ABSTRACT
In examining the economies of inland foragers, the question troubling archaeologists is, again, whether Holocene changes were unusual in the pre-history or part of a long series of economic adaptations. Regional differences in economic activities existed but archaeologists debate whether there was a unidirectional economic change in all parts of the continent. A number of archaeologists recast the ‘progression’ image of Pleistocene life; creating a model of Holocene ‘intensification’ which hypothesizes that foraging economies became more specialized, productive and efficient. Other researchers questioned the reality of economic ‘intensification’ in the late-Holocene, suggesting economic activities have a long time-depth or that recent economic transformations were not more efficient and sophisticated than earlier systems of production. This debate about how to best depict Holocene economic variation provides a framework for exploring evidence of ancient economic practices, and a way to illustrate interpretative difficulties confronting archaeologists. Discussion of inland economies has often floundered in confusion arising from entwining economic reconstructions with the hypotheses offered to explain them. In practice there is value in differentiating arguments about the nature of ancient economies from arguments about how to explain their emergence. Debates about Holocene ‘intensification’ often concentrated on what social and environmental circumstances might have given rise to directional economic changes, but such debates can be resolved only after the existence, nature and directionality of any economic reorganization has been established.
