Cultural Resources Priority Area Planning in Sub-Mogollon Arizona and New Mexico

Abstract

Regional planning is an essential element of comprehensive archaeological management programs. Most regional planning efforts in archaeology focus on predictive modeling to distinguish areas based on the likelihood of encountering archaeological resources. We discuss a complementary approach that uses known sites and expert opinion to identify spatially explicit cultural resource preservation priorities. Loosely analogous to biodiversity conservation planning, priority cultural resource assessments provide an evolving vision of an archaeological reserve network which, if managed appropriately, could protect a significant part of our cultural heritage. We outline an efficient approach to identifying spatially explicit Priority Areas within portions of Arizona and New Mexico. This information complements assessments of individual site eligibility for purposes of listing on the National Register of Historic Places by providing an added layer of regionally contextualized information at larger geographic scales. By establishing priorities, this information can also enhance cultural resource considerations in local, state, and federal land use planning. While our consideration of significance is based on the potential information content of the resource, we argue that this planning process can easily incorporate other cultural resource values and help to address preservation actions in support of this broader set of values.

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

“…We must continue to refine our methods for estimating and controlling error in archaeological observations and for standardizing information from multiple surveys to improve data reliability and utility for both planning (Laurenzi et al 2013) and research (Mills et al 2015; Ortman et al 2007). Much of this improvement is likely to go hand in hand with the application of digital tablets and other GPS-and GIS-enabled personal digital devices to fieldwork.…”

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

“…Contexts should aid us not only with identifying, evaluating, and registering properties, but also in assessing treatment and preservation options and heritage priorities. As mentioned earlier, there are some very promising initial significance modeling approaches that integrate multi-dimensional data to create adaptable, and yet accountable, historic preservation plans (Doelle et al 2016;Heilen et al 2016;Laurenzi et al 2013;Sebastian 2009). We need to accelerate the testing, utilization, and refinement of these "outside-the-box" heritage management models by federal agencies and SHPO if we are to do more than triage.…”

“…By tying our priorities to the information obtained from our initial predictive modeling we can make our system for evaluating resources more explicit and open to examination and revision so that all eligible sites and elements of the landscape get equal consideration, based on our preservation and research needs. A recent approach used for cultural resources planning in southern Arizona (Laurenzi et al 2013) offers an example of how we might begin to prioritize our heritage planning and preservation in particular locales. The strategy used in Arizona combines existing archaeological survey data, predictive locational models, and expert opinionsboth professional and avocational-in designing regional preservation priorities.…”

Incorporating Archaeological Resources in Landscape-Level Planning and Management

“…Recent efforts in Arizona and New Mexico have convened groups of cultural resource experts with local knowledge in order to identify specific high-priority areas for consideration in long-term preservation plans (Cushman 2002;Laurenzi 2012;Laurenzi et al 2013). The methods include five basic elements described by Laurenzi et al (2013:63): "geospatial data organization within a defined area (typically watersheds), expert opinion, field assessments, more detailed site survey information (when available), and land ownership records review."…”

“…The category "habitation" was further sorted according to presence of 10 or more pithouses or 12 or more adobe or masonry rooms. Further, Laurenzi et al (2013) suggest that leveraging research databases compiled for other studies (e.g., regional compilations of large sites or sites of certain categories) can prove useful in such priority-setting exercises. Indeed, in an ideal world, such priority setting efforts can both inform and be responsive to ongoing programs of regional scale research (Peeples et al 2016).…”