This sounds very ethnographic.
Yes, because CHAGS first arose in the context of new fieldwork with existing communities and ethnography primes us to pay close attention to what's going on. But from the very beginning, hunter-gatherer researchers took a long-term view and included archaeologists and paleoanthropologists. If you take Semang research in Peninsular Malaysia (which includes research on Maniq in Thailand) as an example, we also have a lot of knowledge-sharing among anthropologists, linguists, and historians. It would be nice to have more historical linguistics, environmental history, historical ecology, and (early) modern history at CHAGS: in short, history. As we go further back in time, you start to see how the conditions we take for granted today just don't apply for all time. For example, some Orang Laut ("sea people") fought, patrolled sea lanes, and exacted taxation on behalf of local rulers (among many roles they played in state formation). They certainly had some measure of power. Other Orang Laut groups hid from the onerous demands of the rulers, much like Semang in the Peninsula hid from slave raiders.
Then there are processes of change and reversion. Some groups go from hunting to farming and back again. Others bypass agriculture altogether. The long-term investment in landscape alteration that agriculture demands just doesn't appeal to a lot of people, and hunter-gatherers may take up wage-earning, or combine hunting and gathering with trade and wage labour along with a shifting portfolio of ancillary activities. A long-term view helps us to sharpen our analyses, resist grand interpretations of "human nature," pay more attention to the conditions why hunting and gathering thrives in some contexts and not in others, and improve responses to state policies.
But more than just adding to participant numbers at CHAGS, what would be really nice is to have more synergistic research across disciplines.