There is an urgent need for climate change–informed decision-making and adaptation actions for cultural heritage. Challenges arise in incorporating and balancing multiple considerations, including robust understandings of climate change vulnerability, the objectives of current management paradigms, the need for meaningful engagement, the risk of maladaptation, and constrained resources to implement. We offer a conceptual framework and guide to integrate climate science and cultural heritage management to produce a range of adaptation actions for cultural heritage, categorized as Acclimate, Dislocate, Abandon, Protect, and Tell the Story (ADAPT) approaches. The ADAPT framework is intended to aid archaeologists and other cultural heritage managers in developing and evaluating possible adaptation actions that directly respond to findings from climate change vulnerability assessments, critically integrating management postures and constraints, and coproducing climate change adaptations with Indigenous rightsholders and community stakeholders.

Field schools are foundational training for archaeologists and the corresponding methods for instruction are largely consistent within the discipline. The expectation is that at some point early in their careers students will enroll in a field school. To participate, students must pay summer tuition, dedicate a minimum of four weeks (usually longer) to full-time fieldwork, and in many cases travel to remote locations. The reality is that for many students such expectations make field school participation an impossibility—and ultimately make archaeology a nonviable career option for students from historically underrepresented backgrounds. Offering local field opportunities within the context of a regular school year alleviates those problems. A recent field school in north Idaho demonstrated how traditional field school structure excludes many students and how archaeologists can adjust instruction to make field training more accessible to students.

For thousands of years, humans have been entertained by board games. The earliest documented game boards date to at least 6000 BC in the Near East (Sebbane 2001), and we know the name, Senet, and rules of a board game from Egypt dating to 3500–3100 BC. Aspects of inequality are omnipresent in the dynamics of the competition and cooperation inherent in games. In this review, I assess the digital version of the board game Catan, which is also called Catan Universe, discussing how anthropological theories such as human behavioral ecology are recognizable in the digital game. Playing this game provides a unique way to test models of inequality.

Archaeological data often come in the form of counts. Understanding why counts of artifacts, subsistence remains, or features vary across time and space is central to archaeological inquiry. A central statistical method to model such variation is through regression, yet despite sophisticated advances in computational approaches to archaeology, practitioners do not have a standard approach for building, validating, or interpreting the results of count regression. Drawing on advances in ecology, we outline a framework for evaluating regressions with archaeological count data that includes suggestions for model fitting, diagnostics, and interpreting results. We hope these suggestions provide a foundation for advancing regression with archaeological count data to further our understanding of the past.

In the summer of 2022, Tulane University, in collaboration with archaeologists from other institutions, began excavations at the site of Pompeii. The archaeological work was focused on Insula 14 of Region 1, located in the southeastern sector of the site. To overcome the challenges of recording a complex urban excavation, and of working with a collaborative team, we designed and implemented a unique workflow that combines paperless and 3D data-capture methods through the use of GIS technologies. The final product of our documentation workflow was a robust and easy-to-use online geodatabase where archaeologists can revisit, explore, visualize, and analyze each excavated context using virtual tools. We present our workflow for digitally documenting observational and spatial data in the field, and how we made these data available to project archaeologists during and after the field season. First, we describe the development of digital forms in ESRI's Survey123. Then, we explain our procedures for 3D documentation through SfM photogrammetric methods and discuss how we integrated the data and transformed it into an accessible format by using interactive dashboards and online 3D web scenes. Finally, we discuss the components of our workflow that are broadly applicable and that can easily be adapted to other projects.

Web scraping, the practice of automating the collection of data from websites, is a key part of how the internet functions, and it is an increasingly important part of the research tool kit for scientists, cultural resources professionals, and journalists. There are few resources intended to train archaeologists in how to develop web scrapers. Perhaps more importantly, there are also few resources that outline the normative, ethical, and legal frameworks within which scraping of archaeological data is situated. This article is intended to introduce archaeologists to web scraping as a research method, as well as to outline the norms concerning scraping that have evolved since the 1990s, and the current state of US legal frameworks that touch on the practice. These norms and legal frameworks continue to evolve, representing an opportunity for archaeologists to become more involved in how scraping is practiced and how it should be regulated in the future.

With its promise of nondestructive processing, rapid low-cost sampling, and portability to any field site or museum in the world, portable X-ray fluorescence (pXRF) spectrometry is rapidly becoming a standard piece of equipment for archaeologists. Even though the use of pXRF is becoming standard, the publication of pXRF analytical methods and the resulting data remains widely variable. Despite validation studies that demonstrate the importance of sample preparation, data collection settings, and data processing, there remains no standard for how to report pXRF results. In this article, we address the need for best practices in publishing pXRF analyses. We outline information that should be published alongside interpretive results in any archaeological application of pXRF. By publishing this basic information, archaeologists will increase the transparency and replicability of their analyses on an inter-analyst/inter-analyzer basis and provide clarity for journal editors and peer reviewers on publications and grant proposals for studies that use pXRF. The use of these best practices will result in better science in the burgeoning use of pXRF in archaeology.

Archaeogaming is an area of increasing interest within archaeology. As archaeogaming's theory and practice are being fleshed out, it is worth considering if there are parallels to traditional archaeological methods within the study of video games. Here, we examine one such possibility: is there an archaeogaming equivalent to experimental archaeology? As a case study, we explore the system used for the mid-1980s development of an unreleased video game prototype for the game company Activision. Through examining this development system, whose use would be otherwise invisible in the finished software artifact, we demonstrate how we have both reconstructed a seemingly lost piece of the system virtually and used this reconstruction for experiments. The methodology we describe can be applied to digital artifacts within contemporary archaeology beyond the scope of video games, and it illustrates some key differences between studying physical and digital artifacts.

This article describes a series of steps to integrate multiple modes of archaeological mapping in arid and agricultural settings. We use the coastal region of Peru as a case study and share our recent field experience at Cerro San Isidro, a multicomponent hill site located in the agriculture-intensive and mid-elevation (about 500 m asl) Moro region of the Nepeña Valley. In June and July 2022, we spent eight weeks deploying a combination of drone aerial imagery, pedestrian GPS reconnaissance, and GPR survey to map the surface and subsurface features at the site and in the adjacent agricultural fields. Our efforts suggest that the ancient settlement extended over an area of at least 50 ha, well beyond the visible surface architecture. Using a multimodal approach to confirming the partial destruction of archaeological vestiges by modern agricultural encroachment is both time-effective and noninvasive. The article offers insights from our experience, including the sequence of field operations, technical troubleshooting, and the collection and integration of datasets. We discuss the methodological potential and implications of this combination of multimodal mapping and its deployment in coastal Peru, a region that, like many others in the world, is increasingly subject to rapid agricultural expansion and other anthropogenic developments.

Archaeology in the United States is caught in a “curation crisis” (Childs 1995; Childs and Warner 2019; Marquardt et al. 1982; SAA Advisory Committee on Curation 2003; Trimble and Marino 2003) and a “digital data crisis” (or “deluge”) more specifically (Bevan 2015; Clarke 2015; Kansa and Kansa 2021; Katsianis et al. 2022; Kersel 2015; McManamon et al. 2017:239–240; Rivers Cofield et al. 2024). Recent estimates suggest that, collectively, over 1.4 billion dollars are spent annually to support archaeological work that is mandated by federal law (SRI Foundation 2020). Although substantial efforts are underway to generate and provide mechanisms for managing, curating, and sharing the resultant digital data, we suggest that a critical step that has yet to be taken is to describe and visualize the components, connections, and causal dynamics of the US digital data system as it currently functions. Here, we specifically apply a “systems thinking” approach to produce such a high-level model of this system. We argue that understanding and visualizing this system will help us all “think bigger” (Heilen and Manney 2023); identify sources of knowledge, opportunities for critical analysis, collaboration, and capacity building; and increase much-needed archaeological digital literacy (Kansa and Kansa 2022). We conceptualize this as bringing “equilibrium” to the system, and in this article, we make several suggestions on how to bring this about. These insights can enable practitioners to better understand their roles in and contributions to the overall system and to evaluate efforts to improve data sharing, management, and curation practices not only within their organizations and departments but beyond.

This theme issue has two primary goals: to illuminate the underdeveloped or faltering areas of the discipline as they relate to archaeological collections and to offer tangible paths forward to address the systemic problems identified as they impact the future of archaeology. Present-day archaeology is complicated due to its many sectors of practice: academia/faculty; cultural resource management; federal, state, and local government; tribal governments and communities; descendant communities; students; the general public; and different types of archaeological repositories. Given this complexity, it can be difficult to identify the expectations (and realities) of each sector, which, if better understood, would help illuminate the nuances of preservation, accountability, discoverability, and use of archaeological collections across the discipline. Without a solid understanding of these nuances, efforts to advance the discipline are undermined. This introduction provides an overview of the articles that address emerging and urgent issues and offer viable steps forward. These challenges include the interrelationships between ethics, collaboration, and training; the preservation and management of digital records and data; collections discovery and reuse; collections-based research; training in material culture; making collections knowable to constituencies outside archaeology; preparing for repatriation from a management perspective; and the intricacies of the archaeological digital data system.

Precolumbian Maya graffiti is challenging to document because it is complex, multilayered, and difficult to see with the naked eye. In the Maya Lowlands, precolumbian graffiti occurs as etched palimpsests on parts of substructures such as stucco walls of residences, palaces, and temples that are frequently only accessible through dark and narrow tunnel excavations. Experienced iconographers or epigraphers with advanced drawing skills are the most qualified researchers to accurately record, analyze, and interpret precolumbian Maya graffiti. Because these scholars have a vast knowledge of conventions and styles from multiple time periods and sites, they are less likely to document the complex and seemingly chaotic incisions incorrectly. But as with many specialists in Maya archaeology, iconographers and epigraphers are not always available to collaborate in the field. This raises the question, how might an archaeologist without advanced training in iconography accurately record graffiti in subterranean excavations? Advances in digital applications of archaeological field recording have opened new avenues for documenting graffiti. One of these is Reflectance Transformation Imaging (RTI), a method that uses a moving light source and photography in order to visualize, interact with, and analyze a three-dimensional object in a two-dimensional image. With practice, RTI images can easily be produced in the field and later shared with specialists for the purposes of analysis and interpretation. Performed on a series of 20 unique graffiti from the Maya archaeological site of Holtun (two examples are presented here), RTI shows promise as a viable technique for documenting and preserving graffiti as cultural heritage.

Archaeologists frequently use written guidelines such as site manuals, recording forms, and digital prompts during excavations to create usable data within and across projects. Most written guidelines emphasize creating either standardized datasets or narrative summaries; however, previous research has demonstrated that the resulting datasets are often difficult to (re)use. Our study analyzed observations and interviews conducted with four archaeological excavation teams, as well as interviews with archaeological data reusers, to evaluate how archaeologists use and implement written guidelines. These excavation team and reuser experiences suggest that archaeologists need more specific best practices to create and implement written guidelines that improve the quality and usability of archaeological data. We present recommendations to improve written guidelines that focus on a project's methods, end-of-season documentation, and naming practices. We also present a Written Guidelines Checklist to help project directors improve their written guidelines before, during, and after fieldwork as part of a collaborative process. Ideally, these best practices for written guidelines will make it easier for team members and future reusers to incorporate their own and others’ archaeological data into their research.

For nearly a decade, there has been recognition of the need for an African American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (AAGPRA) or similar legislation. Experiences from implementing the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) have shed light on challenges that prevent practitioners from achieving the informed, respectful, and expeditious return of remains. Given the likelihood of federal legislation addressing the repatriation of persons of African descent and acknowledging the hurdles that practitioners may face if and when it is passed, we offer a practical model, START, to reorient our understanding of success to recognizing that incremental progress is still forward movement. The model is organized into five stages and is presented with context from NAGPRA, along with suggested steps that practitioners can take at each stage to help build on their success. The START model is a straightforward and practical checklist approach that helps practitioners recognize the victories achieved in small steps that could be hidden or prevented by misguided but well-intentioned attempts at perfection. It is directly applicable to preparation for repatriation but has utility for any curation or collections management context.

Archaeologists seek to improve our understanding of the past by studying, preserving, protecting, and sharing nonreplaceable archaeological resources. Archaeological collections hold information that can assist these aims as long as they are properly cared for, identified, and accessible. One of the most serious barriers is the lack of large-scale coordinated efforts to make archaeological collections findable and accessible. This article suggests that developing and implementing the use of a standardized set of attributes regarding collections provides solutions and strategies to find collections. These attributes can connect and standardize existing archaeological collections from a variety of sources (federal and state agencies, CRM firms, Indigenous and descendant communities, and academic departments), serving the profession in multiple ways. Most critically, the baseline data can be synthesized to inform and direct priorities for future fieldwork, thereby decreasing redundancy in archaeological collections and improving curation efforts nationwide. Such efforts would also provide a resource to students and researchers looking to understand and interpret the past at multiple scales by encouraging more collections-based research and less archaeological site destruction. Access for descendant communities will also be improved with information about their cultural heritage. This, in turn, encourages transparency and collaboration between those communities and archaeologists.

There is much discussion in archaeological circles about challenges associated with the millions of artifacts generated by fieldwork. Most of these discussions are limited to issues within the profession, such as care of collections, accessibility for research, orphaned collections, and shortcomings in training on collections awareness. An underrecognized third party in these discussions is the public. Despite a broadly held ethos of the importance of archaeology for all, archaeologists have paid comparatively little attention to sharing/exposing collections (and the outcomes of excavations) with audiences outside of the profession. This research discusses negative ramifications of not sharing collections with broader audiences and then presents some options for broadening this much-needed engagement through developing more public outreach efforts, providing alternative uses of collections, collaborating with private collectors, and using digital technology to increase access to collections.

This article discusses ethical frameworks for planning and implementing composite research in the United States. Composites, defined here as archaeological materials with multiple genetic sources, include materials such as sediment, coprolites, birch pitch, and dental calculus. Although composites are increasingly used in genetic research, the ethical considerations of their use in ancient DNA studies have not been widely discussed. Here, we consider how composites’ compositions, contexts, and potential to act as proxies can affect research plans and offer an overview of the primary ethical concerns of ancient DNA research. It is our view that ethical principles established for analyses of Ancestral remains and related materials can be used to inform research plans when working with composite evidence. This work also provides a guide to archaeologists unfamiliar with genetics analyses in planning research when using composite evidence from the United States with a focus on collaboration, having a clear research plan, and using lab methods that provide the desired data with minimal destruction. Following the principles discussed in this article and others allows for engaging in composite research while creating and maintaining positive relationships with stakeholders.

Archaeologists are taught about the importance of professional recordation and our ethical obligations to those associated records and data. These teachings imply that practitioners are meeting a professional standard of recordation that will stand the test of time, but the ongoing digital revolution is changing the way records and data are created and preserved. Best practices for the management and use of digital archaeological records have been published, and devoted digital archives offer these services. However, the ability of traditional archaeological repositories to adopt best practices or pay for digital curation is poorly understood. This article presents the results of a survey asking how the flood of digital records and data has impacted the ability of archaeological repositories to collect, manage, preserve, use, and make accessible digital archaeological records and data. Are repositories adopting the best practices that have been outlined? What kinds of challenges do repositories face regarding digital records and data? Are they being overcome successfully? The survey results offer a snapshot of current practice and point to future directions that should be pursued to ensure that the discipline is meeting its professional obligations.

A major problem in collections management is the lack of training about collections in all facets of archaeology. Ignorance about both ethical obligations and practical steps associated with collections is arguably the leading contributor to the ongoing curation crisis. This work summarizes shortcomings in collections training in academia and in cultural resource management, and it proceeds to identify some steps that can be taken to provide training for students and professional archaeologists. The overriding argument is that more training in all aspects of collections is absolutely essential to addressing and beginning to mitigate the overwhelming problems the discipline faces in caring for archaeological collections.

In 2006, the World Bank's private sector lending arm, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), introduced eight Environmental and Social Performance Standards (PSs) to define IFC clients’ responsibilities for managing their environmental and social risks, including those related to cultural heritage. Since their introduction, the PSs have evolved into a de facto global standard that other development banks and many private sector banks, insurers, and development proponents have voluntarily adopted to help manage their own risk exposure. Although the widespread adoption of such policies can be viewed positively as a reflection of good governance, the PSs were never designed with this purpose in mind. This article traces the development of cultural heritage policy within the World Bank Group, then critically examines the IFC PSs as they relate to cultural heritage, drawing attention to the elements in need of revision to better reflect internationally recognized good practice for the management of cultural heritage. Equally important, we recommend the development and implementation of a bespoke cultural heritage framework for the private sector.