The erosion of coastal archaeological sites is a worldwide heritage crisis. However, regional variability in the archaeological record and the natural environment necessitates localized consideration of the erosion of archaeological sites to facilitate informed research prioritization decisions about coastal cultural resources. In this article, we present and compare the results of recent coastal survey programs from southern Nova Scotia and far northeastern Maine to earlier ones to ascertain the extent of erosion since the mid-twentieth century. We then situate regional erosion in culture-historical terms via a case study from archaeological sites at Sipp Bay, Maine, from which materials were collected and tested in the early to mid-twentieth century. We compare the results of that work to our recent excavations. Finally, we model future sea-level rise scenarios to estimate future site destruction and compare these models between regions. Together, these data illustrate patterns in site preservation for geoarchaeological examination, provide insight into erosion-driven biases in the extant archaeological record, and offer information to guide research prioritization.

Legacy collections frequently originate from Indigenous archaeological sites with extensive histories of investigation and removal by numerous institutions and individuals. These “split” collections complicate institutional compliance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA; 25 U.S.C. § 3001-13) , in part by hindering the identification of cultural items, including associated and unassociated funerary objects. In aligning with the spirit of NAGPRA and following guidance received during consultation with Tribal Nations, institutional NAGPRA practitioners strive to repatriate the Ancestors removed from these locations whole, both in body and cultural items, facilitating a respectful return to living communities. Moreover, collaborating across institutions and in coordination with Tribal Nations has the potential both to lessen the burden on Tribal Nations and minimize repetitive trauma brought about by multiple repatriations of Ancestors and cultural items from the same site. Accomplishment of this repatriation goal often requires cross-institutional collaboration to reconcile these legacy “split collections.” In this article, we present the roadmap developed and used by the University of Wisconsin–Oshkosh and the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee for repatriation with split collections, with some considerations for fruitful interinstitutional collaboration.

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.