Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-05T13:42:23.495Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Measurement, Method, and Meaning in Lithic Analysis: Problems with Amick and Mauldin's Middle-Range Approach

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

Amick and Mauldin (1989) claim that our approach to describing debitage assemblage variation is unproductive because our typology is free of interpretation. They suggest that our method for assigning meaning to archaeological data is sterile because it is based solely on observations of the archaeological record. Their views seem to be based on inattention to key analytic concepts, an unfamiliarity with the full range of factors affecting lithic assemblage content, and an empirically unsupported position about how knowledge of the past may be obtained from the archaeological record. Experimental studies are useful for developing generalizations about how technological factors may influence debitage assemblage characteristics, but sound description of those characteristics is an essential prerequisite to reliable interpretations.

Type
Comments
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 54 , Issue 1 , January 1989 , pp. 169 - 175
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ascher, R. 1968 Time's Arrow and the Archaeology of a Contemporary Community. In Settlement Archaeology, edited by Chang, K. C., pp. 43–52. National Press, Palo Alto.Google Scholar
Bamforth, D. B. 1986 Technological Efficiency and Tool Curation. American Antiquity 51 : 38–50.Google Scholar
Dincauze, D. F. 1978 Comment on “A History of Flint-Knapping Experimentation, 1838-1976, ” by L. Lewis Johnson. Current Anthropology 19 : 360.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
Hayden, B. 1978 Snarks in Archaeology; Or, Inter-assemblage Variability in Lithics (A View from the Antipodes). In Lithics and Subsistence : The Analysis of Stone Tool Use in Prehistoric Economies, edited by Davis, D. P., pp. 179–199. Publications in Anthropology No. 20. Vanderbilt University, Nashville.Google Scholar
Henry, D. O., Haynes, C. V., and Bradley, B. A. 1976 Quantitative Variation in Flaked Stone Debitage. Plains Anthropologist 21 : 57–61.Google Scholar
Huckell, B. B. 1984 The Archaic Occupation of the Rosemont Area, Northern Santa Rita Mountains. Archaeological Series No. 147(1). Arizona State Museum, Tucson.Google Scholar
Jelinek, A. J. 1976 Form, Function, and Style in Lithic Analysis. In Cultural Change and Continuity : Essays in Honor of James Bennett Griffin, edited by Cleland, C. E., pp. 19–33. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Jelinek, A. J., Farrand, W. R., Haas, G., Horowitz, A., and Goldberg, P. 1973 New Excavations at the Tabun Cave, Mount Carmel, Israel, 1967-1972 : A Preliminary Report. Paleorient 1 : 151–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeter, M. D. 1980 Analysis of Flaked Stone Artifacts and Debitage. In Prehistory in Dead Valley, East-Central Arizona : The TG&E Springerville Project, edited by Doyel, D. E. and Debowski, S. S., pp. 235–304. Archaeological Series No. 144. Arizona State Museum, Tucson.Google Scholar
Malik, S. C. 1978 Comment on “A History of Flint-Knapping Experimentation, 1838-1976, ” by L. Lewis Johnson. Current Anthropology 19 : 364.Google Scholar
Newcomer, M. H. 1971 Some Quantitative Experiments in Handaxe Manufacture. World Archaeology 3 : 84–93.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
Shafer, H. J. 1985 A Technological Study of Two Maya Workshops at Colha, Belize. In Stone Tool Analysis : Essays in Honor of Don E. Crabtree, edited by Plew, M. G., Woods, J. C., and Pavesic, M. C., pp. 277–315. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Speth, J. D. 1972 Mechanical Basis of Percussion Flaking. American Antiquity 37 : 34–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevenson, M. G. 1985 The Formation of Artifact Assemblages at Workshop/Habitation Sites : Models from Peace Point in Northern Alberta. American Antiquity 50 : 63–81.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 1987 Probing the Sources of Lithic Assemblage Variability : A Regional Case Study near the Homolovi Ruins, Arizona. North American Archaeologist 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
Wheat, J. B. 1977 Technology, Typology, and Use Patterns at the Jurgens Site. In Paleoindian Lifeways, edited by Johnson, E., pp. 126–139. The Museum Journal XVII. Texas Tech University, Lubbock.Google Scholar