Archaeology as a field is experiencing a curation crisis—our professional paper trail is extensive, and we are not properly trained to adequately catalogue and curate these records. For decades, a handful of archaeologists have pushed for our discipline to confront this crisis—we need better methods for creating records and maintaining archives, as well as stronger training in how to effectively conduct archival research. This issue of Advances in Archaeological Practice echoes these earlier calls to action, adding new voices and perspectives. In addition to the theme of a curation crisis, our authors discuss access to archival records and the relationship between archives and power. The authors and guest editors of this issue hope the contributions presented here will inspire more sustained engagement with archival training, theory, and praxis.

In 2016 the Archaeology Data Service (ADS) was 20 years old. Since its birth the ADS has had to respond to rapid changes in technology, as well as major cultural and organizational changes in the external operating environment, from which a sustainable business model for digital preservation has emerged. This article will take a retrospective look at challenges that have been faced and will review current and future priorities for those seeking to establish digital repositories. Digital preservation and open access to research data are now much higher up the agenda of funding bodies, but there is still lack of agreement on what constitutes a core digital archive from a fieldwork project. The paper will review what the significant properties of an archaeological archive are, and how reuse can be supported, linking data and publications. It will consider the challenge of dealing with the gray literature and of avoiding creating further data silos, featuring new initiatives to provide interoperability between digital repositories. It will review the role of data and metadata standards, and consider how the profession needs to address its responsibilities over the next 20 years.

Hundreds of thousands of archaeological investigations in the United States conducted over the last several decades have documented a large portion of the recovered archaeological record in the United States. However, if we are to use this enormous corpus to achieve richer understandings of the past, it is essential that both CRM and academic archaeologists change how they manage their digital documents and data over the course of a project and how this information is preserved for future use. We explore the nature and scope of the problem and describe how it can be addressed. In particular, we argue that project workflows must ensure that the documents and data are fully documented and deposited in a publicly accessible, digital repository where they can be discovered, accessed, and reused to enable new insights and build cumulative knowledge.

Archaeology has embraced the shift to digital technology for collecting, analyzing, and sharing data. Digital repositories are now recognized as essential for data stewardship and are setting standards for data deposition. These new technologies and systems support the scientific need for reproducible results through intra-cultural as well as cross-cultural hypothesis testing. Methods of digital data collection in the field, however, are often site specific, restricted by the limited availability of digital technologies, or not well suited for creating systems that support the requirements of the new digital information paradigm. As a small science project, the Chau Hiix Project in Belize will provide examples of the pitfalls in and insights about shifting to digital technology to make its primary data shareable and reusable. These experiences suggest the need for an international collaborative agenda that develops digital data description standards based on controlled vocabulary, facet analysis, and crosswalks implemented at the analog point of collection.

Documents from Oaxaca, Mexico, in archives and museums in Mexico, the United States, and former European colonial powers are stimulating archaeological projects and other research in the areas where they originated. The Teozacoalco Archaeological Project was inspired by colonial-period documents housed in the Nettie Lee Benson Latin American Library at the University of Texas at Austin. Chiyo Cahnu, a Mixtec kingdom better known as Teozacoalco, was the scene of Aztec and Spanish colonial incursions. The archiving in Texas of the famous Mapa de Teozacoalco and associated documents pertaining to the kingdom/municipality, as well as other documents related to Teozacoalco, neighboring Mixtec kingdoms, and other indigenous Oaxacan communities housed in libraries, archives, and museums distant from those communities, invites us to consider some important issues: how and why they left their original homes and arrived in their present locations and legal and ethical ramifications of housing them outside of their homeland. Included in the latter topic are questions about decolonizing documents, whether documents should be repatriated, and best practices for archaeologists whose projects are inspired by them.

In 2003, the Autry Museum of the American West merged with the Southwest Museum of the American Indian, which housed the second largest collection of Native American objects in the country. Included within this collection is the Braun Research Library Collection, which consists of works of art on paper, rare books, scholarly publications, manuscripts, photographs, correspondences, maps and sound recordings, and other archival materials, many of which relate to the early development of the disciplines of archaeology and anthropology in the United States. For over a century, both national and international researchers have used the museum's collections and archival materials with a relative open access. However, due to the culturally sensitive nature of many of these collections and the growth of how information can be made accessible, the Autry institution is currently developing procedures that affect access, especially for those researchers who wish to study archaeological archives. Staff from multiple departments are collaborating on addressing these concerns, including developing new policies while improving access to Native American tribes, communities, and researchers in preparation for the new off-site Autry Resources Center and storage facility where the collection will be housed in the future.

Moving image archives—like many other archives—are considered a passive repository of knowledge extraction, rather than an active site of knowledge production. Following the premise that archives are indeed a source of knowledge production, this article explores how moving image archives have the potential to produce new and alternative knowledges by bringing to light factors that may have influenced archaeological practice, factors captured within a moving image archive but obscured or marginalized within linear accounts of this practice. While such an archive may exist unevenly, the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) has been historically positioned to develop a moving image archive that features a number of well-known archaeological investigations. Yet this archive and similar moving image archives remain overlooked and underutilized resources. In order to address this, emphasis is placed on producing detailed, searchable, and retrievable content description for moving image archives. In doing so, this article maintains that the knowledge and experience brought to the management of this archive following the author's transition “from archaeologist to archivist,” is key to promoting the discoverability and accessibility of this archive with potential clients in the archaeological, academic, and broader community.

Due to various factors, physical archives of archaeological significance are inconsistent in terms of level of organization and ability to access. In addition, while well-versed in archaeological theory and method, archaeologists are seldom trained in archival theory and method. These factors make it challenging for archaeologists to utilize archival records. Given some unique parallels between archival records and the archaeological record, the authors suggest that archaeological field training can, in fact, serve archaeologists quite well when conducting archival research. While this article focuses mainly on primary sources in physical archives, some discussion of digital archives is included here as well.

Two of the biggest challenges in public archaeology teaching are getting interlocutors' attention and getting them to feel connection to past people. Inspiring focus and empathy in the short interactions we have can be difficult, especially when the subjects are very distant in time. New and scholarly produced forms of virtual reality show particular promise for getting and keeping the attention of our publics. In this review, I discuss several forms of virtual or augmented reality and assess them as tools for public archaeology practice.