Retheorizing Archaeological “Artefacts” as “Belongings”

Retheorizing Archaeological ‘‘Artefacts’’ as ‘‘Belongings’’ Bonnie L. Pitblado , Department of Anthropology, University of Oklahoma, 455 W Lindsey St., Norman, OK 73019, USA E-mail: Suzie Thomas RESEARCH Archaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeological Congress ( 2025) https://doi.org/10.1007/s11759-025-09523-1 , Department of Heritage, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium Anna Wessman , Department of Cultural History, University Museum of Bergen, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway Sophie Woodward Manchester, UK , Department of Sociology, University of Manchester, Accepted: 7 January 2025 ABSTRACT ________________________________________________________________ In this article, we suggest that archaeologists should recognise the limitations of the term ‘‘artefact’’, because it does not capture the many ways that diverse groups think about and interact with such objects. There are two important reasons for doing this. First, as we show through numerous examples, archaeologists’ conception of portable material objects as ‘‘artefacts’’ is narrow and unlikely to align with the conceptions by the people who left them behind. Second, like the terms ‘‘prehistory’’ and ‘‘human remains’’, ‘‘artefact’’ is a settler-colonialist construct that elevates Western scientific jargon above terminology that other stakeholders may see as more respectful or appropriate. As an alternative to the term ‘‘artefact’’, this article explores ‘‘belongings’’ as a way to open up understandings of the many different meanings associated with archaeological objects and to refer more inclusively to them in diverse contexts. Résumé de recherche: Nous postulons dans cet article que les archéologues devraient admettre les limites du terme « artéfact », car il ne saisit pas les multiples façons dont les différents groupes approchent ces objets et interagissent avec ces derniers. Il y a deux raisons importantes pour procéder ainsi. En premier lieu, ainsi que nous le démontrons grâce à de nombreux exemples, la conception des archéologues des objets matériels portables en tant qu’« artéfacts » est étroite et peu susceptible de s’aligner sur les conceptions des peuples qui les ont laissés derrière eux. En second lieu, tout comme les termes « préhistoire » et « vestiges humains », l’« artéfact » est une  2025 The Author(s) ARCHAEOLOGIES ________________________________________________________________ interprétation de colonisateur-colon qui élève le jargon scientifique occidental au-dessus de la terminologie que d’autres parties prenantes peuvent considérer comme respectueuse ou appropriée. À titre d’alternative au terme « artéfacts », cet article explore le terme « possessions » comme une voie afin d’élargir les compréhensions des nombreuses et différentes significations associées aux objets archéologiques et pour y faire référence de manière plus inclusive dans des contextes diversifiés. ________________________________________________________________ Resumen: En este artı́culo sugerimos que los arqueólogos reconozcan las limitaciones del término ‘‘artefactos’’, porque no capta las muchas formas en que los diversos grupos piensan e interactúan con dichos objetos. Hay dos razones importantes para hacerlo. En primer lugar, como mostramos a través de numerosos ejemplos, la concepción de los arqueólogos de los objetos materiales portátiles como ‘‘artefactos’’ es limitada y es poco probable que coincida con las concepciones de las personas que los dejaron atrás. En segundo lugar, al igual que los términos ‘‘prehistoria’’ y ‘‘restos humanos’’, ‘‘artefacto’’ es un concepto colonialista-colonizador que eleva la jerga cientı́fica occidental por encima de la terminologı́a que otras partes interesadas pueden considerar más respetuosa o apropiada. Como alternativa al término ‘‘artefactos’’, este artı́culo explora el término ‘‘pertenencias’’ como una forma de abrir la comprensión de los muchos significados diferentes asociados con los objetos arqueológicos y referirse a ellos de manera más inclusiva en diversos contextos. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ KEYWORDS Artefact, Belonging, Materiality, Decolonisation _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Introduction In this paper, we explore some of the ways in which archaeological ‘‘artefacts’’ are valued, understood, perceived, and accepted by the different people to whom they matter, and we contemplate what is at stake when we reframe them instead as ‘‘belongings’’. We move beyond considering the dichotomous and frequently discussed views of archaeologists and private collectors vis-a-vis ‘‘artefacts’’ (e.g., Thomas et al. 2022), to expand the range of nuance and complexity associated with these materials. In developing our position, we draw in particular from understandings of things as having agentic and sometimes life forces. We suggest that when we explore the life of things as ‘‘belongings,’’ which is such an important part of the role that such objects play in people’s lives and histories, some of the limitations of the term ‘‘artefacts’’ can be exposed. We explore the extent to which the alternative word ‘‘belongings’’ captures how objects are valued by their many constituents and decentres the settler-colonialist perspective. We have seen this idea reflected already in some archaeological spaces (Zimmerman and Conkey 2024), but there is room to more fully explore it for both theoretical reasons and in the interest of decolonising archaeological terminology. We begin this article with background about some of the ways in which scholars from a variety of fields have reckoned with understanding material objects. We then narrow our focus to the archaeological domain, exploring what those objects that archaeologists refer to as ‘‘artefacts’’ mean to a wider variety of people with different perspectives and epistemologies. We conclude with a discussion of some of the implications of conceiving of ‘‘artefacts’’ as ‘‘belongings’’ both for research as well as in museums and other places where such objects commonly reside. Framing and Background The academic debate over what is at stake in using different terminologies to refer to material things originated in material culture studies, a field that crosses multiple disciplines. There, the use of the terms ‘‘object’’ versus ‘‘thing’’ has been highly contested. Seen as not only a question of terminology, it is also an ontological issue. That is, the word is not neutral but speaks to how we understand and therefore treat the material things in question. The anthropologist Tim Ingold (2010), for example, argued that the word ‘‘object’’ implies something enclosed and shut off from the world and from life; something that we encounter as separate from oursel (...truncated)