In this master thesis, finding the significance(s) of conflict archaeology is key, with the Battle of Arnhem (September 1944) as a case study. This event, like (all) other battles and narratives of...Show moreIn this master thesis, finding the significance(s) of conflict archaeology is key, with the Battle of Arnhem (September 1944) as a case study. This event, like (all) other battles and narratives of WW2, or even of our contemporary past as a whole, has been researched by historical, rather than archaeological sources and views. Using the data of excavations from professional archaeology, but also the results, methods and motives from non-archaeological initiatives, be it local museums or individual or united metal detectorists, an overview of the widespread of several different stakeholders that are being involved in the remembrance of the Battle of Arnhem is given. Also involved in heritage are the Ministry of Defence (Netherlands Armed Forces) and commercial unexploded ordnance (UXO-)companies, both literally coming into contact with ground dug items, but these were no part of this thesis, as giving a full, complete overview of all heritage from the soil archive seemed too ambitious. Through several case studies and some examples from all available nonarchaeological data, a selection of non-professional archaeological finds from the Battle of Arnhem was presented for the first time. Furthermore, by consulting all data from professional archaeology and combining the results and methods with the motivations and initiatives from other discussed, aforementioned, stakeholders, an attempt at a synthesizing level is made. Using this, different views on, for example, remembrance and education, are presented. Especially the role archaeology can play in the “broader meaning” and “democratising” of heritage, and the role it may have for all involved specific communities, is being discussed. Through this, “prevalent opinions” may be challenged and deviant narratives may arise, and the potential of an interdisciplinary approach becomes clear: challenging dominant narratives, providing a more complete and nuanced picture of the past, and promoting a more inclusive and diverse understanding of history by cooperation, and by consulting and respecting all involved stakeholders, which is in line with the Faro Treaty.Show less
