No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 February 2011
The use of the technology of manufacture of a class of artifacts as data to address questions of culture process {social evolution} is fraught with pitfalls. This is especially true with ceramic technology. The study of this type of artifact begins with a basic circularity for most prehistoric periods in most areas of the world. Many prehistoric chronologies are based on the most abundant and durable artifact, ceramics. Periods or phases are, to a large extent, defined by similarities in form, style, and production methods of these ceramics. Therefore using more refined assessments of the technology of production to assess changes occurring between periods or phases and to infer cultural change is merely reaffirming the cornequences, and reinforcing an image of abrupt step wise progression. This image is of little help in understanding the inner causes and dynamics of social or technological evolution. The use of more refined ceramic technological data to test the validity of a chronology based on ceramic data must be used with great caution.