Search

The Archaeology-Heritage Divide consists of divisions that are derived from the dichotomy of tangible versus intangible cultural heritage. Archaeology is seen as the material beginning of human history, yet heritage not only fills gaps in the archaeological record but continues where archaeology leaves off. This continuum between archaeology and heritage is exemplified in tattooing. Tattooing generally presents the unique inversion of permanence (conventionally characteristic of archaeology and material culture) and impermanence (conventionally characteristic of heritage). Tattooing is perceived as a culturally permanent marking of the skin but is archaeologically impermanent due to the transience of human bodies and the process itself. This inversion exposes how nothing ever really belongs on one side of the Divide. These divisions are simply pragmatic constructs allowing scholars to isolate and make sense of certain data. In actuality, there is an interdependence between the disciplines, and it is impossible to truly extricate one from the other.

Archaeology, Anthropology, Natural History Studies, and Heritage Studies have been historically divided into discrete fields of study. This work confronts these divisions in a broad sense, drawing attention to the fact that these are not imagined divides but very real physical divisions which are made visible through the separation of materials in museological collections. Drawing parallels between the epistemological separation of disciplines and the physical division of materials which occurred at the University of Oxford, this article explores how the Pitt Rivers Museum, the Oxford University Museum of Natural History, and the Ashmolean Museum were reconceptualised as separate museums of individual disciplines. This event is used to examine how these divides create differences in the treatment of human remains as well as how knowledge and disciplines are ordered, re-formed, and physically re-shaped through museum collections. Finally, this work suggests that this material enactment of the disciplines provides an opportunity to restructure our disciplines through alterations to the boundaries of museological collections.

In Peru, archaeology and heritage are trapped in a false dichotomy that mirrors broader tensions between the authority of academic knowledge and a post-patrimonial critique that challenges the hegemonic nature of heritage discourses. Using the example of the Qhapaq Ñan Project, a contemporary state driven program that actively tried to incorporate communities in the comanagement of heritage sites, this article discusses how such contradictions obscure the long-standing relationship between heritage and society. The article proposes that one possible solution for this dilemma is to embrace more fluid ideas of what ‘local’ means. The adoption of a specific public space framework and co-creation methodology as used in other disciplines could help current bottom-up initiatives to effectively free archaeology and heritage from this gridlock.

Through a focus on the archaeological paradigm of stewardship, this paper interrogates whether there exists an ethical justification for repatriation in the context of decolonization. In considering the dilemma of repatriation, I apply and appraise two key ethical frameworks: (1) John Merryman’s (1994) object-oriented framework of preservation, truth and access; and (2) Andreas Pantazatos’ (2015) conceptualisation of the ethical source of stewardship in the concepts of care and respect. Produced two decades apart, these ethical paradigms offer guidance at the Divide between Archaeology and Heritage Studies, providing the good steward different ethical tools when approaching her obligations during the repatriation and decolonization processes. Cognizant of recent political-cultural shifts conflating repatriation and social justice, this paper draws on these theories to highlight the eurocentrism structurally embedded within object-oriented paradigms of stewardship and articulate the utility of Heritage Studies in realising the idealised ethical expectations of archaeological paradigms of stewardship.

Archaeology and Heritage have both contributed to the erasure of Indigenous histories. Heritage—specifically what Smith (2006) refers to as the ‘Authorised Heritage Discourse’—has had lasting detrimental impacts on Indigenous communities, overemphasising tangible materiality and granting archaeologists and curators excessive interpretive authority over Indigenous pasts. Similarly, archaeological frameworks like acculturation and hybridity have problematically positioned changes and continuities in Indigenous material cultures as proxies of cultural identity, together perpetuating ‘Vanishing Indian’ narratives that further dispossess contemporary Indigenous peoples of their lands and histories. The concept of survivance, however, counters these narratives, rejecting simple change-continuity dichotomies and the use of material culture as a proxy for identity, foregrounding Indigenous perspectives, and reframing heritage as intangible and active. This paper explores how survivance can bridge heritage and archaeological discourse towards a more decolonised study of the past, exemplified by recent representations of Mashantucket Pequot survivance histories in museum and archaeological spaces.

Recent research has revealed that interdisciplinary work combining archaeological and heritage practice continues to be limited by enduring assumptions separating the two fields. Traditional structures and institutional barriers make it difficult to break away from what is expected in order to explore what is possible in what archaeologists and heritage practitioners ‘do’. Though archaeologists play an integral role in the discovery and interpretation of the past—providing the foundation for the heritage-making process, there is often a gap between the scientific dissemination of archaeological findings and the interpretation and communication of these findings as heritage. We therefore position storytelling as a key to bridging the divide between archaeological and heritage practice. Offering perspectives from archaeological and heritage practices in Sweden, we argue that a renewed focus on storytelling creates more dynamic and collaborative pathways to interpret, communicate and experience archaeological heritagescapes.

Archaeology and heritage management are often understood to be related but distinct disciplines, however, in recent years, the conservation, management and preservation of archaeological sites and objects have also been incorporated into archaeological studies. While the theoretical definition of archaeology has undergone several revisions, there is still a significant divide between practical archaeology—which remains limited to excavation and exploration in several countries, and heritage management—which is still understood to be a bureaucratic activity, sometimes undertaken by private stakeholders. This is particularly true for countries like India, where, as a consequence of this divide, archaeological activity and heritage management take place without consideration for each other and a large number of excavations are carried out without proper post-excavation management plans on the one hand, and conservation and management plan for sites created without consulting archaeologists, on the other. This paper examines how a comprehensive plan can be developed when heritage management and archaeology are brought together using the case study of Bhima Devi Temple in North Haryana, India.