In October 2017, a major exhibition space opens under
Bloomberg LLP’s new European headquarters. Called ‘London Mithraeum Bloomberg
SPACE’, it returns to its find-site the Third Century Temple of Mithras,
excavated in 1954 by Grimes (Grimes, 1968); see also Shepherd (1998). The
demolition of Bucklersbury House in 2005 permitted further investigation in
2010-14 by Museum of London Archaeology (MOLA). Bloomberg, a major US financial
data firm, bought the land in 2010, when the archaeology was already underway
and from the outset intended to display finds in a dedicated exhibition
space (Symonds, 2013 p.17).
Interviews in 2013 were framed almost entirely by studies of
the structure of the site, dubbed ‘London’s Pompeii’. The emphasis was on ‘star
finds’ of artefacts used as landfill, with waterlogged conditions accidentally
preserving wood, leather shoes)and wicker (Symonds, 2013, p.16). There was
however a paragraph about some wooden tablets with text, one of which had been
translated (Symonds (2013) p.17).
Little more was written until a major Current Archaeology article, again by Matthew Symonds (Symonds,
2016) prepared as part of a major Public Relations exercise by Bloomberg. On 1
June 2016, besides Symond’s article, there was a major new entry by MOLA ( http://www.mola.org.uk/blog/archaeological-research-britain’s-oldest-hand-written-documents-released)
and a major article by National
Geographic magazine (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/05/ancient-rome-London-Londinum-Bloomberg-archaeology-Boudicca-archaeology/).
Symonds’ 2016 article makes no mention of any artefacts
except the texts, now dubbed ‘the Bloomberg Tablets’. The MOLA webpage includes
a glossy video and a plug for the £32 book (Tomlin (2017)). The excavations are
termed ‘Bloomberg Excavations’, although mostly completed before Bloomberg
bought the site.
The problem with the foregrounding of the texts over the
site is the texts are not from a sealed context, unlike the Vindolanda Tablets (Bowman,
1998). They were tipped in as discarded material over many years. Their value
was as landfill, not as text.
Commerce has long funded permanent structures (e.g.
Courtauld Institute, Tate Gallery, Sainsbury Centre, Norwich), but didn’t own
the buildings. Sponsorship by newspapers was commonplace (White and Barker
(1998) on Wroxeter, Cunliffe (1998) on Fishbourne), driven by a need for
spectacular Roman finds, the ‘rush to Roman’ over archaeological value. Martin
Millett comments that ‘Londinium is now probably both the most
extensively and best-excavated major town of the Roman world ‘ (Millett,
2016, p.1692) but bemoans the absence of academic studies of sites, unpublished
‘grey literature’.
Bloomberg
had not been involved in the vacant site, which had once been earmarked for
Schroeders until 2010 (Entertainment
Business Newsweekly 26/12/2010) but took it on, knowing the implications.
The 501C3 US charitable structure expects rapid outlays to prove charitable,
tax-deductable, intent.
There are
two issues to consider from the Bloomsberg exhibition. First, unlike museum
sponsorship, the display will be in the Bloomberg European Headquarters,
designed by Norman Foster, rather than in the Museum of London; the Bloomberg
building is designed to last a hundred years and the exhibition is permanent.
It was already decided in 2013 that this would be so (Symonds 2013, pN),
indicating this was not a decision that emerged over time, but was in place
when Bloomberg bought the site.
In 2013,
the emphasis was not on the writing tablets, only one of which had then been
translated (Symonds, 2013); rather the research at that time was very much
about the Walbrook riverfront. By 2016, the emphasis had changed strongly in
favour of the texts (Symonds, 2016). I would ascribe this to the interests
and agenda of Bloomberg.
The
selection of Current Archaeology and National
Geographic, popular rather than specialist publications, as media outlets
suggests that, as Millett suggests, academic studies have been neglected and a
firm emphasis has been developed towards mass entertainment, as the new
Bloomberg Space is listed on tourism websites under ‘things to do’ ( http://www.visitlondon.com/things-to-do/place/45615751-london-mithraeum#7l4OCpo20F9OzmtA.97).
I should to comment on the words of (or written for)
founder Michael Bloomberg:
As steward
of this ancient site and artefacts, Bloomberg has embraced the City of London’s
rich heritage. And as a company that is centered on communications – of data,
information, news, and analysis – we are thrilled that Bloomberg has been at
the core of a project that has provided so much new information about London’s
first half-century (http://www.mola.org.uk/blog/archaeological-research-britain’s-oldest-hand-written-documents-released)
The Mithraeum had been in a safe relocation for 63 years.
The Bloomberg PR refers to it ‘coming home’. Why is moving it from a public
site on Queen Victoria Street nearby to a private site on top of where it was
significant? The Mithraeum has nothing to do with the texts, so why show them
together?
Some discontent about this is evident in an Evening Standard article (Holland, 2017)
which informs readers about the Mithraeum but avoids mentioning Bloomberg. The
Wikipedia article on the Mithraeum was recently edited by Bloomberg, adding ‘Visitors will also enjoy a series of
contemporary art commissions responding to one of the UK’s most significant
archaeological sites’ (Wikipedia edit 19/9/17). Is this a museum, art gallery,
or merely a puff for Bloomberg?
The change in emphasis between 2013 and 2016 is startling.
In 2016, there was no discussion of the Walbrook site or any artefacts. Box
revetments and interesting shoes don’t sell exhibitions. Or make us like intrusive companies.
I see no evidence that Roman culture favoured business at
all, the elite authors finding it ‘vulgar’ (Cicero De Officiis); quite a lot was known about the business
opportunities at the time of the invasion (Pomponius Mela Chorographia). Greater interest seems to have been shown in mining,
a state monopoly (Pliny the Elder Naturalis
Historia)
The Bloomberg Space with its permanent exhibition is a
perfect form of ‘edutainment’, a portmanteau term coined in 1954: it entertains
people by purporting to educate them. The ‘blockbuster’ exhibition is something
to tick off the list; tasteful and well-presented with subdued lighting and
somewhere to sit. The audience for such exhibitions is usually older and
looking for a good day out. To reuse Banksy’s phrase, they ‘exit through the
gift shop’. They attend and briefly engage, but leave with a fridge magnet.
A Wall Street Journal
article summed it up neatly: ‘Museums
are also embracing the ability to use storytelling to engage people … in hopes
to increase attendance; all the while, though, it is possible for the focus and
purpose of museums to be diluted’ (Gamerman, 2015).
The change in emphasis from serious archaeology to
edutainment (‘things to do’), casting early Roman London into a place for
swashbuckling capitalism, seems designed to frame Bloomberg as its natural
successor. The risks of that were highlighted in 2014 by Ballofet et al., commenting on ‘the appropriateness or potential risks of
edutainment’.
Of course,
edutainment is nothing new; I could argue that Aeschylus’ Persians was a staged event, while Augustus tells us in his Res Gestae how he reenacted the naval
battle of Actium in the arena. What after all is a Roman triumph with its display
of captured riches and bedraggled captives but live edutainment?
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Cicero De Officiis 1.42.151, Loeb, (trans. W. Miller, 1989)
Pliny the Elder Naturalis
Historia
Pomponius Mela Chorographia (trans. and ed. F.E. Romer 1998) Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Secondary Sources
Angela, A. (2013) The Reach of
Rome Trans. G Conti, New York: Random House.
Balloffet, P., Courvoisier, F.H. and Lagier, J. (2014). ‘From Museum to
Amusement Park: The Opportunities and Risks of Edutainment’, International
Journal of Arts Management. 16
(2).
Bowman, A.K. (1998) Life and
Letters on the Roman Frontier: Vindolanda and its People, London:
Routledge.
Cunliffe, B. (1998) Fishbourne
Roman Palace, Stroud: Tempus.
Gamerman, E. (2015). "ARENA --- The Museum of The Future --- From
3-D headsets to holograms, new technologies are revolutionizing exhibits; is it
entertainment or education?" The Wall Street Journal 16/10/2015.
Gillam, J.P., MacIvor, I & Birley, E. (1954) 'The Temple of Mithras
at Rudchester'. Archaeologia Aeliana XXXII, 176-219.
Gillam, J.P. and Richmond, I. (1949) 'Excavations on the Roman site at
Corbridge 1946-1949', Archaeologia Aeliana XXVI, 152.
Grimes, W.F. (1968) Excavation of Roman and Mediaeval London
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Holland, T. (2017) ‘The glory of Ancient Rome is right beneath our
streets’ Evening Standard 8/8/17;
viewable at <https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/tom-holland-the-glory-of-ancient-rome-is-right-beneath-our-streets-a3606631.html>
Millett, M. (2016) ‘Improving our understanding of Londinium’ Antiquity, 12/2016, Vol.90(354),
pp.1692-1699
Shepherd, J.D. (1998) The Temple of Mithras, London: excavations by
W. F. Grimes and A. Williams at the Walbrook London: English Heritage.
Symonds, M. (2013) ‘London’s Pompeii? The rise and fall of a London
waterfront’ Current Archaeology 280,
May 2013, 12-17.
Symonds, M. (2016) ‘Letters from Londinium: Reading the earliest writing
from Roman Britain’ Current Archaeology
317, June 2016, 36-40.
Tomlin, R.O. (2017) Roman London's
First Voices: Writing Tablets from the Bloomberg Excavations, 2010-14: 72,
Monograph Series; London: Museum of London Archaeology.
White, R. and Barker, P. (1998) Wroxeter:
Life and Death of a Roman City Stroud: Tempus.
Websites
1< http://www.mola.org.uk/blog/archaeological-research-britain’s-oldest-hand-written-documents-released>
7 < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Mithraeum>
(All
websites consulted 14/9/17, except Wikipedia (2/10/17))
