Arte antica nella sala d’esposizione / Antike Kunst im Ausstellungsraum. Ihre Verwaltung, Wahrnehmung und Präsentation in Italien von 1861 bis 1911 vorgelegt von M.A. Marlene Isabel Julia Scholz ORCID: 0000-0002-4665-7206 von der Fakultät I – Geistes- und Bildungswissenschaften der Technischen Universität Berlin und der Sapienza, Università di Roma (im Rahmen des Doppel-Promotionsabkommens) zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades Doktor der Philosophie – Dr. phil. – genehmigte Dissertation Promotionsausschuss: Vorsitzender: Prof. Dr. Stefan Weinzierl (TU Berlin) Gutachter/in: Prof. Dr. Bénédicte Savoy (TU Berlin), Prof. Dr. Marcello Barbanera (Sapienza, Rom) Berichter/in: Prof. em. Dr. Dieter-Wolf Heilmeyer (FU Berlin), Prof. Dr. Anna Anguissola (Univ. di Pisa) Tag der wissenschaftlichen Aussprache: 6. Dezember 2018 an der Technischen Universität Berlin Berlin 2020 Für meine Eltern Abstract The dissertation examines the evolution of the National Archaeological Museums from the time of the unification of Italy in 1861 to its 50th anniversary in 1911. The four national archaeological museums of Naples, Turin, Florence and Rome form the subject of this research.* They reflect in compressed form a conceptual change in the museums of antiquity: from a manorial collection to a collection based mainly on excavation finds. The work is divided into the following three aspects: (1) the administrative standardisation of museums, (2) the public perception and conveyance of ancient art in Italy, and (3) the presentation and conveyance of ancient art in the exhibition space. The work comes to the following conclusions: (1) In the search for a national identity, the interest of the young kingdom is primarily directed towards its own ancient cultural assets. For their protection and communication, special management and administrative structures are set up. National archaeological museums are given an explicit research mandate. (2) The history of reception of the Etruscans in the 19th century plays a special role, insofar as Etruscan Style elements have already been integrated into the stately representation under the Savoyen house. Additionally, contemporary newspaper reports and European travel literature (Baedeker, Murray and Hachette) demonstrate a continuous perception and awareness of Etruscan achievements. (3) The provenance of the exhibits becomes the decisive criterion for stock formation, determines their arrangement in the exhibition space and becomes the theme of the presentation. Finally, cultural policy development results retrospectively from the situation of the imperial capital. The emphasis on the prestige of the Etruscan continues as long as Turin and then Florence were the seat of government. With Rome as the capital, the positive image of the Etruscan is increasingly replaced by that of the Roman. Instead of overcoming the continual connotation of Rome in Europe as the ‘eternal city’ and symbol of the Roman empire, it is even stronger pronounced on the occasion th of Italy’s 50 anniversary. The Roman becomes the instrument of nationalism and later of fascism. * Museo di Antichità of Turin, Museo archeologico nazionale of Naples, Museo archeologico nazionale of Florence and Museo nazionale romano with its location in the Baths of Diocletian and in the Villa Giulia. Acknowledgements Throughout the writing of this dissertation I have received a great deal of support and assistance. I would first like to thank my supervisors Prof. Dr. Marcello Barbanera and Prof. Dr. Bénédicte Savoy for their useful comments, remarks and engagement through the learning process of this doctoral thesis. Besides my advisor, I would like to thank the rest of my thesis experts: Prof. Dr. Matteo Cadario of the Università degli Studi di Udine, Prof. Dr. Eugenio Polito of the Università degli Studi di Cassino, Prof. Dr. Wolf-Dieter Heilmeyer and Prof. Dr. Anna Angiussola of the Università di Pisa, for their encouragement, insightful comments, and hard questions. Furthermore I would like to thank the Rome Department of Deutsches Archäologisches Institut (DAI), the former Soprintendenza Archeologia della Toscana (SAT), the former Soprintendenza speciale per i Beni archeologici di Roma (SSBAR) and the former Soprintendenza Speciale per i Beni Archeologici di Napoli e Pompei (SSBANP) for access, workspace, assistance and support. Special thanks go to their staff, in particular of the DAI the director Prof. Dr. Ortwin Dally, Daria Lanzuolo, Lidia Biasi, Giulia Perosilio, Fabian Riebschläger and Paul Pasieka; of the SAT the museum director Dr. Giuseppina Carlotta Cianferoni, Dr. Barbara Arbeid, Stefan Anastasio and Dr. Massimo Tarantini; of the SSBAR Dr. Rosanna Friggeri, Dr. Rita Paris, Dr. Luigia Attilia and Antonella Ferraro; and of the SSBANP Andrea Milanesi and Alessandra Villoni. Besides, I would like to the thank the staff of the Archivio Centrale dello Stato di Roma, Istituto Centrale per il Catalogo e la Documentazione (ICCD), Istituto Nazionale d’Archeologia e Storia dell’Arte, the photographic library of the British School and of the American Academy in Rome as well as the Alinari Archive in Florence for their consultation assistance and support. Also, I thank Monika Schweichler, Annick Trellu, Barbara Engel, Johannes Moes of the TU Berlin and Dr. Maria Teresa D’Alessio and Luisa Rocco of the Sapienza for their support and realisation in the agreement of the cotutela. In particular, for corrections and textual suggestions I would like to thank Marina Unger, Heinz Jacobs, Agata Krolikowscy, Wolfgang Gunia, Dr. Louise Rokohl, Mark Howard- Banks and Dr. Irene Pietroletti. I thank my student fellows Fil Simondi, Dr. Mariateresa Curcio, Dr. Donato Alagia, Dr. Marcello Turci, especially Dr. Vincenzo Graffeo and Sara Janni. I thank my sister Carola Scholz who supported me in the design and creation of the catalogue. Also, I thank Kordula and Walter Weiß for their financial and employment support. My final and most important thanks go to my loved ones. I will be forever grateful for your support, patience and love. Berlin, February 20th, 2020 Marlene Scholz 7 EINLEITUNG 11 HISTORISCHER ABRISS – ITALIEN ZWISCHEN NATIONALER EINHEIT UND HAUPTSTADTFRAGE 13 I NORMIERUNG DES MUSEUMSWESENS 17 I.1 REGIONALER UND NATIONALER VERWALTUNGSAPPARAT ANTIKER KULTURGÜTER 17 I.1.1 VOR DER VEREINIGUNG ITALIENS UM 1800–1859 17 I.1.1.1 Königreich von Sardinien-Piemont 17 I.1.1.2 Königreich Lombardo-Venetien 19 I.1.1.3 Großherzogtum Toskana 21 I.1.1.4 Pontifikalstaat 22 I.1.1.5 Königreich beider Sizilien 22 I.1.1.6 Zusammenfassung 23 I.1.2 ZWISCHEN EINHEIT UND VEREINHEITLICHUNG UM 1859–1874 24 I.1.2.1 Die Zentralverwaltung 25 I.1.2.2 Königreich Lombardo-Venetien 26 I.1.2.3 Toskana 27 I.1.2.4 Mittelitalien – Latium 28 I.1.2.5 Süditalien 29 I.1.2.6 Zusammenfassung 29 I.1.3 ZENTRALVERWALTUNG VON 1875 BIS 1880 30 I.1.3.1 Direzione centrale degli Scavi e Musei del Regno 31 I.1.3.2 Provveditorato artistico 36 I.1.3.3 Commissioni conservatrici provinciali 36 I.1.3.4 Zusammenfassung 38 I.1.4 NATIONALE UND REGIONALE VERWALTUNGSINSTANZEN VON 1881 BIS 1890 39 I.1.4.1 Direzione generale per le Antichità e Belle Arti 40 I.1.4.2 Commissariati per le Antichità e Belle Arti 42 I.1.4.3 Delegazioni regionali 43 I.1.4.4 Commissioni conservatrici und Corpo reale del Genio civile 44 I.1.4.5 Zusammenfassung 44 I.1.5 KURZZEITIGER UMBRUCH DER VERWALTUNG (1891–1902) UND SEINE FOLGEN 45 I.1.5.1 Zentralapparat 45 I.1.5.2 Regionalapparat 47 I.1.5.3 Zusammenfassung 50 I.1.6 ADMINISTRATIVE GRUNDLAGE DER HEUTIGEN SITUATION 50 I.1.6.1 Commissione centrale und Consiglio superiore 52 I.1.6.2 Soprintendenze 53 I.1.6.3 Uffici speciali und Commissioni regionali 53 I.1.6.4 Zusammenfassung 53 8 I.2 SONDERSTELLUNG DER ARCHÄOLOGISCHEN NATIONALMUSEEN 54 I.2.1 TRADITION ALS MAßSTAB 55 I.2.2 MUSEEN DES ALTERTUMS AUF DER STAATLICHEN AGENDA 57 I.2.2.1 Uniformierung der Museen des Altertums 58 I.2.2.2 Museen des Altertums als Akteure der Regionalverwaltung 59 I.2.2.3 Nationalmuseen mit wissenschaftlichem Forschungsanspruch 62 I.2.2.4 Nationalmuseen als Standort der Soprintendenza 63 I.2.3 EXKURS: ARCHÄOLOGISCHE STADTMUSEEN 64 I.2.3.1 Museo patrio archeologico von Mailand 65 I.2.3.2 Museo civico archeologico von Bologna 66 I.2.3.3 Resümee 68 I.3 ZUSAMMENFASSUNG 69 II ANTIKES BEWUSSTSEIN UND SEINE VERMITTLUNG 73 II.1 ETRUSKOLOGIE – ETRUSCHERIA/ETRUSCOMANIA 73 II.1.1 DEFINITION: ETRUSKOLOGIE – ETRUSCHERIA/ETRUSCOMANIA 74 II.1.2 URSPRUNG DER SOGENANNTEN ETRUSCHERIA 74 II.1.3 DIE ETRUSKER IN DER RENAISSANCE UND FOLGEZEIT 78 II.1.3.1 Literarische und künstlerische Rezeption 78 II.1.3.2 Florierende Geschäfte mit etruskischen Gütern 82 II.1.3.3 Ideologische Komponente als literarische Inszenierung 85 II.1.4 BILD DER ETRUSKER – SCHWIERIGKEIT DES 19./20. JAHRHUNDERTS 87 II.1.4.1 Studium der Altertumswissenschaften 87 II.1.4.2 Altertumswissenschaft als wertender Glaubenssatz 95 II.2 PRÄSENTATION DER ETRUSKER UND ÖFFENTLICHES BEWUSSTSEIN 100 II.2.1 ITALIENISCHE PRESSEMITTEILUNGEN 101 II.2.1.1 Archäologische Nationalmuseen als Bildungs- und Forschungsstätten 102 II.2.1.2 Museo etrusco als etruskische Forschungszentrale 102 II.2.1.3 Internationale Fürsprache für ein etruskisches Zentralmuseum in Florenz 114 II.2.1.4 Feierliche Eröffnung der Sezione etrusca-topografica in Florenz 118 II.2.1.5 Grenzen und Schwierigkeiten eines etruskischen Zentralmuseums 120 II.2.1.6 Soprintendenze als Ersatz für Zentralmuseen 122 II.2.2 INTERNATIONALE REISEFÜHRER 124 II.2.2.1 Baedeker 126 II.2.2.2 Murray’s Handbook 144 II.2.2.3 Guide Joanne/Hachette