AManifestoontheArchaeologyofEnergy

By

ThomasG.Whitley,PhD
AssistantProfessorofArchaeology
UniversityofWesternAustralia

Paperpresentedat:
The2013AustralianArchaeologicalAssociationConference
CoffsHarbour,NSW,Australia,December4,2013

Abstract:

Thespatialfocusofarchaeologicalresearchhasalwaysbeenonthepositionoftheartefact,feature,orsiteinthe
landscape.Therehaveoccasionallybeendialoguesonthenatureofnonsiteorsitelessarchaeologies,butthesehave
typicallybeentheoreticalapproachestotheemptyspacesofhumanprehistoryinoppositiontothepresumablyimportant
aggregatesofartefacts;sitesversusnonsites.Theyhavenotbeenmethodologicaleffortsatunderstandinghumanactivity
withoutreferencetomaterialcultureperse.Thistendencyhascreatedaproblemintheextrapolationoflargescale
interpretationsfrompointsourcearchaeology,andinthemostextremecasesahyperfocusontheverticalshaftof
artefactsuperpositioninginveryfewlocationstobuildcasesfortemporaltransitions;i.e.atunnelormoreappropriately
elevatorvision.

Landscapearchaeologyisoftenapproachedasawayinwhichtosituatethesepointsofsignificantinformationintoa
natural,orculturallymodified,setting;butonewhichisdealtwitheitherabstractly,orinonlyarepresentationalsense.
Presentedhereisadiscussiononthenatureofdevelopingaquantifiedspatialapproach,andoneinwhichthelandscape
consideredisthetopographyofenergy.ThisisaGISmodellingprocedurethatcreatesanunderstandingoftheavailable,
returned,selected,andstoredenergies,frictionsurfaces,energysinksandattractors,andtheexpenditureofsurplus
energiesintheformofsocialinteractions.Thesemaybethoughtofasvariousformsofpotential,kinetic,andthermal
energybuttheyrelatedirectlytotheactionsofhumanbeingscarryingoutbothphysiologicalimperativesandcultural
activities.Byfocusingresearchonthehumansystemsofenergymanagementandmanipulationwemightgainnewinsight
intoanonpointsourcewayofdoingarchaeology.

Introduction

Therearetwotheoreticalandmethodologicalassumptionsmadeaboutarchaeologythat,in
practice,goalmostentirelyunquestioned.Thefirstisthatarchaeologyisprimarilythestudyof
humanitythroughitspastmaterialcultureexaminedincontext.Thesecondisthatthe
archaeologicalsiteisthemostimportantmanifestationofthearchaeologicalrecord,andis
inherentlytheproperunitofstudyforthatcontext.Idontthinkthattheseassumptionsare
necessarilyalwayswrong,yetIthinkthattoneverquestionthemistohaveaverybiasedviewof
pasthumanbehaviour(cf.Dunnell1992;Ebert1992).Thispapersessionisparticularlyappropriate
forthisdiscussionasitisfocusedonaveryrestricted,highlylocalised,context;thatofthesocalled
telephoneboxstyleofexcavationunit.ThethemeofthisconferencebeingComplexitiesofScale
theprimaryissuewouldseemtobethatinterpretationsmadefromveryrestrictedandhighly
localisedcontextscanencountersignificantproblemswhenmovingfromsmallscalestolargerones.
Thisisunquestionablytrue,yetmycontentionisthatourassumptionsaboutmaterialculture(i.e.
artefactsandfeatures)andaggregatesofit(i.e.sites)alsoplayasignificantroleinpreventingus
fromtrulyunderstandinghowpastpeopleengagedwiththespatialdimensions.
IssuesofScale

Presumably,weasarchaeologistsareinterestedinunderstandingpeopleonawiderangeoffuzzy
andeverincreasingscales;afewofwhicharethelocalscale,thecommunity,theculturearea,the
region,uptohumanityitself.Althoughtimescalesareexceedinglycomplexandcanbeconsidered
contextdependent(GosdenandKirsanow2006),thetemporalscalegenerallyrunsperpendicularto
thespatialdimensionswhendealingwitharchaeologicaldeposits.Smalldeepexcavationunitsare,
infact,situatedinthehyperlocalscalebutoveralongertemporaldimension.Bytheirverynature
theycanprovidematerialremainsfromonlyverylimitedcontextsinahorizontalextent,butmuch
morevertically.Naturally,thepurposeofexcavatingdeepdepositsistogetagooddateablecontext,
whichwillhopefullyrevealsomekindofearlyoccurrence,orsignificanttemporaltransition.The
significanceofthatoccurrenceortransitionthough,isoftenextrapolatedfromitslocalcontextto
thelargerscaleswithoutconsideringwhetherittrulyfits.

Simplestatisticswouldsuggestthatalargesampleofsuchoccurrenceswouldberequiredto
extrapolatetolargerpopulations.Butitisnotusuallyphysicallypossibletofindalargewidely
dispersedsampleofsuchdeposits,andtheresultscomingfromtelephoneboxesareusually
uniqueoratleastverysmallsamplesizes.Itisquiteastretchtosaythatsuchsmallsamples
representtheoverallpicture,orcouldbeextendedtothelargerscalesbeyondthecommunityitself.
Instead,suchmaterialsarerelegatedtobeingterminuspostquemandterminusantequemmarkers.
Theeffectthen,isthatthereareinherentlimitstowhatkindsofquestionscanbeaskedwhenthe
sampledresultsarecomingfromasingleverticalcontext;asotherpapersinthissessionarelikelyto
alsomakeclear.Yetthereisstillagreatincentivetocontinuallyextendthesetemporalbrackets,
withoutreferencetowhatthatreallymeansforunderstandingthepastpeopleinvolved.Putsimply,
atelephoneboxisnotaproxyforcommunities,territories,orregions,andsingleorlimited
contextsamplesarenotrepresentativeofapattern.

AnalternateapproachthathasbeeninvogueformorethanseveraldecadesnowisLandscape
Archaeology.Thisisthepracticeofputtingarchaeologicalinterpretationwithinthelargerspatial
contextofphysical,ecological,orsocialsurroundings.Therearemanyformsoflandscape
archaeology,andtheylookatmanydifferentdimensionsofthepast(DavidandThomas2008a).
Spatiallytheymightencompasshyperlocallandscapes;suchasactivityareaswithinadwelling,or
eventheverticalfaceofarockartpanel.Ortheymayextenduptobeingcontinentwide,orcrossing
oceans.AsenvisionedbyDelle(1998)culturallandscapeswerematerial,social,orcognitivein
nature.Thisisreallyasimplificationthough,becausethesecategoriesarebroadandnotmutually
exclusive.Asafieldofendeavourwithinarchaeology,theexaminationsofthelandscapecanbe
seentohavepassedfromaperiodwhereitwasasubfieldlargelyofenvironmentalandprocessual
concerns(inthe1980s)toonetodaywhereitspecificallycarriesmoresocial,contextual,and
interpretivemeanings(DavidandThomas2008b).

Inthelargersense,wecanimaginematerialelementsofthelandscape(e.g.terrain,vegetation,
archaeologicallocations,etc.),socialelements(e.g.corridorsbetweencommunities,territories,
languageareas,etc.),andcognitiveones(e.g.ideasofownership,riskassessments,perceived
decisionoutcomes,etc.).Butthesocalledculturallandscapesimportanttopastpeoplegenerally
havealloftheseelements,itisjustthatthematerialonesarewhatwecanmosteasilysee,or
model,todaybecausetheyhaveanintact,oratleastremnant,physicalpresence.Forthatvery
reasonarchaeologicalexaminationstypicallystillconsiderthelandscapeasapredominantlyphysical
entity,andoftenfocusonitscurrentvisualprominenceordistancerelatedcriteriafromspecific
archaeologicallocations.Thisistruedespitethefactthatmodernlandscapearchaeologistsoften
invoketermssuchasbeingintheworldandentanglement(DavidandThomas2008:38)to
suggesttheimportanceofthecognitiveelementswithoutactuallyexaminingorexplainingthem.In
thisway,theyaddnoclarificationtoourunderstandingofwhattookplaceinthepast.

Suchdescriptorsareactuallynotintendedtoexplainhumanbehaviour,pastorpresent.Rather,they
areintendedtosuggestthatsuchnotionsareinthevaguesocialrealmbeyondexplanation.
Emphasisingthenatureofspatiallocationsasplacesofperformancedoesnotchangethatwhen
thefocusisstillonextrapolatingfromsmallscalestolargerones;frompointsourcestothewider
world.Likewise,westillseeaheavybiastowardsunderstandinghumaninteractionwiththeexternal
world(whetheryouchooseanenvironmentallydeterminedperspective,orasociallydetermined
one)asderivativeofourmaterial,andspecificallyarchaeological,interpretations(e.g.Gheorghiu
andNash2013).Thisagainisderivedfromtheextremedominanceofthesiteconceptandthe
ideathatmaterialcultureistheonlyvalidrepresentationofthepastforarchaeology.This
perspectivepresupposesthatthecreationofmaterialculture(anditsdepositioninthephysical
environment)istheprimaryactivitycarriedoutbypeople;oratleasttheprimaryactivityofinterest
tousasarchaeologists.Archaeologyhasalwaysbeenconcernedwithmaterialculturethatswhat
itdoes!(Zubrow2013:13).Clearly,thatquoteisaccuratefromatheoreticalandmethodological
perspective,butdoesitneedtobe?

Wealreadyknowthateventhoughwetendtoexcavate,analyse,andinterpretmaterialremainsas
thepracticeofarchaeology,itdoesnotmeanthattheexcavatedremainsarerepresentativeofthe
entiresuiteofmaterialobjectspeoplecreated,used,traded,consumed,anddiscarded.Notonlyare
therepreservationissues,buttherearesamplingonesaswell.Thesamegoesforthephysical
landscapeasawhole:archaeologicallocationsdonotrepresenteveryplacepeoplesituated
themselves,orwereengagedinsomekindofactivity.Archaeologicallandscapesarenotthesameas
culturalones.Wetreatthelocationofanartefactasaplacewheresomethinghappened,andasite
asaplacewhereperhapsmanythingshappened.Buttheseareminimalconstructs.Anartefactor
sitelocationindicatesataminimumwheresomethingoccurred.Youcannotassumenothing
occurredelsewhere.Noarchaeologistwouldmakethatassumption,yettheemphasisonmaterial
culturedoesexactlythatbyconsideringwherethereismissingdatathatallotherthingsareequal.
Thisisenormouslymisleadingifyouabstractfromit,evenonthescaleofthelandscape.Cultural
landscapesnolongerexist,andtheywerementalconstructs;someperhapsquitefleeting.No
archaeologicallandscapeisrepresentativeofthat,andmaterialremainsarenotaproxyfor
generatinginsightintocomplexcognitiveprocessesalone.

PeopleasManagersofEnergy

Perhapsweneedtoconsiderpeoplefromadifferentperspective;notsimplyasmaterialculture
producingagents.Atafundamentallevelpeople,likeallsenscientlifeforms,areenergymanaging
organisms.WiththetermenergyIamreferringspecificallytothequantifiablenutritionalunit
whichgivesanyindividualtheabilitytoaffectmotionorfirebrainsynapses;measuredinkilocalories
orkilojoules.Allorganismsmustacquirenutritionalenergyinsomeformoranothertointeractwith
theworldaroundthem,andtomaintainsomelevelofconsciousness.Butwesurviveandcontinue
tointeractwiththeworldaroundusbecausewealwaysstrivetomaintainanetpositiveenergy
incomeversusexpenditure.

Mycontentionisthathumanbehaviourislargelytheprocessofmanagingthatenergybalance
(Figure1).Furthermore,cultureandallsocioculturalattributesareexpressionsofboththe
learnedandinnovatedchoicespeoplemakewhilemanagingtheirenergybalance.Thisisnottosay
thatallhumanbehaviourshaveanenergypositiveoutcomeorthatallofhumancognitionand
activityisdesignedwithenergymaintenanceinmind.Onlythat,onthewhole,eachhumanbeing
musthaveatleastaneutralenergybalancetosurvive.Theyexpendenergy,collectit,storeit,and
exchangeitinmanydifferentways.Whatweconsidertobediagnosticculturalsignaturesare
essentiallysimilaritiesinhowpeoplemakethosespecificchoicesasafunctionoftheirgenetic,
cultural,orspatialrelatedness.

Onanessentialscale,humanactivityisthetransformationofnutritional(orpotential)energyinto
activity(orkineticenergy);orcaloriesintowork.Someofthatenergyislostbutmostofitisre
investedintoallaspectsofculturewiththeperceivedunderstandingthatexpressionsofidentityand
allothersocioculturalconstructswillultimatelyhaveanetpositive(oratleastneutral)returnon
thatinvestment.Thereare,though,manyindividualactivities,behaviours,performances,decisions,
practices,orotherculturalconstructsthatpeopleengageinwhicharedetrimentaltosurvival.I
wholeheartedlyagreethatenvironmentaladaptationisnotarequiredelementofhumanbehaviour,
spatialorotherwise.However,everythoughtoractionofeveryindividualinhumanhistoryinvolved
thetransformationofpotentialenergyintokineticenergy,regardlessofwhattheintendedpurpose
ofthatactionwas.Soitwouldseemtomakelogicalsensetousesomeformofenergynotationas
standardisedunitofanalysis.

Thecreationofcomplexmaterialcultureisauniquelyhumanapproachtothemanipulationof
energybalances.Anyenergyexpendedintheprocessofmanufacturingatool,afeature,orevena
landscape,isexpectedtopayoffinreturnedenergyduringitsuselife.Inessence,itshouldprovide
anenergybenefitatleastashighaswasputintoit.Thismeansthatwhatweseeasartefactsare
infactrepresentationsofstoredpotentialenergy.Themoreinherentvalueatoolhasforthe
peoplewhomadeit,oracquireditinsomeotherway,themorepotentialenergyisexpectedfromit
inreturn.Whenthatpayoffisexhausted,thetoolisdiscarded.Butartefacts,features,or
landscapes,includematerialremainsthatrepresentawiderangeofpotentialenergies.Forexample,
apieceofdebitagemaybethebyproductofenergyexpenditureduringtoolmanufactureandhave
toolittlepotentialenergytobeofuseforanyotherimmediatepurpose;whileaprestigeobject
mightbeaproxyforthefuturelabourofmanyslaves.Onarelatedtrajectory,theseitemsmay
retainadifferentvaluetopeopleoperatinginotherenergymaintenancesystems;suchas
archaeologists.Inthatcasewewouldexpectthatthekineticenergyexpendedintheirexcavation
andanalysiswouldeventuallybereturnedaspotentialenergythroughthewidersystemof
archaeologicalresearchgrants,scholarship,andemployment.Thisdirectlyindicatesthough,that
whatwevalueasunitsofstudy(andultimatelythesourceofnutritionintoourbodies)maybevery
differentfromwhatpastpeoplevalued.

Inthissensethenwecannotdirectlyequatethequantityofartefactsatasitewiththepotential
energytheymightrepresent.Weneedtoknowagreatdealmoreaboutthecontext;suchashow
muchenergywasexpendedintheirmanufacture,exchange,use,ordiscard.Yet,westilloftentreat


Figure1SimplifiedSchemafortheHumanManagementofEnergy.

sitelocationsasiftheirsignificanceisdeterminedbythesizeoftheirassemblage,andalandscape
bythenumberofarchaeologicalsites.Inessence,thisisashorthandwayofascribing
archaeologicalvaluebecauseitiserroneouslyassumedthatmore,orhigherinterpretivequality,
unitsofstudywillalwaysresultinbetter,ormorecomplete,archaeologicalinterpretations.
Theoretically,thisisaformofdeductivechauvinismortheideathatbetterdataalwaysleadsto
betterinterpretations.Onceagain,theurgetofindmore,orbetter,dateablecontextsintelephone
boxesisanexpressionofthesamething.

ConceptualLandscapes

Weknowthatpeopleinteractwiththelandscapesaroundthem.Butwhatweperceiveasthe
modernphysical,ecological,orarchaeologicallandscapeisonlyonemanifestationofthematerial
remnantsofpreviousculturallandscapes.Therearemanyhiddenlandscapeswhicharethe
cognitiveperceptionsusedbypeopletoassessrisksandmakedecisions.Thisentailssomelevelof
spatialinterpretationonthepartoftheindividual,andasharedconceptofcognitivespaceamong
familiesorotherculturalentities.Ifweusemoderntools,likeGIS,tocreatespatialdepictionsof
thesehiddenlandscapes,wecandevelopnewwaysofunderstandinghowpeopleinterfacedwith
theirsurroundings,howrisksmayhavebeenconceptualised,andwhycertaindecisionsweremade.
Thisdoesnotimplythatthepastpeoplethemselvesmentallyrepresentedthelandscapeinexactly
thesameway,onlythatthedecisionstheymade,andthebehaviourstheyexhibited,wereaproduct
ofthesameforces.Ourperceptionsofthoselandscapesarejustthat;perceptions.Thecognitive
constructsoflonggonepeoplenolongerexist,andourGISmodelsofthemarenotcopies.Theyare
simulationsdesignedtooperateunderlikeconditionstogiveinsightintospecificquestions.Most
importantly,thisisaparticularlyquantifiableapproach,notonewhichreliesonabstract
characterisationsofthelandscapeasavaguelyimportantelementinhumanactivity.The
approachisonlyquantifiablethoughbecauseitisbasedonenergyastheunitofmeasure,not
behaviouralbyproducts;i.e.materialculture.

Onewaytoenvisionthedifferencebetweenaphysicallandscapeandaconceptualoneiswiththe
ideaoffriction.Friction,inessence,isthespatialrepresentationofthetransformationofpotential
energyintokineticenergy.Physically,digitaltopographyisathreedimensionalmodelofelevation
changesthatwemightviewfromeitheranimmersiveortopdownperspective.Butwithrespectto
frictionitisacombinationofallforcesthatpreventorlimitmovementacrossthatterrain.Inother
wordshigherfrictionimplieshigherlossofkineticenergy;orperhapsmoreappropriatelythe
transformationofkineticintothermalenergy.Africtionsurfaceisusefulformodellingsimulationsof
movement,anditextendstodifferentlevelsofattractorsandrepulsors.Simplistically,though,
archaeologistsusuallyrelystrictlyonslopeasthesolefrictionsurfaceofchoice.Buttherearemany
otherfrictionforcesinvolved;includingbothnaturalandculturalfactors.

Anaptexampleistoconsidertheoceanasanenergylandscape.Thetopographyitselfisflat(or
closetoflat),asitisrepresentedbythesurfaceofthewater.Yetifwewishtosailacrossitthereare
aseriesoffrictionsurfacesweneedtoconsider.Ataminimum,youhavethesurfacetensionof
water,opposingcurrents,tidalforces,andopposingwinds(asbothspeedanddirections).
Additionally,youmighthaveothernaturalfrictionsurfaces,suchaspotentialfloatingorunderwater
obstructionsorlimitations(suchasairorwatertemperatures);whichmayormaynotbedirectional.
Ontopofthat,youhaveculturalfrictionvariablessuchasmappedextents(orknowledgeatany
giventime),physicaloperatinglimits(orlogistics),territorialboundaries,taxesandtariffs,andthe
numerouscostsoffuel,equipment,andcrew.Someofthesehavespatialrepresentationsthatare
directlysubjecttolocalconditions;suchaswinddirection,speed,temperature,etc.Othershave
valuesthatareonlyindirectlyapplicabletothelocalphysicalconditions.Fuel,equipment,andcrew
costs,forexample,maybeaccruedthroughthelengthofthevoyageitselfandmayhavelittleorno
immediatelydirecttiestolocalconditions;thoughtheymightlogisticallyaswell.

Howyouastheoperatorofthisvesseldealwiththosefrictionsurfaces,requiresaverydetailed
understandingofthem,andhowtheyaredistributedandweightedspatially.Italsorequiresyouto
considertheoriginanddestinationofthejourney,aswellasthepotentialpayoffattheendofit;or
perhapsinthemiddleofitifyourtaskistocollectresourcesfromtheocean.Ifyouareoperatinga
sailingshipyoumayconsiderseveralofthesesurfacesdifferentlythanyouwouldifyouwere
operatingasteamship,ordieselpoweredone.Thewindfrictionsurface,inparticular,represents
potentialenergytobecapturednotjustfrictiontobeovercome.Whatweseeasafairlyfeatureless
terrainisinfactaverycomplex,highlyflexible,andcontextdependentseriesofenergycostsand
benefits.Landbasedmobilityalsodealswithmanydiversefrictionsbeyondtopography.Manyof
thesameculturalfrictionsareapplicable;suchastaxesandtariffs,payoffs,territories,fuel,
equipment,risks,andknowledge.Theterrainslopeisoftenbutonesmallaspect.Thesefriction
surfacesmaybestandardised,modelledinunitsofenergy,andusedinsimulationsofcognitive
decisionmaking.
FutureDirections

Todatemyresearchinthisareahasfocusedonmodellingthelandscapesofpotentialenergy
(Whitley2013;n.d.).Thishasbeenbyquantifyingandgeolocatingavailableplantandanimal
resources,throughacomplexanalysispredictingdistributionsbasedonseasonalhabitats,
standardisedandprojectedaspotentialcaloricreturns.Usingacombinationofthefrictionand
caloricsurfacesthen,itbecomespossibletomakenumerousprojectionsaboutpaleoeconomyat
specifictimesinthepastandduringspecificseasons.Itisalsopossibletoprojectthingslikemean
productivity,sustainablepopulations,resourcecollectionefficiency,seasonality,dietarybalanceand
sufficiency,resourcecollectionpathways,areasofcompetition,andexchangeroutes.

Thereareavastnumberofpotentialresearchobjectiveswhenwelookatenergymanagement.For
example,thenotionthatpotentialenergymaybedetachedfromthelandscapeandtransportedin
representationalformbycurrenciesorotherexchangeablecommoditieshasveryinteresting
dynamicsthattieintomoderntheoriesofeconomicsandpolitics.Thebuildup,storage,and
exchangeofsurpluspotentialenergymayoccurinmanydifferentwaysandmaybereflectiveof
expandingsocialdifferentiation,orinvestmentininnovativetechnologies.Agricultureitselfmay
haveevolvednotasamechanismforincreasinglocalproductivity,orduetoencroachingpopulation
pressure,butratherasamechanismtoensureretentionofcaloricvalueforexchange.Declining
efficiencyinmitigatingthelossofkineticenergymightbetheresultofexternalpressures,or
converselyinternalsocialdisintegration.Therepresentationandsimulationofsuchfluctuating
energylandscapesovertimeisachallengingtasktoundertake,yetIbelievethatitmayprovidea
greatdealofinsightintothenatureofallhumanbehaviour.Therearecurrentlythreeprojectswith
whichIamengagedthathopetoaddresssomesmall,butdifferent,aspectsofmodellingsuch
energytopographies:

First,onefocusingonhistoricwhalingpatternsintheSouthernOceanisintendedtoexaminethe
complexnatureofinterfacingaseriesofcontextualfrictionsurfacesrelatingtothecostsofwhaling,
withamodelofthepotentialdistributionofwhalespeciesduringhistoricperiodsasprincipaltargets
forthewhalingindustry.Thegoalsaretodefineareasinwhichwhalingactuallyoccurredintheopen
ocean,howtheywereaffectedbycertainbehaviouralaspectsofthewhalespeciesthemselves,the
limitsofexplorationandtherisksofwhalinginunknownorlittleexploredareas,howcompetition
evolvedovertime,theefficienciesoflargescalehistoricwhalingpractices,andthecontrastbetween
shorebasedandlongdistancepelagicwhalingoperations.

Second,aprojectaimedataspecifichistoricevent;theconflictbetweenJuliusCaesarsRoman
legionsandtheHelvetii,in58BC,alongtheRhneRiver,inmoderndaySwitzerlandandFrance.The
veryrapidmovementoflegions,andinvestmentintheconstructionoffortificationsalongthesouth
bankoftheRhneduringaperiodoflessthanthreeweekswasanexampleofenormousenergy
expendituremobilisedtopreventthelossofenergyelsewhereintheempire.Caesarsdescriptionof
theeventsdoesnotfullyexplainthecontextforthedecisionsmadebybothheandtheHelvetii.By
quantifyingtheeffortsrequiredtosustainthepeopleengagedonbothsides,torapidlydeploythem
acrossharshterrain,toconstructthefortificationsthemselves,andtoengageinbattleatBibracte,it
maybepossibletounderstandwhytheconflictaroseandhowitinevitablywasresolved.

Third,anotherprojectsituatedintheWesternAlps,whichaddressesthenatureofcommodity
exchangeoverhighmountainpasses;specificallythespatialnatureofsmugglingasameanstoavoid
certainfrictioncosts,andtheeffortsgonetobyregionalauthoritiestosupressit.Byexamining
complexfrictionandpotentialenergysurfacesitmaybepossibletounderstandtheplacementof
castles,towers,andotherfortificationsinhighalpineareastomoderatetheuncontrolledflowof
goodsinandoutofthevalleys.Bydefiningthecostsofbuildingandmaintainingsuchcontrolpoints
youcandevelopanexpectationofhowmuchtollortariffrevenueagivenlocationwouldbe
requiredtogeneratetobesustainable.Byprojectingtheseinvestmentsoverlargerareasand
examiningspecificstartingandendingpoints,itwouldbepossibletodefinetherelativerisks
involvedintakingcertainpathsoverthemountains.Andthedecisionswhichanysmugglerwouldbe
forcedtomakeasafunctionofthevalueoftheirgoods.

Insummary,thelimitationsofextrapolatingfromthesmallscaletomuchlargeronesisnotmerelya
functionofsampling,butisalsoinherentinthenatureofourassumptionsaboutarchaeological
materials.Humansarenotsimplyproducersofmaterialcultureforitsownsake.Weneedto
considertheenergycontextwithinwhichallhumanactivitytakesplace,andhowmaterialcultureis
areflectionofthat.Toachievethiswemayneedtoredirectsomeofourownenergyawayfrom
modellingbehaviourfromthebottomofadeeptrench.

ReferencesCited

David,BrunoandJulianThomas,editors(2008a)HandbookofLandscapeArchaeology.WorldArchaeologicalCongress,
ResearchHandbooksinArchaeology,LeftCoastPress,WalnutCreek,CA,USA.

David,BrunoandJulianThomas(2008b)LandscapeArchaeology:Introduction.In,HandbookofLandscapeArchaeology.D.
BrunoandJ.Thomas(eds),WorldArchaeologicalCongress,ResearchHandbooksinArchaeology,LeftCoastPress,Walnut
Creek,CA,USA,pp.2743.

Delle,JamesA.(1998)AnArchaeologyofSocialSpace:AnalyzingCoffeePlantationsinJamaica'sBlueMountains.Plenum
Press,NewYork,USA.

Dunnell,RobertC.(1992)TheNotionSite.In,Space,TimeandArchaeologicalLandscapes.J.Rossignol,L.Wandsnider(eds),
InterdisciplinaryContributionstoArchaeology,Springer,NewYork,USA,pp2138.

Ebert,JamesI.(1992)DistributionalArchaeology.UniversityofNewMexicoPress,Albuquerque,USA.

Gheorghiu,DragoandGeorgeNash,editors(2013)PlaceasMaterialCulture:Objects,GeographiesandtheConstruction
ofTime.CambridgeScholars,Newcastle,UK.

Gosden,ChrisandKirsanow.Karola(2006),Timescales.In,TheArchaeologyofScale.G.LockandB.Molyneux(eds.),
Springer,NewYork,USA,pp2737.

Whitley,ThomasG.(2013)APaleoeconomicModeloftheGeorgiaCoast(4500to300BP).In,LifeAmongtheTides:Recent
ArchaeologyoftheGeorgiaBight.V.ThompsonandD.H.Thomas(eds),AmericanMuseumofNaturalHistory
AnthropologicalPapers,NewYork,NY,USA,pp235285.

Whitley,ThomasG.(n.d.)FromHistoricalEcologytoPrehistoricEconomy:ModelingtheCaloricLandscapesofthePast.In,
TheFutureinthePast:HistoricalEcologyAppliedtoEnvironmentalIssues,H.T.FosterandL.Paciulli(eds),Universityof
SouthCarolinaPress,Columbia,SC,USA(inpress).

Zubrow,EzraB.W.(2013)PrehistoricPlace:StudiesinMaterialCulture,Time,andSpace.In,PlaceasMaterialCulture:
Objects,GeographiesandtheConstructionofTime.D.GheorghiuandG.Nash(eds),CambridgeScholars,Newcastle,UK,
pp1333.