2017
DOI: 10.1080/00231940.2016.1272148
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Introduction: “Forgotten Maps” and the Archaeology of Chaco Roads

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
2
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
1
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Two other roads contain somewhat less than 22% of strongly matching profilesthe Mexican Springs Road and the Peñasco Blanco Road-and only the Chacra Face Road is characterized by a notably low proportion of strongly matching profiles (Table 2). These results confirm prior suggestions that the Chacra Face Road is likely not a Chaco Road (Nials et al 1987;Roney 1992;Snead 2017;Vivian 1997). These results also indicate that the Ah-Shi-Sle-Pah Road is morphologically consistent with features similar to those of the North Road and South Road, despite it being interpreted as a local feature (rather than a regional feature) because it neither articulates with larger roads nor terminates at a Chaco-era community (Stein 1983).…”
Section: Interpreting Chaco Road Profilessupporting
confidence: 91%
“…Two other roads contain somewhat less than 22% of strongly matching profilesthe Mexican Springs Road and the Peñasco Blanco Road-and only the Chacra Face Road is characterized by a notably low proportion of strongly matching profiles (Table 2). These results confirm prior suggestions that the Chacra Face Road is likely not a Chaco Road (Nials et al 1987;Roney 1992;Snead 2017;Vivian 1997). These results also indicate that the Ah-Shi-Sle-Pah Road is morphologically consistent with features similar to those of the North Road and South Road, despite it being interpreted as a local feature (rather than a regional feature) because it neither articulates with larger roads nor terminates at a Chaco-era community (Stein 1983).…”
Section: Interpreting Chaco Road Profilessupporting
confidence: 91%
“…Judge (1989:243) proposed that “the sites of the Chacoan system were physically integrated by a road system that may have comprised five major segments, linking all but the northeast quadrant of the Basin.” Nevertheless, researchers have speculated earnestly about road functions without much resolution (Clark and Fritschle 2011; Judd 1964:141–142; Kantner and Hobgood 2003; Kantner and Kintigh 2006; Lekson 2009; Roney 1992; Snygg and Windes 1998; Sofaer et al 1989; Vivian 1997; Weinig 2017). And despite the persistent influence of popular assumptions about a Chacoan road “system” (see reviews in Ebert and Hitchcock 1980; Kantner 2003; Snead 2017), physical evidence for roads or trunk routes other than the North and South Roads remains elusive (e.g., Marshall 1994; Marshall et al 1979; Field et al 2019).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Least cost path analyses have become a common archaeological tool in the past two decades as the software (typically ESRI ArcGIS) and new topographic databases have become available (e.g., Howey 2007; Rosenswig and Tuñón 2020; Verhagen et al 2019). Researchers in the American Southwest / Northwest Mexico were early adopters of LCP (e.g., Batten 2007; Kantner and Hobgood 2003; Safi 2014; Taliaferro et al 2010; Wills et al 2014), and a number of studies have used LCP to assess the degree of correspondence between constructed linear features associated with some Chaco era great houses—conventionally called “roads”—and least cost travel corridors (Heberling 2011; Kantner and Hobgood 2003; Snead 2017). Although our results are relevant to the issue of Chacoan roads (see the Discussion section), our focus is the potential communication network defined by the overall geographic distribution of great houses in our study area.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%