Comment on Hayden's Resource Models of Inter-Assemblage Variability/Reply to Conaty

Hayden (1986) has summarized the Bordes-Binford discussion concerning the measurement and interpretation of inter-assemblage variability of lithic artifacts and has suggested ways in which this variability can lead to interpretations of prehistoric subsistence strategies. These considerations are important for, as he (1986:82) observes, “Understanding assemblage differences is the very heart of archaeological interpretation…” However, both the prescription for measuring inter-assemblage variability and the interpretations derived from these measures are too restricted. His discussion of inter-assemblage variability measurement does not give sufficient consideration to the variety of factors contributing to variability. Furthermore, the model linking inter-assemblage variability to subsistence does not adequately consider the variables which affect hunter-gatherer mobility stratgegies. These concerns are examined in more detail here.I agree with Conaty's main concerns, however, most of his comments are directed at topics that I explicity and purposefully excluded from consideration in my article in order to facilitate modeling one aspect of assemblage variability. He has also misunderstood the critical role of technology in exploiting r-selected resources, and the effect of this exploitation on logistical vs. foraging strategies.