ArticlePDF Available

Making Archaeological Data and Information Discoverable, Accessible, and Usable for 21st Century Research: The Theodore Roosevelt Dam Archaeological Project, Tonto Basin, Arizona

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

and data sets resulting from the archaeological investigations un-dertaken for the Theodore Roosevelt Dam project in the Tonto Basin of central Arizona. At present, this tDAR collection includes over two dozen volumes (more than 11,200 pages), plus several articles that present the results of the investigations undertaken as a part of the Roosevelt Dam project. In addition, we present 205 spreadsheets of key data tables extracted from the comprehensive database of the largest of these projects (the Roosevelt Platform Mound Study [RPMS]) along with the complete database of archaeological data for that project. We intend to continue to expand this collection, especially with databases and extracted spreadsheets from the other two projects. Making the collection of data and information available in tDAR allows anyone with an Internet connection to benefit from unlimited, text-searchable access to the full set of reports that represents core documentation of the Salado phenomenon, important aspects of the ancient Hohokam culture, and a detailed case study of the economic and social organization of village-scale human societies. By providing access to key data tables and the full database we hope to facilitate and stimulate comparative studies and additional analysis of this enormous set of data that will further advance our knowledge of these ancient cultures and the workings of human societies more generally.
Content may be subject to copyright.
60
ABStrACt
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. Kingh
Francis P. McManamon / Execuve Director, Center for Digital Anquity, School of Human Evoluon and Social Change,
Arizona State University / fpmcmanamon@asu.edu
Keith W. Kingh / Professor and Associate Director, School of Human Evoluon and Social Change, Arizona State University /
kingh@asu.edu.
The Center for Archaeology and Society (CAS), the Phoenix Area
Oce of the Bureau of Reclamaon, and the Center for Digital Anq-
uity (DA) have created and are making freely available, via tDAR (the
Digital Archaeological Record), a large collecon of reports, arcles,
and data sets resulng from the archaeological invesgaons un-
dertaken for the Theodore Roosevelt Dam project in the Tonto Basin
of central Arizona. At present, this tDAR collecon includes over two
dozen volumes (more than 11,200 pages), plus several arcles that
present the results of the invesgaons undertaken as a part of the
Roosevelt Dam project. In addion, we present 205 spreadsheets
of key data tables extracted from the comprehensive database of
the largest of these projects (the Roosevelt Plaorm Mound Study
[RPMS]) along with the complete database of archaeological data
for that project. We intend to connue to expand this collecon, es-
pecially with databases and extracted spreadsheets from the other
two projects. Making the collecon of data and informaon avail-
able in tDAR allows anyone with an Internet connecon to benet
from unlimited, text-searchable access to the full set of reports that
represents core documentaon of the Salado phenomenon, impor-
tant aspects of the ancient Hohokam culture, and a detailed case
study of the economic and social organizaon of village-scale human
sociees. By providing access to key data tables and the full database
we hope to facilitate and smulate comparave 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
sociees more generally.
IntroDUCtIon
Recognizing the value of the Naon’s cultural heri-
tage, the Naonal Historic Preservaon Act (NHPA)
seeks to migate the damage to or loss of signicant
archaeological resources resulng from federal under-
takings. The basic idea, of course, is that the physical
loss is migated by rescuing the informaon that those
resources have to contribute. To sasfy the goals of
NHPA—which is to say, in order for the migaon to be
truly eecve—two condions must be sased. 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 informaon obtained
must be eecvely preserved for future use.
The rst condion is primarily sased through the
producon and distribuon of project reports. The pro-
fessionals doing the eld work are responsible for docu-
menng the archaeological invesgaons and for ana-
lyzing and synthesizing the data in a way that it becomes
knowledge about the past. However, the contribuons
of even the best of reports are usually aenuated by
their quite limited distribuon.
The second condion, the preservaon of the data
for future use, has two components: (1) the curaon of
the physical objects recovered and associated eld and
lab paper records in a recognized repository that can
curate the arfacts and paper records appropriately;
and (2) the preservaon and disseminaon of the data
and informaon learned from the project in forms that
can be reanalyzed to reassess the inial results or to
address new research quesons. The laer component
tradionally was accomplished by publicaon of de-
scripve project reports that include rich data tables or
appendices. However, with the connual renement of
archaeological methods and the explosion in the kinds
and detail of data recorded, even the most detailed tra-
dional reports are not eecve means of conveying
data and informaon for reanalysis and reuse. The Digi-
tal Archaeological Record (tDAR) repository where the
digital documents and data sets described in this arcle
are archived is easily accessible via the Internet and pro-
vides a search capability that disnguishes it from physi-
cal repositories and provides a unique and beer means
of fullling the goals of NHPA.
61 JAzArch Fall 2016McManamon and Kintigh
In this arcle we focus on the two challenges iden-
ed above, eecve disseminaon of the knowledge
gained from archaeological invesgaons, in parcular
those related to data recovery projects that migate the
adverse impacts of development projects, and preserv-
ing and making available the data and informaon ob-
tained in order that our understanding of the past can
connue to benet from completed projects. We do this
in the context of one of the largest archaeological im-
pact migaon 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 quesons.
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 eorts for
other projects and to publicize and document what we
have done with the Roosevelt project in order that the
project data, informaon, and knowledge will connue
to be used to advance our understanding of the past.
The Center for Archaeology and Society (CAS;
hps://shesc.asu.edu/research/centers/center-archae-
ology-and-society), the Phoenix Area Oce of the Bu-
reau of Reclamaon, and the Center for Digital Anquity
(DA; hp://www.digitalanquity.org/) at Arizona State
University have created and are making freely available,
via tDAR, a large collecon of reports, arcles, and data
sets resulng from the archaeological invesgaons un-
dertaken for the Theodore Roosevelt Dam project in the
Tonto Basin of central Arizona: hps://core.tdar.org/col-
lecon/59352/theodore-roosevelt-dam-archaeological-
project.
At present, this tDAR collecon includes over two
dozen volumes (more than 11,200 pages), plus sev-
eral arcles that present the results of the invesga-
ons undertaken by dierent organizaons as a part
of the Roosevelt Dam project. In addion, we present
205 spreadsheets of key data tables extracted from the
comprehensive database of the largest of these projects
(the Roosevelt Plaorm Mound Study [RPMS]) along
with the complete database of archaeological data for
that project. We intend to connue to expand this col-
lecon, 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 systemacally
collected data recorded using dierent coding conven-
ons, across mulple sites and data sets, archaeologists
at ASU, led by Kingh, began the conceptual develop-
ment of tDAR in 1999. In 2004, the Naonal Science
Foundaon funded a planning workshop with 31 parci-
pants drawn from archaeology and computer science.
The workshop developed recommendaons concerning
archaeology’s need for an informaon infrastructure
(Kingh 2006). Based on these recommendaons, in
2006, NSF funded development of a prototype digital
informaon infrastructure—tDAR, the Digital Archaeo-
logical Record. This research developed and deployed a
prototype infrastructure for synthec and comparave
research based on a novel strategy of query- oriented,
on-the-y, ontology-based data integraon.
The Andrew W. Mellon Foundaon’s interest in sup-
porng scholarly communicaon among archaeologists
led it, in 2006, to convene a mul-instuonal group of
archaeologists to plan the development of a digital re-
pository for archaeological data. This led to a planning
grant that the Foundaon funded in 2007. The grant
focused on developing an organizaonal structure and
business model that could support a self-sucient digi-
tal repository centered on preservaon and access. The
planning grant resulted in substanal addional funding
by the Mellon Foundaon for the creaon, in 2009, of
the Center for Digital Anquity at ASU and the transfor-
maon 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
informaon and to ensure the long-term preservaon
and availability of these data and informaon for future
use. The Center builds content and manages tDAR’s de-
velopment, maintenance, and nancial and technical
sustainability (McManamon and Kingh 2010). The Mel-
lon Foundaon has provided addional grants to sup-
port these eorts. DA also obtains revenue by collecng
modest upload fees for content deposited in tDAR and
by providing digital curaon services to a wide range of
individual researchers, organizaons, and public agen-
cies that require a repository in which they can manage
access to and preservaon and use of their data. Clients
as varied as the Eastern Mimbres Archaeological Pro-
gram, the North Atlanc Biocultural Organizaon, the
Maryland Archaeological and Conservaon Laboratory,
Archaeological Consulng Services, Ltd., Logan Simpson
Design, Inc., the PaleoResearch Instute, the SRI Press,
the Bureau of Land Management, the Naonal Park Ser-
vice, the US Air Force, and the US Army Corps of Engi-
neers make use of tDAR.
Since its September 2010 public producon launch,
tDAR has become an important resource for meeng the
data discovery, access, management, and preservaon
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 organizaons have deposited data in tDAR.
Content grows daily. tDAR contains data and informa-
62 JAzArch Fall 2016McManamon and Kintigh
on from all seven connents, including 371,000 bib-
liographic records; nearly 10,000 full text documents;
19,800 images, 158 3D scans, 85 geospaal 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
templates (hp://www.tdar.org/why-tdar/contribute/).
Alternavely, depositors can take advantage of digital
curaon services oered by DA sta experts.
Regarding the Theodore Roosevelt Dam Archaeo-
logical Project data in tDAR, anyone with an Internet
connecon can benet from unlimited, text-searchable
access to the reports and data sets that represents core
documentaon of the Salado phenomenon, important
aspects of the ancient Hohokam culture, and a detailed
case study of the economic and social organizaon of
village-scale human sociees. Further, by providing ac-
cess to key data tables and the full database we hope
to facilitate and smulate comparave studies and ad-
dional analysis of this enormous set of data that will
further advance our knowledge.
thE thEoDorE rooSEvElt DAM
ArChAEologICAl ProJECt
Between 1989 and 1993, the US Bureau of Reclama-
on funded four substanal eld archaeological proj-
ects in the Tonto Basin, all associated with the modica-
on of the Theodore Roosevelt Dam that would raise
the lake level. Most of these invesgaons were carried
out on lands administered by Tonto Naonal Forest. Ear-
lier archaeological surveys in the area around Roosevelt
Lake had idened hundreds of sites that likely would
be aected as a result of the dam modicaon (Fuller
et al. 1976; Jewe 1986; Rice and Bostwick 1986), many
of which were expected to be eligible for the Naonal
Register of Historic Places. Therefore, to comply with
Secon 106 of the Naonal Historic Preservaon Act
(NHPA), the Bureau of Reclamaon, the lead agency for
the undertaking, determined to migate the adverse
eect to the archaeological resources by a large-scale
data recovery eort. The reports, other documents, and
data described and made available in this tDAR collec-
on are the results of this eort.
The data recovery program was divided into four
projects, each of which had dierent research objec-
ves and were conducted by separate research teams
that coordinated their acvies (Pedrick 1992:2-3; Rice
and Lincoln 1998:1-3).
The Roosevelt Bajada Survey (RBS) was a sampling
survey by SWCA Inc. of porons of the bajada and foot-
hills surrounding Tonto Basin (Ahlstrom et al. 1991).
The Roosevelt Rural Sites Study (RRSS) conducted by
Stascal Research focused on small agricultural and
habitaon sites in the rural areas away from the large
selements 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 occupaon of Tonto Basin (Doelle et al.
1992). The Roosevelt Plaorm Mound Study (RPMS),
conducted by the Oce of Cultural Resource Manage-
ment at Arizona State University (ASU), studied the or-
ganizaon of Classic period plaorm mound complexes
(Rice 1990). As the study progressed, Reclamaon mod-
ied the Plaorm Mound Study to include the invesga-
on of a series of 44 sites on the bajada that had been
idened in the survey conducted by SWCA (Rice and
Lincoln 1998:1).
The locaon of the studies covered by this tDAR
collecon 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) esmated that three quarters of the sites in-
vesgated 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-
vesgaon of an important pre-Hohokam village.
tDAR’s digital collecons from the Theodore Roos-
evelt Dam Archaeological Project are organized in sub-
collecons that generally match the organizaon of the
dierent studies that conducted and reported the origi-
nal eldwork and research (Table 1).
thE rooSEvElt PlAtforM MoUnD
StUDY (rPMS)
The largest sub-collecon 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 informaon collected at the sites and mul-
site areas invesgated as part of the archaeological
study. The RPMS sub-collecon is organized into nine
further sub-collecons that disnguish among the ma-
jor sites and areas tested and excavated. The RPMS
sub-collecon also includes the project research design,
background research documents, the comprehensive
laboratory manual, three large reports that synthesize
the research, and several short arcles on various as-
pects of the research (Table 1).
The RPMS examined the physical and social orga-
nizaon of three Classic Hohokam period community
complexes in the Tonto Basin of Arizona. The data come
from the project’s invesgaon of 79 prehistoric sites
63 JAzArch Fall 2016McManamon and Kintigh
arranged in three spaal clusters around the current
Lake Roosevelt, known as Pinto Creek, Cline Terrace,
and Rock Island. Excavaons 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 invesgated by this project. The eld work,
lab processing, analysis, and reporng was carried out
between 1989 and 1998. Field studies lasted approxi-
mately four of these years.
The RPMS tDAR collecon includes sub-collecons
for the major site areas excavated and tested. There are
two sub-collecons 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-
lecon apiece also containing the site reports and data
sets for these areas. The RPMS tDAR collecon includes
a sub-collecon containing the project research design,
a collecon of arcles on Tonto Basin prehistory, and
the project eld and laboratory manuals. The nal sub-
collecon of the set contains reports on topics cross-cut-
ng site descripons and data, including: environment
and subsistence, ceramics and social organizaon, and
a synthesis of Tonto Basin prehistory. This sub-collecon
also includes several shorter summary arcles and the
RPMS Access database and users’ guide.
The RPMS research focused on the nature of social
organizaon and economic acvies 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 tradion arrived, probably from
the west and southwest. They brought with them dif-
ferent ways of organizing selements and construcng
dwellings, the use of cremaon as a burial pracce, and
a variety of dierent kinds of arfacts and arfact styles.
Beginning at the end of the 13th century (A.D. 1280 to
Figure 1: The general locaon of the studies described in this arcle.
64 JAzArch Fall 2016McManamon and Kintigh
1320), a second substanal 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 immigraon re-
sulted in the establishment of two disnct kinds of set-
tlement paerns in the Basin. One of these was associ-
ated with centers that contained plaorm mounds. The
other paern had a large primary village surrounded by
clusters of small, dispersed selements.
One of the key interpreve results of the RPMS re-
search was that although Classic period selements and
associated communies were large, the amount and
range of control over these communies by their lead-
ers was surprisingly limited. Rice summarizes the rela-
onship that seems to have existed between communi-
es and their leaders:
Plaorm mound were centers that held to-
gether the elements of a dispersed selement
system, but the basis for this integraon was ide-
ological, not administrave. By the 14th century,
plaorm mounds were the residences of elite
members of the community...The people who oc-
cupied [these residences] included specialists
responsible for conducng and preparing cere-
monial acvies, but the basis for their status did
not extend to heightened economic privileges or
responsibilies (Rice 1998:237).
thE rooSEvElt CoMMUnItY
DEvEloPMEnt StUDY (rCDS)
The RCDS tDAR sub-collecon 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-
laons residing at and ulizing several sites within the
project area. The RCDS invesgaons involved the test-
ing and excavaon 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 excavaon. In addion, extensive data
were gathered at the remaining 21 sites (Doelle 1992:1-
4).
The RCDS project area contained three large Classic
period sites, two of which have plaorm 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
Grin Wash yielded denive late Classic, or Gila phase
(ca. AD. 1300-1450), ceramics. Examinaon 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 sucient horizontal stragra-
phy to permit broad-scale access to deposits that date at
least as early as the Gila Bue phase (ca. AD. 750- 850).
Table 1. Theodore Roosevelt Archaeological Project tDAR Collecon. Sub-collecon Contents and Organizaon
Lake Roosevelt and Tonto Basin Sub-collecons Number of Documents Number of Data Sets
Roosevelt Plaorm Mound Study (RPMS) 18 206
RPMS: A Design for Salado Research, Developing Perspecves on Tonto Basin
Prehistory, and the RPMS Field and Laboratory Manuals
3 --
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 Organizaon, Summary Arcles and Other Documents,
Users Guide to the Project Access Data Set, and Access Data Set
8 1
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 publicaon
series, Anthropological Papers No. 12, 13, 14, and 15.
The rst is a single volume that includes the research
design for the overall invesgaon. Anthropological Pa-
pers No. 13 consists of two volumes that provide infor-
maon about the project background and descripve
informaon on the excavaon and tesng of sites in the
project area. These volumes include site and feature de-
scripons, site and feature maps, general arfact data,
and preliminary interpretaons 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, Grin
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 arfact 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 occupaon of the RCDS
project area and the Tonto Basin (Doelle 1992:1-4).
thE rooSEvElt rUrAl
SItES StUDY (rrSS)
The RRSS tDAR sub-collecon contains four volumes
describing the eld work and other research conducted
for this study by Stascal Research, Inc. (SRI). The re-
ports were published as part of the SRI Technical Series.
The RRSS was designed to study small habitaon, ag-
ricultural, and resource processing sites, located away
from the main centers of prehistoric habitaon in the
Tonto Basin. This study complements the other studies
and contributes to the overall synthec study of Tonto
Basin prehistory.
The specic research focus of the RRSS was docu-
menng the change over me of prehistoric rural land-
use systems in the Tonto Basin (Ciolek-Torrello, et al
1990:1-3). The RRSS invesgated 29 prehistoric sites
grouped into six study areas located in the bajada zone
surrounding the lake. The rst report presents the in-
vesgaon’s research design. The second volume docu-
ments the results of site excavaons and material cul-
ture analyses and describes a preliminary model of rural
selement types and changes in rural selement and
subsistence during the Formave period in the Tonto
Basin. The third report presents the results of archaeo-
botanical, soil, and paleoclimac analyses. These results
are examined within an interpreve framework devel-
oped from an examinaon 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 specic 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 arfacts in-
cluding more than 700,000 potsherds. In addion to the
reports, these invesgaons 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 organizaon, economic pracces,
populaon movements, and cultural and social change.
Summarizing the RPMS synthesis report, Rice noted
that
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 populaons of the Tonto Ba-
sin were organized and how they related to the
populaons of surrounding regions. Several of the
hypotheses…dealt with the degree of cooperaon
that ought to occur between selements in trade
or subsistence, posing that there was either a lot
or only a lile cooperaon. None of the hypothe-
ses prepared us, however, for the nding that the
relaonships among selement were oen highly
compeve. People of the Tonto Basin compet-
ed for agricultural land, trade contacts, and ul-
mately for the occupancy of the basin itself (Rice
1998:231).
Users of the Theodore Roosevelt Dam Archaeo-
logical Project tDAR collecon have the opportunity to
absorb, ulize, and reexamine the important interpre-
taons of the various studies provided in the exisng
reports. They are also able to access and use the for-
midable datasets derived from these invesgaons to
address new quesons of broad signicance, including
many from the Grand Challenges for Archaeology (Table
2 and Kingh et al. 2014a and b).
The potenal impact of future research ulizing 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 addion
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 Intersecons Project tDAR collecon, hps://core.
tdar.org/collecon/29291/phoenix-basin-archaeology-
the-intersecons-project).
tDAR’s value for comparave and synthec research
will connue to grow as more organizaons 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, Communies, and Complexity
1. How do leaders emerge, maintain themselves, and transform society?
2. Why and how do social inequalies 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 organizaon of human communies at varying scales emerge from and constrain the
acons of their members?
5. How and why do small-scale human communies grow into spaally and demographically larger
and polically more complex enes?
6. How can systemac invesgaons 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 conict—both internal faconal violence and external warfare—in the evoluon
of complex cultural formaons?
B. Resilience, Persistence, Transformaon and Collapse
1. What factors have allowed for dierenal persistence of sociees?
2. What are the roles of social and environmental diversity and complexity in creang 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, polical, and ritual systems?
C. Movement, Mobility, and Migraon
1. What processes led to, and resulted from, the global dispersal of modern humans?
2. What are the relaonships among environment, populaon dynamics, selement structure, and
human mobility?
3. How do humans occupy extreme environments, and what cultural and biological adaptaons
emerged as a result?
4. Why does migraon occur and why do migrant groups maintain idenes in some circumstances
and adopt new ones in others?
D. Cognion, Behavior, and Identy
1. What are the biophysical, sociocultural, and environmental interacons out of which modern human
behavior emerged?
2. How do people form idenes, and what are the aggregate long-term and large-scale eects of
these processes?
3. How do spaal and material reconguraons of landscapes and experienal elds aect societal
development?
E. Human-Environment Interacons
1. How have human acvies shaped Earth’s biological and physical systems, and when did humans
become dominant drivers of these systems?
2. What factors drive or constrain populaon 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 domescaon?
5. Why do agricultural economies emerge, spread, and intensify, and what are the relaonships among
producve capacity, populaon, and innovaon?
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-
and long-terms?
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 arcle in this special edion of the
Journal. Glen also contributed important substanve
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 inial concerns. We acknowledge
and appreciated early comments and assistance by Je
Altschul, Bill Doelle, Lauren Jelinek, and Arleyn Simon.
Creaon of the Theodore Roosevelt Dam Archaeological
Project tDAR collecon was supported by the Center for
Archaeology and Society, School of Human Evoluon
and Social Change and the Cultural Resource Manage-
ment Program, Phoenix Area Oce, Bureau of Reclama-
on.
rEfErEnCES
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, hps://core.tdar.org/document/402032/
the-roosevelt-bajada-survey-tonto-basin-gila-county-cen-
tral-arizona, accessed 25 July 2016.
Ciolek-Torrello, Richard S., Steven D. Shelley, Jerey H. Altschul
and John Welch
1990 Research Design. Roosevelt Rural Sites Study, Vol. 1.
Technical Series No. 28. Stascal Research, Tucson. Ac-
cessed 18 July 2016, tDAR # 378209, hps://core.tdar.org/
document/378209/the-roosevelt-rural-sites-study-volume-
1-research-design, accessed 25 July 2016.
Doelle, William H.
1992 Introducon. 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, hps://core.tdar.org/docu-
ment/378203/research-design-for-the-roosevelt-communi-
ty-development-study, accessed 25 July 2016.
Doelle, William H., Henry D. Wallace, Mark D. Elson, and Douglas
B. Craig
1992 Research Design for the Roosevelt Community Devel-
opment Study. Anthropological Papers No. 12. Center for
Desert Archaeology, Tucson. Accessed 18 July 2016, tDAR #
378203, hps://core.tdar.org/document/378203/research-
design-for-the-roosevelt-community-development-study,
accessed 25 July 2016.
Fuller, Steven L., A. E. Rogge, and Linda M. Gregonis
1976 Orme Alternaves: 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.
Kingh, Keith W.
2006 The Promise and Challenge of Archaeological Data Inte-
graon. American Anquity 71:567-578.
Kingh, Keith W., Jerey 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 Anquity
79(1):5-24, doi:10.1073/pnas.1324000111, accessed 25
July 2016.
2014b Grand challenges for archaeology. Proceedings of
the Naonal Academy of Science (PNAS) 111 (3):879-880,
doi:10.1073/pnas.1324000111, accessed 25 July 2016.
McManamon, Francis P. and Keith W. Kingh
2010 Digital Anquity: Transforming Archaeological Data
into Knowledge. The SAA Archaeological Record 10(2):37-
40. hp://core.tdar.org/document/376844/digital-anq-
uity-transforming-archaeological-data-into-knowledge,
accessed 4 July 2016.
Pedrick, Kathryn E.
1992 Introducon. In Developing Perspecves 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. Oce of Cultural
Resource Management, Department of Anthropology, Ari-
zona State University, Tempe. hps://core.tdar.org/docu-
ment/406896/developing-perspecves-on-tonto-basin-
prehistory, accessed 9 August 2016.
Rice, Glen E.
1998 Migraon, Emulaon, and Tradion 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, Oce of Cultural Re-
sources Management, Department of Anthropology, Ari-
zona State University, Tempe. Accessed 26 July 2016, tDAR
record 394298, hps://core.tdar.org/document/394298/
a-synthesis-of-tonto-basin-prehistory-the-roosevelt-ar-
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. Oce of Cultural
Resource Management, Department of Anthropology, Ari-
zona State University, Tempe. Accessed 18 July 2016, tDAR
record 394282, hps://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 Oce of Cultural Resource Management, Depart-
ment of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe.
Rice, Glen E. and Thomas R. Lincoln
1998 The Bureau of Reclamaon 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, Oce of Cultural Re-
sources Management, Department of Anthropology, Ari-
zona State University, Tempe. Accessed 6 May 2015, tDAR
#394298, hps://core.tdar.org/document/394298/a-syn-
thesis-of-tonto-basin-prehistory-the-roosevelt-archaeolo-
gy-studies-1989-to-1998, accessed 25 July 2016.
... Submissions to these institutions are complicated by myriad factors, including 1) inadequate incentives that promote good archiving practices (Kansa and Kansa 2013), 2) financial and labour costs of archiving, 3) Government agencies have yet to explicitly require curation of archaeological analytical documentation and supporting materials in a qualified digital archive and there are no simple means to assess penalties for non-compliance with current curation standards, and finally 4) not complying with ethical guidelines laid out by professional organisations. Despite these impediments, both real and perceived, there is a move by some CRM firms and governmental agencies responsible for cultural heritage management to use publicly available digital repositories (e.g., the Digital Archaeological Record [tDAR], OpenContext, and Digital Archaeological Archive of Comparative Slavery [DAACS]) to archive, and make accessible, their digital documents and datasets (Bates et al. 2020;Galle et al. 2019;McManamon et al. 2017b;2019;McManamon and Kintigh 2016;Schlanger et al. 2020). ...
Article
Full-text available
Archaeology in the United States is conducted by a number of different sorts of entities under a variety of legal mandates that lack uniform standards for data archiving. The difficulty of accessing data from projects in which one was not directly involved indicates an apparent reluctance to archive raw data and supplemental information with digital repositories to be reused in the future. There is hope that additional legislation, guidelines from professional organisations, and educational efforts will change these practices.
... Archaeology would benefit from the development of domain-specific registration templates, such as that for Social Psychology (van 't Veer and Giner-Sorolla 2016), or perhaps for specific types of research, on the model of the "replication recipe" for conducting replication experiments in various disciplines (Brandt et al. 2014). We hope that the current chapter can inform the development of such templates, perhaps in consultation with the proprietors of archaeological data repositories like Open Context (see Bissell 2010), tDAR (McManamon andKintigh 2016;McManamon et al. 2017), and the Archaeology Data Service, whose data dissemination and reuse expertise complements the field data management experience of the FAIMS Project. ...
Preprint
Full-text available
Archaeology has an issue with "just-in-time" research, where insufficient attention is paid to articulating a research design before fieldwork begins. Data collection, management, and analysis approaches are under-planned and, often, evolve during fieldwork. While reducing the amount of preparation time for busy researchers, these tendencies reduce the reliability of research by exacerbating the effects of cognitive biases and perverse professional incentives. They cost time later through the accrual of technical debt. Worse, these practices hinder research transparency and scalability by undermining the quality, consistency, and compatibility of data. Archaeologists would benefit from embracing the "preregistration revolution" sweeping other disciplines. By publicly committing to research design and methodology ahead of time, researchers can produce more robust research, generate useful and reusable datasets, and reduce the time spent correcting problems with data. Preregistration can accommodate the diversity of archaeological research, including quantitative and qualitative approaches, hypothesis-testing and hypothesis-generating research paradigms, and place-specific and generalizing aims. It is appropriate regardless of the technical approach to data collection and analysis. More broadly, it encourages a more considered, thoughtful approach to research design. Preregistration templates for the social sciences can be adopted for use by archaeologists.
... Some projects and programs in the United States and elsewhere have focused on making archaeological data (e.g., reports, images, data sets, and other kinds of information) more easily accessible for these kinds of comparative studies (e.g., Faniel et al. 2018, McManamon et al. 2017, McManamon & Kintigh 2016, Richards 2017). Altschul and colleagues (Altschul 2016a;Altschul et al. 2017Altschul et al. , 2018 promote new approaches to the synthesis of archaeological data and information to address important cultural, historic, and scientific topics. ...
Article
Keywords archaeology and the law, history of archaeology, cultural resource management, CRM Abstract Since its enactment over five decades ago, the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the organizations, policies, and regulations implementing it have strongly influenced how archaeology is conducted in the United States. The NHPA created a national network of archaeologists in government agencies. This network reviews the possible impact on important archaeological resources of tens of thousands of public projects planned each year. These reviews often include investigations, of which there have been millions. The archaeological profession has shifted from one oriented mainly on academic research and teaching to one focused on field investigations, planning, resource management, public outreach, and resource protection, bundled under the term cultural resource management (CRM). Since 1966, growth has produced good outcomes as well as some troubling developments. Current and new challenges include avoiding lock-step, overly bureaucratic procedures and finding the financial, professional, and technical resources, as well as political support, to build on the achievements so far. 553 Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2018.47:553-574. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org Access provided by Arizona State University on 10/25/18. For personal use only.
Article
Full-text available
Hundreds of thousands of archaeological investigations in the United States conducted over the last several decades have documented a large portion of the recovered archaeological record in the United States. However, if we are to use this enormous corpus to achieve richer understandings of the past, it is essential that both CRM and academic archaeologists change how they manage their digital documents and data over the course of a project and how this information is preserved for future use. We explore the nature and scope of the problem and describe how it can be addressed. In particular, we argue that project workflows must ensure that the documents and data are fully documented and deposited in a publicly accessible, digital repository where they can be discovered, accessed, and reused to enable new insights and build cumulative knowledge.
Article
Full-text available
Archaeology is a source of essential data regarding the fundamental nature of human societies. Researchers across the behavioral and social sciences use archeological data in framing foundational arguments. Archaeological evidence frequently undergirds debate on contemporary issues. We propose here to answer “What are archaeology’s most important scientific challenges?” The question arose as we sought to develop recommendations for investments in computational infrastructure that would enable the discipline to address its most compelling questions. Absent a list of these questions, we undertook to develop our own.
The Roosevelt Bajada Survey
  • Richard V N Ahlstrom
  • L Mark
  • Kirk C Chenault
  • Anderson
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, https://core.tdar.org/document/402032/ the-roosevelt-bajada-survey-tonto-basin-gila-county-central-arizona, accessed 25 July 2016.
  • Richard S Ciolek-Torrello
  • D Steven
  • Jeffrey H Shelley
  • John Altschul
  • Welch
Ciolek-Torrello, Richard S., Steven D. Shelley, Jeffrey H. Altschul and John Welch 1990 Research Design. Roosevelt Rural Sites Study, Vol. 1. Technical Series No. 28. Statistical Research, Tucson. Accessed 18 July 2016, tDAR # 378209, https://core.tdar.org/ document/378209/the-roosevelt-rural-sites-study-volume-1-research-design, accessed 25 July 2016.
  • William H Doelle
Doelle, William H. 1992 Introduction. In Research Design for the Roosevelt Community Development Study, pp. 1-7. Anthropological Papers No. 12. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson. Accessed 18 July 2016, tDAR # 378203, https://core.tdar.org/document/378203/research-design-for-the-roosevelt-community-development-study, accessed 25 July 2016.
Research Design for the Roosevelt Community Development Study
  • William H Doelle
  • D Henry
  • Mark D Wallace
  • Douglas B Elson
  • Craig
Doelle, William H., Henry D. Wallace, Mark D. Elson, and Douglas B. Craig 1992 Research Design for the Roosevelt Community Development Study. Anthropological Papers No. 12. Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson. Accessed 18 July 2016, tDAR # 378203, https://core.tdar.org/document/378203/researchdesign-for-the-roosevelt-community-development-study, accessed 25 July 2016.
Gregonis 1976 Orme Alternatives: The Archaeological Resources of Roosevelt Lake and Horseshoe Reservoir. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 98
  • Steven L Fuller
  • A E Rogge
Fuller, Steven L., A. E. Rogge, and Linda M. Gregonis 1976 Orme Alternatives: The Archaeological Resources of Roosevelt Lake and Horseshoe Reservoir. Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 98. University of Arizona. Tucson. Jewett, Roberta A.
Grand challenges for archaeology
  • Keith W Kintigh
  • H Jeffrey
  • Mary C Altschul
  • Robert D Beaudry
  • Ann P Drennan
  • Timothy A Kinzig
  • W Fredrick Kohler
  • Limp
  • D G Herbert
  • William K Maschner
  • Timothy R Michener
  • Peter Pauketat
  • Jeremy A Peregrine
  • Tony J Sabloff
  • Henry T Wilkinson
  • Melinda A Wright
  • Zeder
Kintigh, Keith W., Jeffrey H. Altschul, Mary C. Beaudry, Robert 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. Sabloff, Tony J. Wilkinson, Henry T. Wright, and Melinda A. Zeder 2014a Grand challenges for archaeology. American Antiquity 79(1):5-24, doi:10.1073/pnas.1324000111, accessed 25 July 2016.
  • Francis P Mcmanamon
  • Keith W Kintigh
McManamon, Francis P. and Keith W. Kintigh 2010 Digital Antiquity: Transforming Archaeological Data into Knowledge. The SAA Archaeological Record 10(2):37-40. http://core.tdar.org/document/376844/digital-antiquity-transforming-archaeological-data-into-knowledge, accessed 4 July 2016.
Roosevelt Monograph Series 2, Anthropological Field Studies 26. Office of Cultural Resource Management
  • Glen E Redman
  • Kathryn E Rice
  • Pedrick
Introduction. In Developing Perspectives on Tonto Basin Prehistory, edited by Charles 1. Redman, Glen E. Rice, and Kathryn E. Pedrick, pp. 1-4. Roosevelt Monograph Series 2, Anthropological Field Studies 26. Office of Cultural Resource Management, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe. https://core.tdar.org/document/406896/developing-perspectives-on-tonto-basinprehistory, accessed 9 August 2016. Rice, Glen E.
Anthropological Field Studies 41, Office of Cultural Resources Management
Migration, Emulation, and Tradition 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, Office of Cultural Resources Management, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe. Accessed 26 July 2016, tDAR record 394298, https://core.tdar.org/document/394298/ a-synthesis-of-tonto-basin-prehistory-the-roosevelt-archaeology-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. Office of Cultural Resource Management, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe. Accessed 18 July 2016, tDAR record 394282, https://core.tdar.org/document/394282/ a-design-for-salado-research, accessed 25 July 2016.