Measurement, Method, and Meaning in Lithic Analysis: Problems with Amick and Mauldin's Middle-Range Approach
Dados Bibliográficos
| AUTOR(ES) | |
|---|---|
| ANO | 1989 |
| TIPO | Artigo |
| PERIÓDICO | American Antiquity |
| ISSN | 0002-7316 |
| E-ISSN | 2325-5064 |
| EDITORA | Cambridge University Press |
| DOI | 10.2307/281340 |
| CITAÇÕES | 5 |
| ADICIONADO EM | 2025-08-18 |
| MD5 |
8745214b6b6495ed9a49c5cbdc07de41
|
Resumo
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.