You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
The Nature of Lithic Reduction and Lithic Analysis: Stage Typologies Revisited
Kenneth C. Rozen and Alan P. Sullivan, III
Vol. 54, No. 1 (Jan., 1989), pp. 179-184
Published by: Society for American Archaeology
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/281342
Page Count: 6
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Material culture, History of technology, Terminology, Stone tools, Field archaeology, Anthropological museums, Paleoanthropology, Archaeology, Archeological museums, Archaeological sites
Were these topics helpful?See something inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
Ensor and Roemer (1989) claim that our debitage categories inherently are linked to our interpretations (i.e., are not interpretation free), that we have dismissed unfairly the work of lithic analysts who use stage typologies, and that our view of lithic reduction as a continuum is questionable. In responding, we review the descriptive and interpretive limitations of stage approaches, and explore terminological issues that arise from Ensor and Roemer's zealous adherence to stage approaches. Finally, we reiterate our position that approaches like ours, which seek to describe and interpret distinctive assemblages of lithic artifacts, are more likely to yield productive results than those, such as stage approaches, which focus on identifying distinctive artifacts.
American Antiquity © 1989 Society for American Archaeology