IDENTIFICACIÓN DE VARIABLES CLAVE E INTERPRETACIÓN DE RESULTADOS / I DENTIFICATION OF KEY VARIABLE AND INTERPRETATION OF

The three theoretical concepts underpinning this methodology are mobility, provisioning strategies and technological organisation. Mobility is the human behaviour that the methodology is devised to identify; technological organisation is a framework for lithic analysis

that can be used to help understand the behavioural correlates of mobility in the archaeological record; and provisioning is a concept that helps to connect the two. In order to utilize the conceptual framework of provisioning, a description is provided on how it relates to mobility (the question), and then how it links to the organisation of lithic technology (the data). The approach is heavily influenced by the work of Graf (2010), who succinctly summarizes the background to these concepts:

One way to tie lithic artifacts to human foraging and land-use strategies is to reconstruct how hunter–gatherers organized their lithic technologies (Kuhn, 1995; Nelson, 1991). The concept of technological organisation was developed to understand the wide array of potential behaviors represented in the lithic record (Binford 1979; Nelson 1991; Shott 1986; Torrence 1983), and technological organisation studies help to define forager provisioning strategies by reconstructing toolmaking trajectories from toolstone acquisition through final artefact discard (Nelson 1991) (Graf 2010: 213).

A simple visual representation of how these three concepts fit together is presented in Figure 9, highlighting the central role of provisioning as a linking concept between mobility and technological organisation. A more thorough consideration of how that may be practically applied is discussed below.

FIGURE 9. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MOBILITY AND TECHNOLOGICAL ORGANISATION, SHOWING THE LINKING ROLE OF PROVISIONING STRATEGIES.

The next step is to consider how residential and logistical mobility strategies relate to the organisation of technology (for discussion on residential and logistical mobility see section 4.2). A commonly applied concept for understanding the organisation of lithic technology that can yield information about mobility patterns, is technological provisioning strategies, originally

developed by Kuhn (1995), who defines provisioning as the “depth of planning in artifact production, transport, maintenance, and the strategies by which potential needs are met” (1995:22). Kuhn conceptualizes hunter-gatherer provisioning as consisting of two fundamental strategies – provisioning individuals and provisioning places. The basic tenets of these strategies are:

• provisioning individuals with useful items (tools) that they require to undertake tasks as the need arises, or

• provisioning places with the necessary potential to produce tools, as they are required.

These strategies may be conceptualised as two ends of a spectrum with the “provisioning of potential utility at one end and the provisioning of immediate utility at the other” (Mackay 2005:97). Tool kits comprise various combinations of these two utilities, potential and immediate, and as such, they are not mutually exclusive (Mackay 2005: 97). The two different provisioning strategies proposed by Kuhn have value for the study of mobility in the archaeological record because they provide a conceptual tool to help identify and distinguish between technologies suitable for individual movement, and for group movement. This is challenging because lithic analysis is based on aggregates of behaviour so while it is not possible to say that a certain artefact was used by an individual for long range travel, it may be possible to say that the technological signature of a particular assemblage is suitable for provisioning individuals for long range travel. Likewise, provisioning places with suitable stone may be interpreted as reflecting regular or prolonged use of that place by a group/groups of people, and thus providing a basis to interpret group mobility. By extension, provisioning strategies can be associated with logistical and residential mobility. Following the same two examples, the provisioning of individuals for long range travel may be interpreted as reflecting

residential mobility, although the possibility of long range logistical forays must also be considered a possible reason for equipping individuals for long range travel, especially when availability of fresh water is scarce or patchy (Mackay 2009: 101-102). Provisioning of places may be interpreted in various ways depending upon the technological signature of the assemblage, on other archaeological features, and on the availability of key resources (especially water).

Provisioning of individuals may be considered an appropriate strategy for situations of high residential mobility, where contingencies need to be planned for some time in advance, as opportunities for re-provisioning of the tool-kit may be unpredictable or scarce, and individuals will require immediate utility to undertake tasks as the need arises (Clarkson 2006). Clarkson characterises tool-kits designed for individual provisioning as “portable, versatile, flexible, maintainable, and reliable”, citing examples of such tools from the Australian context as points, tulas, backed artefacts, burrens and other “heavily retouched standardised forms” (Clarkson 2006:178). Conversely, he suggests provisioning of places may represent a suitable strategy for situations where the resource structure is predictable, and mobility is low (Clarkson 2006:179). Place provisioning would likely produce assemblages that exhibit signs of raw material provisioning, such as large cores, large flakes and un-modified non-local material (Parry and Kelly 1987), greater diversity of tool forms, task-specific items, and less easily transported items (such as grindstones, or large nodules of raw material/cores). It should be noted that logistically-organised hunter-gatherer groups also provision individuals in the context of “gearing up” for specialized tasks (Binford 1979; Graf 2010:214). A range of contextual variables must also be considered, most notably raw material availability and distribution (Andrefsky 1994; Bamforth 1991), as well as the land-use context of the assemblages, which may incorporate both ecological and social considerations.

With the concept of provisioning and its relationship to mobility in mind, how to approach the question of technological organisation? Graf (2010) provides a concise synthesis. Table 2 (Graf 2010: 214) interprets the relationship between provisioning strategies, technological organisation and assemblage diversity. On the whole, this a useful way to conceptualize the relationship, except for the idea of “no toolstone selection” in the case of provisioning places which seems somewhat ill considered (Parry and Kelly 1987). A better way to think of it is that more careful toolstone selection is likely to be employed when provisioning individuals with reliable, reusable tools for travel. Graf’s explanation of the table is provided here, with the table below (Table 2):

…assemblages that resulted from provisioning individuals with planned technologies should amass at different rates and degrees than assemblages that resulted from