Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:30:42.780Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

In the gallery: priorities today

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2012

N. James
N. James*
Affiliation:
Division of Archaeology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3DZ, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

How do visitors make sense of displays? What should curators be trying to achieve with them? Some 70 experts and students spent a day on these and related issues at the Fitzwilliam Museum, in Cambridge University, on 23 September last, to celebrate the completed rearrangement of its Greek & Roman gallery. That project provoked much of the discussion but comparisons were drawn from the current development of Oxford Universitys Ashmolean Museum and from elsewhere in Britain and overseas (James 2009, 2010). Short lectures by Kate Cooper and Lucilla Burn, of the Fitzwilliam, and by Rick Mather, architect of the Ashmolean’s rearrangements, were followed by eight panellists’ remarks on technical and methodological issues; and the day was rounded off with the Museum’s Severis Lecture for 2011,Dimitrios Pandermalis on The new AcropolisMuseum: project and realization’ (Figure 1).

Type
Research article
Information
Antiquity , Volume 86 , Issue 331 , March 2012 , pp. 235 - 240
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

CIAROS. 2011. http://explore.clarosnet.org/XDB/ASP/clarosHome/about.html (consulted October 2011).Google Scholar
Gilling, J. 2009. History lesson. Museums Journal 109(3): 22–7.Google Scholar
Grey, A., Gardom, T. & Booth, C.. 2006. Saying it differently: a handbook for museums refreshing their display. London: London Museums Hub.Google Scholar
Howard, R. 1998. Cambridge Strategy applies ‘five principles’ to local heritage. Local History Magazine 69: 5–6.Google Scholar
James, N. 2009. The Acropolis and its new museum. Antiquity 83: 1144–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, N. 2010. Ashmolean Museum transformed. Antiquity 84: 556–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, N. 2011. Silk Road riches no embarrassment. Antiquity 85: 654–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, N. & Chippindale, J.. 2010. Figurine enigmas: who's to know? Antiquity 84: 1172–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kavanagh, G. 1998. Buttons, belisha beacons and bullets: city histories in museums, in Kavanagh, G. & Frostick, E. (ed.) Making city histories in museums: 1–18. London: Leicester University Press.Google Scholar
Merriman, N. 1991. Beyond the glass case: the past, the heritage and the public in Britain. Leicester: Leicester University Press.Google Scholar
Merriman, N. 2004. Involving the public in museum archaeology, in Merriman, N. (ed.) Public archaeology: 85–108. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulhearn, D. 2003. University challenge. Museums Journal 103(10): 32–5.Google Scholar
Museums Journal. 2009. Brief encounter. Museums Journal 109(5): 24–31.Google Scholar
Phillipson, D. 2003. Ivory towers. Museums Journal 103(3): 25–7.Google Scholar
Pyburn, K. A. 2006. Exhibiting archaeology: site museums and cultural resource management in Latin America, in Silverman, H. (ed.) Archaeological site museums in Latin America: 256–66. Gainesville (FL): University Press of Florida.Google Scholar
Snodgrass, A. 2011. Soft targets and no-win dilemmas: response to Dimitris Plantzos. Antiquity 85: 629–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoddart, S. & Malone, C.. 2002. Editorial. Antiquity 76: 915–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar