VERSLOOT With reference to the problem of interpreting what can only be scarce evidence, and ideas of the ‘deconstruction’ of historical narratives, the evidence we can put together seems to me largely to be adding details to a traditional scheme that has been around for some time. Has that scheme changed fundamentally, or has it just become more precise? We are still talking about migrations, essentially. I find this quite comforting. Johan (Nicolay) is filling out the concept of migration, but not saying it is not there.

IJSSENNAGGER-VAN DER PLUIJM I agree with that, but there's still more to it. The focus has changed; the perspective is now more anthropological. Some of the papers do try to go beyond the traditional scope. It is not about trying to throw away an old image, or even just filling it out, but a different perspective that enables us to see new things. Many of the papers were about a wider world than Radbod’s.

NIJDAM I would make two points. It is important not to forget that Boeles's idea of a fourth-century break, and the proposition that the same Frisians had not always inhabited the region, was revolutionary and unpopular in the early twentieth century. Around that time, the Frisian Movement also made use of Radbod as a figure; they would not want to see him deconstructed as a Frankish duke. Things changed in the post-World War II period. Jos Bazelmans wrote on this in the De Vrije Fries (2002), being surprised that this question of a long continuity of the Frisians back into the Roman Period is no longer perceived as important to Frisian identity. Moreover, new insights have been gained in recent times. Hans and Gilles's location of Radbod in North-Holland/Texel (de Langen and Mol) poses the question of what his power was over the rest of Frisia. Meanwhile, the reaction to Ian (Wood)'s public lecture does show the continuing desire for information on origins.

IJSSENNAGGER-VAN DER PLUIJM The public may not always be happy with the answer.

HINES We have to respect the desire to ask the question; and responding with respect will mean giving an answer that is as accurate as we can, but not necessarily the answer that is wished for.