Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T08:25:13.041Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Further Comments on the Archaeology of San Clemente Island, California: A Reply

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Claude N. Warren*
Affiliation:
Idaho State University, Pocatello, Idaho

Abstract

McKusick and Warren defined culture complexes on San Clemente Island as distinct collections of artifacts, spatially isolated, and representative of a local cultural adaptation. In doing so, they were reticent about interpreting each of their three culture complexes as culturally distinct and gave several alternative interpretations. Townsend misinterpreted this definition of culture complexes and considered the alternative interpretations as contradictory statements and the qualifying statement as disclaimers. Furthermore, Townsend overemphasized the importance of disturbance in the sites tested by McKusick and Warren and the importance of steatite on San Clemente Island. A more studied analysis by Townsend could have resulted in more constructive criticism.

Type
Facts and Comments
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1964

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

McKusick, M. B. and Warren, C. N. 1959 Introduction to San Clemente Island Archaeology. Archaeological Survey Annual Report 1958-1959, pp. 105-84. Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Reinman, Fred M. and Townsend, Sam-Joe 1960 Six Burial Sites on San Nicolas Island. Archaeological Survey Annual Report 1959-1960, pp. 1134. Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Townsend, Sam-Joe 1963 Some Comments on the Archaeology of San Clemente Island, California. American Antiquity, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 554-5. Salt Lake City.CrossRefGoogle Scholar