uniface
Silver Member
While it might not be an obvious way to go about it, you can learn a lot from archaeologists in other parts of the world.
A good example is this article
https://www.sott.net/article/428233...n-accepted-theories-on-Neanderthal-migrations
Two points made in this stick out to me. The first is that, as I've long maintained, the idea of "in-house development" so beloved of (Boasian) archaeology in years past to explain changes in toolkits is generally less persuasive than the idea that, when you find new tool forms, you're looking at the artifacts of new people.
The second is, of course, the significance of manuports in the archaeological record (in this case, the quartz crystal).
FWIW.
A good example is this article
https://www.sott.net/article/428233...n-accepted-theories-on-Neanderthal-migrations
Two points made in this stick out to me. The first is that, as I've long maintained, the idea of "in-house development" so beloved of (Boasian) archaeology in years past to explain changes in toolkits is generally less persuasive than the idea that, when you find new tool forms, you're looking at the artifacts of new people.
The second is, of course, the significance of manuports in the archaeological record (in this case, the quartz crystal).
FWIW.
Upvote
0
