Studies in the Prehistory of Central Arizona; The Central Arizona Water Control Study, Volume 2
Creators: name: Roessel, Katelyn
Publisher: name: Office of Cultural Resource Management, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University
Year: 1986
Subjects: subject: Tonto National Forest
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/geographic-keyword/223/tonto-national-forest
subject: Theodore Roosevelt Lake
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/geographic-keyword/77954/theodore-roosevelt-lake
subject: Verde Valley
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/geographic-keyword/98/verde-valley
subject: Roosevelt
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/geographic-keyword/21448/roosevelt
subject: Lake Pleasant
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/geographic-keyword/79703/lake-pleasant
subject: lower Verde River
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/geographic-keyword/219/lower-verde-river
subject: Tonto Basin
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/geographic-keyword/92/tonto-basin
subject: Hohokam
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/culture-keyword/21/hohokam
subject: Salado
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/culture-keyword/70/salado
subject: Huhugam
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/culture-keyword/8166/huhugam
subject: Archaic
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/culture-keyword/8/archaic
subject: AZ U:8:101(ASU)
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/13965/az-u8101asu
subject: AZ U:8:132(ASU)
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/135743/az-u8132asu
subject: Schoolhouse Ruin
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/135744/schoolhouse-ruin
subject: AZ U:8:177(ASU)
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/135741/az-u8177asu
subject: AZ UJ:8:132(ASU)
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/135742/az-uj8132asu
subject: Davenport Ruin
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/353/davenport-ruin
subject: AZ O:14:64(ASU)
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/10438/az-o1464asu
subject: AZ U:2:171(ASU)
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/135739/az-u2171asu
subject: Drowned Sites
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/135740/drowned-sites
subject: AZ U:2:52(ASU)
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/site-name/131290/az-u252asu
subject: Prehistoric Settlement Pattern
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/other-keyword/89503/prehistoric-settlement-pattern
subject: Central Arizona Project (CAP)
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/other-keyword/169038/central-arizona-project-cap
subject: New Waddell Archaeological Study Area
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/other-keyword/171075/new-waddell-archaeological-study-area
subject: Environment Research
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/investigation-type/13/environment-research
subject: Archaeological Overview
valueUri: https://core.tdar.org/browse/investigation-type/1/archaeological-overview

description: Draft Copy
Even for those involved, it is not easy to grasp or remember all that happened as part of the Central Arizona Water Study. This is partly because of the sheer size of the undertaking (at one point 19 different alternatives, with about three variations each, were being analyzed), partly because of the shifting objectives of the project, and partly because archaeology was only a small part of a very large multi-disciplinary study that lasted over 3 years. But, perhaps, closest to the heart of the matter is that archaeologists were asked to do something that required their expertise but was not archaeology per se. The study took a group of archaeologists into an area of the political decision making process that lies well beyond the National Historic Preservation Act, the Section 106 process, or "No Adverse Effect" determinations. Certainly, it lies so far beyond the interests of academia that much of the experience cannot be related in any set of terms that would be comprehended. This chapter will be of little interest to academics, although there is also a sense in which it is now of little more than academic interest.
To set the stage, it is necessary to describe the background and goals of the study, list the key players, and provide the regulatory context within which the study was conducted. Having done so, we caution that the goals, the players, and the legal context all changed through time. This project history is an attempt to illustrate the ways in which this study was different from routine archaeological compliance procedures. We hope that it might be of use to other archaeologists who face parallel situations.