Provenience Data: Temporal-Spatial File

The provenience system used by the DAP allowed field personnel and analysts to identify where each item in a dataset was located within a site, as well as its spatial relationship with other archaeological contexts. Wilshusen et al. (1999:147) indicate that primary linkage among the DAP datasets is achieved through a few shared provenience attributes including the components of a Smithsonian trinomial designation, a field specimen number, and point location numbers—a subdivision of the field specimen number that indicates items found in association with a structure floor or occupation surface. However, the addition of an exhaustive set of contextual field observations moves the provenience dataset beyond a simple description of location. By using field specimen forms to record provenience data in the field, a “cohesive, comparable, and useful set of data” (Wilshusen et al. 1999:24) was produced through standardized terminology.These forms funnel contextual information from a general description of location, beginning with the archaeological site, into specific details about culturally and arbitrarily defined provenience units (Wilshusen et al. 1999).

The locational data in provenience file comes with basic attributes that minimally include components of a Smithsonian site number, a field specimen number, and point location number if applicable. A set of accepted conventions and terminology for describing and quantifying patterns in the archaeological record of the DAP area, otherwise known as program systematics in the DAP reports, has also been appended to the provenience dataset. The DAP systematics "package" actually incorporates a complementary set of temporal, spatial, and site typological units into a "common frame of reference" (Kane 1986:353) for navigating the archaeological record of the DAP. These units have been converted into attributes and made available to users in a single location. The size and complexity of temporal-spatial files such as this are consequences of reducing a vast amount of archaeological data into a theoretically based matrix of space and time. As a result, the interpretive power of these files should not be taken lightly (Wilshusen et al. 1999:147-148); but when used appropriately, the DAP's program systematics define and develop the plot, and even delineate the chapters, of the historic narrative detailing this portion of the Dolores River Valley (Wilshusen et al. 1999:33). Temporal-spatial designations for each location in the provenience dataset, supported by multiple lines of evidence, will be indicated by high confidence values; low-ranked values are supported by “best guesses” and the experience of crew members making the determination. Undisturbed cultural deposits provide the best contextual evidence for making temporal-spatial assignments and will be denoted by high integrity values. Items recovered from deposits containing increasingly higher proportions of extraneous materials will be represented by lower integrity values.

Variables for the temporal-spatial proveneince dataset have already been described by Wilshusen et al. (1999); see especially Chapter 2 by Christine G. Ward and Jonathan Till. In most cases, their descriptions are suitable for use as metadata and have been repeated almost verbatim here. Selected resources from the collection of published and unpublished DAP reports have been used for clarification in some cases and are appropriately referenced. The complexity of the temporal-spatial files is only minimally outlined here; anyone attempting to use the temporal-spatial provenience dataset should first consult Wilshusen et al (1999:31-42) and Kane (1986:353-435).