There is little doubt that Indigenous, collaborative, and community-based archaeologies offer productive means of reshaping the ways in which archaeologists conduct research in North America. Scholarly reporting, however, typically places less emphasis on the ways in which Indigenous and collaborative versions of archaeology influence our interpretations of the past and penetrate archaeology at the level of theory. In this article, we begin to fill this void, critically considering archaeological research and teaching at Mohegan in terms of the deeper impacts that Indigenous knowledge, interests, and sensitivities make via collaborative projects. We frame the collaboration as greater than the sum of its heterogeneous components, including its diverse human participants. From this perspective, the project produces new and valuable orientations toward current theoretical debates in archaeology. We address these themes as they relate to ongoing research and teaching at several eighteenth- and nineteenth-century sites on the Mohegan Reservation in Uncasville, Connecticut.

This paper provides an archaeological perspective on the Boy Scouts of America, placing special emphasis on Scout camps occupying Mohegan lands in southeastern Connecticut (USA) and focusing on the alteration of Indigenous and Indigenous-colonial sites. Archaeological traces demonstrate how Scouts modified a range of stone features, both ancient and recent, and how they reorganized and redefined the land by naming and bounding their camps. Considering these patterns alongside Scout material culture, including the archaeological remains of Scout habitations, we discuss Boy Scout simulations of Indigenous and Indigenous-colonial histories. Drawing upon Indigenous knowledge and critique, we explore how Boy Scout camps “territorialize” whiteness. This involves the appropriation of Indigeneity as a means of escaping the trappings of late capitalist society, the misrepresentation of Indigenous history via well-worn tropes of unilineal evolution (where things always progress from simple to complex) and the denial of colonial plurality and of continued Indigenous presence on the land.

Some may find the focus overly broad and the interpretations of cultural connections too bold, or alternatively, lacking in terms of cultural connections to peoples west of Maine. These are valid issues, but the authors acknowledge and advocate for the need for further research on sociocultural relationships over time and space.With regard to the book's format, Ingram's illustrations are excellent and exceptionally detailed; likewise, the maps are clear and visually pleasing. The photographs are satisfactory, but some lost clarity in production and reproduction. The book is well written as an archaeological text and an essential reference for anyone interested in Northeast archaeology. I applaud the authors for their commitment to inclusivity and their contribution to the discipline. This book is much-needed synthesis and a springboard for future research on the archaeology of the Northeast.