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.

There has been—and continues to be—tension between Native peoples and museums in the United States due to past collecting practices and exhibitions that strive to interpret their culture and history without their involvement. Previously, many of these exhibitions stereotyped and lumped Native peoples together, depicting their cultures as static and interpreting them and their material culture from a Western scientific perspective. Changes are being made. Collaboration between Native peoples and museums in all areas of museum work, including exhibitions, is beginning to be considered by many as a best practice. Exhibitions developed in collaboration with Native peoples, with shared curatorial authority, decidedly help ease the historic tension between the two, and they are much more vibrant and accurate than when collaboration is lacking. This article will provide three examples of collaboration, defined with our tribal partners, to develop exhibitions at History Colorado, the state history museum, concluding with lessons learned.

In the mid-1980s, the Anthropology Division of the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) began the creation of digital resources as a means of collections access. Much of the database work was a secondary component of projects funded by outside grants and driven by new accountability mandates. The ongoing upgrading process was sporadic in its progress, but it still accomplished the primary goals of improved housing for collections and an exhaustive database. This paper discusses how the historical complications of the data, the scale of the database, its irregular schedule of funding, and deadline-driven projects resulted in inconsistency in data and difficulty in use. Although the examples provided will be specific to the AMNH Anthropology database, the circumstances and issues are common to many databases and the approaches presented broadly applicable. The discussion includes the practices used to mitigate the negative impact of these problems and the way the Division is positioning itself for the future, even as the database continues to provide unprecedented public and institutional access to and utility for the AMNH Anthropology collections.

Around the world, archaeological collections are curated in museums, universities, foundations, government agencies, and other organizations. Some are carefully documented and readily accessible, while others are languishing in substandard conditions as a direct result of the curation crisis. This article highlights the value of collection-based research. It encourages the mutually beneficial approach of training students in both collection preservation and collection-based research and demonstrates other ways to obtain data for research projects, aside from excavation. Using my collections-based research carried out in Puerto Rico and the continental United States as a case study, I draw attention to the valuable information that can be derived from acquisition and accession documents and offer ways to incorporate new datasets. This allows for more accurate narratives of collections’ historiographies.

Managing collections means ensuring that the data about them are useful, available, and accurate. In addition to the technical aspects of data management, there are layers of political and social structure that direct the construction and use of collections data. The Minnesota Historical Society (MNHS) employs a set of data standards that allows us to gather electronic cataloging data from a wide community of archaeology researchers who are depositing collections at our institution. Though met with initial resistance, these standards have facilitated publication in Open Context as linked open data. Furthermore, institutional discussions concerning Creative Commons licensing and the cultural sensitivity of collections data were precipitated by publication, highlighting the role of social agreement in data management. We found that successful employment of data standards must take into account the needs of the various stakeholders and further their interests. Standards will be most useful and successful when they are lightweight, are supported by training and documentation, and exist as part of a system that allows for more than one way to characterize the collections.

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.

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.

Care of archaeological materials should begin when recovered in the field. Care and stabilization of objects in the field will greatly increase their research and exhibit potential. Identifying problems and understanding basic solutions to object care and stabilization is an important part of training for all potential object handlers. Proper care and stabilization of objects can and should be a priority for all object users—excavators, lab analysts, museum staff, and researchers. Constant dialogue and communication between repository specialists and archaeologists can be the most useful source for care of all archaeological objects.

The issue of pesticide-contaminated archaeological collections has generated concern among staff in collecting institutions. Pesticides have long been used, but the awareness of their unseen persistence and their potential as a human health hazard is a new aspect of preventive conservation. Background information and guidelines for developing a pesticide history are provided for repositories, museums, cultural resource management companies in the private and public sectors, academia, and other public collections.

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.

Archaeological collections repositories have two principal aims: preserving collections while also making them accessible. This accessibility is critical for the growing number of researchers turning to collections to study the past. This article describes steps that repositories can take to enhance access to collections in their custody, based on the experience of the Maryland Archaeological Conservation Laboratory, the state's public archaeological curation facility. These steps include the identification of stakeholders—archaeologists, Native American tribes, and stakeholder communities; creation of a detailed and prioritized collection inventory including artifacts and records; development of finding aids; reconstruction of provenience systems; and exploration of the digital delivery of collection information. For repositories ill equipped to hold archaeological collections, consideration should be given to transferring the collection to one with the appropriate resources and expertise.

Ubisoft's Assassin's Creed series is one the entertainment industry's most popular titles set in the past. With a new game released on an annual basis—each full of distinct historical places, events, and people—the series has unfolded across post-classical history, from the Levant during the Third Crusade to Victorian-era London. The 2017 release of Assassin's Creed: Origins, which entailed a massive reconstruction of Hellenistic Egypt, pushed the series even further back in time. With it, Ubisoft also launched its Discovery Tour, allowing players to explore the game's setting at their leisure and without combat. These trends continued in 2018's Assassin's Creed: Odyssey, set in Greece during the Peloponnesian War. This review discusses the narrative, world, and gameplay of the latest Assassin's Creed within the series more broadly. We provide a critical appraisal of the experience that Odyssey offers and link it to this question: in the Assassin's Creed series, do we engage in meaningful play with the past, or are we simply assassinating our way through history?