Terminological conflation in archaeological site institutions: delineating boundaries through interviews with heritage experts in Europe, China, and Israel

As a fundamental component of cultural heritage, archaeological sites are protected and interpreted by diverse related institutions. However, the conceptual boundaries of these institutions are increasingly becoming blurred, resulting in theoretical ambiguities and a conflation of terminologies. This trend presents a risk of misinterpretation or misuse of terms, as evidenced in certain academic papers and institutional namings. A review of prevalent concepts across diverse geographical contexts of these institutions, coupled with the proposal of clearer theoretical definitions, may offer novel and valuable insights into their theoretical boundaries and enhance academic and public comprehension of the exact roles and functions of heritage institutions. This study–integrating an interdisciplinary literature review and field case studies with 16 semi-structured in-depth interviews with heritage experts in Europe, China, and Israel–aims to address current misconceptions and overlaps in the definitions of these institutions, analyse their scope variance across cultural regions, and advocate for diverse and open definitions.