The two central goals of identifying stages of reduction and type of tool industry limit the potential of debitage analysis. The vocabulary we typically use to answer these two central goals prevents us from asking questions beyond these two goals. Assemblages that do not readily answer these goals are determined to be mixed. The problem is that the mixture may, in some cases, actually be finer grades of variation than we are able to see because of our limited goals and typologies. In this article I discuss the concept of choice in archaeology and how its interpretation in the analysis of pottery might guide us in the development of more nuanced approaches to interpreting assemblages of debitage. These approaches might lead us beyond the ecological functionalism that typically shapes our interpretations of choice in lithic production. In this way, debitage, the most common artifact type at pre-Contact sites in the Northeast, may play a more important role in the creation of a richer understanding of the past.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndrefskyWilliamJr.1998Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
2.
BradburyAndrew P. and CarrPhilip1995Flake Typologies and Alternative Approaches: An Experimental Assessment, Lithic Technology, 20, pp. 100–115.
3.
CarrPhilip and BradburyAndrew P.2001Flake Debris Analysis, Levels of Production, and the Organization of Technology, in Lithic Debitage: Context, Form, and Meaning, AndrefskyW. (ed.), The University of Utah, Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 126–146.
4.
ChiltonElizabeth S.1998The Cultural Origins of Technical Choice: Unraveling Algonquian and Iroquoian Ceramic Traditions in the Northeast, in The Archaeology of Social Boundaries, StarkM. T. (ed.), Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., pp. 132–160.
5.
ChiltonElizabeth S.1999aMobile Farmers of Pre-Contact Southern New England: The Archaeological and Ethnohistorical Evidence, in Current Northeast Ethnobotany, HartJ. P. (ed.), New York State Museum Bulletin, No. 494. Albany, New York, pp. 157–176.
6.
ChiltonElizabeth S.1999bCeramic Research in New England: Breaking the Typological Mold, in The Archaeological Northeast, LevineM. A.SassamanK. E., and NassaneyM. S. (eds.), Bergin and Garvey, Westport, Connecticut, pp. 97–114.
7.
CloseAngela E.2006Finding the People Who Flaked The Stone at English Camp (San Juan Island), The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
8.
LechtmanHeather1977Style in Technology: Some Early Thoughts, in Material Culture: Styles, Organization, and Dynamics of Technology, LechtmanH. and MerrillR. (eds.), 1975 Proceedings of the American Ethnological Society, West Publishing, St. Paul, Minnesota, pp. 3–20.
9.
LemonnierPierre1986The Study of Material Culture Today: Towards and Anthropology of Technical Systems, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 5, pp. 147–186.
10.
LemonnierPierre1990Topsy Turvy Techniques: Remarks on the Social Representation of Techniques, Archaeological Review from Cambridge, 9:1, pp. 27–37.
11.
LemonnierPierre1992Elements for an Anthropology of Technology, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
12.
LemonnierPierre1993Introduction, in Technological Choices: Transformation in Material Cultures Since the Neolithic, LemonnierP. (ed.), Routledge, London, United Kingdom, pp. 1–35.
13.
Leroi-GourhanAndre1993Gesture and Speech, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
14.
NelsonMargaret1991The Study of Technological Organization, in Archaeological Method and Theory (Vol. 3), SchifferM. (ed.), University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 57–100.
15.
OdellGeorge H.2001Stone Tool Research at the End of the Millennium: Classification, Function, and Behavior, Journal of Archaeological Research, 9:1, pp. 45–100.
16.
RasicJeff and AndrefskyWilliamJr.2001Alaskan Blade Cores as Specialized Components of Mobile Toolkits: Assessing Design Parameters and Toolkit Organization through Debitage Analysis, in Lithic Debitage: Context, Form, and Meaning, AndrefskyW. (ed.), The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 61–79.
17.
RinehartNiels R.2008Debitage Analysis: Lithic Reduction or Lithic Production? in Current Approaches to the Analysis and Interpretation of Small Lithic Sites in the Northeast, ReithChristina (ed.), New York State Museum, Albany, pp. 63–73.
18.
SelletFrançois1993Chaîne Opératoire: The Concept and its Applications, Lithic Technology, 18:12, pp. 106–112.
19.
ShottMichael J.1994Size and Form in the Analysis of Flake Debris: Review and Recent Approaches, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 1, pp. 69–110.
20.
StarkMiriam1999Social Dimensions of Technical Choice in Kalinga Ceramic Traditions, in Material Meanings: Critical Approaches to the Interpretation of Material Culture, ChiltonE. (ed.), University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 24–43.
21.
SullivanIIIAlanP.2001Holmes's Principle and Beyond: The Case for Renewing Americanist Debitage Analysis, in Lithic Debitage: Context, Form, and Meaning, AndrefskyW. (ed.), The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 192–206.
22.
SullivanIIIAlanP. and RozenK.C.1985Debitage Analysis and Archaeological Interpretation, American Antiquity, 50, pp. 755–779.
23.
Van Der LeeuwS. E.1993Giving the Potter a Choice, in Technological Choices: Transformation in Material Cultures Since the Neolithic, LemonnierP. (ed.), Routledge, London, United Kingdom, pp. 238–288.
24.
WenzelKristen E. and ShelleyPhilip H.2001What Put the Small in the Arctic Small Tool Tradition: Raw Material Constraints on Lithic Technology at the Mosquito Lake Site, Alaska, in Lithic Debitage: Context, Form, and Meaning, AndrefskyW. (ed.), The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 106–125.
