Should archaeology simply cancel plastics?

Malignant! Wicked! Toxic! These terms might bring to mind descriptions of some world leaders or conflict situations, but in actuality they have all been recently used to describe plastics in our material heritage and archaeological sites (Scott 2002 and British Archaeology 2024). While I might use the slang ‘wicked’ to describe the plastic spacesuit worn by Andreas Mogensen, the first Danish astronaut in 2015, I cannot imagine that professional bodies like ICOM and EAA applaud the application of such negatively biased terminology to the materials in our care. In our modern world, where the policies and practices of inclusivity are promoted, I question why plastics are being cancelled in archaeology publications and how it affects their perceived value as artefacts as well as for use in both conservation and as storage materials.<br/><br/>First, I will introduce plastics and why they degrade from a scientific perspective. Next, I follow with three cases of heritage materials to illustrate why archaeology should not cancel plastics. I contend that plastics are both a substantial part of our material heritage in modern times and an important tool in contemporary archaeological work.