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.

North American archaeologists working with Native American or First Nations communities, whose culture often forms the basis of the archaeological record, are becoming increasingly aware that they face a differing set of concerns and issues than those archaeologists who work with non-Native communities. Although their work is not as widely reported in the literature, North American archaeologists who have been fortunate enough to conduct research with Indigenous communities in other parts of the world are often overwhelmed by the variety of issues that may crop up. They often find that their experiences highlight the challenges but also the fulfillment involved in working with Indigenous groups. In the following paper, I offer suggestions based on practices that helped to alleviate issues I faced when working internationally. By broadening the discourse concerning working with Indigenous groups, I hope that these suggestions may also prove relevant to improving the practice of archaeology in North America as well.

Researchers have increasingly promoted an emerging paradigm of Indigenous archaeology, which includes an array of practices conducted by, for, and with Indigenous communities to challenge the discipline's intellectual breadth and political economy. McGhee (2008) argues that Indigenous archaeology is not viable because it depends upon the essentialist concept of “Aboriginalism.” In this reply, we correct McGhee's description of Indigenous Archaeology and demonstrate why Indigenous rights are not founded on essentialist imaginings. Rather, the legacies of colonialism, sociopolitical context of scientific inquiry, and insights of traditional knowledge provide a strong foundation for collaborative and community-based archaeology projects that include Indigenous peoples.

Dawdy's keynote paper, rather than answering the question whether archaeology is useful, asks whether it should be useful. That is, she asks whether archaeology needs to be useful beyond archaeology for archaeology's sake. It is a valid question, because many people see archaeology as a non-essential option, of peripheral use if any. For others, archaeology's utility lies in its ability to provide the long-term view of human behaviour and humankind's reactions to situations of the past that, hopefully, we might use to help us deal with present and future events.

This paper examines some of the complex issues that relate to the management of “heritage,” primarily as such issues relate to Indigenous populations and communities. Numerous authors such as Aplin,Aplin, Heritage Identification, Conservation, and Management. Barkan and Bush,Barkan and Bush, Claiming the Stones. Brown,Brown, Who Owns Native Culture? and GreenfieldGreenfield, Return of Cultural Treasures. recognize the social, political, and symbolic aspects of heritage and discuss such issues in detail. This paper, therefore, does not approach the broader issues of heritage, but instead focuses on the intricacies of relationships between the various populations that attempt to exert control over particular aspects of heritage. While many authors recognize the role of cultural nationalists and cultural internationalists in the debate over heritage issues, I argue that Indigenous populations and other enclaves within nations— cultural “intranationalists”—comprise a new and growing voice in the debate.

The World Archaeological Congress' 2nd Indigenous Intercongress, The Uses and Abuses of Archaeology for Indigenous Peoples, convened between November 8 and 12, 2005, at the University of Auckland and Waipapa Marae to examine issues relating to and concerned with indigenous peoples and their past. The organization committee included coconvenors Dr. Joe Watkins, Dr. Caroline Phillips, and Dr. Des Kahotea along with Academic Program Chair Stephanie Ford and Conference Administrator Margaret Rika-Heke. The first Intercongress, on Archaeological Ethics and the Treatment of the Dead, was held in 1989 in Vermillion, South Dakota, and focused on the topics of reburial and repatriation. The Vermillion Accord on the treatment of human remains, an outgrowth of that conference, forms one of the primary ethics documents for the World Archaeological Congress, by which members of the WAC agree to abide in conjunction with the WAC First Code of Ethics.

In North America, American Indians and First Nations have often been at odds with archaeologists over the status of their relationships, about who should have control over research designs and research questions, the interpretation of information about past cultures, and the ways past cultures are represented in the present. While the influence of the voice of Indigenous Nations in the discipline has risen, in many ways their voices are as stifled now as they were in the 1960s. This paper gives an American Indian perspective on the current practice of archaeology in North America and offers suggestions for improving relationships.