Dolores Archaeological Program Technical Reports, DAP-056: Introduction to 1980 Dolores Archaeological Program Reports

Summary

The DAP (Dolores Archaeological Program) has undertaken a far more intensive and ambitious report production task than was envisioned by anyone concerned with the program at its inception . This brief chapter explains the complexion and flavor of DAP reports and why they are appearing in a variety of formats and at differing levels of detail on a program-wide basis .

Program methodology and technique (Lipe and Kohler 1981) have been oriented toward ensuring comparability among DAP reports. Analytic systems have been gradually standardized and the classification of spatial, temporal, and functional units has been increasingly formalized.

The DAP Research Design (Kane et al. 1981) has been used to structure DAP investigative work. Analytic and classificatory systems have, therefore, been oriented toward the study of the specific problem domains of economy and adaptation, paleodemography, social organization and settlement patterns, extraregional relationships, and culture process. This orientation has facilitated the production of reports that both directly and indirectly address various aspects of the research design.

A variety of report types address the questions posed by the research design: descriptive individual site reports and survey reports; task specialist reports, which encompass basic analytical information; appendixes to descriptive site reports; task specialist mid level research designs; special studies (e.g ., a study of ritual activities and artifacts, comparative garden investigations, architectural studies, projectile point studies, etc.); modeling studies which are designed to incorporate all available information to address the basic research design questions; and cultural synthetic reports (refer to Kane 1981 for a preliminary account of the scope of this objective).

Due to the length of time over which data from the project area has been compiled and due to various philosophies and goals used in recording, there are obvious differences in the nomenclature used in various reports. This situation has been most clearly exhibited in the inconsistent assignment of administrative names to cultural units. Examples of differing recording procedures include the assignment of a single site number to a complex village (Grass Mesa Village , Site 5MT23), which is then administratively subdivided into areas; the assignment of 21 individual site numbers to a single community (McPhee Community); and the assignment of a single site number to a large village complex (Windy Ruin, Site 5MT4353) with 19 identified rubble mounds. The result is t hat tabulating the number of designated sites does not accurately indicate the number of cultural units that have been recorded. It has been emphasized in a number of reports and policy statements that we are dealing with the cultural resource of the DAP project area and not with a number of "sites ."

Keywords

Spatial Coverage

Individual & Institutional Roles

Principal Investigator(s): David A. Breternitz

Sponsor(s): USDI Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Regional Office

Prepared By(s): University of Colorado, Dolores Archaeological Program

Submitted To(s): USDI Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Regional Office

Record Identifiers

Bureau of Reclamation Contract No.(s): 8-07-40-S0562

Notes

General Note: As of April 2015, this and additional reports are hosted on the US Bureau of Land Management, Dolores Archaeological Program website; http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/fo/ahc/dolores_archaeological/dap_technical_reports.html

File Information