Journal of Arizona Archaeology 2016, Volume 4, Number 1:60-67
Copyright © 2016 by the Arizona Archaeological Council
MAkIng ArChAEologICAl DAtA AnD
InforMAtIon DISCovErABlE, ACCESSIBlE, AnD
USABlE for 21St CEntUrY rESEArCh: thE
thEoDorE rooSEvElt DAM ArChAEologICAl
ProJECt, tonto BASIn, ArIzonA
Francis P. McManamon
Keith W. Kingh
Francis P. McManamon / Execuve Director, Center for Digital Anquity, School of Human Evoluon and Social Change,
Arizona State University / email@example.com
Keith W. Kingh / Professor and Associate Director, School of Human Evoluon and Social Change, Arizona State University /
The Center for Archaeology and Society (CAS), the Phoenix Area
Oce of the Bureau of Reclamaon, and the Center for Digital Anq-
uity (DA) have created and are making freely available, via tDAR (the
Digital Archaeological Record), a large collecon of reports, arcles,
and data sets resulng from the archaeological invesgaons un-
dertaken for the Theodore Roosevelt Dam project in the Tonto Basin
of central Arizona. At present, this tDAR collecon includes over two
dozen volumes (more than 11,200 pages), plus several arcles that
present the results of the invesgaons undertaken as a part of the
Roosevelt Dam project. In addion, we present 205 spreadsheets
of key data tables extracted from the comprehensive database of
the largest of these projects (the Roosevelt Plaorm Mound Study
[RPMS]) along with the complete database of archaeological data
for that project. We intend to connue to expand this collecon, es-
pecially with databases and extracted spreadsheets from the other
two projects. Making the collecon of data and informaon avail-
able in tDAR allows anyone with an Internet connecon to benet
from unlimited, text-searchable access to the full set of reports that
represents core documentaon of the Salado phenomenon, impor-
tant aspects of the ancient Hohokam culture, and a detailed case
study of the economic and social organizaon of village-scale human
sociees. By providing access to key data tables and the full database
we hope to facilitate and smulate comparave studies and addi-
onal analysis of this enormous set of data that will further advance
our knowledge of these ancient cultures and the workings of human
sociees more generally.
Recognizing the value of the Naon’s cultural heri-
tage, the Naonal Historic Preservaon Act (NHPA)
seeks to migate the damage to or loss of signicant
archaeological resources resulng from federal under-
takings. The basic idea, of course, is that the physical
loss is migated by rescuing the informaon that those
resources have to contribute. To sasfy the goals of
NHPA—which is to say, in order for the migaon to be
truly eecve—two condions must be sased. First,
the data recovered in the eld must be transformed into
knowledge that contributes to understanding our Na-
on’s past. Second, the data and informaon obtained
must be eecvely preserved for future use.
The rst condion is primarily sased through the
producon and distribuon of project reports. The pro-
fessionals doing the eld work are responsible for docu-
menng the archaeological invesgaons and for ana-
lyzing and synthesizing the data in a way that it becomes
knowledge about the past. However, the contribuons
of even the best of reports are usually aenuated by
their quite limited distribuon.
The second condion, the preservaon of the data
for future use, has two components: (1) the curaon of
the physical objects recovered and associated eld and
lab paper records in a recognized repository that can
curate the arfacts and paper records appropriately;
and (2) the preservaon and disseminaon of the data
and informaon learned from the project in forms that
can be reanalyzed to reassess the inial results or to
address new research quesons. The laer component
tradionally was accomplished by publicaon of de-
scripve project reports that include rich data tables or
appendices. However, with the connual renement of
archaeological methods and the explosion in the kinds
and detail of data recorded, even the most detailed tra-
dional reports are not eecve means of conveying
data and informaon for reanalysis and reuse. The Digi-
tal Archaeological Record (tDAR) repository where the
digital documents and data sets described in this arcle
are archived is easily accessible via the Internet and pro-
vides a search capability that disnguishes it from physi-
cal repositories and provides a unique and beer means
of fullling the goals of NHPA.
61 JAzArch Fall 2016McManamon and Kintigh
In this arcle we focus on the two challenges iden-
ed above, eecve disseminaon of the knowledge
gained from archaeological invesgaons, in parcular
those related to data recovery projects that migate the
adverse impacts of development projects, and preserv-
ing and making available the data and informaon ob-
tained in order that our understanding of the past can
connue to benet from completed projects. We do this
in the context of one of the largest archaeological im-
pact migaon programs ever undertaken by the United
States government, the Theodore Roosevelt Dam proj-
ect in central Arizona. This is a ng context, as these
issues are all the more important for very large and very
expensive, well designed, and expertly executed proj-
ects that take on major quesons.
By showing how we are addressing these problems
for the Theodore Roosevelt Dam project, we hope both
to present a case study that may aid similar eorts for
other projects and to publicize and document what we
have done with the Roosevelt project in order that the
project data, informaon, and knowledge will connue
to be used to advance our understanding of the past.
The Center for Archaeology and Society (CAS;
ology-and-society), the Phoenix Area Oce of the Bu-
reau of Reclamaon, and the Center for Digital Anquity
(DA; hp://www.digitalanquity.org/) at Arizona State
University have created and are making freely available,
via tDAR, a large collecon of reports, arcles, and data
sets resulng from the archaeological invesgaons un-
dertaken for the Theodore Roosevelt Dam project in the
Tonto Basin of central Arizona: hps://core.tdar.org/col-
At present, this tDAR collecon includes over two
dozen volumes (more than 11,200 pages), plus sev-
eral arcles that present the results of the invesga-
ons undertaken by dierent organizaons as a part
of the Roosevelt Dam project. In addion, we present
205 spreadsheets of key data tables extracted from the
comprehensive database of the largest of these projects
(the Roosevelt Plaorm Mound Study [RPMS]) along
with the complete database of archaeological data for
that project. We intend to connue to expand this col-
lecon, especially with databases and extracted spread-
sheets from the other two projects.
tDAr – A DIgItAl rEPoSItorY for
DAtA DISCovErY, ACCESS, AnD USE
Driven by the need to solve a major research chal-
lenge in archaeology—how to synthesize systemacally
collected data recorded using dierent coding conven-
ons, across mulple sites and data sets, archaeologists
at ASU, led by Kingh, began the conceptual develop-
ment of tDAR in 1999. In 2004, the Naonal Science
Foundaon funded a planning workshop with 31 parci-
pants drawn from archaeology and computer science.
The workshop developed recommendaons concerning
archaeology’s need for an informaon infrastructure
(Kingh 2006). Based on these recommendaons, in
2006, NSF funded development of a prototype digital
informaon infrastructure—tDAR, the Digital Archaeo-
logical Record. This research developed and deployed a
prototype infrastructure for synthec and comparave
research based on a novel strategy of query- oriented,
on-the-y, ontology-based data integraon.
The Andrew W. Mellon Foundaon’s interest in sup-
porng scholarly communicaon among archaeologists
led it, in 2006, to convene a mul-instuonal group of
archaeologists to plan the development of a digital re-
pository for archaeological data. This led to a planning
grant that the Foundaon funded in 2007. The grant
focused on developing an organizaonal structure and
business model that could support a self-sucient digi-
tal repository centered on preservaon and access. The
planning grant resulted in substanal addional funding
by the Mellon Foundaon for the creaon, in 2009, of
the Center for Digital Anquity at ASU and the transfor-
maon of tDAR into a publicly available digital reposi-
tory in 2010.
DA’s goals are to serve archaeologists, researchers
from other elds, and the interested public by provid-
ing, at no cost, broad and easy discovery of and access
to archaeological and archaeologically-related data and
informaon and to ensure the long-term preservaon
and availability of these data and informaon for future
use. The Center builds content and manages tDAR’s de-
velopment, maintenance, and nancial and technical
sustainability (McManamon and Kingh 2010). The Mel-
lon Foundaon has provided addional grants to sup-
port these eorts. DA also obtains revenue by collecng
modest upload fees for content deposited in tDAR and
by providing digital curaon services to a wide range of
individual researchers, organizaons, and public agen-
cies that require a repository in which they can manage
access to and preservaon and use of their data. Clients
as varied as the Eastern Mimbres Archaeological Pro-
gram, the North Atlanc Biocultural Organizaon, the
Maryland Archaeological and Conservaon Laboratory,
Archaeological Consulng Services, Ltd., Logan Simpson
Design, Inc., the PaleoResearch Instute, the SRI Press,
the Bureau of Land Management, the Naonal Park Ser-
vice, the US Air Force, and the US Army Corps of Engi-
neers make use of tDAR.
Since its September 2010 public producon launch,
tDAR has become an important resource for meeng the
data discovery, access, management, and preservaon
needs of diverse researchers, contractors, and cultural
resource managers. Over 10,600 users have registered
to download resources from tDAR and over 320 indi-
viduals and organizaons have deposited data in tDAR.
Content grows daily. tDAR contains data and informa-
62 JAzArch Fall 2016McManamon and Kintigh
on from all seven connents, including 371,000 bib-
liographic records; nearly 10,000 full text documents;
19,800 images, 158 3D scans, 85 geospaal data les,
and more than 1,000 datasets supported with 1,300
coding sheets and 50 ontologies. tDAR is designed to
enable archaeologists to upload directly and create
metadata that documents their documents, images,
data sets, and other les using self-explanatory on-line
Alternavely, depositors can take advantage of digital
curaon services oered by DA sta experts.
Regarding the Theodore Roosevelt Dam Archaeo-
logical Project data in tDAR, anyone with an Internet
connecon can benet from unlimited, text-searchable
access to the reports and data sets that represents core
documentaon of the Salado phenomenon, important
aspects of the ancient Hohokam culture, and a detailed
case study of the economic and social organizaon of
village-scale human sociees. Further, by providing ac-
cess to key data tables and the full database we hope
to facilitate and smulate comparave studies and ad-
dional analysis of this enormous set of data that will
further advance our knowledge.
thE thEoDorE rooSEvElt DAM
Between 1989 and 1993, the US Bureau of Reclama-
on funded four substanal eld archaeological proj-
ects in the Tonto Basin, all associated with the modica-
on of the Theodore Roosevelt Dam that would raise
the lake level. Most of these invesgaons were carried
out on lands administered by Tonto Naonal Forest. Ear-
lier archaeological surveys in the area around Roosevelt
Lake had idened hundreds of sites that likely would
be aected as a result of the dam modicaon (Fuller
et al. 1976; Jewe 1986; Rice and Bostwick 1986), many
of which were expected to be eligible for the Naonal
Register of Historic Places. Therefore, to comply with
Secon 106 of the Naonal Historic Preservaon Act
(NHPA), the Bureau of Reclamaon, the lead agency for
the undertaking, determined to migate the adverse
eect to the archaeological resources by a large-scale
data recovery eort. The reports, other documents, and
data described and made available in this tDAR collec-
on are the results of this eort.
The data recovery program was divided into four
projects, each of which had dierent research objec-
ves and were conducted by separate research teams
that coordinated their acvies (Pedrick 1992:2-3; Rice
and Lincoln 1998:1-3).
The Roosevelt Bajada Survey (RBS) was a sampling
survey by SWCA Inc. of porons of the bajada and foot-
hills surrounding Tonto Basin (Ahlstrom et al. 1991).
The Roosevelt Rural Sites Study (RRSS) conducted by
Stascal Research focused on small agricultural and
habitaon sites in the rural areas away from the large
selements in the basin (Ciolek-Torrello et al. 1990).
Desert Archaeology Inc. of Tucson was responsible for
the Roosevelt Community Development Study (RCDS),
and their aim was to provide a longitudinal record of
the history of occupaon of Tonto Basin (Doelle et al.
1992). The Roosevelt Plaorm Mound Study (RPMS),
conducted by the Oce of Cultural Resource Manage-
ment at Arizona State University (ASU), studied the or-
ganizaon of Classic period plaorm mound complexes
(Rice 1990). As the study progressed, Reclamaon mod-
ied the Plaorm Mound Study to include the invesga-
on of a series of 44 sites on the bajada that had been
idened in the survey conducted by SWCA (Rice and
The locaon of the studies covered by this tDAR
collecon are shown on Figure 1. Much of the research
conducted by the four studies focused on the me peri-
od between about A.D. 1150 and A.D. 1450, referred to
as the Classic Hohokam period (Pederick 1992:1). Rice
(1998:231) esmated that three quarters of the sites in-
vesgated by the RMPS, the largest project among the
four conducted, dated to the Classic period. Research
on other me periods also was conducted. For example,
the RCDS covered a much greater me depth by design,
including pre-Hohokam, although its main focus was the
period A.D. 1 to 1450. The RCDS research included in-
vesgaon of an important pre-Hohokam village.
tDAR’s digital collecons from the Theodore Roos-
evelt Dam Archaeological Project are organized in sub-
collecons that generally match the organizaon of the
dierent studies that conducted and reported the origi-
nal eldwork and research (Table 1).
thE rooSEvElt PlAtforM MoUnD
The largest sub-collecon is the RPMS. This collec-
on contains all the reports of the Roosevelt Mono-
graph Series (12 volumes), the complete 63 MB Access
database of archaeological data for that project, and
over 200 smaller data sets created from the abundant
research informaon collected at the sites and mul-
site areas invesgated as part of the archaeological
study. The RPMS sub-collecon is organized into nine
further sub-collecons that disnguish among the ma-
jor sites and areas tested and excavated. The RPMS
sub-collecon also includes the project research design,
background research documents, the comprehensive
laboratory manual, three large reports that synthesize
the research, and several short arcles on various as-
pects of the research (Table 1).
The RPMS examined the physical and social orga-
nizaon of three Classic Hohokam period community
complexes in the Tonto Basin of Arizona. The data come
from the project’s invesgaon of 79 prehistoric sites
63 JAzArch Fall 2016McManamon and Kintigh
arranged in three spaal clusters around the current
Lake Roosevelt, known as Pinto Creek, Cline Terrace,
and Rock Island. Excavaons also were conducted on a
few sites north of the Lake, referred to as the Upland
Complex. There are many sites in other clusters that
were not invesgated by this project. The eld work,
lab processing, analysis, and reporng was carried out
between 1989 and 1998. Field studies lasted approxi-
mately four of these years.
The RPMS tDAR collecon includes sub-collecons
for the major site areas excavated and tested. There are
two sub-collecons each for the Pinto Creek sites and
the Cline Terrace sites with the site reports and data
sets. The Rock Island and Upland sites have one sub-col-
lecon apiece also containing the site reports and data
sets for these areas. The RPMS tDAR collecon includes
a sub-collecon containing the project research design,
a collecon of arcles on Tonto Basin prehistory, and
the project eld and laboratory manuals. The nal sub-
collecon of the set contains reports on topics cross-cut-
ng site descripons and data, including: environment
and subsistence, ceramics and social organizaon, and
a synthesis of Tonto Basin prehistory. This sub-collecon
also includes several shorter summary arcles and the
RPMS Access database and users’ guide.
The RPMS research focused on the nature of social
organizaon and economic acvies and how these
changed over me prior to, during, and subsequent to
the Classic period. Rice (1998:231-234) describes the
development of sedentary agricultural villages about
A.D. 200 and notes two subsequent movements of new
people into the Basin. About A.D. 750, people associ-
ated with the Hohokam tradion arrived, probably from
the west and southwest. They brought with them dif-
ferent ways of organizing selements and construcng
dwellings, the use of cremaon as a burial pracce, and
a variety of dierent kinds of arfacts and arfact styles.
Beginning at the end of the 13th century (A.D. 1280 to
Figure 1: The general locaon of the studies described in this arcle.
64 JAzArch Fall 2016McManamon and Kintigh
1320), a second substanal movement of people into
the Basin occurred. These immigrants seem to have
come from the mountains surrounding the Basin and
possibly also from the Hohokam region to the south and
southwest. Some of the new people seem to have been
associated with pueblo cultures originally living to the
east and north of the Basin. This later immigraon re-
sulted in the establishment of two disnct kinds of set-
tlement paerns in the Basin. One of these was associ-
ated with centers that contained plaorm mounds. The
other paern had a large primary village surrounded by
clusters of small, dispersed selements.
One of the key interpreve results of the RPMS re-
search was that although Classic period selements and
associated communies were large, the amount and
range of control over these communies by their lead-
ers was surprisingly limited. Rice summarizes the rela-
onship that seems to have existed between communi-
es and their leaders:
Plaorm mound were centers that held to-
gether the elements of a dispersed selement
system, but the basis for this integraon was ide-
ological, not administrave. By the 14th century,
plaorm mounds were the residences of elite
members of the community...The people who oc-
cupied [these residences] … included specialists
responsible for conducng and preparing cere-
monial acvies, but the basis for their status did
not extend to heightened economic privileges or
responsibilies (Rice 1998:237).
thE rooSEvElt CoMMUnItY
DEvEloPMEnt StUDY (rCDS)
The RCDS tDAR sub-collecon contains six reports.
The community development study was carried out by
the Center for Desert Archaeology. The reports describe
the developments over me related to prehistoric popu-
laons residing at and ulizing several sites within the
project area. The RCDS invesgaons involved the test-
ing and excavaon of 27 sites located in a 4-mile study
area along the north side of the Salt River at the east end
of Lake Roosevelt. Six sites were intensively examined
through full-scale excavaon. In addion, extensive data
were gathered at the remaining 21 sites (Doelle 1992:1-
The RCDS project area contained three large Classic
period sites, two of which have plaorm mounds. The
third site may contain over 100 masonry rooms. From
west to east, these large sites are the centers of the Grif-
n Wash, Pyramid Point, and Meddler Point site complex-
es. The main sites of the three complexes were occupied
during the Roosevelt phase (ca. AD. 1150-1300). Only
Grin Wash yielded denive late Classic, or Gila phase
(ca. AD. 1300-1450), ceramics. Examinaon of the other
sites in the RCDS study area indicated that many of them
were occupied during the Roosevelt phase. Earlier mate-
rial is well represented at Meddler Point and is likely to
be present at a number of other sites as well. At Meddler
Point, there appears to be sucient horizontal stragra-
phy to permit broad-scale access to deposits that date at
least as early as the Gila Bue phase (ca. AD. 750- 850).
Table 1. Theodore Roosevelt Archaeological Project tDAR Collecon. Sub-collecon Contents and Organizaon
Lake Roosevelt and Tonto Basin Sub-collecons Number of Documents Number of Data Sets
Roosevelt Plaorm Mound Study (RPMS) 18 206
RPMS: A Design for Salado Research, Developing Perspecves on Tonto Basin
Prehistory, and the RPMS Field and Laboratory Manuals
RPMS: Pinto Creek Complex, Livingstone Area Sites, Pillar Mound, Pinto Point
Sites, and Pinto Point Mound
1 (2 volumes) 83
RPMS: Pinto Creek Complex, Schoolhouse Point Mound 1 (2 volumes) 16
RPMS: Pinto Creek Complex, Schoolhouse Mesa Sites 1 24
RPMS: Rock Island Complex 1 13
RPMS: Cline Terrace Mound 1 18
RPMS: Cline Terrace Complex, Cline Mesa Sites 1 27
RPMS: Uplands Complex 1 24
RPMS: Synthesis of Research, Summaries of Environment, Subsistence, Salado
Ceramics, and Social Organizaon, Summary Arcles and Other Documents,
Users Guide to the Project Access Data Set, and Access Data Set
Roosevelt Community Development Study 7 --
Roosevelt Rural Sites Study 5 --
65 JAzArch Fall 2016McManamon and Kintigh
The RCDS results are described in four sets of re-
ports in the Center for Desert Archaeology publicaon
series, Anthropological Papers No. 12, 13, 14, and 15.
The rst is a single volume that includes the research
design for the overall invesgaon. Anthropological Pa-
pers No. 13 consists of two volumes that provide infor-
maon about the project background and descripve
informaon on the excavaon and tesng of sites in the
project area. These volumes include site and feature de-
scripons, site and feature maps, general arfact data,
and preliminary interpretaons of individual sites. The
rst volume discusses the project and describes work at
the small sites in the project area. The second describes
the work done at the larger sites: Meddler Point, Grin
Wash and Pyramid Point Sites. Anthropological Papers
No. 14 includes three report volumes that describe ar-
fact data and specialized analyses. The topics covered
are stone and shell arfact analyses; ceramic chronolo-
gy; technology; economics; paleobotanical analysis; and
osteological analyses. Anthropological Papers No. 15 is a
single report that integrates the RCD data and provides
a synthesis of the prehistoric occupaon of the RCDS
project area and the Tonto Basin (Doelle 1992:1-4).
thE rooSEvElt rUrAl
SItES StUDY (rrSS)
The RRSS tDAR sub-collecon contains four volumes
describing the eld work and other research conducted
for this study by Stascal Research, Inc. (SRI). The re-
ports were published as part of the SRI Technical Series.
The RRSS was designed to study small habitaon, ag-
ricultural, and resource processing sites, located away
from the main centers of prehistoric habitaon in the
Tonto Basin. This study complements the other studies
and contributes to the overall synthec study of Tonto
The specic research focus of the RRSS was docu-
menng the change over me of prehistoric rural land-
use systems in the Tonto Basin (Ciolek-Torrello, et al
1990:1-3). The RRSS invesgated 29 prehistoric sites
grouped into six study areas located in the bajada zone
surrounding the lake. The rst report presents the in-
vesgaon’s research design. The second volume docu-
ments the results of site excavaons and material cul-
ture analyses and describes a preliminary model of rural
selement types and changes in rural selement and
subsistence during the Formave period in the Tonto
Basin. The third report presents the results of archaeo-
botanical, soil, and paleoclimac analyses. These results
are examined within an interpreve framework devel-
oped from an examinaon of records pertaining to eth-
nographic, ethnohistoric, and historic land-use in cen-
tral Arizona. This nal volume concludes with several
chapters synthesizing the results of the specic environ-
mental and archaeological aspects of the RRSS.
fUtUrE USES of thE rooSEvElt
ArChAEologY rESEArCh DAtA
An enormous amount of data was collected by these
Roosevelt Lake project archaeological studies. The three
projects collected more than 4000 boxes of arfacts in-
cluding more than 700,000 potsherds. In addion to the
reports, these invesgaons are documented by 330
linear feet of archives. These data were intensively used
by the projects to develop and test important hypoth-
eses about the social organizaon, economic pracces,
populaon movements, and cultural and social change.
Summarizing the RPMS synthesis report, Rice noted
The Roosevelt archaeology projects amassed
data on a truly remarkable scale, and those data
were used to test a number of hypotheses about
prehistoric society…the results led to unexpected
views on how the populaons of the Tonto Ba-
sin were organized and how they related to the
populaons of surrounding regions. Several of the
hypotheses…dealt with the degree of cooperaon
that ought to occur between selements in trade
or subsistence, posing that there was either a lot
or only a lile cooperaon. None of the hypothe-
ses prepared us, however, for the nding that the
relaonships among selement were oen highly
compeve. People of the Tonto Basin compet-
ed for agricultural land, trade contacts, and ul-
mately for the occupancy of the basin itself (Rice
Users of the Theodore Roosevelt Dam Archaeo-
logical Project tDAR collecon have the opportunity to
absorb, ulize, and reexamine the important interpre-
taons of the various studies provided in the exisng
reports. They are also able to access and use the for-
midable datasets derived from these invesgaons to
address new quesons of broad signicance, including
many from the Grand Challenges for Archaeology (Table
2 and Kingh et al. 2014a and b).
The potenal impact of future research ulizing the
extensive Theodore Roosevelt Dam project content in
tDAR, is greatly enhanced by the tDAR’s other rich hold-
ings on Hohokam and Salado archaeology. In addion
to the Roosevelt Lake materials, tDAR already has more
than 200 Hohokam and Salado reports with more than
35,000 pages (e.g., see the Phoenix Basin Archaeology:
the Intersecons Project tDAR collecon, hps://core.
tDAR’s value for comparave and synthec research
will connue to grow as more organizaons and re-
searchers deposit their documents and data in tDAR.
66 JAzArch Fall 2016McManamon and Kintigh
Table 2 . Grand Challenges for Archaeological Research
A. Emergence, Communies, and Complexity
1. How do leaders emerge, maintain themselves, and transform society?
2. Why and how do social inequalies emerge, grow, persist, and diminish, and with what consequences?
3. Why do market systems emerge, persist, evolve and, on occasion, fail?
4. How does the organizaon of human communies at varying scales emerge from and constrain the
acons of their members?
5. How and why do small-scale human communies grow into spaally and demographically larger
and polically more complex enes?
6. How can systemac invesgaons of prehistoric and historic urban landscapes shed new light on
the social and demographic processes that drive urbanism and its consequences?
7. What is the role of conict—both internal faconal violence and external warfare—in the evoluon
of complex cultural formaons?
B. Resilience, Persistence, Transformaon and Collapse
1. What factors have allowed for dierenal persistence of sociees?
2. What are the roles of social and environmental diversity and complexity in creang resilience and
how do their impacts vary by social scale?
3. Can we characterize social collapse or decline in a way that is applicable across cultures, and are
there any warning signals that collapse or severe decline is near?
4. How does ideology structure economic, polical, and ritual systems?
C. Movement, Mobility, and Migraon
1. What processes led to, and resulted from, the global dispersal of modern humans?
2. What are the relaonships among environment, populaon dynamics, selement structure, and
3. How do humans occupy extreme environments, and what cultural and biological adaptaons
emerged as a result?
4. Why does migraon occur and why do migrant groups maintain idenes in some circumstances
and adopt new ones in others?
D. Cognion, Behavior, and Identy
1. What are the biophysical, sociocultural, and environmental interacons out of which modern human
2. How do people form idenes, and what are the aggregate long-term and large-scale eects of
3. How do spaal and material reconguraons of landscapes and experienal elds aect societal
E. Human-Environment Interacons
1. How have human acvies shaped Earth’s biological and physical systems, and when did humans
become dominant drivers of these systems?
2. What factors drive or constrain populaon growth in prehistory and history?
3. What factors drive health and well-being in prehistory and history?
4. Why do foragers engage in plant and animal management, and under what circumstances does
management of a plant or animal lead to its domescaon?
5. Why do agricultural economies emerge, spread, and intensify, and what are the relaonships among
producve capacity, populaon, and innovaon?
6. How do humans respond to abrupt environmental change?
7. How do humans perceive and react to changes in climate and the natural environment over short-
67 JAzArch Fall 2016McManamon and Kintigh
Acknowledgements. The authors greatly appreci-
ate the assistance of editors Glen Rice and Chris Gar-
raty in including this arcle in this special edion of the
Journal. Glen also contributed important substanve
comments on an earlier dra. We appreciate comments
from reviewers Alanna Ossa and Eric Eugene Klucas.
We hope that our edits based on their comments suf-
ciently address their inial concerns. We acknowledge
and appreciated early comments and assistance by Je
Altschul, Bill Doelle, Lauren Jelinek, and Arleyn Simon.
Creaon of the Theodore Roosevelt Dam Archaeological
Project tDAR collecon was supported by the Center for
Archaeology and Society, School of Human Evoluon
and Social Change and the Cultural Resource Manage-
ment Program, Phoenix Area Oce, Bureau of Reclama-
Ahlstrom, Richard V. N., Mark L. Chenault, and Kirk C. Anderson
1991 The Roosevelt Bajada Survey, Tonto Basin, Gila County,
Arizona. SWCA Archaeological Report No. 91-24. SWCA, Inc.
Environmental Consultants, Tucson. Accessed 18 July 2016,
tDAR # 402032, hps://core.tdar.org/document/402032/
tral-arizona, accessed 25 July 2016.
Ciolek-Torrello, Richard S., Steven D. Shelley, Jerey H. Altschul
and John Welch
1990 Research Design. Roosevelt Rural Sites Study, Vol. 1.
Technical Series No. 28. Stascal Research, Tucson. Ac-
cessed 18 July 2016, tDAR # 378209, hps://core.tdar.org/
1-research-design, accessed 25 July 2016.
Doelle, William H.
1992 Introducon. In Research Design for the Roosevelt Com-
munity Development Study, pp. 1-7. Anthropological Papers
No. 12. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson. Accessed
18 July 2016, tDAR # 378203, hps://core.tdar.org/docu-
ty-development-study, accessed 25 July 2016.
Doelle, William H., Henry D. Wallace, Mark D. Elson, and Douglas
1992 Research Design for the Roosevelt Community Devel-
opment Study. Anthropological Papers No. 12. Center for
Desert Archaeology, Tucson. Accessed 18 July 2016, tDAR #
accessed 25 July 2016.
Fuller, Steven L., A. E. Rogge, and Linda M. Gregonis
1976 Orme Alternaves: The Archaeological Resources of
Roosevelt Lake and Horseshoe Reservoir. Arizona State Mu-
seum Archaeological Series 98. University of Arizona. Tucson.
Jewe, Roberta A.
1986 An Overview of the Prehistory of the Roosevelt Area.
In Research Issues in the Prehistory of Central Arizona: The
Central Arizona Water Control Study. vol. I, edited by G. E.
Rice and R. Most, pp. 144-199. Anthropological Field Studies
No.8. Arizona State University, Tempe.
Kingh, Keith W.
2006 The Promise and Challenge of Archaeological Data Inte-
graon. American Anquity 71:567-578.
Kingh, Keith W., Jerey H. Altschul, Mary C. Beaudry, Rob-
ert D. Drennan, Ann P. Kinzig, Timothy A. Kohler, W. Fredrick
Limp, Herbert D. G. Maschner, William K. Michener, Timothy R.
Pauketat, Peter Peregrine, Jeremy A. Sablo, Tony J. Wilkinson,
Henry T. Wright, and Melinda A. Zeder
2014a Grand challenges for archaeology. American Anquity
79(1):5-24, doi:10.1073/pnas.1324000111, accessed 25
2014b Grand challenges for archaeology. Proceedings of
the Naonal Academy of Science (PNAS) 111 (3):879-880,
doi:10.1073/pnas.1324000111, accessed 25 July 2016.
McManamon, Francis P. and Keith W. Kingh
2010 Digital Anquity: Transforming Archaeological Data
into Knowledge. The SAA Archaeological Record 10(2):37-
accessed 4 July 2016.
Pedrick, Kathryn E.
1992 Introducon. In Developing Perspecves on Tonto Ba-
sin Prehistory, edited by Charles 1. Redman, Glen E. Rice,
and Kathryn E. Pedrick, pp. 1-4. Roosevelt Monograph Se-
ries 2, Anthropological Field Studies 26. Oce of Cultural
Resource Management, Department of Anthropology, Ari-
zona State University, Tempe. hps://core.tdar.org/docu-
prehistory, accessed 9 August 2016.
Rice, Glen E.
1998 Migraon, Emulaon, and Tradion in Tonto Basin
Prehistory. In A Synthesis of Tonto Basin Prehistory: The
Roosevelt Archaeology Studies, 1989 to 1998, edited by
Glen E. Rice, pp. 231-241. Roosevelt Monograph Series
12/Anthropological Field Studies 41, Oce of Cultural Re-
sources Management, Department of Anthropology, Ari-
zona State University, Tempe. Accessed 26 July 2016, tDAR
record 394298, hps://core.tdar.org/document/394298/
chaeology-studies-1989-to-1998, accessed 25 July 2016.
Rice, Glen E. (editor)
1990 A Design for Salado Research. Roosevelt Monograph
Series 1, Anthropological Field Studies 22. Oce of Cultural
Resource Management, Department of Anthropology, Ari-
zona State University, Tempe. Accessed 18 July 2016, tDAR
record 394282, hps://core.tdar.org/document/394282/
a-design-for-salado-research, accessed 25 July 2016.
Rice, Glen E., and Todd W. Bostwick (editors)
1986 Studies in the Prehistory of Central Arizona: The Cen-
tral Arizona Water Control Study. Vol. 2. Part 1. Dra Ms.
on le Oce of Cultural Resource Management, Depart-
ment of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe.
Rice, Glen E. and Thomas R. Lincoln
1998 The Bureau of Reclamaon Archaeology Projects in
the Tonto Basin. In A Synthesis of Tonto Basin Prehistory:
The Roosevelt Archaeology Studies, 1989 to 1998, edited
by Glen E. Rice, pp. 1-10. Roosevelt Monograph Series 12/
Anthropological Field Studies 41, Oce of Cultural Re-
sources Management, Department of Anthropology, Ari-
zona State University, Tempe. Accessed 6 May 2015, tDAR
gy-studies-1989-to-1998, accessed 25 July 2016.