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.

Archaeologists often overlook museum collections for research purposes due to concerns about the representativeness of the artifacts in the collection. Such concerns can be addressed by comparing non-scientifically produced collections to collections of known standing, such as those from more modern projects, using the same exploratory data analysis and basic statistical methods that archaeologists use to compare sets of artifacts in other situations. As a case study, this article compares spindle whorls recovered during the 2007 excavations at the Aztec site of Calixtlahuaca with two museum collections of whorls attributed to the site. A variety of metric and non-metric traits were recorded for each item in the three collections and were compared using Kolmogrov-Smirnov, Chi-square, and Fisher's exact tests. Both museum collections show a bias toward more elaborately decorated pieces, but with varying side effects on other attributes of analytical interest.

The skeletal remains of several Native Americans were recovered in an eroded state from a creek bank in northeastern New Mexico. Subsequently stored in a nearby museum, the remains became lost for almost 36 years. In a recent effort to repatriate the remains, it was necessary to fit them into a cultural chronology in order to determine the appropriate tribe(s) for consultation pursuant to the Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). Because the remains were found in an eroded context with no artifacts or funerary objects, their age was unknown. Having been asked to avoid destructive dating methods such as radiocarbon dating, the authors used Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) to date the sediments embedded in the cranium. The OSL analyses yielded reliable dates between A.D. 1415 and A.D. 1495. Accordingly, we conclude that the remains were interred somewhat earlier than A.D. 1415, but no later than A.D. 1495. We believe the remains are from individuals ancestral to the Ute Mouache Band, which is now being contacted for repatriation efforts. Not only do our methods contribute to the immediate repatriation efforts, they provide archaeologists with a versatile, non-destructive, numerical dating method that can be used in many burial contexts.

Since its founding in 2009 at the behest of local leaders, Proyecto Salinas de los Nueve Cerros has had the dual goals of scientific research and community development. Due to the regional political landscape, the initial goal of community-run ecotourism had to be abandoned. In its stead, the project has been seeking high-impact, low-cost development initiatives in collaboration with local villagers. The initiatives have had mixed levels of success, with best results in providing resources for multi-family wells and in organizing an ongoing lecture and workshop series detailing the results of the archaeological project. Through trial and error, project members have learned multiple lessons that can help other similar projects in the future. (1) Community investment in the project is essential, (2) as is the presence of a development specialist who can lead the efforts, leaving archaeologists to do archaeology. (3) Both the project and the local residents must have realistic expectations regarding the time the initiatives take and how ambitious they can be. (4) All of the initiatives must be informed by problems the locals themselves identify, and (5) it is possible to positively impact the region.

Archaeologists have traditionally collected artifacts during survey in order to analyze them in a laboratory setting and curate the artifacts and associated documentation for future analysis, interpretation, and preservation. In recent decades, however, there has been a trend in the western United States to avoid collection during survey and to relegate most artifact analysis to the field, typically conducted by field crew. Despite heavy reliance on in-field analysis to characterize sites during survey, very little is known about how accurate and adequate in-field analysis is for site interpretation and management. This article presents the findings of a pilot experiment that tested in-field analysis and digital photograph analysis at two sites in the western United States using multiple quantitative measures and qualitative assessments. The results of the analysis show that in-field analysis has a strong potential to yield inaccurate and highly variable results that can lead to the misidentification and misinterpretation of important site components. We recommend that sample collections be made during survey, where possible, and properly curated. For projects in which in-field analysis is used, we recommend that in-field analysis be tested using similar methods to determine whether it can meet an acceptable standard.