Upload
others
View
10
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
PRO
OF
ON
LY
Kennett and Winterhalder, 2006). Developments in the domesti-cation of plants and animals significantly contributed to the accel-eration of human population growth and the growing impacts ofpeople on Earth’s natural ecosystems. A major source of suchimpacts is related to the translocation (intentional or uninten-tional) of both wild and domestic animals to new regions of theworld. Such biotic introductions often result(ed) in significantalterations in natural landscapes and ecological communities,including numerous extinctions (Kirch and Hunt, 1997; Grayson,
Introduction
The domestication of animals and plants was a major milestone inhuman history, when numerous species around the world wereselectively bred to increase their value (food, labour, protection,etc.) for people (see Bellwood, 2004; Barker, 2006; Zeder, 2006;
Dogs, humans and island ecosystems:the distribution, antiquity and ecologyof domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) onCalifornia’s Channel Islands, USATorben C. Rick,1* Phillip L. Walker,2 Lauren M. Willis,1 Anna C.Noah,3 Jon M. Erlandson,4,5 René L. Vellanoweth,6 Todd J. Braje5
and Douglas J. Kennett5
(1Department of Anthropology, Southern Methodist University, Dallas TX 75275-0336, USA;2Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara CA 93106-3210, USA; 3Cotsen
Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles CA 90095-1510, USA; 4Museum of
Natural and Cultural History, University of Oregon, Eugene OR 97403-1224, USA; 5Department of
Anthropology, University of Oregon, Eugene OR 97403-1218, USA; 6Department of Anthropology,
Humboldt State University, Arcata CA 95521-8299, USA)
Received 23 October 2007; revised manuscript accepted 8 April 2008
Abstract: Archaeologists have made significant contributions to our understanding of ancient island environ-ments, including the timing and implications of the introduction of non-native animals (pigs, chickens, rats,etc.) by humans. Here, we focus on the historical ecology and biogeography of domestic dogs (Canis familiaris)on California’s Channel Islands during the Holocene. Dogs are the only animal known unequivocally to havebeen introduced by Native Americans to the islands, but relatively little is known about their distribution, antiq-uity or influence on native island fauna and flora. We identified a minimum of 96 dogs from 42 archaeologicalsites on six of the eight islands. Dogs were present for at least 6000 years and appear to have increased in abun-dance through time. Our analysis suggests that dogs, along with humans and island foxes (Urocyon littoralis),would have had an impact on native animals and ecosystems, especially breeding birds and marine mammals.Dogs and island foxes likely competed with one another for food, however, and the impacts of dogs on islandecosystems may have been reduced by the presence of island foxes and the symbiotic relationship between dogsand humans. Dogs have been removed from all but one of the islands today, eliminating one of the few terres-trial carnivores present for most of the Holocene.
Key words: Dogs, palaeoecology, human environmental impacts, zooarchaeology, Canis familiaris, ChannelIslands, Holocene.
The Holocene 18,7 (2008) pp. 01–11
© 2008 SAGE Publications 10.1177/0959683608095579
*Author for correspondence (e-mail: [email protected])
07-095579-Rick.qxd 7/24/2008 9:20 PM Page 1
PRO
OF
ON
LY2001; Kirch, 2005), a process that continues to pose costly andglobal ecological challenges for human societies worldwide.
Some of the best documented cases of ancient animal introduc-tions and their environmental impacts come from islands, specifi-cally analyses of island zooarchaeological and palaeontologicalcollections. On Pacific Islands in Polynesia, for example, thetransport of chickens, dogs, pigs and rats had a devastating effecton native floral and faunal communities (Steadman, 1995, 2006;Kirch, 2000, 2005). Rats, often transported unintentionally asstowaways on long ocean voyages and possibly sometimes inten-tionally introduced, had particularly devastating impacts on localbird populations and played a role in avian extinctions. InSoutheast Asia and western Melanesia, hunter-gatherers and lateragriculturalists also appear to have carried animals to islands (eg,the Bismarcks, Solomons, Moluccas, Sulawesi and LesserSundas) for at least 20 000 years, contributing to very early, butstill poorly understood transformations of their endemic land-scapes (White, 2004). Introduced domestic and wild animals havealso been documented on islands in the Caribbean (dogs, guineapigs, agouti and hutia), Mediterranean (red deer, wild goats, etc.),North Atlantic (dogs, sheep, pigs, cattle, horses) and beyond,demonstrating similar practices around the world (Grayson, 2001;Newsom and Wing, 2004: 204–208). While domestic dogs mayhave had less profound ecological consequences than rats andsome other animals, they were a predator that often had an impacton naïve insular fauna. In New Zealand, for example, a single feraldog killed over half of a brown kiwi (Apteryx australis) colony of900 birds in about six weeks (Taborsky, 1988), and on theGalapagos Islands feral dogs have been observed to prey heavilyon marine iguanas (Kruuk and Snell, 1981). The middle- to late-Holocene introduction of the dingo (Canis lupus dingo) toAustralia also appears to coincide with significant ecologicalchanges, including the extinction of three vertebrates (see Corbett,1995; Johnson and Wroe, 2003; Savolainen et al., 2004)
In this paper, we provide evidence for the transport of domesticdogs (Canis familiaris) by hunter-gatherers to California’sChannel Islands during the Holocene (Figure 1). Dogs are one ofthe few domestic animals to be found in most areas of the worldamong hunter-gatherers and agriculturalists. In the Americas, theyhave a long presence probably spanning at least 10 000–8500
years (Morey and Wiant, 1992; Lupo and Janetski, 1994; Fiedel,2005; Snyder and Leonard, 2006). Recent mtDNA analysis ofmodern and ancient dogs around the world points to their domes-tication about 15 000 years ago in East Asia, with New Worlddogs currently thought to be derived from Old World populationsrather than independently domesticated from American greywolves (Leonard et al., 2002; Savolainen et al., 2002; Wayneet al., 2006). The available data suggest that dogs were presentthroughout much of the Americas (Schwartz, 1997) by the earlyHolocene, including a few potential early Holocene dogs incoastal California (Erlandson, 1994:194, 220, 222).
Owing to excellent archaeological integrity and an archaeologi-cal record spanning some 13 000 calendar years, California’sChannel Islands provide an important laboratory for investigatinganimal translocation to islands by foragers, the historical biogeog-raphy of domestic dogs, and the effects that dogs may have had onisland ecosystems. Archaeologists have known for some time thatNative Americans brought dogs to the islands (Schumacher, 1877:48; Bowers, 1890; Wagner, 1929; Nidever, 1937), but the distribu-tion, antiquity and potential effects of dogs on island ecology havereceived limited attention. A few researchers have discussed therole of dogs in Channel Island ritual (eg, Collins, 1991a; Raabet al., 1994; Hardy, 2000; Hale and Salls, 2000), but there has beenno attempt to assess when dogs were introduced or how wide-spread they became on these islands. To help fill this void, we syn-thesize published and unpublished occurrences of Channel Islanddogs, including specimens from southern California museums.
Cultural and environmental context
The eight Channel Islands are located between 20 and 98 km offthe southern California Coast, and range in size from about 2.6 to249 km2 (Table 1). The islands are divided into northern(Anacapa, Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa and San Miguel) and southern(San Clemente, Santa Catalina, San Nicolas and Santa Barbara)groups, which were never connected to the mainland during theQuaternary. The northern islands are an east–west trending chainalong the Santa Barbara Channel, but the southern islands are con-siderably more dispersed and isolated. All of the islands have a
2 The Holocene 18,7 (2008)
Figure 1 The Channel Islands and southern California Coast
07-095579-Rick.qxd 7/24/2008 9:20 PM Page 2
PRO
OF
ON
LY
Mediterranean climate, with mild summers and generally cool,wet winters, but climatic conditions fluctuated throughout theHolocene (Kennett and Kennett, 2000; Kennett et al., 2007a).
The Channel Islands have a limited terrestrial flora and fauna,lacking many plants and animals found on the mainland(Schoenherr et al., 1999: 7–17). The marine environment sur-rounding the islands, in contrast, is rich in marine mammals,seabirds, fish and shellfish. Except for the diminutive (roughlyhouse-cat sized) island fox (Urocyon littoralis) and spotted skunk(Spilogale gracilis), and a few rodents (eg, deer mouse(Peromyscus maniculatus)), the islands lack terrestrial mammals.Subspecies of the island fox occur on each of the islands exceptAnacapa and Santa Barbara. Skunks are currently only found onSanta Cruz and Santa Rosa. Pygmy mammoths roamed the north-ern islands during the Pleistocene, but it is unclear if they persistedinto the human era (see Erlandson et al., 2004; Agenbroad et al.,2005). Vegetation communities on the islands are also distinct,including a number of endemic and relict species, but are gener-ally impoverished compared with mainland communities. Thelimited terrestrial fauna on the Channel Islands suggests thatdomestic dogs, along with the people who introduced them, wouldhave had significant effects on potentially naïve native animals,especially breeding marine mammals and seabirds. Collins (1991a,b), Vellanoweth (1998), Kennett (2005: 49) and Rick et al. (2008a)have also suggested that island foxes may have been introduced byhumans to some or all of the islands, raising further questionsabout the role of introduced animals in island ecology duringthe Holocene.
While terrestrial resources are generally limited, Channel Islandmarine environments are exceptionally productive, with theupwelling of nutrient-rich waters supporting large populations ofpinnipeds, cetaceans, seabirds, shellfish and fishes. These richmarine communities also include scores of breeding seabirds,seals and sea lions. Located on a boundary between colder cur-rents to the north and warmer currents to the south, the waters sur-rounding the Channel Islands contain a mix of cold- andwarm-water marine fauna.
These productive and diverse marine environments fosteredhuman occupation spanning the last 13 000 years (Erlandsonet al., 1996; Johnson et al., 2002). Thousands of archaeologicalsites, ranging from large shell middens and villages to small lithicscatters, have been documented on the eight islands (Kennett,2005; Rick et al., 2005). At the time of European contact, thenorthern Channel Islands were inhabited by Chumashan-speakingpeoples, while the southern islands were inhabited by Uto-Aztecan-speaking peoples (Kennett et al., 2007a, b). Although lin-guistically and culturally distinct, both groups had a similarmaritime technology and kept domestic dogs. Although theChannel Islands contain a lengthy record of human occupation,
analyses of dog skeletal remains from the Channel Islands suggestthat they are not a relict population of animals brought out by theearliest inhabitants. Instead many of these dogs appear to fallwithin the ‘small short-faced pueblo dog’ size category (cf. Colton,1970; Olsen and Olsen, 1970), which is considerably smaller thanthe earliest known North American dogs such as those found at theKoster site (Morey and Wiant, 1992). The size of these island dogssuggests that there was at least sporadic exchange of dogs betweenthe islands and mainland as part of the highly developed islandmainland exchange systems. The exchange of dogs also likelyworked against the development of a distinctive breed of island dogsuch as those in other island contexts (eg, Busuttil, 1969).
Methods
For this study, we systematically reviewed the published andunpublished literature for accounts of dogs from the CaliforniaChannel Islands. The available literature on Channel Island dogsis widely scattered, with few researchers consistently noting theamount or types of recovered dog remains. Nonetheless, we haveassembled a comprehensive data set. We also included unpub-lished data from archaeological specimens housed at the SantaBarbara Museum of Natural History and the Fowler Museum atthe University of California, Los Angeles. These and other speci-mens are part of our ongoing analysis of ancient southernCalifornian dog populations.
Table 2 presents the available domestic dog data, including siteor location, minimum number of individuals (MNI) and the ele-ments recovered or degree of skeletal completeness. We were asspecific as possible, but in many cases some or all of these data werenot available. We caution that researchers were not always clear onhow they determined if specimens were from dogs rather than otherspecies of Canis (eg, C. latrans (coyotes)) or hybrids, but we sus-pect that these species would be very rare on the Channel Islands.There are likely dog remains from early antiquarian projects on theislands during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centurieshoused at the Smithsonian and other institutions that lack detailedprovenance and are not included in this study.
To our knowledge, there are currently no direct 14C dates forarchaeological dog remains from the Channel Islands.Consequently, in Table 2 all of the dates for the various dogremains are from 14C associations. In some cases we listed generaltime frames (eg, late Holocene) based on the presence of multiple14C dates from a single site. These dates are generally for a site orsite component rather than directly for a dog burial or dogremains. These dates provide a reasonable estimate of the age ofthe dog remains, but future direct dating of dog specimens couldsignificantly enhance their chronology. Our estimates of the age of
Torben C. Rick et al.: Dogs, humans and island ecosystems, California 3
Table 1 General attributes of the Channel Islands and number of sites known to contain dogsa
Island Area (km2) Max Distance from No. of land Native No of sites Dogelevation(m) mainland (km) mammals plant taxa wia dogs MNI b
Anacapa 2.9 283 20 2 190 – –Santa Cruz 249 753 30 12 480 11 21Santa Rosa 217 484 44 4 387 3 10San Miguel 37 253 42 3 198 7 10Santa Barbara 2.6 149 61 2 88 – –Santa Catalina 194 648 32 9 421 1 1San Nicolas 58 277 98 2 139 13 29San Clemente 145 599 79 6 272 7 25
a Physical characteristics based on Schoenherr et al. (1999:7).b MNI, minimum number of individuals.
07-095579-Rick.qxd 7/24/2008 9:20 PM Page 3
PRO
OF
ON
LY
4 The Holocene 18,7 (2008)T
ab
le 2
Dom
esti
c do
g re
mai
ns f
rom
Cha
nnel
Isl
ands
arc
haeo
logi
cal
site
s
Sit
e or
Loc
alit
yA
geM
NI
Com
men
tsR
efer
ence
s
San
Cle
men
te I
slan
d
SC
LI-
43a
~200
0 ca
l. yr
BP
7D
og b
uria
ls, a
s w
ell
as s
catt
ered
add
itio
nal
bone
sP
orca
si, 1
995:
9; H
ardy
, 200
0; W
alke
r, u
npub
lish
ed d
ata,
200
8S
CL
I-11
9 H
isto
ric
1L
arge
dog
in
a bu
ndle
wra
p w
ith
fibe
rs, s
ea o
tter
rob
es, a
nd m
issi
on c
loth
Woo
dwar
d, 1
941;
McK
usic
k an
d W
arre
n, 1
959;
Sal
ls, 1
990:
38S
CL
I-12
0~1
050
cal.
yr B
P1
3 m
etac
arpa
ls a
nd 1
axi
s ve
rteb
raN
oah,
198
7: 7
1; a
ge e
stim
ated
fro
m P
orca
si a
nd F
ujit
a, 2
000:
549
SC
LI-
126
His
tori
c8
Dog
bur
ials
, as
wel
l as
sca
tter
ed a
ddit
iona
l bo
nes
Raa
b et
al.,
199
4; W
alke
r, u
npub
lish
ed d
ata,
200
8S
CL
I-14
87H
isto
ric
1bN
umer
ous
cani
ne/i
slan
d fo
x bo
nes
in d
istu
rbed
con
text
, but
no
NIS
P o
r M
NI
Hal
e an
d S
alls
, 200
0:83
SC
LI-
1492
post
100
0 ca
l. yr
BP
to
His
tori
c1
Rem
ains
of
1 do
gN
oah,
198
7:62
SC
LI-
1524
1170
–320
cal
. yr
BP
6S
ix d
og b
uria
ls a
nd s
ome
cont
ain
ritu
al g
oods
Raa
b et
al.,
199
4
Sant
a C
atal
ina
Isla
nd
SC
AI-
17M
iddl
e–L
ate
Hol
ocen
e1b
No
NIS
P o
r M
NI
avai
labl
eP
orca
si, 2
002:
584
San
Nic
olas
Isl
and
SN
I-4
Lat
e H
oloc
ene?
1L
eft
and
righ
t pr
emax
illa
and
max
illa
San
ta B
arba
ra M
useu
m o
f N
atur
al H
isto
ry s
peci
men
SN
I-8
Lat
e H
oloc
ene?
1F
airl
y co
mpl
ete
skel
eton
San
ta B
arba
ra M
useu
m o
f N
atur
al H
isto
ry s
peci
men
SN
I-10
Lat
e H
oloc
ene?
2T
wo
cran
iaS
anta
Bar
bara
Mus
eum
of
Nat
ural
His
tory
spe
cim
enS
NI-
1149
00–4
500
and
2400
–600
cal
. yr
BP
5
39 b
ones
pre
sent
: 1
burn
ed e
lem
ent;
2 M
NI
and
2 N
ISP
are
fro
m e
arly
str
atum
Ble
itz,
199
3:52
7S
NI-
12L
ate
Hol
ocen
e?1
Cra
nium
min
us r
ostr
umS
anta
Bar
bara
Mus
eum
of
Nat
ural
His
tory
spe
cim
enS
NI-
13L
ate
Hol
ocen
e?3
Thr
ee c
rani
aS
anta
Bar
bara
Mus
eum
of
Nat
ural
His
tory
spe
cim
enS
NI-
1841
5 (1
15)
80 c
al. y
r B
P1
Dog
bur
ial
Rei
nman
and
Tow
nsen
d, 1
960;
Ker
r et
al.,
200
2: 3
3 S
NI-
2121
20–1
630
cal.
yr B
P3
Com
plet
e ar
ticu
late
d sk
elet
on a
nd p
arts
of
two
othe
r do
gsS
anta
Bar
bara
Mus
eum
of
Nat
ural
His
tory
spe
cim
en;
date
s fr
om V
ella
now
eth
et a
l., 2
002
SN
I-25
670
cal.
yr B
P–H
isto
ric
4T
hree
com
plet
e bu
rial
s an
d an
d 1
part
iall
y sc
atte
red
dog
Dat
es f
rom
Vel
lano
wet
h et
al.,
200
2S
NI-
250
cal.
yr B
P–H
isto
ric
1D
og b
uria
lK
err
et a
l., 2
002:
33
SN
I-25
670
cal.
yr B
P–H
isto
ric
3T
hree
spe
cim
ens
from
sam
e lo
cali
ty, w
ith
seve
ral
man
dibl
es, o
ne f
rom
a p
uppy
San
ta B
arba
ra M
useu
m o
f N
atur
al H
isto
ry s
peci
men
, Dat
es f
rom
Vel
lano
wet
h et
al.
2002
SN
I-26
Lat
e H
oloc
ene?
1C
ompl
ete
cran
ium
San
ta B
arba
ra M
useu
m o
f N
atur
al H
isto
ry s
peci
men
SN
I-73
930–
790
cal.
yr B
P1b
No
NIS
P o
r M
NI
avai
labl
eM
artz
, 200
5:73
; D
ates
fro
m V
ella
now
eth
et a
l., 2
002
SN
I-16
017
10–9
30 c
al. y
r B
P1b
No
NIS
P o
r M
NI
avai
labl
eM
artz
, 200
5: 7
5; D
ates
fro
m V
ella
now
eth
et a
l., 2
002
SN
I-21
4H
isto
ric
1D
og b
uria
lK
err
et a
l., 2
002:
33
Sant
a C
ruz
Isla
nd
SC
RI-
?n/
a1
Com
plet
e do
g fr
om b
iolo
gica
l co
llec
tion
wit
h ve
ry h
eavi
ly w
orn
teet
h–
SC
RI-
109
Mid
dle
Hol
ocen
e1
Bon
e pi
ns f
rom
dog
tib
ia a
nd u
lna
Gla
ssow
et
al.,
2008
SC
RI-
191
1550
–650
cal
. yr
BP
1M
andi
ble
and
met
acar
pal
Col
ten,
199
3:90
, 200
1: 2
10, p
erso
nal
com
mun
icat
ion,
200
7S
CR
I-19
2H
isto
ric
2N
= 5
fro
m H
ouse
4 (
2 C
anis
sp. a
s w
ell)
; N
= 7
fro
m H
ouse
8 (
5 C
anis
sp. a
s w
ell)
Noa
h, 2
005:
165,
171
SC
RI-
192
His
tori
c1
Pha
lanx
Col
ten,
199
3:90
, 200
1:21
0S
CR
I-19
265
0–16
8 ca
l. yr
BP
1M
etac
arpa
l, m
etat
arsa
l, ca
rpal
s, r
adiu
s, a
nd p
hala
nx, N
ISP
= 1
3C
olte
n, 1
993:
90, 2
001:
210,
per
sona
l co
mm
unic
atio
n, 2
007
SC
RI-
236
His
tori
c2
NIS
P =
5 f
rom
Hou
se 5
; N
ISP
= 2
fro
m H
ouse
9N
oah,
200
5:19
4S
CR
I-23
6L
ate
Hol
ocen
e 1
Dog
bur
ial
foun
d by
Ols
on a
t B
-83
Hoo
ver,
197
1:12
0S
CR
I-24
0H
isto
ric
2S
paul
ding
Exc
avat
ion:
NIS
P =
15;
Arn
old
exca
vati
on:
NIS
P =
22
and
NIS
P =
1N
oah,
200
5:24
0, W
alke
r an
d S
neth
kam
p, 1
984;
Wal
ker,
Can
issp
. fro
m H
ouse
1, N
ISP
= 1
4 fr
om f
east
dep
osit
upub
lish
ed d
ata,
200
8S
CR
I-32
8/33
0H
isto
ric
2N
ISP
= 3
fro
m t
wo
diff
eren
t ho
uses
Noa
h, 2
005:
206;
thi
s pa
per
SC
RI-
330
650–
168
cal.
yr B
P1
Fem
ur a
nd s
acru
mC
olte
n, 1
993:
90, 2
001:
210,
per
sona
l co
mm
unic
atio
n, 2
007
07-095579-Rick.qxd 7/24/2008 9:20 PM Page 4
PRO
OF
ON
LY
Torben C. Rick et al.: Dogs, humans and island ecosystems, California 5
Tab
le 2
(Con
tinu
ed)
Sit
e or
Loc
alit
yA
geM
NI
Com
men
tsR
efer
ence
s
SC
RI-
Loc
alit
y 12
5L
ate
Hol
ocen
e2
Tw
o co
mpl
ete
cran
ia, C
oche
s P
riet
osS
anta
Bar
bara
Mus
eum
of
Nat
ural
His
tory
spe
cim
enS
CR
I-F
orne
y’s
Lat
e H
oloc
ene
2T
wo
com
plet
e cr
ania
San
ta B
arba
ra M
useu
m o
f N
atur
al H
isto
ry s
peci
men
SC
RI-
434
Lat
e H
oloc
ene
1A
lmos
t co
mpl
ete
cran
ia p
roba
bly
abor
igin
al d
ogS
anta
Bar
bara
Mus
eum
of
Nat
ural
His
tory
spe
cim
enS
CR
I-47
4L
ate
Hol
ocen
e1
Ful
ly a
rtic
ulat
ed d
og s
kele
ton
buri
ed o
n it
s si
de a
nd r
ecov
ered
by
Ols
onH
oove
r, 1
971:
137
Sant
a R
osa
Isla
nd
SR
I-2
500–
150
cal.
yr B
P1
Par
tial
ly c
ompl
ete
dog
buri
al e
rodi
ng o
ut o
f se
a cl
iff
–S
RI-
220
00–1
50 c
al. y
r B
P6
Sev
en s
peci
men
s ex
cava
ted
by O
rr, i
nclu
ding
juv
enil
e an
d ad
ult
rem
ains
San
ta B
arba
ra M
useu
m o
f N
atur
al H
isto
ry s
peci
men
SR
I-41
Mid
dle–
Lat
e H
oloc
ene
2T
wo
sepa
rate
spe
cim
ens
wit
h cr
ania
l an
d po
st-c
rani
al e
lem
ents
San
ta B
arba
ra M
useu
m o
f N
atur
al H
isto
ry s
peci
men
SR
I-60
Lat
e H
oloc
ene–
His
tori
c1
Mis
cell
aneo
us d
og b
ones
rec
over
ed b
y D
avid
Ban
ks R
oger
s in
San
ta B
arba
ra M
useu
m o
f N
atur
al H
isto
ry s
peci
men
, J. J
ohns
on,
earl
y 20
th c
entu
rype
rona
l co
mm
unic
atio
n, 2
008
San
Mig
uel
Isla
nd
SM
I-1
7140
–325
0 ca
l. yr
BP
1bC
anid
rem
ains
ide
ntif
ied
in 1
2 un
its
Wal
ker,
unp
ubli
shed
dat
a, 2
008
SM
I-87
ca. 2
500–
3500
cal
. yr
BP
1F
ragm
enta
ry c
rani
umR
ick,
200
7S
MI-
261
Ear
ly H
oloc
ene?
1L
eft
man
dibl
e; m
orph
olog
y in
dica
tive
of
shor
t-fa
ced
bree
dW
alke
r et
al.,
197
8:11
, 78
SM
I-39
0 an
dn/
a1
Rig
ht m
andi
ble
foun
d on
sur
face
nea
r th
ese
two
site
sS
anta
Bar
bara
Mus
eum
of
Nat
ural
His
tory
spe
cim
enS
MI-
392?
SM
I-48
1L
ate
Hol
ocen
e?1
Nea
rly
com
plet
e, h
eavi
ly w
eath
ered
cra
nium
Wal
ker
and
Sne
thka
mp,
198
4:14
0, D
-12
SM
I-48
1?
Lat
e H
oloc
ene?
2T
wo
cran
ia a
nd m
andi
bles
, Ott
er H
arbo
rS
anta
Bar
bara
Mus
eum
of
Nat
ural
His
tory
spe
cim
enS
MI-
485
570–
480
cal.
yr B
P1
NIS
P=4
pro
babl
y fr
om a
sin
gle
indi
vidu
alW
alke
r an
d S
neth
kam
p, 1
984:
140,
D-1
4S
MI-
525
650–
168
BP
1M
andi
ble
Fro
m K
enne
tt e
xcav
atio
nsS
MI-
525
~620
–520
cal
. yr
BP
1M
andi
ble
that
lac
ks f
irst
pre
mol
arW
alke
r an
d S
neth
kam
p, 1
984:
140–
41
aM
NI
(Min
imum
num
ber
of i
ndiv
idua
ls)
unkn
own
but
at l
east
one
ind
ivid
ual
is p
rese
nt.
bG
arli
ngho
use,
200
0:10
6 re
port
ed a
n N
ISP
of
18 a
nd M
NI
of 9
for
SC
LI-
43, -
126,
and
-15
24 b
ut i
t is
unc
lear
wha
t si
te o
r ti
me
peri
od t
hese
com
e fr
om.
07-095579-Rick.qxd 7/24/2008 9:20 PM Page 5
PRO
OF
ON
LYeach of these dog specimens suggest that, as elsewhere in NorthAmerica, dogs have a long history on the Channel Islands, proba-bly spanning most of the Holocene, and their presence appears toincrease significantly through time.
Results
At least 42 Channel Island archaeological sites or localities areknown to contain dog remains, with a number of other known dogparts assigned to an island but to no known location. This includesat least 96 individual dogs, a conservative value given the absenceof MNI data from many reports. A number of sites (eg, SRI-2,SCRI-240, SCLI-1524 and SNI-25) also produced multiple dogremains or sometimes multiple dog burials. Dogs were found onsix of the eight Channel Islands, with only the smallest islands(Anacapa and Santa Barbara, each about 2.5–3 km2 in total area)lacking documented dog remains (Figures 2 and 3). These twoislands have also seen the least amount of archaeological research.The larger islands had relatively sizeable human settlements dur-ing the middle and late Holocene, and most of these have a num-ber of sites with dog bones. Santa Catalina, the largest and closestto the mainland of the southern islands, has only one site with doc-umented dog remains, but it has seen little archaeological work.Lupo and Janetski (1994: 201) noted that for the entire easternGreat Basin (the state of Utah) only 29 dogs have been identifiedfrom deposits spanning the Holocene, suggesting that the densityof dogs on the Channel Islands was relatively high.
The largest number of sites or localities with dog remainsoccurs on San Nicolas Island (n = 13), followed by Santa Cruz(n = 11), San Clemente (n = 7), San Miguel (n = 7), Santa Rosa(n = 3) and Santa Catalina (n = 1). San Nicolas, at roughly 98 kmfrom the mainland, has the most sites with dogs, including severalsites with dog burials. Similarly, San Clemente Island, locatedabout 79 km offshore, has seven sites with dog remains, includinglate Holocene sites such as SCLI-1524 that produced six dog buri-als alone (Hale and Salls, 2000).
The oldest dog remains from the Channel Islands appear to bea left mandible fragment from Daisy Cave on San Miguel Island,the depth of which may correlate with the site’s early Holocene(c. 8600–10 000 cal. yr BP) deposits (Walker et al., 1978;Erlandson, 1994: 194). An early-Holocene date would make theseremains among the oldest dog bones in the Americas (see Morey,2006), but the specimen has not been directly dated and it couldbe from one of the younger site components. The possible early-Holocene age of the Daisy Cave specimen may be supported bydog remains identified in a few early mainland sites (Erlandson,1994), but stratigraphic mixing is an issue in many of these sitesand mainland specimens have not been directly dated. Four sitescontain dog remains that are either middle or early late Holocenein age. Two dog bone tools identified by Glassow et al. (2008)from Punta Arena on Santa Cruz Island date to the middleHolocene, but it is unclear if these were made from a dog that livedon the island or from tools traded or transported from the mainland.Two dogs identified from SNI-11 were from Stratum 3, datedbetween about 6500 and 4500 years ago, providing a reasonably
6 The Holocene 18,7 (2008)
Figure 2 Distribution of dog remains on the southern Channel Islands. Triangles indicate dog remains and circles indicate definitive dog burials
Figure 3 Distribution of dogs on the northern Channel Islands. Triangles indicate dog remains and circles indicate definitive dog burials
07-095579-Rick.qxd 7/24/2008 9:20 PM Page 6
PRO
OF
ON
LY
secure middle-Holocene age for these materials. Dog remainsfrom SRI-41 on Santa Rosa Island and SCA-17 on Santa CatalinaIsland may also be middle or early late Holocene in age. Themajority of sites (n = 38) date to the late Holocene, indicating thatdog populations, similar to human populations, increased throughtime on the islands. More late-Holocene sites have been excavatedthan middle- and early-Holocene sites, however, which may con-tribute to the dearth of earlier dog evidence.
Dog remains are found in a wide range of archaeological con-texts, including shell middens and formal burials. The latter arebetter documented on the southern islands, where several sites onSan Clemente (eg, Eel Point, Lemon Tank and Big Dog Cave) andSan Nicolas islands (SNI-25) have produced formal dog burials,some with grave goods. On San Clemente, researchers have sug-gested that these dog burials, including apparently dismembereddogs, may be part of ancient religious ceremonies (Raab et al.,1994; Hardy, 2000; Hale and Salls, 2000). On the northern islandsformal dog burials are less common, but dogs have been foundfully articulated in midden deposits, where they were either dis-carded, intentionally buried or died naturally in place. Althoughsome of the San Clemente dogs may have been ritually modifiedand perhaps decapitated (Hardy, 2000), signs of butchery or otherindications of human consumption are rare. At SNI-11 a burneddog bone was identified (Bleitz, 1993), and a few San Clementesites also contained burned dog bones (Garlinghouse, 2000).However, this burning may be a product of inadvertent burning ofbones buried near to hearths or the use of fire to dispose of theremains of dogs who were not consumed. Overall, these data sug-gest that dogs were generally not consumed, except perhaps dur-ing times of scarcity. The two dog-bone pins identified byGlassow et al. (2008) from middle-Holocene deposits on SantaCruz Island suggest that dog bones were occasionally used to makeutilitarian objects. Gnaw marks that are probably from dogs, andpossibly foxes, have been noted on human remains from Eel Point(SCLI-43) on San Clemente Island (Titus and Walker, 2000: 85)and on non-human faunal remains from three Santa Cruz Islandsites (SCRI-192, -236 and -240; Noah, 2005: 120) and at SRI-2 onSanta Rosa Island. These data demonstrate that canids were alsoscavengers and agents of taphonomic disturbance.
Discussion
Dogs were a significant component of Holocene Channel Islandecosystems and were widespread during the late Holocene.Humans and dogs had a symbiotic relationship, with dogs proba-bly functioning as hunting companions, sentinel animals, pets,offal scavengers, food sources and potentially as status symbols asthey did elsewhere in the world. During periods of high interper-sonal violence, dogs may have also served an important functionby warning people of intruders (Walker and Snethkamp, 1984:142; Walker, 1989). Ethnographic data for the Chumash(Blackburn, 1975: 242), Hopi (Titiev, 1972), Navajo (Downs,1972), Chippewa (Sharp, 1976) and Mundurucú (Murphy, 1985)suggest that dogs also consume human excrement, which isimportant for disposing of waste. Dogs likely did the same on theChannel Islands.
Like their wolf ancestors, dogs are pack animals that generallyhave good hunting skills. A few ethnographic accounts ofChumash and Gabrielino peoples on the mainland, however, sug-gest that some Chumash groups may not have employed dogs forhunting, but occasionally used them for food (Kroeber, 1941;Harrington, 1942: 6–7). Given the dearth of terrestrial animals onthe Channel Islands, dogs probably were of limited use in hunting.They would hinder hunting sea mammals hauled out along thecoast, for example, because they would likely scare them into the
water before they could be taken. With their presence on theislands for at least 6000 years, we argue that dogs, together withfoxes and humans, negatively affected breeding bird and seamammal populations on the mainland portions of the islands,likely driving these animals to offshore islets or other isolatedareas. If feral dog populations were present, as they were histori-cally (see below), these impacts would have been more pro-nounced. Guthrie (1993) has identified the fossil remains ofChendytes lawi, a ground-nesting, flightless scoter, on San MiguelIsland dated to c. 12 000 RYBP (~14 000 cal. yr BP). ExtensiveChendytes breeding colonies would not have been possible withthe regular presence of dogs, foxes and humans. It is conceivablethat dogs contributed to the extinction of the flightless goose nearthe end of the middle Holocene or beginning of the late Holocene(see Guthrie, 1993; Jones et al., 2008; Rick et al., 2008b).
One of the most significant ecological impacts of ChannelIsland dogs was probably related to their propensity to disturbaggregations of breeding animals. A recent study on disturbanceto western snowy plovers (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus), athreatened shore bird, and other birds near the Devereux Sloughon the Santa Barbara mainland demonstrated that unleashed dogshad some of the highest impacts on plovers, probably influencingreproduction, survivorship and distribution (Lafferty, 2001a, b).Since snowy plovers are also found on the Channel Islands,including a protected area near Skunk Point on Santa Rosa Island,Native American dogs may have had much the same impact onthese and other birds in the more distant past. This is especiallytrue since no disturbances to snowy plovers were observed at theprotected area of Santa Rosa today (Lafferty, 2001a, b), but in thepast Skunk Point was close to numerous large centres of NativeAmerican habitation, including the historic Chumash village ofQshiwqshiw that would have almost certainly had dogs.
Dogs would also have competed directly with island foxes forfood and other resources. Although a great deal of attention hasbeen given to the biology and ecology of island foxes (eg, Collins,1991a, 1991b; Roemer et al., 2001, 2002; Coonan et al., 2002,2005), few studies have examined the possible interactionsbetween dogs and foxes in the distant past. Collins (1991a) dis-cussed the burial of both dogs and foxes in island sites, demon-strating that people often gave the same ritual treatment to theseanimals. Collins (1991b) and Vellanoweth (1998) argued thatNative Americans introduced island foxes to the southern ChannelIslands but, based on a single ‘Pleistocene’ specimen from SantaRosa Island recovered in the 1950s by Phil Orr, it has been sug-gested that foxes arrived naturally on the northern islands prior tohuman arrival (see Collins, 1991b). However, recent direct 14Cdating of this and several other fox specimens, previously thoughtto be as much as 38 000 years old, suggests that they are all mid-dle or late Holocene in age, raising significant questions about thenatural dispersal of foxes to the northern islands (Shelley, 2001;Rick et al., 2008a). As Collins (1991a) noted, island fox behaviourmeshes well with humans, and their presence in formal burialsclearly demonstrates their importance in Island Chumash society.
Dogs and foxes appear to have lived along side one anothersince at least the middle Holocene, but it is still unclear how theywould have influnced each others’ lives. They would have com-peted for food and the small size of island foxes would have madethem potential prey for feral dogs (eg, Ralls and White, 1995).Dog pups could also have been prey for island foxes, but we sus-pect direct predation may have been limited, especially if peopleactively discouraged it. In this context, both island foxes and dogsmay have provided an additional benefit to people by eating dis-carded food and human waste, preying on rodents and other pestsaround habitation sites and providing protection from intruders.The introduction of dogs to the Channel Islands and occasionalprehistoric transport of mainland dogs to the islands could also
Torben C. Rick et al.: Dogs, humans and island ecosystems, California 7
07-095579-Rick.qxd 7/24/2008 9:20 PM Page 7
PRO
OF
ON
LY
have had deleterious consequences by transmitting potential lethalpathogens such as canine distemper, canine adenovirus, canineparvovirus and toxoplasma to endemic island foxes (Cliffordet al., 2006).
Despite these potential negative consequences for foxes, weknow from archaeological evidence that both canids coexisted forseveral thousand years, making it clear that potential niche overlapbetween the two species resulted in some form of equilibriumrather than competitive exclusion. The key adaptive difference thatmade this possible is likely the symbiotic relationship betweenhumans and their domestic dog companions. Interestingly, the ear-liest secure date for island foxes is about 7000 cal. yr BP, a datecomparable with the earliest secure dates available for dogs. Futureresearch on the antiquity and distribution of dogs and island foxesshould prove important for delineating the relationship betweenthese two animals and their ecological impacts.
Historically, dogs were present on all the islands and wereintroduced during successive ranching occupations since the nine-teenth century (Schoenherr et al., 1999). The fate of NativeAmerican dogs on the islands during the Historic period is poorlydocumented. Many dogs were probably left behind when Nativepeoples left the islands for mainland missions, and a few accountssuggest that ‘wild dogs’ were present historically (Schumacher,1877). Juana Maria, the lone woman of San Nicolas Island, whosurvived alone on the island for many years in the mid nineteenthcentury, had several dogs (Nidever, 1937). Juana Maria even sug-gested that her child was eaten by wild dogs (Hardy, 2000: 95).Schoenherr et al. (1999: 41) noted that feral dogs descended fromNative American dogs were removed from San Nicolas Island bysheepherders because they were impacting sheep populations.Native American dogs may have survived on the other islands aswell, but the fate or abundance of these dogs is poorly known. Inrecent years, dogs were removed and banned from some of theislands by the National Park Service and US Navy, with dogspresent only on Santa Catalina today. Canine diseases and para-sites were implicated as one component of the dramatic reductionof island fox populations during the last decade, although preda-tion by golden eagles appears to be the major cause of the foxdecline (Coonan et al., 2002, 2005; Roemer et al., 2002). Theintroduction of dogs in the distant past by Native Americans raisesquestions about the nature of such dog/fox interactions. Caninediseases may have passed back and forth between the two popula-tions in the past, but both foxes and dogs appear to have co-existedfor much of the Holocene and we argue played a role in islandecology, biogeography and Native American culture.
Conclusion
The evidence we have presented in this paper for the translocationof dogs to the Channel Islands adds to our growing understandingof the influence of Native Americans and other pre-Industrial peo-ples on ecology and biogeography (Redman, 1999; Grayson,2001; Kirch, 2005). These impacts are particularly significant onislands, which contain unique fauna and ecosystems that are gen-erally more vulnerable to human activities than continental land-masses. Although we are just beginning to understand the role ofpeople in shaping ancient Channel Island marine and terrestrialecosystems (Erlandson et al., 2004, 2005; Kennett, 2005; Braje,2007; Rick, 2007; Braje et al., 2007; Rick et al., 2008a, b), theintroduction of domestic dogs to the islands is part of a muchlarger ‘domestication’ of the Channel Islands landscape. TheChannel Islands contain unique ecosystems distinct from thenearby mainland, with a number of island endemic and relictspecies (Schoenherr et al., 1999). It is clear, however, that theseenvironments were also influenced by the direct and indirect
actions (eg, hunting, setting of wildfires, dune stabilization andde-stabilization, and animal translocations) of Native peoples forat least 13 000 calendar years.
Understanding and documenting the activities of ancient peo-ple, and the animals they introduced, we can improve models ofancient island ecosystems and significantly enhance the manage-ment and restoration of these habitats by providing importantbaseline data on how island ecosystems may have been structuredand functioned in the past. Dogs were a predator/scavenger intro-duced to the Channel Islands by humans that, along with islandfoxes and humans, influenced the biogeography and breedingbehaviour of birds, marine mammals and other animals that,largely free from predation today, breed in large numbers on sev-eral of the islands, including over 100 000 seals and sea lions onSan Miguel Island alone (Delong and Melin, 2002). The greatestecological influence of dogs would have been in the areas closestto human communities. Since Native villages and their dogs werepresent across much of the islands, especially around the coast-lines and near good water sources, these impacts may have beenfairly widespread.
There is still much to be learned about the antiquity and effectsof the prehistoric introduction of domestic dogs on the ecology ofCalifornia’s Channel Islands. At the very least, dogs may havescared marine mammals and birds off island beaches and otherlandforms, driving them to breed, roost and haul-out elsewhere. OnSan Miguel Island, all foxes were pulled into captivity for breedingstarting in the late 1990s, which resulted in the rapid spread ofground-breeding northern harriers (Circus cyaneus), western gulls(Larus occidentalis) and Brandt’s cormorants (Phalacrocoraxpenicillatus) in vulnerable and conspicuous locations around theisland (Drost et al., 2008). This significant expansion of bird breed-ing habitat provides a possible glimpse of what seabird populationsmay have looked like prior to the late Pleistocene/Holocene arrivalof foxes, dogs and humans. Given the lengthy presence of peopleand dogs on the islands, the modern situation appears to be radi-cally different from much of the Holocene.
Acknowledgements
We thank Ann Huston, Kelly Minas, Don Morris, Mark Senningand Ian Williams of Channel Islands National Park for supportingour research and enhancing our understanding of island ecologyand natural history. Steve Schwartz supported our research on SanNicolas and San Miguel islands and our work on the northernChannel Islands has been supported by Channel Islands NationalPark, the National Science Foundation, Western Parks andMonuments Association, the University of Oregon and SouthernMethodist University. Roger Colten provided data on some of thedog remains from Santa Cruz Island. We are also indebted to PaulCollins and Dan Guthrie for discussions that deepened our under-standing of island ecology and palaeoecology. We thank VirginiaButler and William Keegan for thoughtful comments on an earlierversion of this manuscript. Finally, we thank anonymous review-ers and the editors and staff of The Holocene for help in the reviewand production of this manuscript.
References
Agenbroad, L.D., Johnson, J.R., Morris, D. and Stafford, T.W., Jr
2005: Mammoths and humans as Late Pleistocene contemporaries onSanta Rosa Island. In Garcelon, D. and Schwemm, C., editors,Proceedings of the sixth California Islands symposium. National ParkService Technical Publication CHIS-05-01, Institute for WildlifeStudies, 3–7.
8 The Holocene 18,7 (2008)
07-095579-Rick.qxd 7/24/2008 9:20 PM Page 8
PRO
OF
ON
LY
Barker, G. 2006: The agricultural revolution in prehistory: why didforagers become farmers? Oxford University Press.Bellwood, P. 2004: First farmers: the origins of agricultural soci-eties. Blackwell.Blackburn, T.C., editor 1975: December’s child: a book of Chumashoral narratives. University of California Press.Bleitz, D.E. 1993: The prehistoric exploitation of marine mammalsand birds at San Nicolas Island, California. In Hochberg, F.G., editor,Third California Islands symposium: recent advances in research onthe California Islands. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History,519–36.Bowers, S. 1890: San Nicolas Island. California State Mining Bureau,Ninth Annual Report of the State Mineralogist 9, 57–61.Braje, T.J. 2007: Archaeology, human impacts, and historical ecology onSan Miguel Island, California. PhD dissertation, University of Oregon.Braje, T.J., Kennett, D.J., Erlandson, J.M. and Culleton, B.J.
2007: Human impacts on nearshore shellfish taxa: a 7000 year recordfrom Santa Rosa Island, California. American Antiquity 74, 735–56.Busuttil, J. 1969: The Maltese dog. Greece & Rome 16, 205–208.Clifford, D.L., Mazet, J.A.K., Dubovi, E.J., Garcelon, D.K.,
Coonan, T.J., Conrad, P.A. and Munson, L. 2006: Pathogen expo-sure in endangered island fox (Urocyon littoralis) populations: impli-cations for conservation management. Biological Conservation 131,230–43.Collins, P.W. 1991a: Interaction between island foxes (Urocyon lit-toralis) and Native Americans on islands off the coast of southernCalifornia: II. Ethnographic, archaeological, and historical evidence.Journal of Ethnobiology 11, 205–29.–––– 1991b: Interaction between island foxes (Urocyon littoralis) andIndians on islands off the coast of southern California: I.Morphological and archaeological evidence of human assisted disper-sal. Journal of Ethnobiology 11, 51–81.Colten, R.H. 1993: Prehistoric subsistence, specialization, and econ-omy in a southern California Chiefdom. Ph.D. dissertation, Universityof California.–––– 2001: Ecological and economic analysis of faunal remains fromSanta Cruz Island. In Arnold, J.E., editor, The origins of a PacificCoast chiefdom: the Chumash of the Channel Islands. University ofUtah Press, 199–219.Colton, H.S. 1970: The aboriginal southwestern Indian dog.American Antiquity 35,153–59.Coonan, T.J., Schwemm, C.A., Roemer, G.W. and Austin, G.
2002: Population decline of island foxes (Urocyon littoralis littoralis)on San Miguel Island. In Browne, D., Mitchell, K. and Chaney, H.,editors, Proceedings of the fifth California Islands symposium. SantaBarbara Museum of Natural History, 289–97.Coonan, T.J., Rutz, K., Garcelon, D.K., Latta, B.C., Gray, M.M.
and Ashehoug, E.T. 2005: Progress in island fox recovery efforts onthe northern Channel Islands. In Garcelon, D. and Schwemm, C., edi-tors Proceedings of the sixth California Islands symposium. NationalPark Service Technical Publication CHIS-05-01, Institute for WildlifeStudies, 263–73.Corbett, L. 1995: The dingo in Australia and Asia. University of NewSouth Wales Press.DeLong, R.L. and Melin, S.R. 2002: Thirty years of pinnipedresearch at San Miguel Island. In Browne, D., Mitchell, K. andChaney, H., editors, The fifth California Islands symposium. SantaBarbara Museum of Natural History, 401–406.Downs, J.F. 1972: The Navajo. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Drost, C.A., Schwemm, C., Coonan, T. and Richards, D. 2008:Ecosystemwide response to extirpation of island foxes on San MiguelIsland. Paper presented at the Seventh California Islands Symposium,Oxnard, CA.Erlandson, J.M. 1994: Early hunter-gatherers of the CaliforniaCoast. Plenum.Erlandson, J.M., Kennett, D.J., Ingram, B.L., Guthrie, D.A.,
Morris, D.P., Tveskov, M.A., West, G.J. and Walker, P.L. 1996:An archaeological and paleontological chronology for Daisy Cave(CA-SMI-261), San Miguel Island, California. Radiocarbon 38,355–73.Erlandson, J.M., Rick, T.C. and Vellanoweth, R.L. 2004: Humanimpacts on ancient environments: a case study from California’s
northern Channel Islands. In Fitzpatrick, S.M., editor, Voyages of dis-covery: the archaeology of islands. Praeger, 51–83.Erlandson, J.M., Rick, T.C. and Peterson, C. 2005: A geoarchaeo-logical chronology for Holocene dune building on San Miguel Island,California. The Holocene 15, 1227–35.Fiedel, S.J. 2005: Man’s best friend – mammoths worst enemy? Aspeculative essay on the role of dogs in Paleoindian colonization andmegafaunal extinction. World Archaeology 37, 11–25.Garlinghouse, T. 2000: Human responses to insularity: the intensifi-cation of a marine oriented economy on San Clemente Island. Ph.D.Dissertation, University of California, Davis.Glassow, M.A., Paige, P. and Perry, J. 2008: The Punta Arena siteand early and middle Holocene cultural development on Santa CruzIsland, California. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural HistoryContributions in Anthropology, in press.Grayson, D.K. 2001: The archaeological record of human impact onanimal populations. Journal of World Prehistory 15, 1–68.Guthrie, D.A. 1993: New information on the prehistoric fauna of SanMiguel Island, California. In Hochberg, F.G., editor, Third CaliforniaIslands symposium: recent advances in research on the CaliforniaIslands. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, 405–16.Hale, A. and Salls, R.A. 2000: The canine ceremony: dog and foxburials on San Clemente Island. Pacific Coast Archaeological SocietyQuarterly 36, 80–94.Hardy, A.T. 2000: Religious aspects of the material remains fromSan Clemente Island. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly36, 78–96.Harrington, J.P. 1942: Culture element distributions, XIX: centralCalifornia Coast. University of California Anthropological Records 7,1–46.Hoover, R.L. 1971: Some aspects of Santa Barbara Channel prehis-tory. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Johnson, C.N. and Wroe, S. 2003: Causes of extinction of vertebratesduring the Holocene of mainland Australia: arrival of the dingo orhuman impact? The Holocene 13, 941–48.Johnson, J.R., Stafford, T.W., Jr, Ajie H.O. and Morris, D.P. 2002:Arlington Springs revisited. In Browne, D., Mitchell, K. and Chaney,H., editors, Proceedings of the fifth California Islands symposium.Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, 541–45.Jones, T.L., Porcasi, J.F., Erlandson, J.M., Dallas, H., Jr, Wake,
T.A. and Schwaderer, R. 2008: Overhunting takes time: protractedHolocene extinction of California’s flightless sea duck (Chendyteslawi). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105,4105–108.Kennett, D.J. 2005: The Island Chumash: behavioral ecology of amaritime society. University of California Press.Kennett, D.J. and Kennett, J.P. 2000: Competitive and cooperativeresponses to climatic instability in southern California, AmericanAntiquity 65, 379–95.Kennett, D.J. and Winterhalder, B., editors 2006: Behavioral ecol-ogy and the transition to agriculture. University of California Press.Kennett, D.J., Kennett, J.P. Erlandson, J.M. and Cannariato, K.G.
2007a: Human responses to middle Holocene climate change onCalifornia’s Channel Islands, Quaternary Science Reviews 26,351–67.Kennett, D.J., Culleton, B.J., Kennett, J.P., Erlandson, J.M. andCannariato, K.G. 2007b: Middle Holocene climate change and pop-ulation dispersal in western North America. In Anderson, D.,Sandweiss, D. and Maasch, K.A., editors, Climate and culture change.Elsevier, 531–57.Kerr, S.L., Walker, P.L., Hawley, G.M. and Yoshida, B.Y. 2002:Physical anthropology. In Ezzo, J., editor, The Ancient Mariners: abioarchaeological analysis of the burial collections. TechnichalReport 01-64. Statistical Research Inc., 25–55.Kirch, P.V. 2000: On the road of the winds: an archaeological his-tory of the Pacific Islands before European contact. University ofCalifornia Press.–––– 2005: Archaeology and global change: the Holocene record.Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30, 409–40.Kirch, P.V. and Hunt, T.L., editors 1997: Historical ecology in thePacific Islands: prehistoric environmental and landscape change.Yale University Press.
Torben C. Rick et al.: Dogs, humans and island ecosystems, California 9
07-095579-Rick.qxd 7/24/2008 9:20 PM Page 9
PRO
OF
ON
LY
Kroeber, A.L. 1941: Culture element distributions, XV: salt, dogs,tobacco. University of California Anthropological Records 6, 1–20.Kruuk, H. and Snell, H. 1981: Prey selection by feral dogs from apopulation of marine iguanas (Amblyrhynchus cristatus). The Journalof Applied Ecology 18, 197–204.Lafferty, K.D. 2001a: Disturbance to wintering western snowyplovers. Biological Conservation 101, 315–25.–––– 2001b: Birds at a southern California beach: seasonality, habitatuse and disturbance by human activity. Biodiversity and Conservation10, 1949–62.Leonard, J.A., Wayne, R.K., Wheeler, J., Valadez, R., Guillén, S.
and Vilà, C. 2002: Ancient DNA evidence for Old World origin ofNew World dogs. Science 298, 1613–16.Lupo, K.D. and Janetski, J.C. 1994: Evidence of domesticated dogand some related canids in the eastern Great Basin. Journal ofCalifornia and Great Basin Anthropology 16, 199–220.Martz, P.C. 2005: Prehistoric subsistence and settlement on SanNicolas Island. In Garcelon, D. and Schwemm, C., editors,Proceedings of the sixth California Islands symposium. National ParkService Technical Publication CHIS-05-01, Institute for WildlifeStudies, 65–82.McKusick, M.B. and Warren, C.N. 1959 Introduction to SanClemente archaeology. University of California ArchaeologicalSurvey Annual Report 1, 107–83.Morey, D.F. 2006: Burying key evidence: the social bond betweendogs and people. Journal of Archaeological Science 33, 158–75.Morey, D.F. and Wiant, M.D. 1992: Early Holocene domestic dogburials from the North American Midwest. Current Anthropology 33,224–29.Murphy, Y. 1985: Women of the forest. Columbia University Press.Newsom, L.A. and Wing, E. 2004: On land and sea: Native Americanuses of biological resources in the West Indies. University of AlabamaPress.Nidever, G. 1937: The life and adventures of George Nidever1802–1883. William Henry Ellison, editor. University of CaliforniaPress.Noah, A.C. 1987: A meeting of paradigms: a late-century analysis ofmid-century excavations on San Clemente Island. Master’s thesis,Department of Anthropology, San Diego State University.–––– 2005: Household economies: the role of animals in a Historicperiod chiefdom on the California Coast. Ph.D. dissertation,University of California, Los Angeles.Olsen, S.J. and Olsen, W. 1970: The Chinese wolf, ancestor of NewWorld dogs. Science 197, 533–35.Porcasi, J.F. 1995: Trans-Holocene marine mammal hunting on SanClemente Island, California: additional data to assess a prehistoric‘tragedy of the commons’ and declining mammalian foraging effi-ciency. MA thesis, California State University, Northridge.–––– 2002: Updating prehistoric maritime subsistence at LittleHarbor, Santa Catalina Island, California. In Browne, D., Mitchell, K.and Chaney, H., editors, Proceedings of the fifth California Islandssymposium. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, 580–89.Porcasi, J.F. and Fujita, H. 2000: The dolphin hunters: a specializedprehistoric maritime adaptation in the southern California ChannelIslands and Baja California. American Antiquity 65, 543–66.Raab, L.M., Bradford, K.G. and Yatsko, A. 1994: Advances insouthern Channel Islands archaeology: 1983 to 1993. Journal ofCalifornia and Great Basin Anthropology 16, 243–70.Ralls, K., and White, P.J. 1995: Predation on San Joaquin kit foxesby larger canids. Journal of Mammalogy 76, 723–29.Redman, C.L. 1999: Human impact on ancient environments.University of Arizona Press.Reinman, F.M. and Townsend, S. 1960: Six burial sites on SanNicolas Island. University of California Archaeological SurveyAnnual Report 2, 1–134.Rick, T.C. 2007: The archaeology and historical ecology of LateHolocene San Miguel Island. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology,University of California, Los Angeles.Rick, T.C., Erlandson, J.M., Vellanoweth, R.L. and Braje, T.J.
2005: From Pleistocene mariners to complex hunter-gatherers: thearchaeology of the California Channel Islands. Journal of WorldPrehistory 19, 169–228.
Rick, T.C., Erlandson, J.M., Vellanoweth, R.L., Braje, T.J., Collins,
P.W., Guthrie, D.A. and Stafford, T.W., Jr 2008a: The origins andantiquity of the island fox (Urocyon littoralis): AMS 14C evidence fromCalifornia’s Channel Islands. Quaternary Research, in review.Rick, T.C., Erlandson, J.M., Braje, T.J., Estes, J.A., Graham,
M.H. and Vellanoweth, R.L. 2008b: Historical ecology and humanimpacts on coastal ecosystems of the Santa Barbara Channel,California. In Rick, T.C. and Erlandson, J.M., editors, Human impactson ancient marine ecosystems: a global perspective. University ofCalifornia Press, 77–101.Roemer, G.W., Smith, D.A., Garcelon, D.K. and Wayne, R.K.
2001: The behavioural ecology of the island fox (Urocyon littoralis).Journal of Zoology 255, 1–14.Roemer, G.W., Donlon, C.J. and Courchamp, F. 2002: Goldeneagles, feral pigs, and insular carnivores: how exotic species turnnative predators into prey. Proceedings of the National Academy ofSciences 99, 791–96.Salls, R.A. 1990: Return to Big Dog Cave: the last evidence of a pre-historic fishery on the Southern California Bight. Pacific CoastArchaeological Society Quarterly 26, 38–60.Savolainen, P., Zhang, Y., Luo, J., Lundeberg, J. and Leitner, T.
2002: Genetic evidence for East Asian origin of domestic dogs.Science 298, 1610–13.Savolainen, P., Leitner, T., Wilton, A.N., Matisoo-Smith, E. andLundeberg, J. 2004: A detailed picture of the origin of the Australiadingo, obtained from the study of mitochondrial DNA. Proceedings ofthe National Academy of Sciences 101, 12 387–90.Schoenherr, A.A., Feldmeth, C.R. and Emerson, M.J. 1999:Natural history of the Islands of California. University of CaliforniaPress.Schumacher, P. 1877: Researches in the kjokkenmoddings andgraves of a former population of the Santa Barbara Islands and theadjacent mainland. U.S. Geological and Geographical Survey of theTerritories Bulletin 3, 37–56.Schwartz, M. 1997: A history of dogs in the early Americas. YaleUniversity Press.Sharp, H.S. 1976: Man: wolf: woman: dog. Arctic Anthropology 13,25–34.Shelley, S.D. 2001: Archaeological evidence of the island fox(Urocyon littoralis) on California’s Channel Islands. Technical Report98-12, Statistical Research Inc.Snyder, L.M. and Leonard, J.A. 2006: Dog. In Ubelaker, D.H., edi-tor, Handbook of North American Indians. Environment, origins, andpopulation, Vol. 3. Smithsonian Institution Press, 452–62.Steadman, D.W. 1995: Prehistoric extinction of Pacific Island birds:biodiversity meets zooarchaeology. Science 267, 1123–30.–––– 2006: Extinction and biogeography of tropical Pacific birds.University of Chicago Press.Taborsky, M. 1988: Kiwis and dog predation: observations inWaitangi State Forest. Notornis 35, 197–202.Titiev, M. 1972: The Hopi Indians of Old Orabi: change and conti-nuity. University of Michigan Press.Titus, M.D. and Walker, P.L. 2000: Skeletal remains from SanClemente Island. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 36,79–87.Vellanoweth, R.L. 1998: Earliest island fox remains on the southernChannel Islands: evidence from San Nicolas Island, California.Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 20, 100–108.Vellanoweth, R.L., Martz, P. and Schwartz, S. 2002: The LateHolocene archaeology of San Nicolas Island. In Erlandson, J. andJones, T., editors, Catalysts to complexity: Late Holocene societies ofthe California Coast. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University ofCalifornia, Los Angeles, 82–100.Wagner, H.R. 1929: Spanish voyages to the Northwest Coast ofNorth America in the sixteenth century. California Historical Society.Walker, P.L. 1989: Cranial injuries as evidence of violence in pre-historic southern California. American Journal of PhysicalAnthropology 80, 313–23.Walker, P.L. and Snethkamp, P.E. 1984: Archaeological investiga-tions on San Miguel Island – 1982: prehistoric adaptations to themarine environment. Report on file at the Central Coast InformationCenter, University of California, Santa Barbara.
10 The Holocene 18,7 (2008)
07-095579-Rick.qxd 7/24/2008 9:20 PM Page 10
PRO
OF
ON
LY
Walker P., Craig, S., Guthrie, D. and Moore, R. 1978: An ethnozo-ological analysis of faunal remains from four Santa Barbara ChannelIsland archaeological sites. Report on file at the Central CoastInformation Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.Wayne, R.K., Leonard, J.A. and Vila, C. 2006: Genetic analysis ofdog domestication. In Zeder, M.A., Bradley, D.G., Emshwiller, E. andSmith, B.D., editors, Documenting domestication: new genetic andarchaeological paradigms. University of California Press, 279–93.
White, P.J. 2004: Where the wild things are: prehistoric animaltranslocation in the Circum New Guinea Archipelago. In Fitzpatrick,S.M., editor, Voyages of discovery: the archaeology of islands.Praeger, 147–64.Woodward, A. 1941: Communication to ‘notes and news’. AmericanAntiquity 6, 284–85.Zeder, M.A. 2006: Central questions in the domestication of plantsand animals. Evolutionary Anthropology 15, 105–17.
Torben C. Rick et al.: Dogs, humans and island ecosystems, California 11
07-095579-Rick.qxd 7/24/2008 9:20 PM Page 11
PRO
OF
ON
LY
07-095579-Rick.qxd 7/24/2008 9:20 PM Page 12