(ET). This measure simultaneously describes both the total amountand yearly distribution of solar radiation characteristic of a given place.
I don't really get it. I think what it is, is trying to correlate high and low food areas with the types of residential mobility. It misses out on altitude and humidity
A glaring connection I'm seeing is the scientific, evolutionary approach without an acknowledgement of the cultural and human agency aspects. Maybe Binford does and I didn't see it, but it was an exhausting read. The idea that humans are purely reactionary I think is emphasized. Not acknowledging that places or locations may be taboo, dangerous, filled with memory or ceremonial.
The archaeological record is at best a static pattern of associations and covariations amonthings distributed in sp
I like the optimism, but I think in many contexts the archaeological record can be dynamic because of taphonomic processes
ogical record. As in the earlier analmedical science, once we know something of the disease and its causes, we may codify thtoms to permit accurate diagnosis. Similarly, in the archaeological world when we undsomething of the relationship between the character of cultural systems and the chartheir by-products, we may codify these derivatives to permit the accurate diagnosis fchaeological traces of the kind of cultural system that stood behin
Binford's analogy here, to me at least, feels like an oversimplification of both disciplines. Which I think may be valid if he did not write in such a meandering and complex way. I don't know, maybe that's just me