Field research requires careful preparation so as to protect the integrity of archaeological studies and ensure the health and wellness of our students and field crews. In this special issue, we hope to lay a foundation for securing health and wellness as elements of the ethical practice of archaeology fieldwork through discussions of common hazards and tools to prevent, prepare for, and address safety incidents in the field. Even as archaeology and other field sciences grapple with serious safety concerns such as sexual harassment and mental health, it can be tempting to view field sites as extensions of the classroom or office. But field research can be a high-risk endeavor where we are exposed to a range of hazards not typically encountered in a traditional learning or work environment. We reach across disciplinary boundaries toward outdoor leadership and backcountry medicine to introduce the concept of wilderness context to describe the remote—and not-so-remote—locations and conditions common to archaeology field research. These are places where small or unanticipated problems can quickly become serious incidents. By rethinking research sites as wilderness activity sites, we highlight how methodical preparation can help us craft more robust and ethical health and safety practices for all members of our teams.

Due to the intellectual, physical, and emotional demands of field research, those doing this work need to strategies to monitor and maintain their own mental health before, during, and after a field season. Moreover, they should have a framework for supporting their colleagues. This review article will present a framework for assessing the mental health hazards and the reactions, both positive and negative, to fieldwork. First, it will use U.S. epidemiology to show that most field teams are at risk. Second, it will frame the field season both as a workplace and wilderness exposure event and discuss the elements of the field research environment that can be therapeutic for some but toxic for others. Third, it will discuss the psychological impacts of travel and reintegration as they are pertinent to the practice of archaeology. Research will be presented in order to guide evidence-informed policies for the field research team to improve the mental-health readiness and resiliency of the research team. Last, it will provide guidance on how to manage the anxiety caused by separating from social media platforms.

Wilderness medicine is plagued by myths and dogmatic teachings not supported by evidence. This article focuses particularly on those teachings and tools that would be most likely used in archaeological fieldwork. It lays out 10 of the most common and concerning myths taught in wilderness medicine and wilderness emergency medical services, both in terms of first aid and preparation of medical kits. The myths described are provide a structure for the main purpose of the article: to explain interventions and medical kit contents that are more evidence based and supported by modern understandings of wilderness medicine and fieldwork risk management. The list of top 10 myths includes (1) the use of medications other than epinephrine for anaphylaxis and (2) the availability and proper use of epinephrine auto-injectors, (3) the use of suction devices and tourniquets for snakebites, (4) the use of spinal immobilization for neck injuries, (5) the identification and treatment of heat illnesses, (6) the use of CPR in remote areas, (7) the appropriateness of dislocation reduction in remote areas, (8) the use and choice of tourniquets for arterial bleeding, (9) the initial definition and management of drowning patients, and (10) wound management myths.

During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, arsenic was used as an embalming agent in the United States. In 1996, Konefes and McGee brought the potential danger of arsenic poisoning during excavation to the attention of archaeologists. They developed methodology that was later refined by the present authors. This article discusses the history of arsenic as an embalming agent, explores socioeconomic and demographic factors that might suggest the presence of arsenic in certain burials, and presents methods for testing arsenic in archaeological contexts. We also discuss environmental impact mitigation considerations and review examples of arsenic testing in archaeological contexts.

Chronic diseases and preexisting conditions shape daily life for many archaeologists both in and out of the field. Chronic issues, however, can be overlooked in safety planning, which more often focuses on emergency situations because they are considered mundane, or they are imperceptible to project directors and crews until a serious problem arises. This article focuses on asthma, diabetes, and depression as common medical conditions that impact otherwise healthy archaeologists during fieldwork, with the goal of raising awareness of these conditions in particular, and the need to be more attentive to chronic diseases in general. Archaeological fieldwork presents novel situations that put those with chronic diseases and preexisting conditions at risk: environmental hazards, remoteness from medical and social resources and networks, lack of group awareness, and varying cultural norms. As a result, if chronic diseases are not attended to properly in the field, they can lead to life-threatening situations. Managing the risk presented by these conditions requires a group culture where team members are aware of issues, as appropriate, and collaborate to mitigate them during fieldwork. Descriptions of how chronic diseases affect archaeologists in the field are followed by “best practice” recommendations for self-management and for group leaders.

Wilderness medicine classes are widely available to archaeologists and field scientists, but because wilderness medicine is an unregulated field, knowing what the various courses and products mean can be difficult. Based on the education chapter in the recently published textbook Wilderness EMS, this article—written by same two authors as the book—explores a number of topics relevant for the field scientist, program director, or administrator seeking to obtain wilderness medicine training for archaeologists. The article first explores the history of wilderness medicine products and certificates available to interested parties. It then differentiates between the various products available today along with their benefits and limitations for the end user. Products and trainings described include certifications (including Wilderness First Aid [WFA], Wilderness Advanced First Aid [WAFA], Advanced Wilderness First Aid [AWFA], and Wilderness First Responder [WFR]), as well as single use or continuing education trainings (including Stop the Bleed, CPR, conference courses, and field schools). Particular attention is paid to the specific and actionable needs of a field scientist in remote areas.

Any field team, regardless of the professionalism of the leadership, will eventually experience a critical event. Some events will result in a subtle degradation of the team's work; others will cause emergent threats to the safety of the team. A team's sustained performance during a field season depends partly on such chance events and partly with the team's ability to plan for and respond to the dynamic environment of the field. The duty of a field leader is to conduct clear-eyed conversations and ensure that solid preparations are laid for both the group as a whole and the individual team members. Some of these plans need to be manifested by material preparations, some of which require months of forethought. This article walks readers through a two-hour exercise, giving them frameworks from business continuity and military field doctrines to understand risk. Readers will conduct a SWOT analysis, define emergencies within their organizations, and then apply risk management practices of qualitative risk assessment and all-hazards planning to develop planning priorities. By the end, readers will have built specific action plans for improving field season readiness.

Field safety is being taken more seriously across the cultural resource management (CRM) industry as CRM companies seek to be in compliance with their clients’ health and safety programs and to keep employees safe. Many universities also have organizational health and safety programs designed to protect students and employees, but academic archaeology is routinely conducted without adequate risk management planning. Risk management will be a workplace concern for aspiring archaeologists after graduating from college, which is why it is important for academic archaeology to meet industry standards. Archaeology can learn a great deal about fieldwork risk management from the outdoor recreation industry, which emphasizes building leadership skills rather than following proscribed rules and regulations to mitigate the myriad hazards in the field. This article provides some suggestions that academic archaeologists can use to apply risk management concepts from CRM and the outdoor recreation industry to academic projects in order to comply with university requirements and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), as well as to teach students how to be safe in the field.

Archaeology field schools provide unique opportunities for firsthand exposure, team-based learning, and pre-professional experience. A participant's decision to pursue a career in archaeology may reflect initial fieldwork group experiences and individual interactions with field school leaders and staff. Today, safety, security, and equity policies along with staff and operational procedures that support them are essential for instructing and inspiring all who wish to experience archaeological fieldwork. Drawing on three decades of field school participation and administration, the author describes specific examples of fieldwork learning contexts as well as insights into operating a safe, secure, and welcoming field school. Conclusions include general guidelines that are applicable and desirable for short-term, season-long, or special skills field schools.

Graduate schools provide students opportunities for fieldwork and training in archaeological methods and theory, but they often overlook instruction in field safety and well-being. We suggest that more explicit guidance on how to conduct safe fieldwork will improve the overall success of student-led projects and prepare students to direct safe and successful fieldwork programs as professionals. In this article, we draw on the experiences of current and recent graduate students as well as professors who have overseen graduate fieldwork to outline key considerations in improving field safety and well-being and to offer recommendations for specific training and safety protocols. In devising these considerations and recommendations, we have referenced both domestic and international field projects, as well as those involving community collaboration.

Digital data play an increasingly important role in how we understand the present and the past. The challenges inherent in understanding and using digital data are as intellectually demanding as any other archaeological research endeavor. For these reasons, data management cannot be regarded as a simple compliance or technical issue. For data to be meaningfully preserved and used in intellectually rigorous ways, they need to be integrated fully into all aspects of archaeological practice, including ethics, teaching, and publishing. In this review, we highlight some of the significant and multifaceted challenges involved in managing data, including documentation, training, methodology, data modeling, trust, and ethical concerns. We then focus on the importance of building data literacy broadly among archaeologists so that we can manage and communicate the data our discipline creates. This involves more than learning to use a new tool or finding a data manager for one's excavation or survey. Long-term, responsible stewardship of data requires understanding the workflows and human roles in data management. Putting effort now into thoughtful data management and broad data-literacy training means we will be able to make the most of the “bigger” data that archaeologists now produce. An important aspect of this reorientation will be to look beyond the boundaries of our own research projects and information systems. Future research, teaching, and public engagement needs will also compel us to explore how our data articulates with wider contexts—within and beyond our discipline.