| dc.description.abstract | This thesis examines the role of archaeology in the process of cultural nation building in the Netherlands in the nineteenth century. The political changes that the Netherlands underwent in this period are reflected in the development of the archaeological discipline. This connection between cultural nation building and archaeology in the Netherlands is underexposed in the current academic debate. To examine this relationship this research looks into the nationalistic discourse of the directors of the National Museum of Antiquities. These directors can be seen as the first national archaeologist in the Netherlands. Therefore their use of discourse in correspondence with the ministry, figures in power, the university and regional archaeologists is analysed. A study of the use of national discourse and Authorized Heritage Discourse exposes the underlying value systems of the individuals. Thus the connection between the development of the archaeological discipline and cultural nation building is investigated.
Another centre of gravity in this research lies in story-telling and polyphony, which are strongly related with the practice of archaeology. The Dutch national narrative undergoes big changes which influence the archaeological practice as well. Thereby polyphony becomes a difficulty in the Netherlands in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, provincial archaeological societies challenge the national archaeological narrative. The cultural nation building in this specific period is characterized by unity in diversity. The interconnection between the political and the archaeological developments is therefore also analysed in two cases which examine the relationship between the provincial archaeological societies and the national archaeology.
During the nineteenth-century the role of archaeology in the process of cultural nation building in the Netherlands changes strongly. I find that all the museum directors use a nationalistic discourse, but the effects of their rhetoric change over the century. Concluding, this research finds a cross movement between the interest for archaeology of the state and the public. Primary the state is interested in archaeology as an instrument to culturally form the nation, but during the nineteenth century this interest decreases. At the other hand the interest in archaeology as an material proof of the national history gains interest from the public during the nineteenth century, resulting in different regional archaeological schools around 1900. Over the entire period archaeology is used for story-telling. Polyphony grows and several competing narratives arise. Overall, the Dutch case demonstrates a strong connection between archaeology and the development of a national consciousness. | |
