Page 83 - Hrobat Virloget, Katja, et al., eds. (2015). Stone narratives: heritage, mobility, performance. University of Primorska Press, Koper.
P. 83
public presentation of stone monuments
all we need to know about the Romans is known, it all happened in the past and is not very
relevant to our lives today.
The situation is not helped by the way in which the Romans tend to be presented in
museums and guidebooks. Such presentation tends to be quite academic, imparting knowl-
edge (instruction) from specialist academics, professionals and curators to visitors, rather
than enabling the visitor to relate what is being presented to their own personal experience.
These specialists tend also to have a poor understanding of the principles of good interpre-
tation, equating the storytelling of interpreters with the world of Disney and fairy tales;
but as Tilden emphasises, all good interpretation is based on sound scientific information.
Objects presented in museums usually come from specific archaeological sites or
monuments (their provenance). Presentation tends to focus on the site itself, the structures
and objects found and the information they reveal about daily life at that site. Partly be-
cause of the contexts from which they derive (often military sites) the emphasis is on mili-
tary life at the expense of broader social, cultural and economic and political themes. There
is also a misleading emphasis on a particular use of the term authentic which is used to re-
strict interpretation to the objects actually found at a site despite the fact that other objects
that could complement the interpretation may have been found at similar sites and simi-
lar contexts.
Rarely are the objects used to illustrate broader social, cultural, political or economic
narratives despite the fact that one of the fundamental elements of archaeological training
is the understanding that objects can convey many different types of information about the
period they represent – functional, processual, symbolic, economic, social etc. It is a para-
dox that when it comes to presenting these same objects to the general public, the tendency
is simply to display the object rather than use it to illustrate a story.
This is in stark contrast to the approach taken by Neil McGregor, Director of the Brit-
ish Museum in his BBC Radio 4 series in which he used 100 carefully chosen objects to
illustrate the story of human civilisation (McGregor, 2010). To underline the point, Neil
McGregor’s background is as an art historian and he was Director of the National Gallery
prior to becoming Director of the British Museum. Since his appointment the Museum has
put on an acclaimed series of great exhibitions which have used objects to illustrate grand
narratives associated with the histories of some of the most noted and influential leaders of
civilisations world-wide.
Hadrian’s Wall, and other linear structures created for defence, present a significant
problem for interpretation since from the point of view of the visiting public one part of
the structure is much the same as the next. In the case of Hadrian’s Wall there are 11 main
sites/museums open to the public. For over twenty years, apart from the opening of a new
museum at Segedunum in 2000, there had been very little investment in public presenta-
tion. Most of these sites are essentially military and most are forts. At a basic level each site
told essentially the same story concerning the construction of Hadrian’s Wall and the forts
and other installations along it, daily life in the forts as represented by the objects left be-
hind, and the eventual breakdown of the Roman frontier. The objects on display are simi-
lar from one site to the next.
For the academic there are important differences in the information provided by each
site but this is lost on the average visitor for whom each site is essentially a pile of stones,
81
all we need to know about the Romans is known, it all happened in the past and is not very
relevant to our lives today.
The situation is not helped by the way in which the Romans tend to be presented in
museums and guidebooks. Such presentation tends to be quite academic, imparting knowl-
edge (instruction) from specialist academics, professionals and curators to visitors, rather
than enabling the visitor to relate what is being presented to their own personal experience.
These specialists tend also to have a poor understanding of the principles of good interpre-
tation, equating the storytelling of interpreters with the world of Disney and fairy tales;
but as Tilden emphasises, all good interpretation is based on sound scientific information.
Objects presented in museums usually come from specific archaeological sites or
monuments (their provenance). Presentation tends to focus on the site itself, the structures
and objects found and the information they reveal about daily life at that site. Partly be-
cause of the contexts from which they derive (often military sites) the emphasis is on mili-
tary life at the expense of broader social, cultural and economic and political themes. There
is also a misleading emphasis on a particular use of the term authentic which is used to re-
strict interpretation to the objects actually found at a site despite the fact that other objects
that could complement the interpretation may have been found at similar sites and simi-
lar contexts.
Rarely are the objects used to illustrate broader social, cultural, political or economic
narratives despite the fact that one of the fundamental elements of archaeological training
is the understanding that objects can convey many different types of information about the
period they represent – functional, processual, symbolic, economic, social etc. It is a para-
dox that when it comes to presenting these same objects to the general public, the tendency
is simply to display the object rather than use it to illustrate a story.
This is in stark contrast to the approach taken by Neil McGregor, Director of the Brit-
ish Museum in his BBC Radio 4 series in which he used 100 carefully chosen objects to
illustrate the story of human civilisation (McGregor, 2010). To underline the point, Neil
McGregor’s background is as an art historian and he was Director of the National Gallery
prior to becoming Director of the British Museum. Since his appointment the Museum has
put on an acclaimed series of great exhibitions which have used objects to illustrate grand
narratives associated with the histories of some of the most noted and influential leaders of
civilisations world-wide.
Hadrian’s Wall, and other linear structures created for defence, present a significant
problem for interpretation since from the point of view of the visiting public one part of
the structure is much the same as the next. In the case of Hadrian’s Wall there are 11 main
sites/museums open to the public. For over twenty years, apart from the opening of a new
museum at Segedunum in 2000, there had been very little investment in public presenta-
tion. Most of these sites are essentially military and most are forts. At a basic level each site
told essentially the same story concerning the construction of Hadrian’s Wall and the forts
and other installations along it, daily life in the forts as represented by the objects left be-
hind, and the eventual breakdown of the Roman frontier. The objects on display are simi-
lar from one site to the next.
For the academic there are important differences in the information provided by each
site but this is lost on the average visitor for whom each site is essentially a pile of stones,
81
