Think about it – the site has evolved over the last 100 years, and so much history had already been “lost” as a result of the site’s natural “evolution” by the time the site was redeveloped in the 90’s that it didn’t reflect any particular period in it’s history anyway. Surely the museum as it currently stands is just another stage of evolution in the site’s history, but one that does try to reflect on the site’s past in all it’s aspects?

Very well said Paul.

And one of the challenges faced by all such museums is to explain that evolving history. I’ve seen it done well and I’ve seen it done very badly (at a Roman archeological site).