Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-kwt9d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T00:41:07.420Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prospects in California Prehistory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2017

A. L. Kroeber
A. L. Kroeber*
Affiliation:
Dept. of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley, California
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Archaeology in the California area has been notoriously slow to recover cultural sequences. In part this is due to most of the earlier explorations having been conducted without sense of genuine scientific problem, as in the first stages of work in so many other regions. But in even larger measure the delay in discovering positive time changes is the result of difficulties inherent in the archaeological data of the area. Mostly there is no pottery at all. The historic cultures being simple, their artifact inventory is fairly limited and lacking in specialized types. Except in the Santa Barbara region, the numerical yield of specimen data is low for volume of soil moved. The San Francisco Bay mounds, for instance, tend to furnish only about one artifact, whole or broken, per cubic yard dug. This is probably not far from the average productivity the state over, the Santa Barbara coast and islands alone omitted.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , October 1936, pp. 108 - 116
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1936

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Works Referred To

Uhle, M., The Emeryville Shellmound. UC 7: 1,1907.Google Scholar
Nelson, N. C., Shellmounds of the San Francisco Bay Region. UC 7: 4, 1909.Google Scholar
Nelson, N. C., The Ellis Landing Shellmound. UC 7: 5, 1910.Google Scholar
Gifford, E. W., Composition of California Shellmounds. UC 12: 1, 1916.Google Scholar
Loud, L. L., Ethnogeography and Archaeology of the Wiyot Territory. UC 14: 3, 1918.Google Scholar
Kroeber, A. L., Handbook of the Indians of California, ch. 60, Prehistory. BAE Bull. 78, 1925.Google Scholar
Gifford, E. W. and Schenck, W. E., Archaeology of the Southern San Joaquin Valley. UC 23: 1,1926.Google Scholar
Schenck, W. E., The Emeryville Shellmound, Final Report. UC 23: 3, 1926.Google Scholar
Schenck, W. E. and Dawson, E. J., Archaeology of the Northern San Joaquin Valley. UC 25: 4,1929.Google Scholar
Rogers, D. B., Prehistoric Man of the Santa Barbara Coast. Santa Barbara Museum, 1929.Google Scholar
Olson, R. L., Chumash Prehistory. UC 28: 1, 1930.Google Scholar
Lillard, J. B. and Purves, W. K., The Archaeology of the Deer Creek-Cosumnes Area, California. Sacramento Junior College, Dept. of Anthropology, Bulletin 1, 1936.Google Scholar

Other Publications

Walker, W. M., Excavating Ancient Yokuts Shellmounds in California. Explors. and Field Work of the Smithsonian Instit. in 1934, p. 73, Washington, 1935.Google Scholar
Strong, W. D., Archaeological Explorations in the Country of the Eastern Chumash. Explors. and Field Work of the Smithsonian Instit. in 1934, p. 69, Washington, 1935.Google Scholar
Stirling, M. W., Smithsonian Archeological Projects Conducted Under the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, 1933-1934. Ann. Report of the Smithsonian Instit. for the year ending 1934, p. 398, Washington, 1935.Google Scholar