Archaeological Survey Data Quality, Durability, and Use in the United States

Abstract

High-quality archaeological surveys and data are vital to preservation planning and mitigation efforts. Federal and state historic preservation offices (SHPOs) are accumulating and reviewing more data at an ever-faster pace. Given the critical nature of this information, a SAA task force was charged with assessing current survey practices and concerns. Our review indicates that survey policies and archaeological standards have improved substantially over the last two decades, but SHPOs remain challenged by insufficient professional training for field archaeologists, the need for standardization and integration of new technologies in field work, reporting, and review, as well as the sheer quantity and variety of digital data. A number of analytical tools and metrics are available to assess data quality, but seemingly there is not time or money for states to evaluate how to improve existing and future survey data. We draw upon a survey of SHPOs, a review of current literature, and our own experience to assess archaeological survey quality, data utility and durability for current and anticipated future uses. We offer suggestions on how to move forward, including consideration of an e-106 system for streamlining transfer and exchange of digital data and upgrading current approaches to survey and planning.Prospección y datos arqueológicos de alta calidad son vitales para los esfuerzos de planificación y mitigación. Oficinas federales y estatales de preservación histórica (SHPOs) están acumulando y revisando datos a un ritmo cada vez más rápido. Dada la naturaleza crítica de esta información, una fuerza especial de SAA fue encargada de evaluar las prácticas de las prospecciones actuales y preocupaciones asociadas. Nuestra revisión indica que las políticas de prospecciones y los estándares arqueológicos han mejorado sustancialmente en las últimas dos décadas, pero SHPOs todavía enfrentan los desafíos de insuficiente entrenamiento profesional para los arqueólogos de campo, la falta de normalización y la integración de nuevas tecnologías en el trabajo de campo, presentación de informes y revisión de formas, así como por la gran cantidad de datos digitales. Una serie de herramientas y métricas de análisis están disponibles para evaluar la calidad de los datos, pero al parecer no hay tiempo ni dinero para que los estados evalúen cómo mejorar los datos de las encuestas actuales y futuras. Nos basamos en una encuesta de SHPOs, una revisión de la literatura actual, y nuestra propia experiencia para evaluar la calidad, la utilidad y la durabilidad de los datos arqueológicos para las necesidades actuales y futuras anticipadas. Ofrecemos sugerencias de cómo seguir adelante, incluyendo la consideración de un sistema de e -106 para agilizar la transferencia y el intercambio de datos digitales y la mejora de los enfoques actuales para prospección y planificación.Archaeological survey forms the backbone of cultural resource management in the United States. As such, archaeologists need to better understand the uses, durabilit...

Investigating the Role of Archaeological Information and Practice in Landscape Conservation Design and Planning in North America

“…Our comparison of the Florida and Pennsylvania databases reinforces several of the issues elucidated by Wilshusen and colleagues (2016) in their evaluation of the quality and durability of survey data managed by SHPOs across the United States. They note the need for standardization in the forms of digital data collected and managed to increase the efficacy of data sharing among different agencies at regional and national scales.…”

“…As we initiated our landscape cooperative study, the Society for American Archaeology (SAA) published the important findings of its three task forces created to address issues related to landscape-scale cultural resource management and archaeological resources (Altschul 2016; Doelle et al 2016; McManamon et al 2016; Wilshusen et al 2016). These task forces individually addressed three separate but interrelated issues: “1) survey data quality, durability, and use; 2) incorporating archaeological resources in regional land-use plans; and 3) valuing archaeological resources” (Altschul 2016:102).…”

Balancing the Scales: Harmonizing Heritage Management, Site-Specific Research, and the Mitigation of Adverse Effects

“…All models inherently have some weaknesses and flaws, but even a rudimentary predictive model that helps us to identify settlement patterning changes through time or targeted research that improves our ability to classify previously recorded sites more accurately may be among the best tools for improving how we can make older site records more useful and reliable for current research and heritage management (Chuipka et al 2010;Schlanger et al 2015). What we seek over time are progressively more straightforward, even elegant, regional datasets that maximize the usefulness, durability, and accuracy of those site data that we can consistently expect to record (Wilshusen et al 2016). But we have to start with what we have now, if we are to discover what data we can depend on to achieve more and more realistic models of past landscapes.…”

“…A larger scale of planning will necessitate that we evaluate the accuracy, durability, and usability of our current regional survey data (Wilshusen et al 2016). We must do this if we are to begin to build a first approximation model of past cultural landscapes.…”

How Agriculture Took Hold in the Mesa Verde Region: A Review of Recent Research on the Late Basketmaker-Early Pueblo Periods (A.D. 500-920)

“…And how do we create records that can be useful for evaluation and planning purposes both now and 20 years from now (Heilen and Altschul 2013)? We need to subject our recording methods, our SHPO data, and our licensed archaeologists to greater scrutiny, and test the effectiveness and consistency of our current recording methods and forms (Wilshusen et al 2016).…”