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.