Retheorizing Archaeological “Artefacts” as “Belongings”

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.