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-