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

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 ."多洛雷斯考古项目（Dolores Archaeological Program，DAP）所承担的报告编制任务，远比项目启动时所有相关方的预期更为繁重且富有雄心。本简短章节将阐释DAP报告的特质与风格，以及为何该项目范围内的报告会呈现出多样的形式与差异化的详细程度。 项目的方法论与技术手段（Lipe与Kohler，1981）始终以保障DAP各报告间的可比性为核心导向。分析体系已逐步实现标准化，空间、时间与功能单元的分类也日趋规范化。 DAP研究设计（Kane等，1981）被用于架构DAP的各项调查工作。因此，分析与分类体系均围绕以下特定研究领域构建：经济与适应模式、古人口学、社会组织与聚落格局、区域间关系以及文化过程。这一研究导向催生了既能直接又能间接回应研究设计各维度议题的报告成果。 多种类型的报告可回应研究设计提出的各类问题：包括描述性单遗址报告与调查简报；涵盖基础分析信息的专项研究报告；描述性遗址报告的附录；专项研究中期设计；专题研究（例如，仪式活动与人工制品研究、对比性园艺调查、建筑研究、投射器尖状物研究等）；旨在整合全部可用信息以解答核心研究设计议题的建模研究；以及文化综合报告（相关目标范畴的初步说明可参考Kane 1981）。 由于项目区域的数据汇编周期漫长，且记录工作所秉持的理念与目标存在差异，不同报告中所使用的术语体系存在显著分歧，这一点在文化单元的行政命名不一致问题上体现得尤为突出。不同记录流程的案例包括：将复合型村落（Grass Mesa Village，遗址编号5MT23）分配单一遗址编号，后续再按行政区域拆分；将单个社区（McPhee社区）分配21个独立遗址编号；以及为包含19处已识别碎石堆的大型村落复合体（Windy Ruin，遗址编号5MT4353）分配单一遗址编号。其结果是，统计已指定遗址的数量并不能准确反映已记录的文化单元总数。多篇报告与政策声明均强调，我们所研究的是DAP项目区域内的文化资源，而非若干数量的“遗址”。