 Felly, gyda ffondi ymgyrchu i ddweud yn eu wasdfaenol yn y��refnio popethau ar Brith hon, gyda'u drafod ei tyfnod, mae sy'n corryn a gwahanol o gwybod a'i llwydd i ro i'r ddweud. Fynau gweithio a hygrannu. Ysgrifennu ar gyfer ysgrifennu Rymonarchyol yn cael ynglynig ar y Sabus Cymru. Rwy'n ei wneud hynny ymyd i'n bosb yn llwystio arall lleol Pen o'ch ddweud o bydd mwyllwch. Ydw i'n gweithio'r sgol o phwylo'r byd nifer sy'n ei wneud. As these roles walk museum displays have to engage with and flourishing to survive and engage more and more people within society. Once these have been briefly discussed, paper will use questionnaires conducted by myself with the public in British museums to explore how room displays may proceed further into their 21st century whilst remaining relevant, socially valuable and investable. That's something that's quite important obviously for the future with the current economic climates and so forth. So it will be no surprise to anyone here that many cultural institutions in the UK in particular suffer from a lack of funding. This claim is supported by reports such as the museums in the UK 2018 reports as well as my own research. On my first data set I interviewed curators and museum educators and museums of which over half stated that money is a limited factor in their curatorial processes. To expand further, since 2010 local funding of museums in England has declined by a third and this has of course resulted in many museum closures. This lack of funding has stemmed from austerity agendas that have been favourable of the heritage sector, an issue that has been predicted to continue to hamper institutions for years to come. Kristen Van Banveld and Osmond Chu's recent study centres around a similar situation in Australia. They conclude that funding deficits of stressed budgets in Australian institutions to the extent that they have led to a limited accessibility to cultural items. As such, the continuation of a cultural institution's basic roles in the UK and elsewhere may further rely on private funders if public funding continues to decrease in collections around the world. Still the question remains how does Roman display stay relevant in increasingly neoliberal worlds where privatisation regularly overlooks the cultural relevance of a local museum and Roman displays as well. I argue throughout this paper that Roman displays can remain and gain relevance and value within modern society through innovative genealogical approaches. Traditionally, museums were seen to simply represent history. This was done and still is to a great extent through a colonial lens that imposed white narratives over depictions of history. Now by white narratives I mean that displays were created by white individuals, usually men for white audiences. As such, displays focused on the representation of white people and their superiority, which has remained a standard practice through stagnation and the cementing of social norms. Fortunately, such displays gradually lose relevance for modern societies as social views progress, audience demographics change and societal roles of institutions differ. All these societal roles, we have education, accuracy and preservation of history, which is routinely floated around. However, representations of history play many more complex roles in society as we know. This paper concentrates on one and that's an institution's role to represent a modern, diverse population through inclusive and empathetic narratives. Museums, especially local museums, are only really relevant if they fulfil a function to society through their audiences. To fulfil that function, therefore, requires relevancy and inclusion, two values that go beyond institutional walls and situate different groups into society's fabric. This is a particularly important aspect in relation to the use of the Roman period, which has, and still is, used to support and shape national ideals and identities throughout Europe. As such, depictions of the Roman period are inherently political. Why not then, I ask, recognise, own and take responsibility for creating history in these politicised spaces and use it as a strength to engage with contemporary issues? To do so, Roman narratives could be curated to actively support ideals such as inclusivity and equality, and of course representation. It is important to note here, I do not mean creators should bend history in any specific way and force it to fit a particular narrative. It does mean, however, that museums will have to take a stance on political issues which forces institutions to break free from the concept of neutrality. James, a museologist, associates an avoidance to strife on the path of neutrality with the fear that museums will fall prey to bias, trendiness and special interest groups. James and Sandel further discuss how museums avoid non-neutral standpoints as they may risk potential and current governmental private funders. Would the British Museum, for example, remain funded by BP if they criticise the impact of crude oil in their exhibitions? James and Sandel advocate for activism within museums, the presence of which foresees institutions as using their political space as forces for good through the use of ethical thought and value driven curatorship. Now this is an opposition to the creation of traditional displays that reinforce outmoded depictions of history that accentuate colonial, tired and irrelevant narratives and can negatively affect certain demographics of society such as people who identify as Black, Asian and other minority ethnic groups. Increasing relevant Roman displays for wider audiences that situate all groups of people within a shared history will benefit society and increase museum participation. An example of an issue related to white dating displays is highlighted by British Pakistani on their questionnaire sheet and I quote, there is little representation of South Asian or the non-white diaspora and their contributions in the UK museum displays. This promotes the narrow interpretation of the makeup of historical societies. It implies that racial diversity is a relatively new development which in turn could reinforce the idea that these groups are recent arrivals and have little to claim, little to claim to the country in which they reside. To create inclusive Roman display narratives could progressively affect many society as well as generate more relevancy between local groups in their museums and their public societies in the Roman period and therefore contribute to the continued existence of Roman displays and cultural institutions. Now I will now use data from my conducted questionnaires to demonstrate that museum audiences are accepting of Roman histories by displaying the way that it answers its use and situates it in a modern social discourse sphere that adds new meaning and relevance to displayed narratives and therefore innovates and re-energises Roman narratives and our relation with it. Overall I managed to conduct 256 questionnaires in five different museums, all of which are in England, not so much in Scotland in Wales and so forth, as well as one archaeological interest group. Within the museum the questionnaires were carried out within Roman galleries which meant that all participants had at least one Roman gallery they could reflect on while looking at my questions in case they had never been to a Roman gallery or display or anything like that before. So I'll start the introduction to my data by introducing question 4 and I should have brought the question here with me but I've got to print it out but if anyone wants to email me then I can send it out so you can see. So question 4, do you feel as though your own ethnic identity is included within museums and heritage displays? So as you can see some of my questions look at museums as a whole and then the last section sends in to the Roman displays. So as you can see 83% of people, which is 213, stated that they did whereas 33 individuals which were around 13% responded that they felt theirs was not. These results are in line with statements I made earlier that local museums and many other history displays are biased for the use of white narratives. As 68% of the questionnaire participants explicitly identified as white, one of my options, one of the demographics in the bottom was to ask for ethnicity and I didn't actually give them any options when they dropped down boxes or anything for this. So I was interested to see what they'd actually say from what's up with their heads for example. A further 30% ethnically identified themselves without be picked in the descriptor of race. For example, ethnically identifying as English, Irish, British, Belgium, multicultural, European, normal, which I find quite troublesome, human, Yorkshire, Celtic and Atheist. So we can probably assume that many of these individuals are also whites which counts off from the data itself. A search answered to question 4 can be seen to relate to the ethnicities of those who completed the survey. Of those who I answered to question 4 would have known there was a 50-50 split whether their ethnic identities should be included within museum narratives. Of those who did not think their ethnicities should be included within displays, many answered along the lines of being visitors and that displays should only represent those who live or have lived in the specific area or country of the museum. Now this is an interesting point to unpack especially for me, as we know the Roman Empire is known to have been inhabited by a diverse population that moved around. A search, the Roman period possessed diversity. Just like multicultural and multi-racial demographics today, we need to think why this knowledge is not being translated to the public, why does it seem absent from many Roman history displays and is there anything behind the assumption that your own ethnic identity may not be included in the fabric of a museum but it does not belong there. So jumping back to the beginning of my questionnaire to question 1, the question is do museums or heritage sites and heritage sites have a duty to represent everybody in modern society? 69% of people, 277, stated that they should. 26% of people answered with no. With many raising concern with the presence of the word duty within the question. Duty appeared to deter some people from answering yes as it challenges their ideal of what a museum's role is. Is it to represent history or is it to represent modern societies? In fact, a Rome display can do both. Interestingly, almost a direct opposite percentages are seen for question 2 that ask whether visitors are concerned with how many identities and or ethnicities are represented in history displays. 64% of people answered no, while 31% stated that they were. It appears as though those of us that are regularly included within history displays do not see an issue with them. And therefore do not concern ourselves with identifying and acknowledging those that history displays ignore. It would therefore seem that the majority of individuals who visit Rome displays are comfortable at face value at least with the state of Roman history displays and representation. But would existing audiences still be interested in displays if their narratives were expanded to include increasingly different identities? Question 6 asks whether individuals are interested in discussions of ethnicity identity within the context of the ancient world. 86% of people stated that they were, whilst 81% followed this up by stating in the next question that they are also interested in discussions of ethnicity identity that relate to the modern period as well. As such, from the sample of visitors to survey engaged with, the data provides potential for local museums to widen participation to engagement with new audiences whilst also retaining those that are already existing, kind of custom. So with this in mind, I'll now do questions 8 to 10, which is the last section, which asks a little bit about the Roman displays and how they feel those should be displayed. So a question 8 asks whether it is important to depict the makeup of Roman society and therefore the discussions that involve the acknowledgement of multiple cultures, races, languages, ethnicities and religions, and of course that list goes on and on such as jobs and so forth, that formed ancient populations. 99% of people, so that's all but two, actually stated that it was important. In addition, 75% of individuals answered question 9 by stating that it is important to also use discussions that can reflect upon modern society and debate. A lot of people said that it makes it easier to understand and it gives us more to learn something from the Roman past. The topics just mentioned, however, inform this bridge and do it whilst remaining empathetic to its audience, sincere and true to our political knowledge of the Roman era. The main challenge that faces these discussions, however, may be breaking that myth of neutrality that I mentioned earlier. Do museums want to be seen as using the Roman past to support socio-political stances and would audiences be accepting? Well, the final question of my questionnaire asks whether individuals with depictions of history are influenced by modern political views. 80% of individuals applies to it and that they do. Audiences seem to be predominantly aware that the past and present aren't wind in many ways. Of course, over 20% seem to think history is history or should be just history. The general concern, however, is that history should not be twisted and that any apparent bias is always seemingly a negative. As stated before, Roman archaeology does not need to be manipulated to produce connections with modern society in the 21st century. Therefore, whilst the majority of individuals realise that history is affected by modern concerns, again, why not own this aspect of a history display and use it to depict Roman history in a way that engages with positive socio-political ideals? So, throughout this paper, I've identified issues that are faced by local museums in particular and how Roman displays may be used to face these challenges. The paper proposed a scenario where Roman display narratives could be used to engage with socio-political ideals of inclusivity that have the potential to widen participation within museum exhibits. Answers to the conducted questionnaire provides encouraging data, I think, which, even before great unpacking and analysis, demonstrates that the Roman period can be narrated in a way that creates empathetic displays that engages with the 21st century and its ideals, while simultaneously providing museums with a possible answer that could contribute to their continued existence and keep Roman archaeology relevant throughout the 21st century. Thank you.