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.

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 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.

For 15 years, the University of Idaho has conducted chemical testing of excavated materials from historical sites throughout North America. The most common artifacts tested are sealed containers. Some come from current excavations, but most are from repository shelves. The immediate purpose of the archaeochemistry work is twofold: to identify the contents of the containers for researchers and to provide training for students in analytical chemistry. After testing more than 500 items, project personnel have recognized some unexpected outcomes that have implications for institutions housing the artifacts. Specifically, tested materials identified the small, yet consistent, presence of certain artifacts that can have health implications for personnel working with the items. The article concludes with general guidance on identifying and assessing those risks.

The 2018 SAA statement encouraging collaboration between archaeologists and “responsible and responsive stewards” included recommendations epitomizing decades of established practice at the University of Iowa Office of the State Archaeologist (OSA), a research center housing the State Archaeological Repository of Iowa. At the time the SAA statement was published, OSA staff were actively implementing a grant supporting transfer to the State Repository of the John and Phil Palmquist Archaeological Collection. This grant was designed to provide hands-on research experience for undergraduate students interested in archaeology and collections management while recording improved site locational data and artifact specific documentation, including on relatively rare (for the area) red pipestone artifacts. Although modest by some standards, the Palmquist Collection includes 860 artifacts from 26 locations recorded through 40 years of surface survey by the family in a portion of Iowa that is rarely the focus of professional archaeologists. This article provides a case study of responsible archaeological practice implementing SAA recommendations, including treating collector-collaborators with respect, encouraging collector assistance in the recording of finds, capturing research data from a private collection, and facilitating curation of privately owned materials. We include brief consideration of the impact of the Palmquist Collection on the understanding of southwestern Iowa archaeology.

In the United States, deaccessioning is a poorly understood collections management tool. Archaeologists often view deaccessioning with what Robert Sonderman called “primal fear,” and this fear has caused them to overlook the opportunities that deaccessioned artifacts and collections may provide in the area of public archaeology education. Although deaccessioning without checks and balances can be problematic, when done properly and ethically, it offers previously untapped resources to the creation of educational programming, such as teaching trunk programs. This article discusses the process of deaccessioning and suggests that deaccessioned artifacts may be useful as content for teaching trunk programs. We discuss a case study from our own institution, where we implemented a trunk program in 2016 that was largely stocked with material from a deaccession we had performed the previous year. We also offer suggestions for anyone wishing to implement a similar program.

Collections care practices have become professionalized in the last 30 years, in large part because of the work of organizations such as the American Alliance of Museums, the Canadian Conservation Institute, the Society for the Preservation of Natural History Collections, the American Institute for Conservation, and others in the museum sphere. Advances in preservation and management have benefited the discipline of archaeology in the field and laboratory. This thematic issue provides an updated perspective on the current happenings in the repository, highlighting innovative techniques and practices that collections specialists employ when managing the archaeological record. This article considers a macroview of the issues surrounding archaeological curation today and ponders what the future of collections preservation can and should look like.

With the advent of commercially available digital cameras in the late 1990s resulting in the near-exclusion of analog photographic prints today, most archaeological repositories around the world have a mix of analog and digital photographic prints. That ratio is increasingly moving toward digital print processes, of which there are several types. To minimize the loss of image quality, collection managers must become familiar with the unique curation challenges of photographic prints from digitally created images. Likewise, creators of digital content must be aware that choices made when selecting a print process for reposit will have a direct effect on image and print permanence. Site photographs are critical evidence of archaeological activity, and so the preservation of digital prints is in the interest, and is the responsibility, of collection managers and archaeologists alike.

Formally established in the fall of 1947, the Laboratory of Archaeology at the University of Georgia is an archaeological research and collection repository. It is considered one of the premier institutions for curation of archaeological collections from the American Southeast. For over 70 years, the Laboratory has served as a repository for objects and associated records generated from archaeological projects and research undertaken by faculty, students, CRM professionals, and state and federal agencies. The Laboratory curates over 20,000 cubic feet of artifacts as well as paper and digital archives. In addition, the Laboratory houses the Georgia Archaeological Site File and manages data from more than 59,000 archaeological sites, including over 11,500 archaeological reports. In this paper, we explore implementation procedures for bringing legacy collections up to modern curation standards. We also outline how we migrate the data on paper records into the digital realm, articulating them within a comprehensive framework.

Preservation knowledge is important for those preparing archaeological collections for curation or requesting access to collections for research. Literature about the fields of archaeological conservation and curation is plentiful, but there are scant resources that offer a basic introduction to the knowledge needed to facilitate preservation of and access to archaeological collections. Much of the literature focuses on conservation in the field and in the lab. Archaeological curation standards and the importance of sustainable management of archaeological collections also are well documented. In contrast, this article serves as an introductory guide to preventive care, specifically to the agents of deterioration and the storage considerations that affect preservation of and access to archaeological collections. Collections specialists who work in museums, government repositories, or historical societies, as well as field archaeologists, academic archaeologists teaching and conducting research on collections, and descendant communities in tribal historic preservation offices and other repositories will find this guide useful as a reference and teaching resource.

As archaeologists grapple with the international curation crisis, new attention is being given to the problem of ‘orphaned’ archaeological collections and collections that are underanalysed and underreported. The common rationale for curating such collections is to restore research potential, but such efforts are met with frustration because of the difficulties of re-establishing provenance and quantitative control for artefacts long separated from their original archaeological context. Moreover, most archaeologists view curation as a process that manages, rather than investigates, archaeological collections. To the contrary, this article argues that accessioning, inventory, cataloguing, rehousing and conservation are not simply precursors to research, but rather meaningful generative encounters between scholars and objects. Examples from the curation of the Market Street Chinatown archaeological collection illustrate how the process of curation can generate innovative research undertakings. Because archaeological research on this collection cannot proceed in a typical way, the research developed through the curation process departs from archaeological conventions to bring new perspectives on the social history of the Overseas Chinese diaspora.