Posthuman Potentials: Considering Collaborative Indigenous Archaeology Craig N. Cipolla This essay argues for the diversity and promise of posthuman approaches in archaeology by dispelling blanket critiques, by differentiating between distinct lines of post- anthropocentric thought and by pointing to parallels between Posthumanism and collaborative Indigenous archaeologies. It begins by arguing that symmetrical archaeology is but one part of the diverse body of thought labelled ‘posthuman’. Next, it explores broader posthuman engagements with political issues relevant for collaborative Indigenous archaeologies, particularly concerns regarding under- represented groups in the field. Finally, it identifies flat ontologies as key components of posthuman approaches, clarifying what this term means for different lines of post- anthropocentric thought and briefly considering how the concept of flatness compares with Indigenous metaphysics. Introduction The term ‘Posthumanism’ elicits a breadth of responses in our discipline ranging from celebratory to pure disgust. Without proper context, this term triggers distress signals for some of our colleagues, especially anthropological archaeologists. But I study humans!, they say, clearly not ready to move on to whatever the ‘post’ in Posthumanism denotes. Indeed, some feel that Posthumanism requires that we stop studying humanity. Perhaps more troubling than this prospect is the possibility of leaving ethics, human politics and praxis behind in order to care only for non-human things. This essay addresses these blanket critiques, 1 arguing that archaeology must attend to broader definitions of Posthumanism, particularly when con- sidering how it fits with collaborative Indigenous archaeologies [hereafter CIA]. I first argue that sym- metrical archaeology is but one part of the diverse body of thought labelled ‘posthuman’ and that other options, such as posthuman feminisms and assemblage theory, offer toolkits that are much more compatible with CIA. Next, I explore the impli- cations of posthuman challenges to Eurocentrism, drawing parallels between them and CIA’s centring of historically marginalized groups. Finally, I iden- tify flat ontologies as key components of posthuman approaches, clarifying what this term means for dif- ferent lines of post-anthropocentric thought and briefly considering how the concept of flatness com- pares with Indigenous metaphysics and, by exten- sion, CIA. By dispelling blanket critiques, by differentiating between distinct lines of post- anthropocentric thought and by pointing to parallels between Posthumanism and CIA, I argue for the promise of Posthumanism archaeologies. Expanding the scope Critics often equate symmetrical archaeology (Olsen 2003; 2010; 2012; Olsen & Witmore 2015; Olsen et al. 2012; Webmoor 2007; Webmoor & Witmore 2008; Witmore 2007; cf. Harris & Cipolla 2017) with Posthumanism. Initially, symmetrical archaeology drew much of its inspiration from Latour’s(1993; 2005) actor-network theory (ANT), arguing, for instance, that social archaeologies operated on false, modernist divides between people and world, thoughts and things, and nature and culture Cambridge Archaeological Journal Page 1 of 6 © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research doi:10.1017/S0959774321000202 Received 21 Jan 2020; Accepted 4 Feb 2021; Revised 15 Dec 2020 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774321000202 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Toronto, on 18 May 2021 at 11:51:54, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.