One of the ways that archaeologists have incorporated human behavior into their interpretations of archaeological sites is by determining the function or functions that have taken place at a site. Traditionally this has been done by identifying feature and artifact functions. Since a great majority of prehistoric sites from all parts of the globe do not exhibit well-preserved features (such as living structures, storage facilities, or occupation floors) the interpretation of site function often falls to the recognition of artifact function. Artifact functions are then used to make inferences about site functions. This is an intuitively reasonable and very logical approach to determining prehistoric site function(s). If a site contains large numbers of butchering tools and the remains of butchered animals, it would be reasonable to assume the site has been a butchering location. Similarly, if we were to excavate a modern-day baseball field and found artifacts such as baseball bats, gloves, balls, dugouts, backstops, and the base paths, it would be reasonable to assume that the game of baseball had been played at that location. Unfortunately, it has become increasingly apparent to many archaeologists that the function of various artifacts, particularly stone artifacts, is not easy to interpret, and that many of the traditional interpretations of stone artifact functions are not necessarily correct. Without an accurate interpretation of artifact function, the logic behind site functional interpretations may be flawed.