Exchange and social distance have particular configurations when they occur in contexts of unusual raw materials. The spatial dependence of procurement, distribution, and consumption on access to particular source locations creates a context where social distance may correspond directly with procurement and consumption patterns. There is broad cross-cultural variation worldwide in territoriality and access to raw material sources. The effort and the benefits associated with territorial circumscription and resource control are frequently considered in the context of specialized production. Resource control has been discussed for circumstances where competition for a resource can lead to an attempt to "monopolize" access (Torrence 1986: 40-42). Following formal economic principles, the value of a good should be a function of its availability where value would escalate as a result of restricted access and limited supply (Brumfiel and Earle 1987: 7), a process that has been proposed for shell bead exchange among the Chumash of California (Arnold 1991). The variety of territorial control strategies documented worldwide invites a broader consideration of the diverse boundary negotiations that may have been occurring at a raw material source through prehistory.
Territoriality and resource procurement among foragers and pastoralists is a topic that has been explored in anthropology in recent years (Cashdan 1983;Casimir and Rao 1992;Kelly 1995). Approaches range from ecological models based in optimal foraging theory and site catchment analysis, to organizational models that include perimeter defense and social boundary demarcation, and finally to process-oriented models that consider the effects of sedentism, circumscription and population pressure. Carolyn Dillian (2002: 95-116) reviews the issue of territoriality and obsidian procurement using more contemporary theory.
One possible arrangement is multiethnic procurement at a geological source. Ericson (1982: 136) describes a situation in California's Napa Valley where the Saint Helena obsidian source fell within the territory of the Wappo ethnic group and the Wappo were, in turn, surrounded by the Lake Miwok, Coast Miwok, Wintun and Pomo groups (Kroeber 1925). It is reported that in exchange for obsidian, the Wappo received items such as bows, beads, shells, mats, fish, headbands, and clams (Davis 1961), but it is not known if extraction was conducted by the local Wappo or through direct access by the surrounding groups themselves. Ericson (1984: 7) reviews evidence of multiethnic access to lithic sources. In California there are a number of distinctive obsidian sources that have been studied. At some areas the quarry management was "tribal but related and nearby groups had the right to quarry either freely or on the payment of small gifts. Wars resulted from attempts by some distant tribes to use a quarry without payment. On the other hand, the Clear Lake obsidian quarries were neutral ground" (Bryan 1950: 34).
The Wintun of California practiced round-trip fasting when traveling to obsidian sources (Dubois 1935). A functional interpretation of this behavior from Ericson (1984: 7) is that fasting would avert exhaustion of resources around much-visited obsidian sources. A regionally important quarry could conceivably get so much use, with many groups exploiting the source, that the ecology of the source area catchment would get depleted.
Geochemical studies of obsidian artifacts in California have revealed a concordance between obsidian distributions, as shown by chemical studies, and the geographical boundaries of ethnographically documented cultural groups (Bettinger 1982;Hughes and Bettinger 1984;Luhnow 1997). Dillian (2002: 294-297) found that despite ethnographic accounts of Karok direct procurement at the Glass Mountain source in Modoc territory, the knapping evidence at the source suggests that local Modoc were conducting virtually all of the reduction on site and then exchanging with neighboring tribes where it was widely circulated.
The well-known red pipestone quarry in Minnesota "was held and owned in common, and as a neutral group" (Holmes 1919: 262). In the Western Desert of Australia, Gould et al. (1971) report that chert and chalcedony sources themselves are not held through a concept of quarry ownership. All material of usably good knapping quality is equally valued, and knapping is not a skill that is assigned great importance. However, an important totemic affiliation exists between a person and stone from the region in which they were born. Cherts from a person's ancestral region are sometimes visually distinct and therefore materials of a particular region will be sought and transported over long distances as a physical link to those regions.
These preferences appear to be a reflection of the close totemic ties each man has to the particular region in which he was born and from which he claims totemic descent. Thus, a man may have a sense of kinship with some of these localities, and he will value the stone material from them as a part of his own being. Stone materials thus acquired are not sacred in any strict sense but are nevertheless valued highly enough to be transported over long distances by owners (Gould, et al. 1971: 161-162).
Ideological and emotive links to raw material are a consideration in human activities around source areas. Social and symbolic restrictions on quarries have also been documented ethnographically in New Guinea (Burton 1984;McBryde 1984). In terms of exchange behaviors, quarry areas present special problems and opportunities for archaeologists. One of the principal difficulties with examining ethnicity and access to quarries is correlating archaeological evidence with social and symbolic behavior associated with quarries. Some theoretical models are contingent on measuring evidence of maximization and control of production at quarry areas, and these models are often contingent on the detection of boundaries and restricted access based on material evidence (Torrence 1986). Unfortunately, as demonstrated by some of the studies above, many social and symbolic limitations on quarry access leave no direct material correlates and can be extremely difficult to detect archaeologically.