From Mining Sites to Mining Data: Archaeology's Future

Schlanger, Sarah H.; Wilshusen, Richard H.; Roberts, Heidi

doi:10.1080/00231940.2015.1118739

Cited by 14 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…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).…”

Section: The First Two Elements: Assembling the Baseline Data And Prementioning

confidence: 99%

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

Wilshusen

2019

Reviews in Colorado Archaeology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Southern Colorado River Basin context published in 1999 offered a remarkable overview of Mesa Verde regional archaeology. It reviewed the available research for each main period of occupation and, at the end of each summary, outlined some of the most important questions for future research. For the late Basketmaker and early Pueblo periods many of those research questions have been addressed or are now outdated. Current questions are not just about research, but also about how to balance long-term heritage management goals with site-specific research. The accelerating loss of cultural landscape to irrigated fields, energy development, and the expansion of country homes requires us to both broaden the scope of our preservation planning and the scale of our research questions to the landscape level. In this review I propose changes to the extent and nature of the Southern Colorado River Basin context area, as well as offer amendments to the previous period chronologies based on what we have learned. Lastly, I suggest an array of research themes for future work. Although this is not a state-approved context, it is offered as a challenge to us—whether we represent the state, a federal agency, a university, or a CRM firm—to think big about the research we do in the greater Mesa Verde region.

show abstract

Section: The First Two Elements: Assembling the Baseline Data And Prementioning

confidence: 99%

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

Wilshusen

2019

Reviews in Colorado Archaeology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the current day, how do we ensure that the ALP digital dataset is utilized and expanded upon in the same way that the DAP datasets are still being used? Increasingly, our challenge is to "mine" the sheer quantity of archaeological observations produced each year (Schlanger et al 2015). How do we sift through all the site forms and dots on the maps to do better archaeology, plan for the future, and support great research if the universities are not necessarily as intimately engaged in CRM as they once were?…”

Section: The Strengths and Weaknesses Of Big Projectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Clearly, the control and display of material wealth in the tenth-and eleventh-century great houses of Chaco Canyon and the San Juan Basin represent something fundamentally different from what is seen in these early Pueblo villages. Though various researchers (Van Dyke 2007; Ware 2014; Wilshusen 2015Wilshusen , 2017Wilshusen, Hurst, and Chuipka 2012;Wilshusen and Van Dyke 2006;Windes 2004Windes , 2007Windes , 2015 have argued that the architectural construction, community layout, ritual organization, and large size of particular Dolores village room blocks made them early candidates to be interpreted as "great houses, " these researchers also have emphasized the striking cultural and organizational differences between the late ninthcentury Mesa Verde villages north of the San Juan River and the tenth-century great houses south of the river.…”

Section: Early Great Houses and The Chaco Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

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)

Wilshusen¹

2018

Reviews in Colorado Archaeology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Major research projects and significant publications over the last two decades have fundamentally reframed our understanding of the Basketmaker III and Pueblo I periods in the Mesa Verde region. Whereas the last state historic context summaries for these periods, which were published in 1999, focused on the specifics of chronology building, site type definitions, settlement patterning, and other nuts and bolts issues, recent advances in database software and an increasing emphasis on regional research have turned our attention to the larger issues of how agriculture took hold and thereafter transformed the landscape north of the San Juan River. The relatively low populations and small-scale horticultural economies of the Basketmaker II period virtually disappeared between A.D. 500 and 600, to be replaced by a more intensive maize-dependent agricultural economy centered on large communities. The rapid expansion of early Pueblo agricultural settlements across the Mesa Verde region and the subsequent formation of large villages were in part fueled by the accelerating population growth that came with agricultural dependence. In turn, the late ninth-century breakup of these large villages contributed to population migration to the south of the San Juan River and the tenth-century emergence of what ultimately became the Chaco great house system. This review updates the 1999 Basketmaker III and Pueblo I overviews.

show abstract

“…A number of studies have also pointed to the problem of inadequate quality and intelligibility of data sets that promote interpretative errors and impede scientific replicability (Atici et al. ; Dallas ; Schlanger, Wilshusen, and Roberts ). Consensus must be reached for databases to be adequately standardized, but standardization can also inhibit interpretative choices and methodological innovation.…”

Section: Collaborations In Archaeological Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Anthropological Archaeology in 2016: Cooperation and Collaborations in Archaeological Research and Practice

Halperin

2017

American Anthropologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ideas of collaboration and cooperation are often implicit, taken-for-granted elements in archaeological models and theorizing. Overshadowed by a growing archaeological preoccupation with warfare, violence, conflict, and crisis, cooperative acts and collaborative dispositions appear to lack the same emotional resonance and changestimulating properties that attract archaeological attention. Nonetheless, many archaeological publications in 2016 directly take on notions of collaboration in thinking about the past and our roles as archaeologists and as citizens of the future. This review underscores the significance of thinking about collaboration and cooperation as ambiguous, ambivalent, multiscalar, and dynamic. At issue is not just the creation of community but also of getting things done and, of course, celebrating, revising, or reworking the intended or unintended consequences of those actions over the generations. [archaeology, collaboration, cooperation] RESUMEN Las ideas de colaboración y cooperación son a menudo elementos implícitos, que se dan por sentados en los modelos y teorización arqueológicos. Opacados por una creciente preocupación arqueológica por la guerra, la violencia, el conflicto, y la crisis, a los actos cooperativos y disposiciones colaborativas parecen faltarles la misma resonancia emocional y propiedades estimulantes de cambio que atraen la atención arqueológica. No obstante, muchas publicaciones arqueológicas en 2016 empiezan directamente a tratar las nociones de colaboración, reflexionando acerca del pasado y nuestros roles como arqueólogos y como ciudadanos del futuro. Esta revisión enfatiza la importancia de considerar la colaboración y cooperación como ambiguas, ambivalentes, de múltiples escalas, y dinámicas. En cuestión no sólo está la creación de comunidad, sino también el lograr que se hagan las cosas, y por supuesto, celebrar, revisar, o rehacer las consecuencias planeadas o no planeadas de esas acciones sobre generaciones. [arqueología, colaboración, cooperación]

show abstract

From Mining Sites to Mining Data: Archaeology's Future

Cited by 14 publications

References 8 publications

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

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

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)

Anthropological Archaeology in 2016: Cooperation and Collaborations in Archaeological Research and Practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About