Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:37:28.412Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The future of archaeology is (still) community collaboration

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 August 2023

Lindsay M. Montgomery*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto, Canada
Tiffany C. Fryer
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA
*
*Author for correspondence ✉ [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this contribution to our periodic ‘Archaeological Futures’ series, Lindsay M. Montgomery and Tiffany C. Fryer reflect on the reshaping of archaeological praxis in the Americas through recent developments in collaborative community-engaged research. Over the past 20 years, new theoretical and methodological approaches informed by decolonisation and Black feminism have shifted power dynamics within the discipline. The authors review this growing body of research, highlighting trends in collaborative archaeological research and discussing some of the ongoing challenges and tensions. They argue that this collaborative paradigm marks a new future for archaeology in the Americas, which will increasingly centre on topics of importance to Black and Indigenous scholars and descendant communities.

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd.

Introduction

In 2021, the descendants of enslaved Africans who had worked on the Montpelier estate owned by the fourth US president James Madison in Virginia, organised themselves into the Montpelier Descendant Community (MDC). The subsequent allocation of several seats on the Montpelier Foundation Board (which oversees the finances and operation of the historic site) to MDC members marked an unprecedented increase in the power of Black descendants on matters of heritage management at the estate. In April 2022, however, simmering tensions between the MDC and the Board came to a head over which entities should be able to install new representatives to the Board. In response to complaints from some Black descendants, who argued that the MDC should not be the sole voice in matters of site management and heritage representation, the 16-member Board unilaterally asserted its exclusive right to nominate members by expanding the pool of possible representatives to include individuals who identified as descendants but were not members of the MDC. While the Board argued that this policy was consistent with the foundation's mission to achieve parity between descendants and trustees, for the MDC this shift represented a regressive move intended to give the majority-white Board complete control over managing the historic plantation (Levenson Reference Levenson2022; Lukpat Reference Lukpat2022).

This power-sharing debate garnered national attention in the USA after four senior archaeologists who supported the MDC were fired from Montpelier for alleged policy violations. In response, the Society for American Archaeology (SAA 2022) and the Society for Historical Archaeology (Schablitsky Reference Schablitsky2022) both issued public statements voicing support for the MDC and reinforcing calls for collaborative heritage management practices in redressing Montpelier's traumatic history of enslavement and legacy of oppression. By May 2022, facing sustained public criticism for undermining what had been lauded as a watershed partnership, the Board conceded, and 11 new members recommended by the MDC were appointed.

When viewed through the lens of Chip Colwell's (Reference Colwell2016: 17, fig. 1) five-part ‘collaborative continuum’—which positions colonial control at one end and community control at the other—the actions of the Montpelier Foundation Board can be interpreted in two different ways. From the critical perspective of power-sharing, the Board's actions represent a move towards the far extreme of ‘colonial control’. Marshalling a liberal rhetoric of inclusivity, the Board effectively undermined the MDC's power to participate in heritage management decisions, while recentring itself as the primary arbiter of how the site should be managed and who qualified as a legitimate community representative (Schneider & Brown Reference Schneider and Brown2022). Alternatively, the Board's appeal to achieve consensus from the greatest number of stakeholders might be interpreted as a step on the continuum towards increased participation. Whether viewed as a regressive or progressive move, the Montpelier controversy highlights many of the challenges that surround collaboration in heritage contexts where diasporic and multi-faceted descendant communities are historically marginalised and politically decentralised.

This case also points to a new position for archaeologists in debates over representation, interpretation and heritage management. Although archaeologists were entangled in the struggle between the MDC and the Montpelier Foundation Board, they were not the primary stakeholders in that debate nor were they the most powerful players. Instead, archaeologists acted as intermediaries and allies. Such a position runs counter to the current Society for American Archaeology (SAA) Ethical Principles which affirm the special status and responsibility of archaeologists as managers or stewards of the material record (see ethics section on SAA website). Rather than reinforcing this exclusive power, the Montpelier case gestures towards a new position for archaeologists along the collaborative continuum as ‘accomplices’ (Flewellen et al. Reference Flewellen, Dunnavant, Odewale, Jones, Wolde-Michael, Crossland and Franklin2021).

Building on the complex relationships and rhetoric at play in the Montpelier controversy, this article offers an overview of current and emerging trends in collaborative research in the Americas. Based on this discussion, we identify the key challenges and tensions that exist around defining ‘the community’ and the precarity of power-sharing agreements in heritage management. The article specifically nods to collaborations with, by and for Black and Indigenous communities throughout the Americas. We argue that despite occasional regressive slippages, the growing momentum around collaborative and community-engaged research signals that, for Black and Indigenous scholars and communities, the future of archaeology is still very much collaborative and community-centric.

The collaborative paradigm

The publication in 2008 of Chip Colwell and T.J. Ferguson's edited volume Collaboration in archaeological practice and Stephen Silliman's Collaborating at the trowel's edge ushered in a new era of archaeological research grounded in ethical and engaged partnerships with descendant communities (see Meloche et al. Reference Meloche, Spake and Nichols2020: 5). The development of this collaborative research paradigm coincided with the growth of Indigenous Archaeology—a specific subset of collaborative archaeologies—to which the wider paradigm is greatly indebted (Watkins Reference Watkins2000; Zimmerman Reference Zimmerman and Killion2008; Nicholas et al. Reference Nicholas, Roberts, Schaepe, Watkins, Leader-Elliot and Rowley2011). Indigenous Archaeology explicitly incorporates into archaeological theory and practice “Indigenous values, knowledge, practices, ethics, and sensibilities” (Nicholas Reference Nicholas and Pearsall2008: 1666; e.g. Silliman Reference Silliman2008; Nicholas et al. Reference Nicholas, Roberts, Schaepe, Watkins, Leader-Elliot and Rowley2011; Atalay Reference Atalay2012; Atalay et al. Reference Atalay, Clauss, Mcguire and Welch2014; Watkins Reference Watkins2014). As early as 1989, Aymara historian Carlos Mamani also articulated a vision for Indigenous Archaeology in South America, emphasising not only the deeper integration of Indigenous knowledge and values but a commitment to making space for Indigenous peoples to practise archaeology on their own terms (Ayala Reference Ayala2020: 30). Over the past 20 years, Indigenous Archaeology has gained global traction, taking on a wide range of forms including archaeological projects on ancestral Indigenous lands, theoretical interventions centring Indigenous worldviews, the development of Tribal Historic Preservation Offices and tribal museums, and capacity building among Indigenous communities (Watkins Reference Watkins2014; Schmidt & Pikirayi Reference Schmidt and Pikirayi2016; Supernant Reference Supernant2020; Acabado & Martin Reference Acabado and Martin2022).

Disciplinary engagements with collaborative methodologies have accelerated over the past decade. This trend is reflected in the steady increase in the numbers of research papers referencing these topics presented at the annual meetings of the SAA and American Anthropological Association (AAA; Figure 1). Over the course of 10 years, the percentage of presentations at the SAA annual meeting referencing collaboration increased from roughly 3 per cent in 2012 to over 7 per cent in 2021. Over this same time span, there was a similar, albeit unsteady, increase in the percentage of collaborative and community-engaged research papers presented by participants at the AAA annual meeting (roughly two per cent in 2012 to nearly five per cent in 2021).

Figure 1. A comparative assessment of the percentage of conference talks referencing collaborative research practices, 2012–21 (figure by the authors).

We differentiate this growth in the collaborative paradigm from what some might term the ‘public archaeology’ paradigm, which emerged in the 1980s in response to calls for improved heritage-based education. While the collaborative paradigm centres on building sustainable and reciprocal power-sharing partnerships with local and descendant communities, public archaeology is a much broader concept that includes archaeological projects funded by the public, orientated around science education, or that incorporate non-specialists with no specific ties to the research (Richardson & Almansa-Sánchez Reference Richardson and Almansa-Sánchez2015). Patricia McAnany and Sarah Rowe (Reference McAnany and Rowe2015: 504) note that the call for improved public relations—though ethically commendable—was not “driven by a desire to enfranchise community members as participants in the research process”. Rather, it was “a way to foment greater appreciation for archaeology as a discipline and to secure the role of archaeologists as primary stewards of the archaeological record”. Similarly, Shannon Dawdy (Reference Dawdy2009: 137–8) has critiqued these types of projects as “public relations” archaeology, arguing that they do not redistribute power but rather attempt to preserve the power of archaeologists as stewards by bolstering public support for status-quo archaeology.

Research and community engagement at the African Burial Ground in New York offers one early example of the collaborative approach in action. Lead archaeologist Michael Blakey has referred to their work as a “clientage model” (Blakey Reference Blakey2020: 191). This model positions archaeologists as in the service of specific communities—in this case, New York's Black community—while also recognising that the efficacy of the service provided may lay in the expertise and professional capacities of archaeologists and other researchers on-site.

More recently, collaborative work with Indigenous and descendant communities has been framed using Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) models. Sonya Atalay (Reference Atalay2012: 4) defines CBPR as an approach to research that fosters equal partnerships between researchers and community members by combining or “braiding” knowledge from different traditions and perspectives in the conceptualisation, development, execution and dissemination of archaeological projects. The CBPR approach differs from earlier theorisations of collaboration in its insistence on the shared stewardship of heritage resources and the incorporation of Indigenous and descendant communities in all phases of archaeological research. Clientage models and CBPR approaches each represent a significant shift along the collaborative continuum towards full community control of archaeological research and cultural heritage management. While CBPR positions archaeologists and communities as equal partners, in many ways the clientage framework represents a more radical reformulation of power by defining archaeologists as the ‘employees’ of specific communities.

Trends in collaborative research

While archaeology “is undergoing a fundamental sea change” (Wylie Reference Wylie, Cartwright and Montuschi2014: 69), in some ways our review ultimately indicates that this paradigm remains a small, albeit vocal, subset of the field. Within the still-emerging paradigm of collaborative research, we note three trends in the scope of research with Indigenous and descendant communities: diversification in who is conducting collaborative research; the normalisation of CBPR research designs; and a greater engagement with critical theory.

Diversification

A growing number of archaeologists who identify with Indigenous, Black and otherwise ‘othered’ groups are entering the fields of archaeology and heritage management. Rather than indicating a major transformation in disciplinary culture, the increasing visibility of non-white archaeologists largely reflects grassroots efforts by professional associations, such as the Society for Black Archaeology and the Indigenous Archaeology Collective, to recruit and mentor racially marginalised populations. In the Americas, we have particularly seen notable growth in the numbers of archaeologists of African American and Afro-Caribbean descent engaged in collaborative research projects with Black communities. As William White has noted in a recent editorial, “I am an African American archaeologist who never saw anyone but white people doing archaeology until 2011, after doing archaeology for almost a decade” (White & Draycott Reference White and Draycott2020). By destigmatising community-based work—especially work with one's home community (Morris Reference Morris2014)—some archaeologists are now positioned to offer a service to groups that have previously been excluded from cultural heritage management discussions.

The small but growing number of Black archaeologists in the field has changed not only who is involved in archaeology but also how collaborative research is conducted with African Diaspora communities (Flewellen et al. Reference Flewellen, Dunnavant, Odewale, Jones, Wolde-Michael, Crossland and Franklin2021, Reference Flewellen, Dunnavant, Jones and III2022; Reid Reference Reid2022; White Reference White2022). For instance, this new generation of researchers have renewed pressing questions about the ethical treatment of African American human remains (Dunnavant et al. Reference Dunnavant, Justinvil and Colwell2021), while bringing attention to systemic forms of anti-Blackness within the discipline (Franklin et al. Reference Franklin, Dunnavant, Flewellen and Odewale2020). These conversations are part of a more structural approach to disciplinary transformation; an approach that fundamentally repositions descendant communities as rights-holders rather than simply stakeholders in relation to the archaeological record.

Indigenous peoples have successfully used this rights-based discourse to lobby for major shifts in power-sharing (McAnany & Rowe Reference McAnany and Rowe2015: 4). State-directed heritage laws such as the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) and the Karanga Aotearoa Repatriation Programme in New Zealand have been used by Indigenous communities to secure a seat at the proverbial table in matters of archaeological research and cultural heritage management (e.g. Darling et al. Reference Darling, Lewis, Valencia and Eiselt2015; see also Smith & Wobst Reference Smith and Wobst2004 on the parallel development in Australia). Scholars working within the framework of Indigenous Archaeology are pushing the discipline forward by asking, “How can archaeologists reshape who controls, has access to, and benefits from the products of their research in ways that strengthen Indigenous sovereignty?” (Laluk et al. Reference Laluk, Montgomery and Tsosie2022: 660). Similar calls for accountability to Indigenous sovereignty within archaeological and heritage management circles have been framed using human rights legislation such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). As several archaeologists have pointed out, the implementation of UNDRIP requires a profound reorientation of who defines the benefits of archaeology (i.e. Indigenous peoples) and the locus of decision making (i.e. Indigenous Nations; McAnany et al. Reference McAnany, Nicholas and Lippert2022: 17). We believe that this shift towards heritage rights represents an important discursive move that can be used to build solidarity between descendant communities and to strengthen their political position at the national and international levels.

Normalisation and global influence

The regional distribution of conference papers at the SAA and AAA meetings that discuss collaboration and community engagement shows that a significant component of this research is focused on North America (Figure 2). Community collaborative research is, however, also growing in other areas of the Americas. In their path-charting collection, Indigenous peoples and archaeology in Latin America, Cristóbal Gnecco and Patricia Ayala (Reference Gnecco and Rocabaldo2011) note that, although the language of collaboration and participation has begun to infiltrate Latin American archaeologies, there is reason for scepticism about progress to date, if optimism for the future. They remind us that neither collaboration nor participation have real meaning if context is ignored. That context is summarised by Maya K'iche’ sociologist Avexnim Cojtí Ren, who lamented over a decade ago: “the reconstruction of our history by archaeology must benefit the interests and needs of living Maya, yet we are still excluded from archaeological research management and from the interpretation of our own past” (Ren Reference Ren2006: 14) because the “Maya past is considered a common good to be shared with the international community, rather than a cultural right for Maya to decide how our past will be shared with other people” (Ren Reference Ren2006: 13).

Figure 2. Comparison of conference talks referencing collaboration by regional focus between 2012 and 2021 (figure by the authors).

Nonetheless, there have been archaeologists from Latin America, working in Latin America, who have steadfastly applied the principles of community-based research in their work (e.g. Hernández Álvarez & Martín Medina Reference Hernàndez Àlvarez and Martìn Medina2016; Balanzátegui Moreno Reference Balanzátegui Moreno2018; Ichikawa Reference Ichikawa2018; Migeon Reference Migeon2019; Diserens Morgan & Leventhal Reference Diserens Morgan and Leventhal2020; Harrison-Buck & Clarke-Vivier Reference Harrison-Buck and Clarke-Viver2020; Fryer & Diserens Morgan Reference Fryer, Diserens Morgan and Barton2021; McAnany et al. Reference McAnany, Dedrick, Batún Alpuche, Panich and Gonzalez2021; Hartemann Reference Hartemann2022; Weaver et al. Reference Weaver, Fhon Bazán and Santana Quispe2022). One particularly strong example is the El Proyecto Santa María de la Antigua del Darién project which began in 2013 at the behest of the Colombian Ministry of Culture, the National University of Colombia, and the Colombian Institute of Anthropology and History. Despite being housed under these regulatory institutions, this project was conceived as a community-based endeavour—a major break from conventional archaeological practice in Colombia (Sarcina Reference Sarcina2021). The historical narrative around Santa Maria has typically focused on the site's status as the first Spanish settlement on mainland America, often glossing over the violent impacts of colonisation on local Indigenous peoples and on enslaved Africans brought to the colony. Conducting community-based archaeology that intentionally involves Embera and Guna (Indigenous Colombians) as well as Santa Maria's African descendant community has reoriented the nation's archaeological practice more explicitly around social justice.

The Santa María de la Antigua del Darién project's working model was determined by the community and has led to field-school training that offers opportunities to community members who may not previously have been able to access more formal education (e.g. Silliman Reference Silliman2008; Cipolla & Quinn Reference Cipolla and Quinn2016; Seyler Reference Seyler2017; Gonzalez & Edwards Reference Gonzalez and Edwards2020). A major result of the project has been the creation of a community-based museum, La Casa Patrimonial, guided by the Darien Cultural Committee (DCC). Like the Montpelier Descendant Community discussed previously, the DCC was composed of local representatives tasked with managing the site and creating intercultural spaces for dialogue. The formation of this committee was important because of the ongoing political unrest that has characterised the region for decades (for a similarly difficult context, see Horning Reference Horning2019). The wider project demonstrates that building archaeological research agendas alongside community collaborators not only can chart generative research directions but also (where circumstances demand) can help repair community relations and advance new, more equitable historical narratives.

Critical theories

In addition to expanding in geographical scope, the collaborative paradigm is becoming more epistemologically pluralistic. While critical approaches such as Marxism, feminism and post-colonialism have influenced the development of collaborative and engaged archaeological scholarship, this new generation of research is explicitly informed by the concept of decolonisation. Within archaeology, decolonisation has involved critiquing practices that have regularly been used to dispossess and erase historically marginalised voices, increasing disciplinary transparency, and decentring archaeologists as the sole stakeholders in the management and interpretation of the material past (Atalay Reference Atalay2016: 82). A growing number of scholars are also using non-Western and non-patriarchal perspectives as interpretative frameworks to address scientific colonialism—Western hegemony over the production and dissemination of knowledge. This facet of collaborative research has emerged in dialogue with the ‘ontological turn’, which has drawn scholars’ attention to divergent understandings of being (Alberti et al. Reference Alberti, Fowles, Holbraad, Marshall and Witmore2011; Alberti Reference Alberti2016; Harris & Cipolla Reference Harris and Cipolla2017). To date, much of this work has been conducted by scholars operating within Indigenous Archaeology, who have advocated for the integration of Indigenous ontologies and epistemologies into interpretative archaeological practice (Todd Reference Todd2016; Cipolla et al. Reference Cipolla, Quinn and Levy2019; Laluk Reference Laluk2020; Acebo Reference Acebo, Panich and Gonzalez2021; Montgomery Reference Montgomery2021; Two Bears Reference Two Bears2021).

Black feminist theorising is another dimension of these efforts to decolonise archaeology. Unlike mainstream feminism, which has been critiqued for recentring Whiteness and heteronormativity, Black feminism has been used by archaeologists to examine the intersections between race, gender and class in the past, as well as in contemporary power relations within the discipline (Palacios Reference Palacios2020; King Reference King2021). In a special issue of the Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, Tiffany C. Fryer and Teresa P. Raczek (Reference Fryer and Raczek2020), lay out an agenda for an engaged archaeological heritage practice rooted in the feminist principles of intersectionality and intersubjectivity. Contributors to that special issue demonstrate how race-radical approaches to heritage enable harm reduction in collaborative heritage work (e.g. Lupu Reference Lupu2020; Rizvi Reference Rizvi2020; Surface-Evans & Jones Reference Surface-Evans and Jones2020) and foster shared understandings between archaeologists and communities with incommensurate worldviews (e.g. Arthur Reference Arthur2020; Raczek & Sugandhi Reference Raczek and Sugandhi2020; Sloan Reference Sloan2020). Similarly, in a journal special issue on community archaeology in the African Diaspora, Jeffrey Burnett (Reference Burnett2022) discusses how he synthesised Black feminist frameworks and CBPR approaches to foster radical solidarity with the community of Oak Bluffs in Massachusetts. We see this growing engagement with feminism, particularly forms of race-radical feminism, as an essential and defining feature of a new era of collaborative research orientated around achieving social justice for Indigenous and descendant communities.

Troubling collaborative research: concluding thoughts

V. Camille Westmont and Elizabeth Clay (Reference Westmont and Clay2022: 206) have argued that:

while CBPR is an important step in working toward equality with stakeholder and descendant communities, the power inequalities inherent within archaeology as practiced in the Western world will never be solved solely by collaboration. Equality does not inherently mobilise self-determination, self-representation, or sovereignty.

Westmont and Clay's critique draws attention to some of the complexities which surround collaboration with descendant communities—complexities that the Montpelier controversy brought to the fore. The rationale provided by the Montpelier Board reflects challenges around defining descendant communities, the role of archaeologists and heritage management organisations in mediating between descendant voices, and ongoing power imbalances between descendants and archaeologists.

Defining ‘community’ within the collaborative paradigm presents a continuing philosophical problem in archaeology (Agbe-Davies Reference Agbe-davies2010, Reference Agbe-davies2011; Crooke Reference Crooke2010; Martindale & Nicholas Reference Martindale and Nicholas2014; Supernant & Warrick Reference Supernant and Warrick2014). These intellectual struggles are reflected in practice by the Montpelier Board's attempts to redefine the boundaries of descendant representation and the MDC's resistance to these efforts. Like other heterogeneous communities, descendants of formerly enslaved Africans at Montpelier have various relationships to and opinions about the site, the history of slavery, and the representation of ‘dark heritage’—heritage produced in times of conflict, death, suffering and trauma (Thomas et al. Reference Thomas, Herva, Seitsonen, Koskinen-Koivisto and Smith2019; Westmont Reference Westmont2022).

Related to these representational issues is the question of what role, if any, archaeologists and heritage professionals should play in defining and mediating between different descendant voices. When working with descendant communities, archaeologists are asked to make decisions about which communities to collaborate with (Supernant & Warrick Reference Supernant and Warrick2014). To date, many archaeologists have approached this issue through the principle of multivocality, welcoming and incorporating numerous stakeholder perspectives and values to expand understandings of the past, present and future (Atalay et al. Reference Atalay, Clauss, Mcguire and Welch2014: 11–12). While the concept of multivocality has broadened who archaeologists are in dialogue with this approach has also been critiqued for failing to reform structural power dynamics in the field (a key goal of decolonisation). From this vantage point, multivocality represents a problematic “move to innocence” that reconciles settler guilt around past injustices while maintaining current systems of power that recentre Whiteness (Tuck & Yang Reference Tuck and Yang2012: 3).

As Fryer and Raczek (Reference Fryer and Raczek2020) have argued, while multivocality is an admirable principle it may also allow us as practitioners to be too agnostic (sensu Brumann Reference Brumann2014) about the groups we decide to collaborate with and on what terms. Sometimes, we would argue, what is at stake in a collaborative endeavour has everything to do with who our collaborators are and are not. There are often legitimate reasons, such as a history of injustice, to prioritise the interests and voices of some stakeholders over others. The senior archaeologists at Montpelier who put their jobs on the line—and ultimately sacrificed them—were committed to this principle.

While there are clear historical and cultural differences between Black and Indigenous communities, the issues concerning identity and representation that arose around the MDC are mirrored in conversations around heritage, representation and Indigenous identity (e.g. Sobo et al. Reference Sobo, Lambert and Lambert2021). Much like the MDC, Indigenous communities are not homogeneous entities. In addition to internal diversity, Indigenous communities hold varied forms of political status which have meaningful impacts on heritage management and collaboration. In the USA alone, there are 574 federally recognised Tribal Nations that hold a political status as ‘domestic dependent nations’. As federally recognised tribes, these Indigenous communities possess certain rights, federal benefits, services and protections that extend to the archaeological record (for more on sovereignty and recognition in the North American context, see Barker Reference Barker2005). There are many more Indigenous peoples in the USA, however, who are recognised only at the state level, and others who lack any legally defined status. Forms of representational boundary maintenance, whether self-imposed by descendant communities, such as the MDC or legally constructed as in the case of federal and state recognition, inevitably end up excluding some descendants from issues of heritage management. In building collaborative projects, we argue that archaeologists must educate themselves about these different statuses and their political implications for conducting collaborative research. While Native Nations and settler colonial governments have created a legal (albeit flawed) framework for defining Indigenous communities in the USA and Canada, for Latin America and the Caribbean the heuristic lines between local, descendant and Indigenous communities are less clear. As Chickasaw anthropologist Shannon Speed (Reference Speed2017: 784) tells us, “colonialism in much of Latin America has in fact been characterized by both land dispossession and labor extraction [key mechanisms of settler colonialism], to which Indigenous peoples were simultaneously subjected”. This often results in the racialisation and proletarianisation of Indigenous peoples into a subnational class rather than an autonomous or sovereign entity, creating a context wherein identifying direct descendants with whom to partner may feel nearly impossible. The state often exploits this impossibility by nationalising all forms of heritage that cannot be claimed by a specific family or recognised community lineage.

We believe that the deep entanglement between colonialism, dispossession and Indigenous recognition in Latin America requires a model of research that transcends settler colonial legal systems. Archaeologists working in the region should not use non-recognition as an excuse to bypass the need to seek substantive collaborations with those communities. Instead, we promote a flexible construction of community that allows archaeologists to prioritise collaborating with those communities who face unjust power imbalances—regardless of their capacity to prove or perform a specific indigeneity or locality (e.g. see Matthews Reference Matthews2022). It is simply insufficient to throw up our hands and seek the bare minimum (e.g. state-issued permits or approval from a small contingent of nondescript ‘locals’) because identifying the community is too difficult. Failing to do so perpetuates an extractive mindset that is antithetical to the ethos of the collaborative paradigm.

Finally, the Montpelier scenario reveals the precarious power of descendant communities and the continued need to push against dominant heritage regimes that place control of archaeological resources in the hands of predominantly white institutions and experts. We are reminded here too that archaeologists may find themselves contributing to partnerships where they are not the arbiters and where they will have to make a choice about where on the collaborative continuum they want to be: leaning toward the colonial or advocating for the community. Although the Montpelier Board aspires to achieve parity in terms of descendant representation among its membership (Montpelier 2021), this controversy reveals a slippage between the ideals of representativeness and equality and the realities of implementing structural changes that serve the goals of social justice (La Salle & Hutchings Reference La Salle and Hutchings2016: 171). As the collaborative paradigm continues to expand, we hope to see more archaeologists transparently grappling with the complexities of real power sharing and investing substantial efforts in capacity building and empowerment within Black, Indigenous, and othered descendant communities.

In the end, we chose to title our article, ‘The future of archaeology is (still) community collaboration’ because the potential of community collaboration has yet to be fully realised. Despite intrepid individuals having conducted various forms of collaborative work for some decades, only now are we seeing our professional organisations take action, for example, urging tenure and promotion committees to recognise the arduous labour of seeing through the work involved in these kinds of collaborations (ACC 2023). Unfortunately, we still hear well-meaning colleagues confuse consultation or conversation for collaboration. While we celebrate the growth in collaborative community-based research in archaeology, we ultimately agree with Westmont and Clay's argument that collaboration is not sufficient in and of itself to reform the power imbalances within the discipline. Furthermore, we echo their call for continued self-reflection on how collaborative research may inadvertently perpetuate systemic inequities in heritage management (Westmont & Clay Reference Westmont and Clay2022: 205–6). Until we surmount the challenges and disincentives to implementing community-centred collaborations it will be difficult to disentangle our own failures from structural incapacitation.

Acknowledgements

This article is inspired and informed by conversations the authors have had with a growing number of Black and Indigenous scholars in the field of archaeology.

References

Acabado, S.B. & Martin, M.M.. 2022. Indigenous archaeology in the Philippines: decolonizing Ifugao history. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv2c3k1bmCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Acebo, N. 2021. Survivance storytelling in archaeology, in Panich, L.M. & Gonzalez, S.L. (ed.) The Routledge handbook of the archaeology of indigenous-colonial interaction in the Americas : 468–85. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429274251-33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agbe-davies, A.S. 2010. Concepts of community in the pursuit of an inclusive archaeology. International Journal of Heritage Studies 16: 373–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2010.510923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agbe-davies, A.S. 2011. Inside/outside, upside down: including archaeologists in communities. Archaeologies 7: 574–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11759-011-9185-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alberti, B. 2016. Archaeologies of ontology. Annual Review of Anthropology 45: 163–79. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102215-095858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alberti, B., Fowles, S., Holbraad, M., Marshall, Y. & Witmore, C.. 2011. ‘Worlds otherwise’: archaeology, anthropology, and ontological difference. Current Anthropology 52: 896912. https://doi.org/10.1086/662027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archaeological Centers Coalition (ACC). 2023. Working guidelines for recognizing engaged and activist scholarship in archaeology. 23 February 2023. Available at: https://archaeologycoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/ACC-engagement-23feb2023.pdf (Accessed 4 June 2023).Google Scholar
Arthur, K.W. 2020. Wombs of the Earth: preserving and reconstituting feminine prestige and dignity through heritage. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association: 4153. https://doi.org/10.1111/apaa.12127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atalay, S. 2012. Community-based archaeology: research with, by, and for indigenous and local communities. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Atalay, S. 2016. Indigenous archaeology as decolonizing practice. American Indian Quarterly 30: 280310.10.1353/aiq.2006.0015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atalay, S., Clauss, L.R., Mcguire, R.H. & Welch, J.R. (ed.). 2014. Transforming archaeology, in Transforming archaeology: activist practices and prospects: 728. Walnut Creek (CA): Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
Ayala, P. 2020. Arqueologías indígenas: una mirada desde el sur. Revista de Museu Arqueologia e Etnologia 34: 2640. https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2448-1750.revmae.2020.164055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balanzátegui Moreno, D.C. 2018. Collaborative archaeology to revitalize an Afro-Ecuadorian cemetery. Journal of African Diaspora Archaeology and Heritage 7: 4269. https://doi.org/10.1080/21619441.2018.1480117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, J. (ed.). 2005. For whom sovereignty matters, in Sovereignty matters: locations of contestation and possibility in indigenous struggles for self-determination: 131. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1dnncqc.4Google Scholar
Blakey, M.L. 2020. Archaeology under the blinding light of race. Current Anthropology 61: 183–97. https://doi.org/10.1086/710357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brumann, C. 2014. Heritage agnosticism: a third path for the study of cultural heritage. Social Anthropology 22: 173–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-8676.12068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnett, J.J. 2022. Seeking radical solidarity in heritage studies: exploring the intersections of Black Feminist archaeologies and geographies in Oak Bluffs, MA. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 26: 5378.10.1007/s10761-021-00601-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cipolla, C.N. & Quinn, J.. 2016. Field school archaeology the Mohegan way: reflections on twenty years of community-based research and teaching. Journal of Community Archaeology & Heritage 3: 118–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/20518196.2016.1154734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cipolla, C.N., Quinn, J. & Levy, J.. 2019. Theory in collaborative indigenous archaeology: insights from Mohegan. American Antiquity 84: 127–42. https://doi.org/10.1017/aaq.2018.69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colwell, C. 2016. Collaborative archaeologies and descendant communities. Annual Review of Anthropology 45: 113–27. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102215-095937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colwell, C. & Ferguson, T.J. (ed.). 2008. Collaboration in archaeological practice: engaging descendant communities. Lanham (MD): AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
Crooke, E.M. 2010. The politics of community heritage: motivations, authority, and control. International Journal of Heritage Studies 16: 1629. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527250903441705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darling, J.A., Lewis, B.V., Valencia, R. & Eiselt, B.S.. 2015. Archaeology in the service of the tribe: three episodes in twenty-first-century tribal archaeology in the US–Mexico Borderlands. Kiva 81: 6279. https://doi.org/10.1080/00231940.2015.1118738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawdy, S.L. 2009. Millennial archaeology: locating the discipline in the age of insecurity. Archaeological Dialogues 16: 131–42. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203809990055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diserens Morgan, K.C. & Leventhal, R.M.. 2020. Maya of the past, present, and future: heritage, anthropological archaeology, and the study of the Caste War of Yucatan. Heritage 3: 511–27. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage3020030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunnavant, J., Justinvil, D. & Colwell, C.. 2021. Craft an African American graves protection and repatriation act. Nature. Published 19 May 2021. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01320-4 (Accessed 27 February 2023).Google Scholar
Flewellen, A.O., Dunnavant, J.P., Odewale, A., Jones, A., Wolde-Michael, T., Crossland, Z. & Franklin, M.. 2021. The future of archaeology is antiracist: archaeology in the time of Black Lives Matter. American Antiquity 86: 224–43. https://doi.org/10.1017/aaq.2021.18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flewellen, A.O., Dunnavant, J.P., Jones, A. & III, W. White. 2022. Creating community and engaging community: Estate Little Princess Archaeology Project in St. Croix, United States Virgin Islands. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 26: 147–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10761-021-00600-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franklin, M., Dunnavant, J.P., Flewellen, A.O. & Odewale, A.. 2020. The future is now: archaeology and the eradication of anti-Blackness. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 24: 753–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10761-020-00577-1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fryer, T.C. & Raczek, T.P.. 2020. Introduction: toward an engaged feminist heritage praxis. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 31: 1162. https://doi.org/10.1111/apaa.12124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fryer, T.C. & Diserens Morgan, K.C.. 2021. Heritage activism in Quintana Roo, Mexico: assembling new futures through an umbrella heritage practice, in Barton, C.P. (ed.) Trowels in the trenches: archaeology as social activism: 81107. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1hp5h5m.11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gnecco, C. & Rocabaldo, P. Ayala. 2011. Indigenous peoples and archaeology in Latin America. Walnut Creek (CA): Left Coast.Google Scholar
Gonzalez, S.L. & Edwards, B.. 2020. The intersection of indigenous thought and archaeological practice: the field methods in indigenous archaeology field school. Journal of Community Archaeology & Heritage 7: 239–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/20518196.2020.1724631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, O.J.T. & Cipolla, C.N.. 2017. Archaeological theory in the new millennium. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315713250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison-Buck, E. & Clarke-Viver, S.. 2020. Making space for heritage: collaboration, sustainability, and education in a Creole community archaeology museum in Northern Belize. Heritage 3: 412–35. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage3020025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartemann, G.O. 2022. Unearthing colonial violence: griotic archaeology and community-engagement in Guiana. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 26: 79117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10761-021-00596-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hernàndez Àlvarez, H. & Martìn Medina, G.. 2016. Arqueología colaborativa y recuperación de la memoria histórica: Hacienda San Pedro Cholul, Yucatán’. Temas Antropológicas 38: 109–27.Google Scholar
Horning, A. 2019. Collaboration, collaborators, and conflict: archaeology and peacebuilding in Northern Ireland. Archaeologies 15: 444–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11759-019-09378-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ichikawa, A. 2018. Strengthening social relationships through community archaeology at Nueva Esperanza, El Salvador: challenges and lessons. Journal of Community Archaeology & Heritage 5: 222–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/20518196.2018.1524682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, T.L. 2021. Some Black feminist notes on Native feminisms and the flesh. Society and Space 39: 915.Google Scholar
Laluk, N. 2020. Changing how archaeology is done in Native American contexts: an Ndee (Apache) case study. Journal of Social Archaeology 21: 5373. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469605320945469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laluk, N.C., Montgomery, L.M., Tsosie, R. et al. 2022. Archaeology and social justice in Native America. American Antiquity 87: 659–82. https://doi.org/10.1017/aaq.2022.59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
La Salle, M. & Hutchings, R.. 2016. What makes us squirm—a critical assessment of community-oriented archaeology. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 40: 164–80.Google Scholar
Levenson, M. 2022. At Madison's Montpelier, a fight over power for slaves’ descendants. The New York Times. 22 April 2022. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/22/us/montpelier-estate-board-enslaved.html (Accessed 23 May 2022).Google Scholar
Lukpat, A. 2022. At Montpelier, slaves’ descendants will share power with White board members. The New York Times. 16 May 2022. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/16/us/montpelier-estate-board-descendants-enslaved.html (Accessed 9 February 2023).Google Scholar
Lupu, J.A. 2020. Sex workers as stakeholders: incorporating harm reduction in archaeological praxis. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 31: 6679. https://doi.org/10.1111/apaa.12129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martindale, A. & Nicholas, G.P.. 2014. Archaeology as federated knowledge. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 38: 434–65. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43487309.Google Scholar
Matthews, C.N. 2022. A struggle for heritage: archaeology and civil rights in a Long Island Community. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.Google Scholar
McAnany, P.A. & Rowe, S. M.. 2015. Re-visiting the field: collaborative archaeology as a paradigm shift. Journal of Field Archaeology 40: 499507. https://doi.org/10.1179/2042458215Y.0000000007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAnany, P.A., M. Dedrick, & , A.I. Batún Alpuche, . 2021. Lived heritage of colonialism at Tahcabo, Yucatán, México, in Panich, L.M. & Gonzalez, S.L. (ed.) The Routledge handbook of the archaeology of Indigenous-colonial interaction in the Americas: 396410. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429274251-28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAnany, P.A., Nicholas, G., Lippert, D. et al. 2022. Reading the fine print: what you should know about UNDRIP. Society for American Archaeology Archaeological Record 22(3): 1418.Google Scholar
Meloche, C.H., Spake, L. & Nichols, K.L. (ed.). 2020. Working together to do better, in Working with and for ancestors: collaboration in the care and study of ancestral remains: 117. New York: Taylor & Francis.10.4324/9780367809317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Migeon, G. 2019. Arqueología participativa comunitaria: los kaliñas de la Guayana Francesa. Boletín Antropológico 37(97): 1234.Google Scholar
Montgomery, L.M. 2021. A history of mobility in New Mexico: mobile landscapes and persistent places. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429328152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montpelier. 2021. Descendants of enslaved persons at James Madison's Montpelier to have ‘structural parity’ in unprecedented board restructuring. 18 July 2022. Available at: https://www.aam-us.org/wire/montpelier/descendants-of-enslaved-persons-at-james-madisons-montpelier-to-have-structural-parity-in-unprecedented-board-restructuring (Accessed 14 October 2022).Google Scholar
Morris, A. 2014. Public archaeology and critical histories. Collaborative archaeology in Southern Illinois. Journal of African Diaspora Archaeology and Heritage 3: 159–74. https://doi.org/10.1179/2161944114Z.00000000017Google Scholar
Nicholas, G.P. 2008. Native peoples and archaeology, in Pearsall, D. (ed.) Encyclopedia of archaeology: 1660–69. New York: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012373962-9.00203-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholas, G.P., Roberts, A., Schaepe, D.M., Watkins, J., Leader-Elliot, L. & Rowley, S.. 2011. A consideration of theory, principles, and practice in collaborative archaeology. Cambridge Archaeological Review 26: 1130.Google Scholar
Palacios, L. 2020. Challenging convictions: Indigenous and Black race-radical feminists theorizing the carceral state and abolitionist praxis in the United States and Canada. Meridians 19: 522547. https://doi.org/10.1215/15366936-8566133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raczek, T.P. & Sugandhi, N.S.. 2020. Chai and conversation: crafting field identities and archaeological practice in South Asia. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 31: 8095. https://doi.org/10.1111/apaa.12125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, L.C. 2022. ‘It's not about us’: exploring White-public heritage space, community, and commemoration on Jamestown Island, Virginia. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 26: 2252.10.1007/s10761-021-00593-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ren, A.C. 2006. Maya archaeology and the political and cultural identity of contemporary Maya in Guatemala. Archaeologies 2(1): 819.10.1007/s11759-006-0003-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, L.J. & Almansa-Sánchez, J.. 2015. Do you even know what public archaeology is? Trends, theory, practice, ethics. World Archaeology 47: 194211. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2015.1017599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizvi, U.Z. 2020. Heritage practice: the politics of racism/gender/sexuality. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 31: 155–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/apaa.12135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarcina, A. 2021. Arqueología comunitaria en un contexto de conflicto: el proyecto Santa María de la Antigua del Darién (Chocó, Colombia). Cuadiernu 9: 69106.Google Scholar
Schablitsky, J. 2022. Society for Historical Archaeology Announcements. Published on 21 April. Available at: https://sha.org/announcements/18669/ (Accessed 2 June 2023).Google Scholar
Schmidt, P.R. & Pikirayi, I. (ed.). 2016. Community archaeology and heritage in Africa: decolonizing practice. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315621708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, G.S. & Brown, D.L.. 2022. Montpelier staffers say they were fired for backing descendant groups. The Washington Post, 8 April. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/04/18/james-madison-montpelier-descendants-slavery (Accessed 9 February 2023).Google Scholar
Seyler, S. 2017. Taking the time for community archaeology. December 6. Available at: https://www.penn.museum/blog/museum/cultural-heritage-preservation/taking-the-time-for-community-archaeology-samantha-seyler (Accessed 23 April 2019).Google Scholar
Silliman, S.W. (ed.). 2008. Collaborating at the trowel's edge: teaching and learning in Indigenous archaeology. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
Sloan, A.C. 2020. Learning to listen: stakeholder perspectives on gender at a Thule-Era Alaskan village. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 31: 96109. https://doi.org/10.1111/apaa.12130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, C. & Wobst, H.M. (ed.). 2004. Indigenous archaeologies: decolonising theory and practice. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203009895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sobo, E.J., Lambert, M. & Lambert, V.. 2021. Land acknowledgments meant to honor Indigenous people too often do the opposite—erasing American Indians and sanitizing history instead. The Conversation. 7 October. Available at: https://theconversation.com/land-acknowledgments-meant-to-honor-Indigenous-people-too-often-do-the-opposite-erasing-american-indians-and-sanitizing-history-instead-163787 (Accessed 3 October 2022).Google Scholar
Society for American Archaeology. 2022. SAA Issues Statements on Actions by Montpelier Foundation Board of Directors. SAA News, 13 April. Available at: https://documents.saa.org/container/docs/default-source/doc-governmentaffairs/final_montpelier_statement.pdf?sfvrsn=673b55b_2 (Accessed 2 June 2023).Google Scholar
Speed, S. 2017. Structures of settler capitalism in Abya Yala. American Quarterly 69: 783–90. https://doi.org/10.1353/aq.2017.0064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supernant, K. 2020. Indigenous archaeology in Canada. The Canadian encyclopedia. November 26. Available at: https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/Indigenous-archaeology-in-canada (Accessed 1 August 2022).Google Scholar
Supernant, K. & Warrick, G.. 2014. Challenges to critical community-based archaeological practice in Canada. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 38: 563–91.Google Scholar
Surface-Evans, S.L. & Jones, S.J.. 2020. Discourses of the haunted: an intersubjective approach to archaeology at the Mount Pleasant Indian Industrial Boarding School. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 31: 110–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/apaa.12131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, S., Herva, V.P., Seitsonen, O. & Koskinen-Koivisto, E.. 2019. Dark heritage, in Smith, C. (ed.) Encyclopedia of global archaeology. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51726-1_3197-1Google Scholar
Todd, Z. 2016. An indigenous feminist's take on the ontological turn: ‘ontology’ is just another word for colonialism. Journal of Historical Sociology 29: 422. https://doi.org/10.1111/johs.12124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuck, E. & Yang, K.W.. 2012. Decolonization is not a metaphor. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society 1: 140.Google Scholar
Two Bears, D. 2021. Researching my heritage: the Old Leupp Boarding School historic site. Kiva 87: 336–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/00231940.2021.1892928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watkins, J.E. 2000. Indigenous archaeology: American Indian values and scientific practice. Lanham (MD): Rowman & Littlefield. https://doi.org/10.7183/2326-3768.2.4.366Google Scholar
Watkins, J.E. 2014. Working internationally with Indigenous groups. Advances in Archaeological Practice 2: 366–74.10.7183/2326-3768.2.4.366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, B.J., Fhon Bazán, M.A. & Santana Quispe, L.. 2022. Heritage and the archaeology of Afro-Peru: community engagement in the valleys of Nasca. Historical Archaeology 56: 131–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41636-021-00309-0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Westmont, V.C. 2022. Dark heritage in the new south: remembering convict leasing in southern Middle Tennessee through community archaeology. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 26: 121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10761-021-00592-wCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Westmont, V.C. & Clay, E.. 2022. Introduction: current directions in community archaeology of the African Diaspora. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 26: 195210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10761-021-00631-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
White, C. 2022. Defining measures in community-based archaeology in Suriname. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 26: 177–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10761-021-00620-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, W. & Draycott, C.. 2020. Why the Whiteness of archaeology is a problem. SAPIENS, 8 July. Available at: https://www.sapiens.org/archaeology/archaeology-diversity/ (Accessed 19 July 2022).Google Scholar
Wylie, A. 2014. Community-based collaborative archaeology, in Cartwright, N. & Montuschi, E. (ed.) Philosophy of social science: a new introduction: 6882. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, L.J. 2008. Multivocality, descendant communities, and some epistemological shifts forced by repatriation, in Killion, T.W. (ed.) Opening archaeology: repatriations impact on contemporary research and practice: 91107. Santa Fe (NM): School for Advanced Research.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. A comparative assessment of the percentage of conference talks referencing collaborative research practices, 2012–21 (figure by the authors).

Figure 1

Figure 2. Comparison of conference talks referencing collaboration by regional focus between 2012 and 2021 (figure by the authors).