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 Dutch part of the Roman frontier.

Name: Sam Leeflang Study: Heritage Studies Student number: 10506810 Date: 24/2/2015 Supervisor: Hanneke Ronnes Second reader: Joris Aarts E-mail: [email protected] 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 4.5 Connecting with contemporary issues ...... 55

2

4.6 Different interpretations of the Roman Empire ...... 56 Bibliography ...... 59 List of figures ...... 68

3

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.

4

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 (Germany, inscribed in 2004), The Antonine Wall (Scotland, inscribed in 2008). 5 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 Leijen 2008. 6

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. 7

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. 8 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 Merriman 2004, 1. 9 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. 10

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. 11 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. 12

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.

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).

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. 13

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 Van der Velde 2011; Raad van Cultuur 2011, 14; Willems 2007, 56; Van den Dries 2013, 50. 14 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.

15

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. 16 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). 17

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 Figure 2 The State Secretary and the ‘Limes Alliance’ sign the ‘Limes Codex’, promoting the Roman Empire as predecessor of modern day Europe, November 2005. 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 Figure 3 The State Secretary and the ‘Limes coalition’ sign the letter of intent, January 2014. 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). 18

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

66 Figure 4 Demarcation of archaeological archaeological remains (fig. 4). Another technique is combining remains in the pavement, Nijmegen. 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. 19 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 Figure 5 Artwork depicting archaeological finds, Vechten. 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 Figure 6 Reconstructions of wooden Roman watch- reconstruction is that they can give the visitors the idea of towers along the German Upper-Raetian Limes. 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

Figure 7 Steel plates demarcating the fort at Domplein, Utrecht. 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). 20

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 Figure 8 Steel plates a line through ‘Museum Speelklok’ (fig. 8).74 demarcating the fort in Museum Speelklok, Utrecht. 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).

Figure 9 The DomUnder film.

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. 21

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 Figure 10 Using the smart-flashlight at different archaeological objects, walls and sections can be viewed. DomUnder, Utrecht. 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 Figure 11 Stone remains of the Roman principium (bottom) with a digital reconstruction of the building in the background, not placed into the context of the Roman Frontier. DomUnder, Utrecht. 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

22

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 Figure 12 Granite slap demarcating the Roman fort at Woerden, engraved with the lay-out of the fort. 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. 23

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 Figure 13 Information column, park, apart from other objects found during the excavation (fig. 14 and Woerden. 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 Figure 14 Stern of the Woerden 7, displayed in the Castellum garage, Woerden. 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

Figure 15 Roman finds displayed in the Castellum garage, Woerden

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). 24

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 Figure 16 The Roman exhibition at Stadsmuseum into the regeneration program and using it as a key selling point, Woerden. 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

Figure 17 The temporary exhibition 'Schitterend approach. Romeins' at Stadsmuseum Woerden. 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 Figure 18 Reconstructed Roman vessels, Woerden. 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). 25

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 Figure 19 View of Matilo from one of the reconstructed watch- a carrier of identity. In this project we can recognize towers, Leiden. 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 Figure 20 Yellow information sign at Matilo, Leiden. On the found spot of the Roman events deprives the site of its main goal, namely connecting helmet 'Gordon'. 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). 26

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 Figure 21 Digital visualization of the planned the Roman forts are protected, and could not be reconstruction of castellum Hoge Woerd, Utrecht. 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

Figure 22 Digital impression of the there will also be space for activities; there will be classrooms and presentation of the preserved Roman vessel inside castellum Hoge Woerd cultural center, Utrecht.

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). 27 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 Figure 23 Construction of castellum Hoge Woerd, Dec. 2014, Utrecht. (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). 28 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 Figure 24 Large poster at the entrance of the archaeology of the Netherlands.101 In this overview the RMO showing the Roman Empire, Leiden. 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. 29

Figure 25 The new RMO exhibition 'Archeologie van Nederland', Figure 26 The RMO exhibition 'Romeinen in Leiden. Nederland', Leiden. 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. Figure 27 The Roman helmet 'Gordon' at the RMO, Leiden. 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 Figure 28 Information panel at the RMO, Leiden. 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. 30

Museum het Valkhof Anyone who visits the ‘Museum het Valkhof’ in Nijmegen will immediately notice the modern and clean building. Upstairs on the left hand side is the archaeological section located, showing the archaeology of Nijmegen and its surroundings, from the

prehistory onwards. On the right hand side you will find the art Figure 29 Maquette of the Roman fort on the Hunerberg in Valkhof, Nijmegen. section and rooms for temporary exhibitions. The ‘Museum het Valkhof’ is a typical example of a regional museum with both an archaeological section and an art section. Combined they show the development of the region the prehistory till the present day. The Roman exhibition in the ‘Museum het Valkhof’ is exceptionally large. It primarily shows finds from the several Roman military forts which were situated in and around Nijmegen. Nijmegen is the proud carrier of the title “the oldest city of the Netherlands”, by which they see the erection of the Roman civitas Ulpia Noviomagus Batavorum as the start of the city.104 Roman history is currently excessively used within the city branding of Nijmegen and receives a lot of attention from the municipality. This might also explain why there is so much attention for Roman archaeology in the ‘Museum het Valkhof’. The Roman exhibition is set up around two major themes. The first theme is the Roman military. This part of the exhibition distinguishes itself by the use of digital reconstructions and models of the several Roman forts found in Nijmegen (fig. 29). Archaeological objects associated with the fort are displayed around the models. The museum also possesses a large collection of Roman

Figure 30 Models of Roman soldiers with equipment at helmets and weapons. The equipment of a Roman soldier the Valkhof, Nijmegen. is displayed by life-size models wearing the outfit (fig. 30). The second theme is about daily live in the Roman period. There are displays with tools of craftsmen, amphora but also jewelry and coins. It gives the impression that our lives differ little from life in the Roman period. Emphasis is put on Roman innovation and the new techniques they brought to the Northern provinces. The reconstructions provide a clean and aesthetic view on the Roman structures. This feeling is further enhanced when we look at some of the temporary exhibitions which regularly complement the permanent collection. During one of my visits, the museum hosted the exhibition ‘Plaats delict’. This exhibition showed how crime and security was already an issue in

104 http://www2.nijmegen.nl/content/10654/nijmegen_oudste_stad_van_nederland (consulted on 21/10/2014). 31 the Roman period. A quote from the website shows how the museum presents the Romans as innovators and emphasizes the similarities with our time. 105 “The Romans already used watchdogs and their ingenious padlocks show that they were far ahead of their time. These are almost the same locks as we are still using today.” Another exhibition named ‘High Tech Romans’ further proves this point (fig. 31).106 The ‘Museum het Valkhof’ has an incredible collection of Roman masterpieces. To some extent this dictates the entire exhibition. The museum uses these masterpieces to depict the Roman period as a period of Figure 31 Flyer from the exhibition High Tech Romeinen innovation and advancement. This is however a choice the curators make, it at the Valkhof. would also be possible to create a more nuanced picture with the same objects. And while the exhibition does focus on the Roman forts at Nijmegen, it does not explain the context in which they functioned. Neither the RMO nor the ‘Museum het Valkhof’ provides a broader overview of the Roman Limes. Instead of providing a different perspective on the Roman period, the temporary exhibitions are often an extension of the permanent collection, telling the same story.

2.3.3 Additional presentations Apart from physical presentations of the Limes, additional presentations include television, radio and online media. Television films and series about archaeology have often reached a large audience and have increased the public’s interest in archaeology.107 Although the Dutch public seems less interested in these shows when compared to England or Germany, television can still be viewed as a relatively easy way to reach a large audience. This is also recognized in the Public Outreach agenda were one of the proposed strategic projects is the making of a documentary series.108 At the moment of writing it is unknown if this documentary series will be made. However, currently a children series about the Romans is broadcasted on national television. The television series “Welkom bij de Romeinen” narrates the Roman history in the form of a talk show, using short sketches to explain certain topics. I would like to argue that the Limes nomination could have benefitted more if during the series more attention had been given to Dutch Roman archaeology and the Limes in specific. During the period in which the project bureau LIMES existed (2005-2009), the website providing information and news items surrounding the projects was www.limes.nl. After the project

105 Own translation from “Zo gebruikten de Romeinen al waakhonden en het ingenieuze hang- en sluitwerk laat zien dat ze hun tijd ver vooruit waren. Het zijn bijna dezelfde sloten die we vandaag de dag nog steeds gebruiken.” http://www.museumhetvalkhof.nl/tentoonstellingen/verwacht/1489-vanaf-18-mei-plaats-delict- misdaad-bij-de-romeinen.html (consulted on 21/10/2014). 106 This exhibition later traveled to the Museon in The Hague where it continued its success. Museon 2013. 107 Schücker/van Helt 2014, 133-135; Holtorf 2007, 15-20. 108 Caalders/Laro 2012, 18. 32 bureau stopped its activities, the website domain was taken over by an amateur blogger, who still sometimes wrote blogs on the Dutch Limes.109 With the renewed (political) interest in the Limes and the foundation of Stichting Romeinse Limes a new website was needed. The new official Limes website, www.romeinselimes.nl, was launched on May 27 2014 during the Roman week.110 It forms the platform on which initiatives are presented. It also provides news items and gives some information on the UNESCO nomination of the Limes. However, while clearly being the new official website, the old website (www.limes.nl) was still on air and older websites still linked to this ‘old’ official Limes website. www.limes.nl was for a long period still the first hit when one googled ‘limes’.111 Stichting Romeinse Limes has recently addressed to this confusing situation and now the old website URL redirects towards the new official website. There are however more issues surrounding websites promoting the Dutch Roman frontier. www.limeswiki.nl is a website inspired by Wikipedia and tries to be the portal to articles on the Dutch Limes. The project is part of a bigger European LEADER project, the Limissie, which tries to increase the public knowledge of the Limes through a bottom-up approach. On the LimesWiki the visitor can get actively involved by writing articles on the Roman history of their town or region and publish them online. We could therefore argue that this is an example of a democratic approach towards public archaeology. The public needs to actively participate in the project to make it a success. And this is exactly the problem the project faces: there are not enough contributors or visitors to call the project a success. In the month of October 2014 there were for example only four active participants.112 Apart from this, the Wiki has a rival in the website www.vici.org, which is an older, private initiative that also uses the Wiki-format to present small articles.113 It seems that the initiators of the LimesWiki did not know of the existence of the vici.org as both sites provide the same information. A better cooperation between both projects would certainly be mutually beneficial. On the fourth of October 2014 the Limissie launched another website involved in promoting the Limes: www.langsdelimes.nl. The website presents news, events and initiatives about the Limes. The similarities between the langsdelimes website and the official romeinselimes are striking (fig. 32/33). Both feature the same topics, the sorting of sites by geographical location, and they even use the same layout, coloring and logo. This is very confusing for the visitor. While the langsdelimes

109 http://www.limes.nl/ (consulted on 23/10/2014). 110 Persbericht Romeinse Limes 27-05-2014 , http://www.romeinselimes.nl/sites/default/files/20140527_persbericht.pdf (consulted on 23/10/2014). 111 http://www.parkmatilo.nl/index.php?page=info (consulted on 23/10/2014); http://www.utrecht.nl/castellum-hoge-woerd/erfgoededucatie/downloads-en-links/ (consulted on 23/10/2014). 112 http://limeswiki.nl/index.php/Speciaal:Statistieken (consulted on 23/10/2014). 113 http://vici.org/ (consulted on 20/10/2014). 33

website seems to have a slightly more commercial character, by for instance promoting accommodations along the Limes, it remains unclear to me why a second website was needed to present the initiatives along the Limes. Most websites involved in the Dutch Roman frontier are active on social media such as facebook and twitter. It is however remarkable how little impact this seems to have had so far. For example, project bureau Roman Limes has little over 150 followers on facebook (160) and twitter (166). The initiatives seldom reach a large audience, only the massively popular DomUnder initiative (facebook 689 and twitter 2551) seems to be the exception to the rule.114

Figure 33 Homepage of www.romeinselimes.nl. Figure 32 Homepage of www.langsdelime.nl.

114 Data collected on 21 October 2014. 34

Chapter three: UNESCO and the public support for the Dutch Roman Limes

The presentation of the Dutch Roman frontier cannot be separated from the upcoming World Heritage nomination for the Dutch Roman frontier. The inscription on the tentative list accelerated the realization of projects regarding the presentation of the Limes. These projects aimed at increasing public support and awareness. But, does the upcoming World Heritage nomination also influence the current projects regarding the presentation of the Dutch Limes? And if so how? These questions are the subject of this chapter.

3.1 Preliminary nomination file There has been a lot of speculation about what will precisely be included in the Dutch Roman frontier UNESCO World Heritage nomination during the past years. In October 2014 a preliminary nomination file was admitted to the current minister of Education, Culture and Sciences.115 The preliminary nomination file consisted of three documents: an interim report on the Roman Limes World Heritage nomination (Tussenstand Werelderfgoednominatie Romeinse Limes), a property catalogue for the Roman Limes World Heritage nomination (Terreinencatalogus voor de werelderfgoednominatie Romeinse Limes) and a Draft Statement OUV & Comparative Analysis World Heritage Nomination Lower German Limes. 116 While this is still a preliminary version, we can expect that most of its recommendations will be acknowledged. Before we continue with an analysis of the content of the preliminary nomination files, it is important to identify the different stakeholders involved in the World Heritage nomination.

3.1.1 The stakeholders The ‘Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage’, the basis of UNESCO, is an agreement between State parties. It is therefore the State parties who can nominate sites for the World Heritage List. In the end it will be the Dutch government who is responsible for the nomination of the Dutch Limes. However, the State Secretary will not write the nomination file himself. For this process an advisory committee has been set up, which consists of representatives of the three Limes Provinces and of the Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands (Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed, referred to as RCE); the governmental institution for the regulation of cultural heritage. This committee will oversee the creation of the final nomination file and will present it to the government. Together with the Dutch Limes municipalities (municipalities through which the

115 Leene 2014. 116 Nederlandse Limessamenwerking 2014; van Dijk 2014; Willems/Graafstal/Driel-Murray 2014. 35

Limes runs), they form the Dutch Limes Cooperation (Nederlandse Limessamenwerking). It is this cooperation that developed the interim report on the Roman Limes World Heritage nomination. The cooperation is coordinated by Tamar Leene from the RCE. While the advisory committee is responsible for the creation of the final nomination file, it did not develop the other two documents in the preliminary nomination file. The property catalogue was developed by Kirsten van Dijk from Buro de Brug, an archaeological consultancy.117 Hiring outside expertise has also been done for the Draft Statement OUV & Comparative Analysis World Heritage Nomination Lower German Limes. Archaeologists from the University of Leiden have been commissioned by the Dutch Limes Cooperation to identify the universal value of the Limes. Together with other specialists on Roman archaeology they have written a draft statement, providing a scientific basis for the nomination.118 This is not the first time the Dutch Limes Cooperation hires external consultancies: the Public Outreach agenda was developed by Bureau Buiten. Several other official documents were also written by external consultancies. 119 It is important to emphasize the German influence in the final nomination file, although the draft statement is written by Dutch researchers. As I described in the introduction, the Netherlands and Germany will jointly propose the Rhine Limes as an extension of the “Frontiers of the Roman Empire” World Heritage Site. However, it is still unclear how this international collaboration is exactly put into practice. The draft statement of OUV does cover the German part of the Rhine Limes, but the property catalogue focuses only on sites in the Netherlands. When we review the latest German tentative list (from 11/08/2014) we notice that a proposal for a Limes extension is missing.120 There seems to be a contrast between the positive stance within the official documentation and the actual practical implementation. The preliminary nomination file has been written on commission of the Dutch Limes Cooperation but researchers and consultancies have done the majority of the work. The progress of the Limes nomination is partly based on their expertise and knowledge, as well as the choices that are made within the documentation about what should be included or excluded in the final nomination file. This has consequences for the way the Dutch Limes is presented to the public. In the next paragraphs I will analyze three choices which are made in the preliminary nomination file, which influence the presentation of the Dutch Limes.

3.1.2 Only in-situ remains

117 Van Dijk 2014, 120. 118Willems/Graafstal/Driel-Murray 2014, 26. 119 Van der Heide 2014, 8. 120 http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/state=de (consulted on 12/2/2015). 36

The Dutch section of the Limes features little standing remains which are preserved above ground (see introduction). Most of the traces of the Roman past have been preserved below ground and consist of discolorations of the soil and wooden remains in wet areas. This has a severe impact on the nomination. The draft statement of the OUV clearly states that for the nomination of the Dutch Limes properties that have a high possibility of harboring Roman military remains in situ will be nominated.121 Some 103 properties were acknowledged as possessing Roman military remains in situ. Due to combining properties that represent the same archaeological site, the result was 42 sites.122 To select only properties with in situ remains seems logical. Archaeological excavation is a destructive process in which often all the in situ evidence is simultaneously recorded and destroyed. However, in situ sites also pose a problem: without excavation it is unclear what the site exactly consists of and how well it is preserved. When we look at the physical quality of the properties as stated in the draft property catalog, we can see that out of the 42 sites the physical quality of 23 sites is uncertain.123 This means that for more than fifty percent of the sites it is unclear what the quality of the preserved Roman remains is.

3.1.3. A non-continuous site In the preliminary nomination file the Dutch Limes is presented as a collection of individual components who are all part of one heritage site. Because there is no property connecting the individual sites the proposed Dutch nomination is described by the researchers as a ‘non-continuous site’. 124 UNESCO uses a slightly different terminology and calls this a ‘serial nomination’. Both terms effectively mean the same thing: UNESCO describes a serial nomination as “involving two or more separate component parts, which together are of potential Outstanding Universal Value.”125 While the terminology is nothing to worry about, fact is, that the only continuous factor in the Limes, the river Rhine, is not nominated is. It was in fact the Rhine which can be seen as the frontier with the military forts and watchtowers controlling this frontier. The river is in fact the continuous line binding all the sites together. Different authors have already stressed the importance of the inclusion of the rivers (Rhine and Danube) into the World Heritage Site. Sonja Jilek, Limes coordinator within the European Archaeological Association, is clear on the subject and states that “If the sites along the

121 Willems/Graafstal/Driel-Murray 2014, 7-8. 122 Van Dijk 2014, 7. 123 Van Dijk 2014, 119. 124 Willems/Graafstal/Driel-Murray 2014, 13-15. 125 UNESCO 2011, 76. 37 river frontier are reduced to individual sections, the whole system loses authenticity and breaks up the unique feature of the monument: the continuous frontier”.126 The importance of the Rhine as a natural border to the Roman Empire cannot be denied. It is recognized by UNESCO that a site may consist of both natural and cultural elements. Article 1 of the Convention Concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage describes a cultural heritage site as follows: “works of man or the combined works of nature and man, and areas including archaeological sites which are of outstanding universal value…”127 It is remarkable how little attention this choice has gotten in the statement of OUV. The archaeologists at Leiden University would have certainly been informed about the developments on this terrain. While including the Rhine into the nomination might have practical difficulties, it would also connect well with the Dutch UNESCO themes of water management and internationalization.128 As Jilek emphasizes it would certainly be possible to create a coherent (international) management plan for (Roman) river frontiers, such as the Rhine and the Danube.

3.1.4. Exclusion of the coastal defenses The third choice I would like to discuss is the exclusion of the Roman coastline defenses situated along the North Sea coast from Katwijk (The Netherlands) to Oudenburg (Belgium) (fig. 34). Interest in the Roman coastline defenses have greatly increased during the past five years. In 2010 several coastal sites were included into the NWO (The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research) Odyssee program. This program focused on the publication of old, unpublished excavations.129 The Odyssee program has shown that there were several sites with a military character situated along the Dutch and Belgian coast. It seems that from 125 AD onwards the coastline became a military zone, which defended Roman territory from coastal raids.130 Attacks on the Roman Empire seemed to have shifted from the land to the, less defended, coast. The defenses Figure 34 Roman military sites along the were extended to the coastline to defend the Roman Empire continental North Sea coast.

126 Jilek 2008, 69. 127 UNESCO 1972, article 1. 128 Willems/Graafstal/Driel-Murray 2014, 9-10; Van Rotterdam 2014, 9. 129 For more information about these projects visit: http://romeinsekust.wordpress.com/ (consulted on 6/1/2015). 130 Dhaeze 2012, 156-160 38 against pirate attacks. We can therefore consider the Roman coastline defenses as a part of the Limes.131 The researchers at the University of Leiden nowhere explain their choice of excluding this part of in the Limes. This becomes even stranger when we notice that the Hadrian’s Wall section of the World Heritage Site does include the coastal defenses situated along the Cumbrian coast. Sites such as Maryport, Burrow Walls and Ravenglass are seen as a continuation of the Limes (fig. 35). 132 These coastline defenses are relatively comparable with the coastline defenses in the Figure 35 Hadrian's Wall World Heritage site. Outlined in red the Roman coastline defenses along the Cumbrian coast. Netherlands.133 The current investment in the Dutch and Belgian coastal region forms a last argument for the inclusion of the North Sea Roman coastline defenses. This investment is aimed at using the gained knowledge to create a greater public awareness of the Roman coastal defense. Since 2009 researchers have regularly been posting blogs about the progress of their research on www.romeinsekust.nl.134 The researchers are trying to interest a broader public in the Roman coastal defenses by organizing exhibitions and publishing popular history books. At the moment an effort is being made to create an international project called ‘The Roman North Sea’, to integrate coastal tourism with Roman research.135 Recognizing the importance of the Roman coastal defenses in the nomination file and including them in the proposed World Heritage Extension, would give a great boost to the efforts currently made. Unfortunately at this stage the nomination will consist only of the selected 42 unconnected sites. The 42 sites house Roman remains dating from the entire period in which the Rhine was the

Roman Frontier (from the last decades BC until the middle of the 5th century) and include a wide range of Roman military structures. Since we now have a clear understanding of the Dutch nomination, it is interesting to compare this with the already accepted proposals.

3.2 Comparison with other sections for the World Heritage Site As we have seen in the introduction, the “Frontiers of the Roman Empire” World Heritage Site currently consists of three different sections: Hadrian’s Wall (England), the Upper German-Raetian

131 Lecture by Ab Waasdorp, Romeinensymposium 12/12/2014. 132 Historic Building and Monuments Commission England 1986, 18-20. 133 Lecture by Ab Waasdorp, Romeinensymposium 12/12/2014. 134 http://romeinsekust.wordpress.com/ (consulted on 6/1/2015). 135 http://romeinsekust.wordpress.com/2014/03/17/two-roman-lines-op-de-newcastle-university/ (consulted on 6/1/2015). 39

Limes (Germany) and the Antonine Wall (Scotland). Each section has its own characteristics that have influence on the way the sites are presented. Visibility of archaeological remains is of major influence and often dictates the way the section is presented. Hadrian’s Wall forms the best visible section of the World Heritage Site. Large stretches of the wall run through the landscape, immediately giving the visitor an idea of the grand scale of the monument. Along the wall several military fortifications are well known by now because of their years of ongoing archaeological excavations. Roman military forts such as Vindolanda, Housesteads and Birdoswald all have their own visitor centre covering their own history and excavations.136 To avoid repetition, every visitor centre focuses on its own uniqueness and aims to use a different perspective.137 Along with the visitor centers there are several museums focusing on the broader story, such as the Tullie House Museum (Carlisle), the Museum of Antiquities (Newcastle upon Tyne) and the Roman Army Museum (Carvoran).138 The second section of the World Heritage Site is the Upper German-Raetian Limes of which only a part shows visible Roman remains. It makes sense that in the presentation of this section we can find a combination between showing the visible remains of the wall and forts on the one hand and the presentation and marking of invisible remains on the other. On sites where remains are still visible, there is often a visitor centre, the upstanding remains form the attraction. Site managers in Germany have often used full scale reconstructions to present the invisible sites. Germany has a long tradition in reconstructing (Roman) archaeological remains. One of the earliest reconstructions was the Roman fort of Saalburg, built in 1897.139 Since then several Roman forts and many Roman watchtowers have been reconstructed along the Upper German-Raetian Limes.140 The Antonine Wall doesn’t have the upstanding stone remains that Hadrian’s Wall and part of the Upper German-Raetian Limes have, but the wall is still visible in the landscape. The deep ditch and the turf rampart have been preserved for a large part.141 The Antonine Wall is presented in a completely different way than Hadrian’s Wall. Antonine Wall did not have stone forts (except for Balmuildy and Castlecary) and misses the archaeological remains that are needed to make individual attractions of the archaeological sites. The current strategy of presentation is clearly stated in the nomination file ”There is no visitor centre on the line of the Wall, and no intention to create one as the fragile nature of an earthwork monument such as the Antonine Wall is better interpreted at

136 Housteads http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/daysout/properties/housesteads-roman-fort-hadrians- wall/#Right; Vindolanda http://www.vindolanda.com/; Birdoswald http://www.english- heritage.org.uk/daysout/properties/birdoswald-roman-fort-hadrians-wall (all consulted on 9/12/2014). 137 Adkins/Holmes/Mills 2013, 168. 138 Historic Building and Monuments Commission England 1986, 3. 139 Thiel 2008, 150. 140 For example Becker 2008 regarding reconstructed Roman watchtowers. 141 Breeze 2004, 24. 40 some remove.”142 At the same time it is acknowledged that the sites need to be well presented to the public in order for them to understand it. This is currently done trough information panels situated along the line of the frontier and by two museums, providing a broader picture: the Museum of Scotland (Edinburgh) and the Hunterian Museum (Glasgow).143 It is clear that all three sites within the World Heritage Site “Frontiers of the Roman Empire” have their own unique history which requires a different way of presenting. When we compare the three sites to the Dutch nomination we can distinguish differences as well as similarities. The main difference is that the three already inscribed sections all consist of man-made frontiers. These borders do not pose the same problems as nominating a living natural border (the Rhine). They consist of two components: the man-made border and the forts and watchtowers behind it. The Dutch nomination will only consist of the second component. There are however also similarities between the existing World Heritage Site and the Roman Frontier in the Netherlands. Parts of the Upper German-Raetian Limes and the Antonine Wall are invisible, just as in the Netherlands and only through presentation will the visitor understand the significance of the place. It is clear that in both cases a different approach was used towards this presentation. Where the Antonine Wall is marginally presented, using mainly simple information panels, the Upper German-Raetian Limes features more vivid presentations, often in the form of reconstructions. Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages. Information panels often provide valuable information to those interested but lack the capability to evoke a sense of scale. Reconstructions on the other hand relate to the modern demand of ‘experiencing’, but problems regarding their historic accuracy are inherent.144 In the Netherlands we can distinguish a combination of both approaches. An good example is Woerden, where information panels are used but where we can also find full-scale reconstructions of Roman riverboats. On other sites, such as Matilo and Hoge Woerd, the reconstruction is the main form of presentation, resembling the German approach. However, the practice of reconstructing archaeological sites has been under fire by UNESCO.

3.3 UNESCO and reconstructions UNESCO has always rejected archaeological reconstructions due to the fact that there is always an element of speculation involved. In the 1964 Venice Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites, an international board of specialists (including P.L. de Vrieze from the Netherlands) agreed on a set of rules regarding the conservation and restoration of monuments and

142 Historic Scotland 2007, 111. 143 Historic Scotland 2007, 109. 144 Breeze 2008, 141. 41

(archaeological) sites. Article 15 focuses on archaeological sites and states that: “All reconstruction work should however be ruled out “a priori”.”145 While the Venice Charter remained the basis of UNESCO policy regarding reconstructions, it did change somewhat over the years. Later charters such as the UNESCO Lausanne Charter for the Protection and Management of Archaeological Heritage (1990) and the Nara Declaration on Authenticity (1994) used a more flexible interpretation of authenticity, believing that a reconstruction could be valuable.146 These changes resulted in a more liberal approach in which each reconstruction is individually analyzed. The latest UNESCO’s Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention says the following about reconstructions: “In relation to authenticity, the reconstruction of archeological remains or historical buildings or districts is justifiable only in exceptional circumstances. Reconstruction is acceptable only on the basis of complete and detailed documentation and to no extent on conjecture”.147 Archaeological reconstructions however, are always partially based on conjecture because information about the upstanding remains is often lacking. In theory UNESCO policy would therefore exclude archaeological reconstructions from their World Heritage Lists. Christopher Young, former head of international operations at English Heritage, shows that this policy has not always been uniformly implemented. In an article he wrote on the international view on reconstructions he points out that there is a difference in UNESCO policy between Hadrian’s Wall and the Upper German-Raetian Limes.148 All reconstructed works at Hadrians Wall, such as the West Gate of the former Roman fort Arbeia (South Shields) built in 1986 as well as the 2002 reconstructions at the same fort have been included in the World Heritage Site. These reconstructions are now part of the World Heritage Site ‘Frontier of the Roman Empire’. However, at the Upper German-Raetian Limes all reconstructions after 1965 have been excluded from the German section of the World Heritage Site. Early reconstructions such as the Saalburg Roman fort (built in 1907) have been included but later additions (built between 2003-2009) to the same fort have been excluded.149 It seems that UNESCO is at the moment measuring with two standards within one World Heritage Site. The ICOMOS evaluation of the Upper German-Raetian Limes has not only excluded the reconstructions built after 1965, but also condemned reconstructions built after the Venice Charter of 1964 was implemented. With regards to further reconstruction ICOMOS even states: “ICOMOS further considers that any further reconstructions, as have been suggested for Saalburg, unless based

145 ICOMOS 1964, Article 15. 146 ICOMOS 1990; ICOMOS 1994. 147 UNESCO 2013, paragraph 86. 148 Young 2013. 149 Young 2013, 82. 42 on firm scientific evidence and carried out according to accepted international standards, could risk putting the site under threat”.150 Due to the fact that the Limes is inscribed as one site, this means that reconstructions that are not in line with international standards could potentially threaten the complete “Frontiers of the Roman Empire” World Heritage Site.151 We can therefore conclude that the way in which the World Heritage is presented can influence its position on the World Heritage List. It also means that the different countries involved in the World Heritage Site have a responsibility towards each other to make sure that their presentations of the Limes are up-to-date and accepted by ICOMOS. A recent example of a World Heritage Site of which its nomination was threatened by a reconstruction, is the ‘Seventeenth-Century Canal Ring Area of Amsterdam inside the Singelgracht’ World Heritage Site. Stadsherstel Amsterdam, an urban restoration company, proposed in 2005 that for their 50th anniversary they would reconstruct the Haringpakkerstoren (fig. 36). The Haringpakkerstoren is one of the old fortification towers converted into a building in which herring was salted and packed. It was demolished in 1829 due to high maintenance costs, but before demolishment the tower was measured and documented so that the tower might be rebuilt some

152 Figure 36 Digital impression of how the reconstruction day. The plans of Stadsherstel lead to a discussion of the Haringpakkerstoren might have looked like. between those for and against the reconstruction.153 Meanwhile the canals of Amsterdam were to be nominated for the World Heritage Site. When ICOMOS, the evaluator of the cultural heritage proposals, spoke out against the reconstruction, the city council decided to reject the building permission.154 This example shows how the presentation of a site, in this case the reconstruction of the Haringpakkerstoren, can endanger a World Heritage nomination. When referring back to the Dutch Roman frontier, it becomes clear that we should be very careful when reconstructing Roman military structures. It seems that so far this has not always been the case. Two of the already discussed case studies, Matilo and Hoge Woerd (see chapter 2.3.2), consist of large scale reconstructions of Roman military forts. For both reconstructions it is questionable if they are ‘based on firm scientific evidence’ and are built ‘according to accepted

150 ICOMOS 2006; in this statement it remains unclear what is meant by “firm scientific evidence” or “accepted international standards”. 151 Young 2013, 82. 152 http://www.amsterdamsebinnenstad.nl/binnenstad/213/haringpakkerstoren.html (consulted on 26/1/2015). 153 See for the wider discussion Amali 2014. 154 ICOMOS 2010, 266. 43 international standards’. In both cases the archaeological evidence consisted of a small-scale archeological excavation, as the sites are preserved in situ below the reconstructions. While these projects were already planned before the inscription on the tentative World Heritage List, it will be interesting to see whether such reconstruction projects will still be planned in the future. An interesting case study to examine this will be which projects will be chosen within the ‘Mijn Limes’ project. The ‘Mijn Limes’ project is a project by the ‘Koninklijke Nederlandse Heidemaatschappij’(KNHM) and Stichting Romeinse Limes which invites people who live in one of the Limes provinces (Zuid-Holland, Utrecht and Gelderland) to create their own Limes initiative. The initiatives are preferably initiated by local groups or collectives and can range from a historical garden or a roman themed theatre play to a public excavation. Successful initiatives will be rewarded with a thousand euros. The best three initiatives, chosen through a combination of public voting, peer initiatives and a jury, will receive additional funding.155 When we look at the position of archaeological reconstructions within this project, we notice that on the website of ‘Mijn Limes’ archaeological reconstructions are not mentioned as an example or discouraged. However, a reconstructed Roman watchtower features prominently on all the promotional material (fig. 37). At the moment there is already one project which signed up with plans to reconstruct two Roman watchtowers in the vicinity of Buren. It seems that the municipality of Buren has supported the initiation of these plans.156 In March 2015 we will know if ‘Mijn Limes’ and Stichting Romeinse Limes will support these plans or Figure 37 Front of an information brochure of ‘Mijn not. Limes’. The position of reconstructions within the ‘Mijn Limes’ project clearly shows a tension between reconstruction and public support. On the one hand community involvement is seen by UNESCO as crucial to a World Heritage nomination.157 On the other hand UNESCO is against these kinds of reconstructions, often more based on the community’s imagination then on scientific evidence.158 It will be the task of Stichting Romeinse Limes to find a balance between both approaches.

3.4 Conservation, research and presentation

155 http://www.knhm.nl/Onze+hulp/Mijn+Limes/Prijsuitreiking/default.aspx (consulted on 3/1/2015). 156 http://www.knhm.nl/Onze+hulp/Mijn+Limes/Projecten+Mijn+Limes/326217.aspx?t=Bouw+wachttorens (consulted on 10/2/2015). 157 Brown/Hay-Edie 2014, 34. 158 Thiel 2008, 150. 44

There is a further tension between UNESCO policies regarding archaeological heritage management. UNESCO wants archaeological presentations, especially reconstructions, to be based on ‘firm scientific evidence’, as we have seen in the previous paragraph. However, collecting scientific evidence of the Roman period in the Netherlands involves archaeological excavation. Archaeological excavation is a destructive activity, during which the features, often the only remaining evidence of Roman structures, are disturbed. In the Netherlands it is therefore often impossible to both conserve the Roman features and present them based on firm scientific evidence. This problematic relation between preservation, research and presentation is not new. Since the introduction of archaeological monuments in the legislation on monuments in 1961, important archaeological sites have been selected to be preserved for the future.159 This means that they would not be disturbed by any archaeology or other activities. The strategy of ‘preserving the past for the future’ has recieved a second impulse with the signing of the Malta Treaty, which is specifically aimed at preserving archaeology in the ground. The result of these policies is that for certain archaeological fields of interest there is a complete stop of new archaeological data, as all known sites have become archaeological monuments. An example is the Dutch Bronze age barrows in which archaeological excavations have been halted for almost 40 years.160 Only recently did the Dutch Cultural Heritage Agency acknowledged the need for new archaeological information on the subject and allow archaeologist to excavate several barrows and.161 Without up-to-date information and new stories to tell, the danger is that archaeology loses its relevance, resulting in decreasing public support. 162 The Dutch Roman frontier could face the same problem. If the nomination is accepted and all the proposed terrains become part of the World Heritage Site, it is unlikely that any of these terrains will ever be excavated as this will destroy part of the monument. This means that the research of the Dutch Roman frontier, the basis on which we form our presentations, will be significantly reduced because no new data is collected. It will be impossible to base presentations and especially reconstructions on firm scientific evidence, as archaeologists will be unable to collect this evidence. The two case studies of the reconstructed castella of Matilo and Hoge Woerd, both discussed in chapter 2, illustrate the relevance of the problem between conservation, research and presentation. Both locations have been known to house a Roman castellum so both became archaeological monuments. With the expansion of the two cities (Leiden en Utrecht) the terrains became situated in urban areas. In both cases it was decided that the archaeological monument should become a focal point in the new neighborhood and would be reconstructed. However, as the

159 Willems 1991, 5. 160 Fokkens 2005, 366. 161 http://www.grafheuvels.nl/index.php (consulted on 29/1/2015). 162 Willems 2012, 4. 45 sites were already given the status of archaeological monument, full-scale excavations were impossible. The locations of the castella were based on (often incomplete) older excavations from before 1950 and non-destructive prospection methods (for example with a magneto-meter or an electro-resistivity meter).163 It is questionable whether the data collected this way is sufficient to convince UNESCO of the historical accuracy of the reconstruction.

163 Hazenberg 2000, 13; Blom/Graafstal 2001, 5. 46

Chapter four: Conclusion and recommendations

The past years a lot has changed in the field of public archaeology. Public archaeology is now seen as essential for the survival of archaeology. Archaeology is no longer merely a study of the past, it also needs to provide added value to our contemporary society. The Dutch Roman frontier is no different. Since the end of the 1990s there has been a growing political interest in using the Limes as a promoter of the Roman past of the Netherlands. It became one of the two case studies of the Belvedere program and several cities with Roman military remains decided to promote this past. The inscription of the Dutch Roman frontier on the World Heritage tentative forms the next step in this development. While it did fit in the development it also started a new phase in which the largest problem of the Limes, the lack of public support, needed to be tackled. Only then would the Dutch section have any chance at becoming included in the World Heritage Site “Frontiers of the Roman Empire”. Plans were made and projects were executed, all aimed at involving and interesting the public in the Limes. This thesis aimed at analyzing these plans and projects, to review their strengths and weaknesses and to propose several points of improvement which could help the creation of well developed and connected presentations. The main research question: 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? To answer this question I used the theoretical framework from the field of public archaeology. Public archaeology focuses on the interaction between the public and archaeology and tries to improve this relation. The last couple of years it has gained increasing interest from archaeologists as they seek means to create social relevance for archaeology. The second chapter presented the development of political interest in the Limes and several projects which are aimed at increasing public support for the frontier. The presented cases clearly show that there was a lack of communication and coordination. This problem was acknowledged and in 2013 a new project bureau, Stichting Romeinse Limes, has been established. Unfortunately, the crucial years between 2009 and 2013 when there was no coordinating institution, have left its mark. The result is that most attractions are aimed at enhancing a regional/local identity, without encompassing the national agenda. They have become independent presentations, solely presenting the Roman remains of the local site, lacking a connection with other sites. Before we moved on to the implications and possible solutions to these issues we looked at the Dutch Limes nomination in a wider context. UNESCO has firm ideas about authenticity and integrity which need to be met by the Limes nomination. Not only must the site itself be of “Outstanding Universal Value”, also the presentation of the site is bound to certain rules. A tension

47 exists between UNESCO policy and the creation of public support. What the public wants is not always what UNESCO allows. Close contact with UNESCO and knowledge of their policy is essential to avoid a disappointment such as in the case of the Haringpakkerstoren in Amsterdam. I defined public archaeology in chapter one ‘as the study of the interaction between archaeology and the public and how this interaction can be improved’. We should not only critically study the interaction between archaeology and the public but also look at ways to improve the interaction. Based on my research I defined six areas in which improvements could lead to a larger public support for the Dutch Limes.

4.1 Connectivity The first point I would like to address is the importance of an integrated approach for the Limes. When we view the Dutch Roman frontier as a series of individual sites, there is always a danger that the sites remain unconnected and each site tells the same story. This means that the visitor is likely to visit only one site instead of several. The sites need to differentiate in order to create an interesting attraction for the visitor, in which multiple sites contribute to a broader story of the Roman Frontier. Each site should focus on its own uniqueness, focusing on the stories best in line with the available archeology of the site.164 In this way different aspects of the Roman Frontier can be addressed. Not only should the sites differentiate, they should also direct the visitor towards other (neighboring) Roman sites. In this way a story-line can exceed one site and form a greater narrative in which multiple sites play a role. An example of this might be ‘the Roman waterways’; a narrative in which different archaeological sites and museums can play a role, each focusing on a different theme. At Hadrian’s Wall this approach has now led to the first Wall-wide exhibition. Eleven Roman attractions along Hadrian’s Wall are all parts of one exhibition called the ‘Wall Face’. This exhibition displays portraits of the pioneers who protected, conserved or told the story of Hadrian’s Wall.165 It is also important to integrate the museums in which the archaeological objects are displayed with the archaeological site, the place where the objects were found. Both can show different sides of the same story. A clear example of this has already been mentioned in chapter two. In the RMO in Leiden a cavalry mask coming from an archaeological site only 10 minutes cycling away is displayed. However, both the site and the museum do not mention the proximity of the other (chapter 2.3.2.) (fig. 20/27). I would like to argue that this is a missed opportunity. It can become an interesting storyline in which the museum focuses on the mask itself and the archaeological site on

164 Adkins/Holmes/Mills 2013, 168. 165 http://www.visithadrianswall.co.uk/wall-face (consulted on 7/1/2015). 48

its context. Through such an integrated approach, both museum and archaeological site establish a clear connection and can both contribute to a greater public understanding.166 Connecting the sites can also be done through a connecting footpath, cycle way or motorway. By literally linking the sites, the visitor can easily move from one attraction to another. The success of such direct connections has been proven on the other sections of the World Heritage Site “Frontiers of the Roman Empire”. A good example is Hadrian’s Wall, where the footpath, cycle way and motorway are popular amongst the visitors. You find a Figure 39 Hadrian’s Wall long distance footpath along the complete section of the Roman frontier, guiding trail. visitors along the wall, the archaeological sites and museums associated with it.167 In England, where walking is a national pastime, the footpath is a great success and was voted British best long distance trail in 2011 (fig. 38).168 The cycle path is no different. National cycle way 72 runs along Hadrian’s Wall, while also leading cyclists to the main museums and attractions (fig. 39).169 Both walking and cycling are a great way to visit the World Heritage Site. The combination between sports and culture appeals to a much larger public than the archaeological sites alone. A motorway runs along a large part of the wall, so the sites are easily accessible by car as well. Public transport is created with bus line AD 122 (the year in which the building of Hadrian’s

Figure 38 Entrance of Hadrian’s Wall began), stopping at all the major attractions along Hadrian’s Wall (fig. Wall cycle way. 40).170 While Hadrian’s Wall has the major advantage of upstanding remains and impressive sceneries, other sections of the Roman Frontier provide similar facilities. The Upper German-Raetian Limes has a Limesstrasse; a highway connecting and providing access to the sites located along the Frontier zone.171 There is also a cycle way and footpath Figure 40 Bus line AD122 for which the necessary information can all be found on the website.172

166 Breeze 2008, 146. 167 McGlade 2014, 47-48. 168 http://www.visitnorthumberland.com/itineraries/the-edge-of-empire (consulted on 7/1/2015). 169 http://www.visithadrianswall.co.uk/things-to-do/cycling (consulted on 7/1/2015). 170 Brantom 2014, 41. http://www.visithadrianswall.co.uk/explore/ad122-hadrians-wall-country-bus (consulted on 7/1/2015). 171 http://www.limesstrasse.de/index.php?id=397&L=0 (consulted on 7/1/2015). 172 http://www.limesstrasse.de/deutsche-limes-strasse/radweg/ (consulted on 7/1/2015). 49

The cycle way is promoted as excellent for “cyclists with a love for history” but also forms a sporty challenge for the ambitious cyclist.173 The Antonine Wall in Scotland, also provides cycling and walking guides, however not as extensively as the other two sections of the World Heritage Site.174 Cycle ways and footpaths would be an excellent way to physically connect the sites of the Limes section in the Netherlands, since cycling is a big part of our culture. It is therefore no surprise that as early as 2004 the Dutch cyclist C. Sweerman published a European Limes route, starting in Katwijk (the Netherlands) and ending at the Black Sea in Romania.175 His cycling route is however aimed at the experienced cyclist, going for long distance rides. While there are several smaller cycle and walking routes promoted on the website of Stichting Romeinse Limes that are often created by local organizations, an official cycling route is still missing.176 It would be a great asset for the public outreach of the Roman Limes if official routing was created that would guide visitors walking, cycling or by car past the highlights of the Roman Frontier in the Netherlands.

4.2 Communication The second point of improvement concerns the communication regarding the Limes. Communication can be divided between the internal communication between different organizations promoting the Limes, and the external communication, between the Limes organization and the public. Since the announcement of the nomination of the Limes in 2011, different organizations have initiated projects to enlarge public awareness of the Limes. Several of these initiatives have been discussed in chapter two. It seems that these different organizations often lacked knowledge of earlier initiatives. This created the situation in which double work was being done. An example of this was the project of the Limeswiki (described in chapter 2.3) which had striking similarities with the vici.org project. If both had known of each other’s existence earlier, much work could have been spared. I would like to argue that these miscommunications can for a large part be ascribed to the lack of central coordination during the years 2009-2013. During this period there was no central (official) organization coordinating the different initiatives. This changed with the establishment of Stichting Romeinse Limes. Stichting Romeinse Limes is now in charge of coordinating the different organizations and getting them into contact with each other. Efforts are already being made. In November 2014 they organized the Limes network day, where Nigel Mills was one of the guest

173 http://www.limesstrasse.de/index.php?id=386&L=1 (consulted on 8/1/2015). 174 http://www.antoninewall.org/visiting-wall/walking-cycling-guides (consulted on 8/1/2015). 175 Personal communication with Europafietser on the Limes Netwerkdag on 7/11/2014; Sweerman 2010. 176 http://www.romeinselimes.nl/nl/op-pad/fietsen (consulted on 8/1/2015). 50 speakers.177 Initiatives like these will hopefully improve the internal communication between the different projects involved in the Limes. There is however a second reason why different organizations were doing the same work. It seems that projects find it difficult to reach a larger audience. Most projects are only known within a small group of initiators and local residents, but somehow lack the ability to transcend to a larger public. This creates a situation in which projects remain virtually unknown even to those who might be interested in the Limes. It also makes it difficult for the public to get involved. There are two examples where we have seen this happening. The first is the Limeswiki, extensively discussed in the second chapter. The Limeswiki is a website which is completely based on the contributions the public makes. However, as we have seen there is little activity on the website and the number of contributors remains low. The second example is the ‘Mijn Limes’ project, mentioned in the third chapter. ‘Mijn Limes’ tries to activate public involvement in the Limes by providing guidance and a financial contribution. Projects can sign up for this program for December 2014 until February 2015. Now, half way through the sign-up period, only three projects have been listed, while there is funding for fifteen.178 The lack of sign-ups is also recognized by ‘Mijn Limes’, which now organizes a brainstorm session for everyone who is interested but lacks a tangible idea.179 For some reason it remains a problem to motivate the public into active involvement in the Limes nomination. This problem is not easy to solve but a stronger promotion of the current projects through the right channels would certainly help. The current promotion focuses on channels mainly used to provide archaeological and historical information.180 To reach a larger audience, it would be necessary to reach beyond this group of already interested people and investigate new channels of communication.

4.3 Target audience Reaching the right audience is not only important for public involvement but is essential to nomination of the Limes. The mission Halbe Zijlstra, former State Secretary of Education, Culture and Science, imposed on the different organizations was to enlarge public awareness and support of the Limes (see introduction). This meant that part of the public which had no particular interest or knowledge of the Limes, would have to be reached. It is therefore surprising that the Public Outreach agenda shows so little ambition regarding this subject (see also chapter 2.2). The Public Outreach

177 Limes Netwerkdag 7/11/2014; http://www.romeinselimes.nl/nl/agenda/netwerkdag-romeinse-limes- nederland (consulted on 9/1/2015). 178 Data collected on 9/1/2015. 179 http://www.knhm.nl/Onze+hulp/Mijn+Limes/Bijeenkomst/default.aspx (consulted on 9/1/2015). 180 For example: http://www.awn-archeologie.nl/; http://historiek.net/; http://www.isgeschiedenis.nl/ (all consulted on 9/1/2015). 51 agenda states that the main target groups consist of: school children (10 – 14 years of age), inhabitants along the Limes and tourists with an existing interest in history. Two out of these three target groups already have a connection with the Limes.181 The school curriculum covers the Roman period, as the Limes is one of the subjects of the national historical canon.182 The other group is the tourists with an already existing interest in archaeology and history. They already make an effort to include history and culture into their trips.183 Especially this last group would most likely already support the Limes and its nomination. The promotion of the Limes mainly goes through the so-called ‘gates’ as described in chapter two. These gates were selected because they already attract many historically interested visitors. This then poses the same problem as the above described active public involvement problem: only the part of the public that is already interested in history, visits the museums and attractions in which the Limes is promoted. The part of the public that doesn’t visit these attractions is therefore not introduced to the Limes. However, if we want to broaden public support and awareness for the Dutch Roman frontier, it is important to target the part of the public which does not have this existing interest in history and archaeology. One of the solutions to this problem is to promote the Limes in more unconventional places. This can for example be done by using the public space such as parks, squares and streets. It is however important that in these cases the by-passer clearly understands the message. Markers indicating archaeological sites in the pavement are often missed by a large part of the public (fig. 4). Using works of art such as in Vechten (see chapter 2.3.2) can be a good way to communicate the message to the interested by-passer. Visitor research at the Limes art in Vechten however, shows that these works of art should be self-explanatory or otherwise the message is lost (fig. 5).184 The Castellum car park in Woerden, also called the Drive-in Museum (see chapter two) is one of the most innovative projects aimed at increasing the public awareness of the Dutch Limes. The walls of this car park are covered with massive reconstruction drawings of the castellum of Woerden and with displays full of archaeological finds, all accompanied by short explanatory texts. It is one of the few on-site presentations which actually show the original finds. Not only does this create a more colorful car park, it also ensures that almost every visitor of Woerden comes into contact with its Roman history. In this way the Drive-in Museum reaches a part of the public which would not have been reached through the ‘gates’ mentioned in the Public Outreach agenda. That the Castellum car

181 Caalders/Laro 2012, 14. 182 http://www.entoen.nu/romeinselimes (consulted on 28/1/2015). 183 Van Loon, 68. 184 Kok/van Oort 2008, 10. 52 park has received a positive response, can be seen in the different prices and nominations the car park gets, not only as a cultural attraction but also for being an attractive car park.185 Increasing public support for the Dutch Roman frontier means reaching a larger audience. The Public Outreach agenda misses an opportunity when it limits itself by reaching out only to the already interested part of the public. Creativity is needed to reach the parts of the public who do not normally come into contact with historical or archaeological information.

4.4 Quality versus quantity Within this context Quality can be defined as historical accuracy. During the Limes networking day on the 7th of November 2014, one of the discussions focused specifically on this topic. A part of the group argued that it was important to get as many people involved in the promotion of the Limes as possible, even if this meant that some of the projects initiated by the public might not be an accurate representation of history. There seemed to be little opposition towards this statement. After all, the involvement of local communities in the nomination process is seen as essential by UNESCO.186 In chapter three we have seen the importance UNESCO ascribes to the historical accuracy of reconstructed buildings. As reconstructed buildings in the Netherlands are often based on incomplete archaeological evidence, they should be avoided. However, the public, or at least part of the public appreciates such a visual presentation of the past. This creates a tension between what the public wants and what UNESCO wants. This discrepancy between the public’s expectation of Roman Frontier archaeology and historical accuracy exceeds reconstructions: it can also be found within the so-called ‘living history’ or ‘re-enactment’ projects. The popularity of the archaeological theme park Archeon (Alphen aan de Rijn) is a clear example of this discrepancy. Archeon is an archaeological park which focuses on ‘living history’. It houses over 40 reconstructed buildings, covering three periods: the prehistory, the Roman period and the Middle Ages. Different Roman structures have been reconstructed, coming from a different context. However, not only the reconstructions but also the re-enactors and in particularly the gladiators attract a lot of attention. The reconstructed amphitheater serves as the background for the gladiator show (fig. 41). This show fits in well with the current emphasis on the experience within (cultural) tourism.187 Its entertainment values clearly outweigh its ambition to be historically correct. While this might not be a problem for a commercial theme park, it can become a problem when we view it as a representation of the Dutch Limes, as is stated in the Public Outreach agenda.188 As we have seen in

185 Hazenberg 2013, 101. 186 UNESCO 2013, paragraph 123. 187 Pine/Gilmore 2007, 76; Prentice 2001, 5, 7. 188 Breeze 2008, 144. 53 chapter three, the presentation of a proposed World Heritage Site can influence the outcome of the nomination. The case of Archeon shows how certain stereotypes of the Roman period might reach more public than a historically correct presentation. Often these Figure 41 The Gladiator show at the Archeon. stereotyped versions of the past are used as a background for other leisure activities.189 However, Tim Copeland, founder of the International Centre for Heritage Education, argues that it is in fact information that is new and challenges the current stereotypes, is most effective in stimulating the visitor’s interest in a subject.190 By providing information which contrasts with the visitor’s knowledge of the subject, the visitor is forced to review his or her construction of the past. Copeland calls this a ‘cognitive dissonance’.191 If we apply this theory to our case, it would mean that if we want to get the public more interested in the Limes, we should make them question their current knowledge of the Roman Frontier. We can also approach the discussion between quality and quantity from a different perspective: quantity is not about the amount of people reached but about the amount of projects initiated by the public. Within the previously described project ‘Mijn Limes’ a group of people initiate their own project. Within these groups there is not always an expert who can guarantee the historical correctness of the project. An example of such a public initiated project is the ‘Abrona & JOU’ project. In this project the staff of Abrona wants to connect the youth with people with an intellectual disability by organizing a Roman themed day. On this day they want to do ‘Roman games’ and serve ‘Roman food’, such as ‘Roman ice-cream’, made by a local entrepreneurs.192 Both the games and the food will probably have little to do with the historical games and food. On the one hand it is not important to be historically correct; the aim of the project is to bring two groups closer together. On the other hand it is a project which forms a presentation of the Roman Frontier and therefore has a certain responsibility to correctly display this past. The quantity versus quality discussion is a difficult one: arguments for both sides can be made. Quality often conflicts with reaching a larger group but can provide a better educational value and can force the visitor to rethink their perception on the Roman past. Quantity is stronger at reaching a greater public but often has a larger entertainment value than educational. It is important

189 Copeland 2004, 133. 190 Copeland 2004, 134. 191 Copeland 2004, 134-136. 192 De Bruin 2014. 54 to acknowledge this tension and find a reasonable compromise between both approaches: in which both the educational value is protected but the subject still remains accessible for a larger audience.

4.5 Connecting with contemporary issues In chapter one we have seen that archaeology is coping with a problem of valorization. Archaeology has to connect better with contemporary problems of modern day society to make it more than an entertaining pass time. By making a valid contribution to society, archaeology can regain meaning and purpose.193 Roman Frontier archaeology is no different. Only when we connect the past to the present we can find deeper meaning and value for the past.194 It is not only important to educate the public about the past by means of a presentation, but also to make a connection with contemporary problems. Within the presentations of the Dutch Roman frontier several themes can be found which can help to make this connection. Themes as conflict, borders, occupation and integration can easily provide a bridge between the past and the present. Unfortunately the connection with contemporary topics is seldom being made in the Netherlands. In England however, there is a growing number of museums and presentations which are using this tool. The first example I would like to discuss is the new exhibition at the Roman Frontier Gallery in the Tullie House (Carlisle) which opened in June 2011.195 In many ways the exhibition followed the interpretation framework developed by Nigel Mills and Genevieve Adkins, which was drawn up earlier that year.196 The exhibition consisted of several sections, of which the first gave a general overview of Hadrian’s Wall. Several themes were more extensively explained through objects, specifically chosen to support the information. The curators tried to close the gap between past and present by making a connection with the daily life of the visitor. The last section called ‘The Figure 42 The Living Wall section in Living Wall’, continued this approach by comparing Hadrian’s Wall with the Roman Frontier Gallery at the Tullie House. modern walls, such as the Palestine wall and the Belfast peace lines (fig. 42). By comparing Hadrian’s Wall with modern walls and borders, it becomes easier for the visitor to imagine the implication of the Roman wall. On the other hand it also challenges visitors to rethink their own stance towards these moral and ethical issues. The Roman frontier is used as a metaphor

193 Merriman 2004, 8; Matsuda/Okamura 2011, 1. 194 Mills/Adkins 2013, 171. 195 http://www.tulliehouse.co.uk/galleries-collections/galleries/roman-frontier-gallery (consulted on 14/1/2015). 196 Mills/Adkins 2013. 55 for contemporary issues.197 A second goal of the Living Wall section was to connect with UNESCO’s broader values. The museum aimed to promote peaceful co-existence by showing the public the impact of borders.198 A second example is the travelling exhibition ‘The archaeology of ‘Race’’ made by Divya P Tolia-Kelly and Claire Nesbitt in 2009.199 In their exhibition they tried to challenge the visitor’s perception of Roman presence in Britain. By connecting this theme to citizenship, race, imperialism and culture, it showed how issues regarding these subjects are often not as new as we think. It tried to make the visitor critically reflect on his or her own society and culture.200 Curators can show how archaeology and history still impact today’s world through these time transcending subjects. This will not only generate a greater respect for archaeology but will also force the visitor to rethink their past and present. Through this approach the Roman Limes can have an impact on today’s society.201 Hopefully future exhibitions in the Netherlands will copy this way of presenting archaeology and making it more relevant for the contemporary world.

4.6 Different interpretations of the Roman Empire The Roman Frontier gallery at the Tullie house is not only innovative because of the Living Wall. It also presents a slightly different perspective on the Roman Empire than which is normally used. The Roman Era is usually presented as the peak of Western civilization. Romanization, adaption of a Roman lifestyle by the native inhabitant, is often viewed as a positive development.202 The illiterate tribes of Germania were taught to read and write, they became included in the monetary economy of the Roman Empire and the first cities emerged. I would like to argue that this view is also reflected in the Dutch presentation of the Limes. Often Roman inventions are shown and the sophisticated crafts of the Romans clearly contrast with the crude works of earlier inhabitants.203 This positive image can for a large part be explained by the identification of European colonialists with the Romans. Colonial Europe viewed their overseas expeditions as civilization missions. The colonizers used Roman history to justify their acts.204 In archaeology this positive view on the Romans as bringers of civilization has had a long history. However, in 2006 David Mattingly published the book An Imperial Possession: Britain in the Roman Empire, which complete went

197 Mills et al. 2013, 184-185. 198 Mills/Adkins 2013, 173-174. 199 https://www.dur.ac.uk/geography/race/ (consulted on 14/1/2015). 200 Tolia-Kelly 2011, 84. 201 Lewis 2011, 49. 202 Hingley 1996, 44-45. 203 For example the groma at Matilo; or the contrast between the prehistorical section and the Roman section of the Valkhof Museum. 204 Hingley 1996, 38-40. 56 against this perspective. Mattingly tells a story of a foreign domination and exploitation. He shows how the Roman Empire used large scale massacre and forced migration as tools within their geo- political strategy. The focus of his book is on the negative aspects of imperial rule, providing a completely new perspective on the Roman Empire.205 This is not only the story of Roman Britain; it can similarly be applied to the Netherlands. Tribes along the Roman Frontier were paying their taxes in men, who were enlisted into the Roman army. These men were often stationed far from home with a large chance of never returning to it. It is only recently that negative subjects of the Roman period, such as Roman slavery, have become part of the academic discussion.206 While these are now upcoming topics in the academic scene, they are still hard to find in the public presentation of the Limes. Putting a smiling Roman soldier in front of an attraction is still viewed as an easy way to create a Roman theme.207 It might be good if, in the future initiators would be a little more careful and critical in the way they present the Roman Empire. I would like to argue that presentations would benefit when they present a more nuanced image of the Romans.

We can conclude that over the past years the Dutch Roman frontier has been in the picture, which is a positive development. New presentations pop up and new funds are being generated. There is however definitely room for improvement. Most presentations focus on the local Roman history, a national framework is missing. From a national level there is willingness to provide this framework, but the financial means are scarce, forcing to lower the ambition. The quality of the content of each presentation differs but there is a general trend to present the Romans as the bringers of civilization and innovation. The past few years this perspective has been under fire, as archaeologists such as David Mattingly present a different vision on the Roman occupation. I also pointed out the lack of contemporary relevance of the presentations. Links between contemporary problems and the Roman Frontier are sparse but are important if we want to show the contemporary relevance of these archaeological remains. It is now up to the archaeologists, project managers, politicians, municipalities and Stichting Romeinse Limes to present the Dutch Limes to the public in a way that triggers their interest, without losing sight of the policy of UNESCO. If this is done successfully, the Limes can function as an example for the many invisible monuments the Netherlands is rich. Meanwhile, the moment of nomination comes closer and is currently being set on 2018. Will there be enough public support for the Limes by that time? Will the valuation board of ICOMOS see the current reconstructions as a threat to the

205 Mattingly 2007, 12. 206 Mattingly 2010, 41-42; Roymans/Zandstra 2011. 207 Bishop 2013, 28-29. 57 authenticity of the Limes? Will the Netherlands enrich the “Frontiers of the Roman Empire” World Heritage Site with another section? I certainly hope so, but a lot of work remains to be done.

58

Bibliography

Adkins, G./N. Holmes/N. Mills 2013, The Hadrian’s Wall Interpretation Framework: Audience Research, in N. Mills (ed.), Presenting the Romans, Interpreting the Frontiers of the Roman Empire World Heritage Site (Heritage Matters Series: vol. 12), Newcastle, 157-170.

Amali, B. 2014, Framing Heritage: A case study of Haringpakkerstoren (unpublished master thesis), Amsterdam.

Amkreutz, L./A. Willemsen 2010, Nieuwe voetsporen over oude: Naar een nieuwe opstelling ‘Archeologie van Nederland’ in het RMO, Archeologie magazine 02/2010, 56-59.

Ascherson, N. 2000, Editorial, Public Archaeology 1/1, 1-4.

Becker, T. 2008, Nature and function of reconstructions on the Upper German-Raetian Limes using the example of wooden watch-towers, in Breeze, D.J./S. Jilek (eds.), Frontiers of the Roman Empire, The European Dimension of a World Heritage Site, Edinburgh, 153-162.

Bishop, M.C. 2013, Re-enactment and Living History – Issues about Authenticity, in N. Mills (ed.), Presenting the Romans, Interpreting the Frontiers of the Roman Empire World Heritage Site (Heritage Matters Series: vol. 12), Newcastle, 23-30.

Blom, E./E.P. Graafstal 2001, Aanvullend Archeologisch Onderzoek Hoge Woerd (ADC Rapport 73), Bunschoten.

Brandenburgh, C.R./W.A.M. Hessing 2005, Matilo – Rodenburg – Roomburg, De Roomburgerpolder: van Romeins castellum tot moderne woonwijk, Leiden.

Brantom, J. 2014, Hadrian’s Wall Tourism Partnership, in Stone, P.G./D. Brough (eds.) Managing, Using and Interpreting Hadrian’s Wall as World Heritage, London, 33-46.

Breeze, D.J. 2004, The Antonine Wall: The North-West Frontier of the Roman Empire Proposed as a World Heritage Site, Edinburgh.

59

Breeze, D.J. 2008, Presenting Roman military sites to the public, in Breeze, D.J./S. Jilek (eds.), Frontiers of the Roman Empire, The European Dimension of a World Heritage Site, Edinburgh, 141- 149.

Brown, J./T. Hay-Edie 2014, Engaging Local Communities in Stewardship of World Heritage: A methodology based on the COMPACT experience (World Heritage Papers 40), Paris.

Caalders, J./J. Laro 2012, Uitvoeringsagenda Publieksbereik Romeinse Limes (Bureau BUITEN projectnummer 674), Utrecht.

Copeland, T. 2004, Presenting Archaeology to the Public: Constructing insights on-site, in Merriman, N. (ed.), Public Archaeology, New York, 132-144.

Council of Europe 1992, European Convention on the Protection of Archaeological Heritage (Revised), Valetta.

Cruysheer, A. 2002, Archeologisch Erfgoed en Publiekspresentatie: Onderzoek naar de mogelijkheden van Artikel 9 uit het verdrag van Malta (unpublished master thesis), Amsterdam.

De Bruin, J. 2014, Panem er circences (project description ‘Mijn Limes’ project), Utrecht.

De Hingh, A./W. Vos 2006, Romeinen in Valkenburg (ZH), De opgravingsgeschiedenis en het archaeologisch onderzoek van Praetorium Agrippinae, Leiden.

Deutsche Limeskomission 2004, Frontiers of the Roman Empire World Heritage Site Proposed Extension: Obergermanisch-Raetischer Limes/Upper German-Raetian Limes Nomination for Inclusion on the World Heritage List, Berlin.

Dhaeze, W. 2011, De Romeinse kustverdediging langs de Noordzee en het Kanaal van 120 tot 410 na Chr. Een onderzoek naar de rol van militaire sites in de kustverdediging en drie casestudies over de militaire versterkingen van Maldegem-Vake, Aardenburg en Boulogne-sur-Mer, Gent.

Duineveld, M./K. van Assche/R. Beunen 2013, Malta’s Unintentional Consequences: Archaeological Heritage and the Politics of Exclusion in the Netherlands, Public Archaeology 12/3, 139-154.

60

Eickhoff, M. 2007, Archeologisch erfgoed: een onbeheersbaar concept, in Grijzenhout, F. (ed.), Erfgoed. De geschiedenis van een begrip, Amsterdam, 231-263.

Fokkens, H. 2005, Laat-Neolithicum, vroege en midden-bronstijd: een inleiding, in Kooijmans, L.P.L./P.W. van den Broeke/H. Fokkens/A. van Gijn (eds.), Nederlands in de prehistorie, Amsterdam, 357-370.

Gemeente Nijmegen Archeologie en Monumenten 2013, Archeologie op straat: waar kunt u nog wat zien in Nijmegen? 18 punten om te bezoeken, Nijmegen

Gemeente Nijmegen 2014, Nijmegen graaft! Groot succes (press release 15/05/2014), Nijmegen, (http://www2.nijmegen.nl/content/1573780/nijmegen_graaft_groot_succes).

Gemeente Utrecht 2011, Castellum Hoge Woerd: Ontdek het verleden en beleef het zelf, Utrecht.

Geraerdts, I. 2010, Nederland van prehistorie tot gisteren in RMO: Topstukken niet meer zo eenzaam, Archeologie magazine 06/2010, 22-27.

Hazenberg, T. 2000, Leiden-Roomburg 1995-1997: archeologisch onderzoek naar het Kanaal van Corbulo en de vicus van het castellum Matilo (ROB Rapportage Archeologische Monumentzorg 77), Amersfoort.

Hazenberg, T. 2006, Woerden: Het succes van archeologische monumentenzorg, Archeobrief 10/4, 23-27.

Hazenberg, T. 2013, Woerden – Hoochwoert (Dutch Limes): Showing the Invisible, in N. Mills (ed.), Presenting the Romans, Interpreting the Frontiers of the Roman Empire World Heritage Site (Heritage Matters Series: vol. 12), Newcastle, 93-102.

Hazenberg, T. 2014, Plan van Aanpak Totstandkoming Stichting Mooi Matilo, Leiden.

Hingley, R. 1996, The ‘legacy’ of Rome: the rise, decline, and fall of the theory of Romanization, in Webster, J./ Cooper, N. (eds.) Roman imperialism : post-colonial perspectives (Leicester Archaeological Monographs 3), Leicester, 34-48.

61

Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England 1986, World Heritage Convention Cultural Properties: UK Nomination Hadrian’s Wall Military Zone, London.

Historic Scotland 2007, The Antonine Wall, Nomination for Extension of the World Heritage Site (volume 1), Edinburgh.

Holtorf, C. 2007, Archaeology is a Brand! The Meaning of Archaeology in Contemporary Popular Culture, Oxford.

ICOMOS 1964, International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (The Venice Charter 1964), Venice.

ICOMOS 1990, Charter for the Protection and Management of Archaeological Heritage, Paris.

ICOMOS 1994, The Nara Document on Authenticity, Nara.

ICOMOS 2006, Evaluation Frontiers of the Roman Empire (Germany) (No. 430 bis), Charenton-le- Pont.

ICOMOS 2010, Evaluation the Canal Area of Amsterdam (Netherlands) (No. 1349), Paris.

Intentieverklaring werelderfgoednominatie Romeinse limes 2014, Leiden.

Isherwood, R. 2011, Community Archaeology: conceptual and political issues, in Moshenska, G./S. Dhanjal (eds.), Community Archaeology: Themes, Methods and Practices, Oxford, 6-17.

Jameson Jr., J.H. 2004, Public archaeology in the United States, in Merriman, N. (ed.), Public Archaeology, New York, 21-58.

Jilek, S. 2008, The definition of river frontiers, in Breeze, D.J./S. Jilek (eds.), Frontiers of the Roman Empire, The European Dimension of a World Heritage Site, Edinburgh, 65-70.

Johnson, M. 1999, Archaeological Theory: An Introduction, Oxford.

62

Kok, R./H. J. van Oort 2008, Beleeft ú de limes? Publieksonderzoek langs de limes in Utrecht, Archeobrief 12/4, 7-13.

Koninklijke Nederlandse Heidemaatschappij 2014, Mijn Limes, Arnhem.

Langebroek, M./R. Jansen/M. van den Dries 2014, Community archaeology in Nederland: Publieke opgraving in Oss-Horzak, Archeobrief 18/2, 30-35.

Leene, T. 2014, Volgordebepaling nieuwe Werelderfgoednominaties (brief aan Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed en het Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap referentienummer B- 2013-160), Utrecht.

Leijen, H. 2008, De Romeinse grens in Nederland beschouwd: Een onderzoek naar de limes als erfgoedsite (unpublished master thesis), Utrecht.

Lewis, P. 2011, Review of The Roman Frontier Gallery, Tullie House Museum and Art Gallery, Carlisle, Cumbria, Museum Journal December 2011, 46-49.

Matsuda, A. 2004, The Concept of ‘the Public’ in Public Archaeology and the Aims of Public Archaeology, Papers from the Institute of Archaeology 15, 66-76.

Matsuda, A/K. Okamura 2011, Introduction: New Perspectives in Global Public Archaeology, in Okamura, K./A. Matsuda (eds.), New Perspectives in Global Public Archaeology, New York, 1-18.

Mattingly, D. 2007, An Imperial Possession: Britain in the Roman Empire (penguin edition), London.

Mattingly, D. 2010, Imperialism, Power, and Identity: Experiencing the Roman Empire, Princeton.

McGimsey, D.R. 1972, Public Archaeology, New York.

McGlade, D. 2014, Hadrian’s Wall Path National Trail and the World Heritage Site. A Case Study in Heritage Access Management, in Stone, P.G./D. Brough (eds.) Managing, Using and Interpreting Hadrian’s Wall as World Heritage, London, 47-62.

63

Merriman, N. 2002, Archaeology. Heritage and interpretation, in Cunliffe, B./W. Davies/C. Renfrew (eds.), Archaeology. The Widening Debate, Oxford, 541-566.

Merriman, N. 2004, Introduction: Diversity and Dissonance in Public Archaeology, in Merriman, N. (ed.), Public Archaeology, New York, 1-18.

Mills, N. 2013, Introduction: Presenting the Romans – Issues and Approaches to Interpretation, in N. Mills (ed.), Presenting the Romans, Interpreting the Frontiers of the Roman Empire World Heritage Site (Heritage Matters Series: vol. 12), Newcastle, 1-10.

Mills, N./G. Adkins 2013, The Hadrian’s Wall Interpretation Framework, in N. Mills (ed.), Presenting the Romans, Interpreting the Frontiers of the Roman Empire World Heritage Site (Heritage Matters Series: vol. 12), Newcastle, 171-180.

Mills, N./T. Padley/J. Scott/L. Branczik/G. Adkins 2013, Applying the Hadrian’s Wall Interpretation Framework, in N. Mills (ed.), Presenting the Romans, Interpreting the Frontiers of the Roman Empire World Heritage Site (Heritage Matters Series: vol. 12), Newcastle, 181-192.

Moshenska, G./S. Dhanjal 2011, Introduction: thinking about, talking about, and doing community archaeology, in: Moshenska, G./S. Dhanjal (eds.), Community Archaeology: Themes, Methods and Practices, Oxford, 1-5.

Museon 2013, High Tech Romeinen in Museon groot success (press release), Den Haag, (http://www.museon.nl/nl/high-tech-romeinen-museon-groot-succes).

Nederlandse Limessamenwerking 2014, Tussenstand Werelderfgoednominatie Romeinse Limes, Utrecht.

Pine, J.B./J.H. Gilmore 2007, Museums & Authenticity, Museum News May/June 2007, 76-92.

Prentice, R. 2001, Experiential Cultural Tourism: Museum & the marketing of the new romanticism of evoked authenticity, Museum Management and Curatorship 19/2001, 5-26.

Projectbureau Leidsche Rijn Utrecht 2011, Castellum Hoge Woerd: Ontdek het verleden en beleef het zelf, Utrecht.

64

Raad voor Cultuur 2011, Advies evaluatie wet op de archeologische monumentenzorg (WAMZ) en besluit archeologische monumentenzorg (BAMZ), ’s-Gravenhage.

Robbertsen, R.C./H. Goedhart 2012, Landelijke Limessamenwerking (statenbrief College van Gedeputeerde Staten), Utrecht.

Roymans, N./T. Zandstra 2011, Indications for rural slavery in the northern provinces, in Roymans, N./T. Derks (eds.), Villa Landscapes in the Roman North, Economy, Culture and Lifestyle, Amsterdam, 161-177.

Saris, J. 2013, Nieuwe waarde maken met cultureel erfgoed, in van Dommelen, S./C.-J. Pen (eds.), Cultureel erfgoed op waarde geschat: Economische waardering, verevening en erfgoedbeleid (online publication), 129-143.

Schadla-Hall, T. 1999, Editorial: Public Archaeology, European Journal of Archaeology 2/2, 147-158.

Schücker, N./J. van Helt 2014, Lost, Cities, Exotic Travel and Digging up the World: Historical feature films as a means of enhancing appreciation of our archaeological heritage, in Egberts, L./K. Bosma (eds.), Companion to European Heritage Revivals, Dordrecht, 131-150.

Stone, P.G./P.G. Planel 1999, Introduction, in Stone, P.G./P.G. Planel (eds.), The Constructed Past: Experimental archaeology, education and the public (One World Archaeology 36), London.

Strolenberg, F. 2005, Grensverkenningen: van archeologisch geheim naar publieke openbaring, in Strolenberg, F./M. Stam/E. Paalvast (eds.), Limes grensverkenningen I, Utrecht, 2-3.

Strolenberg, F. 2007, Bestuurders, ontwerpers, archeologen en de limes, Archeobrief 11/2, 21-26.

Thiel, A. 2008, The challenge of an appropriate presentation of archaeological monuments along the Upper German-Raetian Limes, in Breeze, D.J./S. Jilek (eds.), Frontiers of the Roman Empire, The European Dimension of a World Heritage Site, Edinburgh, 149-152.

Tolia-Kelly, D.P. 2010, Narrating the postcolonial landscape: archaeologies of race at Hadrian’s Wall, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 36, 71-88.

65

UNESCO 1972, Convention Concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage, Paris.

UNESCO 2011, Preparing World Heritage Nominations (second edition), Paris.

UNESCO 2013, Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the Word Heritage Convention, Paris.

Van den Dries, M.H. 2013, Does Holland look like Malta yet? Reflections on the achievements with development-led archaeology in the Netherlands, in Guermandi, M.P./K.S. Rosenbach (eds.), Twenty years after Malta: preventive archaeology in Europe and in Italy, Bologna, 43-54.

Van den Ende, H. 2008, Succesvol beleid in Woerden, Archeobrief 12/1, 12-16.

Van der Heijden, P. 2014, Nieuw leven voor de limes, Archeobrief 18/1, 6-9.

Van der Hoeven, M.J.A. (minister of Education, Culture and Science) 2006, Wet op de archeologische monumentenzorg, ‘s-Gravenhage.

Van der Velde, H.M. 2011, Commerciële archeologie in Nederland: een balans, Vught.

Van Dijk, K.M. 2014, Terreinencatalogus voor de werelderfgoednominatie Romeinse Limes, Amsterdam.

Van Ginkel, E. 2006, Terugblik op de limes plannen en projecten, Archeobrief 10/4, 17-22.

Van Loon, R. 2013, Binnenlands toerisme en cultureel erfgoed, in van Dommelen, S./C.-J. Pen (eds.), Cultureel erfgoed op waarde geschat: Economische waardering, verevening en erfgoedbeleid, online publication, 63-73.

Van Rotterdam, M. 2014, Werelderfgoed van Nederland: Monumenten van nu en de toekomst (uitgebreide en geactualiseerde editie), Hilversum.

Vos, W.K. 2009, Bataafs platteland: Het Romeinse nederzettingslandschap in het Nederlandse Kromme-Rijngebied (Nederlandse Archeologisch Rapporten 35), Amersfoort.

66

Vos, W.K./E. Blom/ T. Hazenberg 2010, Romeinen in Woerden: het archeologisch onderzoek naar de militaire bezetting en de scheepvaart van Laurium (Romeinen in… deel 2), Leiden.

Waterton, E./Smith, L. 2009, Heritage, communities and archaeology, London.

Waterton, E./L. Smith 2010, The recognition and misrecognition of community heritage, International Journal of Heritage Studies 16/1, 4-15.

Willems, W.J.H. 1991, Oorzaak en gevolg van een opgraving. Rede uitgesproken op vrijdag 8 maart 1991 bij de aanvaarding van het ambt van hoogleraar in de provinciaal-Romeinse archeologie aan de Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden, Leiden.

Willems, W. et al. 1999, Proposals for a Practical System of Significance Evaluation in Archaeological Heritage Management, European Journal of Archaeology 2/2, 177-199.

Willems, W. 2007, Met Malta meer mans? Een persoonlijke terugblik, in Jansen R./L.P. Louwe Kooijmans (eds.) Van contract tot wetenschap. Tien jaar archeologisch onderzoek door Archol BV, 1997-2007, Leiden, 45-58.

Willems, W. 2010, Laws, Language, and Learning. Managing Archaeological Heritage Resources in Europe, in Messenger, P.M./G.S. Smith (eds.) Cultural Heritage Management. A Global Perspective, Gainesvilla, 212-229.

Willems, W.J.H. 2012, Problems with preservation in situ, in C. Bakels/H. Kammermans (eds.) The end of our Fifth Decade (Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 43/44), Leiden, 2-8.

Willems, W.J.H./E. Graafstal/C. van Driel-Murray 2014, Draft Statement OUV & Comparative Analysis World Heritage Nomination Lower German Limes, Leiden.

Young, C. 2013, An International View of Reconstruction, in N. Mills (ed.), Presenting the Romans, Interpreting the Frontiers of the Roman Empire World Heritage Site (Heritage Matters Series: vol. 12), Newcastle, 75-83.

Zijlstra, H. 2011, Kamerbrief Voorlopige Lijst Werelderfgoed, Den Haag.

67

List of figures

Front page: http://www.okra.nl/projecten/domplein/ (consulted on 4/2/2015) Figure 1: Matsuda/Okamura 2011, 6, fig. 1.1. Figure 2: van Ginkel 2006, 18, afb. 2. Figure 3: http://www.gelderlander.nl/regio/nijmegen-e-o/werelderfgoed-romeinse-limes-stap- dichterbij-1.4670373 (consulted on 4/2/2015). Figure 4: Gemeente Nijmegen Archeologie en Monumenten 2013, 11. Figure 5: Kok/van Oort 2008, 10, afb. 5. Figure 6: Becker 2008, 155, fig. 2. Figure 7: Photo author 21/1/2015. Figure 8: http://www.fonteinopmaat.nl/img/portfolio/projecten/Utrecht_Klokkenmuseum/Klok_01.jpg (consulted on 4/2/2015). Figure 9: http://www.romeinselimes.nl/nl/op-pad/domunder-utrecht (consulted on 4/2/2015). Figure 10: http://www.berkelaarmrt.com/index.php/projects/134-domunder-en (consulted on 4/2/2015). Figure 11: http://www.domunder.nl/category/location-type/zien-doen- beleven/evenementen/rondleiding (consulted on 4/2/2015). Figure 12: Photo author 1/11/2014. Figure 13: Photo author 1/11/2014. Figure 14: Photo author 1/11/2014. Figure 15: Photo author 1/11/2014. Figure 16: Photo author 1/11/2014. Figure 17: Photo author 1/11/2014. Figure 18: Photo author 1/11/2014. Figure 19: Photo author 15/10/2014. Figure 20: Photo author 15/10/2014. Figure 21: Gemeente Utrecht 2011, 1. Figure 22: Gemeente Utrecht 2011, 2. Figure 23: http://www.utrecht.nl/castellum-hoge-woerd/volg-de-bouw/ (consulted on 15/02/2014). Figure 24: Photo author 15/10/2014. Figure 25: Photo author 15/10/2014. Figure 26: Photo author 15/10/2014.

68

Figure 27: Photo author 15/10/2014. Figure 28: Photo author 15/10/2014. Figure 29: http://romeinen.info/2014/04/06/romeins-nijmegen-een-bewogen-geschiedenis/#more- 540 (consulted on 5/2/2015). Figure 30: http://www.geldersestreken.nl/museum-het-valkhof/ (consulted on 5/2/2015). Figure 31: http://ciaotutti.nl/italie-dichtbij/tentoonstellingen-agenda/high-tech-romeinen/ (consulted on 5/2/2015). Figure 32: http://www.romeinselimes.nl/ (consulted on 5/2/2015). Figure 33: http://www.langsdelimes.nl/ (consulted on 5/2/2015). Figure 34: Dhaeze 2011, 10, fig. 1.2. Figure 35: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/430/multiple=1&unique_number=1539 (consulted 5/2/2015). Figure 36: http://www.amsterdamsebinnenstad.nl/binnenstad/213/haringpakkerstoren.html (consulted on 5/2/2015). Figure 37: Koninklijke Nederlandse Heidemaatschappij 2014. Figure 38: http://www.visithadrianswall.co.uk/things-to-do/walking/every-footstep-counts (consulted on 5/2/2015). Figure 39: Photo author 1/09/2013. Figure 40: http://www.visithadrianswall.co.uk/explore/ad122-hadrians-wall-country-bus (consulted on 5/2/2015). Figure 41: http://archeon.nl/nieuws27/fotogallery/category/71-spartacus-2014 (consulted on 5/2/2015). Figure 42: Mills et al. 2013, 185, fig 19.1.

69