Name: Sam Leeflang
Study: Heritage Studies
Student number: 10506810
Date: 24/2/2015
Supervisor: Hanneke Ronnes Second reader: Joris Aarts
E-mail: sam.leeflang@online.nl
The challenge of presenting
the Dutch Limes
A critical reflection on the current approach to increase
public support for the World Heritage nomination of the
2
Index
Preface ... 4
Introduction ... 5
Chapter one: Theoretical framework ... 8
1.1 The development of public archaeology ... 8
1.2 Community archaeology ... 11
1.3 Perspectives within public archaeology ... 12
1.4 Public archaeology in the Netherlands ... 13
Chapter two: Current attempts to increase public support ... 16
2.1 Methodology ... 16 2.2 Political discourse ... 17 2.3 Case studies ... 19 2.3.1 On-site presentations ... 19 Domplein ... 20 Woerden ... 22 Matilo ... 25 Hoge Woerd ... 27 2.3.2 Museum presentations ... 28
Rijksmuseum van Oudheden ... 29
Museum het Valkhof ... 31
2.3.3 Additional presentations ... 32
Chapter three: UNESCO and the public support for the Dutch Roman Limes ... 35
3.1 Preliminary nomination file ... 35
3.1.2 Only in-situ remains... 36
3.1.3. A non-continuous site ... 37
3.1.4. Exclusion of the coastal defenses ... 38
3.2 Comparison with other sections for the World Heritage Site ... 39
3.3 UNESCO and reconstructions ... 41
3.4 Conservation, research and presentation ... 44
Chapter four: Conclusion and recommendations ... 47
4.1 Connectivity ... 48
4.2 Communication ... 50
4.3 Target audience ... 51
4.4 Quality versus quantity... 53
3 4.6 Different interpretations of the Roman Empire ... 56 Bibliography ... 59 List of figures ... 68
4
Preface
The master’s thesis which now lies before you is the product of a difficult decision made in the beginning of 2012. The future did not look bright for an almost graduated archaeologist. Due to a financial crisis in the construction sector, archaeological companies were faced with budget cuts and potential bankruptcy. During my last excavation it dawned to me that without better public
awareness and support, archaeology would be no more than a box, construction companies had to tick off. Something needed to change.
When you want to change something always start with yourself. I decided to pursue a second master, which instead of focusing on the past, focused on the present. Studying people’s perception of the past enabled me to view archaeology in a completely different light. It convinced me that the past is an essential part of the present. This thesis is not just the product of my master’s in Heritage studies but evolves from a greater ambition, and will by no means be the end of this ambition.
There are several persons I would like to thank. First and foremost I want to thank my girlfriend, Jolande Vos. Without her enthusiasm, support and knowledge of the English language this thesis would have never been made. Secondly it is important to thank my supervisor Hanneke Ronnes for her guidance and believe in me and my research. Her valuable comments and remarks have brought this thesis to a higher level. Joris Aarts, my second reader, also deserves special mentioning as it were discussions with him that inspired me to dive into the subject of public archaeology. Finally I would like to thank my parents and friends for supporting my decision to pursue this second master.
5
Introduction
On April 4th 2011 the former Dutch staatssecretaris (roughly translates as State Secretary) of Education, Culture and Science, Halbe Zijlstra, presented a letter to the parliament regarding new nominations for UNESCO’s World Heritage List.1 In this letter he proposed eleven new entries to the tentative list. Several of the entries have since been nominated for the World Heritage List. In this thesis one of the new entries plays a key role. The Dutch Roman frontier, often called Limes, was inscribed in the Dutch tentative list and within several years will be nominated as an extension of the World Heritage Site “Frontiers of the Roman Empire”. However, before the Netherlands nominate the heritage site, Zijlstra believes that we first need to invest in increasing public support for the nomination. This implies that there is a lack of public support and public interest in a nomination of the Dutch Limes.
The past years several attempts at creating a greater public support for the nomination have been made. Archaeologists and heritage experts have tried to involve the public and enhance interest and knowledge about the Roman period in the Netherlands through presenting the
archaeological sites of the Roman military forts. However, there is a major complication with which almost every project so far has struggled: in the Netherlands the Roman Frontier did not exist of a large wall or earthworks. It was the river Rhine which formed the border between the Roman Empire and the ‘barbarian wild lands’. This makes the Dutch Frontier different than the heritage sites which have so far been inscribed into the World Heritage Site “The Roman Frontiers”.2 An obvious problem of presenting the Dutch Limes is that the Rhine is not a static landmark; it has changed its course many times since the Roman period. It is also not a man-made structure, which makes it far less impressive than a 117 km. long, 5 meter high wall that splits the country in halve, such as Hadrian’s Wall. While we do not have a man-made aw-inspiring wall we do have a line of Roman military camps. These camps could be presented to the public by making them accessible and visible.
A second problem arises here. The natural physical-geology in the Netherlands lacks stone. During the prehistory and the early Roman period everything was built using wood and wattle-and-daub. This has far-reaching consequences for the conservation of structures. Often there is not much more left of a structure then some discoloration of the soil on the spot where once a wooden post stood. During the Roman period stone was imported from Germany, especially from the region near Xanten, and the first stone structures in the Netherlands were built. However, when the Romans left and stone became scarce again, the first thing most people did was to deconstruct the Roman forts,
1
Zijlstra 2011.
2 Sites that have been inscribed are: Hadrian’s Wall (England, inscribed in 1987), The Upper German-Rhaetian 2 Sites that have been inscribed are: Hadrian’s Wall (England, inscribed in 1987), The Upper German-Rhaetian
6 which were no longer needed anyway, and use the stones for a new purpose.3 This means that the Romantic Roman ruins as seen in for instance North-England are virtually non-existent in the Netherlands. All we can often present to the public are pieces of broken pots, bits of metal, burned bone and some stains in the soil. This makes it hard for the public to create an idea of live in the Roman period.
We can state that presenting the Dutch Roman frontier to the public and create their support and interest in the subject can be challenging. Following the letter of our State Secretary, several attempts have been made to gain support and interest for the Dutch Limes, using different approaches and targeting different audiences. This is not strange, as public engagement in archaeology is a relatively new subject and a best practice has yet to be found.
In the rest of this introduction I will set out the course of this master’s thesis. The main question of the thesis is: What has been done to increase public support for the Dutch Limes World Heritage nomination and for what reasons, and how can this be improved? We will find the answer to this question as we move through the four chapters of this thesis. The first chapter provides the
theoretical background against which the research is set. It looks at the international discourse of the concept of public archaeology and zooms in at the current position this field of study has within the Dutch archaeological sector.
Following the theory chapter two discusses the current state of public outreach regarding the Dutch Limes. We will look at the position of the Limes within national politics before moving on to several case studies. The case studies provide us with practical insights about the ways the Dutch Limes is currently presented to the public. Chapter three aims to place the case studies in a broader international framework. And therefore discusses the implications the UNESCO nomination has and should have on the presentation of the Limes. The last chapter, chapter four, connects all the collected data and provides recommendations on how the presentation of the Limes can be improved.
The topic of my master thesis is geographically as well as chronologically delineated. It is delineated in time as I will look at the nomination of the Dutch Roman frontier after the inscription on the tentative World Heritage List in 2011. The Dutch Limes has featured extensively in the “Belvedere” program, which is a ten year program that started in 1999 and stimulated the use of cultural history in spatial development. The results of this program are already extensively analyzed by Hanna Leijen in her master’s thesis written in 2008.4
The thesis is delineated geographically by its focus on the Dutch Roman frontier. However, the Netherlands is not the only country looking for inclusion in the World Heritage Site “The Roman
3 Vos 2009, 48-49. 4
7 Frontiers”. Two other countries, Austria, Hungary and Germany, have also placed their Roman Frontier on their tentative World Heritage List. The Dutch nomination is also linked to the nomination of a section of the German Roman Frontier. The nomination should be a combined effort in which the two countries work closely together. While I will focus on the Dutch nomination, it is impossible to study this subject without paying attention to the international dimension.
At the moment three sections of the Roman Frontier have been declared world heritage. The three sections all have their own characteristics, problems and advantages when it comes to presenting the archaeology. The first site to be included on the World Heritage List was Hadrian’s Wall, in 1987. This early nomination is not surprising as Hadrian’s Wall is still very well visible in the landscape. From 1599 onwards antiquarians, historians and archaeologists were fascinated by this immense monument.5 As large parts of Hadrian’s Wall are situated in sparsely populated areas, they have remained mostly intact. Several Roman forts, watchtowers and mile castles (small fortifications placed at one Roman mile from each other) are still visible or have been uncovered by
archaeologists. The visibility of the monument and the early academic interest ensured that Hadrian’s Wall was the first section of the Roman Frontier on the World Heritage List.
For eighteen years Hadrian’s Wall was the only Roman frontier on the World Heritage List, until in 2005 the German nomination of the Upper German-Raetian Limes was accepted. The World Heritage Site “Frontiers of the Roman Empire” was created to encompass both sites and the already expected further additions. The Upper German-Raetian Limes consists of the Upper German Limes, a wooden palisade with ditch, and the Raetian Limes, a stone wall.6 While part of the Limes is still visible, including the stone built watchtowers and forts, a large part has since been reused or leveled. Approximately 43 percent of the Upper German-Raetian Limes is invisible.7
The third inclusion into the “Frontiers of the Roman Empire” World Heritage Site was the Antonine Wall in Scotland. The Antonine Wall is named after Antonius Pius, who was the direct successor of Hadrian. The Antonine Wall was not built out of stone like Hadrian’s Wall. It consisted of a turf rampart with a large ditch in front of it. Along the wall several forts and watchtowers were constructed. Within the forts only the principal buildings (headquarters, granaries and the house of the commanding officers) were built out of stone, the rest was made of wood and turf. 8 The Antonine Wall was only in function for a very short period (142-158 A.D.). Thereafter the Romans retreated behind Hadrian’s Wall.9
5 Historic Building and Monuments Commission England 1986, 2. 6 Deutsche Limeskomission 2004, 21. 7 Deutsche Limeskomission 2004, 23. 8 Breeze 2004, 10-11. 9 Breeze 2004, 8.
8
Chapter one: Theoretical framework
Creating public interest in the Dutch Roman frontier, or in Dutch archaeology in general, is
impossible without engaging the public. Dutch archaeology does not speak for itself. There are little visible remains which can trigger people’s imagination and sparkle their interest. Archaeology in the Netherlands needs to be truly presented. Analyzing the way archaeology is presented to the public and how the public is encouraged to take an interest in archaeology forms the subject of this thesis. This field of interest is not new but has been around since the 1970’s and is generally termed as ‘public archaeology’. In this chapter we will first look at the development of the term and the current interpretation of it. The term ‘public archaeology’ plays a key role within this thesis so it is important to have a good understanding of the meaning of the term. I will also discuss the difference between public archaeology and community archaeology as these terms are often mixed but do mean different things.
After exploring the international debate, it is interesting to look at the development of public archaeology in the Netherlands. Public archaeology is deeply connected with recent changes in the archaeological sector; particularly the result of changes that took place after the introduction of the Valletta convention in Dutch archaeology during the 2000s.
1.1 The development of public archaeology
The American archaeologist Charles Robert McGimsey was the first who used the term ‘public archaeology’. In 1972 he published his book under the title Public Archaeology.10 McGimsey used the term to emphasize the archaeologists’ and the public’s responsibility to safeguard archaeological remains for the public good.11 Public archaeology was about protecting archaeological monuments and documenting archaeological remains. This was not only the job of archaeologists but the archaeologists needed the help of the public. This definition of the term is connected to the
problems with the management of cultural resources in America in the 1970’s. Due to an expanding economy and the commercialization of archaeological objects, many archaeological remains were destroyed.12 There were simply not enough archaeologists in America to protect every site and object, the help of the public was needed.
Since the introduction of the term, it has been appropriated by different researchers in different countries around the world. In every country the term has gotten a different interpretation according to national problems and difficulties surrounding archaeology and heritage. The popularity 10 McGimsey 1972. 11 McGimsey 1972, 5-6. 12 Jameson Jr. 2004, 36, 38-39.
9 and appropriation of public archaeology is an interesting phenomenon and begs for an explanation. Akira Matsuda and Katsuyuki Okamura, editors of the volume New Perspectives in Public
Archaeology, identify three factors which together explain the growing interest in public archaeology
since the 1970s:13
- The development of archaeological theory and especially the paradigm shift towards ‘postprocessual archaeology’ during the 1980s. Postprocessualists believe that there is not one understanding of the past but many and that all interpretations are colored by
contemporary ideology.14
- The ongoing realization that archaeology is linked to politics. Interpretations can and often will be used within the political arena, this is often called ‘the politics of the past’.
- The ongoing commodification of archaeology and heritage. The new neo-liberal market driven economy has had great impact on the archaeological practice. The cultural sector needs to show why it is relevant to the modern society to validate its costs.
Together these three factors explain the growing interest in archaeology, although in not every country each factor plays an equal role. Because every country appropriated the term within their own context, defining public archaeology becomes more and more problematic.15 Not only did it become an uncontrollable broad subject; it also lacked a firm theoretical background. It was, and sometimes still is, used as a buzz term, often used but seldom defined. Several researchers recognized this lack of theory and since the late 1990s there is a growing body of theoretical reflections regarding the subject.16
One of the most influential works on this subject is the volume Public Archaeology, edited by Nick Merriman, Director of the Manchester Museum. Defining public archaeology begins with defining ‘the public’. Merriman shows us that the term ‘public’ can have two meanings.17 The first is associated with the state and its institutions. The state is acting on behalf of the public or in the ‘public interest’. It is presumed that the state knows what the public wants and can represent the public in state business. On the other hand we have the public as a diverse group of individuals, all with their own background and opinions. Both meanings of ‘the public’ are in essence conflictual as state institutions view ‘the public’ as one group while the second meaning views ‘the public’ as a diverse group. Merriman argues that the public, in the second meaning, forms the part of the 13 Matsuda/Okamura 2011, 8. 14 Johnson 1999, 98, 107-108. 15 Matsuda/Okamura 2011, 2. 16
Schadla-Hall 1999; Ascherson 2000, Merriman 2002; Merriman 2004; Matsuda 2004; Matsuda/Okamura 2011.
17
10 population “who do not earn their living as professional archaeologists. It is only their characteristic of not being professional archaeologists that unites ‘the public’ in our context” 18
However, Merriman’s definition of ‘the public’ in ‘public archaeology’ creates a dichotomy between professional archaeologists and the rest. On the one hand it suggests an unequal
relationship between the professional archaeologist and the public. It enhances the authority of the professional archaeologists, while this is precisely what several academics are pleading against.19 On
the other hand the professional archaeologist is not always in his role as professional. I myself as a professional archaeologist often visit heritage sites. When I visit these sites I do not feel any different than the others visitors. The second problem in this definition is that it presumes that unpaid
archaeologists are not professionals. This creates a second dichotomy, a dichotomy which is difficult to maintain, especially during the economic crisis of 2008-2014 in the archaeological sector. During this period many archaeologists were unable to earn their living with archaeology. Other authors have proposed a broader definition of the public. They believe that it cannot be narrowed down further then saying that it is a widely diverse group, which could potentially include everybody.20 Having defined ‘the public’ brings us one step closer to defining ‘public archaeology’. The precise definition of public archaeology is still widely debated. However, there are several
interpretations which can acclaim general recognition. 21 Tim Schadla-Hall, editor of the journal Public
Archaeology introduced one of the most influential interpretations of the term. In the first issue of
this journal he proposed to define public archaeology as a field which is “concerned with any area of archaeological activity that interacted or had the potential to interact with the public …”22 By using the word ‘interaction’, Schadla-Hall argues for public archaeology as a two-way process. The public is not only a recipient but is an active player in this field.
Matsuda and Okamura propose a different, more active definition: “… we define public archaeology as a subject that examines the relationship between archaeology and the public, and seeks to improve it.”23 Public archaeology not only investigates the relation but also makes a commitment to improve it. They believe that the goal of archaeologists involved in public archaeology, should make archaeology more relevant to contemporary society.24
18
Merriman 2004, 2.
19
For example Waterton/Smith 2009, 10.
20 Matusda/Okamura 2011, 4. 21 Matusda/Okamura 2011, 1. 22 Schadla-Hall 1999, 147. 23 Matusda/Okamura 2011, 4. 24 Matusda/Okamura 2011, 4.
11
1.2 Community archaeology
It is in the context of this essay relevant to discuss the relationship between public archaeology and ‘community archaeology’. At the moment both terms are in use, cover more or less the same subject and are sometimes said to be interchangeable.25 When archaeologists use the term community archaeology, they usually refer to the active participation of the public in archaeology.26 Generally, this means that members of the public are invited to join the excavation. Sometimes the public is also invited to join the less spectacular post-excavation process in which the documentation is digitalized and finds are documented and processed.
The term Community archaeology was first used during the 1980s in England. Its main purpose was to connect with the funding for the governmental ‘Community program’.27 For several years these so-called community archaeology projects could depend on governmental subsidies. After the program was halted in 1990, community archaeology came to a stop. The term reappears in the early 2000s when the term was embraced by politicians.28 Again doing ‘community archaeology’ became popular because it could rely on funding. It is clear that the upcoming interest in community archaeology is bound up with the contemporary political discourse.29
Because community archaeology has a very practical use, it has never been properly defined. Some researchers have tried, but this would require them to define ‘community’. The term
community is problematic, as it requires an ‘us and them’ dichotomy: someone needs to be outside the community.30 This means that a part of the population is therefore not included in community archaeology. These problems surrounding the definition of community archaeology still hinder a further theorization of the subject.
Despite these problems, community archaeology is an upcoming term in the Netherlands. It often remains untranslated as the translation ‘community’ is problematic. Currently several projects which are involved in community archaeology are taking place, ranging from small, with only a few participants, to projects with tens or even hundreds of participants. One recent project in Nijmegen needs to be especially mentioned here as it used a completely new format for active public
participation in archaeology. Individuals, often residents of Nijmegen, were invited to join in the
25
An example of this is the English wikipedia page for community archaeology, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_archaeology (consulted on 30/09/2014).
26 Langebroek/Jansen/van den Dries 2014, 30-31. 27 Isherwood 2011, 7. 28 Isherwood 2011, 10. 29 Isherwood 2011, 15 30 Moshenska/Dhanjal 2011, 1.
12 excavation of a Roman public bath at the old Honig factory.31 Over 2000 people helped during the excavation, including several school classes.32
Within this thesis I prefer not to use the term ‘community archaeology’. I feel the term is ill-defined and is often used without further explanation. Due to the broad definition of public
archaeology the activities often labeled ‘community archaeology’ are included.
1.3 Perspectives within public archaeology
Within public archaeology there are several perspectives through which the interaction with the public can be researched. We can consider Nick Merriman, Akira Matsuda, Katsuyuki Okamura and Cornelius Holtorf as the four major contributors to this field of study. The earliest study was by Merriman. He recognized two major differences in the way archaeologists, or more broadly scientists, interact with the public. The first model, the ‘deficient model, has a long tradition and believes in public education to increase public awareness and support for archaeology.33 The public is in this respect passive, a recipient of the knowledge of the archaeologist.
Since the end of the 1990’s this model has been criticized. The assumption that there is one true past and that archaeologists can objectively research this past is crippling. It was recognized that there are multiple interpretations of the past and that different groups could give different meanings to it. This led to the Merriman’s second model, described as ‘the multi perspective model’. In this model the public is more actively involved in the production of the past. The public is encouraged to have their own reflections and interpretations of the past.34
Matsuda and Okamura propose for a further refinement of Merriman’s ‘multi perspective model’. They argue that there is a distinction between an approach which critically examines “whose interest is served by a particular interpretation of the past” (critical approach) and an approach which “aims to explore diversity in the reading of the past material culture” (multivocal approach).35 Matsuda and Okamura admit that this distinction is predominantly aimed at a theory-oriented public archaeology.36
31
See for more information http://www.nijmegengraaft.nl/ (consulted on 20/1/2015).
32 Nijmegen graaft! Press release 15/05/2014. 33 Merriman 2004, 5-6. 34 Merriman 2004, 6-7. 35 Matusda/Okamura 2011, 6. 36 Matusda/Okamura 2011, 7.
13 Holtorf, who researches the representation of archaeology in popular culture, argues for three models.37 While his ‘democratic model’ is more or less similar to Merriman’s ‘multi perspective model’, his ‘education model’ and ‘public relations model’ differ from the proposed ‘deficient model’. Holtorf’s models are based on the reasons why archaeologists involve themselves in public archaeology. The ‘education model’ is based on the archaeologist wanting to enlighten his public. 38 His ‘public relations model’ is based on increasing public and social support for archaeology. 39
Because of this difference in objectives, archaeologists and curators make different choices, while engaging the public (Fig. 1). It is these choices which will be examined in chapter two and analyzed in chapter four.
1.4 Public archaeology in the Netherlands
As I stated at the beginning of this chapter, public archaeology is an international study. Contributors to the discussion come from all over the world. It is interesting to see that the presence of the Netherlands within this international field of study is relatively small. This does not mean that public archaeology is not a much discussed subject in the Netherlands, but might point to a lack of
academic interest.
Archaeology in the Netherlands is closely connected to spatial planning. The Netherlands is a small, heavily populated, country which results in a contestation of space. Besides academic
fieldwork, most of the fieldwork consists of so-called ‘rescue archaeology’: excavating remains that are immediately threatened. In the Netherlands the policy is to preserve the archaeology in-situ. In this way archaeological remains are preserved for future generations. Only when preservation is not an option, a ‘rescue excavation’ takes place. It is within this field of cultural resource management (CRM) that Dutch archaeologists are active within international debates. Specifically the work of Willem Willems should be mentioned here.40
37 Holtorf 2007, 107. 38 Holtorf 2007, 108-109. 39 Holtorf 1007, 115-116. 40
For example Willems et al 1999; Willems 2010.
Figure 1 Overview of the different perspectives towards public archaeology. Matsuda and Okamura at the top row (in grey), followed by Merriman (middle) and Holtorf (below).
14 During the last decade archaeology in the Netherlands changed dramatically due to the implementation of the Valetta Treaty. The treaty aims to “protect the archaeological heritage as a source of European collective memory and as an instrument for historical and scientific study”.41 It was however not the signing in 1992 of the treaty itself, but the official implementation of the new legislation in December 2006, which brought huge changes to the archaeological sector.42 Dutch archaeology became commercialized, following the slogan: “De verstoorder betaalt” (the disturber pays). This meant that excavating was now restricted to rescue archaeology whereby the disturber pays for archaeology. Archaeologists had to be certified professionals which excluded a former active group of amateur archaeologists for the archaeological practice.43
Strangely enough increasing public awareness for archaeology, which was one of the articles in the Valetta Treaty, article nine, was not included in the new legislation.44 This did not mean that public outreach was neglected, but it did mean that construction companies (often the disturber) were not obligated to pay for such projects. Due to the financial crisis of 2008-2014, which hit the Dutch archaeological sector hard, it is even harder to get funding for projects aimed at increasing public support. The past years several evaluations have taken place and almost all of them conclude that the creation of a greater public awareness should be one of the key goals for the future.45 They often point out that archaeology does not contribute anything to society; it costs money but does not return anything.
The sense that archaeology needs to contribute something to the society and valorize its costs is also growing among archaeologists themselves. Archaeologist often involve themselves in the organization of public outreach projects such as information days, interviews on radio and television, involvement through social media and the publication of non-academic literature. It is also within this trend of valorization that we need to place the nomination of the Limes and the projects of public outreach associated with it. By showing what value archaeology has for society, it is hoped that the public better understands the need for archaeology.
In this first chapter we looked at the theoretical background against which the following chapters will play. Based on several key documents on public archaeology I argue in favor of a broad approach to public archaeology, defining it as the study which examines the interaction between archaeology and the public and tries to improve this interaction. The public is defined as a heterogeneous group,
41
Valetta Treaty, article 1.1.
42 Wet op archeologische monumentenzorg (WAMZ); before its official implementation a lot of organization
already worked in line with the upcoming legislation; Willems 2007, 53.
43
Duineveld/Van Assche/Beunen 2013.
44 Van den Dries 2013, 47; Cruysheer 2002, 101. 45
15 which should include everybody. By using a broad definition of public archaeology there is no longer a need to make a distinction between public archaeology and community archaeology, as community archaeology can now be seen as a part of public archaeology. In the Netherlands public archaeology is a relatively new but popular phenomenon. Due to the recent changes and commercialization of the archaeological sector a better relation with the public is seen as one of the key conditions for a better archaeological practice.
16
Chapter two: Current attempts to increase public support
The last couple of years there have been an increase in the amount of presentations of the Dutch Roman frontier. This is most likely relates to the upcoming nomination of the Dutch Limes for the UNESCO World Heritage List. Besides the nomination, it has also to do with the realization that heritage can give a positive meaning to a place.46 This second chapter discusses what is currently done to connect with the public. I will start with presenting the methodology and following I will turn to the political discourse which will provide context to the case studies discussed further on in the chapter. Base on the official documentation and agenda’s I provide an overview of how the interest in the Dutch Limes has developed. It also provides an indication of which sites are used by the national institutions for their efforts at increasing public support for the nomination. The second part of the chapter will focus at these and several other case studies.
We can distinguish three categories within our case studies: on-site presentations, museum presentations and media presentations, such as television and internet. Due to the ever increasing amount of initiatives, it is impossible to discuss them all. Therefore I will start every category by making some general statements, before providing a deeper analysis of several sites.
2.1 Methodology
Analyzing a heritage site can be done in a variety of ways. Different methodologies focus on different aspects such as: promotion, textual analysis, visitor research and authenticity. As heritage studies is an interdisciplinary field of study, most of these methodologies have been borrowed from
neighboring disciplines.47 However, since the early 2000s several researchers have been trying to develop an encompassing methodology specifically for heritage site analysis.48 It has been pointed out that most of these methodologies either come in the form of a list on which different
characteristics of a site can be ticked off, or one particularly successful heritage site becomes ‘the standard’ for the success of the rest. Both approaches ignore the uniqueness of a site.49 I will therefore use a more flexible approach towards the heritage site.
During the last few months I have visited each site discussed below. By placing myself in the shoes of ‘the public’, I have tried to analyze the interaction with the public. My background in heritage studies and archaeology and my knowledge of the sites and the underlying issues have of course influenced my perspective. It is however this knowledge that can provide a deeper analysis, 46 Saris 2013, 129-143. 47 Carman/Sørensen 2009b, 23. 48 Carman/Sørensen 2009a, 4-5. 49 Garden 2009, 272-273.
17 focusing on the uniqueness of every site. Avoiding a fixed methodology gives me the freedom to discuss only those aspects of a site which are relevant for my research. It also gives me the room to discuss a multitude of heritage sites instead of only a couple. I will therefore describe the
development of the presentation, the experience of the visitor and will give a deeper analysis of the choices made by the developers of the presentation. I distinguish three types of presentation: on-site presentations, museum presentations and additional presentations. Each type of presentation will start with a general introduction after which the different case studies are discussed. The case studies are selected because they are either one of the ‘gates’ proposed in the Public Outreach
agenda or form a particular interesting or innovative archaeological presentation.
2.2 Political discourse
Political interest in protecting the Limes began during the 1990s when large sections of the Dutch Roman frontier were threatened by large-scale development projects.50 In 1996-1997 former State Secretary Aad Nuis, was the first to suggest that archaeological heritage should be incorporated in the landscape.51 In line with this notion a program was started which aimed at a better incorporation of cultural history in (urban) development. This “Belvedere program” started in 1999 and one of the two case studies was the Roman Limes.52 During a period of ten years the government invested in knowledge and tools to include the Roman remains into the spatial planning.
The Belvedere program also tried to increase public support for and awareness of the Dutch Roman frontier. The aim was to show the added value of cultural heritage and to convince the provinces and municipalities to make a commitment towards its development.53 The national government would then provide a national bureau which would coordinate the actions. In 2005 the so-called ‘Limes provinces’, Zuid-Holland, Utrecht and Gelderland and several municipalities did indeed make an official commitment to the State Secretary to collectively develop the Roman Limes. They called themselves the ‘Limes Alliance’.54 To coordinate the development, the government set up project bureau LIMES. In 2009 both the alliance and the project bureau were out of funds and had to finish their activities (fig. 2).
50 Strolenberg 2005, 2. 51 Eickhoff 2007, 260. 52 Leijen 2008, 12. 53 Strolenberg 2005, 3. 54 http://www.belvedere.nu/page.php?section=02&pID=2&mID=1&aID=177 (consulted on 20/10/2014).
18 Several archaeologists working in the branch of public
archaeology, were critical with regards to the results of the project. Especially Evert van Ginkel, a renowned Dutch public archaeologist, argued that the outcome of the project was not in line with the financial costs. His main argument was that using the Limes in spatial planning was a solution for a non-existing problem. He believed that the agenda consisted mainly of political reasons, for example
promoting the Roman Empire as predecessor of modern day Europe,
instead of providing a better understanding and protection of the archaeology.55 His last reason for considering the Belvedere program as a failure, was that the system was too bureaucratic. Plans that were made but never actually executed, resulting in a large amount of reports, plans and agenda’s without any physical result.56
The lecture and article of van Ginkel generated a wide discussion. Frank Strolenberg, project leader within the Belvedere program, acknowledged the lack of physical results but was less
negative. He believed that the program was a long-term investment, not directly generating results.57 It was now up to the archaeology to build on the long term results and create a fruitful relation with the designers and spatial planners. Both van Ginkel and Strolenberg agreed that it was time for action, to put the generated ideas into practice.58
However, in the years following the Belevedere program this action never came. Different institutions tried to take over the role of coordinator but often lacked political support.59 There are probably multiple reasons for this, one of which might have been the
lack of results. But also the political turmoil and the economical crisis which started in 2008 certainly did not help. Political interest returned in 2011 when it was decided that the Dutch Roman frontier would be nominated for the World Heritage List. Since then a new coalition between the Limes provinces and municipalities has been established and a new project bureau, project bureau Romeinse Limes (Roman Limes), was created (fig. 3).60 This was concluded with a new official letter of intent in 2014.61 55 Van Ginkel 2006, 21. 56 Van Ginkel 2006, 22. 57 Strolenberg 2007, 25. 58 Strolenberg 2007, 24-26. 59 Robbertsen/Goedhart 2012. 60 http://www.romeinselimes.nl/nl/info-contact/stichting-romeinse-limes-nederland (consulted on 15/10/2014).
Figure 3 The State Secretary and the ‘Limes coalition’ sign the letter of intent, January 2014.
Figure 2 The State Secretary and the ‘Limes Alliance’ sign the ‘Limes Codex’, November 2005.
19 One document is of particular interest as it sets out the official discourse for the interaction with the public. The document is published in October 2012 and called Uitvoeringsagenda
publieksbereik Romeinse Limes (which translates as Executive Agenda Public Outreach Roman Limes).
For practical reasons I will further refer to the document as the Public Outreach agenda. Its main goal is to spread the knowledge of the Limes and to increase public awareness and support for the
UNESCO nomination.62 This is done by stimulating and connecting local ‘bottom-up’ initiatives and by
creating one ‘brand’ through which the different projects will be promoted.63 It further states that due to practical and financial reasons the main target groups are groups which are already interested in Roman history and groups which can easily be reached, such as school classes. These groups will be reached through so-called gates, places where already a lot of people come into contact with the Limes. These gates consist of three museums: Museum het Valkhof Nijmegen, Rijksmuseum voor Oudheden Leiden and Centraal Museum Utrecht and two sites: the archaeological theme park Archeon in Alphen aan de Rijn and the Domplein in Utrecht.64
2.3 Case studies
2.3.1 On-site presentations
Presentations which take place on top or in proximity of the actual archaeological site are generally called on-site presentations.65 When archaeological remains are
visible, the spot is clearly marked and the remains themselves form the object of observation. As we have discussed previously, in the Netherlands actual Roman remains are seldom visible. In this respect the remains of the castellum under the Domplein in Utrecht are an exception. This invisibility means that presentational tools need to be used to display the site. One of the ways frequently used is by indicating the contours of the site into the street. Quite a number of examples can be found in the city of Nijmegen, but also at other sites such as Valkenburg (ZH) and Utrecht it is a popular way to present archaeological remains (fig. 4).66 Another technique is combining contemporary art and archaeology by marking the site by a work of
61
http://www.cultureelerfgoed.nl/nieuws/werelderfgoednominatie-romeinse-rijksgrens-stap-dichterbij (consulted on 16/10/2014); Intentieverklaring werelderfgoednominatie Romeinse limes 2014.
62 Caalders/Laro 2012, 13. 63 Caalders/Laro 2012, 16. 64 Caalders/Laro 2012, 14-15. 65 Breeze 2008, 141. 66
Gemeente Nijmegen Archeologie en Monumenten 2013; De Hingh/Vos 2006, 174.
Figure 4 Demarcation of archaeological remains in the pavement, Nijmegen.
20 art. An example can be found in Vechten, where contemporary
art was used “to inspire the visitor and evoke their curiosity about the history of the place” (fig. 5).67
A popular form of presenting archaeology is by reconstructing the archaeological site, or one or more key structures, such as a gate or a watch-tower. A reconstruction is an interesting form of presentation as they are modern
constructions based on an interpretation of the site. 68 Often they are based on information coming from historical sources or other excavations, as the traces in the ground do not provide enough information. Reconstructions from the same type of site can differ greatly from each other. This is
illustrated by Thomas Becker, discussing reconstructions of Roman watchtowers (fig. 6).69 The main advantage of a reconstruction is that they can give the visitors the idea of scale and physical space of an archaeological site or
structure.70 I will discuss four examples of on-site presentations: DomUnder (Utrecht), Woerden, Matilo (Leiden) and Hoge Woerd (Utrecht).
Domplein
It is not easy getting tickets for DomUnder, ‘the underground experience’ beneath the Dom square. Since DomUnder opened on June 3th 2014, the tickets for each of the hourly tours have been completely sold out. Tickets need to be bought days, and for the more popular hours, weeks in advance. DomUnder is massively popular, recently even foreign
media have picked up the hype around the attraction.71 The start of DomUnder was less impressive: a group of local resident joined under the name ‘Initiatief Domplein’, and wanted to make the 2000 old history of Utrecht accessible and perceptible to the public.72
Beneath the Dom square remains can be found of several earlier churches but also the remains of the Roman fort of 67 Kok/van Oort 2008, 10. 68 Stone/Planel 1999, 1-2. 69 Becker 2008, 153-162. 70 Thiel 2008, 151; Mills 2013, 6.
71 For example the Danish newspaper JydskeVestkysten 27 December 2014, 14-15. 72
http://www.initiatiefdomplein.nl/organisatie.html (consulted on 22/1/2015).
Figure 5 Artwork depicting archaeological finds, Vechten.
Figure 7 Steel plates demarcating the fort at Domplein, Utrecht.
Figure 6 Reconstructions of wooden Roman watch-towers along the German Upper-Raetian Limes.
21
Trajectum. Between 1929 and 1949, A.E. van Giffen excavated underneath the
square providing valuable information about the fort. This information was used in the summer of 2009, when ‘Initiatief Domplein’ placed a line of steel plates in the pavement on the location of the south wall of the Roman fort. The steel was engraved with parts of the Peutinger map, a Roman map of the Empire. At night when the city is dark, a haze, colored by light, is sprayed through an opening in the steel (front page and fig. 7).73 Between 2009 and 2013 several other sections from the Roman wall have been marked, including a line through ‘Museum Speelklok’ (fig. 8).74
A second project was to create a visitor center, which is now housed in
the basement of the Utrecht Centre for Arts, where a part of the northern wall of the castellum is still visible. The visitor centre opened on the first of June 2010, providing guided tours through the cellar.75 Different television stations made an item on the opening, providing a large platform for the promotion of further plans.76 These plans involved the creation of a basement beneath the Dom square on the spot of van Giffen’s excavation trenches.
Following several years of re-excavating van Giffen’s trenches and construction, the basement or “treasury” (as it shows the treasures of Utrecht), was formally opened by the current minister of culture, education and science, Jet Bussemaker, on the 3rd of June 2014.77 Due to climate control issues and the size of the basement, only a small group of visitors can be received at once. Therefore the old system of guided tours was kept in place: every hour a new group starts the tour.
The guided tour starts in the basement beneath the Utrecht Centre for Arts where a tour guide provides a short introduction. After the introduction visitors can view the Roman wall and there are several short films providing additional information. This part of the tour is concluded by a dramatic film showing “the seven windows into Utrecht’s past” (fig. 9).
73
For a rather spectacular video of the marking visit:
http://www.fonteinopmaat.nl/films/Domplein_Utrecht.html (consulted on 22/1/2015).
74
http://www.fonteinopmaat.nl/projecten/Utrecht_Klokkenmuseum.html (consulted on 22/1/2015).
75
http://www.initiatiefdomplein.nl/actueel.html?id=12 (consulted on 22/1/2015).
76 The NOS nieuws and RTV Utrecht. 77
Van der Heijden 2014, 29.
Figure 9 The DomUnder film.
Figure 8 Steel plates demarcating the fort in Museum Speelklok, Utrecht.
22 For the second part of the tour the visitor descends a
stairway from the Dom square into a sparsely lit basement. After a second short film the visitors get a “smart-flashlight” which they need to use to explore the basement (fig. 10). Along the way different archaeological objects, walls and sections can be viewed.
Whenever the visitor points his or her flashlight on a sensor, a story associated with the objects is told through the earpiece attached to the flashlight. Halfway there is the so-called “experience”, when the storm of 1674 is simulated through visual and sound effects. At DomUnder the emphasis is clearly on the experience. This becomes already evident in their slogan “DomUnder: An underground discovery”. During the introduction the tour guide frequently uses words such as exploring,
experiencing and discovering. The dark basement, the spectacular films (including light and sound
effects) and the flashlight, all contribute to this feeling. DomUnder is an extraordinary archaeological presentation and by creating this experience, archaeology is sold as exciting and spectacular. While one might argue whether this is the correct way of presenting archaeology, it certainly has reaches a wider audience than more traditional presentations.
Although Roman archaeology is an important element of the attraction, it is not the main element. The main theme is ‘the great deeds of the Utrecht’ which is aimed at the local/city history. The Roman element is however unique, as it shows some of the only physical remains left of the Roman Frontier in the Netherlands: the stone
defense wall of the fort and the wall of the
Principium (headquarters of the camp) (fig. 11). It
also shows an impressive section (the so-called ‘Rembrandt of Utrecht’) in which the burned layer of the Batavian revolt of 69 A.D. can be seen. However, while this (local) past is highlighted it is not placed into the context of the Roman Frontier. There is no link made with other Roman forts,
although the Hoge Woerd project (see below) is not far away (+/- 7,5 km.).
DomUnder and the other projects at the Dom square attract a massive amount of attention for archaeology, including Roman archaeology. A large and diverse group visits the attraction, coming into contact with Roman archaeology. It certainly increases public awareness of the Roman history of the Netherlands and the Dutch Limes. Although the attraction in its essence is a celebration of Utrecht and the history of Utrecht, the promotion of Roman archaeology is a convenient side effect.
Woerden
Figure 10 Using the smart-flashlight at DomUnder, Utrecht.
Figure 11 Stone remains of the Roman principium (bottom) with a digital reconstruction of the building in the background,
23 On a warm November day I paid a visit to the historic town of Woerden. While Woerden is not one of the gates described in the Public Outreach agenda, the city is often mentioned as a successful
example of archaeological resources management with a strong emphasis on public engagement.78 After years of speculation and research the Roman fort of Woerden was finally identified in 1999. The remains of the Roman history were uncovered during a regeneration of the city´s historic centre. Immediately upon recovery the potential of these Roman remains were identified and it was decided to integrate their conservation and presentation into the regeneration program.79
The Roman remains were left untouched where possible and building plans where changed. Archaeological excavations took place where this was impossible. Already during this early stage the public was included in the process.80 People could visit the excavation and a weekly newsletter, the “Archeologie Actueel”, was distributed among the inhabitants of Woerden. After the discovery of the Roman barge the ‘Woerden 7’, over 10.000 copies of the journal were spread. School classes visited the excavation and an information evening was held, called ‘Archeologie Actueel Live’.81
The interaction between the archaeology of Woerden and its inhabitant didn’t stop after the excavations were finished. The municipality decided to use the Roman history as a marketing tool and invest in promoting this past.82 This was, among other things, done through the marking of Roman remains in the pavement. When one walks over the ‘Kerkplein’, one can see great granite
slaps, outlining the Roman fort. Some of the slaps are engraved with texts and figures, depicted the history of Woerden (fig. 12).83 However, demarcations within the pavement are often difficult to spot as they are beneath our feet. On the Saturday that I visited
Woerden they were nearly impossible see as the weekly market covered most of the granite slaps.
Besides the demarcation of the remains, there are also information columns spread throughout the city. These columns are situated on find spots of Roman material. Apart from the information about the find spot and sometimes some of the finds, they also depict an overview of Roman Woerden projected on a contemporary map, showing where other columns can be found (fig. 13). Especially the projection on a contemporary map functions well to create a sense of scale of Roman Woerden and the activities in the neighborhood.
78
Hazenberg 2006; Van der Ende 2008.
79 Hazenberg 2013, 93. 80
Van der Ende 2008, 13.
81
Hazenberg 2006, 27.
82 Van der Ende 2008, 16. 83
Hazenberg 2006, 26.
Figure 12 Granite slap demarcating the Roman fort at Woerden, engraved with the lay-out of the fort.
24 The piece de resistance of Woerden’s presentation of its Roman
history is the Castellum garage, also known as the “Drive-in-Museum”. This is a multi-storey car park just outside the fort’s boundaries. During the excavations this was also the spot on which a massive amount of Roman material was found, including a Roman boat, the ‘Woerden 7’. This spectacular find did not only generate attention within Woerden, but also internationally as it was the first Roman river boat in which a rowing section could be identified, providing evidence for the hypothesis that Roman vessels could also go upstream. 84 The only part of the ship which could be preserved, the stern, is now on display inside the car park, apart from other objects found during the excavation (fig. 14 and fig. 15). Large scale reconstruction drawings can be found along the walls of the car park, giving an impression of Woerden during the Roman period.
Last but not least is the archaeological exhibition in Stadsmuseum Woerden. Up two flights of stairs there is a small exhibition containing Roman finds (fig. 16). A large tablet provides further information about the Roman period in Woerden. The tablet, which is clearly a new addition, is the main source of information as the objects themselves remain largely unexplained. The upstairs location of the exhibition is
difficult to reach. When I visited the museum there were only a few visitors coming to this
part of the museum which often left quickly. There was also an interesting temporary exhibition on Roman Woerden, called ‘Schitterend Romeins’, which could be found on the ground floor. The exhibition showed the most spectacular Roman finds of Woerden and due to its success has recently been prolonged.85 It was possible to unite the most spectacular Roman artefacts of Woerden in one exhibition through the co-operation with several private collectors (fig. 17).86 84 http://www.woerden7.nl/Vondsten/Roeien.htm (consulted on 19/1/2015). 85 http://www.woerdensecourant.nl/nieuws/schitterend-romeins-door-succes-verlengd-1.4745885 (consulted on 9/2/2015). 86 http://www.stadsmuseumwoerden.nl/?p=2 (consulted on 19/1/2015).
Figure 13 Information column, Woerden.
Figure 14 Stern of the Woerden 7, displayed in the Castellum garage, Woerden.
Figure 15 Roman finds displayed in the Castellum garage, Woerden
25 All the attractions mentioned above are augmented with
guided tours, often by archaeological volunteers, leading the visitor past the hotspots of Roman Woerden. Some of the tours even include a voyage on one of the two reconstructed Roman vessels (fig. 18).87 By integrating the Roman history of Woerden into the regeneration program and using it as a key selling point, archaeology has gained an important position in Woerden. One
cannot visit Woerden without getting acquainted with the Roman history of the town. The results of the excavations as well as the development of the
presentations have also been well published, including a publication connecting with the broader public.88 It is clearly that a large amount of money and resources were invested in this project. At the moment, most municipalities would probably have insufficient financials means to follow a similar
approach.
Matilo
The archaeological park Matilo is situated within the newly built neighborhood Roomburg in Leiden, just a short bike ride away from the centre. I visited the park on a sunny afternoon during the autumn school vacation, after a visit to the Rijksmuseum van Oudheden (RMO, translated as National Museum of Antiquities, see below). Matilo was finished in 2013 and is a project completely in line with the Belvedere vision. The aim of the developers is to use
the Roman history of the place as a way to provide character and identity to the neighborhood.89 That message is that while the neighborhood is completely new and artificial, the land does have history. The archaeological park consists of an earthwork, indicating the wall of the military camp and six watchtowers, placed at the entrances (fig. 19). The complete park is built exactly on the
archaeological remains which are still present in the ground. The remains were covered with a layer of clay to preserve them.90
87
Hazenberg 2013, 99-100; http://romeinsschipwoerden.nl/ (consulted on 19/1/2015).
88
Vos/Blom/Hazenberg 2010.
89 Brandenburgh/Hessing 2005, 98. 90
http://www.parkmatilo.nl/index.php?page=het-verhaal-van-matilo (consulted on 16/10/2014).
Figure 17 The temporary exhibition 'Schitterend Romeins' at Stadsmuseum Woerden.
Figure 18 Reconstructed Roman vessels, Woerden.
Figure 16 The Roman exhibition at Stadsmuseum Woerden.
26 During the realization of the project,
interaction took place between the municipality of Leiden, the Cultural Heritage Agency (Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed) and the local
inhabitants.91 In the end it was concluded that the most preferable lay-out would be an open park with space for small events. The archaeological remains are protected and the terrain has become a carrier of identity. In this project we can recognize the Belvedere slogan “conservation through
development”.92
Walking around, visitors come across several little yellow signs explaining certain spots (fig. 20). The signs are close to the ground and provide only minimal information. One of the signs refers to the location where a large concentration of pottery was excavated; however, the marker was nowhere to be found. A bigger sign with a reconstruction drawing or explanation that the earthwork
is an interpretation and not really how the fortification looked like, might help to clarify the project to the visitor.
One of the aims of the project was to facilitate small events and gatherings. However, little of these events have happened so far. A local explains that the only event that took place this year was during the yearly Romeinen week (week of the Romans). His statement is confirmed by the agenda on the website where this is indeed the only event listed.93 The lack of events deprives the site of its main goal, namely connecting people with the place and history.
The site clearly tries to make a connection with the local past and tries to give meaning to the local environment. It is however, a missed opportunity that the site is not placed in the broader context of the Roman Frontier. It also lacks to mention that some of the finds, such as the Roman helmet ‘Gordon’, is on display in the RMO only 3,5 km. away (fig. 19). The locals were involved in the discussion during the planning phase and were able to come up with ideas about how archaeology could enhance their local environment. We can therefore say that a rather democratic approach was used during the planning phase. Since then the park is relatively static and lacks interaction with the 91 http://www.handreikingerfgoedenruimte.nl/handreikingerfgoedenruimte/praktijkvoorbeelden/inrichting-archeologisch-park-matilo (consulted on 16/10/2014). 92 http://www.belvedere.nu/page.php?section=03&pID=1&mID=3 (consulted on 23/10/2014). 93 http://www.parkmatilo.nl/index.php?page=agenda (consulted on 23/10/2014).
Figure 19 View of Matilo from one of the reconstructed watch-towers, Leiden.
Figure 20 Yellow information sign at Matilo, Leiden. On the found spot of the Roman helmet 'Gordon'.
27 public, except during the yearly ‘Romeinen week’. Recently this problem has been recognized and the foundation ‘Mooi Matilo’ has been set up. The goal of ‘Mooi Matilo’ is to promote the history of the park and to coordinate and facilitate future events and uses of the park.94
Hoge Woerd
One of the most prestigious on-site presentation projects in the Netherlands is the castellum Hoge
Woerd project in Utrecht. Unlike the other sites, this project is still under construction and will
probably be finished in September 2015. Due to the construction works it was impossible to visit the site. It is however one of the biggest projects aimed at presenting Roman remains in the
Netherlands, which makes it an interesting site to discuss (fig. 21).95
Hoge Woerd is a project which is in some ways is comparable to that of Matilo. The plans for rebuilding the fortifications of the castellum were made in 2009/2010 in the aftermath of the Belvedere program. The castellum is situated in a newly
built neighborhood. The developers try to use the archaeological monument as a way to provide character to the neighborhood. Their hope is that the Hoge Woerd project gives identity to the neighborhood by making the connection with local history. Matilo and Hoge Woerd are both projects where the actual archaeological traces of the Roman forts are protected, and could not be
excavated. At both sites the reconstruction of the walls is
built on top of the in-situ remains. There are some differences too: Matilo has been built as an open park which after its opening seems to attract relatively few visitors. In the Hoge Woerd they chose a
different approach.
Inside the castellum a centre in which different cultural
institutions are present is built. There will be a heritage centre, a theater and a centre for environmental education. Inside the heritage centre several archaeological objects from nearby excavations will be displayed, such as a wooden Roman ship (fig. 22). In the walls of the castellum there will also be space for activities; there will be classrooms and
94
Hazenberg 2014, 6.
95 The construction of the park can be followed on http://www.utrecht.nl/castellum-hoge-woerd/volg-de-bouw
(consulted on 23/10/2014).
Figure 21 Digital visualization of the planned reconstruction of castellum Hoge Woerd, Utrecht.
Figure 22 Digital impression of the presentation of the preserved Roman vessel inside castellum Hoge Woerd cultural center, Utrecht.
28 animal quarters for a Petting Zoo.96 The initiators hope that by making the reconstructed castellum into a multifunctional cultural centre, the place will be alive with people visiting the different attractions.
This initiative is clearly aimed at a local audience as it hopes to attract the inhabitants of the new neighborhood. By organizing events and theater with Roman themes, it has the possibility to create an interaction between the visitor and the Roman history of the place. The future will tell if this project will indeed generate a greater interest in Roman archaeology (fig. 23).
2.3.2 Museum presentations
The second pillar of the strategy set out in the Public Outreach agenda form the museums. In the Netherlands most archaeological finds disappear in the Provincial depots. While in future plans these depots will more and more display their collections, most archaeological finds are still exhibited in the museums.97 We can distinguish three types of museums based on the character of their presentation and representation. The first category is represented by the National Museum of Antiquities which displays objects from all over the Netherlands. The museum shows the Dutch Roman archaeology independent from its locality and in this way gives a canon of Dutch Roman archaeology. The second category is the regional museums. During the 1930s archaeology and history became more and more connected with regional identities.98 Regional authorities wanted their own regional museums, displaying objects found in the region. Examples of this type of
museum are the ‘Museum het Valkhof’ (Nijmegen), Drents museum (Assen) and the Thermenmusem (Heerlen). Most regional museums do not only display archaeological objects but combine it with art. The opening of the Archeologiehuis Zuid-Holland in 2011, displaying the archaeology of Zuid-Holland and the Huis van Hilde opening in 2015 and displaying the archaeology of Noord-Holland, show that regional museum are still popular.99
The last type is the smaller local museum, often no more than a room filled with locally found objects. Volunteers play an important role in the upkeep of this kind of museum. It is unclear how many of these local museums can be found in the Netherlands, as they are often purely focused on
96
Projectbureau Leidsche Rijn Utrecht 2011.
97 See for example the provincial depot of North-Holland which initiated Huis van Hilde.
http://www.noord-holland.nl/web/Projecten/Huis-van-Hilde/Totstandkoming.htm (consulted on 21/10/2014).
98
Eickhoff 2007, 246.
99 http://www.zuid-holland.nl/contentpagina.htm?id=82344 (consulted on 21/10/2014);
http://www.noord-holland.nl/web/Projecten/Huis-van-Hilde.htm (consulted on 21/10/2014).
Figure 23 Construction of castellum Hoge Woerd, Dec. 2014, Utrecht.
29 the local community. We do know that there are several local museums that display a local narrative of the Roman Limes, such as Stadsmuseum Woerden (mentioned above) and Stadsmuseum
Leidschendam-Voorburg.100 The two museums I will discuss below are selected because they are both mentioned as gates to the Roman Limes in the Public Outreach agenda. They have a relatively large visitor number and aim to reach a national audience.
Rijksmuseum van Oudheden
The Rijksmuseum van Oudheden in Leiden is the main governmental institution for presenting archaeology in the Netherlands. I visited the museum on a Wednesday on the same day as my visit to the archaeological park Matilo (see above). The museum was buzzing with children and all kinds of programs were organized. Immediately upon entering the museum exhibition a large poster is displayed, showing with the borders of the Roman Empire. It states that the Netherlands was once part of the Roman Empire just as Egypt, Greece and the
Near East (fig. 24). This statement uses the Roman history to tie all the exhibitions together. We need to continue to the second floor before we find the first reference to the Romans in the Netherlands.
On this second floor a new exhibition opened in 2011 which shows a chronological overview of the archaeology of the Netherlands.101 In this overview the
Romans are only briefly mentioned; they have their own exhibition across the hallway. This
exhibition is a little more traditional and does not have the same styling the new exhibition has (fig. 25/26). It shows some of the most spectacular Roman finds done in the Netherlands. Almost all of the so-called ‘topstukken’ (masterpieces) can be found there. This also results in an exhibition which focuses on Roman elites and one could argue that it fails to represent the common farmer in the Netherlands during the Roman period.
100 http://www.stadsmuseumwoerden.nl/?p=1&n=3 (consulted on 21/10/2014); http://www.swaensteyn.nl/tentoonstellingen/permanent/de-romeinenzaal (consulted on 21/10/2014). 101 Amkreutz/Willemsen 2010, 56-59.
Figure 24 Large poster at the entrance of the RMO showing the Roman Empire, Leiden.
30 It is not surprising that a national museum presents a national
perspective on Roman archaeology. In a way it even represents an international perspective, as finds from other parts of the Roman Empire are presented on the first floor. In my view again a connection is lacking with other sites along the Dutch Roman frontier. While there is a poster of the Roman Limes at the start of the exhibition, other sites are not
mentioned. A national institution would be a good place to show the different initiatives along the Limes. Even an obvious connection with the military camp of Matilo in Leiden, only 3,5 km. away, is not mentioned (fig. 27). At the moment no connection is made between the camp and the museum.
The Roman Netherlands exhibition is clearly in need of an update.
It still focuses on presenting aesthetically appealing objects, accompanied by small texts (fig. 28). There is little interaction with the public, which are now the passive recipients of information. It lacks the more interactive approach used in the new exhibition.102 But if the rumors are true, the Roman
Netherlands exhibition will not be outdated for much longer. There are plans to renew the exhibition within the next few years. Hopefully the new
exhibition will provide a broader overview of the Roman period in the Netherlands.103 At the time of my visit however, I was the only one admiring the exceptional Roman sarcophagus found in Simpelveld in an otherwise crowded museum.
102 Geraerdts 2010, 22. 103
Personal communication with Inge Kall-den Oudsten, intern at the RMO.
Figure 25 The new RMO exhibition 'Archeologie van Nederland', Leiden.
Figure 26 The RMO exhibition 'Romeinen in Nederland', Leiden.
Figure 28 Information panel at the RMO, Leiden.
Figure 27 The Roman helmet 'Gordon' at the RMO, Leiden.
