2019
DOI: 10.1080/00934690.2019.1662262
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Small Islands and Marginality: Santa Barbara Island and its Role in the Prehistory of California’s Channel Islands

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For example, differences in soil types, precipitation, and topography could account for differing soil chemistry across the islands (Sims & Pierzynski, 2005; Tiessen, 2008). Differing influences of humans could also account for these differences in soil chemistry (Tiessen, 2008), as both ANIS and SBIS were historically inhabited by the Chumash and Tongva people, respectively (Perry et al, 2019; Rick, 2006), and share a more recent history of livestock ranching (Rick et al, 2014). This latter human presence resulted in overgrazing and the introduction of non‐native species, which led to dramatic vegetation shifts and erosion, both of which can affect soil quality and nutrient retention (Rick et al, 2014; Tiessen, 2008).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, differences in soil types, precipitation, and topography could account for differing soil chemistry across the islands (Sims & Pierzynski, 2005; Tiessen, 2008). Differing influences of humans could also account for these differences in soil chemistry (Tiessen, 2008), as both ANIS and SBIS were historically inhabited by the Chumash and Tongva people, respectively (Perry et al, 2019; Rick, 2006), and share a more recent history of livestock ranching (Rick et al, 2014). This latter human presence resulted in overgrazing and the introduction of non‐native species, which led to dramatic vegetation shifts and erosion, both of which can affect soil quality and nutrient retention (Rick et al, 2014; Tiessen, 2008).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Survey transects consisted of people spaced out with gaps of 8–10 m between each individual, comparable to other surveys in the region (Perry et al 2019:584). Archaeological sites were identified through the presence of faunal remains, artifacts, dark soil, and architectural features on the surface with no subsurface testing.…”
Section: Methods and Approachmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The locations of many of the precontact settlements on the west coast of North America are marked by shell deposits. Shells are not only more abundant but also generally far larger than the other organic residues in these cultural deposits, and they were consequently preferentially dated by archaeologists in the early years of the “radiocarbon revolution.” The development of AMS dating techniques in the late 1970s and early 1980s allowed investigators to date minute fragments of charcoal or wood, thereby sidestepping the uncertainties that accompany shell ages, but radiocarbon assays on shell carbonate continue to appear in the regional archaeological literature, predominantly from areas where charcoal is rare or unavailable (e.g., Jazwa and Rosencrance 2019; McCain et al 2019; Perry et al 2019; Porcasi and Radde 2017; Reeder-Myers 2014; Taylor et al 2011). Those dates add to the current catalog of more than 4,000 ages from shell on this coast, accounting for about two-thirds of the inventory of radiocarbon ages from the southern half of the coast, and about one-third of the inventory from the north (Figure 1).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%