Article contents
Comments on Sullivan and Rozen's Debitage Analysis and Archaeological Interpretation
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 January 2017
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
- Copyright
- Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 1989
References
References Cited
- 14
- Cited by