ABSTRACT American archaeology is rooted in the behaviors of our predecessors, yet our criticism of those forbearers is often disconnected from the issues of today's practice. Contributors to this volume seek to bridge that gap with a healthy dose of reflection. First, this introduction touches on some issues that are not more fully covered in the chapters that follow, specifically the #MeToo movement and field/conference safety, race, and class inequalities especially the costs of field schools and unpaid internships, and the need for inclusive practices for those who are differently abled. Then we summarize those issues that this volume does focus on, pointing out connections and interrelationships. Three major themes are explored: (1) how the identity of an archaeologist can impact their legacy; (2) how the careers of celebrated “big men” and “big projects” are often misrepresented; and (3) the relationship of archaeology to Black and Indigenous peoples, women, and other marginalized groups, including those who are archaeologists. To conclude, each editor presents a reflection of their own relationship to American archaeology and how that inspired this volume.

ABSTRACT The Nevin site in Maine has become a contested space as Wabanaki people seeking to repatriate their ancestors confront archaeologists who adhere to the antiquated postulates of their predecessors. Warren K. Moorehead, of Phillips Academy's archaeology department, focused field work on Maine's so‐called “Red Paint” cemeteries from 1912–1920. Moorehead acknowledged the antiquity of the cemeteries but saw the people as members of a “lost civilization” culturally distinct from later Indigenous groups. Douglas Byers succeeded Moorehead and excavated graves at the Nevin site from 1936–1940. Despite radiocarbon dates and a better understanding of the Archaic period, Byers did not attribute Nevin's lavish grave goods to that early era. The confusion sowed by Moorehead and Byers still influences contemporary archaeologists and museum personnel who resist Wabanaki efforts to repatriate their ancestors under contemporary legislation. Despite the lack of robust research on in‐migration, prevailing ideas about the Late Archaic in Maine envision a population replacement by southern immigrants. This hypothesis opposes claims of cultural connectedness by contemporary Wabanaki peoples. Here, we explore the archaeological legacy associated with the Nevin cemetery and challenge archaeologists to confront colonialist science that permeates repatriation.

Institutions have been slow to respond to calls from Indigenous nations, organizations, and scholars to require free, prior, and informed consent before authorizing use of their cultural heritage materials in publications, exhibition, and research. In the United States, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 fundamentally changed the relationship between museums, archaeologists, and Indigenous nations, requiring institutions to inventory their collections and consult with descendant communities on repatriation of specific Indigenous collections. In response, institutions and their personnel have come to view Indigenous collections as those subject to NAGPRA and those that are not—NAGPRA/Not NAGPRA. Many Indigenous nations, however, do not accept this demarcation, resulting in continued frustration and trauma for those descendant communities. This case study follows the evolving relationship between the White Earth Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe and the Robert S. Peabody Institute of Archaeology. Beginning with repatriation, the relationship has expanded to consider how the museum and Indigenous nation can collaborate on the care and curation of cultural heritage materials that remain at the Peabody Institute. Most recently, White Earth and the Peabody have executed an MOU that governs how the museum will handle new acquisitions, found-in-collections materials, and donor offers. The relationship with the White Earth also has influenced how the Peabody Institute approaches its holdings of Indigenous cultural heritage materials more broadly, blurring the line between NAGPRA and Not NAGPRA collections. The Peabody Institute is working to revise its collections policy to require free, prior, and informed consent prior to use of Indigenous cultural heritage materials in publications, exhibitions, and research.

Understanding the causes and consequences of previous climate changes is essential for testing present-day climate models and projections. Archaeological sites are paleoenvironmental archives containing unique ecological baselines with data on paleoclimate transformations at a human timescale. Anthropogenic and nonanthropogenic forces have destroyed many sites, and others are under immediate threat. In the face of this loss, previously excavated collections from these sites—referred to as legacy collections—offer a source of climate and other paleoenvironmental information that may no longer exist elsewhere. Here, we 1) review obstacles to systematically using data from legacy archaeological collections, such as inconsistent or unreported field methods, inadequate records, unsatisfactory curation, and insufficient public knowledge of relevant collections; 2) suggest best practices for integrating archaeological data into climate and environmental research; and 3) summarize several studies to demonstrate the benefits and challenges of using legacy collections as archives of local and regional environmental proxies. Data from archaeological legacy collections contribute regional ecological baselines as well as serve to correct shifting baselines. They also enable regional climate reconstructions at various timescales and corroborate or refine radiocarbon dates. Such uses of legacy collections raise ethical concerns regarding ownership of and responsibility for cultural resources and highlight the importance of Indigenous involvement in planning and executing fieldwork and stewardship of cultural heritage. Finally, we discuss methodologies, practices, and policies pertaining to archaeological legacy collections and support calls for discipline-wide shifts in collections management to ensure their long-term utility in multidisciplinary research and public engagement.

This chapter explores the context of the three monumental animal and bird carvings found at the Hontoon/Thursby site on the St. Johns River: the owl, otter, and pelican. Archaeological and ethnographic information from Florida and surrounding areas is brought to play in interpreting the carvings and their placement at the site.

• 14 C results for four east-central Florida carvings (Hontoon Island; Tomoka State Park) range ca. AD 1300-1600, spanning the proto-historic/historic periods • 87Sr/86Sr results for two of the three Hontoon carvings are consistent with the immediate locale, while the third suggests a different provenance • Pinus sp. was used at Hontoon, while Peltophorum sp., currently not native to Florida, was used at Tomoka