Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T23:07:19.980Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Milling Stone Complex, Genuine or Spurious

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Hal Eberhart*
Affiliation:
California State College, Los Angeles, California

Abstract

Attention is called to a case of duplication of nomenclature in which the Milling Stone complex of San Clemente Island, California, as defined by M. B. McKusick and C. N. Warren, is apt to be confused with the Milling Stone horizon of the adjacent coast, as delineated by William Wallace. Existence of the Milling Stone complex has been questioned by Sam-Joe Townsend. The complex of the island and the horizon of the coast are claimed by no one to be equivalent in time or content, and an attack on the former should not be mistaken as an attack on the latter. It is suggested that before the confusion is further compounded another term be found for the island manifestation.

Type
Facts and Comments
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1965

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
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
Wallace, William J. 1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 214–30. Albuquerque.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, Claude N. 1964 Further Comments on the Archaeology of San Clemente Island, California: A Reply. American Antiquity, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 393–5. Salt Lake City.CrossRefGoogle Scholar