Betts, Matthew E., and M. Gabriel Hrynick, The Archaeology of the Atlantic Northeast. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2022, 383 pages

This book is divided into twelve chapters that are organized in four parts. In chapter 1, Betts and Hrynick situate their approach both theoretically and historically, while in chapter 2, they provide an overview of the Atlantic Northeast’s climatic and physiographic changes over the last eighteen thousand years. Chapter 3 focuses on Indigenous peoples of the Atlantic Northeast in the present, their relations to their past and to archaeology. Finally, chapters 4 to 12 are dedicated to archaeological data ranging from the Paleoindian to the protohistoric periods (circa 13,000–350 cal BP). Before embarking on a journey through time, the reader is introduced to the history of archaeological research in the Atlantic Northeast, and the impacts of archaeological narratives and practices on Indigenous histories. This highlights the foundational colonial legacy of early archaeologists, the gradual professionalization of the discipline, and the increased recognition and implementation of Indigenous rights and archaeological capacity. Once restricted to white male members of natural history societies during the nineteenth century, archaeological knowledge in the Atlantic Northeast has gradually become more multivocal, collaborative, and accessible. As Betts and Hrynick note, “Much work remains to be done on the part of archaeologists toward improving this relationship and the active decolonization of the discipline” (42). It is towards this goal that Betts and Hrynick bring together fragmented archaeological knowledges, so that Indigenous peoples can “[…] write their own histories, from their own perspectives” (4). While this volume is not collaborative per se, it is written with Indigenous perspectives and interests in mind. This is seen, for example, in the integration of unmediated Indigenous voices in the volume (Melissa Labrador, the cover illustration artist, and Donald Soctomah, the Passamaquody Tribal Historic Preservation Officer), in the authors’ acknowledgment of their biases and limitations as non-Indigenous archaeologists, and their reflections on the pragmatic impacts of terminological conventions and theoretical choices. Betts and Hrynick take on the challenging task of grounding data collected throughout the years into a processualized culture-historical framework to provide a cohesive regional archaeological foundation for researchers and the broader public. Although culture history is criticized for its oversimplification and reification of cultures and ethnicities based on similarities in artifacts, it remains an important step to begin tracing an archaeological portrait of the relations that Indigenous peoples have been building with the land and among each other for millennia. Betts and Hrynick overcome some of the approach’s limitations by searching for historical connections that highlight shared relations between site occupants and allow them to emphasize long-term cultural continuity. They place particular importance on the connections between places discussed in the volume and the Indigenous nations that inhabit them in the present, including the Wolastoqiyik, Mi’kmaq, Passamaquoddy, Wabanaki, Innu, Cree, Inuit, Abenaki, and Haudenosaunee. While their main focus is towards human experience, Betts and Hrynick also address the relations between climate change and the archaeological record. They chronologically situate major post-glacial climatic events and their impacts on the landscape, water levels, and local fauna and flora, and stress the urgency of preserving coastal archaeological sites from the irreversible damages of erosion. The bulk of the volume is dedicated to the chronological subdivisions of the proposed culture history. These emphasize the spatio-temporal interconnections observed through the lens of technology, settlement, and subsistence by presenting data from a wide range of archaeological sites. Betts and Hrynick discuss the current breadth of archaeological knowledge for each period while being explicit about limitations in the data and situating themselves among the different existing interpretations and debates. Although the archaeological record mainly consists of tangible materials, the authors regularly bring back into focus its “invisible” aspects …