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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The reconstruction and representation of ancient artifacts and scenes through illustration is a cornerstone in the communication of archaeological findings. Sketches of the past have transformed over time, incorporating broader technological changes, from photography to the digital tools that have become prevalent through the twenty-first century. Most recently, developments in generative artificial intelligence (AI) promise to reshape the way we represent the past to professional and public audiences. This article shows how to use an accessible and inexpensive artificial intelligence platform to generate complex archaeological illustrations. As a case study, we create multiple scenes representing competing hypotheses about Neanderthal behavior. Using the images to visually communicate alternative hypotheses, we demonstrate how archaeological illustration using artificial intelligence promises to democratize the production of visual representations of the past.

We have all read the headlines heralding, often hyperbolically, the latest advances in text- and image-based Artificial Intelligence (AI). What is perhaps most unique about these developments is that they now make relatively good AI accessible to the average Internet user. These new services respond to human prompts, written in natural language, with generated output that appears to satisfy the prompt. Consequently, they are categorized under the term “generative AI,” whether they are generating text, images, or other media. They work by modeling human language statistically, to “learn” patterns from extremely large datasets of human-created content, with those that specifically focus on text therefore called Large Language Models (LLMs). As we have all tried products such as ChatGPT or Midjourney over the past year, we have undoubtedly begun to wonder how and when they might impact our archaeological work. Here, I review the state of this type of AI and the current challenges with using it meaningfully, and I consider its potential for archaeologists.

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.