Most archaeological investigations in the United States and other countries must comply with preservation laws, especially if they are on government property or supported by government funding. Academic and cultural resource management (CRM) studies have explored various social, temporal, and environmental contexts and produce an ever-increasing volume of archaeological data. More and more data are born digital, and many legacy data are digitized. There is a building effort to synthesize and integrate data at a massive scale and create new data standards and management systems. Taxpayer dollars often fund archaeological studies that are intended, in spirit, to promote historic preservation and provide public benefits. However, the resulting data are difficult to access and interoperationalize, and they are rarely collected and managed with their long-term security, accessibility, and ethical reuse in mind. Momentum is building toward open data and open science as well as Indigenous data sovereignty and governance. The field of archaeology is reaching a critical point where consideration of diverse constituencies, concerns, and requirements is needed to plan data collection and management approaches moving forward. This theme issue focuses on challenges and opportunities in archaeological data collection and management in academic and CRM contexts.

Despite advocacy of landscape approaches in cultural resource management (CRM) and critiques of the site concept, CRM data collection methods in the western United States continue to focus on individual archaeological sites as units of observation, analysis, and management. The transect-recording unit (TRU) method strikes a balance between conventional site-based recording methods and site-less survey approaches by dividing survey space into a grid of uniformly sized cells for recording all cultural manifestations observed across a survey area. TRU survey generates site boundaries required by CRM regulations while retaining a fine-grained spatial framework for landscape-level research and management. This article discusses the technical requirements of the TRU system and its potential for improving landscape-level research and management. Advances in digital recording technologies and analysis techniques render the method efficient and effective in identifying cultural resource distributions and characteristics otherwise obscured by conventional approaches. The research and management potential of the TRU system is illustrated through identification and interpretation of precontact foot trails in New Mexico's Tularosa Basin. These trails are essentially invisible during pedestrian survey but are readily identifiable as linear patterns using aggregated landscape-scale TRU survey data from multiple survey projects, providing novel insight into precontact routes of movement and exchange.

The three authors research surface archaeological records dominated by low-density scatters and isolated artifacts, archaeological phenomena frequently encountered during cultural resource management (CRM) projects in areas of the United States and Australia. We each began researching surface artifact scatters for different reasons but converged on approaches that emphasize the formation of these forms of archaeological deposits. Through a variety of projects, we asked a common set of questions about the processes that both buried and exposed these materials, the methods needed to obtain a chronology in different regions, and the ways we might interpret artifacts found together in different densities. Answering these questions led to the collection and analyses of datasets in innovative ways and the questioning of a number of archaeological categories often thought of as fundamental for archaeological research. Here, we review examples of our respective research and consider the implications for CRM projects dealing with surface lithics.

Culturally significant landscapes, which evoke and promote strong feelings of attachment among their constituencies and advocates, pose a management challenge for federal agencies. Current cultural resources laws and policies focus largely on the physical characteristics of individual sites and features. I call here for a management approach that differs from current practice in several important ways. First, it recognizes the power of landscapes and landscape character. Drawing from both wilderness and park management, it calls for the identification and preservation of landscape characteristics, and the development of landscape-level inventories that can identify current landscape condition. Finally, it recognizes that how a landscape is experienced by its constituencies and advocates is a measure of management effectiveness. For management to succeed, management approaches must recognize and respect the core values and experiences that are at the heart of culturally significant landscapes.

Despite making great strides over the past 50 years, cultural resources data management and synthesis continues to be elusive and nonstandardized, with each state and agency developing disparate systems that do not easily mesh. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has embarked on a national initiative by creating a National Cultural Resources Data Standard (NCRDS) that works to address many long-standing data organization issues. The NCRDS allows for the application of more rigorous data management principles that facilitate landscape-level planning and data modeling on BLM-administered lands across the western United States. The NCRDS and associated National Cultural Resources Information Management System (NCRIMS) contains normalized data from 11 western State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) and BLM data stores. NCRIMS is a web-based application hosted by the BLM's National Operations Center (NOC) Enterprise Geographic Information System (EGIS). NCRIMS allows for high-level planning during local, regional, and multistate project analyses and undertakings, facilitating consideration of cultural heritage values early in the planning process versus late stages as has been traditional. This allows the BLM to more proactively, effectively, and efficiently answer data calls and inform agency decision-makers on possible impacts to cultural heritage resources by proposed or ongoing agency actions.

A fundamental task of archaeology is to address challenging scientific questions related to the complexity of human societies. If we are to systematically understand the processes that affect human societies on multiple spatial and temporal scales, research leveraging existing archaeological data is essential. However, only a fraction of the data from archaeological projects are publicly findable or accessible, let alone interoperable or reusable. This is the case despite statements of disciplinary ethics, availability of capable technologies for data stewardship, publications providing guidance, and legal mandates. This article introduces the FAIR principles for data stewardship in North American archaeology, which state that data should be Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable. We call for efforts to promote widespread adoption of the FAIR and CARE (Collective benefit, Authority to control, Responsibility, and Ethics) principles among professional organizations, publishers, data repositories, and researchers. We also call for adoption and implementation of requirements to adhere to these principles by governmental agencies, funding bodies, and other regulators of archaeological research. Ultimately, adoption of the FAIR principles in an ethical framework contributes to our understanding of our human experience and can lead to greater integration and reuse of research results, fostering increased partnerships between academia and industry.

Reuse and sharing of archaeological data are tied to ethics in data practice, research design, and the rights of Indigenous peoples in decision-making about their heritage. In this article, the authors discuss how the CARE (Collective benefit, Authority to control, Responsibility, and Ethics) principles and Indigenous data governance create intellectual space for archaeological research. We show how archaeologists can use this framework to highlight hidden costs and labor associated with the “data ecosystem,” which are often borne by Indigenous nations and communities. The CARE framework gives voice to Indigenous peoples’ concerns around data sharing, curation, and reuse; ways we can redress these issues; and strategies that facilitate Indigenous nations and communities in deriving collective benefit from research. In archaeology, these efforts include greater work on heritage legislation and policy, repositioning Indigenous peoples as active stewards of their data, and building capacity in digital methods and ethical data practice. Each Indigenous nation and community has its own interests, values, and protocols, and we suggest paths to bring data practice into alignment with the CARE framework.

Today, there is a growing movement to use accumulated archaeological information to contribute to discussions of general issues facing human societies, including our own. In this regard, the archaeological record is most unique and helpful when viewed at broad comparative scales. Most relevant data for these sorts of analyses are collected through the cultural resource management (CRM) process. Still, by and large, interpretation remains limited to individual projects, and data integration across projects is nearly nonexistent. What would it take for CRM to achieve real data integration? In this article, we discuss these issues and suggest one potential solution. The most pressing need we identify is for data products that integrate the primary data emanating from CRM at broad spatial and temporal scales, which are suitable for research by archaeologists and other social scientists. We argue that the time is right for the discipline to invest in organizations that produce such products.

Spatial data, under the broader umbrella of digital data, is becoming increasingly integral to all stages of archaeological research design and dissemination. As archaeologists lean toward reuse and interoperability, with ethics on their minds, how to treat spatial data is of particular importance. This is because of the complexities involved at every life-cycle stage, from collection to publication, including black box issues that may be taken for granted, and because the size of spatial data can lead to archiving difficulties. Here, the “DIY” momentum of increasingly accessible spatial methods such as photogrammetry and handheld lidar is examined alongside forthcoming changes in publication policies that will impact the United States in particular, framed around a conversation about best practices and a call for more comprehensive training for the archaeological community. At its heart, this special issue seeks to realize the potential of increasingly digitized—and increasingly large amounts of—archaeological data. Within cultural resource management, this means anticipating utilization of data through widespread standardization, among many interrelated activities. A desire to enhance the utility of archaeological data has distinct resonances with the use of spatial data in archaeology, as do some wider challenges that the archaeological community faces moving forward.