Abstract
Archaeologists commonly use the geographic patterning of sourced artifacts to understand how prehistoric cultures used their landscapes, yet exactly what this patterning indicates remains unclear. The Paleoindian literature reflects a tendency to assume that toolstone conveyance reflects direct acquisition (i.e., mobility) motivated by subsistence and technological concerns, rather than acquisition (i.e., exchange) motivated by social concerns. This tendency demonstrates a willingness on the part of many archaeologists to imagine Paleoindians organized on a physical landscape defined by the location of important material resources (e.g., food, water, stone), but a hesitancy to imagine Paleoindians organized on a social landscape defined by the location of other people. Yet the challenge of actually distinguishing between mobility and exchange persists. Here, I offer some ideas that might help us make headway on the linkage problem we confront when attempting to infer mode of acquisition from patterns of toolstone conveyance, focusing on the North American Great Basin. I imagine a Paleoindian cultural landscape defined, not just by the distribution of food and non-food resources, but also other people, to propose that mobility and exchange both contributed to the patterns of toolstone conveyance we see, perhaps operating at different scales in relation to subsistence, technological, and social motivations.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: 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.