Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T20:24:28.181Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comments on Sullivan and Rozen's Debitage Analysis and Archaeological Interpretation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

H. Blaine Ensor  and
Erwin Roemer Jr.
H. Blaine Ensor
Affiliation:
Archeological Research Laboratory, Department of Anthropology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843
Erwin Roemer Jr.
Affiliation:
6625 Andora, Fort Worth, TX 76133
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Sullivan and Rozen (1985) attempt to provide an improved method of debitage analysis. We suggest that their article is misleading in a number of ways and fails to address the methodological and theoretical issues under discussion. It is doubtful if their four new debitage categories are "interpretation free," since it now is recognized widely that a theoretical basis necessarily underlies interpretation. Their debitage categories are best viewed as morphological or descriptive groups, with technological correlates which are the expected outcomes of generalized reduction practices. They should not be used in interpretation, since the technological inferences drawn from the four debitage categories are assumed without adequate supporting experimentation on the mechanics of flake fracture. We also reject Sullivan and Rozen"s notion that lithic analysis is best interpreted as a continuum and find the criticisms of so-called stage typologies to be unfounded. Lithic artifacts ultimately should be placed within a product group or step, whenever possible, to facilitate recognition of overall manufacturing practices. Finally, we suggest that the only way to improve the subjective nature of debitage analysis is by example, and we point out where this course is not followed in their study.

Type
Comments
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 54 , Issue 1 , January 1989 , pp. 175 - 178
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 1989

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

References Cited

Binford, L. R. 1983 In Pursuit of the Past : Decoding the Archaeological Record. Thames and Hudson, New York.Google Scholar
Crabtree, D. E. 1972 An Introduction to Flintworking. Occasional Papers No. 28. Idaho State Museum, Pocatello.Google Scholar
Collins, M. C. 1975 Lithic Technology as a Means of Processual Inference. In Lithic Technology : Making and Using Stone Tools, edited by Swanson, E., pp. 15–34. Mouton, The Hague.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunnell, R. C. 1971 Systematics in Prehistory. The Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
Dunnell, R. C. 1982 Evolutionary Theory and Archaeology. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 6, edited by Schiffer, M. B., pp. 35–99. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Krause, R. A., and Thome, R. M. 1971 Toward a Theory of Archaeological Things. Plains Anthropologist 16 : 245–257.Google Scholar
Rouse, I. 1972 Introduction to Prehistory : A Systematic Approach. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Sheets, P. D. 1975 Behavioral Analysis and the Structure of Prehistoric Industry. Current Anthropology 16 : 369–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, A. P. III, and Rozen, K. C. 1985 Debitage Analysis and Archaeological Interpretation. American Antiquity 50 : 755–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar