In this thesis the Iron Age Italic armament subcollections of two Dutch museums have been investigated. These two museums are the Allard Pierson Museum (APM) in Amsterdam and the Rijksmuseum van...Show moreIn this thesis the Iron Age Italic armament subcollections of two Dutch museums have been investigated. These two museums are the Allard Pierson Museum (APM) in Amsterdam and the Rijksmuseum van Oudheden (RMO) in Leiden. The goals of this thesis were to identify each object in the subcollections, analyse the information that came from this research, find out how both subcollections have emerged, discover the use both museums made of their subcollection and to find out what the position of each museum in the ongoing debates on the acquisition and display of unprovenanced antiquities is through the scope of these small subcollections. The results are that both subcollections emerged through relatively similar causes; a combination of coincidence, the supply of these objects on the art market and a somewhat failed acquisition focus. Each museums has used their subcollection differently; the APM always have had many objects on display, grouped together typologically, while the RMO took a small selection from their subcollection and displayed them in more culturally divided exhibitions. While exhibiting these objects both museums had put on display objects that were only barely researched, if they had been researched at all. All objects of both museums that have been acquired after 1970 were bought legally, although it can be argued that some of these acquisitions are not very ethically responsible. Based on the acquisition history of both museums they kept themselves to the ICOM Code of Ethics since the 1990s-2000s, while still displaying the objects without pre-1970 ownership history. Therefore they do not belong to the Renfrew-Brodie side nor to the Boardman-Cuno side of the unprovenanced antiquities debate. They are positioned between these two parties, siding with Refrew and Brodie on the acquisition part, but with Boardman and Cuno on the display of these objects. It must be stressed that because of the small sample it appeared that there were only antiquities with a pre-1970 ownership history in the RMO, while in previous research it was already concluded that the RMO does have unprovenanced antiquities bought after 1970 in its collection. Therefore it is suggested that for comparable future research a bigger sample should be used to avoid similar situations. The final conclusion of this thesis is that both museums have acquired objects with incomplete ownership histories, and put these objects on display having only very limited information on these objects to inform the visitors. Therefore it can be said that they were “Exhibiting the Unknown”.Show less
