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
Already during Antiquity, Egypt was famous for its royal mortuary monuments. During the millennia that have passed since the construction of these monuments, the meaning given to them by their...Show moreAlready during Antiquity, Egypt was famous for its royal mortuary monuments. During the millennia that have passed since the construction of these monuments, the meaning given to them by their spectators has altered several times. This study focusses on the interpretation and reuse of the Theban New Kingdom mortuary temples, the royal tombs in the Valley of the Kings and the Old Kingdom pyramids at the Giza Plateau during the Ptolemaic and Roman Periods. Aim of this study is to show how these monuments were interpreted and reused by two different groups of spectators, namely the Graeco-Roman tourists, who came to see these monuments, and the native Egyptians, who lived in the vicinity of these buildings. Moreover, the ways in which the meaning given to these mortuary monuments during the Pharaonic Period survived into the Ptolemaic and Roman Periods, are discussed.Show less
During the Late Bronze Age (1100-800 BC) and Early Iron Age (800-500 BC) urnfields are constructed throughout North-Western Europe. In the Middle and Late Iron Age and the Roman period urnfields...Show moreDuring the Late Bronze Age (1100-800 BC) and Early Iron Age (800-500 BC) urnfields are constructed throughout North-Western Europe. In the Middle and Late Iron Age and the Roman period urnfields are occasionally reused. Urnfields are used as a location for settlements and cemeteries. This research aimed to make an inventory of the different forms of reuse in Noord-Brabant and Northern Limburg. Fourteen case-studies were selected in order to investigate the different forms of reuse. The data from these sites was supplemented with data from other publications. The research showed that the forms of reuse were more divers than previously thought. During the Middle- and Late Iron Age urnfields are often used as settlement locations. Sometimes urnfields are overbuilt by these settlements. But often houses are constructed near urnfields while granaries are constructed directly on the urnfields. This suggested that we might be dealing with a positive appreciation, possibly connected to a cult in which the ancestors were used to enhance fertility. It is also possible that the ancestors, who were buried in these urnfields, were used to claim land. During the Middle- and Late Iron Age urnfields were also reused as burial sites. This might be a limited continuation of the earlier burial rites where deceased were buried close to their ancestors, a phenomena already observed in the Late Neolithic period. During the Roman period urnfields were still used both as settlement location and as burial sites. The reuse of urnfields as location for burials diminishes through time. Urnfields are not as important for the placement of Roman cemeteries as was previously thought (only 5,4% of the Roman cemeteries are located near urnfields). During the 4th-century AD reuse of urnfields as a location for cemeteries ceases. This could be the start of the myth forming around urnfields, which is observed in the Medieval period. However it should be noted that some urnfields in Flanders were reused as cemeteries during the Merovingian period thus perhaps the reuse still continued during this period. The presented results are comparable with the results from other studies conducted in Flanders, Drenthe and Westphalia.Show less
