<p>How do we, as humans and as scientists, learn about the world around us? In this dissertation, I explore how models--epistemological tools that connect theory and reality--not only structure scientific inquiry (including the social sciences), but also reflect how humans experience and understand the world. Using this insight enables anthropologists and other social scientists to build more ontologically powerful understandings of human behavior. Here, I focus on how humans experience physical and social landscapes--the environments in which they live and with which they interact. The dissertation consists of three studies, each of which build on the previous by adding to the complexity of modeled landscapes. The first concerns static landscapes--those that are unchanging over the temporal timescales relevant to human experience. I develop a topographically-derived index of defensibility and use it to infer defensive behavior among prehistoric populations in the Northwest Coast of North America. The second paper introduces dynamic landscapes--those that change at scales experienced by humans, but whose changes are primarily driven by external forces. An example relevant to agrarian societies is climate change. I develop a new method for reconstructing past climate landscapes and explore the potential impacts of those changes on Ancestral Pueblo maize farmers in the southwestern United States over the past two millennia. Finally, the third paper grapples with complex landscapes--dynamic landscapes in which human behaviors play important and recursive causal roles. I highlight the coevolution of locally-adapted maize varieties and human selection and cultivation strategies as an example of these types of landscapes, and develop frameworks for modeling maize paleoproductivity that can better honor the realities of Pueblo agricultural strategies.

In the archaeological literature, mountains are often portrayed as the boundaries between inhabited spaces. Yet occupying high elevations may have been an adaptive choice for ancient peoples, as rapidly changing elevations also offer variation in climate and resources over a relatively small area. So what happens, instead, if we put mountain landscapes at the center of our analyses of prehistoric seasonal rounds and ecological adaptation? This Ph.D. argues that, in order to understand any landscape that includes mountains, from the Alps to the Andes, one must include the ecology and archaeology of the highest elevations. Specifically, I base my findings on new fieldwork and lithic collections from the Absaroka and Beartooth Mountains in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) of the Rocky Mountains, which was a vital crossroads of prehistoric cultures for more than 11,000 years. I include five interlocking analyses. First, I consider the impacts of anthropogenic climate change on high elevation cultural resources, focusing on the diminishing resiliency of ancient high elevation ice patches and the loss of the organic artifacts and paleobiological materials they contain. Second, I create a dichotomous key for chronologically typing projectile points, suggesting a methodological improvement for typological dating in the GYE and for surface archaeology more broadly. Third, I use obsidian source data to consider whether mountain people were a single, unified group or were represented by a variety of peoples with different zones of land tenure. Fourth, I consider high elevation occupation in both mountain ranges as part of the seasonal round, using indices of diversity in tool types and raw material to study how the duration of those occupations changed through time. And, finally, I test the common contention that ancient people primarily used mountains as refugia from extreme climatic pressure at lower elevations. Ultimately, I find that, in both mountain ranges, increased high elevation activity is most highly correlated with increased population, not with hot, dry climatic conditions. In other words, the mountains were more than simply refugia for plains or basin people to occupy when pressured by climatic hardship. In addition, between the Absarokas and the Beartooths the evidence suggests two different patterns of occupation, not a monolithic pan-mountain adaptation. These results demonstrate the potential contributions of surface archaeology to our understanding of prehistory, and have important implications for the way we think about mountain landscapes as peopled spaces in relation to adjacent lower-elevation areas.