi 2006; Tzortzi 2007). As a theory, space syntax draws on the ideas that space and curatorial intention are mutually implicated and that a museum layout has both pedagogic and social dimensions (Hillier and Tzortzi 2006). It is argued that certain spatial properties like axiality, segmentation and movement pattern affect how museum messages will be mediated and the ways museums function as social spaces. A spatial layout can be read both in terms of the distribution of objects in gallery space and by examining the positioning of galleries within the overall museum context. Different arrangements of space can produce different narratives, educational potentials and social experiences and can reinforce different interpretations of collections. Of interest here is also the argument that changes in a display layout reflect broader shifts in scientific knowledge and the ways this knowledge is transmitted (Psarra 2005). For Psarra (2005), the shift from the modern to the post modern museum is exemplified in a move away from linearly ordered spaces emphasising hierarchical classifications towards interconnected spaces that facilitate a more exploratory visiting experience, encouraging multiple ways of seeing and affording some degree of intellectual control to visitors.
Authors have also drawn attention to how certain display techniques may influence the interpretation of collections. Bal (1992), Stavroulaki and Peponis (2003), and Newhouse (2005) consider factors such as the positioning of objects, their juxtapositions or their movement within gallery space as being significant in affecting their meanings and relative importance. Newhouse describes how the statue of the Winged Victory (Nike) of Samothrace gained its prestige when she was "finally selected for solo display", after a series of repositionings in the Louvre, where she was displayed as "one of the many statues" (2005: 45). For Siapkas and Sjogren (2013), displays emphasising the isolation of objects and their placement in niches, corridors and elaborate architectural settings serve to enforce their status as unique masterpieces art, and the construction of art historical narrations. Work considered in this section will enable a better understanding of how the positioning of classical
89 collections in gallery space and within showcases may shape or affect their museological interpretation and object meanings.
3.2.2. Exhibition design: color, light, atmosphere
In considering how museums construct and mediate narratives, attention should also be given to gallery design. For Kratz, design is a critical feature in exhibitions. with "communicative, rhetorical and political implications" (2011: 22).
[Design can] help shape an exhibition’s tone, mood, and general affect and might influence visitors’ orientations and receptivity to values and identities associated with and conveyed by an exhibition (ibid: 23).
Equally, Moser (2010) identifies the 'look' of a gallery space as an important factor in contextualising the collections and enforcing exhibition messages. Particular attention is drawn to its role in shaping visitor experience and creating a particular atmosphere within exhibitions, empahsising objects, spaces and their between relations. Decorative elements and props, together with features such as color and light, are critical in endowing objects with symbolic meanings, lending them to particular interpretations. For example, she describes how "classically inspired ceilings can assert the esthetic appearance of antique statuary or emphasize the perceived 'primitive' qualities of indigenous art" (2010: 25). Of interest is her point concerning how exhibition design can be potentially problematic, notably in historic buildings with strong existing decorative features, as these may not be entirely compatible with curatorial intentions or can even contradict exhibition messages.
Having a strong visual impact in a gallery space, light and color are often seen as some of the most important interpretive features within exhibitions (Roppola 2013). Kratz particularly stresses their role in producing 'rhetorics of value', discussing, for example, how spotlights or boutique lighting can create particular aesthetic contexts, elevating the status of objects and making them appear 'rare and precious'
90 (2011: 34). With regards to classical collections, considerations over the design of gallery spaces have been central in discussions concerning the display of Parthenon marbles soon after their arrival in the British Museum, in the 19th century (Jenkins 1992) and continued throughout the 20th century (e.g. Cohen 2014; Powers 2015). White and neutral backgrounds have been typically been associated with a modernist aesthetic, while darker or vivid schemes with an intention to evoke historical periods. Gallery design as realised through the use of different lighting techniques and colors, is a key component in contemporary installations of classical antiquities, signaling their status as unique masterpieces (Siapkas and Sjögren 2013).
3.2.3. Exhibition content, type and form
The strategies adopted by museums to organise and present their collections, together with the content of displays, encourage particular ways of seeing objects and define the narrations produced around them. There is a broad range of exhibition 'types' depending on their organisational principles, the exhibits included or their approach to learning, each associated with a particular interpretive approach (Moser 2010). These may include chronological, typological or thematic exhibitions; object- or idea-led; didactic- or discovery- oriented; aesthetic or contextual; theatrical; interactive etc, to name some of the categorisations proposed. Other distinctions involve the philosophical or theoretical (disciplinary) stances underpinning an exhibition. Displays may favor, for example, formalist perspectives, informed by art historical writings or a functionalist approach, associated primarily with the disciplines of ethnography and anthropology. How displays define their subjects is critical for classifying objects as 'art' or 'artefact' and in foregrounding public understanding of disciplinary discourses (Lidchi 1997).
The thematic content of a display is equally important for the production of museum narrations, as it renders certain topics worthy of attention. Curatorial input influence exhibition development, as does a curator's own perceptions of museum publics: "curators' expectations or hopes as to the social milieu and cultural capital of their
91 visitors inform the stories told through display and how they are told" (Whitehead 2009: 32). While envisioning the public may impact on what approaches will be privileged over others, how visitors will actually respond to the intended exhibition messages heavily relies on their socio-cultural background, personal interests and previous experiences (Falk and Dierking 2000; 2012). Kratz associates changes in display organisation and subject matter with shifting views of visitor needs and museum education, as well as wider concerns over "how to present and communicate thematic content most effectively, what kinds of information are most important, and how knowledge is most usefully or accurately organized" (2011: 25). Design trends emphasising visitor-centred approaches have been highlighted as a significant factor that shapes a display's appearance and the mediated museum messages (Roppola 2013).
3.2.4. Object collection, classification and selection
What objects museums include in their collections and the people and processes through which collections were formed (e.g. Byrne, Clarke et al. 2011) influence their museological interpretation and display practices. Various classifications of collections have been proposed, attending to different rationales of collecting, motivations of collectors, or type and content of collections as defined by institutional, disciplinary or aesthetic criteria, which encourage different museological approaches (Macdonald 2006b). As a process and practice, collecting removes objects from market circulation, which has a significant impact on their meanings and value (Clifford 1988; Pearce 1995), as has their encounter 'throughout their lives' with collectors, donors, curators and museum publics (Alberti 2005). Once objects are re-contextualised within exhibitions, a new set of meanings is attached to them which also might have to do, as Kratz suggests, with definitions of "art, authenticity, historicity, epistemologies, and various criteria of quality" (2011: 23) within institutions. With respect to classical collections, it is iconic objects and those with long and complex biographies that have typically assumed different status in the context of a display: material from the classical period and mostly sculpture or
92 'vases' have been prioritised -a reflection of the ways objects have been treated in academic research and of the alleged superiority the art of this period has assumed within the master narrative of western art, more broadly (Siapkas and Sjögren 2013).
Institutional practices of classification and selection also underpin the construction of museum narratives. Jordanova (1989) describes the multiple, complex layers of classification operating within museums, which define object meanings and an institution's and collections' identity and scope. Sherman and Rogoff further elaborate on how classification works within exhibitions: "the classification of an object involves the choice of a particular kind of presentation, which then establishes a museological context that provides the object with meaning" (1994: xii). For Whitehead, the selection of objects for display
is in no way objective. It is a cultural practice of inclusion and exclusion which responds to, and in turn constructs, contemporary knowledge, organising representations of the past which articulate hierarchical structures such as the artistic canon (2009: 29).
The choice of objects is crucial to the argument of Siapkas and Sjögren (2013), who associate the display of emblematic objects of the antique with what they call the 'masterpiece discourse', attending to art historical narrations. Anonymous objects on the other hand, they argue, are more likely to be displayed according to their archaeological significance, incorporated within broader schemes empahsising historical development or their function and use.
3.2.5. Textual and other types of interpretation
The construction of museum narratives, finally, heavily relies on the textual and other interpretive information accompanying the objects on display. Exhibition texts are principal forms of communication within museums: as well as conveying the key themes and concepts of an exhibition, particular attention is given to their role in ascribing meanings and value to exhibits through their style and appearance (Serrell
93 1996; Ravelli 2007). Particular styles of texts encourage certain interpretations: "the style or tone of exhibition texts and labels may suggest particular attitudes and relations between visitors and subjects on display" (Kratz 2011: 36). Museum texts have received considerable attention within academic research. Skates, for example, stresses their role "to describe and classify artefacts" and "carry statements about (their) historical significance" (2002: 210), while Jordanova emphasises how labels offer "a plurality of taxonomies pertaining to authorship, authenticity, antiquity, value, originality, significance" (1989: 24). For Whitehead, texts are "the most explicitly discursive media, although they are often presented as authoritative or definitive interpretations whose legitimacy brooks no challenge" (2009: 30-31). No less than museum texts, supplementary material framing the exhibits including images, maps, digital technologies and secondary display apparatus, are equally important in the shaping of museum narrations. Indeed, they indicate how curators and designers have envisioned and materialised the interpretive contexts surrounding the objects on display and how these were intended to be perceived by museum publics. As Piehl and MacLeod confirm with reference to museum graphics, but equally applicable to other media, "[they] not only provid(e) basic information in support of an object or a larger thesis, but actively embod(y) the narrative through their visual forms" (2012: 257).
3.2.6. The museum effect
In considering the construction of narratives in the museum context, it is important to remember that "no (ancient) artwork in a museum was ever meant to be in such place" (Stansbury-O'Donnell 2011: 8). Museums impose objects their own contexts - their own way of seeing things- something which Svetlana Alpers describes with reference to the 'museum effect' (1991). Removed from their original cultural contexts of production and use, and re-contextualised through their display, museum objects are offered for 'attentive looking' (ibid): they are invested with "an aura of importance and authenticity" (Putnam 2001: 34) enforced through the use of real objects. In this way, even everyday objects are endowed with power and
94 significance and transformed into art: "the museological framing - with its methodical documented detail - makes ordinary objects appear extraordinary" (ibid: 43). As Bennett argues,
"the artefact, once placed in a museum, itself becomes, inherently and irretrievably, a rhetorical object. As such, it is just as thickly lacquered with layers of interpretation as any book or film" (1995: 146).
3.3. Research Methodology
Introduction
In the remaining part of the chapter I address the research methodology adopted in this thesis, in order to tackle the research aims and objectives outlined in the Introduction. I discuss my decision to employ a qualitative methodology based on multiple case studies, I introduce the selected museums and justify the rationale behind their inclusion and I describe the data collection methods I followed, before presenting the strategies I developed to analyse them. My fieldwork methods, which include interviews, participant observation, site-visits and research on documentary sources, draw on ethnographic methods for data-retrieving (Angrosino 2007) and they have been developed in accordance with my overall theoretical framework emphasising the processual aspects of exhibition production and 'behind the scenes' perspectives (section 3.2.). They have also been designed so as to address key- themes identified in the literature review, namely building an understanding of the influences informing approaches towards classical collections within the museum context (Chapter 2). Overall, my methodology draws on 'interpretivist' approaches and reflexive methods of analysis, which correspond with broader post-structuralist perspectives informing this thesis. The methodology adopted here represents one of the many possible ways to address the research questions, but was nevertheless considered as the most appropriate one for this particular thesis.
95 The institutional context framing this investigation is that of university museums. A number of factors have directed this choice and they can be summarised as such: First, as discussed in the introductory chapter, there is surprisingly limited research on this particular type of institutions -as opposed to their national and regional counterparts- despite them holding important collections of classical antiquities, and the fact that most of them have recently updated their display environment, with many refurbished exhibitions focusing specifically on classical collections. Second, what emerged from the literature review is that university museums have played a critical role in disciplinary formations and processes of archaeological professionalisation, at least since the late 19th century. Taken together with the on- going influence classical archaeology, as a discipline, exercised in museum practices surrounding classical collections, these two parameters highlight university museums as an ideal interface to explore the links between disciplinary research and museum practice, which was identified as one of the main objectives of this research. Finally, and despite the fact they share certain characteristics in terms of their agendas, purposes, publics and communities they serve, university museums still offer a rich variety of local contexts existing within the sector. As such, they are well-suited for investigating the dynamics of these contexts, especially as they might come into play to shape museological practice. These factors combined, alongside the opportunities these institutions offer for exploring contemporary approaches around classical collections as result of their recent redisplays, is what particularly qualifies them as the appropriate focus of this research.
3.3.1. Adopting a case study approach
Given that the aim of this research was not to provide a comprehensive study of UK museums that display classical art, but rather to explore current approaches of classical collections emerging from recent museum redisplays, a consideration of a large number of institutions was undesirable, as this approach would provide a broad but only superficial view to the topic. Moreover, for practical reasons, it would be impossible to work through such a large body of material in the limited context of
96 this thesis. Therefore, a qualitative methodology focusing on the examination of a few case-studies was considered more appropriate for the present thesis, on the ground it could produce "rounded and contextual understandings on the basis of rich, nuanced and detailed data" (Mason 2002: 3) for each of the selected museums. Grounded on interpretivist approaches emphasising subjective interpretations of social phenomena, qualitative methodology is particularly well suited for exploring people's opinions, experiences and beliefs, while enabling the researcher "to investigate an issue in depth and provide an explanation that can cope with the complexity and subtlety of real life situations" (Denscombe 2010: 55; see also: Matthews and Ross 2010).
A case study approach allows a social reality to be studied within its 'natural setting', in a holistic manner and with an emphasis on events, relationships, experiences and processes rather than their end products (Denscombe 2010; Mason 2002). It was thus considered as an appropriate method in this thesis for exploring not only the perceptions and actions of the key actors involved in the redisplays, but also the contextual conditions, social factors and underlying processes through which the new exhibitions have emerged. Focusing on selected case studies enabled a deeper understanding of the museums under investigation, allowing me to reflect on their diversity and draw useful comparisons across them, while ensuring that each one was studied in its own terms. Indeed, a significant advantage of this approach is that it allows a social condition to be examined in a flexible -yet comprehensive- manner, and in a way that draws on a variety of sources, types of data and research methods as part of the investigation (Denscombe 2010).
Despite its obvious merits, and the applicability of case study research in the present thesis, there are certain disadvantages associated with this approach, which have to be recognised and require some explanation. Perhaps, the most important involves the credibility of generalisations stemming from its findings, which feeds back to the limited number of cases considered in this type of research (Denscombe 2010). Indeed, this approach tends to lack the measurable rigorousness of quantitative methods, with additional challenges involving the risk that a researcher may 'misrepresent' the participants' perspectives or use the research data out of their
97 context (Mason 2002; Denscombe 2010). To these, one should also add the biases and assumptions inherent in the researcher's role "as a primary research instrument" (Yin 2011: 25). While -to a certain extent- the perspectives presented here and the methodological approaches I adopted represent my own viewpoints and interpretations, several measures were taken in order to increase the credibility of my findings and allow potential generalisations. The decision to include carefully selected case studies, the use of a wide variety of evidence from multiple sources and the in-depth investigation undertaken in each institution are some of these means that enabled me to cross-check the validity of my research and ensure that it was possible to establish "a wider resonance" (Mason 2002: 195) through them.
3.3.2. Selecting the case studies
The process of identifying the potential case studies took place in two stages. It started by charting all the UK university museums holding classical collections, with a further aim to isolate those which had recently updated their exhibitions featured such material. Using as a guide the University Museums Group report (UMG 2004) in combination with the Museums and Galleries Yearbook (2011), I was able to shortlist twelve institutions as potential case studies (table 1). Further research on their respective websites provided updated information regarding each museum's institutional context, its holdings of classical material and the redisplay projects, a process that helped eliminating the number of potential case studies to five strong candidates (highlighted in grey). The second stage involved preliminary fieldtrips in all five remaining museums during the first year of my study, with the aim to gain a better understanding of their classical collections' presentation and interpretation. Drawing on short reports compiled after each visit, combined with information obtained during the first stage, I have been able to categorise the five museums according to several basic criteria including: a. the type of institutions (departmental / non departmental museums), b. the size, range and scope of their classical collections (large / small, (non) specialist, of (non) historical significance, associated (or not) with particular collectors), c. the display setting of collections within the
98 museums ((non) dedicated galleries) and d. the availability (or not) of specialist curatorial staff.
Museums / Collections Universities in which the museums or collections belong
1 Ashmolean Museum Oxford University
2 Fitzwilliam Museum University of Cambridge
3 Museum of Classical University of Cambridge Archaeology
4 Manchester Museum University of Manchester
5 Great North Museum Hancock Newcastle University
(Shefton Gallery)
6 Ure Museum of Greek University of Reading Archaeology
7 Hunterian Museum and Art University of Glasgow Gallery
8 Marischal Museum University of Aberdeen
9 Institute of Archaeology University College London Collections
10 Old Fulling Mill Museum of University of Durham
Archaeology
11 Garstang Museum of University of Liverpool Archaeology
12 University Research and University of Birmingham Cultural Collections
Table 1: List of the prospective case studies
In selecting the most appropriate candidates, and taking into account this thesis' main research aim, it was considered important to include a balanced variety of museums that would explore different possibilities in terms of their institutional contexts and their collections' profiles and display strategies, which would enable me to evaluate each institution individually, while allowing meaningful comparisons
99 between them on various levels. A variable was kept constant: to focus on permanent exhibitions. Siapkas and Sjögren make a useful distinction that accounts for this choice: they suggest that, while temporary displays are "more adventurous in terms of scope by presenting advances in techniques of display and introducing alternative narratives" (2013: 79-80), permanent displays are "more suitable analytical objects for tracing normative views about antiquity, since they often reveal overriding traditions in modern perceptions of ancient sculpture" (ibid: 80) and, indeed, of every other type of classical objects. For the final selection, I primarily drew on the categorisations outlined above, with additional criteria involving that the selected museums would be easily accessible and that they would have completed their redisplays at the initial stages of the present research. This has meant that museums in Scotland and exhibitions that opened from 2012 onwards have not been considered. The final selection of the case studies and their elimination to three institutions were made to ensure this research would remain manageable within the time constrains of this thesis. The paragraphs that follow introduce the case studies and explain the reasons underpinning their selection.
The Ure Museum of Greek Archaeology (henceforth the Ure Museum, University of Reading) was selected because it provides a unique example of a small departmental museum, focusing on the study of classical archaeology. It was also chosen because it holds a significant specialist collection of Greek vases, being the only case study that was established during the 20th century by a single university professor and collector, as research and teaching resource. The museum, which is still actively used for departmental teaching and research, enables useful comparisons with larger and/or older institutions, while at the same time provides an opportunity to reflect upon the interrelation between disciplinary, academic and museum practice.
The Fitzwilliam Museum (University of Cambridge) offers an example of an institution with a long history, imbued with the values of the classical tradition. It was specifically selected because of the significant position the museum and its parent university occupy in the study of classical antiquity, in general, and classical archaeology, in particular, being the only case study offering such a distinctive institutional context to investigate. In addition, the institution's high profile and
100 international status, alongside the fact it possesses a large collection of classical antiquities of national and international significance and of particular historical and archaeological interest, made the Fitzwilliam Museum a particularly important case study.
The Manchester Museum (University of Manchester) offers a representative example of a sizable museum with a strong regional presence, that shares similar characteristics with both university and provincial museums in terms of its collections’ size and variety, and its function and governance (see Alberti 2009). As well as providing a rich institutional context to explore approaches to classical collections, the museum was also selected because, being under refurbishment during the early stages of this research, it offered a unique opportunity to document and study in detail the redisplay of its archaeological galleries featured classical collections, as an on-going process. In addition, the fact that its classical collections are not curated by a classical archaeologist -as opposed to the other two case studies- made the Manchester Museum a particularly interesting case study to explore perceptions on the collections' current status and role, from various angles.
3.3.3. Fieldwork - Data collection methods
Interviews
Interviews are one of the most common and well-established methods of qualitative research for gathering in-depth information on personal thoughts, feelings and experiences directly from the informants, allowing them "to expand their ideas, explain their views and identify what they regard as the crucial factors" (Denscombe 2010: 192) of the social reality under investigation (see also: Mason 2002; Hopf 2004; Matthews and Ross 2010). As such, interviews were chosen as an appropriate research method for gaining insights from key museum personnel with regards to their role, agendas and motives in the redisplay process, and their agency in shaping representational and interpretational practices involving classical collections. My interviews followed a semi-structured approach drawing on flexible questioning,
101 which both ensured the gathering of rich qualitative data, while allowing the respondents "to change the course of the conversation and bring up new issues that the researcher had not preconceived" (Axinn and Pearce 2006: 6; see also: Denscombe 2010). Interviews focused primarily on curatorial staff working closely with classical collections which were particularly chosen for their professional expertise and their personal involvement and input in the redisplay.
Two interviews were conducted in the course of this research. The first took place at the Ure Museum, where I interviewed Amy Smith, the museum Curator and Professor (then Lecturer) in the Classics Department of the University of Reading. The second interview was undertaken at the Fitzwilliam Museum and was with Lucilla Burn, the Keeper of Antiquities for the time being. It has not been possible to schedule an interview with Bryan Sitch, the Curator of Archaeology at the Manchester Museum. This presented certain limitations to this thesis, eventually directing my search for data to alternative sources, notably participant observation, archival and online research and consultation of relevant literature. Yet, fieldwork activity resulted in strong analytical data on a broad range of themes, which allowed me to cover themes and topics similar to those brought up during the interviews with other participants. Overall, and despite the small number of interviews conducted in the context of this thesis, my research was enriched through the use of a number of other sources (discussed below), to gain perspectives both with regards to the historical contexts of the case study museums and to the immediate contexts surrounding their recent redisplays. Also, during my fieldwork at the Ure Museum, the curator suggested that I should contact Guja Bandini, who at the time held the position of Educational Officer and Assistant Curator, for further information on the collection. During my discussion with her (which retained an informal character) she explained that, as she took over her post after the redisplay was completed, she could not contribute particular insights on issues surrounding its production, but she spoke analytically about her role in the museum and provided useful information on contemporary uses of the collection, mostly by school groups.
Both my interviews lasted approximately two hours each. The interviewees were provided in advance with a list of questions, which served to stimulate discussion
102 rather than imposing a strict framework that had to be followed faithfully. I structured my interviews around three broad but interrelated themes: the first concerned the processes, contexts and facts of the redisplays, the second focused on the human agents involved in the museum network (both historical and of present day), and the third addressed past and present contexts and perceptions of the classical collections under investigation. Specifically, the participants were asked to describe their role in the redisplay process and provide contextual and factual information on the projects undertaken. They were also asked to indicate other key actors, and reflect on their between relation. Participants were also invited to comment on the interpretational and representational strategies they developed in respect to classical collections, and to offer personal views regarding the collections they curated and the museum they worked in. Finally, they were asked to share thoughts on the current role of classical antiquity, both inside and outside the museum context. Additional themes covered related to the former displays that were dismantled on the occasion of the redevelopment, the history of the collections and perceptions on museum visitors.
As a research method, interviews present the researcher with certain challenges, the most important concerning the validity of the data collected: as they heavily draw on the informant's ability "to verbalize, interact, conceptualize and remember" (Mason 2002: 64), interviews are often seen to involve "the construction or reconstruction of knowledge more than the excavation of it" (ibid: 63). Data quality may equally be compromised by the likelihood of biases or the so-called 'interviewer effect' -the impact a researcher's identity may have on the information people are willing to reveal and their honesty about a given topic (Denscombe 2010; Mason:2002). To increase their validity, interview data were triangulated with other retrieved through alternative methods and sources e.g. archival research. Furthermore, the established position of the informants within their respective institutions, their professional experience and disciplinary expertise have contributed positively in eliminating possible inaccuracies and ensured the reliability of information obtained through interviews. In many aspects, my background as a (classical) archaeologist and my experience as a museum professional has proved beneficial as the knowledge I
103 shared with my informants enabled me to empathise with them and allowed an in- depth engagement with the themes and topics brought up during the interviews.
Ethical issues are pertinent to all types of qualitative research and, therefore, social researchers "are expected to approach their task in an ethical manner" (Denscombe 2010: 329; see also: Mason 2002; Matthews and Ross 2010). When planning and conducting my interviews, several measures were taken to ensure that my research maintained certain ethical standards: the potential participants were initially approached via email, through which they were informed about my research topic and the aim of the interview, and were asked whether they would be willing to contribute insights in my research. On confirming their consent, on the agreed date and time, I visited the case-study museums where the interviews were conducted. The interviewees were asked for their permission to incorporate their opinions in my research and to digitally record the interviews, and were given a consent form to complete. Interview data were stored according to research guidelines of the University of Manchester, while field notes were designated only for personal use. Quotations of interviews have been included as "evidence supporting the argument" (Denscombe 2010: 296) and on the basis "they can be interesting in their own right, giving the reader a flavour of the data and letting the reader 'hear' the points as stated by the informants" (ibid). Data were treated with integrity, where appropriate with confidentiality, and always in a sense that would avoid any sort of misunderstandings that would potentially harm the interests of the interviewees. As all my informants were museum professionals and all voluntarily accepted to participate in my research, data gathered through interviews were not anonymised.
Participant observation
Interview data were supplemented by other obtained through participant observation. A classic method of ethnographic research, observation involves "the systematic noting and recording of events, behaviors, and artifacts (objects) in the social setting chosen for study" (Marshall and Rossman 2006: 98). Participant
104 observation, in particular, requires the researcher to "balance the objective collection of data, with the subjective insights that result from an ongoing association with the people whose lives (she) seeks to understand" (Angrosino 2007: xv). In the present thesis, participant observation was carried out in one case study, during the redevelopment of the archaeological galleries at the Manchester Museum. This part of my fieldwork involved attending the meetings of the team responsible for the redisplay, and entailed observation and recording (through field notes) the development of the new exhibition 'Ancient Worlds' featuring a number of classical antiquities from the museum's permanent collection. All meetings took place at the Manchester Museum, and permission to conduct observational research was secured from the Museum Director who introduced me to the rest of the redisplay team. As my observations were kept anonymous, no further permission was obtained from the team members, but I sought for their consent on an informal basis.
Various types of observation have been identified, depending upon a researcher's degree of participation within the research (Angrosino 2007; Matthews and Ross 2010). My role in these meetings was that of 'participant as observer', identified with the researcher who "takes an overt stance and reveals both her presence and her research to the group" (Matthews and Ross 2010: 258). The team members were informed about my role and research aim at the beginning of each meeting when the project first started and, following that time, when new members joined the team. Conducting overt observation eliminated possible ethical considerations arising from issues related to the invasion of privacy and dishonesty on behalf of researcher (see Angrosino 2007), but also presented certain challenges: for example, "there can be no doubt that if people know that their behaviour is being observed, then it will change" (Matthews and Ross 2010: 259). I noticed that my 'intrusion' to the meetings was more noticeable during the early stages of the project. As time proceeded, however, I felt that my presence was rather taken for granted, with no substantial impact on the casual activities of the group: after spending some time with the team, they typically tended to feel more confident, and my presence did
105 not seem to disrupt or modify their behaviour, at least to a point that could affect their group performance and, therefore, my data.
Considering the dual focus of this research to investigate contemporary museological approaches to university collections of classical art and how these emerge, participant observation was considered as an appropriate method for gaining insights to the processual aspects of exhibition-making and the social conditions informing the production. Specifically, observation was carried out with the belief it could shed light (and it did) on the priorities, thoughts and approaches of the exhibition-makers with regards to the Museum's classical collections. It was further conducted as a means to understand the relations between the different actors, their roles and individual contribution in the redisplay process, as well as the ways museum practice has been shaped through their interplay and negotiations, as these took place in the museum's particular context. My observational research addressing the redisplay of the Manchester Museum was the only opportunity I was presented to obtain first-hand data that would not be limited to the finished exhibitions, as was the case in the other two case-studies. It provided important 'behind the scenes' perspectives, and insights to the institution's own 'culture', allowing me to draw useful conclusions with respect to the current status and relevancy of classical collections in a given setting.
As a research method, participant observation heavily relies on the researcher's 'self' and her ability to recollect and reconstruct certain events, depending on field notes as source of information (Denscombe 2010). Inherent in the process are biases which may compromise the credibility of the data collected, with further issues arising from the difficulty to replicate a given study to verify their validity (ibid). Carrying out observational research in a specific (institutional) setting may also entail questions regarding the representativeness of the data and their potential generalisation (Denscombe 2010). To eliminate possible inaccuracies stemming from my observations, I sought for clarifications on topics I felt requiring further explanation. Bryan Sitch (Curator of Archaeology at the Manchester Museum) was kind enough to share his personal notes from the redisplay meetings with me, which further helped in cross-checking the correctness of my observational remarks while
106 observational data were also triangulated with other retrieved through archival research. Despite its weaknesses, observation was chosen as an appropriate research method in this thesis for its usefulness to illuminate the processes and circumstances surrounding the exhibition production in a given context and, also, for contributing insights to broader discourses on museums as sites of social interactions and others pertinent to exhibition-making practice.
Museum visits and documentary sources
Research data were also gathered through fieldtrips and site visits to the redeveloped exhibitions. Museum buildings, exhibition areas, museum texts and supplementary interpretational material and display apparatus was treated as a primary source of information and was documented through photographic recording and personal notes. When deemed relevant or appropriate, the documentation was not restricted to classical material, but expanded to include other categories of objects or whatever else was felt could contribute to the present research. The material collected at this stage set the basis of the empirical research that follows, providing the essential physical evidence to which I constantly referred, in order to examine and analyse the display and interpretation of classical collections in the selected museums.
A large amount of data was also obtained through archival research. I reviewed published and unpublished institutional records, both historical and contemporary, official and personal, which provided important contextual information and background data about my case studies. Archival research was primarily oriented towards material that could shed light to collection histories and the social relations embedded in them, and other related to the role of the collections, the use and design of gallery spaces, exhibition making practices, the universities to which the case study museums belong and, of course, the redevelopment projects themselves. Archival research revealed a wide range of material including museum guides, exhibition catalogues, press releases, personal accounts, project briefs and plans,
107 records from the redevelopment meetings, institutional reports and internal publications, exhibition floor maps and diagrams, and articles in museological journals. Further information was retrieved through photographic and audiovisual sources. On one occasion, in the Ure Museum, I was given access to a surviving photographic record and recorded material directly related to the original collectors, both of which offered invaluable insights into former display approaches and museum practices that would be impossible to access otherwise.
Data were also generated through online research and attendance of public fora. Museum websites provided useful information on their classical collections and displays during the initial stages of this research. Further insights were gained through the two blogs set up by the Manchester and the Fitzwilliam Museum which documented their respective redisplays featured classical collections. These provided critical 'behind the scenes' perspectives and reflections on institutional practices and the participants' roles. Contributions to the colloquium "The Past on Display" organised by the Fitzwilliam Museum in 2011, and Bryan Sitch's introductory tour of the new archaeological galleries in the Manchester Museum, as part of the Society of Museum Archaeologists' (SMA) Annual Conference in 20125 also provided insights from people directly involved in the redisplays. Some background information was also obtained through mass media. Of these, I found particularly useful TV documentaries and newspaper, magazine and online articles focusing on classical antiquity, classics in contemporary contexts and other relevant topics (e.g. Mary Beard's series of documentaries and her blog 'A Don's Life'). All the sources mentioned above were used in conjunction with academic literature. The bibliography I used came primarily from the fields of museology (including work on university museums and collections), cultural studies, museum classics and other areas related to the history, theory and intellectual traditions of classical archaeology.
5 The conference was entitled: "All that glistens? Will 2012 be a golden year for museum Archaeology?"
108 The collection of qualitative data can prove an extremely time-consuming process and one that generates a vast bulk of material which has to be sorted out, classified and analysed (Mason 2002). In this thesis, data-collection was conditioned by factors related to time restrictions and the availability and accessibility of archival records at the time of my fieldwork. Given the above constrains, data-collection always entails a process of selection. In this thesis, I focused my research on particular turning points such as moments of significant change which shaped an institution's or a collection's history and identity. The collected data revealed a wealth of information about the museums, collections and exhibitions of interest, especially in those cases where a first-hand experience was not possible and information could not be obtained in other ways (e.g. older exhibitions that were no longer on display, lack of interview data in the Manchester Museum etc).
When conducting research involving documentary sources, it is important for the researcher to remember that all "documents can owe more to the interpretations of those who produce them than to an objective picture of reality" (Denscombe 2010: 233). Museum archives, in particular, strongly reflect the intellectual and disciplinary interests and predispositions of past and present museum staff, collectors, donors, patrons and other stakeholders. While they can provide invaluable insights into an institution's particular 'culture' and historical development, material included in the archives is inevitably coloured by personal biases, shifting perceptions of museological practice and broader socio-cultural trends. As such, it is necessarily selective, context specific and, often, of fragmentary nature. To these limitations, one should also add the biases stemming from the researcher's personal background. Overall, in every step of my fieldwork I tried to take into account "multiple perspectives, multiple interests, and multiple realities" (Patton 2001: 575) to ensure the validity of the data collected, triangulating those retrieved from museum visits, archival research and supplementary sources with other obtained through interviews and participant observation.
109 3.3.4. Data Analysis
For the analysis of my fieldwork data, I drew on reflexive methods of analysis emphasising contextual 'readings' and an active involvement of the researcher in the interpretation process (Mason 2002; Denscombe 2010), in line with my overarching theoretical framework. The analysis was conducted in a 'holistic' manner and involved looking for 'patterns and themes' occurring across the data, with additional emphasis placed on "discrete parts, cases or contexts [...] and documenting something about those parts specifically" (Mason 2002: 165). Accordingly, explanations were build based on "analysis and comparison of 'wholes', cases or contexts [...] rather than parts, slices or themes [...] compared cross-sectionally" (ibid: 168). The analysis took the form of an evolving process, with some key themes emerging and observations being drawn already during the data collection phase. These were continuously reworked as new data were retrieved, with the final analysis taking place after the collection of data was completed. The data, including those from interviews, were subsequently organised according to case studies and, within each one of them, they were coded into key themes and topics. Three broad categorisations emerged, which would enable comparisons across the three institutions: a. Institutional contexts and collections histories, b. Parameters of the redisplays, and c. Organisation, content and themes of the new exhibitions. An examination of these three aspects would enable me to situate each museum and collection within its socio-cultural contexts, to reflect on the processes of exhibition production through tracing the factors shaping the redisplays in the selected museums and, also, to examine the resulting exhibitions as finished products. Drawing on these categories, I have been able to prepare a report for each institution, which set the basis for the final analyses. These categorisations have also been used to inform the broader structure of each empirical chapter.
110 3.4. Concluding remarks
This chapter presented the main theoretical stances and orientations, as well as the practical methodology I adopted, to address this thesis' main aim. The first part of the chapter focused on my theoretical framework. This combined post-structuralist perspectives, ethnographic approaches to museum practice and concepts of biography and materiality which, taken together, emphasise change, processes, and the social agency of people and things. These approaches inform my understanding of museums as institutions and will enable me to trace and understand the underlying processes of exhibition production in the case studies, from which museum narrations emerge. The second part of the chapter further served to put this thesis in context by presenting my conceptualisation of exhibitions and their role, addressing also they ways in which they contribute in the production of museum narratives through design strategies and the processes of collecting, interpretation and classification. This discussion has been critical in informing exhibition analysis in the selected case studies. Finally, the third part of the chapter moved on to present the methodology adopted in this thesis, which draws on a case study approach, combined with the use of other qualitative methods for data collection and analysis. The discussion addressed how the chosen methodology served this thesis' main aim and how it related to its overall theoretical framework. A description of the methods adopted and the pros and cons of using each one have also been considered.
The analysis of the theoretical approaches and research methods adopted here has highlighted the complexity of museums as institutions and of exhibitions as processes and practices. It has drawn attention to the various ways museum practice is shaped through the interaction of people between them and the material world that surrounds them and, furthermore, to what Kirshenblatt-Gimblett calls the 'agency of display', the idea that a museum exhibition "not only shows and speaks, (but) it also does"(1998: xxiv). Together with these, a number of other issues came to the fore, which include: the discursive dimensions of museological practice; the meanings of museum objects as situated and contextual; the role of exhibitions in shaping identities and communicating values; the pedagogic dimensions of
111 exhibitions; a framing of exhibitions as spaces of experience and as assemblages; the role of museum design, space, classification and interpretation in shaping museological approaches and, finally, on a more practical level, the role of the researcher as an 'research instrument'. The next three chapters explore these issues in depth, with reference to the three case study museums.
112 Chapter 4: The Ure Museum of Greek Art and Archaeology
Introduction
In October 2005 a new exhibition opened at the Ure Museum of Greek Archaeology, in the University of Reading, following a year-long redevelopment. It was the first time the museum's collection of classical antiquities would be redisplayed since its first installation in the 1950s. Although sporadic changes have been introduced over the following decades, these were of no substantial nature and the exhibition continued to retain many of the original features introduced by the first curator during the post war years. The new exhibition sough to update the museum environment both physically and intellectually and was envisioned to completely depart from previous approaches, by presenting the collection "in an innovative and exciting way".6 The project was entitled "Renewal of the Ure Museum's Learning Environment" and at its core stood the idea of transforming the museum into a venue that would be accessible to a wide variety of users, from university students
7 to schoolchildren and from scholarly visitors to the general public.
The Ure Museum was the first of the case studies to redisplay its collections. Planned and developed from the early to mid- 2000s, the redisplay took place at a time when the New Labour government highly prioritised access and learning objectives, with investment funding for museums now promoting projects addressing these agendas. Given the socio-political context of the time, the focus of the redisplay on such issues comes as little surprise. Within the local context of Reading, this was also a time of considerable change. This entailed an organisation-wide shift of priorities which saw the university adopting a more strategic approach for its museums and collections, allocating funding for the development of new exhibitions and for improving standards of their management and care (Arnold-Forster 2006). It is within this political climate and institutional context that the redisplay emerged and funding for the project was made possible. To this direction, also contributed people, who drove the museum through the process of change and who, ultimately, effected it.
6 Launch of the New Look Ure Museum: Press Release, available online at The University of Reading Website: http://www.reading.ac.uk/news-and-events/releases/PR207.aspx, accessed on 06/07/2012 7 Ibid
113 4.1. Historical context: the Ure Museum
The Ure Museum (figure 1) is the first of the case studies to be founded, and the only one with an explicit focus on the study of classical art and archaeology. Its formation in the first half of the 20th century is deeply implicated in processes of archaeological professionalisation, which saw the development of a number of specialist museums devoted to the study of classical archaeology, both in the UK and abroad. The history of the Ure Museum has been shaped by two individuals, Percy Ure and his wife Annie, whose life and work was bounded with the Classics Department in Reading. Percy Ure was the first Professor of Classics in the university. His appointment in 1911 marks the beginning of the Department in the form that exists today.8 Annie Ure would serve as museum curator throughout her life. She traces the origins of the museum "in a collection of cheap and fragmentary vases purchased in the course of (Ure's) travels on the Continent and a quantity of shreds, most of them picked up on various sites in Greece" (Ure undated). Percy Ure's decision to form a specialist collection was framed in terms of its usefulness in university teaching and research and his pedagogical aim "to give life and variety to the study of Greek history" (Ure 1965).
In 1914 Percy Ure together with Professor Stendon formed a Romano-British Museum. In 1922 Ure wrote to the university asking for further room for the growing archaeological collection. The same year Reading College (later The University of Reading) officially decided to establish a museum "as an aid to the teaching of Ancient History and Greek Archaeology" (Ure undated). The new museum was housed within the Classics Department, in the original Reading campus, in London Road. An annual departmental grant then followed, for future additions to the collection. Annie Ure describes the years following World War II as "a period of affluence" in which the "most notable vases belong". In 1957 the museum, together with the Classics Department were relocated to their current position in the Whiteknights campus, in the suburbs of Reading. The museum was given a dedicated
8 A Short History of Reading's Classics Department, available online at The University of Reading Website: http://www.reading.ac.uk/classics/about/class-history.aspx, accessed on 10/04/2012
114 room in the Faculty of Letters and Social Sciences,9 were it remains up to the present day. Annie Ure continued to curate the collection on an unpaid basis, until her death in 1976.
The display Annie Ure created in 1957 remained almost intact until the 2005 redisplay (figure 2). The collection was classified according to principles of chronology, typology and geographical division, with further attempts to incorporate thematic units.10 The presentation was kept simple and austere, featuring symmetrical arrangements, with some distance kept between the objects. The display echoed wider post-war trends for the display of classical collections, which combined a modernist aesthetic with a scientific, neutral and objective presentation of the material, based on positivist principles. A similar exhibitionary language informed the display of the National Archaeological Museum in Athens, Greece, developed around the same time by the distinguished Greek archaeologist and curator Christos Karouzos, which Annie Ure considered to be the best example of classical archaeological display in Europe (Ure 1967; for the display in Athens see: Mouliou 2008). Overall, the use of the museum outside the immediate academic community was limited. In 1973 Annie Ure wrote:
[The Museum] is only in a limited way open to the public. It is true that from Mondays to Fridays in term the door is unlocked and casual visitors may enter as well as members of the University, but it is hoped that their numbers will be small.
At some point in later years, visual interpretation increased and more objects were added in the cases. Former curator Jane Gardner would later describe the display as "the traditional scholarly, taxonomic variety, with labels meaningful mainly to
11 specialists".
9 Today Humanities and Social Sciences Building (HMSS). 10 Exhibit descriptions, available online at The Ure Museum Website (archived from the original): http://www.reading.ac.uk/Ure/exhibits.html, accessed on 15/07/2011. Later documents report that the display 'remained virtually unchanged since it's installation in the 1950s': see, for example, The Ure Museum, 2002, Audience and Access Strategy Project, Funding application to South East Museums Libraries and Archives Council. 11 Introduction to 'The Ure Museum: a Retrospective' (26 October 2005), available online at The Ure Museum Website: https://www.reading.ac.uk/Ure/history/Launch.php, accessed on 19/02/2012
115 Moving into the years following Annie's Ure death, the Classics Department in Reading -like others in the country- faced the possibility of closure, following funding cuts during the Thatcherite years, however its staff "managed to present a strong case for its continuation".12 Curatorial responsibility continued to lie within academic staff, who curated the museum in addition to their departmental duties (Smith 2012). The archival record does not convey much about the Museum's more recent history, reflecting the relatively low priority accorded to the museum at the time. A report dating from 1992 stated:
There are virtually no 'walk-in' visitors (perhaps one or two a week?). Mostly the museum is used by the staff and the students of the Department of Classics many of whom treat the museum as a secondary work space.
By the late 1990s the profile of the Ure Museum would considerably diminish. A regional museum survey published in 1999 under the title Beyond the Ark: Museums and Collections of Higher Education Institutions in Southern England (Arnold-Forster 1999) showed that museums and departmental collections belonging to the University of Reading suffered from a general lack of resources, low standards of management and care and, more importantly, from a notion within the University that they "operated within the separate environments of their own academic context" (Arnold-Forster 2006). This would dramatically change over the following years. Before I move on to discuss the factors underpinning this change, I briefly present the collection of the museum.
4.2. The classical collection of the Ure Museum
The collection of the Ure Museum is both a product of systematic activity and material that arrived over years through loans and donations. Included in the collection is a wide range of objects from the Neolithic through the Byzantine period, but Greek pottery predominates. The first important acquisitions were made in the name of Reading College around the 1910s. These included two subsequent
12 A Short History of Reading's Classics Department, available online at The University of Reading Website: http://www.reading.ac.uk/classics/about/class-history.aspx, accessed on 10/04/2012
116 donations of Egyptian material by Lady Flinders Petrie (1909, 1913) and Mrs Barry's gift of Cypriot antiquities (1913) (Ure undated). The major and most important part of the collection, however, was formed through the efforts of the Ures and, thus, strongly represents their particular collecting and academic interests. As the collection was primarily formed for teaching and research purposes, the main criteria for acquisitions were the known provenance, the rarity or typicality of the material and its educational potential. Little attention was paid to the poor state of preservation of vases or to the craftsmanship (Ure undated). As Annie Ure noted "the bulk of the collection consists of ordinary everyday stuff. We do not apologise for that. The study of such commonplace is one of the main purposes of the museum" (1957: 4). The collecting ethos of the Ures is also reflected on the large collection of fragments they formed, "most of them from known sites and therefore archaeologically valuable" (ibid). An indefinite loan of three hundred vases from the Reading Museum would later enhance the collection with pieces of higher quality, originally belonging to private collectors (Greenaway 2007).
The collecting activity of the Ures focused primarily on pottery from Boeotia, Greece. Their profile as collectors has been heavily shaped by their early excavations in Boeotia, Greece, where they developed an interest in archaic and plain wares, important for the study of trade and ancient economy (Sabetai 2005). They pioneered an 'archaeological' approach to the material which was rather unfashionable, and not unanimously shared in Academia, especially at a time when Beazley's dominant paradigm dictated emphasis to the artistic quality of vases and their attribution in artistic 'hands' (ibid). The Ures did not entirely disregard the aesthetic quality of objects, but it did not direct their collecting activity either. On the occasion upon the acquisition of a fragment signed by Douris, one of the great red-figure vase painters, Annie Ure stated:
We are proud of it but we do not aim at acquiring masterpieces. They are in any case beyond our means. What we have is a representative collection of things commonly used by ordinary Greeks in their daily life and as offerings to their dead. From this material much can be deduced
117 about history, trade and character of the Greeks themselves (Ure undated).
Between them the Ures produced a number of publications, including work on Greek pottery and their excavations in Boeotia. Their work on the collection would be published in the Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum series (Ure and Ure 1954).
The collection would grow to include "all of the main fabrics, shapes decorative techniques and evolutionary stages of Greek painted pottery". Comprising around 2000 objects, it is considered today as the fourth largest of Greek ceramics in Britain, after those of the British, Ashmolean and Fitzwilliam Museums.13 In some aspects it is typical of its kind, standing as a representative example of a 'study' collection, whose systematic character and specialist focus reflect the epistemological directions classical archaeology assumed in the first half of the 20th century, associated with the adoption of a positivist agenda. The focus of the Ures on archaic pottery is also not entirely alienated from contemporary developments within the field which, during that time, saw the scholarly interest shifting towards early Greek pottery (Nørskov 2002). Nevertheless, the emphasis placed by the couple on the 'archaeological' rather than the 'artistic' point of view has resulted in a collection whose character is rather unconventional and progressive, at least for the time it was being formed, with an overt anthropological character and a strong educational orientation: one that significantly departs from the 'canon'.
To summarise, the scholarly character of the Ure Museum was pronounced for the most part of its history. The character and development of the museum and the collection have been shaped both by wider processes of archaeological professionalisation, as well as by the particular interests of their founders: the collection has a strong disciplinary character reflecting its use as a teaching and research resource but also incorporates progressive elements through its emphasis on 'archaeological' and 'anthropological' perspectives rather than aesthetic concerns. Former display approaches encompassed the positivist principles classical archaeology assumed, as a discipline, in the first half of the 20th century. The
13 General Museum Information, available online at The Ure Museum Website: https://www.reading.ac.uk/Ure/info/index.php, accessed on 19/02/2012
118 decades between 1980 to 1990 witnessed a diminish of the museum's profile within the Classics Department, as well as within the University of Reading. In part, this can be connected with the crisis affecting the university museum sector as a whole during this time. Indeed, the 'Beyond the Ark Survey' was conducted as part of the initiatives undertaken to assert its effects (Arnold-Forster 1999). At the same time, it further reflects the withering status of Classics, as a discipline, in the closing decades of the 20th century. The next section moves on to consider the contemporary contexts framing the redisplay.
4.3. Framing the Redisplay: Contemporary Contexts
In recent years, the Ure Museum has undergone a major transformation of its role, both in terms of its relation with the University of Reading and with regards to its contribution to the non-academic community. As noted previously, in recent years the museum witnessed a considerable diminish of its profile on a departmental level and beyond. This begun to change from 2000 onwards, when a major organisation- wide change started taking place in Reading, which saw "a process by which the University took steps to adopt a strategic approach to the management of its university museums, alongside a period of major regeneration" (Arnold-Forster 2006: 203). Arnold-Forster goes on to explain how this process
underpinned a successful strategy adopted … to attract external funding towards more than 12m of capital improvements for its museums, alongside the reinvigoration of its collections-based learning, teaching and outreach programmes (ibid).
What followed was a series of initiatives which would enable the collections at Reading to become more fully integrated into the university planning. Resulting from these changes was the strengthening of the museum management, through the development of a centralised administration system, the University Museums and Collections Services (UMACS), and through the formation of a Ure Museum Advisory Committee with advocatory role. Further changes involved the appointment of an Assistant Curator for the Museum, a position that combined curatorial with
119 administration duties and delivery of outreach activities. This staff change would later impact on the redisplay process, through increasing the number of people involved in the development of the new exhibition. The particular ways this influenced the exhibition are discussed below. In addition, the establishment of formal outreach posts marks a significant turning point for the museum, reflecting a wider shift of institutional focus beyond the academy and towards the wider community during that time.
One of the most important developments for the museum in recent years involves the appointment, in 2000, of Amy Smith as a Lecturer (later Professor) in the Classics Department. At the time she undertook her post, the museum still fell low in departmental priorities: for example, there was not mentioning of curatorial-related responsibilities in her contract. Smith, however, would clearly see the museum and the collection as a central part of her own interests. Soon after her appointment, she actively sought to reposition the Museum in the heart of departmental activity, incorporating the collections into her own teaching and research and encouraging their use by the students and researchers: "we have been working on doing more research, publishing research and embedding research in the agenda of the undergraduates, Masters and PhD students". By the time of the redisplay, the museum would have a large number of people working on the documentation and digitisation of the collection on a voluntary basis. In parallel with these, Smith worked towards opening up the museum to the wider public: she extensively referred to her role as 'doing outreach' and the emphasis placed by the Museum over recent years 'to reach out all these audiences'. The shift of focus is reflected in the development of new museum policies, which aimed at making the collection "accessible to students and staff of the University of Reading and members of the public, for the purposes of teaching, learning, inspiration, and enjoyment".
The development of a more public face for the museum begun slowly the late 1990s and gathered momentum over the following years, in line with the increased professionalisation of the museum sector. The introduction of the National Curriculum in the late 1980s also contributed considerably in this direction, prompting a growing demand from local schools who wanted to make use of the
120 collection. By 2003 the museum offered a formal educational programme for school groups and another one for adult learners. By 2003 more than 2100 pupils were visiting the museum on an annual basis. During that time the museum has also sought to understand its audiences: this was exemplified by the launch in 2002, of a year-round Audience and Development Project funded by the South East Museum, Library and Archive Council (SEMLAC), which involved an evaluation of the museum's existing and potential visitors and their needs. As part of this project a public consultation process took place, whose findings would inform the redisplay in ways discussed below. With regards to Reading, widening participation was highly prioritised at the time as part of University's own strategic planning. Smith would confirm that since 2000, there came a growing recognition that the university 'has to reach out, too, the community more pertinently'.
Thus, within a space of less than ten years the Ure Museum had witnessed a profound change. Influential individuals and a shift of institutional priorities, combined with wider developments within the museum sector have been key factors that contributed in the museum moving from the point of being an almost unvisited, inward-looking institution to one that begun to play an increasingly prominent role in the departmental activity and the wider community. By the time of the redisplay the number of people using the museum would have increased considerably, and visitors would have expanded to include non-specialist audiences. These developments would have an impact on the redisplay, notably in terms of gallery layout and the interpretation strategy adopted. The remaining part of this chapter focuses on the new exhibition: the processes underpinning its development and the finished product.
4.4. Project background
The redisplay of the Ure Museum arose in the confluence of two factors provided, on the one hand, by the university's desire to adopt a more strategic approach to its collections and, on the other, by Smith's own agenda, which saw the museum as a central part of her interests and priorities. Soon after her in 2000 she begun to draw plans for a future redisplay: "my main priority when I came in 2000 was to get the …
121 Ure Museum Registered because it could not asked for funding if it were (sic) not Registered". Following two unsuccessful applications to the AHRB (2001 and 2002), and a third one to the JISC's FAIR scheme (2002), Smith managed to secure a redevelopment grant from the AHRB in 2004. AHRB provided £30.000 towards "a learning museum project", with additional £15.000 provided by the University through a "Teaching Development Fund" which also emphasised learning objectives. As two of the principal stakeholders of the project, the AHRB and the University largely set the agenda of the redisplay and shaped its overall directions.
As noted previously, the 2005 redevelopment was the largest project undertaken by the museum since the original installation of the collection in the 1950s. In part, the project was driven by the pragmatic need to physically update the displays which looked worn and tired. Referring to the former exhibition, Smith spoke about an 'insufficient display' that 'did not do justice to the objects'. She described the exhibition as being overall unappealing and, in several aspects, even problematic, with displays not particularly engaging for the visitors and arrangements lacking visual interest:
[t]he cabinets were boring, the colors were boring. The ceiling and the floor and the pine wood of the outside of the cabinets were a mustard brownish yellow, which is a dreadful color in any case, but it does not compliment Greek vases very well, it was very same-y, everything looked very orange-yellow all across the entire museum.
Smith also pointed to the intellectual approach of the previous exhibition. For example, she critisised the typological arrangement of collections: "the cabinets were set out so that everything was put in order of things like it, so all the aryballoi together … it gets very boring looking at twenty or thirty aryballoi all together". Other documents identified several other issues: for example, in the AHRB application the former exhibition was described as "aim[ing] at the specialist academic audience, including short type captions and a minimum of contextual information or supplementary illustration". Further pleas were made about the confusing character of the geographical organisation which "lack[ed] any visual orientation", and hampered the understanding and appreciation of collections.
122 The redisplay was planned for the period between October 2004 and September 2005. The project brief set out plans for the installation of a new exhibition with updated collection interpretation, and a redesign of the physical environment with improved access for groups and individuals, the completion of an electronic database for access to the collections.
4.5. Team, roles and professional identities
Responsibility for the development of the new exhibition fell into a project team, led by the curator. The team also comprised by an Assistant Curator, a Learning Manager appointed for the needs of the project through the UMACS, and a Designer. The core team was responsible for the 'creative and intellectual input' of the new exhibition. This involved the development of the concept and themes, the interpretation strategies and the redesign of exhibits within space. Amy Smith, is a classical archaeologist, a vase specialist, with particular interest in iconography. She had a deep knowledge of the collection, having undertaken research during the planning stage of the redisplay, to be later published in the Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum series. The Assistant Curator, Rhianned Smith, had a background in classical archaeology and anthropology. As well as contributing to the creative aspects of the redisplay, she would also be involved in outreach activities during the project. Bekky Moran served as the audience advocate providing specialist advice on access and learning, through her role as Learning Manager. Martin Andrews was appointed as the Designer of the new exhibition. The management of the project fell into the core team, with contribution, in the form of specialist advise, from the Head of UMACS.
The designer, Martin Andrews, was already a member of the University, occupying a Lecturer position in the Department of Typography and Graphic Communication. He had previously worked with the collection, supervising over years students working on typography-related projects in the Museum, where they redesigned 'half or a bit of a display case'. He was chosen over two other candidates on the basis he was a better 'fit' for the project and the Museum, in general. This was rationalised in terms of his proposal offering the most cost-effective option of the three provided and,
123 most importantly, of him having a better understanding of the university museum context. It was suggested, for example, that "he knows about teaching and teaching with collections" and that he "understands [the] academic aspect of the collection". Along similar lines, it was further stressed that he was "enthusiastic, sensitive to the multi-purpose nature of the museum and to the educational aspect of the museum". Other reasons provided for his selection related to him being available and accessible during the project, and the fact that he had "a number of fresh and interesting ideas, which made the staff enthusiastic about the project".
The development of an exhibition based on team work signifies an important departure from the previous exhibition production process, which drew on a curator-based model. Being comprised by only four people, of which two had a classical archaeological background, the team was strongly equipped with subject specialism. The inclusion of a Learning Manager for the needs of the redisplay was linked to funders' agendas prioritising a 'learning' project. It also signifies yet another departure from previous practices, provided by a shift of the Museum's focus from an approach which prioritised collections to one where the needs of the public assumed a much more prominent role. This shift is further highlighted in the move by the Museum to incorporate consultation practice in the development of the new exhibition. This is the focus of the next section.
4.6. Consulting the public
Visitor feedback was sought during the preparatory stage of the redisplay and was taken into account in the development of the new exhibition. A consultation process took place between 2002-2003, as part of a wider project of audience development in the Ure Museum, funded by SEMLAC. The consultation was carried out by the assistant curator for the time being and aimed to map the museum's potential and existing audiences and address their needs. It further aimed to evaluate the existing display and the museum's research facilities. Feedback was collected through questionnaires and focus groups and targeted "current users, secondary schools, university staff and adult hobby groups", including people with special needs. Academic users including researchers, graduates and undergraduates were also
124 consulted. In general, the process pointed to a need for the development of more creative activities and handling sessions. With regards to the redisplay, specifically, it was suggested that the museum's interpretation and design should be updated, notably, through the use of new labelling, interactives, interpretive panels and by creating a display that would accommodate the needs of multiple users. A preference of a thematic approach over the existing chronological and geographical one was also highlighted, as did the development of an exhibition that would encompass aspects of the National Curriculum, as well as the undergraduate and postgraduate curricula at the University of Reading.
Smith reflected of the process as being useful "to get a sense of what (people) needed and wanted in the museum". When the outcomes of the SEMLAC project were later published, it was reported that the project had 'shortfalls' and "a better result would have been achieved had the focus groups been led by a person not connected to the project, such as an external consultant".14 The Ure Museum had never used consultants in the past, other than for conservation issues and, therefore, there was no previous experience with regards to how the consultation should be processed. The practice of museums to carry out surveys without professional guidance and often by inexperienced staff is observed elsewhere and has been critisised by Hooper Greenhill as often being dismissive of "vital questions as to the objectives of the work" (museum time machine 214). Nevertheless, the consultation undertaken as part of the redisplay should be seen in perspective and definitely should not be underestimated, for it represents yet another departure from the previous curator-led display production model.
4.7. Museum architecture
The Ure Museum is located at the heart of the Whiteknights campus, in the suburban area of Reading. It is housed in a 'redbrick' building, a rather informal, large and compact structure deprived of any grandiose features (figure 1). The building draws from the 'Utopianist' tradition, an experimental manifestation of
14 The project was carried out by the predecessor of Rhianned Smith in the post of Assistant Curator.
125 modernist university architecture, also maintained in the original parts of the campus dating from the late 1950s (Muthesius 2000). The character of the building embodies the main ideological tenets of the postwar Welfare State for egalitarian society, education for all and elimination of elitism (Obelkevich and Catterall 2002), as these were expressed and manifest through campus architecture. Thus, in terms of its philosophy and style, the building has primarily a utilitarian function and deliberately de-emphasise elements that draw from the classical tradition, such as elaborate decorations, ceremonial entrances or monumental colonnades, so prevalent in 19th century museum architecture. In this respect, the building can also be seen as embodying the institutional values promoted in Reading in the mid 20th century, pertinent to its role as an university 'for the many' rather than the privileged elites (Holt 1977; Vernon 2004). If museum buildings can be seen as a reflection of the collections they hold (Giebelhausen 2005), then this relation is nowhere more eloquently manifested than in Reading: the museum, inasmuch as the collections it houses, are linked by means of their mutual departure from the classical canon.
4.8. Display organisation and layout
The museum is located on a purpose-built room (room 38), on the ground floor of the Humanities and Social Sciences (HumSS) building, in the heart of the campus (figure 2). It is the smallest of the other case study museums, with the total space devoted for the exhibition occupying only one medium-to-small size room. The small size of the museum sets a modest background against which one can see the objects. There is nothing grandiose, elaborate or perplexing in the room were the objects are to be viewed. This creates a rather intimate setting for the presentation of art. The architectural script of the museum -hidden behind corridors and staircases and integrated in a department- associate the museum with academic values and makes clear right from the beginning that one is dealing with a museum whose value is determined more by its usefulness as a teaching space rather than a typical tourist attraction. This is clearly manifested in the fact that the display accommodates teaching apparatus (tables, chairs etc). Indeed, the
126 museum is actively being used to accommodate teaching in the courses of Classics, Classical Archaeology and Museum Studies of the University of Reading.
Thus, compared to the other case-studies, here one should take into account the size and the scale of the museum. While small alterations in space and rather insignificant movements of display furniture, for example, would not affect the overall organisation of the display in the other museums of interest, here they play a major role and have a significant impact in the presentation and the visual impact of the display. The examination that follows takes is based on the above observations.
The display layout is quite simple and straightforward, with the majority of cases organised linearly against the walls of the gallery and three 'island' cases standing free in the exhibition space. Compared to the previous display, the general distribution and the position of the cases in space was kept almost intact (figure 3) This was directed by budgetary limitations rather than the small size of the gallery space, therefore, the persistence of the older cases and their mode of arrangement. However, some alterations were indeed made, the most notable involving a repositioning of one of the island cases and alterations in the use of some cases15. No other significant changes were made in the display layout, apart from movements of secondary furniture and museum apparatus.
The island cases, which largely retain their autonomy, have been chosen for the presentation of themes that, despite being associated with the rest of the display, they could still be viewed independently, as individual units.
The most prominent position of the exhibition space, right in the middle of the room, has been reserved for the history of the museum and the collector. The theme is developed in the largest of the three island cases, almost double the size of the other two, denoting the significance ascribed to the subject by the exhibition-makers. The case dominates space and from its central position establishes a spatial dialogue with the rest of the cases, associating the museum and the collector with the collection. The importance attributed in the theme of the case is further reinforced by the fact that this
15 For example, case n. 8 in the former display is now being used as museum shop and case n. 12 has now moved closer to the right wall and is being used for temporary displays mounted by volunteers.
127 case was the only one repositioned during the redevelopment: from it former horizontal position, the case now is the only one placed vertically in the room. However, despite its central location, this case is not the first thing the visitor faces upon entering the room. Rather, it remains 'hidden' behind a panel, waiting to be discovered a little later, after visitors familiarise themselves with the museum space. That creates a sense of mystery, adding an exploratory dimension to the organisation of the display. In addition, by placing people in the center of the room and not objects, the display marks a major brake with formers tradition of displaying classical art, which has persistently fetishised the object.
The other two island cases are devoted to the presentation of the civilizations of Greece and Egypt, serving as an introductory point to the cultures, from which most objects of the collection come from. The cases are identical in their size and shape. They are centrally located in the left side of the room, side by side, following the general horizontal axons of the exhibition space. Their location suggests a spatial and visual dialogue between them and between them and some of the other units of the display, reflecting an intension to bring together the cultures of Greece and Egypt. The objects from the two cultures are presented in juxtaposition, in order to enable visitor understand the similarities as well as the differences between the two. The new placement of Egypt suggests the introduction of cross-cultural perspectives in the interpretation of the objects, and should be associated with the intention of the exhibition makers to deconstruct Western-centric approaches in the approach of objects.
Compared to previous organisation, the position and -effectively- the status of Egypt in the new display has been radically transformed. In the former display Egypt was placed at the beginning. In the new display, apart from the island case Egyptian material has been distributed all over the exhibition space and is now displayed along with Greek objects. In regards to the presentation of Egypt, the curator also noted that "there was no distinction between Greece versus Egypt and Egypt was completely lost out" adding that the arrangements of the material 'seemed funny'. In addition, in the former display the boundaries between the two cultures were more clear cut, while in the new these boundaries have dissolved. According to the new layout, Egypt has assumed more
128 significance and has become more 'visible'. The new position of Egypt should be understood through the intention of the exhibition makers to make the display more relevant and appealing to multicultural audiences, which was identified as one of the main aims of the redevelopment project. The new approach also signals a brake with the former modernist tradition, which saw Egypt and Greece through evolutionary schemes, placing the former always prior to the latter suggesting -thereby- the cultural inferiority of Egypt and the superiority of Greece.
Let us now turn from the island cases to those placed against the walls which, as we have seen, were kept in their original position. These cases are placed one after the other, following a linear and continuous arrangement. Such arrangements, popular in modernist modes of display, do not necessarily respond to current museological thinking, which emphasise the value of exploratory spaces that encourage multiple ways of seeing. However, the new display distances itself from the former tradition by introducing a thematic approach towards the material, which works effectively independently of the location of each case.
In addition, the linearity of the cases is disrupted by panels that divide one case from the next creating smaller 'bays'. Each of these 'bays' has been devoted to the presentation of a different thematic unit. The 'bays' comfortably accommodate the smaller units, which can be viewed independently, yet without loosing their internal cohesion. The new thematic approach signals a brake with the former tradition, where the objects were presented in a chronological order. This is important because in the former display the chronological order was associated with the grand narrative of classical art.
An interesting aspect in regards to the organisation of space in the new display is the division of the room in two halves, the first one being the 'masculine' side of the museum and the other one the 'feminine' 16. Here the space is fully incorporated to the display narrative and becomes part of it. While the visitors walk through the museum, they move in and out of the 'domain' of men or women. The display reflects the
16 The 'masculine' side of the museum accommodates the units of Education, Citizenship, Warfare and Symposium, while the 'feminine' those of Myth and Religion, Household, Body Beautiful and Death (see photo n. 2).
129 intention of the exhibition makers to 'engender' the space where objects are to be viewed. The space is meant to convey social action. This marks a significant departure from the 'neutral', 'objective' space of the former display and gives the display a more interpretive and also humanised dimension, that usually lacked in traditional displays of classical art. The new approach also makes visible subjects who so far remained hidden in displays of classical art i.e. women.
In toto, the display layout reflects the intention to impart knowledge, but no control over visitors. Although the layout has not substantially changed compared to the former display, the redistribution of the material, the introduction of the thematic organisation and the treatment space suggests a different approach towards the collections. In the new display subjects that who were previously separated both conceptually and spatially are brought together i.e. Egypt and those who were previously remained silenced are made visible i.e. women. Both have assumed new status. In addition, the display reflects a shift from the objects to people. All these represent a radical shift in the way we think about classical collections in the museum context: the idealisation of classical past is no more the case. Classical antiquity 'opens up' in order to incorporate the voices of the culturally 'inferiors' or the 'outsiders'. It also become less object centered. These points will be further illuminated in the next discussion.
4.9. Organisation of the objects
The display of the Ure Museum provide a glimpse in the everyday life of real people that lived both in the past. One can see the façade of an ancient house, the setting of a Symposium, an excavation trench with an open grave, furniture where vases of every shape are displayed along with other objects, and also Ure's office (see photos n. 5). The display adopts a playful tome and the message is clear: here the visitor is dealing with the 'ordinary' Greeks. The first thing that the visitor faces upon his entrance at the room is the front side of the panel, which denotes the name of the museum, its foundation date, the name of the collector and his vision "to give life and variety to the study of Greek History". The same panel also serves as the
130 background against which the only statue of the collection, a Hellenistic Aphrodite, is displayed.
The main idea of the display is to explore aspects of everyday life of the civilizations of the Mediterranean, including the Greek, Roman, Greco-Roman and Egyptian cultures, through the objects these people used. In particular, the display explore themes such as myth and religion, private and public life, including domestic life, education, citizenship, entertainment, treatment of the body and burial habits, which are presented through a gender perspective. In addition, it addresses themes such as the history of the museum, the cultural diversity of Greece and Egypt and vase production, use and decoration techniques.
The display expands in nine units, following a storytelling narrative. Rather than being organised in a archaeological-systematic way, they display offers 'snapshots' of everyday life, though an organisation that is based on a 'biographical' narrative, that revolves around the 'life circle'. While each unit is interlinked with the rest, yet it maintains its independence and can be read on its own right, without affecting the overall narrative of the display. The new organisation offers a less deterministic circulation route, as it lets visitors decide themselves the way they wish to follow in the gallery space. It also suggests that the exhibition could be read in any order. However, the 'biographical' presentation suggests that the visitor would benefit most if they started their visit from the beginning of the narration.
According to the new approach, exhibition makers had to tell stories from and about the objects. The objects were removed from previous arrangements and repositioned in new schemes, where they support the 'bigger idea' of the display. This involved a re- organisation and re-distribution of the objects in the cases, and their re-grouping in smaller units. There, the individual qualities of the objects are not accentuated in their own right, like in the former display. The objects are presented in mixed-media display, where the pots dominate. The single statue This also involved a process of selection, the main criterion of which was whether the objects would convey in a effective way the particular stories the team wanted to tell. In the new display the collections are subjected in the overarching theme rather than determining the display. The new
131 display signals a departure from the former collection-based approaches and introduces a concept-oriented display, easily accessible even by younger audiences.
The display accentuates the multiple meanings of the objects, by placing objects that essentially belong to the same taxonomic variety in different units, where they illustrate different subjects-matters and communicate different messages. The display provides multiple interpretations of the objects, accentuating either their use, their archaeological contexts, or their post-excavation life. What visitor sees is display with an explicit cultural-anthropological character. This is manifested not only through the focus on ordinary people and their everyday lives, but also through the presentation of the material in the form of the 'life circle' and the emphasis that is placed in gender roles. In the display the individual importance of single objects is diminished, and those objects that are signaled out are intended to be observed because of their iconographic interest, rather than their perceived aesthetic values. The statue of Aphrodite enjoys a more individualised -and thus more prominent- status in the display, through its positioning at the entrance of the museum. However, the constant references in the texts, which encourage visitors to juxtapose the statue with other objects in the display, contextualise the statue and do not let it speak for itself.
Perhaps the case that accommodates the history of the museum is the most latent of meaning, as a result of the presentation of objects in different contexts, demonstrating the multiple information we can get of them. The case is divided in three smaller units developed in both of its sides. In them one can see a reconstruction of Ure's office, a reconstruction of excavation trench with a open grave, the last one excavated by the Ure in Rhitsona and, finally, a 'scene' of cataloguing and storing pottery. Here objects are used to make visible the collector-founder of the museum and his wife. Secondly, the objects are used to illustrate the process of an excavation and also to illustrate the archaeological contexts of finds. Finally, one can also see the post-excavation life of the objects, i.e. their cataloguing, storing as well as their study.
Storytelling is a fresh way to think about museum collections and arrange objects in a display. In none of the cases one will find the symmetrical arrangements or the sense of neat-ness, that were so cherished in the former display. Now, the presentation of the
132 objects is dense or loose, 'messy' or 'clear', according to the flow of the overall narrative. This has produced interesting objects arrangements, and exciting ways to talk about the objects, introducing at the same time new interpretations towards the collection. I will try to illuminate this further by using an example.
One of the most interesting and visually intriguing cases in the display of the Ure museum, is the one focusing on the Symposium. The Greek symposium was a exclusive wine party organised in a domestic setting. There, the participants, usually upper class men, were gathered for the sake of entertainment to drink wine, and discuss about philosophy, politics and women. In that particular case, the museum team has decided to present the objects in the form of 'open storage'. The case is divided in two parts, one of which is devoted to the display of numerous drinking pots, squeezed one over the other in shelves, in a dense display. 'Open' or 'visible storage' has been extensively used in displays the past twenty years, as a way for museums to show parts of their collections that were previously off display, but also as part of their effort to become more democratic, by opening up spaces or processes that so far remained hidden from the public e.g. collection storage (Hein 1998: 170). The open storage mode of display has also been associated with the intention 'to combine educational purpose with systematic structure' (van Mensch 2003).
The thematic organisation also provided team the opportunity to incorporate in the display themes and objects that otherwise would have been excluded. One such example is the unit that shows the production, decoration and use of the pots, in the left side of the room, where one can see objects 'that otherwise would not have fit into the display'. In that unit fragments are displayed along with complete vases in order to illustrate techniques, shapes and uses. Fragments have traditionally been an unusual addition in displays of classical material. Nevertheless, they featured prominently in the former display because of their teaching and study potential -another innovative approach of the first curator, who placed learning before aesthetics. As the curator explained, the incorporation of fragments was an idea the team took from the former display and in which they enlarged on. Like in the old display, the fragments are included in the new one because of their educational value and with the faith that this is a 'good use' of the material.
133 Thematic and concept-oriented displays are considered to be highly educational modes of display with large learning potential (Dean 1994: 4-5) and, thus, suitable for the non- specialist visitors. The adopt of such an approach reflects the intention of the exhibition makers to make the display accessible to the wider public in general and to student audiences in particular. This was identified as one of the main aims of the redevelopment project and has been largely achieved through the new presentation.
In recent years thematic displays have been proposed as a welcome alternative to chronological and taxonomic arrangements. Although such approaches were popular in displays of classical collections for the most part of the twentieth century, they have been associated with curatorial intentions to control public and present a singular display narrative, or with displays that were intellectually inaccessible for the public. On that basis, thematic approach represents a more intellectually accessible form of display and one that encourages visitor to actively participate in the process of meaning making. It has been associated with more pluralist approach towards the material and one that encourages multiple readings, as it lets visitor decide himself the route he will follow in the gallery space.
4.10. Interpretation
While in the former display the interpretation was limited to the minimum, in the new display the interpretation is prioritised. In fact it was one of the main aims that set the agenda of the redevelopment. The interpretation of the objects is mediated through texts, graphics and design techniques. Textual information has a central position in the display, however, it is not overwhelming. The texts are provide more than one levels of information, denoted with the use of different graphics and panel sizes. All the texts have been developed with school audiences in mind.
Perhaps even more than the use of texts, the interpretation of the new display is mediated through the use of graphics (photographs, maps timetables) and design devices and techniques. Throughout the whole display the themes are presented through replicas, models and 3-d reconstructions, which co-exist with pictures,
134 photographs and graphics in every size and shape. The designer was very good at emphasising the visual, as the curator explained. The objects are displayed against a blue background, that brings in mind the Mediterranean sea. The overall atmosphere of the museum is warm, while the design gives the display a very 'human' tone and a very 'hand-made' look and feel in the museum, so unusual in displays of classical art. The design creates such a strong visual impact that is not necessary for the visitor to read the texts in order to grasp the content and the messages of the display. This reflect the intentions of the curator and the designer to make the display accessible even for the youngest visitors, that could not yet read.
4.11. Themes, concepts and the rationale behind the new display
The rationale behind the new display was very much conditioned by two parameters set by the exhibition makers: the first one was to make the display relevant, interesting and accessible both to younger and older audiences; and second to develop a display according to what the material itself directed. The curator talked analytically about the ideas underpinning the new display, strongly emphasising that the collection had 'no particular star' like in the British Museum or other national museums, which put 'star items' at central displays. 'We could not do things like that, that is not what our collection is about', she made clear. However, the collection was very good at providing 'a first hand experience of Greek history' and showing what 'real people did'. The last point, about 'real people' repeatedly emerged during the interview:
We realised that the objects are interesting in their role as something that tell us about real people and what real people did and so we developed cases about the important things that we can actually teach through them.
Compared to the former display, the new display adopts a more interpretive approach towards the objects. In the new display, vases are approached in relation to various themes related to: social and gender roles; social distinctions; social practices; cultural identity; ritual practices and rites of passage; symbolic use of objects and space; value
135 systems; mortuary habits; landscape; production, distribution and use of objects; political systems; social agency; archaeological context; archaeological process; anthropology/ archaeology of food; anthropology/archaeology of the body; vase iconology; personifications of objects; history of collecting; afterlife of objects.
The themes were selected by the curator and the assistant curator and largely reflect their specialist interests and disciplinary backgrounds. The curator, Professor Amy Smith, has a disciplinary background in Classical archaeology, and a specialist interest in Greek pottery and, particularly, vase-painting and iconography (the study of the vase- paintings), as it relates to gender, politics and religion. Her research interests associate her with more progressive thinkers in the field of Classical archaeology, and the new directions the discipline assumed from the 1990's onwards, which emphasised social- anthropological approaches towards the interpretation of the material. Accordingly, curator's interest in gender studies and the iconography of vases (the study of their images) are also in line with more recent research agendas of classical archaeologists, associated with a turn to interpretational approaches towards vases, informed by questions of society, identity, otherness, sexuality, gender roles etc. The anthropological character of the display also reflects the input of the assistant curator, who holds two degrees in archaeology and anthropology. Aside them, some of the themes were developed through the contribution of volunteers, so they also reflect their interests. One such example is the case that addresses the theme of 'citizenship'. Although the designer have also contributed in the intellectual content of the display, his input is more clearly reflected in the presentation of the display. Apart from those directly involved in the display, the themes were also developed as a respond to the demands of various focus groups including academics, educators, teachers and local communities, the expectations of which were mapped during the Audience and Access project.
The content, themes and organisation of the display reflects an intention to brake with former approaches and bring the new display in line with later developments in classical archaeology and museum studies.
From the 1990's onwards classical archaeology has gone profound changes: new theoretical developments and methodologies have informed a discipline which has
136 traditionally been associated with classes of material. In recent years however, questions are being asked 'about how objects are related to each other and above all to people' (Alcock and Osborne 2007: 3). The new approach is vividly reflected in the new display and the emphasis that it places on the agency of humans, not only those who made and used the objects, but also those associated with the objects in their post- excavation life. In the new display objects are not displayed for their own sake, but in order to illuminate the lives of those associated with them, both in the past and at present.
Another main idea that inform the new display is the emphasis placed on gender. Although feminist theories have accentuated the centrality of gender and sexuality as core elements in the interpretation of the past and these approaches have been popular amongst cultural and social anthropologists, in the interpretation of classical material culture the impact of new theories was felt only around the mid 1990's (Koloski-Ostrow and Lyons 1997). By serving as embodiments of classical canon, classical artworks have persistently been approach through andro-centric perspectives, something that was vividly reflected in displays of classical art which largely ignored the role of women. By placing much emphasis in issues of gender, the new display seeks to redress the previously absent balance by giving voice to 'outsiders' of classical antiquity such as women and also brings the new display in line with more current developments in the field of classical archaeology.
Aside women, the new display also attempts to make visible other subjects that were traditionally excluded from the classical canon, such as children, slaves, poors and homosexuals. These categories of people are presented through texts and the use of graphics. Admittedly, of them only women, children and poor have a more central position, while slaves make their appearance occasionally, and homosexuals only through the use of a large graphic in the unit of the Symposium. However, it does not explicitly depicts a homoerotic scene, and the message become clear only to those with former knowledge of the pots iconography. One the one hand, this 'omission' could be explained by the fact that the display principally focuses on young audiences. However, by not addressing the position of homosexuals in the new display, it leaves open the interpretation of the particular graphic to the visitor leaving, thus, open the question of
137 whether they are indeed visible or not. In any case, the new display reflects an brake from the former tradition, which has persistently provided an idealised view of classical past.
Another concept that informs the display is to make visible the collector and to present the institutional history. Making visible the person by who the collection has been formed belongs to an older tradition of memoralising great men (Bouquet 2012: 22). A concern to make visible the collector and present the institutional history is a also a popular trend in recent displays (Rees Leahey 2012: 145-147). It should be understood through the increase of interest on the history of collectors and collections spurred with the advent of New Museology and also through the interest in biographical approaches towards material culture. Rees Leahy suggests that that a turn to institutional autobiographies represents an effort of the museum to understand better their history and become more self-reflexive.
138 Chapter 5: Greece and Rome at the Fitzwilliam Museum
Introduction
There is no doubt that the Fitzwilliam Museum, with its 2010 redisplay of classical collections in which this chapter focuses, constitutes an excellent case study to investigate the current role of classical antiquity in the museum context and examine contemporary museological approaches that develop around classical collections. The museum holds one of largest collections of classical antiquities in the UK outside the British Museum and one of the oldest to be formed and displayed in a university museum, on national and international level. The collections stand out for their historical significance and archaeological value, attesting both to the establishment and development of classical archaeology, as a discipline, and to the history and evolution of the Fitzwilliam Museum, as an institution. Moreover, the affiliation of the museum with the University of Cambridge, an institution with an ongoing role in the study of classical antiquity opens up great possibilities to explore links between disciplinary research and museum practice, which was identified as one of the main aims of this research. In fact, as unfolds below, members of the Faculty of Classics had a deep involvement in the redisplay process and the development of the new exhibition. Finally, given the museum's and the university's relation to the discourse of Hellenism, the new exhibition of the Fitzwilliam provides a particular fruitful ground to reflect upon the current ideological and political role of classical antiquity and its material culture in the contexts of museums and academia.
5.1. Historical context
The Fitzwilliam Museum was conceived and established as an art institution. It was founded in 1816 by Viscount Fitzwilliam of Merrion, a Grand Tourist, lifetime collector and wealthy patron of the arts. It was established upon the collection of manuscripts, books and paintings the Viscount bequeathed to the University of Cambridge, together with a large sum of money for the erection of a building to house them (Burn 2012). Its declared purpose, as articulated in the Viscount's will,
139 was to promote "the Increase of Learning and other Great Objects of that Noble Foundation" (my emphasis) (ibid). The educational purpose for the museum was thus set, together with an impetus for future acquisitions, which were framed in terms of their quality. The original art historical focus of the museum would continue throughout its history, although the collections would grow to include a wide range of cultural artefacts. When in 1968 the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries wrote about the museum, it described it as "one of the greatest art collections of the nation and a monument of the first importance" (quoted in the Annual Report: 2). In 1997, the Fitzwilliam received Designated status, a mark of distinction celebrating UKs museums holding 'outstanding collections'. In 1989 the Director of the National Gallery of Art in Washington, J. Carter Brown, would write referring to the museum:
Like the British Museum, the Fitzwilliam addresses the history of culture in terms of the visual forms it has assumed, but it does so from the highly selective point of view of the collector connoisseur. Works of art have been taken into the collection not only for the historical information they reveal, but for their beauty, excellent quality, and rarity (: vii).
Rather than being an institution primarily devoted to teaching and research, the core functions of the Fitzwilliam have traditionally revolved around expanding, exhibiting and conserving its collections. As opposed to the other two case studies whose role as educational resources was pronounced, the Fitzwilliam has typically adopted a more 'liberal' interpretation of its Founder's intention for it, to promote 'learning': "the Museum is not bound by the narrower interpretations of 'teaching and research'. Its educational role is broader both within the higher education sector and beyond" (1993:42). This was further stressed by its "special, non-departmental status within the Cambridge University". A strong sense of the Fitzwilliam's overall directions is conveyed in the Annual Reports, empahsising -until relatively recently- important acquisitions and collection display and care. In 1992, for example, it was reported that "the development of the Museum's collections is a primary concern. Another is the development of our galleries" (: 6). A major institutional turning point occurred in 1967, when "the long-standing policy, never to lend abroad has been
140 reconsidered in the light of the hope to stage loan exhibitions in the Museum" (: 1). Over time, the museum would build on the quality of its collections and exhibitions to foreground its status as a 'high profile' institution, of national and international standing and scope. To this end would also contribute its affiliation with the 'ancient' University of Cambridge and private individuals -benefactors and donors, including the museum's society of Friends- who have always played -and still do- a major role in the institution's development and expansion of its collections.
The Fitzwilliam Museum was established at a time when the cultural tradition of classicism was still strong. As an institution belonging to the University of Cambridge, a bastion for the study of classics throughout the 19th century (Stray 1999a), classical antiquities have always held a prominent position within the museum. Members of the academic community of classicists have shaped the institution during its formative years, serving either as members in the body of Syndics, the committee responsible for its administration, or as Directors following the establishment of the post in 1876 (see for example: Cooper 2012; Gill 2012). Sydney Cockerell, Director from 1908 to 1937, and one of the most influential figures in the museum history, would actively encourage the acquisition of antiquities (Panayotova 2008). It is also striking that the University already possessed a number of objects even before the establishment of the museum, which were displayed in the Main Library. However, nothing more eloquently manifests the centrality of classical influences in the Fitzwilliam, than the museum building itself, a neoclassical temple- like structure in Trumpington Street, opened in 1875. Both its original architect, George Basevi, and Charles Robert Cockerell, who was to finish the designs, had travelled to classical lands and, although the initial configuration of the galleries did not allocate much space for the display of antiquities, it certainly did set the overall tone for the museum's future directions (Beard 2012). C.R. Cockerel would introduce a number of changes in Basevi's original designs to secure ample space for the accommodation of classical collections, giving the Founder's building its current architectural form (ibid). Today, and despite gradual extensions, classical antiquities are still housed in the original part of the building, reflecting their ongoing role in the museum and symbolically adding to its status.
141 5.2. The classical collection at the Fitzwilliam Museum
In 1998, Eleni Vassilika, then Keeper of the Antiquities Department, described the classical collection of the museum as such:
The collections of the Fitzwilliam Museum at the University of Cambridge were derived from bequests, gifts, modest purchases, and from divisions of antiquities from excavations in Greece and Cyprus subscribed to by the Museum. Apart from this last category, the bulk of the material was acquired for its aesthetic and art historical merit in a fine art context rather than as a type series in an archaeological institution (: 1).
Viscount Fitzwilliam's core collection did not include classical antiquities, but soon after they would start flowing in the museum. The largest and most significant part of the collection was formed between the late 19th and the first decades of the 20th century, with most objects arriving to the museum previously belonging to private collectors (Budde and Nicholls 1967). A number of antiquities were collected within antiquarian traditions, in the context of the Grand Tour (Gill 1990). One of the earliest -and most celebrated- objects was the 'Pashley Sarcophagus', donated in 1835. This was followed by a series of other important acquisitions that would shape the character of the collection, including John Disney's collection of sculptures (1850), Colonel's Leake collection of coins and vases (1864) and Ricketts and Shannon's antiquities (1937). Often named after their predecessors, these collections still bear the mark of their aristocratic origins and influential collectors. Although without a known provenance, many of the objects included in them have a rich post- excavational life, which is well documented (for the history of the sculptural collection and bibliography see for example: Budde and Nicholls 1967). The museum continues to collect up to the present day, albeit in a slower pace. Shifts in the acquisition policy related to ethical considerations and availability in terms of what is desirable for the Antiquities Department have contributed in this change, with acquisitions after 2000 described as "few in number but generally high in quality" (Burn 2006).
142 From the late 19th century, a major influence on the classical collections came through the development of classical archaeology as a professional discipline. In Cambridge, courses on classical art and archaeology were introduced in 1879. The Museum of Classical Archaeology was established in 1884 as a special department of the Fitzwilliam, to house the collection of Greek and Roman casts serving teaching purposes (Beard 1993). A growing emphasis on disciplinarity during that period is reflected on departmental divisions, with Greece and Rome, including Cyprus, being curated separately from Egypt (Cooper 2012). In addition to donations, the collection expanded further by excavational material arriving through the British School at Athens, in whose establishment (1886) the museum had an active involvement (Gill 2012). In 1918 Winifred Lamb was appointed Honorary Keeper of Antiquities, a post that drew on academic expertise, as opposed to previous collections-related positions run by untrained members of staff (Cooper 2012). Lamb would become a key figure in the Department until her resignation in 1958, contributing through purchases, donations and exhibition development, in addition to her scholarly activity marked by her publication of the Fitzwilliam vase collection in two volumes of the Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum series (Gill 1999; Cooper 2012).
In the Fitzwilliam, attitudes to classical collections have been equally influenced by the interests of individuals, notably donors and curators, as well as disciplinary developments and institutional conventions. During the institution's formative years, the influence of donors was still strong. Early displays reveal tensions between antiquarian modes of exhibiting, informed by the notion of keeping objects from the same donor grouped together, and a 'scientific' arrangement of collections that drew on the principles of the emerging classical archaeological discipline (Beard 2012). Moving into the 20th century, however, scientific approaches became more prominent: in 1897, for example, the vases collection was arranged "so that vases of the same kind come together, and so that it is easy to follow the chronological sequence in each class" (Gardner 1897: xii). Winifred Lamb would also favor a chronological organisation of collections, with emphasis placed on prehistoric and archaic pottery. Lamb's arrangements largely disregarded sculpture, which held a prominent position in earlier displays. Her archaeological identity was shaped during
143 her excavations in Greece and Anatolia and her approach to the collection was largely informed by her research interests (Gill 1999; Cooper 2012). When Richard Nicholls became Keeper of Antiquities in 1960 he changed Lamb's displays, but would maintain the chronological approach. The display he set up in 1963 remained largely unchanged until the 2010 redisplay.
5.3. Project background
The main part of the project was funded by the AHRC through a grant that was specifically designed to facilitate collaborations between museum professionals and university departments. As part of the funding requirements, the research aspect formed an integral part of the redisplay, which was based upon a collaboration between the museum and members of the Faculty of Classics in Cambridge. Museum professionals saw the project as an opportunity "to create a new display of the Greek and Roman collections … underpinned by research" (Unauthored 2008). From the Faculty's point of view, the exhibition would provide "a forum in which they can present their work to a broader audience" (ibid).
The remaining costs were covered by DCMS/Wolfson Foundation, the University of Cambridge, as well as a number of Greek and Italian sources, including the Greek Ministry of Culture and private benefactors. The contribution of the latter was based upon the recognition of the project's significance with regards to the legacy of Greek and Roman civilizations. The role of the museum as "a window on to the Classical culture and … an ambassador for the ancient civilizations of the Mediterranean that are so fundamental to our common European heritage" was stressed in the process of approaching possible donors.
A project team was formed in 2008 under the leadership of Lucilla Burn, Keeper of Antiquities. Included in the team was also Julie Dawson, the museum's antiquities conservator, and three members from the Faculty of Classics, all experts in their respective fields: Robin Osborne, Professor of Ancient History; Mary Beard, Professor in Classics; and Caroline Vout, Senior Lecturer in Classics. The AHRC grant also provided funds towards two Research Associate posts to work specifically for the
144 redisplay. Of them, Kate Cooper had a background in classical archaeology and Christina Rozeik in philosophy and conservation. The team worked in collaboration with the London-based designer Karl Abeyasekara of Studio A Associates.
An outreach officer post was also created specifically for the needs of the redisplay. The incumbent would work with the curator and the designer during the planning process to ensure that object selection, interpretation and arrangements were appropriate for the needs and expectations of the visitors. The outreach officer would be also responsible for the publicity of the gallery for developing new audiences, particularly from the Greek and Cypriot communities and for establishing collaborations with the museum's Education Department to develop and implement programmes for schools utilising the Greek, Roman and Cypriot collections. To cover the post, the museum sought for "a specialist in one or more aspects of the Greek, Cypriot or Roman civilization" (Unauthored 2007a).
The most important decisions involving the redisplay, were taken by the team. These included the development of the content and interpretation strategy of the new exhibition, the selection of objects, as well as certain design choices regarding the positioning of collections and the galley layout. Although the development of the exhibition involved the input of many other professionals including designers, people from the museum's education and visitor-service departments, manufacturers etc, their role was largely limited to translate the vision of museum specialists and academics into practice. Manifestly, in an article about the redisplay they are referred to as 'technical specialists', as opposed to 'specialists in practical and academic aspects of the ancient world' (Cooper 2013), the implication being that their input was more of a practical nature.
For the planning of the new exhibition an informal consultation process took place. Advice was provided by "stakeholders within the Fitzwilliam Museum: Documentation Manager, Access and Outreach Officer, IT staff and Head of Photographic Department". Further consultation took place with the "Faculty of Classics …, with the British Museum, with the Ashmolean Museum … and with members of the team involved with the Fitzwilliam's own successfully- completed
145 Egyptian galleries and web-site project". A visitor survey undertaken on the recently refurbished Egyptian gallery was taken into account to inform decisions with regards to the planning of the gallery, in terms of the style, size and type of display and interpretive information (Unauthored 2007b). Further consultation took place within the museum, which aimed to provide insights regarding the style and language of the labels, but not their actual content.
The public, however, did not have any direct input on the development of the new exhibition, as part of a formal consultation process. It is perhaps the case that the team considered themselves experts in their respective fields, and thus much more suitable to talk about the subject matter of the new exhibition, especially if one considers its pronounced research-based orientation. Nevertheless, given the emphasis current museological theory place to public consultation as a step towards a more democratic museum, the degree of institutional control maintained by the team raises questions regarding who the exhibition was about, if not someone already familiar with its subject.
5.4. Conclusion
The redisplay of the Fitzwilliam Museum highlights the post antique life of objects and interpretations of collections based on recent classical archaeological research. Developed by museum professionals and academics from the field of Classics, the new exhibition reflects their subject specialism. The exhibition reveals tensions between art historical and archaeological approaches, which reflect historical discourses within the discipline. The curatorial control which remained within the team links the museum with more traditional museological approaches, based on curator-led models of exhibition development.
146 Chapter 6: The 'Ancient Worlds' redisplay at the Manchester Museum
Introduction
In October 2012 three new archaeological galleries opened at the Manchester Museum following a major four-year long redevelopment. Under the title 'Ancient Worlds', the new galleries would be the first major redisplay of the institution's archaeological collections since the last installation of a Mediterranean gallery in 1993 and two Ancient Egypt galleries in 1986. The redisplay would see the great majority of the classical collections previously dominating the Mediterranean section being removed to give way to the new exhibits. Ancient Egypt would continue to occupy a central position in the new display, which would also include material from local excavations exhibited for the first time. What sort of processes underpinned this shift of institutional focus? This chapter focuses on the Ancient Worlds redisplay, with the aim to examine how and why this change occurred and its implications for the display and interpretation of the museum's collections of classical antiquities.
The Manchester Museum was the last of the case studies to redevelop its archaeological collections. The redisplay took place at a time of considerable change. On a political level, this period was marked by a shift, in 2010, from the New Labour to the Coalition Government. The new government was not "prepared to take culture seriously as a mainstream political agenda" (Gordon, Powell et al. 2015: 54): following its election, funding cuts were implemented in museums throughout the UK and a significant curtailing of culture-related initiatives would take place (on funding cuts see: Newman and Tourle 2011; see also: Gordon, Powell et al. 2015). This was also a time of change with regards to the local context of Manchester. On an organisation-wide level, this period saw the emergence of the University of Manchester in the form that exists today following the merger in 2004, of the Victoria University of Manchester (VUM) with the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology (UMIST) into a single institution. This was followed by the development of long-term strategies that would significantly impact upon the museum in subsequent years, shaping its directions as an institution. To these, one should add the museum's own desire to position itself at the forefront of
147 museological developments and the influential people that initiated this change. It was within these political and institutional contexts that the Ancient Worlds redisplay arose.
6.1. The origins of the Manchester Museum
The Manchester Museum started its life as a natural history institution. It was founded upon "a large collection of birds, insects and minerals" (Coward 1921) formerly belonging to the Manchester Natural History Society (MNHS), which was donated to Owens College (later the University of Manchester) in 1868. Over the next decades the collections would grow enormously, as result of the colonial expansion of the British Empire. In 1888 a dedicated building was erected in Oxford Road, to house the collections (Alberti 2009). Designed by Alfred Waterhouse, the architect of the Natural History Museum in London, the new museum featured a neo gothic edifice -a style prevalent in 19th century natural history museums, for its symbolic references to the natural world (Yanni 2005). A geologist and prehistrorian, the museum's first Keeper, William Boyd Dawkins, was fundamental in shaping the character of the institution during its formative years. The evolutionary scheme he devised in the late 19th century would continue up to the 1960s, with collections of zoology, geology and botany dominating museum space and display practices (Alberti 2009). The Manchester Museum would grow to become the largest university museum in the UK, covering most of the disciplines, both from the natural sciences and the human cultures. Alberti's cultural history of the institution, covering the period from the late 19th to the late 20th centuries, narrates this shift of focus which saw the museum transforming from an institution focusing almost exclusively on the natural world to one where the 'humanities' -Egyptology, Archaeology and Ethnology- would come to occupy a prominent position.
The Manchester Museum has always had a pronounced civic role and a broad audience base extending beyond the immediate academic community. Since its inception in the 19th century, in a truly Victorian fashion and quite fittingly for a museum of the industrial North, the museum aimed at "elevating the tastes and
148 pursuits of the working classes and the young people of the district". Upon the passing of the MNHS collections to the Owens College, visitors begun to be admitted free of charge. The museum started providing services to local schools since the beginning of the 20th century, while a move to reach the wider community begun in post-war years, with increased collections interpretation being offered from the 1950s and a temporary exhibitions programme having been established in the next decade. Both the public and the regional role of the museum were further strengthened in the 1970s, through the development of travelling exhibitions funded by the City Council, and the establishment of museum-based projects for the local community, in collaboration with the Manpower Services Commission. This close relationship between the museum and the local community is a distinct characteristic of the institution which runs through its history and continues up to the present day.
6.2. Archaeology in the Manchester Museum
Archaeology was not actively collected during the museum's formative years, on the basis it fell out of its remit. The only type of archaeological material purposely acquired during that time involved local prehistoric artefacts collected by Dawkins in support of his evolutionary displays. The focus of interest shifted in 1905, when a large body of antiquities excavated by Flinders Petrie in Egypt was donated to the Museum by the local manufacturer Jesse Haworth. Between 1912-1913 Haworth financed two extensions to the original building for the display of Egyptology and a third one, in 1927, for the accommodation of ethnological and archaeological collections. Haworth's gift would give the museum much of its current architectural configuration and foreground the position of cultural collections alongside that of Natural History. By the 1940s, the cultural collections were displayed according to disciplinary classifications. The archaeological collections continued to expand in the post war years, notably through fieldwork activity. From the 1970s, findings from rescue excavations in the Manchester area begun to be deposited to the museum. Local archaeology would strengthen its position over the next decades, through
149 collaborative projects undertaken between the museum, the university and local agents.
In 1969, the previously independent disciplines of Egyptology and classical archaeology united for the first time with prehistory to form a new Department of Archaeology. The collections continued to be curated together until 1990, when Egyptology was separated from the rest of Archaeology -a reflection of the assumed status of the discipline within the museum, and of the prominence accorded to the collection. Today, classical antiquities are still classed under the Archaeology collection. In total, the collection includes approximately 70.000 items and covers a wide time span, extending from the Paleolithic to the 17th century. The collection is particularly strong in local and regional archaeology, specifically in the areas of Roman and Prehistoric material -the latter estimated around 20.000 objects. Included in the collection are also objects from North West Europe, Asia, Africa and the Near East.
6.3. The classical collections in the Manchester Museum
In 1997, the entire body of collections in the Manchester Museum received Designated status. Included in the application was a body of opinions given by specialists to support the bid: eminent classical scholar John Boardman described the museum's collection of classical antiquities as
the largest Greek and Roman University Collection in the country [outside Oxbridge] and one ... offer[ing] a good major representation of all major classes of pottery and other objects, except sculpture.
Despite its size and importance, the collection of classical antiquities forms only a small part of the museum's overall holdings. This has greatly influenced their role and the attitudes developed around them since the institution's early years. In Manchester, plans for the development of a classical archaeological collection were drawn since the First World War, further to the advancement of Classical and Oriental Archaeology as University subjects. However, it was not until 1926 that the first important body of Classical antiquities arrived at the Museum, when William
150 Sharp Ogden donated his Aegean and Greco-Roman collection to form "the nucleus of a new section of Classical Archaeology". His gift marked a shift of institutional focus, which saw the previously marginalised discipline enhancing its position in the Museum, as reflected in the allocation of a dedicated gallery for "Pre-classical and Classical Archaeology" in the 1927 extension. The new exhibition was organised in a "historic sequence, with further geographical divisions", which rendered the material suitable for university teaching and research. Colonial discourses co-existed with disciplinary concerns, as reflected in the visitor walk-through which moved from contemporary 'primitive' cultures, though prehistory, to the pinnacle of Mediterranean civilizations.
Disciplinary developments, combined with the particular interests of successive curators, have strongly impacted upon classical collections since the 1930s. The growth of classical archaeology as an academic subject saw a process of disciplinary reclassification taking place, with classical collections previously falling under the category of 'general' antiquities now being classified as 'classical' archaeology. In Manchester, the increased professional focus was further marked by the creation of two specialist posts of Scientific Supervisors for the classical collections. Professor Webster's appointment as one of the first incumbents to the post was marked by important acquisitions, exhibition development and a series of publications on the collection, including a new 'Guide to the Greek Vases', in a move to make the exhibits more accessible to a wider public. The display he created in 1936 served didactic purposes, with one section devoted to "the Development of Greek Painting, Sculpture, and Vase Shapes" and another one showing "The Shapes and Uses of Greek Vases". Institutional focus shifted again in 1949, when Theodor Burton-Brown assumed responsibility for Egyptology and Classical Archaeology. His interest would focus on the former and the room housing the classical collections closed to the general public. In the following decades classical collections would be visited almost exclusively by academic visitors, upon request.
The next major turning point for the classical collections coincides with the appointment, in 1969, of John Prag as Keeper of Archaeology. Prag was the museum's "first classical archaeologist". At the time he arrived at the museum, he
151 found the classical collections in a state of neglect "with their scope, if not their very existence ... been forgotten by many people". Throughout the 1970s he would be extremely active in developing the collection in every level, from organising temporary exhibitions and collecting for the museum, to supervising its cataloguing and conservation, managing loans and delivering classes to university students and local teachers. From the 1970s onwards he begun to include classical material into existing displays, while the majority of collections still remained in store. Up to his retirement in 2005, Prag had been a strong advocate of classical archaeology, both within and outside the Museum and the University, not the least through his research activity encompassing, among other things, his ground-breaking interdisciplinary work on the reconstruction of ancient faces that took place in the University since the 1970s. Personal interest and subject expertise would combine in the 'Mediterranean Gallery' he created in the early 1990s. It is to this the next section of this chapter now turns.
6.4. The Mediterranean gallery
In 1993 a new gallery of Mediterranean Archaeology opened at the Manchester Museum. Sponsored primarily by Greek and Cypriot sources, it featured an object- and text-rich display, focusing on the ancient civilizations that lived in the Mediterranean region, with particular emphasis given to the Greco-Roman cultures. The display featured a thematic arrangement of collections and was intended to tell the story of the peoples who made and used the objects on display. The Mediterranean was approached as a culturally and environmentally homogenous region, that shaped the identity of its inhabitants. The physical form of the gallery, around a rectangular balcony, was organically integrated to the display, to roughly match the shape of the basin: visitors would proceed to the gallery using the stairs at one end -the stairs of Gibraltar- and would leave from a door at the opposite corner, corresponding to the Dardanelles. The central space created by the balcony stood for the Mediterranean Sea. The first thing the visitors would encounter upon entering the exhibition was the 'Kyrenia-Delta', an one-third replica of a Greek trading ship sunk open to Cyprus around 300 BC, which was suspended from the
152 ceiling in a dramatic way. This provided the "key to the story", symbolising the sea routes that brought together the ancient peoples. A further section would be devoted to Prag's pioneer research on facial reconstruction.
The Mediterranean gallery encompassed many of the disciplinary developments informing classical archaeological research in recent years, provided by an emphasis on socio-historical and cultural contexts, the people behind the objects and interdisciplinary perspectives. At the time it was created, the display would be recognised as a pioneer way to do things: a year after its opening, the gallery would win the Royal Mail North West Museums award for 'the most exciting and innovative' exhibition. Nevertheless, the display was very much a product of its time. Developed through a curator-led model of practice, the gallery strongly represented individual interests, provided by subject specialism. Since the gallery was installed, however, the philosophy of the Manchester Museum, as an institution, and the ways it begun to develop its exhibitions had substantially changed. These more recent developments are focus of the next section.
6.5. Framing the redisplay
Alberti describes the closing decade of the 20th century as "the most significant and certainly the most turbulent decade in the history of the Manchester Museum" (2009: 193). Significant reductions in public funding implemented by the Conservative Government since the early 1980s, resulted in the museum being affected both by cuts within the Higher Education sector and by the cease, in 1989, of the financial support it received by the City Council since 1895. Over the next years the museum would experience a climate of economic decline, marked by staffing loses and a significant curtailing of all of its functions, including curatorial activities and educational services. At the same time, as Merriman wrote in 2012,
(l)ike most other university museums [the Manchester Museum] was affected by the crisis of role following changes in higher education, and 15 years ago it was suffering from the perception within the
153 university that it operated more of less independently of its parent body and was not sufficiently contributing to its overall mission (: 48).
In 1994 a new museum Director, Tristram Besterman, was appointed by the university specifically to 'turn things around' (HLF and BOP Consulting 2015: 65). Shortly after his appointment, he would embark into a major organisational change, in order to reposition the museum within the university and as public institution. A large-scale investment scheme, Capital Development Project (CDP), was launched in 1997, shortly after the establishment of HLF. This major architectural undertaking, which reached completion in 2003, was explicitly oriented at redefining the museum's 'identity' and 'public image'. As part of this, the museum saw the development of facilities and services that aimed to improve intellectual and physical access 'in the long term' (CDP business plan: 12), together with a radical transformation of its spaces, provided by the creation of a new entrance, shop, café, a temporary exhibitions gallery, redisplays of permanent collections and redesigned circulation routes.
A process of 'realigning' the museum and its staff with the core functions of the university begun from 2003. Underpinning this process was a growing recognition that, if it was to survive, the museum had to be more strategically situated within the parental institution and more accountable for its work, particularly to the university, the museum's principal stakeholder. As part of this process, Besterman introduced a major staffing restructure which, among other changes, saw the traditional collections-oriented post of Keepers being ceased and replaced by that of Curators, a role with increased public responsibilities. A further impetus for 'realigning' the Museum arose with the emergence of the University of Manchester in 2004. The new institution came with an ambitious long term strategy, the '2015 Agenda', provided by its vision to become one of the leading universities in the world by 2015. This strategic framework was supported by nine goals,17 which ranged from "World Class Research" to "More effective Community Service" and which required every part of the university to demonstrate their contribution towards their delivery.
17 In 2010 these were revised to the following three: Research, Higher Learning and Social Responsibility -the latter emphasising the University's role within the wider community
154 These would shape the museum's future directions: by the time plans for the redisplay begun in 2006, "everything that the Museum [did] … [had] to demonstrate that it meets as many of these goals as possible" (Merriman 2006: 231). To a large extent, the Ancient Worlds redisplay, should be understood as conceived within, and developed as response to this strategic framework.
Increasingly since the 1990s the Manchester Museum has heavily invested in visitor research and evaluation. This was intensified during the years preceding the redisplay, with research primarily focusing on visitors' social demographics and questions related to their experience. Museum publics were identified as independent adults, school and family groups, people of ethnic origin and individuals with disabilities, the majority being 'non specialist' audiences from the local area. This process of identification contributed significantly in shaping the approach of the new exhibition, which was developed to suit visitors from different age groups and socio-cultural backgrounds. An emphasis to the public was also underpinned by the museum's intention to fulfill university agendas of widening participation in higher education and others articulated by the government focusing on issues of access and social inclusion.
6.6. Consulting the public
The Manchester Museum used extensive consultation practice in the context of the redisplay. The process took place between 2008-2009 through public events and the use of questionnaires. As part of this, a two-day symposium entitled 'Egypt in its African context' was organised in 2009 with the aim to address conceptions and misconceptions regarding Egypt's position in Africa. Participants came from various cultural, age and educational backgrounds and represented both existing and potential audiences, including university students, representatives of schools and youth groups, members of the Sudanese community, amateurs from local historical and archaeological societies and family visitors. Feedback from museum comment cards was also taken into account. The aim of the process was to inform the future themes of the redisplay and address expectations regarding the new galleries. The
155 consultation was orchestrated by museum staff, either collections' specialists or professionals with an outreach role.
The consultation addressed several issues related both to the Egyptology and the archaeological collection. Here I focus primarily on discussions which would later have an impact on the display and interpretation of classical collections. With regards to the Egyptology collection, discussions focused on issues of ethnicity and identity and the positioning of Egypt in Africa. Existing displays were critisised for failing to position Egypt in its African context and to connect it with other African cultures. Representations of Egypt from an Africanist perspective were particularly important to ethnic minority groups and were recognised as 'a sensitive and complex issue'. Of relevance to classical collections were comments made by the Sudanese people, which commented of the existing archaeological galleries as being Eurocentric in their approach. Subsequently, suggestions were made that the Mediterranean should be approached 'as a place of dynamic cultural exchange' and that Egypt should be presented as 'black history'.
With regards to the archaeology collections, consultation process has highlighted public interest in local and regional archaeology. Local agents such as the Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit expressed the view that local material was lacking in the current displays and was subsequently suggested that the museum should address this by including more local material in the new exhibition. It was further suggested that the museum "should celebrate the diversity and breadth of its collections and its role in represent the diverse communities living in Manchester today". Participants also showed interest in a presentation of archaeology from a 'global' perspective, for example, how cultures and societies related to each other and the rest of the world. A contextual approach was recommended so that visitors could situate ancient cultures in 'time and space' and in the 'environmental context'. Another area upon which interest focused was that of colonial archaeology, particularly with regards to the role of British excavations in the history of artefacts and their connections and journey to the museum. Discussions also highlighted an interest in archaeology, as a discipline, and related processes and techniques, such as excavation, conservation, and museum practice. There was a high level of interest
156 in the stories behind the objects and their biographical routes and, also, a general consensus that the museum should show more of the objects kept in store.
Overall, the consultation process has highlighted that there was very little interest for the display of classical material in the new exhibition. Consultation suggested that 'Greeks' were the least popular from the archaeology themes chosen by the attendees at the public consultation days and by the teenager, family and adult groups. Classical collections were also felt to be 'Eurocentric' for some audiences, something that also highlighted in the literature review chapter. With respect to the development of the new exhibition, interest primarily focused around the Egyptology collection. This reflects the historical significance and the ongoing popular appeal of Egypt within the Museum. A shift of focus towards local archaeology, also observed with regards to the recent history of the Museum, was also highlighted. The findings of the consultation would largely shape the overall directions and the approach adopted in the new exhibition. Within this, what begins to emerge, is that classical collections would not be afforded a central role in the new exhibition.
6.7. Conclusion
The redisplay of the Manchester Museum had a significant impact on the position and role of the institution's classical collections. The new exhibition, based on post- modern museological theories has introduced a self reflexive approach to collections, emerging through processes of consultation. With emphasis now being placed on Egyptology and local archaeology, the classical collections have assumed a secondary role within the institution and are displayed as archaeological artefacts rather than as disciplinary objects of classical archaeology.
157 Chapter 7: Conclusion
The thesis investigated how three UK University of Museums, the Ure Museum, the Fitzwilliam Museum and the Manchester Museum, have approached, interpreted and displayed collections of classical art in recent exhibition redevelopments. Through the investigation of institutional and historical contexts, processes of display production and exhibition practices, it aimed to reveal the museological discourse of classical antiquity in the particular context of University museums. The particular emphasis on university museums offered an examination of the interrelation between academic and disciplinary developments and museological practice.
The thesis investigated the interrelation between classical antiquity, its material culture, museological practices, disciplinary research and practice, the people behind institutions and practices and, also, the processes through which these agents relate to each other and come together in museum exhibitions in order to form certain narratives. In other words, the research aimed to 'expose' not only what narratives UK museums produce around collections of classical art but also how they do so and why. Towards that, it examined the impact of institutions and disciplines, notably that of classical archaeology, on museum practice and on the construction of certain views about classical antiquity. It has also explored the processes of display production, reflecting upon the ways various social actors -museums, universities, curators, academics, designers and the public- engage with classical antiquity and contribute to the development of certain narrations about the classical past in the museum context. The thesis further addressed the extent to which the redeveloped exhibitions have embraced recent museological developments.
The thesis started with a critical 'biography' of classical archaeology and, in particular, its impact on the display, interpretation, collection and museological classification of classical art. Particular attention was given to how current developments within the discipline have informed contemporary exhibitions of classical collections. Towards this, it offered insights into the role of classical archaeology in reproducing certain views, ideas, ideals and narratives, such as Idealism, Hellenism, Imperialism and Western supremacy.
158 This context setting informed the thematic analysis of the case studies. The aim was to unveil the values, ideologies, ideas and concepts that have shaped the display and interpretation of the classical collections in each institution. The analysis focused on exhibitionary practices and interpretive strategies, considering both the poetics and politics of museum exhibitions of classical art. This means that it discussed not only who and what was represented, but also how and towards what end. By considering the historical and institutional contexts of all three museums, the analysis revealed the meanings and ideological and symbolic values they embody and how these feed and are fed by the particular approaches to classical collections.
From a theoretical perspective, the thesis combined post-structuralist perspectives with ethnographic approaches to museum practice. Museum ethnography has served to shed light to the process of exhibition-making. The finished displays were explored through an analysis of their content and visual form, by taking into account elements such as the museum architecture, spatial layout, museum texts and more. The rationale has been that such approaches would enable a deeper understanding of the process of institutional change and the social agency of people and things. Therefore, they would, and indeed did, offer an appropriate and relevant framework for this thesis. These approaches informed my understanding of museums as institutions and enabled me to trace and understand the processes of exhibition production in the three museums.
The research has highlighted the complexity of museums as institutions and of exhibitions as processes and practices. It has drawn attention to the various ways museum practice is shaped through the interaction of people between them and the material world that surrounds them. This has emphasised the discursive dimensions of museological practice; the role of objects and exhibitions in shaping identities and reflecting values; and the role of museum design, space and interpretation in shaping museological approaches towards collections.
This thesis shows that the institutional context in which an exhibition occurs is the most significant factor shaping the display and interpretation of classical collections. The institutional context -the museum's local culture- is provided by a combination
159 of elements which work in tandem and include the historical development of a museum, its scope as institution and its present role; the nature, scope and history of its collections; the curatorial coverage of collections; the relationship between the museum and its parent university; and the audience it serves.
The three selected case studies represent different institutional contexts. In the Fitzwilliam Museum classical antiquity holds a prominent position in the institution's official discourse as is also the case with regards to the University of Cambridge. This had a significant bearing in the new exhibition: the nature and scope of collections, which are of great historical significance and of archaeological value, largely shaped the overall approach, which aimed to emphasise both their ancient and their post- antique contexts. Moreover, the exhibition was developed in collaboration between the museum and members of the Classics Faculty: while the display was benefited from disciplinary expertise, the degree of institutional control maintained within the team raises questions with regards to who the display was actually about.
In Reading, both the Museum and the University represent a different discourse. The Museum emerged through processes of disciplinary professionalisation, starting its life as a study collection formed by a university professor for teaching and research purposes. With regards to the University, since its formative years it has adopted a 'non-traditional' approach to the study of classical antiquity, which continues down to the present day. The Ure Museum is one of the few museums focusing on classical archaeology in which public consolation was utilised to inform decisions on the redisplay. This, alongside the large involvement of volunteers in the making of the exhibition points to an institution which is willing to share authority.
Finally, the University of Manchester is an institution with a pronounced public role since its early years. The positioning of the museum in the forefront of disciplinary developments over recent years, has resulted in an exhibition in which public had an active involvement in it making. In turn, this has led to an exhibition where classical antiquities are afforded a completely different role, lose their distinctive identity as 'classical' collections and reconceptualised as 'archaeological collections.
160 This thesis suggests that professional identities and subject expertise have a direct impact on how collections of classical antiquities have displayed and interpreted following their redisplays. In two of the case studies, the Fitzwilliam and the Ure Museum, exhibitions have been developed by specialists in the field of classics, classical archaeology included, with varied degree of involvement from people of other professional backgrounds. These displays have a strong disciplinary character, as manifested through the themes and concepts they negotiate, which have an explicit focus on the classical civilizations. This however, is not the case in the Manchester Museum. There the exhibition has been developed by people from various professional backgrounds while, with specific regards to the curatorial input, none of the curators involved had a background in classical studies. This has strongly influenced how classical collections have been approached, with 'classical' being no evident category in the exhibition. When objects from the classical collections are put on display, they are discussed as part of a wider archaeological discourse (e.g. in the Discovering Archaeology gallery) or through the interpretive lenses of another culture (e.g. cultural exchanges with Egypt, seen from an Africanist perspective).
One of the themes that emerged from the literature review was that traditional exhibitions of classical collections have been reluctant to embrace theory as part of their discourse. This thesis shows that all three case studies have sought to address this, by incorporating in their new exhibitions an array of recent theories and academic developments. The exhibition in the Fitzwilliam Museum draws on biographical approaches to interpret the collections, and explores recent themes within classical archaeological research such as that of ancient polychromy. The Ure Museum present a contextual display, which incorporate anthropological approaches in the interpretation and presentation of collections through an emphasis on gender. In Manchester, the Ancient Worlds exhibition presents an example of a theoretically rich display, in which post-modern calls for reflexivity are fully integrated in its practice.
This thesis shows that National Curriculum has been an important factor in shaping the display and interpretation of collections. This was particularly relevant in the new exhibitions of the Ure and the Manchester Museum, whose overall approach,
161 both in terms of presentation and with regards to interpretation strategies was developed with an eye to respond to its requirements. In the case of the Fitzwilliam Museum, relevance to the National Curriculum has played a certain role in the development of the new exhibition, but it was not overtly emphasised in the process of exhibition development. This suggests that, to a certain extent, the Museum's emphasis is still placed on collections, rather than its public.
This thesis suggests that traditional disciplinary discourses still have a hold in exhibitions of classical collections. The display of the Fitzwilliam Museum points to tensions between 'archaeological' and 'aesthetic' approaches to collections. a certain extent, in the new exhibition objects are still presented as art objects. This reflects that residues of elitism are still present within the museum.
7.1. Contribution to knowledge
This research is located in the intersection of museology, classical archaeology and exhibition studies. Indeed, it aimed to both draw on and contribute on different theoretical and professional frameworks of value and interpretation for classical collections. As mentioned already, of particular significance to the present study has been the impact of classical archaeological research on exhibitionary practice, which is area of academic research that has not attracted much interest. Indeed, I regard the thesis’ investigation into what extent the changes in classical archaeology have informed museological practices of classical antiquities in the three museums as one of the main contributions of this research.
The investigation brought new evidence with regards to how classical collections are being approached, interpreted and displayed, offering a direct response to former scholar reluctance to engage with such issues. It shed light into the role of disciplines and institutions, and their impact on museological practice and, further to these, it highlighted the various roles of agents involved in the production of the exhibitions. Therefore, it is hoped that this research has led to a better understanding of the current role, relevance, status and significance of the classical and its material
162 culture in museums. In this sense, this examination is relevant not only to academic museologists and archaeologists, but also museum professionals.
This thesis advances current research by offering insights into the role of universities and museums as key loci of disciplinary production and the specific ways disciplinary discourses and academic developments within academia manifest themselves in museological practice. University Museums, as the appropriate focus of this research, has made possible of this particular relation between the world of academia and that of museums.
7.2. Conclusion and recommendations for further research
In this thesis I argue that contemporary exhibitions of classical collections are theoretically informed and reflect contemporary developments within academia. To a certain extent they also attempt to deconstruct grant narratives of classical antiquity as an aesthetic and cultural ideal, although this has not yet been fully achieved. Further research into redisplays of classical antiquities in other institutional contexts can contribute important insights in this direction. While the first steps towards a more mindful museum practice with regards to classical collections have been made, there is still room for improvement.
163 Bibliography
Abt, J. (2006). The Origins of the Public Museum. A Companion to Museum Studies. S. Macdonald. Oxford, Blackwell: 115-134.
Ahern, L. (2001). "Language and Agency." Annual Review of Anthropology 30: 109- 137.
Alberti, S. (2005). "Objects and the Museum." Isis 96(4): 559-571.
Alberti, S. J. M. M. (2009). Nature and Culture: Objects, Disciplines and the Manchester Museum, Manchester University Press.
Alcock, S. and R. Osborne (2007). Classical Archaeology. Malden, Oxford, Blackwell.
Alcock, S. and R. Osborne (2007). A Place for the Art? Introduction. Classical Archaeology. S. Alcock and R. Osborne. Malden, Oxford, Blackwell: 439-441.
Alcock, S. E. and R. Osborne (2007). Classical archaeology. Oxford, Blackwell.
Alpers, S. (1991). The museum as a way of seeing. Exhibiting cultures: the poetics and politics of museum display. I. Karp and S. Lavine. Washington and London, Smithsonian Institution Press: 25-32.
Alsop, J. (1982). The Rare Art Traditions: The History of Art Collecting and Its Linked Phenomena Wherever These Have Appeared, Harpercollins.
Ames, M. (1992). Cannibal Tours and Glass Boxes: The Anthropology of Museums. Vancouver, UBC Press.
Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London, New York, Verso.
Anderson, G. (2004). Introduction: Reinventing the Museum. Reinventing the Museum: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on the Paradigm Shift. G. Anderson. Lanham, AltaMira Press: 1-7.
164 Anderson, R. G. W. (2003). Introduction. Enlightening the British: Knowledge, Discovery and the Museum in the Eighteenth Century. R. G. W. Anderson, M. L. Gaygill, MacGregor A.G. and L. Syson. London, The British Museum Press: 1-4.
Anderson, R. G. W., M. L. Caygill, et al. (2003). Enlightening the British: Knowledge, Discovery and the Museum in the Eighteenth Century. London, The British Museum Press.
Angelicoussis, E. (2004). "The collection of classical sculptures of the Earl of Arundel, ‘Father of Vertu in England’." Journal of the History of Collections 16(2): 143-159.
Angrosino, M. (2007). Doing Ethnographic and Observational Research. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi, Singapore, SAGE Publications.
Appadurai, A. (1986). Introduction: commodities and the politics of value. The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective, Cambridge University Press: 3- 63.
Arnold-Forster, K. (1999). Beyond the Ark: Museums and collections of higher education institutions in southern England. . Winchester, Southern Museums Agency.
Arnold-Forster, K. (2000). "‘A developing sense of crisis’: a new look at university collections in the United Kingdom." Museum International 52(3): 10-14.
Arnold-Forster, K. (2006). 'Museums for the Future: Recognising new relevance for University Museum'. UMAC 2006: New Roads for University Museums, September 25-29, 2006, Mexico City.
Arnold-Forster, K. and S. Mirchandani (2001). Collections in the United Kingdom. Managing University Museums. M. Kelly. Paris, Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development (OECD): 47-53.
Avgouli, M. (1996). The First Greek Museums and National Identities. Museums and the Making of "Ourselves": The Role of Objects in National Identity. F. E. S. Kaplan, Leicester University Press: 246-265.
Axinn, W. G. and L. D. Pearce (2006). Mixed Method Data Collection Strategies, Cambridge University Press.
165 Ayres, P. (1997). Classical Culture and the Idea of Rome in Eighteenth-Century England. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Baker, A. (2015). Ancient narratives in the modern museum : interpreting classical archaeology in British museums. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Birkbeck, University of London.
Bal, M. (1992). "Telling, Showing, Showing off." Critical Inquiry 18(3): 556-594.
Beard, M. (1993). Casts and cast offs: the origins of the Museum of Classical Archaeology. Proceeedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 39: 1-29.
Beard, M. (2009). It's a Don's Life, Profile.
Beard, M. (2012). "Cambridge’s ‘Shrine of the Muses’: The display of classical antiquities in the Fitzwilliam Museum, 1848–1898." Journal of the History of Collections 24(3): 289-308.
Beard, M. (2013). Confronting the Classics: Traditions, Adventures, and Innovations. London, Profile Books.
Beard, M. and J. Henderson (1994). "Please don't touch the ceiling": the culture of appropriation. Museums and the appropriation of culture. S. Pearce. London, Athlone Press: 5-42.
Beard, M. and J. Henderson (2000). Classics: A Very Short Introduction, OUP Oxford.
Beard, M. and J. Henderson (2001). Classical Art: From Greece to Rome. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Bennett, T. (1995). The Birth of the Museum: History, Theory, Politics. London, Routledge.
Bennett, T. (2004). Pasts Beyond Memory: Evolution, Museums, Colonialism. London, New York, Routledge.
Bennett, T. (2006). Civic Seeing: Museums and the Organization of Vision. A Companion to Museum Studies. S. Macdonald. Oxford, Blackwell: 263-281.
166 Bennett, T. and C. Healy (2009). "Intoduction: Assembling Culture." Journal of Cultural Economy 2(1-2): 3-10.
Bernal, M. (1987). Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization, Vol.1. New Jersey, Rutgers University Press.
Bernal, M. (1991). Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization, Vol.2. New Jersey, Rutgers University Press.
Binford, L. R. (1962). "Archaeology as Anthropology." American Antiquity 28(2): 217- 225.
Black, J. (2011). The British and the Grand Tour. London, Routledge.
Blundell, S. (2012). Greek Art and the Grand Tour. A Companion to Greek Art. T. J. Smith and D. Plantzos. Malden, Oxford, Wiley-Blackwell. 2: 650-666.
Bounia, A. (2004). The Nature of Classical Collecting: Collectors and Collections, 100 BCE-100 CE, Ashgate.
Bouquet, M. (2001). Academic Anthropology and the Museum: Back to the Future. Academic Anthropology and the Museum. M. Bouquet. New York, Oxford, Berghahn Books: 1-16.
Bouquet, M. (2001). Introduction: Academic Anthropology and the Museum: Back to the Future. Academic Anthropology and the Museum. M. Bouquet. New York, Oxford, Berghahn Books: 1-16.
Bouquet, M. (2012). Museums: A Visual Anthropology, Bloomsbury Publishing.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, Taylor & Francis.
Boylan, P. (1999). "Universities and Museums: Past, Present and Future." Museum Management and Curatorship 18(1): 43-56.
Bradley, M. (2009). "The Importance of Color on Ancient Marble Sculpture." Art History 32(3): 427-457.
167 Bradley, M. (2010). Classics and Imperialism in the British Empire. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Bradley, M. (2010a). Approaches to Classics and Imperialism. Classics and Imperialism in the British Empire. M. Bradley. Oxford, Oxford University Press: 1-25.
Brennan, J. (2011). Higher education and social change: researching the 'end times'. Higher Education and Society in Changing Times: looking back and looking forward. J. Brennan and T. Shah, The Open University, CHERI - Centre for Higher Education Research and Information: 6-12.
Briitsh Museum (1920). A Guide to the exhibition illustrating Greek and Roman Life. London, Trustees of the British Museum.
British Museum Website (2008). "Hadrian: Empire and Conflict." Retrieved 15/03/2014.
British Museum Website (2010). "The Body Beautiful in Ancient Greece: A touring exhibition from the British Museum." Retrieved 20/06/2015, from https://www.britishmuseum.org/pdf/BM_Body_Beautiful.pdf.
British Museum Website (2013). "Life and death Pompeii and Herculaneum." Retrieved 20/06/2015, from http://www.britishmuseum.org/whats_on/past_exhibitions.aspx.
British Museum Website (2014). "British Museum has record year of 6.7 million visitors in 2013." Retrieved 20/06/2015, from http://www.britishmuseum.org/about_us/news_and_press/press_releases.aspx.
Brown, R. (2011). Looking back, looking forward: the changing structure of UK higher education, 1980-2012. Higher Education and Society in Changing Times: looking back and looking forward. J. Brennan and T. Shah, The Open University, CHERI - Centre for Higher Education Research and Information.
Budde, L. and R. Nicholls (1967). A catalogue of the Greek and Roman sculpture in the Fitzwilliam Museum Cambridge. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Burn, L. (1997). "Sir William Hamilton and the Greekness of Greek Vases." Journal of the History of Collections 9(2): 241-252.
168 Burn, L. (2006). "Recent Acquisitions of Greek, Roman and Cypriot Antiquities at the Fitzwilliam Museum 2001-2006." Archaeological Reports(53): 191-197.
Burn, L. (2012). The Fitzwilliam Museum. A History. London, New York, Philip Wilson Publishers.
Byrne, S., A. Clarke, et al. (2011). Networks, Agents and Objects: Frameworks for Unpacking Museum Collections. Unpacking the Collection: Networks of Material and Social Agency in the Museum. S. Byrne, A. Clarke, R. Harrison and R. Torrence. New York; Dordrecht; Heidelberg; London, London: Springer: 3-26.
Carter Brown, J. (1989). Foreword. Treasures from the Fitzwilliam, (Exhibition Catalogue). Cambridge, The Fitzwilliam Trust.
Challis, D. (2006). "The Parthenon Sculptures. Emblems of British national identity." The British Art Journal VII(1): 37-43.
Challis, D. (2010). The Ablest Race: Ancient Greek Art and Victorian Racial Theory. Classics and Imperialism. M. Bradley, Oxford University Press: 94-120.
Chippindale, C. and D. Gill (2000). "Material Consequences of Contemporary Classical Collecting." American Journal of Archaeology 104(3): 463-511.
Chippindale, C., D. Gill, et al. (2001). "Collecting the Classical World: First Steps in a Quantitative History." International Journal of Cultural Property 10(1): 1-31.
Clifford, J. (1988). On Collecting Art and Culture The Predicament of Culture: Twentieth-century Ethnography, Literature, and Art. J. Clifford, Harvard University Press.
Clifford, J. (1997). Museums as 'Contact Zones'. Routes: Travel and Translation in the Late Twentieth Century. J. Clifford. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, Harvard University Press: 188-219.
Cohen, B. (2000). Not the Classical Ideal: Athens and the Construction of the Other in Greek Art. Leiden, Boston, Köln, Brill.
169 Cohen, B. (2014). Displaying Greek and Roman Art in Modern Museums. The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Art and Architecture. C. Marconi. Oxford, New York, Oxford University Press: 473-498.
Coltman, V. (2001). "Sir William Hamilton's Vase Publications (1766-1776). A Case Study in the Reproduction and Dissemination of Antiquity." Journal of Design History 14(1): 1-16.
Coltman, V. (2006a). Fabricating the Antique: Neoclassicism in Britain, 1760-1800. Chacago, London, University of Chicago Press.
Coltman, V. (2006b). "Representation, Replication and Collecting in Charles Townley's Late Eighteenth Century Library." Art History 29(2): 304-324.
Coltman, V. (2009). Classical Sculpture and the Culture of Collecting in Britain Since 1760. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Coltman, V. (2012). The Most Ancient Monuments of the Fine Arts. Collecting and Displaying Greek Vases in Early Nineteenth-Century English Interiors. Making Sense of Greek Art. V. Coltman. Exeter, Exeter University Press: 121-139.
Connor, P. (1989). Cast-Collecting in the Nineteenth Century: Scholarship, Aesthetics, Connoisseurship. Rediscovering Hellenism: the Hellenic Inheritance and the English Imagination. G. W. Clarke and J. C. Eade. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 187-235.
Coombes, A. E. (1994). Reinventing Africa: Museums, Material Culture and Popular Imagination. New Haven and London, Yale University Press.
Cooper, C. L. (2012). "The Antiquities Department takes shape: The Fitzwilliam in the early twentieth century " Journal of the History of Collections 24(3): 347-367.
Cooper, C. L. (2013). "A case study in collaboration: displaying Greece and Rome at the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, UK." Museum Management and Curatorship 28(5): 467-490.
Corner, J. and S. Harvey (1991). Introduction: Great Britain Limited. Enterprise and Heritage: Crosscurrents of National Culture. J. Corner and S. Harvey. London, New York, Routledge: 1-20.
170 Coward, T. (1921). Manchester Museum Archive. MMA/2/9/1.
Culham, P., L. Edmunds, et al. (1989). Classics: A Discipline and Profession in Crisis? Lanham, New York, London, University Press of America.
Cuno, J. (2008). Who Owns Antiquity?: Museums and the Battle over our Ancient Heritage. Princeton, Oxford, Princeton University Press.
Cuno, J. (2009). Whose Culture?: The Promise of Museums and the Debate Over Antiquities. Princeton, Oxford, Princeton University Press.
Curtis, N. W. (2012). Public engagement, Research and Teaching: the shared aims of the University of Aberdeen and its musuems. A Handbook for Academic Museums: Beyond Exhibitions and Education. S. Jandl and M. Gold. Edinburgh, MuseumsEtc: 62-81.
Dean, D. (1994). Museum Exhibition: Theory and Practice. London, Routledge.
Denscombe, M. (2010). The good research guide : for small-scale social research projects. Maidenhead, Maidenhead : McGraw-Hill Open University Press.
Department of Education (2011). "National Curriculum: History, Key Stage 2." Retrieved 04/03/2012, from http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/teachingandlearning/curriculum/primary/b00 199012/history/ks2.
Diaz-Andreu, M. (2007). A World History of Nineteenth-Century Archaeology: Nationalism, Colonialism, and the Past. Oxford, Oxford University Press
Díaz-Andreu, M. (2014). Nationalism and Archaeology. Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology. C. Smith. New York, Springer Reference: 5144-5149.
Diebold, W. (1995). "The Politics of Derestoration: the Aegina Pediments and the German Confrontation with the Past." Art Journal 54(2): 60-66.
Dodds, E. R. (1951). The Greeks and the Irrational. Berkeley, Los Angeles, University of California Press.
171 Donellan, V. C. (2015). The role of collections of classical antiquities in UK regional museums: visitors, networks, social contexts. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University College London (UCL).
duBois, P. (2003). Slaves and Other Objects. Chicago, London, University of Chicago Press.
Dudley, S. (2012a). Encountering a Chinese Horse. Engaging with the thingness of things. Museum Objects: Experiencing the Properties of Things. S. H. Dudley. Oxon, New York, Routledge: London and New York: 1-15.
Dudley, S. (2012b). Materiality Matters: Experiencing the Displayed Object. Working Papers in Museum Studies, University of Michigan. 8: 1-9.
Duncan, C. (1995). Civilizing Rituals: Inside Public Art Museums. London, New York, Routledge.
Duncan, C. and A. Wallach (1980). "The Universal Survey Museum." Art History 3(4): 448-469.
Dyson, S. L. (1981). "A Classical Archaeologist's Response to the 'New Archaeology'." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research(242): 7-13.
Dyson, S. L. (1989). Complacency and Crisis in Late Twentieth Century Classical Archaeology. Classics: A Discipline and Profession in Crisis? P. Culham and L. Edmunds. Lanham, New York, London, University Press of America: 211-220.
Dyson, S. L. (1989). The Role of Ideology and Institutions in Shaping Classical Archaeology in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. Tracing Archaeology's Past: The Historiography of Archaeology. A. L. Christenson. Carbondale, Southern Illinois University Press: 127-135.
Dyson, S. L. (1993). "From New to New Age Archaeology: Archaeological Theory and Classical Archaeology-A 1990s Perspective." American Journal of Archaeology 97(2): 195-206.
Dyson, S. L. (2006). In Pursuit of Ancient Pasts: A History of Classical Archaeology in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. New Haven, London, Yale University Press.
172 Dyson, S. L. (2010). Cast Collecting in the United States. Plaster Casts: Making, Collecting and Displaying from Classical Antiquity to the Present. R. Frederiksen and E. Marchand. Berlin, New York, De Gruyter: 557-576.
Dyson, S. L. (2012). Greek Art at University, 19th-20th c. A Companion to Greek Art. T. J. Smith and D. Plantzos. Malden, Oxford, Wiley-Blackwell. 2: 698-710.
Elsner, J. (2002). "The birth of late antiquity: Riegl and Strzygowski in 1901." Art History 25(3): 358-379.
Elsner, J. and R. Cardinal (1994). The Cultures of Collecting. London, Reaktion Books.
Evangelista, S. M. (2009). British Aestheticism and Ancient Greece: Hellenism, Reception, Gods in Exile. London, Palgrave Macmillan.
Ewing, H. and M. Fereou (1992). The Ure Museum of Greek Archeology Report. Unpublished source. Ure Museum Archive, Drawer C.
Falk, J. and L. Dierking (2000). Learning from Museums: Visitor Experiences and the Making of Meaning. Walnut Creek, AltaMira Press.
Falk, J., L. Dierking, et al. (2006). Living in a Learning Society: Museums and Free- choice Learning. A Companion to Museum Studies. S. Macdonald. Oxford, Blackwell: 323-339.
Falk, J. H. and L. D. Dierking (1992). The Museum Experience, Whalesback Books.
Falk, J. H. and L. D. Dierking (2012). The Museum Experience Revisited. USA, Left Coast Press.
Felch, J. and R. Frammolino (2011). Chasing Aphrodite: The Hunt for Looted Antiquities at the World's Richest Museum. Boston, New York, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Ferris, D. (2000). Greece and the Invention of Culture: Winckelmann. Silent Urns: Romanticism, Hellenism, Modernity. Stanford, Stanford University Press: 16-51.
Fisher, R. and A. Ormston (2011). "United Kingdom. Historical perspective: cultural policies and instruments." Retrieved 08/01/2014.
173 Fitzwilliam Museum (1967). Annual Report, Fitzwilliam Museum Cambridge.
Fitzwilliam Museum (1968). Annual Report, Fitzwilliam Museum Cambridge.
Fitzwilliam Museum (1992). Annual Report [1993], Fitzwilliam Museum Cambridge.
Fitzwilliam Museum Website (2010a). "Rediscovering Greece & Rome." Retrieved 18/01/2014, from http://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/news/article.html?2247.
Fitzwilliam Museum Website (2010b). "Rediscovering Greece & Rome: newly displayed gallery now open to the public." Retrieved 18/01/2014, from http://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/news/article.html?2247.
Forgan, S. (1998). 'But Indifferently Lodged... ': Perception and Place in Building for Science in Victorian London. Making Space for Science: Territorial Themes in the Shaping of Knowledge. C. Smith and J. Agar. London, Macmillan: 195-215.
Foucault, M. (1976). The Archaeology of Knowledge (translated by Sheridan Smith). New York, Harper Colophon.
Fritsch, J. (2012). Introduction. Museum Gallery Interpretation and Material Culture. J. Fritsch. New York, London, Routledge: 1-10.
Frost, S. (2010). The Warren Cup: Secret Museums, Sexuality, and Society. Gender, Sexuality and Museums: A Routledge Reader. A. K. Levin. London, New York, Routledge: 138-150.
Galanakis, Y. (2010). "The new Aegean World gallery in the redeveloped Ashmolean Museum." Aegeus. Retrieved 03/05/2011, from http://www.aegeussociety.org/en/index.php/excavations-and-research/galanakis- the-new-aegean-world-gallery-/.
Gardner, E. A. (1897). A Catalogue of the Greek vases in the Fitzwilliam Museum. Cambeidge Cambridge University Press.
Gay, B. (2003). Classics teaching and the National Curriculum. The Teaching of Classics. J. Morwood, Cambridge University Press: 20-35.
174 Gazi, A. (1993). Archaeological museums in Greece (1829-1909). The Display of Archaeology. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Leicester, Department of Museum Studies.
Gazi, A. (2008). ‘Artfully classified’ and ‘appropriately placed’: notes on the display of antiquities in early twentieth-century Greece. A Singular Antiquity: Archaeology and Hellenic Identity in Twentieth-Century Greece. D. Damaskos and D. Plantzos. Athens, Greece, Benaki Museum: 67-82.
Giebelhausen, M. (2005). The Architecture is the Museum. New museum theory and practice: an introduction. J. Marstine. Oxford, Blackwell.
The 12 essays in this volume present a study of new museum theory and discuss how that theory can be put into practice. They cover a range of museums around the world as well as historic houses, cultural centres and commercial displays that use museum conventions.
Giebelhausen, M. (2006). Museum Architecture: A Brief History. A Companion to Museum Studies. S. Macdonald. Oxford, Blackwell: 223-244.
Gill, D. (1990). Antiquities of the Grand Tour of Italy. Cambridge.
Gill, D. (1999). Winifred Lamb and the Fitzwilliam Museum. Classics in the 19th and 20th century Cambridge: curriculum, culture and community. C. Stray. Cambridge, The Cambridge Philological Society.
Gill, D. (2009) Looting Matters for Classical Antiquities: Contemporary Issues in Archaeological Ethics. Present Pasts 1, 77-104
Gill, D. (2012). "From the Cam to the Cephissus. The Fitzwilliam Museum and students of the British School at Athens." Journal of the History of Collections 24(3): 337–346.
Gill, D. and C. Chippindale (1993). "Material and Intellectual Consequences of Esteem for Cycladic Figures." American Journal of Archaeology 97(4): 601-659.
Gill, D. and M. Vickers (1989). "Pots and Kettles." Revue archéologique: 297-303.
Goff, B. (2005). Classics and Colonialism. London, Gerald Duckworth & Co.
175 Goldhill, S. (2011). Victorian Culture and Classical Antiquity: Art, Opera, Fiction, and the Proclamation of Modernity. New Jersey, London, Princeton University Press.
Gordon, C., D. Powell, et al. (2015). "The coalition government 2010–2015: Lessons for future cultural policy." Cultural Trends 24(1): 51-55.
Gosden, C. and Y. Marshall (1999). "The Cultural Biography of Objects." World Archaeology 31(2): 169-178.
Grafton, A., G. W. Most, et al. (2010). Preface. The Classical Tradition. A. Grafton, G. W. Most and S. Settis. Cambridge, Massachusets, London, Harvard University Press: vii-xi.
Gray, C. (2007). "Commodification and Instrumentality in Cultural Policy." International Journal of Cultural Policy 13(2): 203-215.
Greenaway, J. (2007). Introduction. Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum: Great Britain, Reading Museum Service (Reading Borough Council). A. Smith. Oxford; New York, Oxford University Press: ix-xii.
Greenberg, R., B. W. Ferguson, et al. (1996). Introduction. Thinking About Exhibitions. R. Greenberg, B. W. Ferguson and S. Nairne. London, Routledge: 1-3.
Greenwood, E. (2010). Afro-Greeks: Dialogues between Anglophone Caribbean Literature and Classics in the Twentieth Century. Oxford, Oxford Univrsity Press.
Hamilakis, Y. (2007). From Ethics to Politics. Archaeology and Capitalism: From Ethics to Politics. Y. Hamilakis and P. Duke. California, Left Coast Press: 15-40.
Hamilakis, Y. (2007). The Nation and Its Ruins: Antiquity, Archaeology, and National Imagination in Greece. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Hamilakis, Y. and E. Yalouri (1996). "Antiquities as symbolic capital in modern Greek society." Antiquity 70(267): 117-129.
Hardwick, L. and C. Gillespie (2007). Classics in Post-Colonial Worlds. Oxford, Oxford Univeristy Press.
176 Hardwick, L. and C. Stray (2008). Introduction: Making Connections. A Companion to Classical Receptions. L. Hardwick and C. Stray. Oxford, Blackwell: 1-9.
Hargreaves McIntyre, M. (2006). Pleasure you can measure. Visitor responses to the Warren Cup exhibition. Report prepared by Morris Hargreaves McIntyre for the British Museum.
Harrison, J. E. (1957). Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion. New York, Meridian Books.
Harrison, R. (2013). Reassembling Ethnographic Museum Collections. Reassembling the Collection: Ethnographic Museums and Indigenous Agency. R. Harrison, S. Byrne and A. Clarke, School for Advanced Research Press.
Harrison, R., S. Byrne, et al. (2013). Reassembling the Collection: Ethnographic Museums and Indigenous Agency, School for Advanced Research Press.
Haskell, F. and N. Penny (1981). Taste and the Antique: The Lure of Classical Sculpture 1500-1900. New Haven, London, Yale University Press.
Hein, G. E. (1998). Learning in the Museum, Routledge.
Hein, G. E. (2006). Museum Education. A Companion to Museum Studies. S. Macdonald. Oxford, Blackwell: 340-352.
Hepple, L. (2001). "'The Museum in the Garden': Displaying Classical Antiquities in Elizabethan and Jacobean England." Garden History 29(2): 109-120.
Hill, K. (2005). Culture and Class in English Public Museums, 1850-1914. Aldershot, Ashgate.
Hill, K. (2012). Introduction: Museums and Biographies - Telling stories about People, Things and Relationships. Museums and Biographies: Stories, Objects, Identities. K. Hill, Boydell Press.
Hill, K. (2012). Museums and Biographies: Stories, Objects, Identities, Boydell Press.
Hillier, B. and K. Tzortzi (2006). Space Syntax: The Language of Museum Space. A Companion to Museum Studies. S. Macdonald. Oxford, Blackwell: 282-301.
177 Hitchens, C., R. Browning, et al. (1997). The Elgin Marbles: Should They be Returned to Greece? London, New York, Verso.
HLF (2014). "Museums, Libraries and Archives ". Retrieved 05/06/2014, from http://closedprogrammes.hlf.org.uk/ourproject/projectsbysector/collections/Pages/ index.aspx#.VSaDkOHSyyZ.
HLF and BOP Consulting (2015). Manchester Museum. Case studies. HLF Major Grants - The first 100, HLF: 64-66.
Hobson, J. M. (2004). The Eastern Origins of Western Civilisation. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Hodder, I. and S. Hutson (2003). Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Holt, J. C. (1977). The University of Reading: the first fifty years.
Hooper-Greenhill, E. (1992). Museums and the Shaping of Knowledge. London, Routledge.
Hooper-Greenhill, E. (1994). Museums and their Visitors. London, New York, Routledge.
Hooper-Greenhill, E. (2000a). Museums and the Interpretation of Visual Culture. London, New York, Routledge.
Hooper-Greenhill, E. (2000b). Changing Values in the Art Museum: Rethinking Communication and Learning. Museum Studies: An Anthology of Contexts. B. M. Carbonell. Oxford, Blackwell: 556-575.
Hooper-Greenhill, E. (2006). Studying Visitors. A Companion to Museum Studies. S. Macdonald. Oxford, Blackwell: 362-376.
Hooper-Greenhill, E. (2007). Museums and Education: Purpose, Pedagogy, Performance. London, New York, Routledge.
178 Hopf, C. (2004). Qualititative Interviews: An overview. A Companion to Qualitative Research. U. Flick, E. von Kardoff and I. Steinke. London, London : SAGE Publications: 203-208.
Hubbard, T. K. (2013). A Companion to Greek and Roman Sexualities. Malden, Oxford, Wiley-Blackwell.
Impact case study (REF3b) (2014). "Using Research Collections to Inform Public Understanding of the Ancient Greek and Etruscan Past." Retrieved 20/10/2015, from http://results.ref.ac.uk/DownloadFile/ImpactCaseStudy/pdf?caseStudyId=21732.
James, N. (2009). "The Acropolis and its new museum." Antiquity 83(322): 1144- 1151.
Jenkins, I. (1986). Greek and Roman Life. London, British Museum Publications.
Jenkins, I. (1992). Archaeologists & Aesthetes: In the Sculpture Galleries of the British Museum 1800-1939. London, The British Museum Press.
Jenkins, I. (2003). Ideas of Antiquity: Classical and Other Ancient Civilizations in the Age of Enlightenment. Enlightenment: Discovering the World in the Eighteenth Century. K. Sloan and A. Burnett. London, The British Museum Press.
Jenkins, I. and K. Sloan (1996). Vases & Volcanoes: Sir William Hamilton and his Collection. London, The British Museum Press.
Jenkyns, R. (1980). The Victorians and Ancient Greece. Oxford, Blackwell.
Jenkyns, R. (1992). Dignity and Decadence: Victorian Art and the Classical Inheritance. London, HarperCollins.
Jenkyns, R. (2007). United Kingdom. A Companion to the Classical Tradition. C. Kallendorf. Malden, London, Blackwell: 265-278.
Jordanova, L. (1989). Objects of Knowledge: A Historical Perspective on Museums. The New Museology. P. Vergo. London, Reaktion Books: 22-40.
Kallendorf, C. (2007). Introduction. A Companion to the Classical Tradition. C. Kallendorf. Malden, Oxford, Blackwell: 1-4.
179 Karp, I. and S. Lavine (1991). Exhibiting Cultures: The Poetics and Politics of Museum Display. Washington, London, Smithsonian Institution Press.
Karp, I. and S. Lavine (1991). Introduction: Museums and Multiculturalism. Exhibiting Cultures: The Poetics and Politics of Museum Display. I. Karp and S. Lavine. Washington, London, Smithsonian Institution Press.
Kelly, M. (2001). Introduction. Managing University Museums. Education and Skills. M. Kelly. Paris, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD): 7- 15.
Kelly, M. (2001). Managing University Museums: education and skills. Paris, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
Kennedy, G. A. (1994). "Shifting Visions of Classical Paradigms: The 'Same' and the 'Other'." International Journal of the Classical Tradition 1(1): 7-16.
Kim, H. S. (2007). Crossing Cultures: Redefining a University Museum. RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics. F. Pellizzi, Harvard: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. 52: 45-50.
Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B. (1998). Destination Culture: Tourism, Museums, and Heritage. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London, University of California Press.
Klemenčič, M. (2011). The public role of higher education and student participation in higher education governance. Higher Education and Society in Changing Times: looking back and looking forward. J. Brennan and T. Shah, The Open University, CHERI - Centre for Higher Education Research and Information: 74-83.
Knell, S. J. (2004). Altered values: searching for a new collecting. Museums and the Future of Collecting. S. J. Knell. Aldershot, Ashgate: 1-46.
Kohl, P. L. (1998). "Nationalism and Archaeology: On the Constructions of Nations and the Reconstructions of the Remote past." Annual Review of Anthropology 27: 223-246.
Kokkinidou, D. and M. Nikolaidou (2000). A Sexist Present, a Human-Less Past: Museum Archaeology in Greece. Gender and Material Culture in Archaeological Perspective. M. Donald and L. Hurcombe, Palgrave Macmillan: 33-55.
180 Koloski-Ostrow, A. O. and C. L. Lyons (1997). Naked Truths: Women, Sexuality and Gender in Classical Art and Archaeology. London, New York, Routledge.
Kopytoff, I. (1986). The cultural biography of things: commoditization as process. The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective. A. Appadurai, Cambridge University Press: 64-91.
Kratz, C. (2011). "Rhetorics of Value: Constituting Worth and Meaning through Cultural Display." Visual Anthropology Review 27(1): 21-48.
Kreps, C. F. (2003). "Curatorship as Social Practice." Curator: The Museum Journal 46(3): 311-323.
Kreps, C. F. (2003). Liberating culture : cross-cultural perspectives on museums, curation, and heritage preservation. London, New York, Routledge.
Kurtz, D. (2008). "The concept of the classical past in Tudor and early Stuart England." Journal of the History of Collections 20(2): 189-204.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social:An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory, OUP Oxford.
Law, J. (2009). Actor Network Theory and Material Semiotics. The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory. B. S. Turner. Chichester, Blackwell: 141-158.
Lawley, I. (2003). "Local authority museums and the modernizing government agenda in England." Museum and Society 1(2): 75-86.
Lekakis, S. (2012). The Cultural Property Debate. A Companion to Greek Art. T. J. Smith and D. Plantzos. Malden, Oxford, Wiley-Blackwell. 2: 683-697.
Leoussi, A. S. (1997). "Nationalism and racial Hellenism in nineteenth-century England and France." Ethnic and Racial Studies 20(1): 42-68.
Leoussi, A. S. (1998). Nationalism and Classicism: The Classical Body As National Symbol in Nineteenth-Century England and France. Houndmills, Palgrave Macmillan.
181 Levine, J. (2003). The Rise and Decline of English Neoclassicism. Enlightening the British: Knowledge, Discovery and the Museum in the Eighteenth Century. R. G. W. Anderson, M. L. Caygill, A. G. MacGregor and L. Syson. London, The British Museum Press: 136-141.
Lidchi, H. (1997). The Poetics and Politics of Exhibiting Other Cultures. Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices. S. Hall. London, Sage Publications: 151-222.
Lord, B. (2005). Representing Enlightenment Space. Reshaping Museum Space. S. Macleod. London, New York, Routledge: 146-157.
Lourenço, M. (2005). Between two worlds: The distinct nature and contemporary significance of university museums and collections in Europe. U. P. Thesis. Paris, Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers.
Lowenthal, D. (1988). "Classical antiquities as national and global heritage." Antiquity 62(237): 726-735.
M.R. (1937). "Aryballoi and Figurines from Rhitsona (review)." The Journal of Hellenic Studies 57: 91-92.
Macdonald, S. (1996). Intoduction. Theorizing Museums. S. Macdonald and G. Fyfe, Blackwell/The Sociological Review: 1-18.
Macdonald, S. (1998). The Politics of Display: Museums, Science, Culture. London, New York, Routledge.
MacDonald, S. (2000). University Museums and the Public: The case of the Petrie Museum. Archaeoloigcal Displays and the Public. P. McManus. London, Archetype Publications: 67-86.
Macdonald, S. (2001). Behind the Scenes at the Science Museum: Knowing, Making and Using. Academic Anthropology and the Museum. M. Bouquet. New York, Oxford, Berghahn Books: 117-140.
Macdonald, S. (2002). Behind the Scenes at the Science Museum. Oxford, New York, Berg.
182 Macdonald, S. (2003). "Museums, national, postnational and transcultural identities." Museum and Society 1(1): 1-16.
Macdonald, S., Ed. (2006). A Companion to Museum Studies. Oxford, Blackwell.
Macdonald, S. (2006a). Expanding Museum Studies: An Introduction. A Companion to Museum Studies. S. Macdonald. Oxford, Blackwell: 1-12.
Macdonald, S. (2006b). Collecting Practices. A Companion to Museum Studies. S. Macdonald. Oxford, Blackwell: 81-97.
Macdonald, S. (2007). "Interconnecting: museum visiting and exhibition design." CoDesign 3(sup1): 149-162.
Macdonald, S. (2009). "Reassembling Nuremberg, Reassembling Heritge." Journal of Cultural Economy 2(1-2): 117-134.
MacDonald, S. (2009). University museums and the community. University Museums and the Community. Proceedings of the 8th Conference of the International Committee of ICOM for University Museums and Collections (UMAC), Manchester, 16th–20th September 2008. S. MacDonald, N. Nyst and C. Weber. 2: 5-6.
Macdonald, S. and G. Fyfe (1996). Theorizing Museums. Oxford, Blackwell/The Sociological Review.
MacGregor, A. (2007). Curiosity and Enlightenment: Collectors and Collections from the Sixteenth to the Nineteenth Century. New Haven, London, Yale University Press.
MacGregor, A. G. (2003). Preface. Enlightenment: Discovering the World in the Eighteenth Century. K. Sloan and A. Burnett. London, The British Museum Press: 6-7.
Macleod, S. (2005). Introduction. Reshaping Museum Space. S. Macleod. London, New York, Routledge: 1-5.
Macleod, S. (2005). Reshaping Museum Space. London, New York, Routledge.
MacLeod, S. (2007). Occuping the Architecture of the Gallery. Museum Revolutions: How Museums Change and are Changed. S. J. Knell, S. Macleod and S. E. R. Watson, Routledge: 72-86.
183 Macleod, S. (2013). Museum Architecture: A New Biography. London, New York, Routledge.
MacLeod, S., L. Hourston Hanks, et al. (2012). Museum Making: Narratives, Architectures, Exhibitions. London, New York, Routledge.
Marchand, S. L. (2003). Down from Olympus: Archaeology and Philhellenism in Germany, 1750-1970. Princeton, Princeton University Press.
Marchesano, L. and C. Paul (2000). Viewing Antiquity: The Grand Tour, Antiquarianism and Collecting. Rome, Carocci.
Marshall, C. and G. B. Rossman (2006). Designing Qualitative Research, Sage Publications.
Marstine, J. (2006). New Museum Theory and Practice: An Introduction. Oxford, Blackwell Publishing.
Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative Researching. London, California, New Delhi, SAGE Publications.
Mason, R. (2005). Museums, galleries and heritage: Sites of meaning-making and communication. Heritage, Museums and Galleries: An Introductory Reader. G. Corsane. London, New York, Routledge: 221-237.
Mason, R. (2006). Cultural Theory and Museum Studies. A Companion to Museum Studies. S. Macdonald. Oxford, Blackwell: 17-32.
Matthews, B. and L. Ross (2010). Research methods a practical guide for the social sciences. Harlow, Longman.
McCann-Morley, G. (1953). "Modern Trends of Display in Archaeological Museums." Museum International VI(1): 1-15.
McCarthy, C. (2007). Exhibiting Māori: A History of Colonial Cultures of Display. Oxford, Berg.
184 McClellan, A. (1994). Inventing the Louvre: Art, Politics and the Origins of the Modern Museum in Eighteenth-Century Paris. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
McClellan, A. (2003). A Brief History of the Art Museum Public. Art and Its Publics: Museum Studies at the Millennium. A. McClellan. Malden, Oxford, Blackwell: 1-49.
Mee, C. (2011). Greek Archaeology: A Thematic Approach. Malden, Oxford, Wiley- Blackwell.
Merriman, N. (1989). Museum Visiting as a Cultural Phenomenon. The New Museology. P. Vergo. London, Reaktion Books: 149-171.
Merriman, N. (2001). The current state of Higher Education Museums, Galleries and Collections in the UK. Proceedings of the First Conference of the International Committee of ICOM for University Museums and Collections (UMAC), Barcelona, 02- 04 July 2001. Museologia, vol. 2, n. 1-2, Museu de Ciência da Universidade de Lisboa: 71-80.
Merriman, N. (2006). Collective Conversations: new approaches to unifying the work of a university museum. New Roads for University Museums. 6th International Congress for University Museums, International Committee for University Museums and Collections (UMAC). C. Rosas, P. Stanbury, S. de Clercq and A. L. Cué. Mexico: 223-244.
Merriman, N. (2012). Transforming the University Museum: The Manchester Experience. A Handbook for Academic Museums: Beyond Exhibitions and Education. S. Jandl and M. Gold. Edinburgh, MuseumsEtc: 31-61.
Merryman, J. H. (2006). Imperialism, Art and Restitution. Cambridge, New York, Cambridge University Press.
Merryman, J. H. (2009). Thinking about the Elgin Marbles: Critical Essays on Cultural Property, Art and Law. The Hague, London and Boston, Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
Meszaros, C., T. Gibson, et al. (2012). Interpretation and the art museum: Between the Familiar and the Unfamiliar. Museum Gallery Interpretation and Material Culture. J. Fritsch. New York, London, Routledge: 35-49.
185 Michaelis, A. (1882). Ancient Marbles in Great Britain. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Morris, E. and C. Fifield (1995). "A. G. Kurtz: A patron of classical art and music in Victorian Liverpool." Journal of the History of Collections 7(1): 103-114.
Morris, I. (1989). Burial and Ancient Society: The Rise of the Greek City-State. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Morris, I. (1994a). Classical Greece: Ancient Histories and Modern Archaeologies. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Morris, I. (1994b). Introduction. Classical Greece: Ancient Histories and Modern Archaeologies. I. Morris. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 3-7.
Morris, I. (1994c). Archaeologies of Greece. Classical Greece: Ancient Histories and Modern Archaeologies. I. Morris. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 8-47.
Morris, I. (1996). Classical archaeology (a). The Oxford Companion to Archaeology. B. M. Fagan and C. Beck, Oxford University Press: 294-295.
Morrison, J. (1996). Winckelmann and the Notion of Aesthetic Education. Oxford, Clarendon Press.
Morwood, J. (2003). Classics in the Universities. The Teaching of Classics. J. Morwood, Cambridge University Press: 20-35.
Moser, S. (2010). "The Devil is in the detail: Museum Displays and the Creation of Knowledge." Museum Anthropology 33(1): 22-32.
Mouliou, M. (1997). The "Writing" of Classical Archaeology In Post-War Greece (1950 to the present); The case of museum exhibitions and museum narratives. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Leicester, Department of Museum Studies.
Mouliou, M. (2008). Museum representations of the classical past in post-war Greece: a critical analysis. Athens, Greece, Benaki Museum.
Mouliou, M. and D. Kalessopoulou (2011). Emblematic museum objects of national significance. In search of their multiple meanings and values. The Thing about
186 Museums: Objects and Experience, Representation and Contestation. S. Dudley, A. Barnes, J. Binnie, J. Petrov and J. Walklate. London, Routledge: 47-68.
Muthesius, S. (2000). The Postwar University: Utopianist Campus and College, Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in British Art.
Newby, Z. (2006). Art History and Aesthetics. The Edinburgh Companion to Ancient Greece and Rome. E. Bispham, T. J. Harrison and B. A. Sparkes. Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press: 49-56.
Newhouse, V. (2005). Art and the power of placement, Monacelli Press.
Newman, K. and P. Tourle (2011). The impact of cuts on UK museums.
Nichols, K. (2015). Greece and Rome at the Crystal Palace: Classical Sculpture and Modern Britain, 1854-1936. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Nisbet, G. (2008). Ancient Greece in Film and Popular Culture, Bristol Phoenix Press.
Nørskov, V. (2002). Greek Vases in New Contexts: The Collecting and Trading of Greek Vases - An Aspect of the Modern Reception of Antiquity. Aarhus, Aarhus University Press.
Noy, D. (2013). "The antiquities collection of Richard Topham and Topham Beauclerk." Journal of the History of Collections 25(2): 185-193.
Oakley, J. H. (2009). "State of the Discipline. Greek Vase painting." American Journal of Archaeology 113(4): 599-627.
Obelkevich, J. and P. Catterall (2002). Understanding Post-War British Society. London and New York, Routledge.
Olsen, B. (2006). Scenes from a Troubled Engagement. Post-Structuralism and Material Culture Studies. Handbook of Material Culture. C. Tilley, W. Keane, S. Küchler, M. Rowlands and P. Spyer. London, Sage: 85-103.
Orrells, D., G. K. Bhambra, et al. (2011). African Athena: New Agendas. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
187 Osborne, R. and S. Alcock (2007). Introduction. Classical Archaeology. S. Alcock and R. Osborne. Malden, Oxford, Blackwell: 1-10.
Paddon, H. (2014). Redisplaying Museum Collections: Contemporary Display and Interpretation in British Museums, Ashgate.
Panayotova, S. (2008). I Turned it into a Palace: Sydney Cockerell and The Fitzwilliam Museum.
Patton, M. Q. (2001). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods, SAGE Publications.
Paul, C. (2012). Introduction: The Grand Tour and Princely Collections in Rome. The First Modern Museums of Art: The Birth of an Institution in 18th- and Early- 19th- Century Europe. C. Paul. Los Angeles, Getty Publications: 1-19.
Payne, H. (1927). "Sixth- an Fifth- Century Pottery from Excavations made in Rhitsona by R.M. Burrows; P.Ure; A.D. Ure." Journal of Hellenic Studies 47.
Payne, H. (1931). Necrocorinthia: A Study of Corinthian Art in the Archaic Period. Oxford, Clarendon Press.
Pearce, S. M. (1995). On Collecting: An Investigation into Collecting in the European Tradition. Oxford, Routledge.
Peers, L. and A. K. Brown (2003). Introduction. Museums and Source Communities: A Routledge Reader. L. Peers and A. K. Brown. London, Routledge: 1-16.
Picón, C. A. (2007). A History of the Department of Greek and Roman Art. Art of the Classical World in the Metropolitan Museum of Art: Greece, Cyprus, Etruria, Rome. C. A. Picón, J. R. Mertens, E. J. Millekeret al. New Haven, London, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Yale University Press: 3-23.
Piehl, J. and S. MacLeod (2012). Where do you want the label? The roles and possibilities of exhibition graphics Museum Making: Narratives, Architectures, Exhibitions. S. MacLeod, L. Hourston Hanks and J. Hale. London, New York, Routledge: 257-266.
Plantzos, D. (2011). "Behold the raking geison: the new Acropolis Museum and its context-free archaeologies." Antiquity 85(328): 613-625.
188 Podro, M. (1982). The Critical Historians of Art. New Haven, London, Yale University Press.
Pomian, K. (1990). Collectors and curiosities: Paris and Venice, 1500-1800. Cambridge, Polity Press.
Potts, A. (1994). Flesh and the Ideal: Winckelmann and the Origins of Art History. New Haven, London, Yale University Press.
Potts, A. and J. J. Winckelmann (2006). Introduction. History of the Art of Antiquity. A. Potts. Los Angeles, Getty Publications.
Powers, J. (2015). Current trends in museum display. The Oxford Handbook of Roman Sculpture. E. A. Friedland and M. G. Sobocinski. Oxford, Oxford University Press: 59-73.
Prettejohn, E. (2006). Reception and Ancient Art: The Case of the Venus de Milo. Classics and the Uses of Reception. C. Martindale and R. F. Thomas. Malden, Oxford, Blackwell: 227-249.
Prior, N. (2002). Museums and Modernity: Art Galleries and the Making of Modern Culture. Oxford, Berg.
Prior, N. (2003). Having One's Tate and Eating It. Art and Its Publics: Museum Studies at the Millennium. A. McClellan. Malden, Oxford, Blackwell: 51-74.
Psarra, S. (2005). Spatial culture, way-finding and the educational message: the impact of layout on the spatial, social and educational experiences of visitors to museums and galleries. Reshaping Museum Space: Architecture, Design, Exhibitions. S. MacLeod. London, Routlege: 78-94.
Purkis, H. (2013). "Making Contact in an exhibition zone: Displaying contemporary cultural diversity in Donegal, Ireland, through an installation of visual and material portraits." Museum and Society 11(1): 50-67.
Putnam, J. (2001). Art and Artifact: The Museum as Medium, Thames & Hudson.
Ravelli, L. (2007). Museum Texts: Comunication Frameworks, Taylor & Francis.
189 Re:source, Ed. (2002). Museum Registration Scheme. London.
Rees Leahey, H. (2012). 'Making exhibitions of ourselves'. Museums and Biographies: Stories, Objects, Identities. K. Hill, Boydell Press.
Rees Leahy, H. (2012). Making exhibitions of ourselves. Museums and Biographies: Stories, Objects, Identities. K. Hill, Boydell Press.
Renfrew, C. (1980). "The Great Tradition versus the Great Divide: Archaeology as Anthropology?" American Journal of Archaeology 84(3): 287-298.
Rhodes, R. F. (2007). The Acquisition and Exhibition of Classical Antiquities: Professional, Legal, and Ethical Perspectives, University of Notre Dame Press.
Richter, G. (1917). Handbook of the Classical Collection. New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Ridgway, B. S. (2005). "The Study of Greek Sculpture in the Twenty-First Century." Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 149(1): 63-71.
Roppola, T. (2013). Designing for the Museum Visitor Experience, Taylor & Francis.
Ross, M. (2004). "Interpreting the new museology." Museum and Society 2(2): 84- 103.
Rouet, P. (2001). Approaches to the Study of Attic Vases: Beazley and Pottier. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Sabetai, V. (2005). 'Ronald M. Burrows and Percy N. Ure in Boeotia'. Colloquium 'The Ure Museum: a Retrospective', 26 October 2005, University of Reading. e. A. C. S. Ure Museum Web site.
Said, E. W. (1978). Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the Orient. London, Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Sandell, R. (1998). "Museums as Agents for Social Inclusion." Museum Management and Curatorship 17(4): 401-418.
190 Sandell, R. (2003). "Social Inclusion, the museum and the dynamics of sectoral change." Museum and Society 1(1): 45-62.
Sandell, R. (2004). Museums and the combating of social inequality: roles, responsibilities, resistance Museums, Society, Inequality. R. Sandell. London, New York, Routledge: 3-23.
Scott, J. (2003). The Pleasures of Antiquity: British Collectors of Greece and Rome. New Haven, London, Yale University Press.
Scott, M. K. (2012). "Engaging with Pasts in the Present: Curators, Communities, and Exhibition Practice." Museum Anthropology 35(1): 1-9.
Scott, S. (2006). "Art and the Archaeologist." World Archaeology 38(4): 628-643.
Serrell, B. (1996). Exhibit Labels: An Interpretive Approach, Alta Mira Press.
Settis, S. (2006). The Future of the Classical. Cambridge, Malden, Polity.
Shanks, M. (1996). The Classical Archaeology of Greece: Experiences of the Discipline. London, New York, Routledge.
Shanks, M. (2009). Post-Processual Archaeology and After. Handbook of Archaeological Theories. R. A. Bentley, H. D. G. Maschner and C. Chippindale. Lanham, Altamira Press: 133-146.
Shanks, M. and I. Hodder (1995). Processual, Postprocessual and Interpretive Archaeologies. Interpreting Archaeology: Finding Meaning in the Past. I. Hodder, M. Shanks, Alexandri A.et al. London, New York, Routledge: 3-25.
Shanks, M. and C. Y. Tilley (1992). Re-constructing Archaeology: Theory and Practice. London, New York, Routledge.
Sherman, D. J. and I. Rogoff (1994). Museum Culture: Histories, Discourses, Spectacles. London, Routledge.
Siapkas, J. and L. Sjögren (2007). Ancient Sculptures and National Museums: Universal and Local Claims of Antiquity. NaMu, Making National Museums Program,
191 Setting the Frames, 26–28 February, Linköping University, Norrköping, Sweden. P. Aronsson and M. Hillström, Linköping University Electronic Press 153-163.
Siapkas, J. and L. Sjögren (2008). Appropriations of Antiquity - A Diachronic Comparison of Museums and Scholarship. Comparing: National Museums, Territories, Nation-Building and Change. NaMu IV, Linköping University, Norrköping, Sweden 18–20 February 2008. P. Aronsson and A. Nyblom, Linköping University Electronic Press: 205-223.
Siapkas, J. and L. Sjögren (2013). Displaying the Ideals of Antiquity: The Petrified Gaze. New York, London, Routledge.
Simpson, M. (2001). Making Representations: Museums in the Post-Colonial Era. London, New York, Routledge.
Skeates, R. (2002). "Speaking for the past in the present. Text, authority and learning in archaeology museums." Public Archaeology 2(4): 209-218.
Sloan, K. (2003). 'Aimed at universality and belonging to the nation': The Enlightenment and the British Museum. Enlightenment: Discovering the World in the Eighteenth Century. K. Sloan and A. Burnett. London, The British Museum Press: 12- 25.
Smith, A. (2012). Personal communication.
Smith, T. J. and D. Plantzos (2012). A Companion to Greek Art. Malden, Oxford, Wiley-Blackwell.
Smith, T. J. and D. Plantzos (2012). The Greeks and their Art. A Companion to Greek Art. T. J. Smith and D. Plantzos. Malden, Oxford, Wiley. 1: 3-14.
Snodgrass, A. M. (1971). The Dark Age of Greece: An Archaeological Survey of the Eleventh to the Eighth Centuries BC. . Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press.
Snodgrass, A. M. (1985). "The New Archaeology and the Classical Archaeologist." American Journal of Archaeology 89(1): 31-37.
Snodgrass, A. M. (2002). "A Paradigm Shift in Classical Archaeology?" Cambridge Archaeological Journal 12(2): 179-194.
192 Snook, L. J. C. (2015). Exhibiting Ancient Greek Architectural Sculpture: A comparison of the heritagescape and visitor responses in ten European collections. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Birmingham, Institute of Archaeology and Antiquity, College of Arts and Law.
Souhami, R. (2012). Exhibition Production as Processes of Translation. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Manchester.
Spier, J. and E. Vassilika (1995). "S. S. Lewis: Notes on a Victorian Antiquary and on Contemporary Collecting." Journal of the History of Collections 7(1): 85-102.
Stam, D. (2005). The informed muse. The implications of ‘The New Museology’ for museum practice. Heritage, Museums and Galleries: An Introductory Reader. G. Corsane. London, New York, Routledge: 58-76.
Stansbury-O'Donnell, M. (2011). Looking at Greek art. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Stavroulaki, G. and j. Peponis (2003). The spatial construction of seeing at Castelvecchio. Proceedings of the Fourth International Space Syntax Symposium
(www.spacesyntax.net/symposia/SSS4/fullpapers/66Stavroulaki-Peponis.pdf). London: 66.61-66.14.
Stewart, A. (2008). Classical Greece and the Birth of Western Art. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Stewart, P. (2006). Sculpture. The Edinburgh Companion to Ancient Greece and Rome. E. Bispham, T. J. Harrison and B. A. Sparkes. Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press: 183-193.
Stray (2007b). Education. A Companion to the Classical Tradition. C. Kallendorf. Malden, Oxford, Blackwell: 5-14.
Stray, C. (1996). "Culture and Discipline: Classics and Society in Victorian England." International Journal of the Classical Tradition 3(1): 77-85.
Stray, C. (1998a). Classics Transformed: Schools, Universities and Society in England, 1830-1960. Oxford, Clarendon Press.
193 Stray, C. (1998b). Schoolboys and Gentlemen: Classical Pedagogy and Authority in the English Public School. Pedagogy and Power. Rhetorics of Classical Learning. Y. L. Too and N. Livingstone. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 29-46.
Stray, C. (1999a). Classics in 19th and 20th Century Cambridge: Curriculum, Culture and Community. Cambridge, The Cambridge Philological Society.
Stray, C. (2007a). Oxford Classics: Teaching and Learning, 1800-2000. London, Duckworth.
Swain, H. (2007). An Introduction to Museum Archaeology. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Tanner, J. (1994). "Shifting paradigms in Classical art history." Antiquity 68(260): 650- 655.
Teather, L. (1990). Professonalism and the Museum. The Museum Reference Guide. M. S. Scapiro. New York, London, Greenwood Press: 299-327.
The University of Reading Website (2004). Ure Museum wins AHRB funding for redevelopment. Retrieved on 10/06/2011 from: http://www.reading.ac.uk/news- and-events/releases/PR490.aspx, .
The Ure Museum (2004). Renewal of the Ure Museum Learning Environment: Project Brief. .
Tirrell, P. (2000). "A Synopsis and Perspective of Concerns and Challenges for the International Community of University Museums." Curator: The Museum Journal 43(2): 157-180.
Tlili, A., S. Gewirtz, et al. (2007). "New Labour's Socially Responsible Museum." Policy Studies 28(3): 269-289.
Trigger, B. G. (1989). A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Turner, F. M. (1981). The Greek Heritage in Victorian Britain. New Haven, London, Yale University Press.
194 Turner, F. M. (1989). Why the Greeks and not the Romans in Victorian Britain? . Rediscovering Hellenism: the Hellenic Inheritance and the English Imagination. J. C. Eade and G. W. Clarke. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 61-81.
Tythacott, L. and K. Arvanitis (2014). Museums and Restitution: An Introduction. Museums and Restitution: New Practices, New Approaches. L. Tythacott and K. Arvanitis, Ashgate: 1-17.
Tzortzaki, D. (2012). Myth and the Ideal in 20th c. Exhibitions of Classical Art. A Companion to Greek Art. T. J. Smith and D. Plantzos. Malden, Oxford, Wiley- Blackwell. 2: 667-682.
Tzortzi, K. (2007). Museum Building Design and Exhibition Layout: patterns of interaction. 6th International Space Syntax Symposium. İstanbul.
Ucko, P. J. (1998). "The Biography of a Collection: The Sir Flinders Petrie Palestinian Collection and the Role of University Museums." Museum Management and Curatorship 17(4): 351-399.
Unauthored (2007a). Application to the A.G. Leventis Foundation for funds for the Outreach Programme relating to the renovation of the Greek and Roman Galleries at the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, UK.
Unauthored (2007b). DCMS/Wolfson Foundation Museums and Galleries Improvement Fund 2007-08 BId Proforma.
Unauthored (2008). "Research Grants - Museums, Archives and Libraries Proposal, internal document, Folder Funders, Fitzwilliam Museum Archive."
University Museums Group (2004). University museums in the United Kingdom: a national resource for the 21st century. N. University of East Anglia.
Ure, A. D. (1957). The Museum of Greek Archaeology. The Shell (The University of Reading, Students' Union Publication), 10.12.1957.
Ure, A. D. (1965). A talk for the Friends of the University. Unpublished Source. Ure Museum Archive, Drawer H, A40, Talks.
195 Ure, A. D. (1967). Talk by Annie Ure delivered to Atrebates (the student Classical Society) (audio-recorded material). Unpublished source, provided by the Curator Amy Smith. Ure Museum Archive, Drawer H, A40, Talks.
Ure, A. D. (undated). The Museum of Greek Archaeology. Unpublished source. Ure Museum Archive, Drawer D, A 66, Friends of the University.
Ure, P. N. (1922). Letter to Childs, 07/02/1922. Unpublished Source. Ure Museum Archive, Drawer D, A2, Furniture, Museum Accommodation and History.
Ure, P. N. and A. D. Ure (1954). Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum: Great Britain, University of Reading. London, Oxford University Press.
van Mensch, P. (2003). "Characteristics of exhibitions." Museum Aktuell 92: 3980- 3985.
Vance, N. (2007). Victorian. A Companion to the Classical Tradition. C. Kallendorf. Malden, Oxford, Blackwell: 87-100.
Vassilika, E. (1998). Greek and Roman Art. Cambridge University Press.
Vergo, P. (1989). The New Museology. London, Reaktion Books.
Vernon, K. (2004). Universities and the State in England, 1850-1939, RoutledgeFalmer.
Vickers, M. (1985). "Artful Crafts: The Influence of Metalwork on Athenian Painted Pottery." The Journal of Hellenic Studies 105: 108-128.
Vickers, M. (2001). Greek and Roman Antiquitites in the Seventeenth Century. The Origins of Museums: The Cabinet of Curiosities in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth Century Europe. O. Impey and A. MacGregor. Oxford, Clarendon Press: 223-231.
Vout, C. (2012). "Treasure, not trash: The Disney sculpture and its place in the history of collecting." Journal of the History of Collections 24(3): 309-326.
Voutsaki, S. (2008). "Greek archaeology: theoretical developments over the last 40 years." Tijdschrift voor Mediterrane Archeologie 20(40): 21-28.
196 Walker, S. (2013). A 'Democratic Turn' at the Ashmolean Museum. Classics in the Modern World: A Democratic Turn? L. Hardwick and S. Harrison. Oxford, Oxford University Press: 393-409.
Walter, U. (2006). The Classical Age as a Historical Epoch. A Companion to the Classical Greek World. K. H. Kinzl. Oxford, Wiley-Blackwell: 1-25.
Warhurst, A. (1986). "Triple Crisis in University Museums." Museums Journal 86(3): 137-140.
Watson, P. and C. Todeschini (2007). The Medici Conspiracy: The Illicit Journey of Looted Antiquities from Italy's Tomb Raiders to the World's Greatest Museums. New York, PublicAffairs.
Watson, S. (2007). Museums and Their Communities, Routledge.
Weibel, P. and B. Latour (2008). Experimenting with Representation: Iconoclash and Making Things Public. Exhibition Experiments. S. Macdonald and P. Basu, Wiley: 94- 108.
Whitehead, C. (2009). Museums and the construction of disciplines: art and archaeology in nineteenth-century Britain. London, Duckworth.
Whitehead, C. (2012). Towards some chartographic Understandings of Art Interpretation in Museums Museum Gallery Interpretation and Material Culture. J. Fritsch, Taylor & Francis.
Whitley, J. (1987). Art History, Archaeology and Idealism: The German Tradition. Archaeology as Long-Term History. I. Hodder. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 9-15.
Whitley, J. (1997). "Beazley as theorist." Antiquity 71(271): 40-47.
Whitley, J. (2001). The Archaeology of Ancient Greece. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Whitley, J. (2006). Archaeology. The Edinburgh Companion to Ancient Greece and Rome. E. Bispham, T. J. Harrison and B. A. Sparkes. Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press: 15-20.
197 Whitley, J. (2014). Classical (Greek) archaeology. Encylopedia of Global Archaeology. C. Smith. New York, Springer Reference: 1487-1494.
Wiedemann, T. (2004). Greek and Roman Slavery. London, Routledge.
Wilkinson, H. (2012). "'The dawning of museum professionalism': Constructing the UK museum profession in the 1970s and 1980s." Enquire 5(1): 41-59.
Willett, F. (1986). "The crisis in University Museums in Scotland." Museums Journal 86: 141-144.
Wilton, A. and I. Bignamini (1996). Grand Tour: The Lure of Italy in the Eighteenth Century. London, Tate Gallery.
Witcomb, A. (2003). Re-Imagining the Museum: Beyond the Mausoleum, Taylor & Francis.
Witcomb, A. (2006). Interactivity: Thinking beyond. A Companion to Museum Studies. S. Macdonald. Oxford, Blackwell: 353-361.
Wright, G. (1996). The Formation of National Collections of Art and Archaeology. Hanover, London, National Gallery of Art, Washington.
Yanni, C. (2005). Nature's Museums: Victorian Sciences and the architecture of display, Princeton Architectural Press.
Yin, R. K. (2011). Qualitative Research from Start to Finish, Guilford Publications
198 Appendices
3
4