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
In deze scriptie is onderzocht in hoeverre gemeenschappelijke terminologie in Keltisch en Germaans, en dan met name de onderlinge ontlening van termen, ons inzicht zou kunnen geven in de vroege...Show moreIn deze scriptie is onderzocht in hoeverre gemeenschappelijke terminologie in Keltisch en Germaans, en dan met name de onderlinge ontlening van termen, ons inzicht zou kunnen geven in de vroege fonologie van beide taalgroepen.Show less
