When excavating complex anthropogenic stratigraphies, the field archaeologist is often limited to prioritizing the sampling strategy based on in situ macroscopic interpretations. Not until months after the excavation do supporting information and interpretations such as micromorphological analysis offer a more nuanced picture. This article addresses this challenge by evaluating two methods for analyzing results as the excavation is ongoing: computer tomography (CT) and cone beam CT-scanning (CBCT-scanning) of soil blocks using commercially available medical scanners (0.6 mm and 0.3 mm resolution) and an impregnation and micromorphological sediment screening (MSS) approach. The combined methods were applied on samples from a Neolithic settlement (n = 24), an Iron Age / Viking Age cult (n = 9), and an Iron Age settlement (n = 1) in Denmark. Results showed that the CBCT-scanning did not offer clear visual documentation of the different densities between, for example, organic-rich and sandy layers, while the micromorphological screening showed potential when a fluorescent agent (Epodye) was added to the epoxy. Hence, the results suggest that the epoxy impregnation makes it possible to detect microstratigraphical features, while further identification requires a traditional micromorphological thin-section analysis. It would require a larger quantity of samples to assess the procedure’s cost-efficiency on a larger scale.

Digital technologies, including 3D digitization and replication, are increasingly integrated into repatriation-related work by museums and Indigenous communities. Repatriation laws began being adopted in the United States at state level in 1976, followed by federal repatriation laws in 1989 with the National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI) Act, which applies only to the museums of the Smithsonian Institution, and in 1990 with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). Early repatriation, therefore, was in the predigital age, but the use of computers and databases, including digital imaging, email, and file-sharing, has had a significant impact, first with 2D digital technologies and more recently with the incorporation of 3D digitization. These, and the creation of surrogates of archival and object collections, have led to an explosion of information-sharing between museums and Indigenous partners. 2D digitization and 3D digitization and replication, in consultation and collaboration with Indigenous communities, are emerging as important tools alongside repatriation efforts—not in lieu of repatriation but as supplements to mutual interests that go beyond it. Here, the experiences of the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History and others are offered as examples of such new applications of 3D in the context of repatriation and beyond.

Archaeologists engage with the public in various ways and, with the popularity of social media, are learning to adapt to the fast-paced nature of content creation. Posting online provides opportunities for archaeologists to engage with the public at any time and is a tool that can be used to share our knowledge quickly and broadly. Archaeological social media content can use many different approaches, but short-form video content is particularly effective. Many of these methods have similar goals: to educate the public and entertain. This digital review introduces different aspects of social media like the attention economy, online echo chambers, and the public’s reaction to posts about archaeology.

Digital eXtended Reality technologies enable users to view and interact with spaces and objects in three dimensions (3D), thus supporting a variety of potential innovative embodied applications in archaeology. Here, we review the Apple Vision Pro as a Mixed/Augmented Reality (MR/AR) headset to determine where it might fit within current archaeological practice. Our interest in this device spans primary field data collection, in situ visual–spatial interpretation, and public education and tourism. Overall, we find that although it makes certain advances on prior eXtended Reality hardware, it does not yet represent a significant enough shift forward to have a major impact on archaeology. However, we do plan to continue our field experiments with this technology to push its limits and to prepare for future improvements to this product and its competitors.