77 separa del resto del cosmos: cuanto está dentro es nuestro; cuanto está fuera nos

The implementation of the Canon van Nederland program was initiated by publishing a number of recommendations concerning history education in De Stand van educatief Nederland (‘The state of affairs in Dutch education’) by the Educational Council in January 2005. This evaluation is published every five years to reflect on the educational standards in

the Netherlands. The 2005 report states that “there has been a lack of focus on a ‘Canon’ as expression of cultural identity” (Onderwijsraad 2005, 119-120).

Following this observation, the Canon Committee was established to develop a new Dutch Canon. The committee observed that over the last decades, history education in the Netherlands had gone through a number of developments that had affected how much young people in the Netherlands knew about the ‘canonical’ elements of Dutch history. First of all, it noted that not enough time was devoted to culture and history teaching to sufficiently equip young students and teachers in the field of history (Van Oostrom 2007, 21). Skills training had become a more important element in history education than the transfer of knowledge (Van Oostrom 2006, 21). In addition, there were other changes that were not conducive to knowledge of the Canon. A few examples, referred to in Van Oost- rom’s report (2007), are: 1) the issue of history education being branded elitist, and 2) the lost emphasis on class-based narration as the dominant teaching method. The committee also detected a primary focus on thematic education, rather than on chronology and stated that history teaching could be optimised in this respect.

Figure 21: An overview of the fifty themes of the Canon van Nederland (Source: En- toen.nu, copied from Wikipedia. Accessed on September 21, 2016)

.

The first framework in the Canon is Hunnebedden – which also happens to be the first frame linked with archaeology. This framework consists of different themes regarding the inhabitants of various regions in the Netherlands around 3500-3000 BC. A variety of communities, such as the Swifterbandcultuur (primary schools in Flevoland), Vlaardingen cultuur (Westland region), Grafheuvelcultuur (Brabant), Trechterbekerculturen (Limburg) and Friezen (Friesland and the northern part of Noord-Holland) are discussed in 48 regio- canons (see APPENDIX G), the common thread being the development of communities in a region in prehistory.

The second framework in the Canon, which is also linked with archaeology, is the Roman Limes. This framework details the relationship between the Romans and local communities in the Netherlands from Katwijk, Leiden, Alphen aan den Rijn, Woerden, Utrecht, Nijmegen and Xanten (Germany). Pupils are taught that the Limes (i.e. the Roman border at the Oude Rijn) should be seen as a frontier zone, along which Roman defence posts were situ- ated to protect their territory. Special attention is paid to the Batavians and their revolt in 69 AD, in order to explain how the so-called “Batavian myth” came about in the Nether- lands from the 16th century AD onwards. This framework also contains many regional frameworks, such as the Flavo Lacus (Flevo lake being named by Tacitus) for Flevoland, the princess of Zweeloo(500 AD) for the southern part of Drenthe or the Nehallenia-temple

at Colijnsplaat for Zeeland. Regional Canons in Brabant and Gelderland involve stories of regional communities and the impact of the Romans on daily life, while Canons in the regions of Friesland and Groningen discuss the Hludana Stone and Frisians serving in the Roman army (see APPENDIX G for the total overview of regional representations of the Hunebedden and Romeinse Limes themes).

b. Opponents of the Canon

The Canon has been controversial since it was announced in 2004 that a Canon commit- tee would be established. The critique mainly focuses on didactic elements, the nationalistic character and related subthemes like identity and the meaning of history. Although these criticisms do not directly relate to archaeology, they do provide insight into the ways in which educational content is valued by policy makers. For this reason, it is relevant for the present study to investigate these criticisms in more detail.

Opponents of the Canon mainly state (e.g. Ribbens 2004, Grever & Ribbens 2005, Klein 2006, Stuurman 2006.) that the premise of framing in the Canon can result in narrow-mindedness and anachronism. Furthermore, the opponents also criticise the Canon for neglecting to be “the mirror of our national identity” (Van Oostrom 2007, 23). What is more, the opponents also state that implementation of the Canon leads to ‘Hollandocen- trism,’ in which the Dutch narrative is prioritised in education programs. This will result in the establishment of misrepresentations among pupils (Van Oostrom 2007, 23). According to the opponents, ‘Hollandocentrism’ creates misrepresentation among pupils via two ways: a) it stimulates nationalistic sentiments, and b) it neglects international developments in history (Stuurman 2006). Some historians petitioned the committee to develop a Canon with an inductive method, in which historical developments abroad would be the starting point of the development of regional Canons (Stuurman 2006).

Another point of discussion has been the issue of how the fifty themes relate to one another. Some historians deem the Canon as being too “eclectic”(Bouma 2006; Van Empel 2006; Breedveld 2006; Van Doorn 2006; De Jong 2006). The developer of the earlier Ten Timeframes, Piet De Rooij, characterises the Canon as “fifty individual potatoes in one bag: one potato seems to be equally nutritious as others, but they are all interchangeable” (De Rooij 2007, 23). Others raise the issue of whether it was justified to pick fifty historical figures and events as themes. In connection to this, some opponents question whether the fifty themes that were chosen are all of equal historical significance. As an example, they ask whether the historical importance of Annie M.G Schmidt equals that of Karel de Grote or Hunebedden (Van Oostrom 2007, 23). On the other side of the debate, many historians advocate the Canon as being “attractive, varied and properly proportioned” (Gunst 2006; Van der Schans 2006; De Vries 2006; Bouma 2006; Kort 2006; Lamberink 2007 and Polak 2007).

c. Response from the Canon Committee

Despite these criticisms, the Canon Committee, advocates the power of the Canon. It holds that it can be the mirror of Dutch collective memory, without mirroring Dutch identity. According to the committee, the Canon can contribute to understanding Dutch history and culture, and can provide a vision in which the position of the Netherlands in the world is outlined throughout (contemporary) history (Van Oostrom 2006, 28).

In response to the point of criticism regarding the selection of themes, the committee states that the Canon may be applied to primary education and the first two years of secondary education. The committee further states that the focus of heritage education at primary schools has to be on Timeframes and events in the Netherlands or, even more concretely, on the (cultural) background of the school and the mind-set of its pupils (Van Oostrom 2006, 35). It even advises school management to create a “Canon of the region,” which allows them to connect local elements (such as the origin of local streets or places, historical figures and values) to the themes of the national Canon (Van Oostrom 2006,

36). The committee states that the variation of subjects in the Canon is its most powerful aspect. It argues that a similarity in the subject range (for example, by selecting fifty persons) would result in monochrome didactics and that doubts would arise regarding its efficiency (Van Oostrom 2007, 25).

To build upon the Committee’s statement that the Canon is applicable for primary education, it suggests that storytelling or narration is crucial for childhood cognition. Ap- pealing stories can make abstract movements and events in history concrete. Moreover, these narratives can cover gaps between the themes (Van Oostrom 2006, 34). The teachers and school management are also responsible for making history as tangible and visible as possible. This means that interaction via visualisation is important.

An important feature of the Canon method is online interaction with pupils via the website Entoen.nu (Van Oostrom 2006, 41). The Committee states that this website allows the historical past to be enriched by modern perspectives. The frameworks are all followed by sub-topics in which four sections guide the pupils through interesting storylines related to the subjects being discussed. The final section contains a page called “places to go”, which offers suggestions for museum visits and excursions to other related locations. Additional sections include the ’books for young people’ section, the ’background literature’ section and the ’website’ section, which all provide helpful sources for further reading (Van Oostrom 2006, 43).

The Canon Committee states that in practice the content of the Canon should be further developed by teachers, pupils and school managers. It also argues that the Canon should be formed in the classroom. The development of a uniform, national Canon, which would replace the regional Canon structure, is not favoured by the committee. Instead, the committee envisages an important role for teachers, who have the responsibility to transmit knowledge rather than to rigidly follow the method of whichever book is considered leading in education at the time. While this is all very admirable, in reality the incorporation of the national Canon frameworks into the Core Objectives (see table 14) conflicts with this desire for flexibility and instead seems to further ‘canonise’ the Canon.