Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T17:18:58.524Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Quantitative Investigation of Aboriginal Sites: Complete Excavation With Physical and Archaeological Analysis of a Single Mound

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2017

A. E. Treganza  and
S. F. Cook
A. E. Treganza
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, San Francisco State College, San Francisco, California
S. F. Cook
Affiliation:
Division of Physiology, Medical School, University of California, Berkeley, California
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In a recent paper we explored the possibility of comparing the physical and chemical characteristics of aboriginal sites by the small-sample method. The two mounds investigated showed clear differences with respect to certain features. Whether or not there were quantitative distinctions pertaining to other properties depended upon the validity of the sampling method. It thus became apparent to us that a further investigation should be made wherein the results obtained by sampling could be tested by comparison with data based upon practical certainty. In other words one mound should be sampled and at the same time be completely excavated so as to determine the actual values for the entities under consideration. Concomitantly, an opportunity would be offered to make an archaeological analysis of an aboriginal site in its entirety, including a tabulation of all the cultural elements present, such as artifacts and burials.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 13 , Issue 4Part1 , April 1948 , pp. 287 - 297
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1948

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

Beals, R. L. 1933. “Ethnology of the Nisenan.” University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 31, pp. 335–414. Berkeley.Google Scholar
Belcher, Sir E. 1843. Narrative of a Voyage Round the World … during the Years 1836-1842. 2 vols. London.Google Scholar
Chever, E. E. 1870. “The Indians of California.” American Naturalist, Vol. 4, pp. 129-48. Salem, Mass.Google Scholar
Cook, S. F., and Treganza, A. E. 1947. “The Quantitative Investigation of Aboriginal Sites: Comparative Physical and Chemical Analysis of Two California Indian Mounds.” AMERICAN ANTIQUITY, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 135-41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gifford, E. W. 1927. “Southern Maidu Religious Ceremonies.” American Anthropologist, N.S., Vol. 29, pp. 214-57. Menasha.Google Scholar
Lillard, J. B., Heizer, R. F., and Fenenga, F. 1939. “An Introduction to the Archaeology of Central California.” Bulletin, Department of Anthropology, Sacramento Junior College, No. 2. Sacramento.Google Scholar
Loeb, E. M. 1926. “Pomo Folk Ways.” University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 19, pp. 149–405. Berkeley.Google Scholar
Powers, S. 1877. “Tribes of California.” Department of the Interior, Contributions to North American Ethnology, Vol. 3, Washington.Google Scholar
Schenck, W. E., and Dawson, E. J. 1929. “Archaeology of the Northern San Joaquin Valley.” University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 25, pp 289–413. Berkeley.Google Scholar
Staples, D. J. 1873. “Notes on the Indians of the Mokelumne River Region, 1849-1850.” Proceedings of the California Academy of Science, Vol. 5, pp. 202-3. San Francisco.Google Scholar