AA (2003) A Neutral Model of Stone Raw Material Procurement - Brantingham PDF

Society for American Archaeology
A Neutral Model of Stone Raw Material Procurement

Author(s): P. Jeffrey Brantingham
Source: American Antiquity, Vol. 68, No. 3 (Jul., 2003), pp. 487-509
Published by: Society for American Archaeology
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3557105
Accessed: 02/07/2010 12:38
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://dv1litvip.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sam.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Antiquity.
http://dv1litvip.jstor.org
A NEUTRAL MODEL OF STONE RAW MATERIAL PROCUREMENT

P. Jeffrey Brantingham
Stone tool assemblage variability is considered a reliable proxy measure of adaptive variability. Raw material richness,
transportdistances, and the character of transportedtechnologies are thought to signal (I) variation in raw material selectivity based on material quality and abundance, (2) optimizationof time and energy costs associated with procurementof
stonefrom spatially dispersed sources, (3) planning depth that weaves raw material procurementforaysintoforaging activities, and (4) risk minimizationthat sees materials transported in quantities and forms that are energetically economical
and least likely to fail. Thispaper dispenses with assumptions that raw material type and abundance play any role in the
organizationof mobilityand raw materialprocurementstrategies. Rather,a behaviorallyneutralagent-based model is developed involving a forager engaged in a randomwalk within a uniformenvironment.Raw material procurementin the model
is dependentonly upon randomencounters with stone sources and the amountof available space in the mobile toolkit. Simulated richness-sample size relationships,frequencies of raw material transfers as a function of distance from source, and
both quantity-distanceand reductionintensity-distancerelationshipsare qualitativelysimilar to commonlyobservedarchaeological patterns. In some archaeological cases it may be difficult to reject the neutral model. At best, failure to reject the
neutral model may mean that interveningprocesses (e.g., depositional time-averaging) have erased high-frequencyadaptive signals in the data. At worst, we may have to admit the possibility that Paleolithic behavioral adaptations were sometimes not responsive to differences between stone raw material types in the ways implied by currentarchaeological theory.
Se considera la variabilidadde las colecciones de litica como una medidaconfiablede la variabilidadde las adaptacionesal
medio ambiente.La diversidadde materiasprimas, la distancia a sus yacimientosy la tecnologia empleada reflejarian(1) la
selecci6n de la materiaprima con base en su calidad y abundancia,(2) la optimizacionde gastos de tiempoy energiaempleados en la obtencion de materia litica de yacimientosdispersos; (3) la integracionanticipadade las visitas a los yacimientos
con actividadesde caza y recoleccion,y (4) una estrategiade reduccionde riesgos que consiste en transportarla litica en las
cantidadesyformas mas eficientesdel punto de vista energeticoy menos susceptibles al desgaste. En este trabajoprescindimos de suponer que el tipo y la abundanciade materiaprima hayanjugado un papel en la organizacion de estrategias de
obtencion de esta y de los desplazamientosen general. En su lugar,partimos de un modelo conductualmenteneutralbasado
en el agente (individuo),como seria un cazadorque se desplaza al azar en un medio ambienteuniforme.La obtencionde materiaprima dependeentoncesunicamentede hallazgosfortuitosde yacimientosde litica y la cantidadde materialque el cazador
pueda agregar a su equipaje.La simulaci6n de la relaci6n entre la diversidady el tamanode la muestra,asi como de la frecuencia de uso, la cantidady la reducciondel volumenenfuncion de la distancia al yacimiento,revelanpatronesque se asemejan, de manera cualitativa,a los que arrojaa menudoel registroarqueologico. En algunos casos arqueol6gicos resultaria
entonces dificil descartartal modelo. En el mejorde los casos la imposibilidadde descartarlosenialarfaque los procesospostdeposicion (p.ej. la combinaci6nde artefactosde distintas epocas en una sola coleccion) han borrado todos los indicadores
de la adaptacion.En el peor de los casos, nos veriamosobligados a reconocerque las adaptacionesdel comportamientopaleolftico a veces no obedecian a las diferencias entre los tipos de materiasprimas de la litica de la manera que sugieren las
teorias vigentes en arqueologia.
It is easy to invent a selectionist explanation

for almost any specific observation;proving it
is another story. Such facile explanatorye
excesses can be avoided by being more quan-
he richness of stone raw material types in

an archaeological assemblage, the geo-
geo-
graphic distances over which those materi-
als were transported,and the technologicalforms

in which they were transportedhave provided
titative.
MotooKimura(1983:xiv)
empirical benchmarks for inferring the organiza-
The Neutral Theoryof Molecular Evolution
tion of Paleolithic adaptive strategies (Feblot-
P. Jeffrey Brantingham * Departmentof Anthropology,Universityof California,Los Angeles, 341 Haines Hall, Box
951553, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1553. Email: branting@ucla.edu
AmericanAntiquity,68(3), 2003, pp. 487-509
CopyrightO2003 by the Society for AmericanArchaeology
487
[Vol. 68, No. 3, 2003
AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
488
10
10
b
b
a
.
6
/
A,r
Y4
05 4
ct
r2= .8397
0
XII
IX
XI
VII
III
10
20
StratigraphicLevel
50
100 200
500 1000
3000
Log Sample Size (n)
0.45
0.40 0.35
0.30
0.25
C
E
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
._
C
5
MP2
MP I
MP3 Quartz Indet
MP6
MP4
MP7
Raw MaterialType
Figure 1. Raw material richness in assemblages from the Middle Paleolithic site of Grotte Vaufrey, approximately
204,000-74,000 B.P. Richness changes through time (a) but is heavily dependent upon sample size (b). Procurement probabilities estimated from the observed raw material proportions (c) illustrate the structure of the distribution underlying
procurement behaviors. The primary question is whether this probability distribution is derived from the environmental densities of different raw materials, or whether a biased behavioral strategy is responsible. Data from Geneste (1988)
with revisions.
Augustins 1993, 1997a, 1997b, 1997c; Gamble

1986,1999;Geneste1988,1989; Kuhn1995;Mellars 1996; Morala and Turq 1990; Potts 1994;
Rensinket al. 1991).Suchinferencesmakeappeals
to optimization of mobility and technological
strategies,depthof planningin landscapeuse, and
risk minimization.
One family of models focuses on differences
betweengeneralistand specialiststrategiesof raw
materialutilizationas inferredfrom the richness
(i.e., numberof types)of stonerawmaterialsfound
in archaeologicalassemblages:generalistsexploit
many differentraw materialtypes, while specialists exploit only a few types. To complicatemat-
ters,observedassemblagerichnessis frequentlyif not universally-constrained by sample size

(Grayson 1984; Hayek and Buzas 1997; Shott
1989). Consider,for example, the Middle Paleolithicsite of GrotteVaufreyin theAquitaineBasin
of France, which spans the time interval from
204,000-74,000 B.P. (Geneste 1988, 1989).
Despitethe appearanceof changesin rawmaterial
richnessthroughtime, a single sample size-richness relationshipis apparentat this site (Figurela,
b) (Geneste 1988). Changesin stone raw material
richness,fromonly two uniqueraw materialtypes
to as many as nine, do not necessarilydiagnose
switchingbetweenspecialistandgeneraliststrate-
P. Jeffrey Brantingham]
PROCUREMENT
NEUTRALMODELOF STONERAWMATERIAL
gies, butratherimplyanunvaryingset of rawmaterial procurement behaviors (Figure lc) (see

Graysonand Delpech 1998, 2002; Shott 1989).
Thereare two alternative,thoughnot mutually
exclusive, behavioralinferencesthatcan be made
aboutthe natureof the underlyingset of procurement behaviors.First,procurementcould simply
be keyed to the naturaldensitiesof raw materials
in the environment(see Grayson1984:116);some
materialsareenvironmentallyvery abundant,have
a higherprobabilityof being procured,andtherefore will be observedat small sample sizes (e.g.,
materialtypesMP1 andMP2);othermaterialtypes
arevery rare,less likely to be procured,andtherefore will be observed only at very large sample
sizes (e.g., materialtypesMP4 andMP7). Second,
stone procurement strategies could be biased
towardsomerawmaterialtypesandawayfromothers;differencesin rawmaterialquality,forinstance,
could lead to suchprocurementbiases (Andrefsky
1994; Brantinghamet al. 2000). The anticipated
outcome of a biased procurementstrategywould
be higher probabilitiesof observing certainraw
materialtypes at small samplesizes, independent
of theirenvironmentaldensities.The firstsituation
is thoughtof as an "opportunistic"
strategyof stone
the
while secondis taken
rawmaterialprocurement,
to implyintentionalrawmaterialselectivity.Given
thatobservedmaximumrichnessat GrotteVaufrey
is verylow relativeto thenumberof knownsources,
numberingclose to one thousand(Geneste 1985),
it may be safe to assumethatprocurementbehaviorswerein somewaybiased.Currenttheorywould
lead us to concludethatrawmaterialprocurement
involveda significantmeawas non-opportunistic,
sureof planningdepthto execute,andwas, in fact,
adaptive(Geneste 1989).
A secondfamily of models focuses on a generally recognized "decay-like"patternin the frequencies of stone raw material transfers from
sources at differentdistances from sites (Blades
1999; Feblot-Augustins 1993, 1997a, 1997b,
1997c; MoralaandTurq1990; Potts 1994). Maximumrawmaterialtransportdistancesaretakento
reflectthe geographicrangeof the populationsin
question(Roebroekset al. 1988), with distinctions
sometimesmadebetweenthe"local"portionof the
range,less than5 km away,andthe "distant"portion of the range, beyond 20-30 km (FeblotAugustins 1993:214-215; Gamble 1999:88;
489
Geneste 1988, 1989). Two assumptionsarenecessary to infer geographic range from these data,
namely that raw materialprocurementis embeddedwithinotherforagingactivities(Binford1979;
Rensink et al. 1991), and that the maximum
recordedtransportdistancefor a materialtranslates
approximatelyinto themaximumradiusof the foraging area(Roebroekset al. 1988:30).Thus,in the
CentralEuropeanMiddle Paleolithic, the maximum recordeddistancefor raw materialtransfers
is around300 km, while in the Middle Paleolithic
of Aquitaine Basin the maximum distance is
approximately 100 km (Figure 2) (FeblotAugustins1993). The differencesbetweenregions
arepresumedto reflectrangesizes adaptedto different ecological settings. Nonetheless, in both
cases the decline in the frequencies of transfers
from greaterdistances is taken to indicate minimizationof the costs associatedwith rawmaterial
procurementand transport(see below).
More interestingperhapsis Feblot-Augustins'
of "interal modes"
(1993:243-245) interpretation
for rawmatefrom
the
trend
decay-like
deviating
rial transfersoverall (Figure2a) (see also FeblotAugustins 1997b, 1997c). She views
"unexpectedly"high frequenciesof raw material
transfersfrom distantsourcesas indicatingeither
logistical(sensu Binford1980) use of distantecological patchesby specializedtask groups,or seasonal residentialmoves to non-core areas in the
searchfor migratoryprey (see also Blades 1999;
Feblot-Augustins1997a,1997b,1997c;Rensinket
al. 1991). This inferenceimplies extensive depth
of planningin landscapeuse.
A finalfamilyof modelsfocusesin greaterdetail
on the decay-likerelationshipbetweenthe quantities of specific stone raw materialsfound in an
assemblageand the distancefrom the sourcesof
those materials.In general,the closest stone raw
materialsourcescontributethe greatestquantities
to an assemblage(60-80 percentfrom sources<5
km away),whilethemostdistantsourcescontribute
diminishinglysmall quantities(1-2 percentfrom
sources >20 km away) (Feblot-Augustins1993;
Geneste 1988). In CentralEurope,Middle Paleolithicassemblagesshowa dramaticdeclinein the
percentage frequency of stone materials from
sourcesbeyond50 km fromthe site (Figure3). At
Kulna(Layer 11), a MoravianMiddle Paleolithic
cave site, 87 percent of the assemblageis com-
[Vol. 68, No. 3, 2003
AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
490
'A
-I
E
to
oD
0A
=3
20.
o :.A
?I [I
A
B
, IA
5
95
65
35
125
1.-1.
155 185
iii*
215
I*
245
275
50
100
150
200
250
DistanceFromSource(km)
50
b
n = 172
[~~~~~A
c)
q
CZ
E
o
B?
|||||i c~ |
| 1
I||L.|
0o
40
40
8o0
80
C
240
240
280
280
160
160
200
200
120
120
Figure 3. Percentage frequencies of specific stone raw

material types in Middle Paleolithic assemblages from
Central Europe as a function of distance from source. A
general contrast between (A) high quantities of minimally
reduced materials from nearby sources and (B) low quantities of heavily reduced materials from distant sources is
thought to reflect time-energy optimization, depth of planning in raw material acquisition, and formal technological
strategies that minimize the risk of technological failure.
Data from F6blot-Augustins(1993).
technologicalforms-representing the end stages

~oflithic reductionsequencesas opposedto earlystage unmodified blocks or minimally utilized
cores-is
thought to signal depth of planning and
formalriskmanagementstrategies(Geneste1989).
In particular,technologies are expectedto be formally designed from the outset to be small, light
gh
to
to
Figure 2. Frequencyhistogramsof raw materialtransfer may designed r
are to be
and resstant o flure
lure ithe
in (a) Central we
distaiicesforMiddlePaleolithicassemblages
Eurolpe and (b) the Aquitaine Basin. High frequencies of
short -distancetransfers(A) are interpretedin terms of
optimlization of time and energy costs associated with raw
materrialprocurement.
Internalmodes(B) are interpreted
in terims of logistical or seasonal use of distant ecological
patchles. Raw material transfers from very distant sources
(C) alre thoughtto markthe maximumextentof the geographic range of the populations in question. Data from
Feblo}t-Augustins(1993).
prised of materialsfrom sourceswithin 15 km of

the s,ite, while .7 percent(n specimens = 12) are
fromi a source 230 km away (Feblot-Augustins
1992):Table4). This generalpatternis thoughtto
reflect optimizationof the time and energy tradeoffsiinherentin theprocurementof stonerawmaterials from geographically adjacent vs.
distantsources (Feblot-Augustins
geogYraphically
19935:220;Gamble1999:88;see MetcalfeandBarlow 1992). As an extensionof this decay-likepattern,thetendencyformaterialsfromdistantsources
to be introducedto sites as small,heavily reduced
transported over long distances (Beck et al. 2002;

Kuhn 1994; Nelson 1991;Torrence 1989).Accord-
ing to Geneste(1989:80),thesearchaeologicalpatterns diagnose real behavioral adaptations and

dynamic economic strategies.
Here I would like to introduce the possibility that
much of the variation in the representation of stone
raw materials, both within and between lithic

assemblages,could be of no functionalor adaptive
significancewhatsoever.Ultimately,our abilityto
determinewhetheradaptivevariabilityis (oris not)
measuredby lithicassemblagevariabilityis dependentuponhavinga nullmodelforwhatassemblage
variabilityshouldlook like undercompletelyneutralassumptions.Withthis goal in mind,I develop
an agent-basedmodelinvolvinga foragerengaged
in a randomwalk in a uniformfood-resourceenvironment.Differentstone rawmaterialtypes occur
at equal densities,but are distributedrandomlyin
the environment.Simulatedrawmaterialprocure-
NEUTRAL MODEL OF STONE RAW MATERIALPROCUREMENT
ment,consumption,anddiscardareindependentof
rawmaterialtype designationsandthereforecomprise an unbiasedstone raw materialprocurement
strategy.The model providesa baseline for comparisonwherewe can be certainthatadaptationis
not responsiblefor observedpatternsin raw material richness,transportdistances,and both quantity-distance and reduction intensity-distance
relationships(see Gotelli and Graves1996:6).
Elements of a Neutral Model
491
Hubbell 2001). Such models thus call into question the ultimate role of ecological assembly
rules-especially interspecific competition-in
establishingandmaintainingcommunity-levelecological diversity (Connell 1980; MacArthurand
Levins 1967;Roughgarden1983; Schoener1983;
Weiherand Keddy 1999).
A neutralmodel of lithic technologicalorganizationbasedon similarfirstprinciplesoffersa radical pointof departurefromtraditionalapproaches
(butsee Neiman [1995] and ShennanandWilkinson [2001] for related discussions of "cultural
drift").Theneutralmodelof stonerawmaterialprocurementdevelopedherejettisonsthe assumption
thatdifferencesbetween stone raw materialsnecessarilyinfluencebothprocurementdecisions and
how stone toolkits are maintainedand materials
ultimatelydiscarded.The alternative,neutralstarting point is to assumethat all stone raw materials
areequivalenton aper unitbasis.Forexample,each
unitweight of rawmaterial,regardlessof whether
we classify it as chert, obsidian, or quartzite,is
assumedto be equivalentin termsof probabilities
of procurement,consumption,and discard. The
dynamicsof stone procurement,use, and discard
in thisneutralframeworkarethereforeindependent
of how we mightlabel raw materialtypes and any
unique functionalqualities we might attributeto
them.
It is pertinentto ask whetherthe patternsof raw
materialdiversityobserved in the archaeological
recordare consistentwith procurementstrategies
modeledusing such extremeneutralassumptions.
If they are consistent,then we must confrontthe
difficultpossibilitythatempiricallyobservablefeaturesof thearchaeologicalrecordsuchasrawmaterial richness and transportdistances may not be
telling us muchof anythingaboutoptimizationof
procurementbehaviors, depth of planning, risk
managementstrategies,and, ultimately,adaptive
variability.Of course, one may reject the neutral
modelif observedarchaeologicalpatternsarefound
to be inconsistentwith its expectations.Interpretations linking patternsof raw materialdiversityto
specializedbehavioraladaptationswouldbe more
robustas a result.
The core premiseof any neutralmodel is that all

same-levelcomponentsof a systemareequivalent
both in terms of their innate behaviors and the
impactthatthe environmenthas on the expression
of those behaviors(Bell 2001; Gotelli and Graves
1996). It is uncontroversial to note that some
genetic systems are accuratelydescribedby neutral dynamics,that nucleotideor gene sequences
change in a stochasticmannerbecause all samelevel components (i.e., nucleotides or genes),
exposedto thesameenvironment,haveequalprobabilities of undergoingmutationor experiencing
samplingdrift(Kimura1983). Indeed,geneticists
now rarelyobject to the notionthatnaturalselection-a non-stochasticevolutionaryforce-sometimes does not distinguishbetween purines and
pyrmadines,or betweenone allele and its alternatives, despite the fact that these differences are
empiricallyverifiable and are sometimes evolutionarilysalient.
By contrast,neutralmodelsof communityecology have been receivedwith muchgreaterskepticism (Abrams2001; Bell 2001; GotelliandGraves
1996). In the most extreme "percapita"neutral
models (e.g., Hubbell2001), individualorganisms
are positedto have equivalentdemographicproperties-probabilities of birth, death, and migration-regardless of species affiliation.This is a
controversialstartingpointin thatit dispenseswith
all assumptions about the unique functional or
adaptivecharacteristicsof clearlydefinedspecies
and places the root cause of communityecological dynamics in the hands of purely stochastic
mechanismsoperatingat the level of the individual. However astonishing this may seem, such
extreme neutralassumptionsprovide reasonably
accuratedescriptionsof some universalpatterns Modeling Stone Raw Material Procurement
seen in ecological communitiessuch as species- The neutralagent-basedmodel of stonerawmateareaandrange-abundance
relationships(Bell 2001; rial procurementdevelopedhere assumesthat (1)
492
[Vol. 68, No. 3, 2003
AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
the foragingenvironmentis uniformwith respect

to food resources(i.e., it is a single-resourcemegapatch); (2) stone raw materials occur as point
sources distributedrandomlywithin the environmentandeachpointsourceis arbitrarilylabeledas
a uniqueraw materialtype; (3) foragersfollow a
"randomwalk"foragingpath;(4) eachforagerhas
a "mobiletoolkit"of fixed size (i.e., a foragercan
carrya maximumamountof stonematerial);(5) if
a materialsource is encountered,raw materialis
collected contingentupon the amount of empty
space thereis in the toolkit;and (6) if the mobile
toolkitcontainsrawmaterial,then a fixed amount
is selectedat randomwith respectto raw material
type, consumed and discardedfrom the mobile
toolkit.
Assumptions1 and 3 ensure mobility-neutral
foragingpatterns.A randomwalk througha uniformenvironmentis neitherlogisticalnorresidential (sensu Binford 1980). More technically, a
randomwalk does not seek to optimize any specific currencyassociatedwith movement,involves
no depthof planningin thatall move directionsare
equally likely, and is risk insensitive in that the
resultsof previousmove decisionshaveno impact
on the probability of the next move direction.
Assumption2 ensuressource-neutralityin thatall
raw materialsourcesoccur at equal densitiesand
are randomlydistributedin the environment.In
otherwords,thereareno abundancebiasesor nonrandomspatialclustersof individualraw material
types. Moreover,the random-walkforagingstrategy employedby the foragerensuresthateachraw
materialsourcehas,in thelimit,a probabilityequal
to one of being encounteredand thateach unique
source ultimately will be encounteredan equal
numberof times.Assumptions5 and6 areunitraw
material-neutral.
Assumption5 ensuresthatall raw
materialshaveanequalprobabilityof procurement
whenencountered.Sinceallrawmaterialsarealike,
savefor an arbitrarylabel,theyarenecessarilycollected if thereis emptyspace in the mobiletoolkit
(assumption4). Oncerawmaterialshavebeenprocured from a source, assumption6 ensures that
each unit of materialin the toolkithas a probability of being consumed and discardeddependent
only uponits relativefrequencyin the toolkit.
Technical Meanderings
The simulationis basedon the RePastagent-based
modelingplatform(http://repast.sourceforge.net).
The simulated"world"consists of a two-dimensional grid (500 x 500 cells) that holds all of the
rawmaterialsourcesanda single foragerengaged
in a randomwalk throughthe environment.Each
grid cell is assumedto containa uniform,infinite
food supply,ensuringthatthereareno patchchoice
decisions to be made in forager movement (see
below). The worldcan containa variablenumber
of raw materialsources(Figure4). In most simulations,theworldis seededwith5,000 pointsources
of stone raw materialand each of these sourcesis
arbitrarilyassigneda uniquetype label i = 1, 2,..
.5,000. The coordinatelocationof each rawmaterial sourceon the grid is chosen at randomfrom a
uniform distribution (x, y) = [1, 500], without
replacement.There are 250,000 cells that could
potentiallyhold a uniquerawmaterialsource.The
probabilitythat any one cell contains stone raw
materialis approximately.02 (i.e., 5,000 sources/
250,000 cells) and, since each point sourcerepresents an arbitrarilyuniqueraw materialtype, the
probabilitythatanyone cell containsa specificraw
materialtype is approximately4.0 x 106 (i.e., 1
type / 250,000 cells). Alternatively,these numbers
may be thoughtof as the environmentaldensities
of all stone raw materialsand specific raw material types, respectively.
100
:
;
* f0: ;:*
90
* **6
:0 :
. ::
***.?
- :
f :: ::
80
:*
o-*
6
.
*80
*:
*
:0
0 40 0
3lation wod
(l500
0
se
10
10
0? 0
*
:*: : * :: 0X::: -
126
::
3046
90
80
*
00
*showi
0
011 cells)
0
; mximm
: : :
50
*:*
60
: *;
= 85
*: ?::
76
100
the rand
,0
60
:0
,0
50
::
**
*-
66
80
90
1001
Figure 4. A snapshot of a 100-x-100 cell area of the simulation world (total size 500 x 500 cells) showing the random
distribution of raw material sources in the environment.
The mean distance between nearest neighboring raw
material sources is 3.72 grid cells (standard deviation =
1.85 cells;
minimum
= 1.0 cells;
maximum
= 8.25
cells).
The entire simulated world contained 5,000 raw material

sources each arbitrarily assigned a unique type label.
The initialcoordinatepositionof the single foragerin the environmentis chosenin a mannersimilar to the positioning of raw material sources,
namely from a uniform distribution(x, y) = [1,
500]. At each time step, the foragermoves to one
of the nearest eight neighboring cells (i.e., the
Moore neighborhood)or stays in the presentcell,
with equal probability(p = 1/9). This movement
rule defines a randomwalk whereinthere are no
first-orhigher-order
correlationsin movedirections
(Turchin1998:78).
Whena rawmaterialsourceis encountered,the
forager evaluates the present size of the mobile
toolkit and collects only as much raw materialas
is necessaryto provisionthe toolkitup to the maximumsize. Themobiletoolkitis simulatedas a vectorviwhereeach elementrepresentsthe amountof
stone raw materialin the toolkit of uniquetype i.
Inmostsimulations,themaximumamountof materialthatcan be carriedin the mobiletoolkitis arbitrarily set at 100 units. Accordingly,the mobile
toolkit must always meet the constraint:
v < 100
(1)
Theamountof rawmaterialprocuredwhena source

of type i is encounteredis given by:
ai = 100 -
i(2)
The theoreticalmaximumrichnessk, of the

mobiletoolkitis simplythemaximumtoolkitcapacity. In the baselinecase, the mobiletoolkitis maximally rich when each unique material type is
representedby only one unit and the left side of
equation(1) sumsto 100.Themobiletoolkitis minimallyrichwhenonlyone rawmaterialtypei is represented,regardlessof the sum fromequation(1).
At each time step, a fixed amountof raw material from the mobile toolkit is consumed,even if
the foragerhas not movedfromits currentposition
andprovidedthatthetoolkitis notempty.Inall simulations,the consumptionrater is fixedat one unit
of materialper time step. Importantly,each material type i is consumedwith a probabilitydependent only upon its relative frequencywithin the
mobile toolkit:
cVi
Yi,Vi(3)
i
493
where ci is the probabilitythata materialof type i

is consumedat a single time step. If all materials
areequallyrepresentedin thetoolkit,thentheywill
each have an equalprobabilityof being consumed
in the next time step. This is an importantobservation because it ensures that the type i of raw
materialdoes not influencethe probabilityof consumption.Forexample,if therearefive rawmaterial types equally representedby one unit in the
mobile toolkit,thenthereareequalprobabilitiesci
= .2 (or ci = 1/5) thattype i is consumed.Alternatively, if type i = 1 in the mobile toolkit is represented by 10 units and the remainingfour types
each by one unit, then the probabilitiesof consumptionshiftto cl = 10/14 andc_4 = 1/14,respectively.
Eachunitof rawmaterialconsumedis immediatelydiscardedfromthemobiletoolkit.Becausethe
choiceof materialto consumeis independentof raw
materialtype, discardis similarlyindependentof
raw materialtype.This is a criticalpointto recognize since any archaeologicalevaluationsof the
model developed here are dependenton a clear
of themechanismby whichstoneraw
understanding
materialsbecomepartof the archaeologicalrecord.
Substantialefforthasbeeninvestedin modelingthe
discardprocess (e.g., Schiffer 1987; Shott 1989;
Varienand Potter1997), and thereis muchto recommendthese models. In the spiritof the neutral
approachtakenhere,however,discardis considered
simply to be a randomsamplingmechanismthat
operateson the mobile toolkitindependentof raw
materialtype designations.Individualarchaeologicalassemblagesmaybe treatedas repeatedrandom
samplesof differentsizes from the mobiletoolkit.
In the aggregate,multiple archaeologicalassemblages shouldprovidea reasonablycompletepictureof stone rawmaterialprocurementdynamics.
Figure 5 presentsa schematicdiagramof the
structuralanddynamiccomponentsof the simulation, andTable 1 lists the variablesandparameter
settingsthatdefinethebaselinemodel.Inall cases,
the simulationis allowed to run until either 200
uniquesourceshavebeen encountered,or the foragerreachesthe "edge"of the simulationworld.
Simulation Results
The simulationseeks to establisha set of neutral
expectationsfor trendsin stone raw materialrepresentationwithinthemobiletoolkit.Baselinedata
494
[Vol. 68, No. 3, 2003
AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
6000 .
n = 22,830
5000
4000
.E
3000
2000
1000
__1__
I.
0
10
11
Raw MaterialRichness (n Types)
Figure 6. Frequency histogram showing mobile toolkit

richness for one complete simulation run of 22,830 time
steps. These simulation results provide empirical probabilities of observing a given raw material richness within the
mobile toolkit. In this representative simulation run the
mobile toolkit contained no raw material approximately
25 percent of the simulation time, between one and four
unique raw material types 61.1 percent of the time, and
five or more types only 13.7 percent of the time. On average, one would expect to see different richness states in
roughly those proportions. Model parameters: world size
= 500 x 500; number of unique sources = 5,000; mobile
toolkit size = 100; consumption rate = 1.
Figure 5. Structural and dynamic components of a neutral
model of stone raw material procurement. Building the
simulation environment entails defining the size of the simulation world and adding a fixed number of unique raw
material sources. A single forager with a mobile toolkit of
fixed maximum capacity is then added to the environment.
At each time step, the forager moves to one of the eight
nearest neighbors, or remains in its current location, with
equal probability, and a fixed amount of raw material is
consumed dependent only upon its frequency in the mobile
toolkit. If a raw material source is encountered, the toolkit
is reprovisioned up to its maximum capacity before moving again at random. If no raw material source is encountered, the forager moves immediately at random.
Simulations are run until 200 unique raw material sources
are encountered, or the edge of the simulation world is
reached.
are generatedon raw materialrichness,quantities

of unique raw materialtypes, and transportdistances for uniqueraw materialtypes containedin
the mobile toolkit.These datacombineto provide
additionalexpectationsfortherelationshipbetween
the quantityof a materialin the toolkitandthe distancefromits sourceandtheintensityof rawmaterialreductionas a functionof distancefromsource.
Raw Material Richness
The simulatedmobiletoolkitspendsvariableperiods of time in differentrichnessstates(Figure6).
Most often the toolkit contains few raw material

types, 25 percentof the time containingno material at all. Occasionallythe toolkitsustainsrichness
levels of more than 10 uniquetypes. Ten separate
simulationruns using baseline parametersestablish a median raw material richness within the
mobile toolkit of two unique materialtypes and
maximumrawmaterialrichnessof 11uniquetypes.
Thesevaluesarenotsignificantin anyglobalsense,
thoughthe general shape of the distributionmay
be (see Hayek and Buzas 1997; Hubbell 2001).
Whatis interesting,however,is thatrichnesslevels are always very low relativeto the theoretical
maximum,determinedby the size of the mobile
toolkit (equation[1] above). In Figure6, the simulatedmaximumrichnessis only 11 percentof the
theoreticalmaximumof 100 uniquetypes.
Theproportionof time spentin variousrichness
statesand the observedmaximumrichnessof the
mobiletoolkitaredependenton the densityof raw
materialsin the environment,the maximumcapacity of the mobile toolkit,andthe rawmaterialconsumptionrate.A few analyticalsteps arerequired
to explicatethese constraints.
Considerfirstthenumberof timestepsNit takes
PROCUREMENT
495
Table 1. Variablesand Baseline ParameterSettings.

Variabledescription
Variable
Units
Baseline ParameterSetting/Range
Simulatedworld size in X dimension
X
grid cells
500
Simulatedworld size in Ydimension
Y
grid cells
500
x-coordinateposition of raw material/forager
x
randomfrom uniform= [1, 500]
grid cells
randomfrom uniform= [1, 500]
grid cells
y
y-coordinateposition of raw material/forager
Numberof unique raw materialsources
n
sources
5,000
Raw materialtype label
i
1, 2, ... 5,000
minimum= 0; maximum= 100
Quantityof materialfrom source i in mobile toolkit
arbitraryunits
vi
Total materialof all types in mobile toolkit; maximum
5vi
arbitraryunits
toolkit capacity
Amount of materialcollected from source i
ai
arbitraryunits
[0.0, 1.0]
Probabilityof consuming materialof type i in mobile toolkit ci
An observed numberof simulationtime steps
N
time steps
Estimateddistance traveledin N time steps; effective
d
grid cells
foraging radius
Maximumforagermove length at each time step
grid cells
1
I
Raw materialconsumptionrate
r arbitraryunits / time step
1
Raw materialrichness in mobile toolkit
k
numberof types minimum= 0; maximum= 100
qi
Quantityof materialdiscardedin making room for newly
arbitraryunits
procuredmaterial
Most abundantmaterialin the mobile toolkit at a
max[v,] arbitraryunits
given time step
to get fromone rawmaterialsourceto thenextranEquation(6) statesthatthe distancethatcan be

domly encounteredraw materialsource. This is traveledbefore all materialsin the mobile toolkit
are consumedis approximatelythe squareroot of
approximately:
thepresenttoolkitsize dividedby the consumption
d
N
2
(4)
rate,assumingagainthatthe step length 1is unity.
- )
Witha consumptionrateof one unitof materialper
where d is the distancebetween the two sources time step, the distancethatcan be traveledbefore
and 1 is the move length at each time step (see the toolkitis "cleared"is simplythe squarerootof
Denny and Gaines 2002:110-114).' When 1 is the amountof materialin thetoolkit:a toolkitfilled
unity,the numberof time steps it takesto travela to a maximum capacity of 100 units would be
given distanced is approximatelythe squareof the "cleared"of all materialsby the time the forager
distance. Rememberingthat a fixed amount of had traveledapproximatelyd = 10 cells from the
materialis consumedat each time step, it is possi- currentposition,providedno othermaterialsources
ble also to establishthe relationship:
wereencounteredalongtheforagingpath.Theforaging area arounda raw materialsourcethat can
be
effectively exploited with materialfrom that
xVi
source
is thus definedby radiusd.
i
N=
, r>0
r
Additionalmaterialsourcesencounteredbefore
wherethe sumof v.is thetotalamountof rawmate- thetoolkitis "cleared"increasemobiletoolkitrichrial in the mobile toolkit at a given point in time ness. Maximumtoolkit richnesscan be estimated
andr is the consumptionrate.Equation(5) defines empiricallyfrom the maximumnumberof unique
thetoolkit"clearingrate,"thenumberof timesteps sourcesthatmightbe foundwithina foragingarea
it takesto consumeall of therawmaterialpresently of radiusd = 10. Table2 lists the minimumnearin the mobile toolkitat a consumptionrater.
est neighbor distances between raw material
into
and
(4)
equation
Substituting
rearranging sources for two simulatedworlds with different
yields:
global raw materialdensities.2Minimumnearest
neighbordistances are calculatedby measuring,
for each source, the distance to all n - 1 other
(6)
dU 1d=l vi(6)
r
sourcesin the environmentand then selectingthe
496
AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
[Vol. 68, No. 3, 2003
Table 2. MinimumNearest Neighbor Distances between Raw MaterialSources and PredictedMaximum

Toolkit Richness for Two SimulatedEnvironments.
3000 Unique Sources
5,000 Unique Sources
minimum distance to source (grid cells)
minimum distance to source (grid cells)
Nearest source rank 1
1.00
1.00
Nearest source rank2
1.00
3.00
2.24
4.24
3.61
6.08
4.47
6.40
6.40
8.49
7.07
9.22
7.07
11.18
7.81
12.04
8.00
12.73
9.22
14.21
10.20
14.56
10.82
16.03
11.18
17.49
11.31
18.25
12.53
19.03
13.00
19.31
13.34
19.92
13.60
21.02
14.14
21.21
14.32
22.02
15.52
22.67
11
Predictedmaximumtool kit richness
7
Observedmaximumtoolkit richness
IIa
6b
5.69
5.49
Average distance to a neighborwithin
the foraging area
Note: Toolkit size is 100 and d = 10 in both cases; boldface numbersmarkthe minimumnearestneighborsthat fall within
the effective foraging radiusd.
aTenseparatesimulationruns.
bFiveseparatesimulationruns.
observed minima for the population of sources

overall. Two sources chosen at randomfrom the
environment,forexample,eachhavenearestneighbors of rank 1, 2, 3 ... 5,000. The corresponding
distancesto neighborsof each rankmaybe, hypothetically, 1.0, 1.25,4.3 ... 698, and 1.2, 1.3, 2.6.
. 687 grid cells for each source, respectively.In

this hypotheticalcase, the first-and second-order
minimumnearestneighborsaredefinedon thebasis
of source 1, while the third and 5,000th nearest
neighborsaredefinedon thebasisof source2. This
process yields the set of minimumnearestneighbors 1.0, 1.25, 2.6 ...
687, which subsequently
definesthemaximumpossiblepackingof resources
into a local foraging area. When the simulated
world contains 5,000 unique sources-a global
density of .02 sources/gridcell-the set of minimumnearestneighborswill on averageinclude 11
sourceswithinthe boundariesof a foragingareaof
radiusd = 10. Witha totalof 3,000 sources-.012

sources/grid cell-on average there are seven
uniquesources within a foragingareaof radiusd
= 10 (Table2). These sets providereasonableestimatesof maximumattainablerawmaterialrichness
underdifferentraw materialdensityconditions.
In general,increasingthe global densityof raw
materialsin theenvironment,
whichincreasesprobthe
maximum
of materials
number
abilistically
found in a foraging area of radius d, will also
increasethe maximumattainablerichnessfor the
mobile toolkit. Similarly, increasing maximum
toolkit capacity, leaving both the environmental
densityof resourcesandrawmaterialconsumption
rateunchanged,effectivelyincreasesthe foraging
radiusd. Forexample,fromequation(6), doubling
the maximumcapacityof the mobiletoolkitto 200
unitsof materialincreasesthe foragingradiusd to
14.1 grid cells. This expandsthe areaover which
PROCUREMENT
497
Table3. ProcuredRaw MaterialPackage Sizes and Expected ConsumptionRates.
Toolkit Richness
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Total
Number of Occurrences
160
104
93
49
54
18
3
481
Mean
63.6
30.3
29.7
26.6
14.9
20.8
6.7
38.7
Package Size Procured(ArbitraryUnits)

Minimum
Std. Deviation
2
45.1
2
29.0
2
30.0
2
25.8
2
18.6
3
19.2
4.7
3
38.5
2
ExpectedAmount RemainingAt Distance da
d=10
d=20
d=30
20.7
9.0
3.9
Note: Data are for one simulationrun using baseline parameters.
given in Figure 11.
"Expectedamount (arbitraryunits) calculatedfrom the equationy = 47.726e-0'0834X
rawmaterialsourcesmaybe encounteredandconcomitantly increases the maximum attainable

toolkit richness.Using Table2, maximumattain= 19 in the case of
able richnessincreasesto km
max
5,000 uniquesourcesin the environmentand kma
= 10 in the case of 3,000 uniquesources.Finally,
increasingtheconsumptionrater reducestheeffective size of the mobiletoolkitandthereforelowers
the maximumattainabletoolkitrichness.
Note thatthereis a tradeoffbetweentoolkitrichness andtheamountof timespentata richnessstate.
Fromequation(5), N = max[vi]/ris the amountof
time it takesto "clear"the most abundantmaterial
type fromthe mobile toolkit.The dynamicbehavior of the mobile toolkit is similarto a zero-sum
game (see Hubbell2001; MacArthur1960).When
all of the most abundantmaterialis consumed,the
richness state of the toolkit will decreaseby 1. If
the toolkit is completelyfull (i.e., Xvi = 100), any
increasein richnessof thetoolkit-from k to k+ must be accompaniedby a decreaseqi in a quantity of materialalreadyin the toolkit. The most
abundantmaterialtype in the toolkitis usuallythe
one thatmust yield space since the probabilityof
consuminga materialtype is dependentonly upon
its frequencyin thetoolkit(equation[3] above).The
estimatedtime spentat the new richnessstateN is
necessarilylowersincemax[vi- qi]< max[vi].Considerthe situationwherethe mobiletoolkitis completelyfull andcontainsonly one rawmaterialtype
(i.e., yvi= 100, k = 1). The expected amount of
time spent at this richness state is Nk= , = max[vi]
= 100. To accommodateexactly one unitof a new
Maximum
100
95
95
95
70
66
12
100
d=40
1.7
raw material,the materialalready in the toolkit

mustbe reducedby at least one unit (e.g., qi = 1).
Consequently,the expectedtime spentat the new
richness state is reduced relative to the original
richness state by a finite amount Nk 2 = max[vi -
qi]= 99. If it werepossibleto encounter100unique

raw material sources within a foraging area of
radiusd = 10, then a richnessstatek = 100 would
requiremax[vi]= 1 for all rawmaterialtypesin the
toolkit. If no furtherraw material sources were
encounteredaftertime step 100, thenthe expected
time at each richness state would be exactly Nk
=l1. Thus,the probabilityof
10 = N= 99... = Nk
a
richness
statewithinthe mobile
observing given
toolkit decreasesas richnessincreases(Figure6;
see also Table3).
It is also importantto note thatthe probability
of observinga given richnessstate is not distributed evenly in time or space, but is dependenton
the local environmentaldistributionof rawmaterial sources (Figure7). Rapid increasesin toolkit
richness will occur only in those local environmentswherethe numberof stone sourcesis high;
wherethelocal set of nearestneighborsapproaches
the minimumset. Randomwalkpathscarryingthe
foragerawayfromtheselocalclustersof rawmaterialsourcesrapidlydecreasetoolkitrichness.While
Table2 illustratesthatit is possibleto predictglobal
maximumtoolkit richnesssimply on the basis of
the densityof stone rawmaterialin the local environment,and given additionalassumptionsabout
maximumtoolkit capacityand raw materialconsumption rate, individual observations of the
AMERICAN
ANTIQUITY
498
[Vol. 68, No. 3, 2003
12
10
2'
10000
11000
12000
13000
14000
15000
Time Step
Log Quantity of Material in Mobile Toolkit (arbitraryunits)
Figure 7. Time series showing changes in raw material

richness within the mobile toolkit of a single forager. Data
represent observations over 5,000 time steps from a simulation run lasting 24,294 time steps. Model parameters:
world size = 500 x 500; number of unique sources = 5,000;
mobile toolkit size = 100; consumption rate = 1.
Figure 8. Maximum raw material richness (number of

types) is strongly correlated with the log of the quantity of
material in the mobile toolkit. Model parameters: world
size = 500 x 500; number of unique sources = 5,000; mobile
toolkit size = 100; consumption rate = 1.
mentpoint for each uniqueraw materialtype presentin the mobile toolkit.This procedureprovides
aneffectivemeasureof how fara rawmaterialtype
has been transportedfromits source.Figure9 presents frequency histograms of distances from
sourcefor materialsin themobiletoolkitmeasured
in two differentspatialcontexts.Figure9a shows
a randomsample of approximately10 percentof
all raw materialoccurrencesin the mobile toolkit
for one simulationrun lasting 24,294 time steps.
Representedarethe numberof time stepsin which
a materialpresentin the mobile toolkitis found a
specifiednumberof gridcells fromthepointsource,
regardlessof whetherthe forageris presentlyat a
source of material.Figure 9b, in contrast,shows
thedistancefromsourceformaterialsin themobile
toolkit observed only at the points of encounter
withrawmaterialsources.Thetwo spatialcontexts
displaysome interestingsimilarities.
When observationsof the mobile toolkit are
madeindependentof spatiallocation,thefrequency
distribution of distances displays an "internal
mode" with a long right skew (Figure 9a). The
internalmodeindicatesthatthemobiletoolkitmost
often containsmaterialtypes from sourcesin relativelyclose proximityto the spatiallocationwhere
the toolkit is observed.The mediantransportdistance (9 cells) represents1.2 percentof the maxiTransportDistance
mumpossiblelineardistancebetweentwo sources,
At each time step in a simulation,it is possible to the diagonaldistanceof 707 grid cells across the
evaluatehow far the forageris from the procure- simulationworld.The modaltransportdistance(5
mobile toolkitin space andtime may deviatesubstantiallyfrom these expectations.

Finally, maximum toolkit richness increases
systematicallywith the log of the amountof material in the toolkit (i.e., sample size) (Figure 8).
Whenthe mobiletoolkitcontainslow quantitiesof
material,the limit on richnessis trivial;it is only
possible to have one uniqueraw materialtype if
thereis only one unitof rawmaterialin the toolkit.
This triviallimit appearsto hold up throughfour
unitsof rawmaterial.Whenthemobiletoolkitcontains greaterthanfour units of material,however,
maximumrichnessincreasesat a muchslowerrate
thantheamountof transported
rawmaterial.Above
this level, the environmentaldensityof raw materials, combinedwith the constraintsof toolkitsize
and consumptionrate,is increasinglyresponsible
for determiningmaximumtoolkitrichness:in theoryit is possibleto have 100 differentstonesources
packedinto a foragingareaof radiusd = 10, butin
practicethis never occurs. In the base model, the
maximum richness value of 11 unique types is
observedonly when the mobile toolkitis filled to
nearits maximumcapacity.Note alsothatthissample size-richness relationshipemergesin spite of
the equal densitiesof differentraw materialtypes
in the environment.
PROCUREMENT
800
600
.z
400
o
D
200
13
17
21
25
29
33
37
41
45
49
Distance From Source (grid cells)
600
I
43
500
400
300
.F
cr,
e,
200
.8
100
o
0
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
Figure 9. Frequency histograms of the distance from

source for stone raw materials occurring in the mobile
toolkit. (a) Distance from source measured at points both
at and away from raw material sources. Data represent
approximately 10 percent sample of the total number of
raw material occurrences in the mobile toolkit from a simulation run lasting 24,294 time steps. (b) Distance from
source for stone raw materials occurring in the mobile
toolkit measured at encounters with raw material sources.
There were a total of 513 separate encounters with raw
material sources over the entire simulation run lasting
24,294 time steps. Model parameters: world size = 500 x
500; number of unique sources = 5,000; mobile toolkit size
= 100; consumption rate = 1.
cells) representsonly .7 percentof the maximum.

The medianandmode areinfluenced,respectively,
by distanceto the edge of the foragingarea,given
by radiusd, and the averageexpecteddistanceto
neighboringraw materialsources within the foraging area,which is approximatelyd/2 (see Table
2). The medianand modal transportdistancesdo
not change appreciablywith different environmentalrawmaterialdensities.Rather,as rawmaterialdensitydecreasestowardzero, the distribution
499
loses its rightskewandclustersmoretightlyaround

the interval[d/2, d].
Observingthe mobile toolkitonly at the spatial
locations where a raw materialsource is encounteredpredictablyinflatesthe observednumberof
occurrenceswherethedistancefromsourceis equal
to zero (Figure9b). This is a trivialoutcomedetermined by the spatialbias in the sample of observations.Whatis perhapsmoreinterestingis thatthe
internalmodeis stillevidentevenwhenthe forager
is at raw materialsources.Moreover,the mode is
in approximatelythe same location;as above,this
is approximatelythe interval[d/2, d].
Raw materials are also transportedover distancesmuchgreaterthantheradiusof thelocalforaging area.Forthe baselineparametersused here,
the maximumtransportdistance(43 grid cells) is
approximatelya factorof fourgreaterthanthe foragingarearadiusd = 10. To see why,considerwhat
happensfollowing an encounterwith a raw material sourcewherethe foragercollects 100 unitsof
material.At this point,the forageris guaranteedat
least 100 time steps of movement.This allows the
foragerto move an averagedistance of approximately 10 grid cells (see equations[4]-[6]). If no
additionalrawmaterialsourcesareencounteredin
the foragingarea,then the maximumdistanceof
raw materialtransportwould be approximatelyd
= 10 gridcells. If, on the otherhand,additionalraw
materialsourcesare encounteredbefore 100 time
steps have passed from the initial procurement
event, then transportdistances can be extended
greatlybeyondthe standardforagingradius.
Consideragain the situationwhere a forager
encountersa rawmaterialsourceandprocures100
unitsof rawmaterial.Imaginethatthe foragerthen
moves for 99 time steps, or a distanceof approximately 9.95 grid cells, beforeencounteringa second source. Encountering the second source
"rescues"themobiletoolkitfrombeing clearedfor
at least 100 more time steps.Thereis thus a finite
probabilitythatthe one unitof materialremaining
in the toolkit from the first source will be transportedoveranother100 time steps,giving a cumulative transportdistance of 19.95 grid cells from
source. This distance may increase to approximately 30 grid cells from sourceif a thirdsource
is encounteredjust before the next 100 time steps
haveelapsed.However,theprobabilitythatatleast
one raw materialsourceis encounteredevery 100
AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
500
Duration of Continuous Transport (time steps)

100
225
400
625
ial transportdistancesshouldbe threeto fourtimes

the foragingradiusd. Of course,anymodifications
to the maximumcapacityof the mobile toolkit,or
the raw material consumption rate, necessarily
changed andalso the absolutemaximumtransport
distance.Importantly,
however,these "behavioral"
modificationsto the natureof the mobiletoolkitdo
not alterthe maximumtransportdistancerelative
900
0.35
0.3
0.25
0
L,
a
0.2
P.
o
[Vol. 68, No. 3, 2003
0.15
0.1
to d.4
0.05
10
15
20
25
30
35
Expected Maximum Transport Distance (grid cells)
Figure 10. The probability that a stone raw material will

be transported at least a distance d is a negative exponential function of the distance from the source. Most materials procured have a relatively high probability (p = .33) of
being transported approximately 10 grid cells from their
point of procurement. This probability drops top = .14 for
distances of around 15 grid cells. The probability that a
material is transported greater than 30 grid cells from
source falls below .02. Transport distances are estimated
using the relationship N = d2 from observed durations of
continuous raw material transport. Note that the scale for
plotting the duration of continuous transport is the square
of the transport distance and is therefore nonlinear in this
figure.
time steps,andthusthe probabilitythatthe mobile

toolkitwill continuouslyholdrawmaterialbeyond
eachblockof 100 time steps,declinesrapidly(Figure 10).
At the environmental density of materials,
toolkit size and consumptionrate specifiedin the
base model, it is quite common for the toolkit to
containsome amountof materialcontinuouslyfor
200, 300, or even 400 sequentialtime steps.Using
these simulatedresultsandthe relationshipN- d2,
we should expect raw materialsfrequentlyto be
transporteddistancesbetween 14 and20 gridcells
from source,or 1.4 to 2 times the standardforaging radiusd= 10 gridcells (Figure10). Itis uncommon, however, for material to be continuously
transportedfor more than 1,000 sequentialtime
steps.The longest periodof continuousraw material transportobservedin the base model is 1,050
time steps, which leads to an estimatedmaximum
transportdistanceof 32.4 grid cells. This analytiof themaxcal resultis a reasonableapproximation
imum transportdistanceof 43 grid cells observed
in the stochastic,discretetimecase.3Ingeneral,the
neutralmodel predictsthatmaximumraw mater-
Technologyof TransportedMaterials
The simulationalso providesneutralexpectations
for the quantity and technological characterof
materialsin the mobile toolkit transportedfrom
sourcesat differentdistances.Figure11 illustrates
thatthe quantityof materiali in the mobile toolkit
as a functionof distancefrom the source of i follows an exponentialdeclineof the formy = b*e-ax.
Materialsfromthe closest sourcesareusuallyrepresentedin thegreatestquantities,while thosefrom
the most distant sources are representedin the
smallest quantities.Note, however,that variation
aroundthe mean increaseswith increasingproximity to the sourceof the material.Thus,materials
from nearbysources are frequentlyprocuredand
transportedeitherboth in high andlow quantities.
At greaterdistancesfromsource,rawmaterialsare
more uniformlyrepresentedby low quantities.
The high variancein the quantitiesof materials
transportedover short distances stems from the
influencethatmaterialsalreadyin the toolkithave
on the size of rawmaterialpackagesprocured.For
example,if raw materialsources are close to one
anotherin space, then thereis a high probability
that the toolkit will be nearlyfull when a unique
sourceis encountered.Becauseprecedenceis given
to materialsalreadyin the toolkit-there is no discard of excess material-the quantityof material
procuredfrom the newly encounteredsourcewill
be relativelylow. If materialsourcesarespacedfar
apart, however, then the mobile toolkit will be
nearlyor completelyemptywhen a uniquesource
is encountered.In this case, the size of the raw
materialpackageprocuredfromthenewly encounteredsourcewill approachmaximumtoolkit size.
The low variancein materialquantitiestransported from distant sources reflects a different
mechanism:materialstransported
fromgreaterdistancesdisplaythe effects of repeatedconsumption
events,dampeningout anyeffectof initialpackage
100
= 1, the meanprocuredraw materialpackagesize

is 63.6 units(Table3). Aftertravelinga distanceof
10 grid cells, the expected remainingamountof
materialfrom that source is 20.7 units,representing consumptionand discardof 60 percentof the
materialoriginallyprocured.By the time the foragerhastraveled20 gridcells theremainingamount
of materialin the mobile toolkitis 9 units(70 percent consumed),andby 40 gridcells only 1.7 units
remain(-97 percentconsumed).
90
.lz
cc
.s
?-
80
70
60
50
ci
ct
40
o
2
32
I..
30
=3
0'
Cy
20
501
10
0
1
10
13
16
19
22
25
28
31
34
37
40
Figure 11. The quantity of a material (mean +/- 1 standard

deviation) in the mobile toolkit is a negative exponential
function of the distance from the raw material source. The
reported equation is a least-squares fit to the mean values
only. Data represent approximately a 10 percent sample of
the total number of raw material occurrences in the
mobile toolkit from a simulation run lasting 24,294 time
steps, or the time necessary for the simulated forager to
encounter 200 unique raw material types. Model parameters: world size = 500 x 500; number of unique sources =
5,000; mobile toolkit size = 100; consumption rate = 1.
size. Inessence,rawmaterialstransportedfromthe
most distantsources have been "atrisk"for consumptionthe longest and thereforeoccur consistently in the smallestquantitieswithinthe mobile
toolkit. Table 3 presentsdata on the sizes of raw
materialpackagesprocuredwhenthemobiletoolkit
is at differentrichnesslevels. Mean package size
procureddecreasesas richnessincreases,illustrating thatmaterialsalreadyin themobiletoolkitplace
certainlimitson the amountof materialthatcanbe
procuredfrom a newly encounteredsource.
Table 3 also illustrates,as alludedto above, a
fundamentalrelationshipbetween distance from
source and intensity of material consumption.
Quantitiesof materialsin the mobile toolkit from
nearby sources generally have spent the least
amountof time in the toolkit and have therefore
been exposedto limitedriskof consumption.Predictably, these materials are not intensively
reduced.Risk of consumptionincreaseswith the
amount of time a materialtype has spent in the
mobile toolkit, which equations 4-6 show is
directlyrelatedto raw materialtransportdistance.
Materialsfrom more distantsourcesare thus predictablymore intensivelyreduced.This patternis
independentof rawmaterialtypedesignations.For
example,for a startingmobiletoolkitof richnessk
Archaeological Parallels
Severalimportantobservationsandpredictionsare
derivedfrom the neutralmodel developedabove.
First, raw material richness within the mobile
toolkit shouldbe expectedto varydynamicallyas
a functionof both spatiallocationandtime, butin
allcasesrichnessis constrainedto be muchless than
themaximumrichnesstheoreticallyattainable.The
signatureof this process is a dependenceof maximum toolkitrichnesson samplesize. Remembering thatall materialsin the simulatedenvironment
occur at equal densities, it is clear thatthe biases
in the representationof raw materialswithin the
toolkit arise solely from a neutral,non-adaptive
raw materialprocurementstrategy.The fact that
some materialspresentin theenvironmentarenever
procured,othersare only rarelyprocured,while a
few are commonly procuredneed not imply raw
materialselectivityon the partof the forager.
Second,thefrequencydistributionof rawmaterial transportdistancesdisplays an internalmode
and a long right skew. Maximum transportdistances are expected to be three to four times the
distancerepresentedby theinternalmode.Theratio
of the maximumto the modalraw materialtransport distanceis largely unaffectedby changes in
mobile toolkit size, consumptionrate,or the naturaldensitiesof rawmaterialsin the environment.
Maximumtransport
distancesmaytranslateintothe
"utilizationrange"of a givenrawmaterialtype,but
are equivocallyrelatedto the "geographicrange"
of the forager.
Finally,the quantityof materialof a given type
withinthemobiletoolkitgenerallyfollowsanexponential decline with increasing distance from
source.As an extension of this pattern,materials
from the most distantsources are expected to be
representedconsistently(i.e., withlow variance)in
small quantitiesandbe heavilyreducedrelativeto
502
AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
mean size of procuredraw materialpackages.In

contrast, materials from the closest sources are
expectedto displayhighvariancein boththe quantities representedandthe intensityof reduction.In
largepart,thesepatternsmaybe explainedasresulting from the "zero-sum"behaviorof the mobile
toolkit,whichgivesprecedenceto materialsalready
procuredover those newly encountered,and the
length of time a materialin the mobile toolkithas
been exposedto riskof consumption.Neitheroptimizationof rawmaterialprocurementstrategiesto
minimizetime andenergyexpendedin findingand
transportingstone,norriskreductionstrategiesfor
managingthe consumptionof stone,play a role in
the generationof these patterns.
Eachof theseabovepredictionsfindsdirectparallels in the archaeologicalrecord.HereI returnto
theexamplecases discussedatthebeginningof this
paperbut emphasizethat I do not intend the following observationsto be restrictedto these cases
(see below).
The Middle Paleolithicsite of GrotteVaufrey
provides a familiar example of changes in raw
materialrichnessthroughtime thatare dependent
on the sizes of the archaeologicalsamplesexamined (Geneste 1988, 1989). Ratherthanindicating
shifts betweengeneralistand specialistraw-material procurementstrategies,the data from Grotte
Vaufreysuggest a single, remarkablystableset of
procurement strategies persisting for perhaps
130,000years.Theprimaryquestionis whetherthis
richness-sample size relationshipcan be distinguishedfrom the neutralmodel expectations.
The neutralmodelanticipatesthe low observed
richness relative to the environmentaldensity of
sources, as well as the temporalchanges in raw
material richness and the dependence of these
changes on sample size (compareFigures la, lb,
7, and 8). The model also suggests an alternative
interpretationof the differences in raw material
procurementprobabilitiesseen at GrotteVaufrey
(FigureIc). One may view the distributionin Figure Ic as specifyingtheprobabilitiesthatthemobile
toolkit containsa given raw materialtype, and no
othertypes, at the time of arrivalat GrotteVaufrey
(i.e., richnessk = 1).Thus,themobiletoolkitwould
containonly materialtype MP2 with probabilityp
[Vol. 68, No. 3, 2003
materialtype(see Figure6), repeatedsamplingsof

the toolkit-yielding a large aggregatearchaeological sample size-would neverthelessbe necessary to detect those times the toolkit contained
only MP7. Less-frequentsamplingof the mobile
toolkit-leading to a small archaeologicalsample
size-would most oftendetectmaterialtypesMP2
andMP1.
The neutralmodel reinforcesthe observation
that the differencesin raw materialprocurement
probabilitiesat Grotte Vaufreyrepresenta bias
introducedby hominidbehavior.The questionsurroundsthe natureof this behavioralbias. The neutral model indicates that biased procurement
probabilitiescan arise out of the pathdependence
of a randomwalk. As a consequence,biasedraw
materialrepresentationat GrotteVaufreyneed not
imply necessarilyspecializedprocurementstrategies keyed to raw materialquality.More specifically, the neutralmodel suggests that,to arriveat
a site witha single materialtype "inhand,"the foragermusttraversethe distancebetweensourceand
site beforethe toolkit has "cleared"(see equation
[6]). Withincreasingdistancebetweensourceand
site, the foragingpath must become increasingly
linearto meetthiscondition.Inthe base model,for
example,the foragermustfollow a perfectlylinear
pathto traversethe distancebetweena sourceand
a site located 100 grid cells away.Any deviation
from this path would ensure that the toolkit is
clearedof materialbeforearrivalat the site. Given
the mathematicalpropertiesof a randomwalk,the
probabilitythatthepathchosenbetweentwopoints
is perfectlylinearbecomesinfinitesimallysmallas
the distancebetweenthepointsincreases.5Inother
biases in
words,the probabilityof path-dependent
rawmaterialrepresentationincreasesdramatically
with increasingdistancebetweensources.
The higherexpectedprocurementprobabilities
for materialsMP2 andMP1 at GrotteVaufreymay
reflect a situationwhere many differentforaging
paths were feasibly executed without danger of
clearing the toolkit (i.e., low-path dependence).
Indeed,bothmaterialsourcesarefoundin relative
close proximityto the site (Geneste 1988). In contrast,the lower expected probabilitiesfor procuring MP6, MP4, and MP7 may indicatethatonly a
= .43, and only MP7 with probability p = .0009.
limitednumberof randomwalk pathswouldhave
Althoughthe simulatedmobile toolkit spendsthe allowedfor successfultransportof materialsto the
majorityof its time dominatedby only one raw site before toolkit clearing(i.e., high-pathdepen-
dence). This argumentwould appearto hold for

MP6 and MP7, which are both >40 km from the
site, but may fail to explainthe low expectedprocurementprobabilityfor MP4, which is substantially closer (Geneste 1988, 1989). As a first
approximation,the differentialrepresentationof
these materialsmay simply reflectdifferentprobabilitiesof findingviable (i.e., "pre-clearing")
random walkpathsbetweensourcesandsites, andnot
necessarilyraw materialselectivity.6
Raw materialtransferswithinthe MiddlePaleolithic of CentralEuropeand the AquitaineBasin
of France display distributionscharacterizedby
high frequenciesof transfersfromnearbysources,
withinthe "local"portionof a foragingrange,and
a dramaticdecline in the occurrenceof transfers
fromgreaterdistances.Intheformerregion,butless
so in the latter,therearealso "internalmodes"representingrelativelyhigh frequenciesof transfers
from sources beyond the "local" portion of the
range (for individualMiddle Paleolithiccases see
Geneste [1989]; for individualUpper Paleolithic
cases see Feblot-Augustins[1997a, 1997b, 1997c]
andMoralaandTurq[1990]).The longestdistance
transfers(230-300 km) within the Middle Paleolithic in CentralEuropeare between 4.6 and 6
times distancerepresentedby the primaryinternal
mode(50 km).Thelongestdistancetransferswithin
theAquitaineBasinwouldbe only twicethismodal
distance.
The neutralmodel generatesfrequencydistributionsdisplayingsimilarcharacteristics(compare
Figures2 and 9). In particular,when observations
of the simulatedmobiletoolkitarespatiallybiased
towardprocurementpoints, there is a frequency
peak at very low distances from source. There
remains,however,aninternalmodecorresponding
to raw materialtransfersfrom intermediatedistances.The modeledmaximumstonetransferdistancesin thiscase arebetweenthreeandfourtimes
the distancerepresentedby the internalmode.The
neutralinterpretation
is thatthe spikein short-distancetransfersis primarilya resultof a spatialbias
in the sampleof sitestowardthoselocatedatornear
rawmaterialsources.The "internalmodes"define
the effective foragingradiusd aroundraw material sources:generally,how far a foragercan travel
in a random walk with materialfrom a source.
These "internalmodes"arecontrolledby theclearing ratefor the toolkitandneed not imply special-
503
ized logistical or seasonalexploitationof patches.

Finally,the archaeologicallyobservedmaximum
transportdistancesin these cases arequalitatively
similarto those predictedby the neutralmodel. It
remainsto be seen whetherthe quantitativedifferences between observedand predictedmaximum
transportdistancesarerobustunderfurthertesting.
As a first approximation,however,the similarity
between the Middle Paleolithicdata and the neutralmodel suggests thatraw-materialtransferdistances of this orderneed not reflect optimization
of stone procurementand transport.Moreover,
there is no necessary reason to invoke social
exchangeto explainmaximumtransportdistances
in these instances.7More generally,it is not clear
that maximum raw materialtransportdistances
translatein any direct way into geographicterritory size.
Lastly,theCentralEuropeanMiddlePaleolithic
also illustratesthatmaterialsfrom nearbysources
aretransferredin relativelylargequantities,while
materialsfrom distant sources are transferredin
smallquantities(Feblot-Augustins1993; Geneste
1988, 1989;butsee F6blot-Augustins1997c).Normallythispatternis paralleledby increasingreduction intensity (and/or design formality) with
increasingdistancefromsource.Theneutralmodel
similarlyanticipatesbothof these empiricalobservations(compareFigures3 and 11).Materialsfrom
nearby sources are usually transferredin large
quantities,butwitha highdegreeof variability,and
these materialsare usually minimally consumed
relativeto the initial quantitiesprocured.In contrast,materialsfromdistantsourcesareinvariably
found in small quantitiesand have been heavily
consumedrelativeto initialraw materialpackage
sizes. The modeled relationship is accurately
describedby an exponentialfunctionof the formy
= b *e-ax.The neutralinterpretation
is thatthequantityof materialtransferredis constrainedby a fixed
toolkitsize, precedencegiven to materialsalready
in the toolkitand a fixed consumptionrate.8Similarly,reductionintensitymay simplybe a function
of the length of time a materialhas spent in the
mobiletoolkitandthusdegreeof exposureto "consumptionrisk" (see Dibble 1995). Quantitiesof
materialstransferredandreductionintensityin this
case areindependentof specificrawmaterialtypes
and,becausethemechanismdrivingtoolkitdynamics is entirely stochastic,these patternsneed not
504
AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
[Vol. 68, No. 3, 2003
imply anydepthof planning,optimization,orrisk- ham et al. 2003; Brantinghamet al. 2001; Turchin
1998)-that random-walk foraging and a rawmanagementstrategies.
materialprocurementstrategythatis indifferentto
Discussion
stone types couldbe optimal.The conclusionhere
an
common
sense-tells
would
be thatthe absence of both planningdepth
Many ethnography-and
us thatforagersemploycomplexoptimalforaging andexplicitriskmanagementstrategieswouldyield
strategies(Binford2001; Kelly 1995;Smith1991). higherfitnessthantheirmorecomplexalternatives.
Itis perhapsmorelikelythatotheraspectsof forIt is assumedthatoptimalforagingstrategiesmust
influenceand,therefore,be diagnosedby stoneraw agingbehaviorwere subjectto optimization,depth
materialprocurementpatterns.Thepresentmodel, of planning,andriskmanagementin the ways sughowever,is basedon assumptionsthatforagersdo gestedby contemporaryarchaeologicaltheory,but
not optimizeany specificcurrencyassociatedwith thatstone raw materialprocurementandtransport
movement,do not dependon anyformof planning were not, at leastas reflectedin the empiricalmeadepth,andarerisk insensitivein all of theirmove- suresdiscussedhere.9Foragingstrategiesoptimized
ment and procurementdecisions. Surprisingly, with respectto mobile prey,or seasonallydistribthese extremeassumptionslead to patternsin raw utedplantresources,maybe entirelystochasticwith
materialrichness and transportthat are qualita- respectto rawmaterialsourceencountersandraw
tively similarto commonlyobservedarchaeologi- materialprocurement.Moreover,whetheror not
cal patterns.Whatshouldwe concludefromthese stone procurementbehaviorswere optimized(or
sensitiveto risk) may have had little or no impact
results?
Thereare at least two answersto this question. on the optimalityof food procurementstrategies.
First, it is possible thatthe processes of archaeo- The conclusionherewould be thata random-walk
strategyandindifferenceto stone
logical site formation-especially time-averag- stoneprocurement
of
discrete
eradicate
the
fine
details
raw
material
ing-may
type may not entailthe fitnesspenalof
behavties
a
events
commonlyassumedand, importantly,thatthe
leaving palimpsest
procurement
ioral traces indistinguishable from the neutral morecomplexalternatives
maynotnecessarilyyield
model. In general, time-averagingoccurs when- higherpayoffs.This is a logical extensionof arguevereventsthathappenedatdifferentpointsin time ments suggestingthatstone raw materialprocureappear synchronous in the geological record ment was completely embedded within other
(Kowalewski1996). It influencesourunderstand- foragingactivities(Binford1979).Absentanydirect
ing of behavioral, ecological, or evolutionary fitnessconsequences,stoneprocurementandtransrateis slower port behaviorswould be neutralwith respect to
processeswheneverthesedimentation
thanthetime scale of theprocessin question(Bush selection andwouldbe free to varyin a stochastic
et al. 2002; Kowalewskiet al. 1998; Stem 1994). manner.
The presentmodel,like manyneutralmodelsin
Stone procurementstrategieswere implemented
on time scalesof minutesto perhapsmonths,if sea- community ecology (Gotelli and Graves
sonalplanningwas in play,while sedimentationis 1996:5-6), raises questions about how we infer
generally a much slower process. Moreover, adaptationfromempiricalpatterns.Thissaid,there
geochronologicalcontrolsrarelyoffer such fine- will be temptationforcriticsto rejectthemodeloutscale resolution.Thereis thus little questionthat right by claiming that foragers "would" never
time averagingwill be a concern in interpreting engage in a randomwalk and"would"nevermake
most cases of stonerawmaterialprocurementand raw-materialprocurementdecisions withoutcontransport(but see Close 2000). It may be the case sidering raw materialtype. Similarly,motivated
thatdiscretestoneprocurementeventswerehighly objectionshave been voiced over neutralmodels
adaptivein all of the ways suggestedby current discountingthe importanceof interspecificcomecologicalcommunities(see
archaeologicaltheory,butin some cases it maynot petitionin structuring
be possibleto distinguishthe aggregatepatternsof Connell 1980; Conner and Simberloff 1979;
procurementbehaviorfromthe neutralalternative. Roughgarden1983; Simberloff1983). In this latSecond, it is conceivable-though perhaps ter case, conventionalwisdom suggeststhatcomunlikelyin manyenvironments(butsee Branting- petition is the critical determinant of whether
PROCUREMENT
species can coexist on given a limited resource

(MacArthurand Levins 1967). Many researchers
have rejectedcompetition-freeneutralmodels in
communityecology only because they seemed to
deny the unique behavioral and morphological
charactersconsideredadaptivelyimportantto, if not
definitive of, biological species. That a neutral
modelcontradictsorthodoxtheory,however,is not
sufficientgroundsfor rejectingthe model (Gotelli
and Graves 1996:13).
A relatedcriticismmightconcede thatthe neutral model works for the Middle Paleolithicand
behaviorally archaic hominids, but that behaviorally modern humans "would" never have
employedsuch strategies.The choice of examples
discussed here was not motivatedby a desire to
paintarchaichominidsas "acultural"automatons
engaged in randombehavioralstrategies.Rather,
the Westernand CentralEuropeanMiddle Paleolithic archaeologicalrecords offer some of the
best (and most explicit) treatmentsof long-term,
regional patternsof stone raw materialprocurement and transport.The models and behavioral
interpretationsmade explicit in these studies are
also commonlyinvokedin LowerPaleolithic(e.g.,
Feblot-Augustins 1997b, 1997c; Kimura 2002;
Martinez1998;Potts1994),UpperPaleolithic(e.g.,
Blades 1999; Feblot-Augustins 1997a, 1997b,
1997c) andeven Holocenecontexts(see Bamforth
2002). The neutralmodel providesa baseline for
comparison in all of these contexts. It may be
rejectedin some, or perhapseven most empirical
tests (see Feblot-Augustins1997c:Tables62 and
64). In those cases we will be moreconfidentthat
observed archaeological patterningdoes reflect
some formof adaptation.However,rejectionof the
neutralmodelis notassuredapriori simplybecause
of an assumptionof behavioralmodernity.
A more appropriatecriticism of the present
model would suggestthata forager"could"never
engage in a random-walkforaging strategyand
"could"neverignorethedifferencesbetweenstone
raw materialtypes. In this case, the model would
be behaviorallyirrelevant.I contend,however,that
the neutralmodel of stone raw materialprocurement developedhere is both behaviorallyexplicit
andbehaviorallyrealistic.Regardingthefirstpoint,
thereare no hiddenvariablesand thereshouldbe
no confusion about the behavioral mechanics
underlyingthe model.Regardingthe secondpoint,
505
the model offers a simplest-casescenariofor the

form and sequence of behaviorsinvolved in raw
materialprocurement.
Use of theword"realistic"is likelyto raisesome
hackles.Nonetheless,it is criticalto recognizethat
the simulationdoes not intendto captureall featuresof Paleolithicforagingadaptations,butrather
only thosebehaviorsdirectlyinvolvedin rawmaterialprocurement.If anthropologistsacceptas reasonableand realisticthatPaleolithicforagershad
the adaptivecapacity to implementpatch choice
strategiesand even long-term seasonal foraging
plans,shouldit not also be withintheircapacityto
notimplementthesebehaviors?Similarly,if anthropologists accept that foragers are able to distinguishbetweenrawmaterialtypesandmakefurther
choices aboutwhich materialsto transportand in
which forms, shouldwe not also attributeto them
the abilitynot to makethese distinctionsanddecisions? If the answersto these questionsare affirmative,as I believetheyare,thena neutralmodeling
andbotha random-walkforstrategyis appropriate
aging strategy and the absence of raw material
selectivityoffer simplest-casestartingpoints.
One may also object to the appropriateness
of
parsimonyas a principal for choosing between
alternativehypothesesthatgeneratesimilar,oreven
equivalent,results.In truth,there is no guarantee
thatthe simplestexplanationis the correctone. In
defense of parsimony,I would suggest that the
probabilityof producinga Type II error(i.e., false
positive) is minimized by favoring the simplest
model availableand also that the opportunityfor
identifyingand rectifyingsuch an erroris greater.
Finally,it is clear thata generalneutralmodel
of stone raw materialprocurementis only a first
step. Rigorous, quantitativedevelopmentof the
observationspresentedhereinrequirescalibration
of the agent-based model to run in simulated
"worlds"built aroundthe known geographicdistributionsof actual raw material sources. Such
integratedGIS agent-basedmodels arethe subject
of currentendeavors.Subsequentto this, it will be
importantto begin systematicallymodifying the
neutralassumptionsof the model to explorehow
differentassumptionsinfluenceresults.Forexample, it will be importantto explore the impactof
partial-or fully non-randomwalk-foragingstrategies on mobile toolkit dynamics, holding the
other assumptionsabout unit raw materialneu-
506
AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
tralityconstant.Similarly,it will be instructiveto

modify the assumptionsconcerningraw material
selectivity by, for example, rank ordering stone
materialsin the environmentaccordingto quality.
Ultimately,the goals of these futuremodels will
be to establish whether changes in assumptions
lead to quantitativelyor qualitatively different
results from the neutral model. Perhaps more
importantly,the goal will be to establishwhether
these extended results find empirical supportin
the archaeologicalrecord.
Conclusions
The richnessof rawmaterials,transportdistances,
and characterof the transportedmaterialsfound
in archaeological assemblages are often interpretedin termsof adaptiveoptimization,depthof
planning, and risk minimization. In many
instances,however,these patternsmay be qualitatively indistinguishable from a non-adaptive
model of Paleolithic foragersengaged in a random-walk foraging strategyand procuringstone
raw materialswithoutany regardfor raw material
type. The neutral model of stone raw material
procurementdeveloped here provides the simplest-case behavioralinterpretationsof (1) richness-samplesize relationships;(2) a "decay-like"
patternin the frequenciesof raw materialtransfers from sources at differentdistancesfrom site;
and (3) the tendency for materialsfrom distant
sources to be importedin low quantitiesand as
heavily reduced technological forms. Though
provocativein its challenge of conventionaltheory, the model is nonethelessexplicit and, more
importantly,behaviorallyrealistic. The primary
implicationof the neutralmodel is that our inferences aboutadaptivevariabilitybased on patterns
of rawmaterialrichnessandtransportmay be difficult to prove. The neutral model provides an
alternativeset of expectationswhere we can be
sure that adaptationis not in evidence. In principle, patternsin raw materialrichness and transport that deviate from the neutral baseline
expectations may indicate where optimization,
depth of planning, and risk management are
potentiallyelementsof raw materialprocurement
adaptations.
Acknowledgments.This researchwas supportedin partby a
postdoctoral fellowship from the Santa Fe Institute. Many
thanksto John Pepper,VanSavage, Cosma Shalizi, andTodd
[Vol. 68, No. 3, 2003
Surovell for guidance along the way. I am grateful to David

Madsen, David Rhode, J. Feblot-Augustins,and two anonymous reviewersfor comments on earlierdraftsof this paper.
I thankAlex Borejsza for translatingthe abstract.
References Cited
Abrams,P.A.
2001 A WorldWithoutCompetition.Nature412:858-859.
Andrefsky,W. J., Jr.
1994 Raw-MaterialAvailabilityand the Organizationof
Technology.AmericanAntiquity59:21-34.
Bamforth,D. B.
2002 High-TechForagers?Folsom and LaterPaleoindian
Technologyon the GreatPlains.Journalof WorldPrehistory 16:55-98.
Beck, C., A. K. Taylor,G. T. Jones,C. M. Fadem,C. R. Cook,
and S. A. Millward
2002 RocksAre Heavy:TransportCosts andPaleoarchaic
QuarryBehaviorin the GreatBasin. Journalof Anthropological Archaeology21:481-507.
Bell, G.
2001 NeutralMacroecology.Science 293:2413-2418.
Binford,L. R.
1979 Organizationand FormationProcesses:Looking at
Curated Technologies. Journal of Anthropological
Research35:255-273.
1980 WillowSmokeandDogs'Tails:Hunter-Gatherer
Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation.
AmericanAntiquity45:4-20.
2001 ConstructingFrames of Reference:An Analytical
MethodforArchaeological7heoryBuildingUsingEthnographicand EnvironmentalData Sets. Berkeley:University of CaliforniaPress, Berkeley.
Blades, B. S.
1999 Aurignacian Lithic Economy and Early Modern
HumanMobility:New PerspectivesfromClassic Sites in
the VezereValleyof France.Journalof HumanEvolution
37:91-120.
Brantingham,P.J., H. Ma, J. W. Olsen,X. Gao, D. B. Madsen,
and D. E. Rhode
2003 Speculationon the TimingandNatureof Late Pleistocene Hunter-gatherer Colonization of the Tibetan
Plateau.ChineseScience Bulletin,in press.
Brantingham,P.J.,J. W.Olsen,J.A. Rech,andA. I. Krivoshapkin
2000 Raw MaterialQualityand PreparedCoreTechnologies in NortheastAsia. JournalofArchaeologicalScience
27:255-271.
Brantingham,P.J, J. W. Olsen, andG. B. Schaller
2001 Lithic Assemblages from the Chang Tang Region,
NorthernTibet.Antiquity75:319-327.
Bush, A. M., M. G. Powell, W. S. Arnold,T. M. Bert, and G.
M. Daley
2002 Time-averaging,Evolutionand MorphologicVariation. Paleobiology28:9-25.
Close, A. E.
2000 ReconstructingMovementin Prehistory.Journalof
ArchaeologicalMethodand Theory7:49-77.
Connell,J. H.
1980 Diversityandthe Coevolutionof Competitors,or the
Ghostof CompetitionPast. Oikos35:131-138.
Conner,E. F, and D. Simberloff
1979 The Assembly of Species Communities:Chanceor
Competition?Ecology 60:1132-1140.
Denny,M., and S. Gaines
2002 Chance in Biology: Using Probability to Explore
PROCUREMENT
Nature.PrincetonUniversityPress,Princeton.
Dibble, H. L.
1995 Middle PaleolithicScraperReduction:Background,
Clarification,and Review of the Evidence to Date. Journal ofArchaeologicalMethodand Theory2:299-368.
Feblot-Augustins,J.
1993 MobilityStrategiesin the LateMiddlePalaeolithicof
CentralEuropeandWesternEurope:Elementsof Stability andVariability.Journalof AnthropologicalArchaeology 12:211-265.
1997a Middle and UpperPaleolithicRaw MaterialTransfers in WesternandCentralEurope:Assessing the Paceof
Change.JournalofMiddleAtlanticArchaeology13:57-90.
1997b La Circulation des Matieres Premieres au
Paleolithique:Synthesedes Donnees PerspectivesComportementales,vol. 1. ERAUL75, Liege.
1997c La Circulation des Matieres Premieres au
Paleolithique:Synthesedes Donnies PerspectivesComportementales,vol. 2. ERAUL75, Liege.
Gamble,C.
1986 The Palaeolithic Settlementof Europe. Cambridge
UniversityPress,Cambridge.
1999 ThePalaeolithicSocietiesofEurope.CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.
Geneste,J.-M.
1985 Analyse Lithique d'Industries Mousteriennes du
Perigord:Une ApprocheTechnologiquedu Comportement des Groupes Humains au Paleolithique Moyen.
UnpublishedDoctoral Dissertation,University of BordeauxI.
1988 Les Industriesde la GrotteVaufrey:Technologiedu
Debitage,lconomie et Circulationde la MatierePremiere.
In La GrotteVaufrey:Paleoenvironnement,
Chronologie,
ActivitesHumaines,editedby J.-P.Rigaud,pp. 441-517.
Memoires de la SPF, Tome 19. Societe Prehistorique
Franqaise,Paris.
1989 Economiedes ResourcesLithiquesdansMousterien
du Sud-Ouestde la France.In L'Hommede N6andertal8,
La Subsistance,edited by M. Patou and L. G. Freeman,
pp. 75-97. ERAUL,Liege.
Grayson,D. K.
1984 QuantitativeZooarchaeology:Topicsin theAnalysis
of ArchaeologicalFaunas.AcademicPress,New York.
Grayson,D. K., andF. Delpech
1998 ChangingDiet Breadthin theEarlyUpperPaleolithic
of SouthwesternFrance.Journalof ArchaeologicalScience 25:1119-1129.
2002 SpecializedEarlyUpperPaleolithicHuntersin Southwestern France? Journal of Archaeological Science
29:1439-1449.
Gotelli, N. J., and Graves,G. R.
1996 NullModelsinEcology.SmithsonianInstitutionPress,
Washington,D.C.
Hayek,L.-A. C., and Buzas, M. A.
1997 SurveyingNaturalPopulations.ColumbiaUniversity
Press,New York.
Hubbell,S. P.
2001 The UnifiedNeutralTheoryof Biodiversityand Biogeography.PrincetonUniversityPress,Princeton.
Kelly,R. L.
1995 TheForagingSpectrum:DiversityinHunter-Gatherer
Lifeways.SmithsonianInstitutionPress,Washington,D.C.
Kimura,M.
1983 The Neutral Theoryof Molecular Evolution.CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.
Kimura,Y.
2002 ExaminingTimeTrendsin the OldowanTechnology
507
at Beds I and II, OlduvaiGorge.Journalof HumanEvolution43:291-321.

Kowalewski,M.
1996 Time-Averaging,Overcompleteness,and the Geological Record.The GeologyJournal 104:317-326.
Kowalewski,M., G. A. Goodfriend,and K. W. Flessa
1998 High-resolutionEstimatesof TemporalMixingwithin
ShellBeds:TheEvils andVirtuesof Time-averaging.
Paleobiology 24:287-304.
Kuhn,S. L.
1994 A FormalApproachto the Design andAssembly of
Mobile Toolkits.AmericanAntiquity59:426-442.
1995 MousterianLithic Technology:An Ecological Perspective.PrincetonUniversityPress,Princeton.
MacArthur,R. H.
1960 On the RelativeAbundanceof Species. TheAmerican Naturalist94:25-36.
MacArthur,R. H., and R. Levins
1967 TheLimitingSimilarity,ConvergenceandDivergence
.of Coexisting Species. The American Naturalist
101:377-385.
Martinez,M. M.
1998 DifferentialRaw MaterialUse in the Middle Pleistocene of Spain: Evidence from SierraAtapuerca,Torralba,Ambronaand Aridos. CambridgeArchaeological
Journal8:15-28.
Mellars,P.A.
1996 TheNeandertalLegacy:AnArchaeologicalPerspective from WesternEurope. Princeton University Press,
Princeton.
Metcalfe,D., and K. R. Barlow
1992 A ModelforExploringtheOptimalTradeoffbetween
Field ProcessingandTransport.
AmericanAnthropologist
94:340-356.
Morala,A., andA. Turq
1990 Les Strategiesd'Exploitationdu Milieu Min6ral,du
Riss a l'Holocene en Haut-Agenais (Sud-Ouest de la
France).In Le Silex de sa Genesea l'Outil,editedby M.R. S6rone-Vivienand M. Lenoir,pp. 405-414. CNRS,
Paris.
Neiman, F. D.
1995 StylisticVariationin EvolutionaryPerspective:Inferences fromDecorativeDiversityandInterassemblage
Distance in Illinois Woodland Ceramic Assemblages.
Nelson, M. C.
1991 The Study of TechnologicalOrganization.Archaeological Methodand Theory3:57-100.
Potts, R.
1994 Variables Versus Models of Early Pleistocene
HominidLandUse. Journalof HumanEvolution27:7-24.
Rensink,E., J. Kolen,andA. Spieksma
1991 Patternsof Raw MaterialDistributionin the Upper
Pleistoceneof NorthwesternandCentralEurope.In Raw
Material Economies and PrehistoricHunter-Gatherers,
edited by A. Montet-Whiteand S. Holen, pp. 141-159.
Universityof Kansas Publicationsin Anthropology19,
Lawrence.
Roebroeks,W., J. Kolen, and E. Rensink
1988 PlanningDepth,Anticipationandthe Organizationof
Middle Paleolithic Technology:The "ArchaicNatives"
Meet Eve's Descendants.Helinium28:17-34.
Roughgarden,J.
1983 CompetitionTheory in Community Ecology. The
AmericanNaturalist122:583-601.
Schiffer,M. B.
1987 FormationProcesses of the ArchaeologicalRecord.
508
AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
Universityof New Mexico Press,Albuquerque.

Schoener,T. H.
1983 Field Experimentsin InterspecificCompetition.The
AmericanNaturalist122:240.
Shennan,S. J., and J. R. Wilkinson
2001 CeramicStyle ChangeandNeutralEvolution:A Case
Study from Neolithic Europe. American Antiquity
66:577-593.
Shott,M. J.
1989 OnTool-ClassUse LivesandtheFormationof Archaeological Assemblages.AmericanAntiquity54:9-30.
Simberloff,D.
1983 CompetitionTheory,Hypothesis-Testing,and Other
CommunityEcological Buzzwords.TheAmericanNaturalist 122:626-635.
Smith,E. A.
1991 InujjuamiutForagingStrategies:EvolutionaryEcology of anArcticHuntingEconomy.Aldinede Gruyter,New
York.
Ster, N.
1994 The Implications of Time-Averaging for Reconstructing the Land-Use Patterns of Early Tool-Using
Hominids.Journalof HumanEvolution27:89-105.
Torrence,R.
1989 Time,EnergyandStoneTools.CambridgeUniversity
Press,Cambridge.
Turchin,P.
1998 QuantitativeAnalysisof Movement:Measuringand
inAnimalsandPlants.
ModelingPopulationRedistribution
SinauerAssociates, Sunderland.
Varien,M. D., and J. M. Potter
1997 Unpacking the Discard Equation: Simulating the
Accumulationof Artifactsin the ArchaeologicalRecord.
Weiher,E., and P.A. Keddy
1999 Assembly Rulesas Trait-BasedConstraintson CommunityComposition.InEcologicalAssemblyRules,edited
by E. Weiherand P. A. Keddy,pp. 251-271. Cambridge
UniversityPress,Cambridge.
Notes
1. A two-dimensionalrandomwalk on a lattice is commonly used as a discrete approximationof spatial diffusion.
N - (d/l)2 is the mean squareddistance of spread(the variance) after N time steps for an ensemble of particlesundergoing diffusion. Denny and Gaines (2002) provide a
straightforwardderivationof this formulafor the one-dimensional case. The derivationsfor the two- and three-dimensional cases yield the same fundamentalrelationship(Denny
and Gaines 2002:163-167).
2. This analysis is based on the limiting case where raw
material sources are encounteredonly within the 100 time
steps following a firstencounter,and not subsequently(i.e., d
= 10 using equation[4]). Of course,raw materialsourcesmay
be encounteredover time intervalsgreaterthanN = 100. The
resultsarecomparableto this limitingcase becauseof a tradeoff between time spent at different richness states and the
amountof materialrepresentedby the most abundanttype in
the toolkit (see discussion in text).
3. The discrepancybetween the observed and expected
maximumtransportdistancesreflectsthe pathdependenceof
a randomwalk. The analyticalform N = d2may substantially
under- or over-estimatethe actual distance traveledon any
[Vol. 68, No. 3, 2003
given sequenceof steps in a randomwalk. The approximation

becomes more accuratewith increasing numberof observations.
4. Increasingthe density of stone raw materialstowards
the environmentalmaximum also does not fundamentally
alter the relationshipbetween d and the maximumtransport
distance. Consider the situation where every grid cell contains a unique stone raw materialsource and, for simplicity,
the foragermust move from its currentposition at each time
step. One unit of raw materialis consumed at each time step
and is immediatelyreplacedby anotherunit of materialfrom
a different source located in an adjacent cell. Under these
conditions,the mobile toolkitremainsat its maximumcapacity and very quickly approachesan equilibriumrichnessnear
the theoretical maximum; each raw material type in the
toolkit is representedby only one unit of material(see equation [1]). The probabilitythata raw materiali is consumedat
a given time step is thereforea constantci = l/Evi (see equation [3]). The probabilitythat a unit of raw materialentering
the toolkit is transporteda numberof time steps N (and distanceN= d2)is given by the binomialprobabilitydistribution:
p(n = N) =
c!(l-c)Nj!(N- j)!
wherej (the numberof successes in N trials)is definedas the

consumptionof the one unit of materiali presentin the toolkit
(i.e.,j = 1). Given a toolkit size of 2Ev= 100, rawmaterialforaging radiusd = 10 anda constantprobabilityof consumption
ci = -l/vi = .01, there is a probabilityp = .001 thatmateriali
will be transported30 grid cells from its source (threetimes
d) and a probabilityp = 1.68 x 10-6that the materialwill be
transported40 grid cells from its source (four times d).
5. On a two-dimensionallattice, allowing for the possibility of remaining in the same location, a step in any one
directionoccurs with probabilityp = . 11.Two and threeconsecutivesteps in the same directionoccur with probabilitiesp
= .012 and p = .0013, respectively.The probabilityof 100
consecutivesteps in the same directionisp = 3.7*10-96.
6. Alternatively,the inferred procurementprobabilities
from GrotteVaufreymay be takento representthe "partition
sizes" for a mobile toolkit thathad a standingrichnessof nine
types. In this case, material types MP2 and MP1 would
togethertake up 83 percentof the availablespace in the fixedsize mobile toolkit, while MP6, MP4 and MP7 combined
would comprise only 1.4 percent.Such partitionsizes could
arise because of the indiscriminant"zero-sum"behavior of
the mobile toolkit, not necessarily because of raw material
selectivity (see Table 3). Rememberingthe neutralcondition
that raw materialsare consumed and discardedusing a simple frequencydependentrule, we may conclude that a large
number of consumption-discard events-yielding larger
archaeologicalsample sizes-would be needed to detect the
presenceof MP6, MP4 and MP7 within the toolkit.
7. In the absence of a spatial bias towardsprocurement
points (see Figure 9a), the modeled frequency distribution
displaysonly the single internalmode with a long rightskew.
This distributionmore closely describes the patternobserved
for marine shell transfers within the European Upper
Paleolithicwhere there is primaryinternalmode at approximately 250 km (Gamble 1999:321, after Floss 1994).
PROCUREMENT
Maximum transferdistances for marine shells are between

five and ten times fartherfor shell thanfor stone. The neutral
model can account for both of these differences. First, it is
reasonableto suppose, given the linear geometry of coastal
margins, that the archaeological recovery of marine shell
shows less of a bias towardprocurementpoints than is the
case for stone raw materialsfound in continentalinteriors;
sites can cluster more tightly aroundcontinentalstone raw
materialsourcesthanaroundcoastal shell sources.This could
explain the absence of a frequency spike for short distance
shell transfers.Second, the underlyingcause of the greater
maximumtransferdistancesmay simply be thatmarineshells
are at lower risk for consumption(i.e., destruction)compared
with stone. This implies that the "clearingrate"for shell is
lower than for stone and thereforethat the effective foraging
radius d for marine shell is also substantiallygreater (see
equations 4-6). It is interestingthat the maximum distance
for marine shell transfers(1,500 km) (Gamble 1999: 321) is
6 times the primarymode, the same as observed for stone
transfers in the Central and Eastern European Middle
Paleolithic,and not ordersof magnitudefartherthanthe internal mode.
509
8. In the Central European Middle Paleolithic, the

observed relationship between quantity of material transferredand distancefrom sourceis betterdescribedoverallby
a power distributionof the form y = b*x-a.However,the better fit of a power functionis the result of the substantialvariance in quantities of materials transferredfrom sources
within 15 km of the study sites. High variancein the quantities of materials transferredfrom nearby sources is anticipatedby the neutralmodel.
9. Technologicaldesign entersinto the neutralmodel only
as regardsthe role reductionintensity plays in establishing,
maintainingor modifying designs. Clearly, formal core and
tool designs may respondto optimization,risk and depth of
planningin ways not anticipatedby the model.
ReceivedJune 10, 2002; RevisedNovember25, 2002;

AcceptedDecember 2, 2002.

AA (2003) A Neutral Model of Stone Raw Material Procurement - Brantingham PDF

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

AA (2003) A Neutral Model of Stone Raw Material Procurement - Brantingham PDF

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Society for American Archaeology

A Neutral Model of Stone Raw Material Procurement

A NEUTRAL MODEL OF STONE RAW MATERIAL PROCUREMENT

It is easy to invent a selectionist explanation

he richness of stone raw material types in

graphic distances over which those materi-

als were transported,and the technologicalforms

empirical benchmarks for inferring the organiza-

The Neutral Theoryof Molecular Evolution

tion of Paleolithic adaptive strategies (Feblot-

[Vol. 68, No. 3, 2003

Log Sample Size (n)

MP3 Quartz Indet

Augustins 1993, 1997a, 1997b, 1997c; Gamble

ters,observedassemblagerichnessis frequentlyif not universally-constrained by sample size

gies, butratherimplyanunvaryingset of rawmaterial procurement behaviors (Figure lc) (see

[Vol. 68, No. 3, 2003

Figure 3. Percentage frequencies of specific stone raw

technologicalforms-representing the end stages

thought to signal depth of planning and

prised of materialsfrom sourceswithin 15 km of

transported over long distances (Beck et al. 2002;

ing to Geneste(1989:80),thesearchaeologicalpatterns diagnose real behavioral adaptations and

raw materials, both within and between lithic

NEUTRAL MODEL OF STONE RAW MATERIALPROCUREMENT

The core premiseof any neutralmodel is that all

[Vol. 68, No. 3, 2003

the foragingenvironmentis uniformwith respect

The simulationis basedon the RePastagent-based

The entire simulated world contained 5,000 raw material

NEUTRAL MODEL OF STONE RAW MATERIALPROCUREMENT

Theamountof rawmaterialprocuredwhena source

The theoreticalmaximumrichnessk, of the

where ci is the probabilitythata materialof type i

[Vol. 68, No. 3, 2003

Raw MaterialRichness (n Types)

Figure 6. Frequency histogram showing mobile toolkit

are generatedon raw materialrichness,quantities

Most often the toolkit contains few raw material

Table 1. Variablesand Baseline ParameterSettings.

to get fromone rawmaterialsourceto thenextranEquation(6) statesthatthe distancethatcan be

[Vol. 68, No. 3, 2003

Table 2. MinimumNearest Neighbor Distances between Raw MaterialSources and PredictedMaximum

observed minima for the population of sources

. 687 grid cells for each source, respectively.In

687, which subsequently

radiusd = 10. Witha totalof 3,000 sources-.012

Table3. ProcuredRaw MaterialPackage Sizes and Expected ConsumptionRates.

Package Size Procured(ArbitraryUnits)

rawmaterialsourcesmaybe encounteredandconcomitantly increases the maximum attainable

= 100. To accommodateexactly one unitof a new

raw material,the materialalready in the toolkit

qi]= 99. If it werepossibleto encounter100unique

[Vol. 68, No. 3, 2003

Figure 7. Time series showing changes in raw material

Figure 8. Maximum raw material richness (number of

mobile toolkitin space andtime may deviatesubstantiallyfrom these expectations.

Distance From Source (grid cells)

Distance From Source (grid cells)

Figure 9. Frequency histograms of the distance from

cells) representsonly .7 percentof the maximum.

loses its rightskewandclustersmoretightlyaround