Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-5kfdg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-05T14:34:49.232Z 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

Daniel S. Amick  and
Raymond P. Mauldin
Daniel S. Amick
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131
Raymond P. Mauldin
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Sullivan and Rozen (1985) suggest that inadequate typologies limit the interpretation of chipped-stone debitage. We contend that the methodology of inference rather than typological structure is limiting debitage analyses. Inferences about the meaning of archaeological data must be derived from sources that are independent of the archaeological record.

Information

Type
Comments
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 54 , Issue 1 , January 1989 , pp. 166 - 168
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

References Cited

Ahler, S. A. 1975 Patterning and Variability in Extended Coalescent Lithic Technology. Ph. D. dissertation, University of Missouri. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan.Google Scholar
Ahler, S. A., and Christensen, R. C. 1983 A Pilot Study of Knife River Flint Procurement and Reduction at Site 3 2D U508, A Quarry and Workshop Location in Dunn County, North Dakota. Contribution No. 186. Department of Anthropology and Archaeology, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks.Google Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1981 Bones : Ancient Men and Modern Myths. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1982 Objectivity, Explanation, and Archaeology 1981. In Theory and Explanations in Archaeology, edited by Renfrew, C., Rowlands, M. J., and Segraves, B., pp. 125–138. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Cotterell, B., and Kamminga, J. 1979 The Mechanics of Flaking. In Lithic Use-Wear Analysis, edited by Hayden, B., pp. 97–112. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Dibble, H. L., and Whittaker, J. C. 1981 New Experimental Evidence on the Relation Between Percussion Flaking and Flake Variation. Journal of Archaeological Science 8 : 283–296.Google Scholar
Faulkner, A. 1972 Mechanical Principles ofFlintworking. Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.Google Scholar
Jelinek, A. J. 1976 Form, Function, and Style in Lithic Analysis. In Cultural Change and Continuity, edited by Cleland, C. L., pp. 15–33. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Magne, M., and Pokotylo, D. 1981 A Pilot Study in Bifacial Lithic Reduction Sequences. Lithic Technology 10(2-3) : 34–47.Google Scholar
Ohnuma, K., and Bergman, C. 1983 Experimental Studies in the Determination of Flaking Mode. Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology 19 : 161–170. University of London.Google Scholar
Speth, J. D. 1972 Mechanical Basis of Percussion Flaking. American Antiquity 37 : 34–60.Google Scholar
Speth, J. D. 1981 The Role of Platform Angle and Core Size in Hard-Hammer Percussion Flaking. Lithic Technology 10(1) : 16–21.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
Sullivan, A. P. III, and Rozen, K. C. 1985 Debitage Analysis and Archaeological Interpretation. American Antiquity 50 : 755–779.Google Scholar
Tsirk, A. 1975 The Mechanical Basis of Percussion Flaking : Some Comments. American Antiquity 39 : 128–130.Google Scholar