Abstract
Mark Pluciennik has correctly pointed out that many of our current views of social and economic development in prehistory have their roots in the intellectual movement known as the Enlightenment during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. His critique focuses on the assignment of primacy to subsistence change as a way of dividing pre-state societies into meaningful categories. Although he and I probably approach archaeology from very different theoretical positions, I must confess that I have also marveled (privately) from time to time at the amount of attention that archaeologists pay to food-getting and consumption. This may be a bit surprising to the reader, since my research has been focused on early farming societies and my analytical specialty is the study of animal bones. Thus, it would be fair to conclude that I must have some intellectual stake in maintaining the conceptual distinction between foragers and farmers.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
