Although remote sensing techniques are increasingly becoming ubiquitous within archaeological research, their proper and ethical use has rarely been critically examined, particularly among Native American communities. Potential ethical challenges are outlined, along with suggested changes to archaeological frameworks that will better address Native American concerns. These changes center on a revised view of remote sensing instruments as being potentially invasive and extractive, even if nondestructive. Understanding the potentially invasive and extractive nature of these tools and methods, archaeologists are urged to work closely with Native/Indigenous communities to create more holistic practices that include community knowledge holders and to actively discourage stereotypes that pit archaeologists and Native/Indigenous communities against one another. Considering the speed at which remote sensing is being used in archaeology, these changes need to be embraced as soon as possible so that future work can be conducted in an ethical manner.

Archaeologists have long been called on to use geophysical techniques to locate unmarked graves in both archaeological and forensic contexts. Although these techniques—primarily ground-penetrating radar (GPR)—have demonstrated efficacy in this application, there are fewer examples of studies driven by Indigenous community needs. In North America, the location of ancestors and burial grounds is a priority for most Indigenous communities. We argue that when these Indigenous voices are equitably included in research design, the practice of remote sensing changes and more meaningful collaborations ensue. Drawing on Indigenous archaeology and heart-centered practices, we argue that remote-sensing survey methodologies, and the subsequent narratives produced, need to change. These approaches change both researchers’ and Indigenous communities’ relationships to the work and allow for the inclusion of Indigenous Knowledge (IK) in interpretation. In this article, we discuss this underexplored research trajectory, explain how it relates to modern GPR surveys for unmarked graves, and present the results from a survey conducted at the request of the Chipewyan Prairie First Nation. Although local in nature, we discuss potential benefits and challenges of Indigenous remote sensing collaborations, and we engage larger conversations happening in Indigenous communities around the ways these methods can contribute to reconciliation and decolonization.

For tribes whose preservation values and mitigation strategies for managing cultural heritage are built on an ethic of avoidance and minimal disturbance, geophysical technologies can be key components of the research design. These technologies, most notably ground-penetrating radar, have been used with great success in identifying and evaluating the depth, extent, and composition of some of those resources for heritage research and management purposes, easing tensions when working with sensitive ancestral places. Additionally, research in archaeological geophysics has shifted from feature finding in order to excavate targets of interest to the recognition that geophysical survey can provide data and interpretations for whole sites and landscapes complementary to or beyond that of excavation, especially regarding the intactness and sensitivity of cultural heritage sites. This use of geophysics as a primary method for research rather than a precursor to archaeological research has empowered tribes with another tool to advocate for low-impact investigation of ancestral sites and landscapes that position tribes as pro-science. Geophysical technologies provide scientifically rigorous yet minimally impactful strategies for investigating heritage while satisfying the requirements of academic and compliance archaeology in ways that can also be culturally appropriate for a much broader spectrum of tribal cultural heritage under consideration.

This article explores the use of specially trained canines to detect the location of human burials in nonmodern archaeological contexts. It discusses the history of the discipline, training and field methods, the importance of developing a working relationship with descendant communities, project examples, an assessment of canine detection effectiveness, and ways to select a canine detection team. The article highlights how the application of canine detection training and protocols to the archaeological record makes it possible to locate potential precontact Native American burial areas without ground disturbance. In some cases, probable burial areas located by canines can be confidentially mapped to ensure avoidance during upcoming construction projects. For a variety of reasons, many Native American communities have been wary of embracing this new method to locate ancestral burials. Today, however, canine detection is widely accepted by many tribal groups in California to locate ancestral burials that might be impacted by construction. Although additional controlled studies and rigorous field laboratory experiments are needed to understand the range of variation in efficacy fully, available results in both North America and Europe demonstrate that specially trained canines can often accurately locate human burials that are more than a thousand years old to within a few meters.

The Huron-Wendat have had their ancestors’ villages and burial sites investigated archaeologically for over 170 years. Past and ongoing land disturbance and invasive archaeological excavation have erased dozens of Huron-Wendat village sites in Ontario, hindering Huron-Wendat duty to care for their ancestors. Consequently, over the last 20 years, in addition to large-scale repatriation of ancestral remains, the Huron-Wendat have requested that archaeologists make every effort to avoid any further excavation of ancestral sites. This poses a new challenge for archaeologists about how to learn about the Huron-Wendat past with minimal disturbance to ancestral sites. Honoring the cultural responsibilities of the Huron-Wendat, the authors have employed minimally invasive remote sensing methods of investigation on Ahatsistari, a forested early seventeenth-century Huron-Wendat village site in Simcoe County, Ontario. Remote sensing methods (e.g., magnetic susceptibility survey, high-resolution soil chemistry sampling, and metal detector survey) have revealed village limits and the possible location and orientation of longhouses, providing essential information in support of the Huron-Wendat imperative to find, assess, and preserve as many of their archaeological sites as possible. This is to protect the ancestors, learn from the ancestors, and preserve ancestral sites and related landscapes for future generations.

Spatial and shape data represented by 3D digital models have become a central component of our archaeological datasets. Immersive visual and audio interaction with these models offers an intuitive way to use these data. The mixing of the virtual with the real world suits archaeological work particularly well, and the technologies of augmented reality (AR) and mixed reality (MR) enable this type of interaction. Much past work on these technologies has involved public engagement, but they also hold the potential for valuable deployment directly in archaeological practice and research, especially the seamless integration offered by MR. This review examines the range of experiments archaeologists are currently undertaking with AR and MR, and it looks to the future applications of these technologies.