Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-swr86 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T16:08:47.071Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Nature of Lithic Reduction and Lithic Analysis: Stage Typologies Revisited

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Kenneth C. Rozen  and
Alan P. Sullivan III
Kenneth C. Rozen
Affiliation:
Arizona State Museum, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721
Alan P. Sullivan III
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, 811 Swift Hall, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45221
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Ensor and Roemer (1989) claim that our debitage categories inherently are linked to our interpretations (i.e., are not interpretation free), that we have dismissed unfairly the work of lithic analysts who use stage typologies, and that our view of lithic reduction as a continuum is questionable. In responding, we review the descriptive and interpretive limitations of stage approaches, and explore terminological issues that arise from Ensor and Roemer's zealous adherence to stage approaches. Finally, we reiterate our position that approaches like ours, which seek to describe and interpret distinctive assemblages of lithic artifacts, are more likely to yield productive results than those, such as stage approaches, which focus on identifying distinctive artifacts.

Type
Comments
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 54 , Issue 1 , January 1989 , pp. 179 - 184
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

Amick, D. S., and Mauldin, R. P. 1989 Comments on Sullivan and Rozen's “Debitage Analysis and Archaeological Interpretation.” American Antiquity 54 : 166–168.Google Scholar
Cahen, D., Keeley, L. H., and Van Noten, F. L. 1979 Stone Tools, Tool Kits, and Human Behavior in Prehistory. Current Anthropology 20 : 661–683.Google Scholar
Chapman, R. C. 1977 Analysis of the Lithic Assemblages. In Settlement and Subsistence along the Lower Chaco River, edited by Reher, C. A., pp. 371–452. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Collins, M. B. 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
Ensor, H. B., and Roemer, E. Jr. 1989 Comments on Sullivan and Rozen's “Debitage Analysis and Archaeological Interpretation.” American ‘ Antiquity 54 : 175–178.Google Scholar
Flenniken, J. J. 1985 Stone Tool Reduction Techniques as Cultural Markers. In Stone Tool Analysis : Essays in Honor of Don E. Crabtree, edited by Plew, M. G., Woods, J. C., and Pavesic, M. C., pp. 265–276. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Frison, G. C, and Bradley, B. A. 1980 Folsom Tools and Technology at the Hanson Site, Wyoming. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Gould, R. A. 1976 Hard Rocks and Heavy Science. Reviews in Anthropology 3 : 501–510.Google Scholar
Isaac, G. L. 1977 Olorgesailie : Archaeological Studies of a Middle Pleistocene Lake Basin in Kenya. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Jelinek, A. J., Bradley, B., and Huckell, B. 1971 The Production of Secondary Multiple Flakes. American Antiquity 36 : 198–200.Google Scholar
Kamp, K. A., and Whittaker, J. C. 1986 Unproductive Lithic Resources at Lake Mead. American Antiquity 51 : 383–388.Google Scholar
Keller, D. R, and Wilson, S. M. 1976 New Light on the Tolchaco Problem. The Kiva 41 : 225–239.Google Scholar
Linford, L. D. 1979 Archaeological Investigations in West-Central Arizona : The Cyprus-Bagdad Project. Archaeological Series No. 136. Arizona State Museum, Tucson.Google Scholar
Muto, G. R. 1971 A Stage Analysis of the Manufacture of Stone Tools. In Selected Papers of the Great Basin Anthropological Conference 1970, edited by Aikens, C. M., pp. 109–118. Anthropological Papers No. 1. University of Oregon, Eugene.Google Scholar
Newcomer, M. H. 1971 Some Quantitative Experiments in Handaxe Manufacture. World Archaeology 3 : 85–93.Google Scholar
Raab, L. M., Cande, R. F., and Stahle, D. W. 1979 Debitage Graphs and Archaic Settlement Patterns in the Arkansas Ozarks. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 4 : 167–182.Google Scholar
Ranere, A. J. 1978 Comment on “A History of Flint-Knapping Experimentation, 1838-1976, ” by L. Lewis Johnson. Current A nthropology 19 : 365.Google Scholar
Rozen, K. C. 1979 Lithic Analysis and Interpretation. In The AEPCO Project, vol. II, by Westfall, D. A., Rozen, K. C., and Davidson, H. M., pp. 209–321. Archaeological Series No. 117. Arizona State Museum, Tucson.Google Scholar
Rozen, K. C. 1981 Patterned Associations among Lithic Technology, Site Content, and Time : Results of the TEP St. Johns Project Lithic Analysis. In Prehistory of the St. Johns Area, East-Central Arizona : The TEP St. Johns Project, by Westfall, D. A., pp. 157–232. Archaeological Series No. 153. Arizona State Museum, Tucson.Google Scholar
Rozen, K. C. 1984 Flaked Stone. In Hohokam Habitation Sites in the Northern Santa Rita Mountains, by Ferg, A., Rozen, K. C., Deaver, W. L., Tagg, M. A., Phillips, D. A. Jr., and Gregory, D. A., pp. 421–604. Archaeological Series No. 147(2). Arizona State Museum, Tucson.Google Scholar
Rozen, K. C, and Sullivan, A. P. III 1989 Measurement, Method, and Meaning in Lithic Analysis : Problems with Amick and Mauldin's Middle-Range Approach. American Antiquity 54 : 169–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheets, P. D. 1975 Behavioral Analysis and the Structure of a Prehistoric Industry. Current Anthropology 16 : 369–391.Google Scholar
Stahle, D. W., and Dunn, J. E. 1982 An Analysis and Application of the Size Distribution of Waste Flakes from the Manufacture of Bifacial Stone Tools. World Archaeology 14 : 84–97.Google Scholar
Stein, J. (editor-in-chief) 1979 The Random House Dictionary of the English Language. Random House, New York.Google Scholar
Sullivan, A. P. III 1980 Prehistoric Settlement Variability in the Grasshopper Area, East-Central Arizona. Ph. D. dissertation, University of Arizona. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Sullivan, A. P. III 1983 Storage, Nonedible Resource Processing, and the Interpretation of Sherd and Lithic Scatters in the Sonoran Desert Lowlands. Journal of Field Archaeology 10 : 309–323.Google Scholar
Sullivan, A. P. III 1986 Sherd and Lithic Scatter Archaeology and the Reconstruction of Prehistoric Land-Use Patterns. In Prehistory of the Upper Basin, Coconino County, Arizona, edited by Sullivan, A. P. III, pp. 213–275. Archaeological Series No. 167. Arizona State Museum, Tucson.Google Scholar
Sullivan, A. P. III 1987 Probing the Sources of Lithic Assemblage Variability : A Regional Case Study near the Homolovi Ruins, Arizona. North American Archaeologists 8 : 41–71.Google Scholar
Sullivan, A. P. III, and Rozen, K. C. 1985 Debitage Analysis and Archaeological Interpretation. American Antiquity 50 : 755–779.Google Scholar