Isis does it better

Archaeological Museum of Naples
Temple of Isis Collection. Photo by V. Vitale 2012

It is not possible to write about the Pompeian artefacts exhibited in the Museum of Naples without mentioning what is, in my opinion, the museum’s best achievement: the Temple of Isis’ Collection. 

Unlike the other more old fashioned areas of the museum, this little sub-complex has been re arranged in order to deliver a richer and more engaging information. It looks as if they were trying to meet the same audience’s needs expressed by the visitors I have interviewed. Unfortunately, the collection is closed for refurbishment but, thanks to the museum's direction's kindness, I had the privilege to visit it one year ago to gather documentation for my dissertation on the Temple of Isis.

Here follows a few notes about the collection, in comparison with the other Pompeian collections of the Museum.

Language: all the labels and the information are available in Italian and English, making the praiseworthy communication effort enjoyable by a larger audience.

Archaeological Museum of Naples
Temple of Isis Collection. Photo by V. Vitale 2012

Richer descriptions: the labels are less laconic and there are few panels telling at least basic information about the temple and the use of its different spaces (the porticus, the sacrarium the ekklesiaterion etc...). 

Contextual information: the exhibition is rich in contextual information. The first room displays a plastic of the iseum, where the user can see the frescoes’ fragments put in place and have an idea of the architectonical structure of the temple. In the same room are also exhibited ancient documentation from the excavations (1760s) such as Francesco Piranesi’s drawings and the engravings commissioned by the king before the removing of of the frescoes.

Almost every artefact is accompanied by a short text about its use, provenance and sometimes even about its finding location during the excavations.

In one of the room dedicated to the artefacts from the porticus area, a 2D visualisation helps the visitor placing each fragment on the original pattern, communicating the idea that, even though the fragments are framed and hanged on walls like paintings, they were not autonomous but part of a whole pattern. 

Relationships between artefacts: I believe this is the only Pompeian collection in the museum that gathers different kind of artefacts (frescoes, statues, ritual objects, inscriptions not immediately linkable to each other) and shows their connection, presenting them as elements of the same context: the temple is communicated as a «entity», a decorated public and sacred space. 

As always, there is room for improvement. For example, the plastic lacks in transparency, as it is implicitly presented as a reconstruction of the “real thing”, without mentioning the scholarly process or the component of speculation behind it and without mentioning that there are more than one possible, and plausible,  visualisations.

Archaeological Museum of Naples
Temple of Isis Collection: scale model
 Photo by V. Vitale 2012

Archaeological Museum of Naples
Temple of Isis Collection: informative panel
 Photo by V. Vitale 2012

 Moreover, the panels that are supposed to help visitors to locate the fragments on the original walls are, in my opinion, a bit too schematic for a non expert audience and, they make up only partially for the actual disposition of the fragments on the museum walls. In fact, even though frescoes coming from the same area of the iseum are grouped together, they are displayed on the walls disregarding both their vertical (top/down) and horizontal (left/centre/right) original position, creating a slightly confusing match.

I am remarking that because I believe that digital products could help an archaeological museum to improve the quality and quantity of delivered information. Nonetheless, the Isis collection is an interesting attempt to renovate the museum’s approach. It is probably not realistic to rearrange a whole museum (situated in an historical building) in such a way but the Isis collection can be seen as an example, able to give to the public an idea of the relationships between the artefacts, between the artefacts and their interpretations, between the artefacts and the building, between both of them and the ancient inhabitants of Pompeii.

I look forward to the news that such an interesting area of the museum is available again to the public. 

Museum of Naples: complaints department #2

Mueum of Naples, Mosaics Collection
From the Museum's website

There is one last complaint that does not come from the people I interviewed but from my personal experience and was highlight by my current research.

No information about the relationship between objects: sometimes different objects come from the same house, but the visitor is not able to see the connection. In some cases the objects are physically dispersed, like the mosaic of the guard dog from the House of Orpheus (exhibited in the Museum of Naples) and the plaster cast of the dog (from the same house but exhibited in the Antiquarium of Boscoreale), but even when they are in the same museum the relationship is not explicit for the visitor.

On the contrary, sometimes it seems that misleading connections are accidentally suggested by the use of exhibition's space. As Parry remarks, space in museum is part of the communicative process. Proximity implies meaningful connections between items. 

For example, I went to the Archaeological Museum of Taranto (MARTA) yesterday and I couldn’t initially understand the display's criteria. Then a guide explained that the different objects exhibited together came from the same burial. The curators had also added ancient statuettes or paintings illustrating how the found ear rings, buttons or fibulae used to be wore. Having received that information everything made much more sense to me.

Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to work out what are the display criteria in the Museum of Naples. For example, floor mosaics are exhibited next to wall mosaics (as fountains or nymphea’s decorations). To be honest, sometimes the criterion seemed to be simply chromatic similarity or aesthetic pleasantness.

Actually, the Museum's website says that the mosaics are exhibited according to the building materials and techniques. However, this information is not accessible during the visit of the museum.

It is not my intention to criticise the museum’s management because I understand that is very easy to judge and much more difficult to deal with such a complex situation. However, I can’t help thinking of how much of the potential of one of the most interesting museum in the world is partly wasted. 

Furthermore, if the site of Pompeii can still live on its fame, aura and unique history, I believe that the Museum should definitely invest in the quality of the information it is able to deliver.

Museum of Naples: complaints department #1

G. Sommer, Ancient Vases in the
Archaeological Museum of Naples
from wikipedia

So far, I have written notes about Pompeii and the absence of the artefacts on site. What about the ancient objects found in the ancient city? Are the visitors of the Archaeological Museum in Naples more satisfied than the site’s ones?

Apparently they are not. 

Even though all the visitors I have spoken with recognised that the Museum shows interesting items, they were all disappointed (to different extents) by their visit.

The followings are the most common complaints

Language: almost everything is written in Italian. If the visitors don’t want to pay for an audioguide, there is no means to access even the most basic information in a language other than Italian. Considering that the Museum is visited by a very international audience this is very difficult to accept.

Brief and generic descriptions: even Italian visitors were disappointed by the information delivered in the museum, not because of the language but because they found it not sufficient and too generic. The labels are scarce and sometimes just made of two or three words (for instance: “vase, Pompeii”).

No information about use: it is difficulty to understand how everyday-life items were used. Not only surgical tools but even kitchen supplies remain somehow mysterious. The visitors can observe the objects but, because it is impossible to imagine their function or their context of use, the audience tends to loose interest in them.

In my opinion, this is really a shame as everyday-life items can be seen as the highest value offered by the archaeological site of Pompeii. In fact, if it is more likely that exceptional items survive because they are valuable and people take care of them, everyday-life objects often disappear completely. Moreover, Pompeii is one of the best places to analyse those objects in a richer context.

G. Brogi, Surgical tools in the Archaeological Museum
of Naples. From the Alinari Collection

The ones listed above were the impressions that my volunteers spontaneously communicated to me. Then I asked them few specific questions focusing on the topics more closely related to my present research. For example, I tried to understand how easy was for the public to establish a connection (both cognitive and visual) between the artefacts and the provenance building. There was a general agreement on this subject and here follows a sum up of what they told me [plus my comments in square brackets].

Little or no information about provenance: the provenance of the objects is not always stated. Often the labels just say “Pompeii” or “Herculaneum”. In some cases the provenance of the artefact is identified with the code of regionis and insulae set by Giuseppe Fiorelli. 

[I believe this choice is already disappointing for visitors who know a little bit of the toponomastic of Pompeii but I find it quite unsuitable for general public. Fiorelli’s code is precise and clever and it is very useful in archaeological excavations, records and studies. However, I don’t think it was meant for communicative purposes. Moreover, considering how peculiar and evocative are the names of many of the houses in Pompeii, using them might allow more people to connect the items with the place they come from.]

Little or no information about the context: not only it is often very difficult to establish a relationship between the object and the building, but also between the object and its context. 

[Mosaics for example, are usually exhibited on walls and there is no mention that they used to be floors’ decoration. Contextual information is almost completely missing. Speaking of mosaics, that are one of my specific target, there is very few information about how they were built, why they where used to decorate spaces, in what kind of houses and rooms they have been found etc... I believe this kind of information would definitely make the object more interesting in the visitor’s eye]