Archaeological investigations of settlement patterns in dynamic landscapes can be strongly biased by the evolution of the Earth's surface. The Kuril Island volcanic arc exemplifies such a dynamic landscape, where landscape-modifying geological forces were active during settlement, including sea-level changes, tectonic emergence, volcanic eruptive processes, coastal aggradation, and dune formation. With all these ongoing processes, in this paper we seek to understand how new landscape formation in the Holocene might bias archaeological interpretations of human settlement in the Kurils. Resolving this issue is fundamental to any interpretation of human settlement history derived from the distribution and age of archaeological sites from the region. On the basis of a comparison of landform ages and earliest archaeological occupation ages on those landforms, we conclude that landform creation did not significantly bias our aggregate archaeological evidence for earliest settlement. Some sections of the archipelago have larger proportions of landform creation dates closer to archaeological evidence of settlement and undoubtedly some archaeological sites have been lost to geomorphic processes. However, comparisons between regions reveal comparable archaeological establishment patterns irrespective of geomorphic antiquity.

中文翻译：

---

确定千岛群岛的定居历史时控制地形年龄

地球表面的演化可能会严重偏向动态景观中沉降模式的考古调查。千岛岛的火山弧就是这种动态景观的代表，在定居过程中活跃于景观的地质力量包括海平面变化，构造出现，火山喷发过程，沿海沉积和沙丘形成。通过所有这些进行中的过程，本文旨在寻求了解全新世的新景观如何可能会影响考古学对千岛群岛人类住区的解释。解决这个问题对于从该地区考古遗址的分布和年代得出的人类住区历史的任何解释都是至关重要的。在对这些地貌的地貌年龄和最早的考古职业年龄进行比较的基础上，我们得出结论，地貌的创造并没有显着地偏离我们最早的定居考古证据。群岛的某些地区的地貌创建日期所占比例较大，更接近考古定居的证据，毫无疑问，某些考古遗址已因地貌过程而丢失。但是，区域之间的比较揭示了可比较的考古学建立模式，而与地上古时代无关。群岛的某些地区的地貌创建日期所占比例较大，更接近考古定居的证据，毫无疑问，某些考古遗址已因地貌过程而丢失。但是，区域之间的比较揭示了可比较的考古学建立模式，而与地上古时代无关。群岛的某些地区的地貌创建日期所占比例较大，更接近考古定居的证据，毫无疑问，某些考古遗址已因地貌过程而丢失。但是，区域间的比较显示出可比较的考古学建立模式，而与地上古时代无关。