Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jasrep Reconstructing prehistoric landscape use at a regional scale: A critical review of the lithic conveyance zone concept with a focus on its limitations Geoffrey M. Smith ⁎ , David C. Harvey Great Basin Paleoindian Research Unit, Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Reno, United States ABSTRACT Researchers commonly use the distances and directions that toolstone was conveyed from sources to archaeological sites to reconstruct lithic conveyance zones (LCZs). This approach, which has been most eloquently applied in the Great Basin by Charlotte Beck and George Jones, is a primary means through which researchers can consider prehistoric landscape use at a regional scale. For the past 15 years, the LCZ concept has generated productive debate about the scale and types of Paleoarchaic mobility; however, it remains unclear exactly what kinds of behavior(s) LCZs represent. Furthermore, it has become clear that LCZ reconstructions may be impacted by the type and number of artifacts on which they are based. In this paper, we track the development of the LCZ concept in the Great Basin, highlight some possible issues with the approach, and outline some guidelines that may help provide a better picture of how and why prehistoric groups conveyed toolstone. 1. Introduction Source provenance analysis of lithic artifacts has been a common component of archaeological research for decades. A variety of methods (e.g., x-ray fluorescence analysis, instrumental neutron activation analysis, inductively coupled plasma emission spectroscopy) allow researchers to geochemically characterize artifacts made of obsidian and, increasingly, fine-grained volcanic rock (FGV) and cryptocrystal- line silicate (CCS) (Hughes, 1986; Jones et al., 1997; Newlander, 2012; Page, 2008). Archaeologists seeking to address questions about mobi- lity, territoriality, and exchange routinely employ source provenance data to calculate the distances and directions that prehistoric popula- tions conveyed lithic raw materials (Jones et al., 2003; Kelly, 2011; Smith, 2010). While attributing artifacts to toolstone sources can be relatively straightforward if raw materials possess unique geochemical signatures and well-documented geographic distributions, knowing which type(s) of prehistoric behavior were responsible for conveying toolstone remains difficult. As Kelly (1992:55) noted long ago, “the distribution of stone tools relative to the geological sources of their raw material… provides only a rough indicator of range, rather than mobility, since the raw material could have been acquired through residential or logistical movements, or trade”. Similarly, Hughes (2011:8–9) cautions that it can be difficult to untangle the influences of effective distance (the linear or least-cost distance to toolstone sources) and social distance (inter- group relations, population density, etc.) on raw material conveyance. In some cases, toolstone conveyance may mark individual or group travel across effective distances; in others, it may mark the degree to which populations possessed socioeconomic ties with their neighbors or their neighbors' neighbors. Kelly (1992) and Hughes (2011) correctly note that toolstone conveyance occurred within both physical and social landscapes. Obsidian and other raw materials could have been acquired via embedded procurement or exchange. Distinguishing which was the case, even in regions where lithic resources are well-documented, remains difficult. Fortunately, that is not the goal of our paper. Instead, we review how researchers working in North America's Great Basin have developed very different models of hunter-gatherer mobility, territoriality, and exchange during the terminal Pleistocene/early Holocene (TP/EH), 14,000–9000 cal. BP, using similar types of sour- cing data. We highlight how although such data could reflect the types of short-term behavior that we often seek to understand (e.g., annual foraging rounds, long-distance hunting, periodic population aggrega- tions, exchange), they could also mark an amalgam of processes that occurred over thousands of years. If the latter is the case, then source provenance data may offer only a coarse-grained view of prehistoric behavior. We also outline how interpretations of prehistoric mobility, territoriality, and/or exchange based on source provenance data may be biased by the type and number of artifacts that researchers submit for geochemical characterization. Finally, we present some guidelines that http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2017.05.048 Received 8 March 2017; Received in revised form 10 April 2017; Accepted 23 May 2017 ⁎ Corresponding author at: 1664 N. Virginia Street/MS096, Reno, NV 89557, United States. E-mail address: geoffreys@unr.edu (G.M. Smith). Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx 2352-409X/ © 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Please cite this article as: Smith, G.M., Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2017.05.048