Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-lvwk9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-06T05:58:42.985Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Case Study in Faunalturbation: Delineating the Effects of the Burrowing Pocket Gopher on the Distribution of Archaeological Materials

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jon M. Erlandson
Jon M. Erlandson*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Excavation of a small single-component prehistoric campsite in the coastal southern California foothills has provided evidence concerning the patterns and approximate rates of redistribution of archaeological materials caused by the burrowing pocket gopher, Thomomys bottae. Investigation of bimodal vertical distributions of both historic and prehistoric archaeological materials shows a close correspondence to the burrowing habits of pocket gophers in coastal California. Comparison of these bimodal distributions with a site chronology based upon diagnostic artifacts and C-14 dating suggests that, under certain soil conditions, downward displacement of archaeological materials may occur at rates averaging over 5% per century. The broader implications of the effects of faunalturbation upon the interpretation of archaeological assemblages are briefly discussed.

Type
Reports
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 49 , Issue 4 , October 1984 , pp. 785 - 790
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

Burton, M., and Burton, R. (editors) 1969 The International Wildlife Encyclopedia 13. Cavendish, New York.Google Scholar
Erlandson, Jon M. 1983 Final Report: Results of Archaeological Investigations at CA-SBa-1582, Santa Barbara, California. Office of Public Archaeology, Social Process Research Institute, UCSB.Google Scholar
Flenniken, J. Jeffry, and C. Haggerty, James 1982 Trampling as an Agency in the Formation of Edge Damage: An Experiment in Lithic Technology. Northwest Anthropological Research Notes 16.Google Scholar
Grinnell, Joseph 1923 The Burrowing Rodents of California as Agents in Soil Formation. Journal ofMammology 4(3): 137–149.Google Scholar
King, Chester D. 1974 The Explanation of Differences and Similarities among Beads Used in Prehistoric and Early Historic California. In Antap: California Indian Political and Economic Organization, edited by Bean, L. and King, T.. Ballena.Google Scholar
Mathews, J. M. 1965 Stratigraphic Disturbance: The Human Element. Antiquity 39: 295–298.Google Scholar
Miller, I. A. 1957 Burrows of the Sacramento Valley Pocket Gopher in Flood Irrigated Alfalfa Fields. Hilgardia 26: 103–105.Google Scholar
Rockwell, Thomas 1980 The Effect of Pocket Gophers in Relation to Geomorphic, Archaeologic, and Pedologic Problems. Ms. on file: Department of Anthropology, University of Santa Barbara, California.Google Scholar
Shipman, G. E. 1981 Soil Survey of Santa Barbara County, California: South Coastal Part. National Cooperative Soil Survey, USDA.Google Scholar
Stein, J. K. 1983 Earthworm Activity: A Source of Potential Disturbance of Archaeological Sediments. American Antiquity 48(2): 277–289.Google Scholar
Stuiver, M. 1982 A High Precision Calibration of the AD Radiocarbon Time Scale. Radiocarbon 24: 1–26.Google Scholar
Wildesen, Leslie E. 1982 The Study of Impacts on Archaeological Sites. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 5, edited by Schiffer, M. B., pp. 51–96. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Wood, W. R., and Johnson, D. L. 1978 A Survey of Disturbance Processes in Archaeological Site Formation. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 1, edited by Schiffer, M. B., pp. 315–381. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar