This article questions the limits of archaeological categories. It highlights the ways in which labels created to interpret archaeological phenomena can, over time, become reified and even appear as archaeological entities themselves. To illustrate this point, I provide a common example from Mesoamerican archaeology, where one particular archaeological categoryterminationis applied to a diverse array of complex assemblages of fragmented materials. The termination label is widely accepted, but ambiguous. Over time, the term has become so capacious as to not only describe quite varied archaeological assemblages, but also explain how they came to be formed and why they exist. This article critically examines the history, usage, and limits of termination as a cultural concept, an archaeological category, and a hermeneutic tool. Drawing on a case study from the ancient Maya site of El Zotz, Guatemala, I show that attention to the specific ways that people in the past manipulated, collected, and buried the components of an assemblage can yield more nuanced interpretations of ancient practices than those provided by an a priori label like termination. Extending indicators of pre- and post-depositional processes commonly employed in osteological analyses (e.g., visible burning, breakage, and surface modification patterns) to other types of artifacts (including lithics and ceramics) not only reveals the curation and ritual reuse of refuse by the ancient Maya of El Zotz, but also troubles the stability of the category oftermination. More broadly, I call attention to the fact that employing reified archaeological categories may actively impede the identification of differences among ancient activities. Reflexively reconsidering archaeological labels not only prevents archaeologists from seeing the past as a mirror of the present, effectively explained by the categories and concepts we generate, but also raises new possibilities for rethinking traditional interpretations and long-held assumptions.
