There is no such thing as heritage

Archaeology in the UK, and indeed in many Western countries, has had a long association with heritage and its management. Historically, it was archaeologists who lobbied for legislation and public policy to protect sites and places of heritage, and who now work in heritage agencies, museums and amenity societies protecting what they define and understand as "heritage". This chapter explores the degree to which this historical association between the two concepts - "archaeology" and "heritage" - has confined and constrained the nature and meaning of heritage, particularly in policy and practice. Is, for example, the idea of heritage as established by archaeologists and now enshrined in heritage public policy and management processes sufficiently developed to be inclusive of non-archaeological views of heritage? Does it adequately encompass developing trends in heritage studies about the multivocality and dissonant nature of heritage? Can it be inclusive of the multilayered nature of community senses of heritage and place? Moreover, can it accommodate intangible heritage, non-Western ideas of heritage, or any conceptualization of heritage that stands outside of the dominantly understood notion of heritage as sites, monuments and buildings? More importantly, we also question whether archaeology has the intellectual and theoretical capacity to (re)develop its definitions and responses to engage adequately and productively with competing notions of heritage.