First I’d like to offer a sincere thank you to Cornelius Holtorf. It is rare in the academy to be able to continue a conversation with your peers post-publication. My article to which Holtorf is responding starts with a simple question: are heritage management decisions constructing a biased future history, particularly in regards to past political economies? Because of a tight word count, I limited my analysis to UNESCO World Heritage sites in North America and the Caribbean. Within this limitation, the answer is a clear yes. These sites are not representative of the wide diversity of past political economies (Borck 2019). When we create a past through our archaeological politics that allows only one effective political practice to be glorified, it becomes increasingly difficult for folks to see practical alternatives to strategies that rely on inequality and the hierarchical state. Reading Holtorf’s response, it is clear that while we have strong disagreements about the meaning of the research I published, we both are in equally strong agreement about the need for heritage management and the power of the archaeological past to create positive changes in the present and the future. We both are adamant that heritage be mobilized for beneficial outcomes, both for descendant communities whose heritage is being protected, as well as for the global community who looks to the past for lessons and for imaginative guidance. I think this is an incredible starting place and I hope this leads to longer and more sustained conversations, if not between us then at least between others with similar differences. That being said, disagreements do abound. For the sake of brevity, I will focus on two. First, Holtorf’s critique that this type of data-driven criticism of the actions made by a powerful governing body is resorting to what he has called identity politics. Second, I will discuss Holtorf’s breakdown of UNESCO World Heritage Committee organization and their decision-making practices through the lens of anarchist and other anti-authoritarian perspectives’ concern about the dangers of majority rule.
