This article discusses ethical frameworks for planning and implementing composite research in the United States. Composites, defined here as archaeological materials with multiple genetic sources, include materials such as sediment, coprolites, birch pitch, and dental calculus. Although composites are increasingly used in genetic research, the ethical considerations of their use in ancient DNA studies have not been widely discussed. Here, we consider how composites’ compositions, contexts, and potential to act as proxies can affect research plans and offer an overview of the primary ethical concerns of ancient DNA research. It is our view that ethical principles established for analyses of Ancestral remains and related materials can be used to inform research plans when working with composite evidence. This work also provides a guide to archaeologists unfamiliar with genetics analyses in planning research when using composite evidence from the United States with a focus on collaboration, having a clear research plan, and using lab methods that provide the desired data with minimal destruction. Following the principles discussed in this article and others allows for engaging in composite research while creating and maintaining positive relationships with stakeholders.

As the venues for professional training and education, universities have always shaped the future of the archaeological discipline—for better but also, in important ways, for worse. Historically, university structures promoted practitioner homogeneity and social inequity and, at the largest research-intensive universities, even managed to turn “service” into a dirty word. However, using the same structures that perpetuated damaging practices in the past, universities can just as readily transform archaeology into the inclusive, community-engaged discipline it should always have been—while serving communities in ways that matter to them. This article explains and illustrates how and why we have tried to do this through the founding and operation of the Oklahoma Public Archaeology Network (OKPAN) at the University of Oklahoma. OKPAN seeks to improve relationships among diverse Oklahoma communities by framing archaeology as a tool that that can serve communities’ interests while creating pathways within universities for members of historically excluded groups to join and help further transform the discipline.

This article provides an introduction to the theme issue “Archaeology of Service.” We explore how performing service in archaeology articulates with the concepts and practices of community-based archaeology, collaborative archaeology, and the Archaeologies of the Heart projects and their larger purposes of approaching work through a lens of social and environmental justice. We introduce seven articles that describe working in communities around the world, including the Bininj of the Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation in the Northwest Territory of Australia; the Bunun of the Lakulaku River Basin in Taiwan; the Passamaquoddy Nation in Maine (USA); people from 21 First Nations in the province of Ontario, Canada; the diverse communities of Oklahoma (USA); the African American community in Bolivar, Texas (USA); and the people of San Cristóbal Island in the Galápagos Islands, Ecuador. The articles are tied together by the common theme of collaborative work that is built through relationships of trust and is conducted in ways that strive to change the institutional and educational structures in which archaeology is practiced.

The Bolivar Archaeological Project exemplifies the possibilities of archaeology as service, incorporating descendant communities and local stakeholders into the fabric of the research design and planning for a state infrastructure project. This collaborative, multidisciplinary project attends to marginalized histories to offer a model for how publicly funded cultural resources management archaeology can serve multiple goals. The Bolivar Archaeological Project was conceived as a public archaeology project, with dual goals of being community driven and yielding scholarly contributions. In the shifting rural–urban landscape of Denton County, a Texas Department of Transportation road improvement project has supported archaeological investigations of two nineteenth-century sites—a blacksmith shop and hotel—associated with the historic Chisholm Trail. The blacksmith shop belonged to Tom Cook, an African American freedman, whose descendants reside nearby and became active participants in the investigations, including as collaborative authors in this article. The project illustrates the importance of representation and praxis to realize inclusive community engagement, with this article outlining the development of the project and ongoing research. Informed by Black feminist archaeologies, the project works at the intersections of local communities and state infrastructure while navigating landscapes of fraught histories and presents to forge an archaeology for the twenty-first century.

In locales where much of the archaeological record has been destroyed or heavily impacted by pothunting and development, engaging with collector informants—including those who legally excavated sites on private property in the 1980s—can help fill crucial information gaps. However, such collaboration can pose ethical, and potentially legal, challenges. In this article, I outline research goals and results from a survey project in southeast Arizona's York-Duncan Valley, discuss the legal and ethical implications involved in working with former pothunters, and offer a critical evaluation of project practice. Finally, I offer a set of recommendations for those considering similar collaborations. I argue that the rejection of individuals who are knowledgeable about damaged or destroyed archaeological sites effectively silences the sites forever. Data acquired from former pothunters led to the identification and recording of 25 of 87 archaeological sites in the York-Duncan Valley. These individuals also served as interlocutors with others in the local community, helping us foster the trusted relationships necessary to promote site preservation on private property. A long-term engagement strategy that incorporates an assessment determining whether collector informants are responsible or responsive and that nurtures community involvement in preserving local archaeology offers a more productive course of action.

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.

Various descendant and community groups have long been involved in aspects of the discovery, investigation, preservation, and interpretation of archaeological remains and associated heritage. No longer content with merely being bystanders and even consultants, many have insisted on fully collaborating, co-creating, and controlling the archaeological and heritage management process. Despite the potential shared interests among archaeologists, local residents, and descendant communities, differences in ontologies, epistemologies, and deep-seated ethical values often pose challenges for an authentic collaborative archaeology that serves the needs and interests of multiple groups. In this article, I examine public participation in archaeology and heritage management, identify some of the gaps between prescription and practice, and suggest that we must adopt transformative values if we are to fulfill the promise of authentic collaboration.