Agricultural open-air museums date back to the late 19th century, as it became fashionable to collect examples of local folklife. They collected historic, relocated buildings, furnished them with...Show moreAgricultural open-air museums date back to the late 19th century, as it became fashionable to collect examples of local folklife. They collected historic, relocated buildings, furnished them with original objects, and often enlivened the museum and building with plants, animals, and costumed interpreters. Archaeological open-air museums(AOAMs) were born out of an interest in reconstructing the archaeological past. The first AOAMs were based on pile dwellings discovered in Swiss and German lakes in the late 19th century. AOAMs are popular cultural destinations, but both AOAMs and agricultural open-air museums have faced the critique of inauthenticity. This study discusses how a concern over ‘authenticity’ could prevent different questions about AOAMs from being asked. For example, how can AOAMs engage with the past in a way that is relevant in the present, and for the future? One way to do this is to participate in climate change communication. Current media messaging is often overwhelming, or it presents climate change as contentious. Museums can be important locations for communicating climate change awareness and action in ways that do not centre fear or helplessness. A survey of the literature around climate change communication in museums shows that AOAMs are uniquely placed within museum archaeology to address many aspects of climate change engagement, using various themes and strategies. As museum spaces, they are friendly places to learn about complex issues. As places of archaeological interpretation, they can demonstrate time depth and tell local, personal stories with an affective component. As outdoor spaces, they offer immersive experiences and can facilitate a sense of connection with nature. They can engage visitors with themes of sustainability, biodiversity, and ancient plants, animals, and crafts, and show how these relate to the present. Through museum interpreters and other visitors, as well as narratives and interpretation, they can foster a sense of connection to other people both in the present and in the past. Using the case studies preHistorisch Dorp Eindhoven, Archäologisches Freilichtmuseum Oerlinghausen, and Pfahlbauten Unteruhldingen, this study discusses to what extent the museums are engaging in these themes and strategies, using an analytical framework that pays close attention to the use of various components of the museum – setting, space and layout, display types, subject and text, activities and educational programmes. The research shows that each museum emphasizes different themes and strategies. PreHistorisch Dorp focuses on creating immersive experiences by creating independent activity areas and telling personal stories of life in the past with fictional characters. Archäologisches Freilichtmuseum Oerlinghausen offers many organised events, activities and programmes, which focus mainly on ancient crafts and the connection between people and their environment. Pfahlbauten Unteruhldingen has the Steinzeitparcours, a park/garden area dedicated to encouraging a connection to nature through learning about the uses for various trees in the past. This research shows that there is room for AOAMs in the broader discussion around archaeological museums and climate change, and that they can bring a unique element of direct connection to the visitor experience.Show less
This thesis studies the accessibility of three Dutch museums for people with acquired brain injuries. Findings include several areas of improvement, most notably regarding the navigation within...Show moreThis thesis studies the accessibility of three Dutch museums for people with acquired brain injuries. Findings include several areas of improvement, most notably regarding the navigation within museums and the opportunity of special visitation times that include less sensory input.Show less
Roughly from the beginning of the common era and the late fourth century, the area that now makes up the Netherlands functioned as a frontier zone of the Roman Empire. Its border was the Rhine,...Show moreRoughly from the beginning of the common era and the late fourth century, the area that now makes up the Netherlands functioned as a frontier zone of the Roman Empire. Its border was the Rhine, with the South of the river the territories under Roman rule, while the area to the North was part of an area called Germania by the Romans. The current North-Western Netherlands, consisting of the provinces of Noord-Holland, Friesland and partly Groningen, was the living area of a Germanic people or tribe named the Frisii. For a long time, local peoples at the borders of the Roman Empire have been regarded as a matter of secondary importance in not only the archaeology of the Roman Period but also in the museum context. While various reasoning lay at the basis of this, a crucial factor is the early 19th century concept of romanisation, which disregarded autonomy, authority, and self-identification of those who have been ascribed to the Germanic peoples over ‘being Roman’. In this thesis, as a focused case in the context of the previously mentioned, an exploration is made of the representation of the Frisii. Two questions stand central in this: ▪ How are the Frisii represented in museums in the North-Western Netherlands? ▪ Why are the Frisii (not) represented? These main research questions are subsequently divided into a set of sub-questions, focussing on various aspects of the representations. The study was conducted by analysing three different museums: The Rijksmuseum van Oudheden (RMO) in Leiden, Huis van Hilde museum (HvH) in Castricum, and Archeologisch Museum Baduhenna (AMB) in Heiloo. As the living area of the Frisii has been ascribed to both the western and northern Netherlands and the study focuses on the western area, the Fries Museum (FM) in Leeuwarden was chosen as a comparative case study location. These locations were subjected to a thorough investigation, consisting of exhibition and (online) content analyses. Literature research on the background contexts and interviews with professionals from some of the organisations were conducted additionally. The reasoning for the latter was to better understand the motives behind (not)representing the Frisii and the here for chosen methods. As the study indicated, the representation of the Frisii at these locations varied in presentation methods and communicated narratives, underlining different approaches to Roman history, including Roman-centred, presented perspectives versus more autonomous ones. Various motives to represent the Frisii were identified, including the formation of regional identity and the substantiation of national history frames. In this, various forms of archaeological representations, didactic and non-didactic, are used to bring forth the presented narratives. In addition to these (re)presentations, a disarray of terminology was identified and discussed. This study explores all the issues previously mentioned and hopes to create a starting point for critically analysing the representation of local or ‘Germanic’ peoples in the Dutch Museum context, working towards the (re)presentation of a more inclusive Roman history of the Netherlands to the museum public.Show less
