Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28 (2009) 382–396

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jaa

Climate change, uncertainty and prehistoric hunter–gatherer mobility

Christopher Morgan *
Utah State University, Anthropology, 0730 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT 84322-0730, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The onset of Little Ice Age conditions in California’s Sierra Nevada mountains resulted in increased tem-
Received 12 February 2009 poral and spatial variability, and hence uncertainty regarding the distribution and production of
Revision received 12 June 2009 resources targeted by its inhabitants, the Western Mono. The Mono responded with a risk-averse strategy
Available online 5 September 2009
composed of lowland winter population aggregation supported by logistical forays and seasonal residen-
tial dispersals to the high country, both ways of averaging variance in environmental productivity. These
Keywords: patterns were reconstructed using surface archaeology, GIS, and two straightforward spatial statistics,
Mobility
nearest-neighbor and variance-to-mean ratios, that combined provide a robust, objective picture of pop-
Hunter–gatherer
Western Mono
ulation aggregation and dispersal and the scale of these phenomena in different environments and sea-
Sierra Nevada sons. These diverse strategies conform to expectations regarding the best ways for hunter–gatherers to
Foraging cope with uncertainty, particularly in mountain environments. Despite this, the residentially mobile
California aspect of the pattern is rare in mountains and probably the result of historical connections between
Climate change the Mono and Great Basin groups employing similar behaviors. Ultimately, this research suggests that cli-
Uncertainty mate change and environmental variability condition risk-averse, satisficing economic behaviors focused
Nearest-neighbor more on security than optimization, implying that pronounced environmental variability runs counter to
Variance-to-mean
economic intensification and its association with the evolution of more complex societies.
Ó 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Introduction evidence of stops between moves determined by the distribution

Mobility is arguably the principal concern of archaeologists
focusing on hunter–gatherers (Kelly, 1992, 1998). How foragers
moved about and exploited prehistoric landscapes is cited as key
to understanding, among other things, prehistoric subsistence
(Moore, 1998), trade (Yellin et al., 1996), sociocultural complexity
(Keeley, 1988; Price and Brown, 1985), and even gender roles,
power relationships, and evolutionary trajectories (Hawkes et al.,
1989; McGuire and Hildebrandt, 2005; Surovell, 2000). But the
problem for archaeologists is that movement is a transitory, ab-
stract phenomenon rarely leaving direct material evidence (Close,
2000:49). So reconstructing prehistoric mobility is really a mid-
dle-range problem (e.g., Binford, 1977) subsuming the secondary
challenges of identifying relevant archaeological proxies for move-
ment and elucidating meaningful patterns within and between
these proxies.
This study incorporates expectations derived from ecological
theory and two relatively straightforward statistical techniques
that together provide a clear picture of the adaptive nature of late
prehistoric mobility in California’s Sierra Nevada. It operates on the
perspective that though movement, especially pedestrian hunter–
gatherer movement, usually leaves no trace, stopping does, with
* Fax: +1 435 797 1240.
E-mail address: chris.morgan@usu.deu
of bedrock processing features. The statistical methods it employs,
the nearest-neighbor statistic and variance-to-mean ratios, mea-
sure dispersal and scale of dispersal, respectively, of stopping
places in different ecological zones in different seasons. Combined,
these provide a robust, objective picture of how and why people
used late Holocene Sierran landscapes using techniques whose lo-
gic should be clear to anyone with a basic understanding of
descriptive statistics. More importantly, the study identifies how
population size, resource characteristics and climatic variability
condition hunter–gatherer mobility. Ultimately this research de-
scribes a case where different forms of mobility were used to cope
with pronounced environmental uncertainty resulting from late
Holocene climate change, the implications of which show how
hunter–gatherer economic behaviors evolve to cope with spatial
and temporal variability in the distribution of mountain resources
and, more importantly, uncertainty resulting from climate change
and climatic variability.
Conceptualizing mobility
At its most fundamental level, mobility is way of bringing con-
sumers to resources and is perhaps the simplest way of averaging
temporal and spatial variations in resource productivity (Halstead
and O’Shea, 1989:3; Woodburn, 1980). From a basic ecological per-
spective, mobility is critical to understanding how people manage

0278-4165/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jaa.2009.07.004
 C. Morgan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28 (2009) 382–396
relationships between populations and resources and how they
cope with uncertainty with regard to where and when resources
become available (Kelly, 1992). Binford (1980), of course, codified
thinking along these lines in the forager–collector model, correlat-
ing residential and logistical mobility with specific environments,
defined by effective temperature. Derivations of this model (e.g.,
Ames, 2002; Kelly, 1985; Prentiss and Chatters, 2003) typically
equate residential mobility with smaller groups living in aseasonal,
homogenous environments were resources are patchy in neither
time nor space, such as the tropics, or where resources are partic-
ularly dispersed. In contrast, logistical mobility is modeled as affil-
iated with larger populations living in seasonal climates, where
resources are patchy in time and/or space. Patchiness requires
intensified settlement and subsistence behaviors like logistical
moves and the division of labor to provision larger groups. Actual
behaviors, of course, rarely meet precise definitions of either form
of mobility, often taking on aspects of the multiple behavioral op-
tions available in the logistical–residential continuum (e.g., Krist,
2001). The behavioral and semantic distinction between logistical
and residential mobility, however, continues to be a useful heuris-
tic device (e.g., Fitzhugh and Habu, 2002).
Beyond basic ecological context, many attempts to understand
why and when hunter–gatherers choose one form of mobility over
another employ cost–benefit models to ascertain when it is more
efficient to transport resources back to a central place residence
(i.e., be logistically mobile) and when it is more efficient to move
residential location (i.e., be residentially mobile) to reduce logisti-
cal travel and resource transport costs (Kelly, 1990, 1998). These
models predict optimal foraging radii around central places, be-
yond which it is more efficient to move camp rather than spend
more time traveling and transporting resources in a logistical
round. The most simple of these models predicts that the maxi-
mum size of this radius (in the Great Basin, 37–812 km) is deter-
mined by the point at which the caloric cost of transporting
resources equals the caloric content of the resources being trans-
ported (Jones and Madsen, 1989). This ultimately means the type
and quality of resources (or the habitat containing these resources)
determines, to a large extent, the size of foraging radii and the dis-
tance at which it becomes more efficient to move residence (e.g.,
Grove, 2009). More complex models argue that it is more efficient
to logistically transport unprocessed resources in small foraging
radii (typically between 1.5 and 3.6 km for tree nuts like acorn
and piñon) and to field process resources in much larger radii (as
much as an absurdly large 1065 km for tree nuts) because field
processing removes low-yield bulk and increases load utility (Bett-
inger et al., 1997; Barlow and Metcalfe, 1996). The implications of
this type of modeling are that logistical procurement is usually
quite costly relative to residential procurement and is only more
efficient when resources are abundant enough and foraging radii
small enough to reduce combined foraging and travel costs (Bett-
inger et al., 1997:897), or when population pressure reduces resi-
dential procurement return rates (Zeanah, 2000:12–13). But
residential moves can also be costly and are only more efficient
than logistical procurement when diet breadth is narrow, or broad-
er-spectrum, lower yield resources like nuts and seeds are abun-
dant enough to yield return rates above those of logistical
procurement (Zeanah, 2002:242). Ultimately, this perspective ar-
gues that people should opt for residential over logistical procure-
ment when transport costs exceed the one-way travel threshold
(i.e., the foraging radius) of key resources, determined mainly by
its caloric yield relative to weight.
But hunter–gatherers also face variability, or rather nonnorma-
tive resource return rates (Winterhalder, 1980). Variations in envi-
ronmental productivity result in uncertainty for hunter–gatherers
deciding whether or not to move: a group or individual leaving
one place risks that the costs of moving will not be offset by the
383
benefits of accessing a new resource patch (Winterhalder and Les-
lie, 2002). Environmental variability thus forces foraging decision
makers to manage risk by coping with the probabilities of different
outcomes that may result from their move (Low, 1990). In this
light, though residential mobility can solve the immediate problem
of temporal and/or spatial resource depressions when return
rates are relatively high, it also entails coping with the risk of
moving, elements exacerbated when environmental variability
is also high (Goland, 1991). Because risks associated with mov-
ing increase under more variable environmental conditions, ex-
treme environmental variability could conceivably favor
increased sedentism supported by logistical forays. Alternatively,
random search strategies and larger catchments have been found
to generate optimal solutions to finding diffuse or randomly dis-
tributed resources, especially when information on resource dis-
tributions and abundance is poor or absent (Armsworth and
Roughgarden, 2003; Brantingham, 2006). This suggests a corre-
sponding pattern of high residential mobility may be the best
way of coping with unpredictable circumstances. Finally, Goland
(1991:110) argues that unpredictable circumstances require
‘‘flexible strategies,” implying that incorporating logistical and
residential mobility types may be the best way of coping with
extreme environmental variability.
The archaeology of hunter–gatherers in mountain environ-
ments sheds additional light on these problems. Almost without
exception, mountain environments are seen as highly seasonal
and marginal in terms of resource productivity (Aldenderfer
2006; but see Walsh, 2005; Walsh et al., 2006). Hunter–gatherer
adaptations to these conditions consequently tend to focus on
male-dominated logistical hunting, a pattern seen in North Amer-
ica’s Rocky Mountains (Bender and Wright, 1988; Wright et al.,
1980), Sierra Nevada (McGuire et al., 2007; Stevens, 2005), and
Great Basin (Bettinger, 1991; Thomas, 1982); in the Andes
(Aldenderfer, 1998, 1999; Rick, 1980); and on the Tibetan and Ethi-
opian Plateaus (Aldenderfer, 2006). Only in rare circumstances do
hunter–gatherers build residential structures indicating some form
of residential mobility (e.g., Thomas, 1982), a phenomenon that ap-
pears to be conditioned by population pressure, at least in the
Great Basin (Bettinger, 1991; Zeanah, 2000). Aldenderfer (2006)
explains these patterns by arguing that because mountain environ-
ments are marginal, seasonal, patchy, and uncertain with regard to
resource productivity, people should be risk-averse, choosing to
employ little residential mobility and support themselves with
logistical forays in small catchments. Ultimately risk-aversion
under these conditions is akin to economic satisficing, ensuring
minimum targeted requirements for subsistence rather than max-
imizing return relative to labor, this conditioned mainly by the
high costs of gathering sufficient information upon which to make
optimal decisions (Bordley and LiCalzi, 2000; Simon, 1957). In
other words, risk-aversion is a way of hedging one’s bets that at
least one behavior (or mobility option) will solve the problem of
meeting subsistence targets when good information regarding
probable decision outcomes are hard to come by, a situation exac-
erbated by increased environmental variability.
Ethnographic and paleoenvironmental setting
The focus of this study is the late Holocene in California’s south-
western Sierra Nevada, a 4000 m high mountain range along the
eastern edge of California and an area occupied in late prehistoric
and ethnographic times by a group known as the Western Mono
(Fig. 1). Mono populations were small (usually no more than 39
people to a group) and widely dispersed, with families and kin
occupying small, politically autonomous hamlets along or near
the San Joaquin, Kings, and Kaweah rivers (Kroeber, 1925). Hamlets
384 C. Morgan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28 (2009) 382–396
Fig. 1. Location of the study area; Mono groups are in bold italics.
tended to cluster around springs, streams and flats along canyon
margins immediately below winter snowline (Gayton, 1948; Gay-
ton, n.d.; Gifford, 1932; Gifford, n.d.). Subsistence was based
mainly on deer (Odocoileus hemionus), salmon (Oncorhynchus sp.)
and especially acorn. Acorn, particularly black oak (Quercus kel-
loggii) acorn was a portion of nearly every meal and is still a form
of Mono identity (Lee, 1998; McCarthy, 1993). Evidence of acorn
processing is ubiquitous in the area, with outcrops of granite bed-
rock often pocked with bedrock mortars (BRM) used to reduce
acorn into flour, especially in hamlet locations (Aginsky, 1943; Dri-
ver, 1937; Gifford, 1971; Hindes, 1962). Hamlets were supported in
large part by dried, but otherwise unprocessed acorn cached in
5 km radii centered on settlement areas (Morgan, 2008).
Like most hunter–gatherers living in mountain environments,
the Mono exploited a patchy resource base (Aldenderfer, 2006).
Mountain resources are generally patchier than in adjoining val-
leys and other physiographic provinces because of the effect oro-
graphic precipitation has biotic zone distribution and
composition. Put simply, there tends to be much more precipita-
tion at altitude, with growing seasons constrained by temperature
and snowpack at high altitudes. This situation results in the com-
positionally and elevationally discrete biotic zones found in moun-
tains, each compressed into relatively small horizontal spaces
(Holdridge, 1967; Leemans et al., 1996). To illustrate this, on the
west slope of southern Sierra Nevada, Küchler (1977) maps seven
distinct biotic zones across a 40 linear km, NE–SW transect be-
tween 1000 and 4000 m elevation (Table 1). To the southwest, in
the adjoining San Joaquin Valley, he maps only two (Valley oak sa-
vanna and San Joaquin saltbush) over the same transect orienta-
tion and distance. This indicates, at least for this region, that
mountain environments are on the order of 3.5 times more diverse
(i.e., ‘‘patchy”) than valley settings. Though each zone certainly
contains smaller resource patches (e.g., oak groves, lithic sources,
and water), as a whole they comprise large patches that are funda-
mentally distinct yet relatively nearby adjacent, but very different
patches containing very different resources.
To simplify the analyses contained in this paper, the south-
western Sierra Nevada is modeled as containing three main ecoz-
ones subsuming Küchler’s seven biotic zones, each producing
distinct resources at different elevations and at different times
of the year (Table 1; Fig. 2). The lower montane forest is below win-
ter snowline (1400 m) and contains blue oak (Quercus douglassii)
parklands, chaparral, and major streams; it yields abundant, sea-
sonal runs of fish, winter deer-hunting opportunities, and spring
and summer grass seeds, berries and acorn. The montane forest
(between 1400 and 2100 m) is composed mostly of conifers (Pinus
and Abies sp.) and stands of acorn-producing black oak (Q. kel-
loggii). Like lower elevations, the montane forest afforded deer-
hunting in the spring, summer, and fall and a rich fall acorn har-
vest, which was cached in dispersed locations and stored within
hamlets (Morgan, 2008). The third is a resource-poor subalpine–al-
pine zone above 2100 m.
 C. Morgan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28 (2009) 382–396 385

Table 1
Study area ecozones.

Ecozone Biotic zone* Elevation Dominant vegetation

Lower montane Blue-oak grey pine forest Below 1000 m Quercus douglassii, Pinus sabiniana
Chaparral 1000–1350 m Adenostoma fasciculatum, Arctostaphylos sp., Ceanothus sp.
Sierra yellow pine forest 1000–1400 m P. ponderosa
Montane forest Sierra montane forest 1400–2100 m Abies concolor, P. lambertiana, P. ponderosa, Q. kelloggii
Subalpine Upper montane-subalpine forest 2100–3300 m Abies magnifica, P. contorta
Northern jeffrey pine forest 2000–2400 m P. jeffreyi
Alpine Above 3300 m Limited vegetation, e.g., Draba oligosperma, Erigonum ovalifolium
*
After Küchler (1977).

Because the Mono occupied the western slope of the Sierra Ne-
vada in ethnographic times and late prehistory (i.e., since about
600 BP and perhaps earlier), they faced not only patchy resource
distributions, but also the effects of substantial late Holocene
climatic change (Gayton, 1948; Gifford, 1932; Kroeber, 1959;
Morgan, 2006). Paleoclimatic and paleoenvironmental data indi-
cate climatic variability and disequilibrium were the norm for at
least the last 2000 years, especially during the Medieval Climatic
Anomaly (MCA) and Little Ice Age (LIA) (Fig. 3). The MCA was
characterized by at least two extreme and persistent droughts
interspersed by wetter periods between about 1300 and 650 calBP.
The LIA was characterized by cooler conditions and glacial advance
between about 650 and 150 calBP (Graumlich and Lloyd, 1996;
Graumlich, 1993; Hughes and Brown, 1992). This means the Mono
occupied the area during a climatic regime dominated by disequi-
librium, variability and a substantial shift within this regime: the
transition to and dominance of LIA conditions.
Abundant research on global warming’s effect on North Ameri-
can forests models how biotic composition should change during
warm/dry to cool/wet conditions (and vice versa). Qualitatively
(and unfortunately not quantitatively) LIA conditions are modeled
as resulting in oak communities rapidly contracting, the density of
oak in montane forests decreasing, and the distinction between
elevation-determined biotic zones becoming more pronounced
due to the constriction of plant ranges, the development of distinct
alpine and subalpine communities, and more pronounced season-
ality associated with increased snowfall (Campell and McAndrews,
1993; Peterson, 1998; Woolfenden, 1996). This means that during

Fig. 2. Study area ecozones.

386 C. Morgan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28 (2009) 382–396

Medieval Climatic Anomaly Little Ice Age

?
Temperature:
Holocene Mean

Precipitation:
Historic Mean

Drought:

Glacial
Advance:

Date B.P. 2000 1500 1000 500 0

Fig. 3. Idealized late Holocene Sierra Nevada paleoclimate synthesis.

the LIA the distribution of resources essential to Mono subsistence
became increasingly constrained to patches exploitable for only
short periods each year. For example, grassland and lower-eleva-
tion nut-producing trees like blue oak were constrained to eleva-
tions below 1000 m (Allen and Breshears, 1998). Sugar pine
(Pinus lambertiana) and black oak were constrained between
1000 and 2000 m, in lower elevations by water budgets and at
higher elevations by snowpack and shorter growing seasons (Mill-
er et al., 2004; Urban and Miller, 1996). Resource-poor, subalpine
red fir (Abies magnifica) and lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) forests
expanded at the expense of more xerically-adapted montane for-
ests containing sugar pine and black oak (Körner, 1998; Overpeck
et al., 1990). Finally, treeline elevations migrated downslope,
increasing the geographic extent of resource-poor alpine biotic
communities (Scuderi, 1987) (Fig. 4).
The result of these transformations was a significant change in
resource availability, accessibility and distribution. Increased
snowfall lowered average yearly snowline, reducing access to
and limiting the productivity of middle and high elevation re-
sources like black oak acorn and sugar pine nut. The constriction
of key resources to specific biotic zones severely curtailed their
availability in both time and space, in the first case by limiting
them to very space-specific resource patches and in the second
by increasing the effects of seasonality on resource productivity.
This latter phenomenon is expressed in more pronounced variabil-
ity (in both amplitude and frequency) of masting (i.e., the tendency
of nut bearing trees to periodically produce ‘‘bumper” yields inter-
spersed by years of poor or absent production) during colder and
wetter conditions (Kelly and Sork, 2002; Koenig and Knops,
2005; McKone et al., 1998) (Fig. 5). Overall, LIA conditions led to
pronounced variability of key resource production in spatially
and temporally discrete resource patches, with no guarantee of
adequate production in any given year. Distances between produc-
tive resource patches increased as well because the gentle western
slope (avg. slope 4°) of the Sierra Nevada results in substantial hor-
izontal distance between elevationally-discrete ecozones. Com-
bined, increased patchiness and increased variance in the
environment’s production of key resources resulted in consider-
able uncertainty regarding resource availability from year to year
and from location to location.

TIME

Alpine Alpine

Subalpine

Resource Rich Ecozones:

During the MCA, key Montane Forest Subalpine
resources (nut-producing
Quercus douglassii, Q.
Resource Rich Ecozones:
kelloggii and Pinus Chaparral Montane Forest
During the LIA, key
lambertiana) are modeled
resources are modeled
as endemic to higher Chaparral as becoming constrained
elevations and multiple
Foothill to specific ecozones and
ecozones. Foothill
lower elevations.

Medieval Climatic Anomaly, 1300-650 B.P. Little Ice Age, 650-150 B.P.

Fig. 4. Graphic representation of modeled changes in ecozone composition and distribution between the MCA and LIA.
 C. Morgan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28 (2009) 382–396
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Acorn Yield: Warm/Dry Conditions
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Acorn Yield: Cool/Wet Conditions
Fig. 5. Idealized representation of climate-induced masting variability.
Modeling Mono mobility
These conditions result in a mixed set of predictions for Mono
mobility. At the most basic ecological level, Mono populations
were relatively small and the resources they exploited were patchy
and dispersed across the broad western slope of the Sierra Nevada.
These conditions tend to favor residential mobility, with popula-
tions mapping onto resource patches as they become productive.
But the environment the Mono exploited was also highly seasonal,
marked by substantial resource depressions in winter months.
These conditions suggest the Mono should occupy low-elevation,
below snowline residential bases near ecotones maximizing expo-
sure to multiple highly productive resource patches. Here, they
would support themselves with logistical foraging, hunting and
fishing forays, with storage offsetting winter resource shortfalls.
Above snowline resources, however, were also critical to the Mono
and available for a short period of time each year. Berries produce
in the summer, deer move to higher elevations in the summer and
oak and grasses produce harvestable seeds in the fall. Resource dis-
tribution here, however, is more dispersed and homogenous than
below snowline (SNEP, 1996). Hence the main limit to acquiring
resources above snowline is time compression, where a fundamen-
tally homogenous resource base is exploitable for a short period of
time. The goal in this environment is simply group sustenance
rather than storing enough food to get through the winter, as it
is below snowline. Since above snowline the group is not focused
on storing food and is trying to exploit what is essentially a homog-
enous resource macro-patch, residential mobility is favored.
Residential mobility allows groups to map onto dispersed re-
sources and to move to equally attractive areas once resources
are exhausted, meaning that combined with low population
density, above snowline settlement should focus on residential
procurement.
Cost–benefit models support this assertion. Bettinger et al.
(1997:895) indicate that the one-way travel threshold (beyond
which caloric costs outweigh the benefits of resource transport)
for dried but unprocessed black oak acorn, the key resource for
the Mono, is 3.67 km, a prediction corroborated by Morgan
(2008:254) who identifies a mean 3.4 km black oak acorn-focused
foraging radius around lower elevation winter settlements. This
means that if the Mono wanted to exploit resources, especially
black oak acorn in the above-snowline montane forest, the vast
387
majority of which is well more than 3.5 km from lowland winter
settlements (the shortest distance from winter settlements to the
lower montane forest boundary varies from 0.6 to 3.2 km, averag-
ing 1.6 km; the distance from winter settlements to any given ran-
mean dom point (n = 113,760) in the montane forest, however, varies
from 0.6 to 47.8 km, averaging 18.6 km), it is more efficient to
9
move residence to the montane forest than transport unprocessed
acorn back to a winter village in the lower montane forest. Pre-tra-
vel processing could conceivably increase acorn load utility enough
to offset greater travel costs, but would have the effect of produc-
ing meal extremely prone to spoilage and thus not well suited to
storing as an overwintering strategy.
Predictions are more variable with regard to managing risk and
coping with uncertainty. More variable conditions result in greater
mean
uncertainty (due to poor or absent information) and potential risk
(due to increased chances of resource failure) associated with res-
idential moves. Because of this, logistical procurement and long-
range logistical hunting thus appear to be the default in mountains,
9
and we might expect this to be the case for the Mono. But variable
conditions can also result in potentially greater rewards. For exam-
ple, substantially greater returns on foraging would be possible
when variations in environmental productivity result in increased
acorn masting and/or overall greater biotic productivity, meaning
residential moves might be used to exploit montane resources out-
side hamlet logistical radii when such conditions prevail. Variable
conditions also favor random moves as a way of optimizing re-
source encounter rates (Brantingham, 2006), a situation that might
also favor correspondingly random residential moves. Similarly,
exploitation of larger portions of the landscape has been modeled
as an optimal solution to subsistence in fluctuating environments
(Armsworth and Roughgarden, 2003), a situation also favoring res-
idential mobility due, once again, to the costs of transporting key
resources more than 3.6 km back to settlements. Thus, between
occasional, but unpredictable increased chances of reward favoring
random-dispersed residential moves and a general climatic-eco-
logical context favoring risk-averse behaviors like logistical pro-
curement, it thus appears that Goland’s argument that
unpredictable circumstances favor flexible strategies is applicable
in the Mono case and that multiple mobility and procurement
strategies should be employed to cope with this variability. In
sum, ecological context, black oak acorn return rates, and unpre-
dictable circumstances suggest that effective hunter–gatherer
exploitation of the late Holocene Sierra Nevada required a combi-
nation of logistical mobility below snowline and residential mobil-
ity above snowline, leaving the problem of identifying the
presence, absence, and extent of these behaviors.
Analyses
Archaeological approaches to reconstructing mobility have his-
torically centered on settlement pattern analysis using site types
and diachronic variations in their distribution across landscapes
to identify seasonal, yearly, and chronology-specific changes in
land use (Bettinger, 1977; Mortensen, 1972; Thomas, 1973; Wil-
ley, 1953). Spatial statistics have been used almost throughout
the history of settlement pattern studies to provide objective
measures of artifact, site and feature density and distributions,
typically using nearest-neighbor and goodness-of-fit tests to mea-
sure degrees of association with environmental and other vari-
ables thought to condition settlement patterning (Attwell and
Fletcher, 1987; Bettinger, 1979; Gould and Yellen, 1987; Hodder
and Hassell, 1971; Pinder et al., 1979; Washburn, 1974; but see
Voorrips and O’Shea, 1987). This approach was largely abandoned
(until recently) due to a perceived misapplication of some statis-
tical methods and a reconceptualization of space by post-proces-
388 C. Morgan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28 (2009) 382–396
sualists and processualists alike (Baxter, 2008; Kantner, 2008;
Thomas, 1976; but see Kowalewski, 2008; Stanish, 2003). Recent
studies, however, have returned to settlement pattern analysis
(e.g., Burke, 2006; Jochim, 2006; Underhill et al., 2008), several
incorporating GIS to predict and analyze prehistoric settlement
and mobility (Jones, 2007; Miller and Barton, 2008; Morgan,
2008) and others employing spatial statistics to measure spatial
patterning (Bevan and Conolly, 2004; Fletcher, 2008; Premo,
2004; Zhang et al., 2007). The latter tend toward using more
sophisticated statistics (e.g., Ripley’s K, K-means analysis, kernel
density estimates) that cope with some of the perceived short-
comings of earlier measures (Blankholm, 1993; Connolly and
Lake, 2006). Though methodologically strong, problems with
these latter approaches center on their opacity to researchers
without advanced training in statistics and their failure to link
theory and predictive models with spatial archaeological data.
The following analyses make these linkages using straightforward
statistical techniques that combined provide a robust picture of
spatial point patterning and how these patterns relate to the ecol-
ogy of mobility oriented hunter–gatherer adaptive systems.
The premise behind these analyses is that bedrock milling sta-
tions are precise, in situ indicators of both the location and inten-
sity of Mono residential choice and logistical field processing
(Haney, 1992; White, 1985). The use of bedrock milling stations
as direct measures of Mono processing and as proxy measures of
Mono settlement is predicated on the assumption that balano-
phagy (acorn eating) was the basis of the Mono economy and that
processing acorn in bedrock milling stations was a fundamental
attribute of this economy. It is also based on the fact that though
the Mono may or may not have used every milling station in the
study area over the course of their tenure in the Sierra Nevada,
they certainly knew of most their locations, reusing and revisiting
milling stations that may have been manufactured by earlier
inhabitants (Jackson, 1984). This assumption is based on the fact
that markers of Mono ethnicity are found throughout the study
area, almost invariably closely associated with milling stations,
indicating they travelled to and used nearly every milling station
in their territory (McCarthy, 1993; Morgan, 2006). Because milling
stations are so closely allied with Mono economics and settlement
and were repeatedly reused in the course of any given year or sea-
son, a cumulative sample is used to approximate the norm of Mono
behaviors for the period of time they most clearly occupied the
study area (i.e., the last 600 years, during the LIA), a method bene-
fiting from the large samples developed for the study. Finally, the
use of stationary features, rather than say artifact scatters, avoids
some of the problems associated with performing landscape-scale
analyses with only the arguably arbitrary conception of what com-
prises a site (e.g., Dunnell, 1992) and with taphonomic problems
associated with site formation and preservation (see Zvelebil
et al., 1992:196–197).
The geographic distribution of milling stations speaks directly
to residential choice and logistical field processing. Though mor-
tars are unequivocally associated with field processing, they are
also associated with habitation and residence. Larger, more inten-
sively and repeatedly occupied sites contain the greatest number
of BRMs (i.e., P14) and are usually associated with substantial
middens, house pit depressions and other residential indicators
(Gifford, 1932; McCarthy et al., 1985:307; Morgan, 2006). They
thus stand as proxy for residential choice, and by inference, resi-
dential mobility. Fewer milling surfaces (i.e., <14) are associated
with logistical stations used solely for field processing and as tem-
porary campsites (Hindes, 1962; Jackson, 1984; TCR/ACRS, 1984);
they thus stand proxy for logistical mobility. This functional dis-
tinction allows for reconstructions of Mono logistical and residen-
tial moves and recognition of different site types based primarily
on BRM counts (Table 2).
Table 2
Site types and defining characteristics.
Mobility type BRM (n) Site type Associated features
Residential 25+ Principal camp/ Midden, housepit, artifact
hamlet scatter
14–24 Subsidiary camp Artifact scatter, midden
(rare)
Logistical 5–13 Temporary camp Lithic scatter
1–4 Processing stations Lithic scatter (rare)
Milling station geographic distribution also speaks directly to
seasonality of occupation. Unlike many lower elevation settings
where seasonality is reconstructed, with some difficulty, using fau-
nal and floral indicators (e.g., Adams and Bohrer, 1998), movement
patterns and settlement in the Sierra Nevada were strongly condi-
tioned by winter snowpack, a fact corroborated by ethnographic
sources. Gifford (1932:17) writes that the Mono moved, ‘‘Annually
from lower winter to higher summer residences which had too
much snow in the winter and vice versa.” Multiple ethnographic
sources attest to the location of lower-elevation residences, all be-
low average winter snowline (1400 m) in the lower montane for-
est. Residences here were occupied mainly in the winter, where
the ground was free of snow, and where people subsisted mainly
on stored acorn gathered in the fall (Gayton, 1948; Gifford, 1932;
Merriam, 1955). Ethnographic documentation of highland resi-
dence (i.e., in the montane forest and subalpine zones, above win-
ter snowline) is poor (the preceding quotation is among the few
references to highland settlement). Residential sites here, though
occasionally accessible during the winter during brief thaws inter-
spersing winter storms would have usually been buried under
more than a meter or more of snow for 4 months or more each
winter, precluding occupation in an area where snow-free habita-
tion sites were available in many cases less than 10 km downslope.
Further, biotic productivity in higher elevations is markedly con-
strained during winter months (i.e., December–March) and migra-
tory game like deer winter in the low county, leaving little
incentive to occupy higher elevations. Residential occupation
above winter snowline was thus mainly a spring-fall phenomenon
constrained by ecological circumstances.
Based on these parameters, analyses focus on the distribution of
processing features in a roughly 30 km2 study area in the San Joa-
quin River watershed (Figs. 1 and 2). They use data from intensive
surveys (i.e., those with 15 m or less transect spacing) covering
over 555 km2 of the 1626 km2 study area performed over the last
60 years for timber sales and other large projects. Survey coverage
was approximately 34% more-or-less equally distributed across
study area ecozones (Table 3), with smaller portions of the subal-
pine zone covered mainly due to extremely steep slopes (i.e., great-
er than 30 ). This large sample proportion and relatively consistent
coverage between ecozones is believed to accurately reflect milling
station distribution in the study area and across ecozones. The first
analysis uses nearest-neighbor statistics to determine the distribu-
tion of processing sites in different ecozones as a way of ascertain-
ing seasonal variability in population clustering and dispersal,
these indicating seasonal variations in residential mobility. The
second analysis uses variance-to-mean ratios as a way of objec-
Table 3
Intensive survey coverage, by ecozone.
Ecozone Area (km2) Area surveyed (km2) Survey coverage (%)
Lower montane 407.19 165.59 40.67
Montane 369.96 148.33 40.09
Subalpine 848.25 237.57 28.00
Total 1626.48 551.49 33.91
 C. Morgan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28 (2009) 382–396
tively measuring the scale at which processing locales are clus-
tered, this speaking directly to size of site catchments and degrees
of seasonal population aggregation and dispersal.
Nearest-neighbor
The nearest-neighbor statistic (NN) provides a more objective
measure of spatial point patterning than raw density data because
it does not rely on arbitrary units of analysis like quadrats. It is de-
rived by measuring the linear distance between every data point
and its next nearest-neighbor and dividing the mean of observed
distances (dobs) by expected mean distances (dran) between the
same number of randomly distributed points. The dran value is
one-half the square root of study area size (a), divided by number
of points (n) (Clark and Evans, 1954). The resulting formula, still
p scale the points in the distribution are actually clustered.
used (Diggle, 2003; Durand et al., 1992), is: NN = dobs/0.5 (a/n).
Study area boundaries, however, can disallow measurements be-
tween points and limit measurements between bounded points,
rather than ones distributed in infinite space, a requisite for achiev-
ing truly random point distributions (Pinder et al., 1979). Ebdon
(1976) accounted for this boundary effect with a correction coeffi-
p
cient, C (0.497 + 0.127 (a/n)), replacing the 0.5 value in the origi-
nal formula. Using GIS to measure distances between multiple
sets of computer-generated random points is an alternative way
of generating dran. Regardless of method, NN values less than
1.00 indicate clustering, values greater than 1.00 dispersal, and val-
ues near 1.00 random distributions. NN values were generated
using all three methods and the nearest-neighbor/event–event dis-
tances extension for ArcGis (Sawada, 2002). The analysis generated
NN values at multiple scales, from a gross analysis of all study area
processing sites, to analyses of the site types identified in Table 2
correlated with the three principal study area ecozones (e.g., Fig. 6).
Results
NN values are consistent regardless of method, though values
derived from generated random points are slightly lower than for-
mulae values (Table 4). To simplify discussion, the following uses
values generated with the correction coefficient formula developed
by Ebdon (1976). In the lower montane forest, the NN statistic for
all processing sites is 0.79, indicating slight clustering (Fig. 7). Site
type NN values range from slightly clustered at 0.77 for logistical
sites, to nearly random at 0.92 for residential sites. Overall, sites
in the lower montane forest are slightly clustered, indicating win-
ter population aggregation below snowline. In the montane forest,
NN values indicate random and even dispersed settlement, varying
from 1.04 for all processing sites to 1.37 for residential sites. These
values show populations mapping onto dispersed resources when
the area is clear of snow. Values for subalpine/high elevation resi-
dential sites are highly variable, a result of small sample size
(n = 12). They range from random (NN = 1.00 for subsidiary camps)
to clustered (NN = 0.40 for principal camps). Low NN values in the
subalpine zone indicate clustering due to association with trans-
Sierran trails (Hindes, 1959; Snyder, 2001). Sites here are
constrained to the only passable portions of the landscape in these
settings: creek and river canyons and alpine passes (Fig. 8) (Mor-
gan, 2006). Together these data indicate lowland winter population
aggregation, montane forest spring and summer population dis-
persal, and high residential mobility associated with trans-Sierra
trade and travel.
Variance-to-mean
Variance-to-mean ratios (VMR) provide an objective measure of
the scale of point pattern distributions and provide a clearer
389
picture of the size of territories affiliated with different sites and
site types. VMR also cope with problems associated with simple
spatial analyses that measure density within arbitrary units (e.g.,
quadrats) of analysis that skew interpretations of clustering, dis-
persal and the scale at which these phenomena occur simply as a
function of quadrat size. VMR are simply the ratio of the variance
divided by the mean density of data points per quadrat. Variance,
a measure of the spread of the distribution, changes relative to
quadrat size. As quadrat size approaches the scale of patterning
in the point distribution, the histogram showing the number of
points per quadrat becomes bimodal, with some quadrats contain-
ing many points and others containing very few or none (Ebert,
1992:191). Here, variance is high relative to the mean; this is the
scale of patterning. The scale of patterning in the data is more
meaningful than density distribution because it indicates at what
Methods
VMR were determined using ArcGis software. BRM geographic
distribution was entered into a spreadsheet using site UTM coordi-
nates as x and y coordinates for BRM location. At sites with more
than one BRM, northing and easting values were estimated by
either adding or subtracting one meter per BRM from each UTM
value, so that at no site were BRMs more than 100 m from the
UTM marking the center point of the site. Though not precisely
locating each BRM, these locations are certainly within the margin
of error of hand-held GPS units and the map measurements from
which UTMs were originally derived. More importantly, these
methods quantify every study area BRM without relying on the
somewhat arbitrary site definitions used by the multiple studies
contributing to the database. The resulting data were subdivided
by ecozone. Six grids, 0.05, 0.10, 0.25, 0.50, 1.00, 2.50, and
5.00 km2, were generated and superimposed over the study area
and then queried to determine the number of mortars in each
quadrat (e.g., Fig. 8). This resulted in a database of the density of
mortars per quadrat in each ecozone at six scales of analysis;
VMR were derived from these data (Table 5).
Results
Results indicate substantial differences in settlement and pro-
cessing behaviors by ecozone. The VMR in the lower montane
ecozone peaks at 1 km. The VMR in the montane forest and alpine
zones peaks at 2.5 km (Fig. 9). Together, these data indicate that
BRMs are clustered in 1 km2 areas in the lower elevations of the
study area, the area containing Mono winter settlements. Above
snowline, mortars cluster in 2.5 km2 areas, indicating greater
dispersal of processing sites in montane forest and subalpine ecoz-
ones. Together, scales of patterning indicate population clustering
below snowline in winter and dispersal above snowline in spring,
summer and fall, with dispersed summer settlements and process-
ing stations patterned at a scale 2.5 times greater than winter
camps, hamlets, and processing stations.
Synthesis and conclusion
The onset of LIA conditions some 600 years ago resulted in a set
of circumstances particularly challenging for hunter–gatherers:
how to best average increased variance in temporal and spatial re-
source distributions. Analyses of processing site and processing
surface distributions as proxy measures of Mono mobility indicate
a multifaceted approach to solving these problems. NN values indi-
cate clustering, dispersal, and clustering once again of processing
sites in lower montane, montane forest, and subalpine ecozones,
390 C. Morgan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28 (2009) 382–396
Logistical Processing Site
Lower Montane Forest
Euclidian Path to Nearest
Neighbor
0 1.5 3 6 Km
North
Fig. 6. Distribution of logistical processing sites and nearest-neighbor distances, lower montane forest.
respectively. This distribution is partly predicated, of course, on
correlation between local environmental variables and settlement
choice (Premo, 2004). Previous research in the area indicates that
site locations, especially processing site locations, are strongly
associated with chaparral and coniferous forest vegetation, stream
terraces and midslope landforms, and proximity to perennial
streams and trans-Sierran travel corridors (Crist, 1981; Jackson,
1984, 1988; Hull and Mundy, 1985; Pilgram, 1987). The current re-
sults, however, go beyond this kind of determinism and clearly
show how populations used different ecozones on a seasonal basis:
lowland population aggregation (clustering) below snowline in
winter, dispersal in spring to map onto seasonal mid-elevation
montane resources, and subalpine–alpine travel along narrow trail
corridors (again, indicated by clustering along travel corridors).
Interestingly, these results indicate that processing sites in the
montane forest are distributed in a random-dispersed pattern, sug-
gesting that at these landscape scales behavior determines settle-
ment as much as does correlation with localized environmental
variables. VMR indicate the scale of patterning within this system,
with BRMs clustered in areas 2.5 times smaller in the lower mon-
tane forest than in montane forest and subalpine zones. This indi-
cates not only substantial lowland settlement clustering, but also
substantially smaller logistical catchments in the lower montane
forest. Together, these data describe seasonal, intensive, semi-sed-
 C. Morgan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28 (2009) 382–396 391

Table 4
Processing site NN values by ecozone.

Site type Site Mean observed Mean random Expected Expected NN (random NN (traditional NN (coefficient
count distance distance (traditional formula) (coefficient formula) points) formula) formula)
Lower montane forest
Residential 95 1001.70 1281.80 1035.16 1082.90 0.78 0.96 0.92
Principal camp 44 1689.00 1901.80 1521.05 1628.41 0.88 1.11 1.03
Subsidiary camp 51 1370.90 1520.90 1412.81 1504.84 0.90 0.97 0.91
Logistical 128 721.80 1086.90 891.79 926.48 0.66 0.80 0.77
Temporary camp 77 937.40 1371.90 1149.80 1209.47 0.68 0.81 0.77
Processing station 51 1417.10 1697.00 1412.81 1504.84 0.83 1.00 0.94
All processing sites 223 548.50 716.30 675.64 694.57 0.76 0.81 0.79
Montane forest
Residential 28 2716.80 2506.90 1817.47 1981.05 1.08 1.49 1.37
Principal camp 10 5794.30 5479.00 3041.21 3511.52 1.05 1.90 1.65
Subsidiary camp 18 3103.50 2484.40 2266.79 2524.60 1.24 1.36 1.22
Logistical 84 1234.10 1384.60 1049.32 1101.18 0.89 1.17 1.12
Temporary camp 37 2287.60 2175.40 1581.05 1703.60 1.05 1.44 1.34
Processing station 47 1539.40 1863.60 1402.81 1498.34 0.82 1.09 1.02
All processing sites 112 993.40 1141.80 908.73 946.90 0.87 1.09 1.04
Subalpine
Residential 12 4552.70 5911.70 4203.78 4795.03 0.77 1.08 0.94
Principal camp 4 3663.80 14631.30 7281.17 9086.90 0.25 0.50 0.40
Subsidiary camp 8 6082.00 6224.70 5148.56 6042.38 0.97 1.18 1.00
Logistical 72 1216.70 1899.10 1716.18 1808.63 0.64 0.70 0.67
Temporary camp 20 2544.90 4269.70 3256.24 3606.58 0.59 0.78 0.70
Processing station 52 1611.10 2091.00 2019.43 2149.58 0.77 0.79 0.75
All processing sites 84 1192.60 1844.50 1588.88 1667.41 0.64 0.75 0.71

entary logistical exploitation of lower montane settings and sub-
stantial residential mobility in the montane forest in spring, sum-
mer and fall.
This mixed mobility pattern conforms to expectations regarding
the most effective ways to average pronounced spatial and tempo-
ral resource variability. Increased sedentism, few residential moves
and logistical mobility are ways of averaging temporal resource
variance in seasonal settings, particularly where resources are
abundant and diverse, as they are in the lower montane forest.
Winter Mono settlement patterns conform to this expectation:
clustered site distributions below snowline indicate seasonal pop-
ulation aggregations relying on logistical forays and cached and
stored foodstuffs to compensate for winter resource shortfalls
(see Morgan (2008) for an analysis of Mono logistical mobility
and storage behaviors). Conversely, when low population densities
face extreme environmental conditions and highly unpredictable
but homogenous resource bases, mapping onto resources is mod-
eled as the most effective way to average resource shortfalls, par-
ticularly when these moves are beyond the distance at which
resources can be efficiently moved back to camp. This is the behav-
ior seen in the random-dispersed settlements and camps in the
montane forest. This pattern recalls the most efficient way to opti-
mize encounter rates with diffuse or randomly distributed re-
sources, especially when foreknowledge of environmental
productivity and resource distribution is poor or absent (Branting-
ham, 2006), a situation exacerbated by LIA induced uncertainty.
Subalpine mobility appears to be conditioned less by subsistence
and more by travel across the Sierran crest along narrow travel
corridors.
What makes these findings particularly interesting is the fact
that these patterns appear to have changed substantially in the last
1000 years or so. Though comparable data are not yet available at
the resolution presented in this study, a fairly substantial body of
literature indicates that from about 3500–1350 calBP the western

1.6

1.4 Lower Montane

Forest

1.2
NN Stat

1 Montane Forest

0.8

0.6 Subalpine

0.4
All Processing Sites Logistical Sites Residential Sites

Fig. 7. NN values, by site type and ecozone.

392 C. Morgan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28 (2009) 382–396
Fig. 8. Map Showing 2.5 sq. km quadrats, ecozones, and processing sites.
slope of the southern and central Sierra Nevada saw more intensive
use and occupation of large, semi-permanent villages in lowland,
foothill settings (i.e., below 1000 m) and long-range logistical
hunting in the highlands (Moratto, 1972; Moratto et al., 1978; Ste-
vens, 2003). Data from excavations in the study area point to aban-
donments of some montane forest locales between 1050 and
775 calBP, during the MCA, and very intensive use of these same
settings by the Mono during the LIA (Caputo, 1994; Goldberg and
Moratto, 1984; Jackson, 1983; Jackson and Holson, 1984; Jones
and Origer, 2001). Use of high elevations intensified after 1350 cal-
BP, with larger, seasonal residential sites being occupied, particu-
larly after 650 BP and the onset of the LIA (Stevens, 2002;
Stevens, 2005). So prior to the LIA, adaptive patterns were more
typical of seasonal, and especially mountain environments, focused
on logistical procurement and long-range logistical hunting in the
highlands.
But during the LIA, the strategy described in the current study
developed, with more intensive use of highland settings and a
mixed logistical–residential strategy that intensively exploited
the diverse environments of the western Sierra Nevada. From an
ecological perspective, these mobility patterns are clearly effective
means of coping with the constraints posed by mountain environ-
ments. They averaged temporal variance in resource availability in
lower elevations by winter population fusion, logistical mobility,
and storage. They averaged pronounced spatial variability of re-
source productivity with spring, summer and fall population dis-
persal to exploit resources in montane forests, supporting the
idea that higher elevations are indeed essential components of
montane hunter–gather lifeways (e.g., Aldenderfer, 1999; Wright
et al., 1980). The way the Mono exploited the Sierra Nevada during
the LIA, however, was predicated only in part on logistical mobility,
in contrast to the strategies seen in most mountain environments.
Residential mobility in higher altitude settings might appear sur-
prising during the LIA, given shorter growing seasons and limits
on mobility due to increased snowfall and even glacial advance.
This pattern is expected, however, due to the distances between
higher elevation resource patches and larger winter settlements:
it is easier to move people to resources than to move resources
to larger, centralized settlements, mainly because they are well be-
yond the 3.4 km foraging radius of hamlets in the lower montane
ecozone. In any event, these patterns support the assertion that
climatic conditions are, due to their effect on habitat quality and
resource distribution, the basic limiting factors conditioning hun-
ter–gatherer mobility (Grove, 2009:7).
These conclusions also speak to the nature of hunter–gatherer
response to risk and uncertainty. That the LIA favored Goland’s
(1991) ‘‘flexible strategies” is clearly exhibited in the multifaceted
Mono mobility pattern. Here, diverse mobility options are a risk-
averse behavior ensuring solution to any number of spatial and
temporal resource fluctuations and failures, clearly a way of coping
with uncertainty, particularly of the kind found in montane set-
tings. Mono residential mobility, however, is anomalous as far as
most montane foragers go, perhaps a behavior derived from their
cultural and linguistic affiliates in the western Great Basin, the Nu-
 C. Morgan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28 (2009) 382–396 393

Table 5
BRM density and VMR by ecozone.

Quadrat size (km2) Quadrats (n) Mean Variance VMR

Lower montane forest
0.05 168,771 0.026 0.554 21.308
0.10 42,184 0.103 2.862 27.786
0.25 6739 0.645 23.251 36.048
0.50 1699 2.560 135.220 52.820
1.00 424 10.259 1141.098 111.229
2.50 69 63.043 1135.893 18.018
5.00 17 255.882 277.981 1.086
Montane forest
0.05 157,370 0.007 0.103 14.714
0.10 39,370 0.029 0.448 15.448
0.25 6278 0.183 3.863 21.109
0.50 1569 0.731 16.647 22.773
1.00 387 2.964 72.237 24.371
2.50 64 17.922 1832.055 102.224
5.00 18 63.722 51.887 0.814
Subalpine
0.05 344,942 0.002 0.018 9.000
0.10 86,197 0.007 0.091 13.000
0.25 13,810 0.041 0.600 14.634
0.50 3435 0.166 2.613 15.741
1.00 855 0.667 10.603 15.897
2.50 140 4.071 137.182 33.697
5.00 33 17.273 343.687 19.897

mic-speaking Shoshone and Paiute, each of whom established

high-altitude residential bases in the very late Holocene (in the
Alta Toquima and White Mountains, respectively) (Fig. 10).
Ultimately, this study elicits some fundamental observations
and questions regarding the ecology and evolution of hunter–gath-
er responses to environmental variability over larger spans of time.
Though linking climate change to cultural dynamics can be prob-
lematic (see Anderson et al., 2007:12–18), the current study sug-
gests that the shift from MCA conditions (a drought-prone,
stressing period associated with substantial cultural disruptions
in California and beyond [e.g., Jones et al., 1999]) to LIA conditions
(a period often regarded as one of regional environmental amelior-
ization) brought about resource stress due to increased snowfall
and more unpredictable resource productivity in California’s
mountains, suggesting good times are only good (and bad times
bad) relative to specific ecological context. The study also suggests
Fig. 10. Map showing the distribution of Numic-speaking peoples (hatched) and
evidence of high-altitude residential mobility (See above-mentioned references for
further information).
that hypervariable climatic conditions may favor risk reducing
strategies, a possibility that has important implications for human
socioeconomic evolution. For example, if the LIA is something of a
small-scale analog for hypervariable Pleistocene climatic condi-
tions dominating so much of human evolution and prehistory
(e.g., Grafenstein et al., 1999), it follows that Pleistocene conditions
may have also favored risk-averse behaviors. This could conceiv-
ably explain remarkably conservative Pleistocene behaviors like
East Asian core/flake (or flake/shatter) technologies, which per-

120

Lower Montane Forest Montane Forest

100

80
VMR

60

40

20
Subalpine

0
0 1.00 2.50 5.00
Quadrat Size (sq. km)

Fig. 9. Bedrock mortar VMR by ecozone.

394 C. Morgan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28 (2009) 382–396
sisted nearly unchanged for more than 50,000 years (Seong, 2004):
it may have been simply too risky to adopt new tools that may (or
may not) do a job better than existing technologies. It follows that
less climatically-variable (and thus more predictable) Holocene
conditions may have favored the more optimizing (and arguably
more risky – see Bettinger 2006:313) behaviors like sedentism,
agriculture and other intensified behaviors affiliated with the evo-
lution of more complex societies (e.g., Schurr and Schoeninger,
1995). Following this logic, the persistence (if not the adoption)
of high-risk, but potentially higher-yield economic behaviors
would thus be favored either when times were predictable enough
and/or when surplus production and storage were great enough to
insure against the uncertainty and higher risks of failure associated
with such behaviors (e.g., Richerson et al. 2001; Halstead, 1989).
Finally, if risk-averse behaviors are ways of averaging the multi-
ple possible outcomes of decisions (the number of which increases
under variable conditions), they are not necessarily disposed to-
ward maximizing energetic return relative to labor input. Rather,
they may also be target-oriented (e.g., storing enough food to make
it through the winter, ensuring minimum daily caloric require-
ments are met, obtaining sufficient water or firewood.). In this
way they are geared towards economic satisficing over optimizing,
the former an economic strategy that is particularly effective when
information on optimal solutions is difficult (i.e., costly) to procure,
such as when variable climatic (and perhaps social or other) condi-
tions prevail. If this is the case, then it is conceivable that climate
change and variability favor not economic maximizing or even effi-
ciency but economic security. Security, of course, comes with its
own costs and rewards, but is clearly unlike the optimizing behav-
iors associated with the evolution of complex hunter–gatherer,
agricultural, and industrial economies during the Holocene.
Acknowledgments
This research has benefited from guidance by Robert Bettinger,
Bruce Winterhalder, Aram Yengoyan, G. James West and Thomas
Jackson as well as excellent criticism by Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology reviewers. I also thank Galen Lee for his willingness
to share information about Mono use of Sierran landscapes. Any er-
rors or omissions, however, are my own.
References
Adams, K.R., Bohrer, V.L., 1998. Archaeobotanical indicators of seasonality,
examples from arid southwestern United States. In: Rocek, T.R., Bar-Yosef, O.
(Eds.), Seasonality and Sedentism, Archaeological Perspectives from Old and
New World Sites. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard
University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 129–142.
Aginsky, B.W., 1943. Culture element distributions: XXIV, Central Sierra.
Anthropological Records 8, 393–468.
Aldenderfer, M., 1998. Montane Foragers: Asana and the South-central Andean
Archaic. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City.
Aldenderfer, M., 1999. An archaeological perspective on the human use of cold
montane environments in Andean South America. Revista de Arqueología
Americana, 75–96.
Aldenderfer, M., 2006. Modelling plateau peoples: the early human use of the
world’s high plateaux. World Archaeology 38, 357–370.
Allen, C.R., Breshears, D.D., 1998. Drought-induced shift of forest-woodland
ecotone: rapid landscape response to climatic variation. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 95, 14839–14842.
Ames, K.M., 2002. Going by boat: the forager–collector continuum at sea. In: Habu,
J. (Ed.), Beyond Foraging and Collecting: Evolutionary Change in Hunter–
gatherer Settlement Systems. Kluwer/Plenum, New York, pp. 19–52.
Anderson, D.G., Maasch, K.A., Sandweiss, D.H., Mayewski, P.A., 2007. Climate and
culture change, exploring holocene transitions. In: Anderson, D.G., Maasch, K.A.,
Sandweiss, D.H. (Eds.), Climate Change and Cultural Dynamics, A Global
Perspective on Mid-Holocene Transitions. Academic Press, Amsterdam, pp. 1–
24.
Armsworth, P.R., Roughgarden, J.E., 2003. The economic value of ecological stability.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100 (12), 7147–7151.
Attwell, M.R., Fletcher, M., 1987. An analytical technique for investigating spatial
relationships. Journal of Archaeological Science 14, 1–11.
Barlow, K.R., Metcalfe, D., 1996. Plant utility indices: two Great Basin examples.
Journal of Archaeological Science 23, 351–371.
Baxter, T.S., 2008. Mathematics, statistics and archaeometry: the past 50 years or so.
Archaeometry 50, 968–982.
Bender, S.J., Wright, G.A., 1988. High-altitude occupations, culture process, and high
plains prehistory: retrospect and prospect. American Anthropologist 90, 619–
639.
Bettinger, R.L., 1977. Aboriginal human ecology in Owens Valley: prehistoric change
in the Great Basin. American Antiquity 42, 3–17.
Bettinger, R.L., 1979. Multivariate statistical analysis of a regional subsistence-
settlement model for Owens Valley. American Antiquity 44, 455–470.
Bettinger, R.L., 1991. Aboriginal occupation at high altitude: alpine villages in the
white mountains of California. American Anthropologist 93, 656–679.
Bettinger, R.L., 2006. Agriculture, archaeology, and human behavioral ecology. In:
Kennett, D.J., Winterhalder, B. (Eds.), Behavioral Ecology and the Transition to
Agriculture, Origins of Human Behavior and Culture, vol. 1. University of
California Press, Berkeley, pp. 304–322.
Bettinger, R.L., Malhi, R., McCarthy, H., 1997. Central place models of acorn and
mussel processing. Journal of Archaeological Science 24, 887–899.
Bevan, A., Conolly, J., 2004. GIS, archaeological survey, and landscape archaeology
on the Island of Kythera, Greece. Journal of Field Archaeology 29, 123–138.
Binford, L.R., 1977. General Introduction. In: Binford, L.R. (Ed.), For Theory Building
in Archaeology. Academic Press, New York, pp. 1–10.
Binford, L.R., 1980. Willow smoke and dog’s tails: hunter–gatherer settlement
systems and archaeological site formation. American Antiquity 45 (1), 4–20.
Blankholm, H.P., 1993. Presab: a new method of spatial analysis. Helinium 33, 3–19.
Bordley, R., LiCalzi, M., 2000. Decision analysis using targets instead of utility
functions. Decisions in Economics and Finance 23, 53–74.
Brantingham, P.J., 2006. Measuring forager mobility. Current Anthropology 47, 435–
459.
Burke, A., 2006. neanderthal settlement patterns in Crimea: a landscape approach.
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25, 510–523.
Campell, I.D., McAndrews, J.H., 1993. Forest disequilibrium caused by rapid little ice
age cooling. Nature 366, 336–388.
Caputo, J.M., 1994. Arrowheads Cast through Time: Archaeological Investigations at
the Portuguese Flat Site. M.A. Thesis, Sonoma State University, Department of
Anthropology.
Crist, M.K., 1981. Settlement Patterns and Locational Strategies: Prehistoric Land
Use in the Southern Sierra Nevada and San Joaquin Valley. M.A. Thesis, San
Francisco State University.
Clark, P.J., Evans, F.C., 1954. Distance to nearest neighbor as a measure of spatial
relationships in populations. Ecology 35, 445–453.
Close, A.E., 2000. Reconstructing movement in prehistory. Journal of Archaeological
Method and Theory 7, 49–77.
Connolly, J., Lake, M., 2006. Geographical Information Systems in Archaeology.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
Diggle, P.J., 2003. Statistical Analysis of Spatial Point Patterns. Oxford University
Press, New York.
Driver, H.E., 1937. Culture element distributions: VI, Southern Sierra Nevada.
Anthropological Records 1, 53–154.
Dunnell, R.C., 1992. The notion site. In: Rossignal, J., Wandsnider, L. (Eds.), Space,
Time, and Archaeological Landscapes. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 21–42.
Durand, S.R., Pippin, L.C., Spennman, D.H.R., 1992. A pragmatic application of the
nearest neighbor statistic. Journal of Field Archaeology 19, 263–274.
Ebdon, D., 1976. On the underestimation inherent in the commonly used formulae.
Area 8, 391–399.
Ebert, J.I., 1992. Distributional Archaeology. University of New Mexico Press,
Albuquerque.
Fitzhugh, B., Habu, J., 2002. Beyond foraging and collecting, evolutionary change in
hunter–gatherer settlement systems. In: Feinman, G.M., Price, T.D. (Eds.),
Fundamental Issues in Archaeology. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New
York.
Fletcher, R., 2008. Some spatial analyses of chalcolithic settlement in Southern
Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science 35, 2048–2058.
Gayton, A.H., 1948. Yokuts and Western Mono Ethnography, II: Northern Foothill
Yokuts and Western Mono. University of California Anthropological Records 10.
Gayton, A.H., n.d. Notes from Yokuts, Western and Eastern Mono. On File, the
Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley.
Gifford, E.W., 1932. The Northfork Mono. University of California Publications in
American Archaeology and Ethnology 31, 15–65.
Gifford, E.W., 1971. California balanophagy. In: Heizer, R.F., Whipple, M.A. (Eds.),
The California Indians, A Source Book. University of California Press, Berkeley,
pp. 301–305.
Gifford, E.W., n.d. Northfork Mono Hamlets and Camp Sites. Ethnological
Documents 168.
Goland, C., 1991. The ecological context of hunter–gatherer storage: environmental
predictability and environmental risk. In: Miracle, P.T., Fisher, L.E., Brown, J.,
(Eds.), Foragers in Context: Long Term Regional and Historical Perspectives in
Hunter–Gatherer Studies, pp. 107–125.
Goldberg, S.K., Moratto, M.J., 1984. Archaeological Investigations at Balsam
Meadow, Fresno County, California: Data Recovery from Sites 04-FRE-811, 04-
FRE-812, and 04-FRE-818. Report to Southern California Edison Company,
Rosemead, California.
Gould, R.A., Yellen, J.E., 1987. Man the hunted: determinants of household spacing
in desert and tropical foraging societies. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
6, 77–103.
 C. Morgan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28 (2009) 382–396
von Grafenstein, U., Erlenkeuser, H., Braur, A., Jouzel, J., Johnson, S.J., 1999. A mid-
european decadal isotope-climate record from 15,000 to 5000 years BP. Science
284, 203–207.
Graumlich, L.A., Lloyd, A.H., 1996. Dendroclimatic, ecological, and geomorphological
evidence for long-term climatic change in the Sierra Nevada, USA. In: Dean, J.S.,
Meko, D.M., Swetnam, T.W. (Eds.), Tree Rings Environment and Humanity.
Radiocarbon, Tucson, Arizona.
Graumlich, L.J., 1993. A 1000-year record of temperature and precipitation in the
Sierra Nevada. Quaternary Research 39, 249–255.
Grove, M., 2009. Hunter–gatherer movement patterns: causes and constraints.
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology. doi:10.1016/j.jaa.2009.01.003.
Halstead, P., 1989. The economy has a normal surplus: economic stability and social
change among early farming communities in Thessaly, Greece. In: Halstead, P.,
O’SheaBad, J. (Eds.), Year Economics, Cultural Responses to Risk and
Uncertainty. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 68–80.
Halstead, P., O’Shea, J., 1989. Introduction: cultural responses to risk and uncertainty.
In: Halstead, P., O’Shea, J. (Eds.), Bad Year Economics, Cultural Responses to Risk
and Uncertainty. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1–7.
Haney, J.W., 1992. Acorn exploitation in the eastern Sierra Nevada. Journal of
California and Great Basin Anthropology 14, 94–109.
Hawkes, K., O’Connell, J.F., Blurton-Jones, N.G., 1989. Hardworking Hadza
grandmothers. In: Standen, V., Foley, R. (Eds.), Comparative Socioecology of
Mammals and Man. Blackwell, London, pp. 341–366.
Hindes, M.G., 1959. A report of Indian trails, Huntington Lake region, California.
University of California Archaeological Survey Reports 48, 1–15.
Hindes, M.G., 1962. The archaeology of the Huntington Lake region. University of
California Archaeological Survey Reports, 58.
Holdridge, L.R., 1967. Life Zone Ecology. Tropical Science Center, San Jose, Costa
Rica.
Hodder, I., Hassell, M., 1971. The non-random spacing of Romano-British walled
towns. Man 6, 391–407.
Hughes, M.K., Brown, P.M., 1992. Drought frequency in central California since 101
B.C. Recorded in giant sequoia tree rings. Climate Dynamics 6, 161–167.
Hull, K.L., W.J. Mundy, 1985. The 1984 Yosemite archaeological surveys: the south
entrance, Mariposa Grove, Tioga Road, Crane Flat, and Glacier Point Road Areas.
Yosemite Research Center Publications in Anthropology 1.
Jackson, T.L., 1983. Report of Archaeological Test Excavations for FERC Project 67
(CA-FRE-422, FRE-809, FRE-940, FRE-942, FRE-1208, FRE-1209, and FRE-1211).
Archaeological Consulting and Research Service. Report to Southern California
Edison Company, Rosemead.
Jackson, T.L., 1984. Predictive Model of Prehistoric Settlement Patterning in the
Southern Sierra Nevada. In: Theodoratus Cultural Research, I., and
Archaeological Consulting and Research Services, I., (Eds.), Cultural Resources
Overview of the Southern Sierra Nevada. Prepared for USDA Forest Service,
South Central Contracting Office, Bishop, California.
Jackson, T.L., 1988. Amending models of trans-Sierran obsidian tool production and
exchange. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 10 (1), 62–72.
Jackson, T.L., Holson, J. 1984. Report of Archaeological Data Recovery Excavations at
CA-FRE-1211. Submitted to Southern California Edison Company, Rosemead,
California. Archaeological Consulting and Research Services, Inc. Santa Cruz,
California.
Jochim, M., 2006. Regional perspectives on early mesolithic land use in
southwestern Germany. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25, 204–212.
Jones, E.L., 2007. Subsistence change, landscape use, and changing site elevation at
the Pleistocene–Holocene transition in the Dordogne of Southwestern France.
Journal of Archaeological Science, 344–353.
Jones, K.T., Madsen, D.B., 1989. Calculating the cost of resource transportation: a
Great Basin example. Current Anthropology 30 (4), 529–534.
Jones, T.E., Origer, T.M., 2001. Final Report Archaeological Investigations at CA-FRE-
217, Camp Sierra, Fresno County, California. Tom Origer & Associates, Rohnert
Park, CA. Report submitted to USDA Sierra National Forest.
Jones, T.L., Brown, G.M., Raab, L.M., McVickar, J.L., Spaulding, W.G., Kennett, D.J.,
York, A., Walker, P.L., 1999. Environmental imperatives reconsidered. Current
Anthropology 40, 137–170.
Kantner, J., 2008. The archaeology of regions: from discrete analytical toolkit to
ubiquitous spatial perspective. Journal of Archaeological Research 16, 37–81.
Keeley, L.H., 1988. Hunter–gatherer economic complexity and ‘‘Population
Pressure”: a cross-cultural approach. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
7, 373–411.
Kelly, D., Sork, V.L., 2002. Mast seeding in perennial plants: why, how, where?
Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33, 427–447.
Kelly, R.L., 1985. Hunter–Gatherer Mobility and Sedentism, A Great Basin Study,
(Ph.D. Dissertation), Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor.
Kelly, R.L., 1990. Marshes and Mobility in the Western Great Basin. In: Janetski, J.C.,
Madsen, D.B. (Eds.), Wetland Adaptations in the Great Basin, Museum of Peoples
and Cultures Occasional Papers No. 1. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.
Kelly, R.L., 1992. Mobility/sedentism: concepts, archaeological measures, and
effects. Annual Review of Anthropology 21, 43–66.
Kelly, R.L., 1998. Foraging and sedentism. In: Rocek, T.R., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.),
Seasonality and Sedentism: Archaeological Perspectives from Old and New
World Sites. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard
University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 9–21.
Koenig, W.D., Knops, J.M.H., 2005. The mystery of masting in trees. American
Scientist 93, 340–347.
395
Körner, C., 1998. Worldwide positions of alpine treelines and their causes. In:
Beniston, M., Innes, J.L. (Eds.), The Impacts of Climate Variability on Forests.
Springer, New York, pp. 221–230.
Kowalewski, S.A., 2008. Regional settlement patterns studies. Journal of
Archaeological Research 16, 225–285.
Krist, Jr., F.J., 2001. A Predictive Model of Paleo-Indian Subsistence and Settlement.,
Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Michigan State University.
Kroeber, A.L., 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Dover Publications, New
York.
Kroeber, A.L., 1959. Ethnographic interpretations 7–11. In: McCowan, T.D., Gifford,
E.W., Mandelbaum, D.G., Olson, R.L. (Eds.), University of California Publications
in American Archaeology and Ethnology. University of California Press, Berkeley
and Los Angeles, pp. 235–307.
Küchler, A.W., 1977. The map of the natural vegetation of California. In: Major,
M.B.a.J. (Ed.), Terrestrial Vegetation of California. John Wiley & Sons, New York,
pp. 909–938.
Lee, G.D., 1998. Walking Where We Lived. Memoirs of a Mono Indian Family.
University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Leemans, R., Cramer, W., Minnen, J.G.V., 1996. Prediction of global biome
distribution using bioclimatic equilibrium models. In: Breymeyer, A.I., Hall,
J.M.M.D.O., Agren, G.I. (Eds.), Global Change: Effects on Coniferous Forests and
Grasslands, Scope, vol. 56. John Wiley and Sons, New York, pp. 413–450.
Low, B.S., 1990. Human responses to environmental extremeness and uncertainty: a
cross-cultural perspective. In: Cashdan, E. (Ed.), Risk and Uncertainty in Tribal
and Peasant Economies. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, pp. 229–256.
Madsen, D.B., Rhode, D. (Eds.), 1994. Across the West: Human Population
Movement and the Expansion of the Numa. University of Utah Press, Salt
Lake City.
McCarthy, H., Blount, C., Hicks, R., 1985. Appendix F: a functional analysis of
bedrock mortars: western Mono food processing in the Southern Sierra Nevada.
In: I. Infotec Research, I. Theodoratus Cultural Research (Eds.), Cultural
Resources of the Crane Valley Hydroelectric Project Area, vol. I. Prepared for
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Sonora and Fair Oaks, California, pp. 303–356.
McCarthy, H., 1993. A Political Economy of Western Mono Acorn Production, (Ph.D.
Dissertation), Anthropology Department, University of California, Davis.
McGuire, K.R., Hildebrandt, W.R., 2005. Re-thinking Great Basin foragers, prestige
hunting and costly signaling during the middle archaic period. American
Antiquity 70, 695–712.
McGuire, K.R., Hildebrandt, W.R., Carpenter, K.L., 2007. Costly signaling and the
ascendance of no-can-do archaeology: a reply to Codding and Jones. American
Antiquity 72, 358–365.
McKone, M.J., Kelly, D., Lee, W.G., 1998. Effects of climate change on mast-seeding
species: frequency of mass flowering and escape from specialist insect seed
predators. Global Change Biology 4, 591–596.
Merriam, C.H., 1955. The Mono Paiute. In: The Department of Anthropology of the
University of California (Ed.), Studies of California Indians. University of
California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, pp. 71–76.
Miller, A., Barton, C.M., 2008. Exploring the land: a comparison of land-use patterns
in the middle and upper Paleolithic of the Western Mediterranean. Journal of
Archaeological Science 35, 1427–1437.
Miller, C.I., Westfall, R.D., Delany, D.L., King, J.C., Graumlich, L.J., 2004. Response of
subalpine conifers in the Sierra Nevada, California to 20th-century warming and
decadal climate variability. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research 36, 181–200.
Moore, K.M., 1998. Measures of mobility and occupational intensity in highland
Peru. In: Rocek, T.R., Bar-Yosef, O. (Eds.), Seasonality and Sedentism,
Archaeological Perspectives from Old and New World Sites. Peabody Museum
of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts,
pp. 181–197.
Moratto, M.J., 1972. A Study of Prehistory in the Southern Sierra Nevada Foothills,
California. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Oregon.
Moratto, M.J., King, T.F., Woolfenden, W.B., 1978. Archaeology and California’s
climate. The Journal of California Anthropology 5 (2), 147–162.
Morgan, C., 2006. Late Prehistoric Territorial Expansion and Maintenance in the
South-Central Sierra Nevada, California, (Ph.D. Dissertation), Anthropology
Department, University of California, Davis, Davis, California.
Morgan, C., 2008. Reconstructing prehistoric hunter–gatherer foraging radii: a case
study from California’s Southern Sierra Nevada. Journal of Archaeological
Science 35, 247–258.
Mortensen, P., 1972. Seasonal camps and early villages in the Zagros. In: Ucko, P.J.,
Tringham, R., Dimbleby, G.W. (Eds.), Man, Settlement and Urbanism.
Duckworth, London.
Overpeck, J.T., Rind, D., Goldberg, R., 1990. Climate-induced changes in forest
disturbance and vegetation. Nature 342, 51–53.
Peterson, D.L., 1998. The impact of climatic extremes on forests: an introduction. In:
Beniston, M., Innes, J.L. (Eds.), The Impact of Climate Variability on Forests.
Springer, New York, pp. 191–208.
Pilgram, T.K., 1987. Predicting Archaeological Sites from Environmental Variables: A
Mathematical Model for the Sierra Nevada Foothills, California. British
Archaeological Reports International Series No. 320.
Pinder, D., Shimada, I., Gregory, D., 1979. The nearest-neighbor statistic:
archaeological application and new developments. American Antiquity 44,
430–445.
Premo, L.S., 2004. Local spatial autocorrelation statistics quantify multi-scale
patterns in distributional data: an example from the Maya lowlands. Journal
of Archaeological Science 31, 855–866.
396 C. Morgan / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28 (2009) 382–396
Prentiss, W.C., Chatters, J.C., 2003. The evolution of collector systems on the Pacific
coast of northwest North America. In: Habu, J., Savelle, J.M., Koyama, S., Hongo,
H. (Eds.), Hunter–Gatherers of the North Pacific Rim. National Museum of
Ethnology, Osaka, pp. 49–80.
Price, T.D., Brown, J.A., 1985. Aspects of hunter–gatherer complexity. In: Price, T.D.,
Brown, J.A. (Eds.), Prehistoric Hunter–Gatherers: The Emergence of Cultural
Complexity. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida, pp. 3–20.
Richerson, P.J., Boyd, R., Bettinger, R.L., 2001. Was agriculture impossible during the
pleistocene but mandatory during the Holocene? a climate change hypothesis.
American Antiquity 66, 387–412.
Rick, J.W., 1980. Prehistoric Hunters of the High Andes. Academic Press, New York.
Sawada, M., 2002, Nearest Neighbor Analysis/Event–Event Distances. Electronic document
<http://arcscripts.esri.com/details.asp?dbid=12227> (accessed 03.01.09).
Schurr, M.R., Schoeninger, M.J., 1995. Associations between agricultural
intensification and social complexity: an example from the prehistoric Ohio
valley. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 14, 315–339.
Seong, C., 2004. Quartzite and vein quartz as lithic raw materials reconsidered: a
view from the Korean Paleolithic. Asian Perspectives 43 (1), 73–91.
Scuderi, L.A., 1987. Late-Holocene upper timberline variation in the southern Sierra
Nevada. Nature 325, 242–244.
Sierra Nevada Ecosystems Project (SNEP), 1996. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project,
Final Report to Congress, Status of the Sierra Nevada Centers for Water and
Wildland Resources, University of California, Davis.
Simon, H.A., 1957. Models of Man: Social and Rational. Wiley, New York.
Snyder, J.W., 2001. Map and Comments on Indian Trails on the Sierra National
Forest. Yosemite Research Library, Yosemite National Park.
Stanish, C., 2003. A Brief Americanist Perspective on Settlement Archaeology. In:
Levanthal, J.K.P.a.R.M. (Ed.), Theory and Practice in Mediterranean Archaeology:
Old World and New World Perspectives. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology.
University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, pp. 161–172.
Stevens, N.A., 2002. Prehistoric Use of the Alpine Sierra Nevada: Archaeological
Investigation at Taboose Pass, Kings Canyon National Park, California, M.A.
Thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Sacramento,
Sacramento, California.
Stevens, N.A., 2003. Spatial and temporal patterning of bedrock mortar sites in the
southern Sierra Nevada: a regional exploration. Proceedings of the Society for
California Archaeology 16, 175–182.
Stevens, N.A., 2005. Changes in prehistoric land use in the alpine Sierra Nevada: a
regional exploration using temperature-adjusted obsidian hydration rates.
Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 25, 187–205.
Surovell, T.A., 2000. Early Paleoindian women, children, mobility, and fertility.
American Antiquity 65, 493–508.
TCR/ACRS, 1984. Cultural Resources Overview of the Southern Sierra Nevada.
Theodoratus Cultural Research, Inc. and Archaeological Consulting and
Research Services, Inc., Prepared for USDA Forest Service, South Central
Contracting Office, Bishop.
Thomas, D.H., 1973. An empirical test for Steward’s model of Great Basin settlement
patterns. American Antiquity 38, 155–176.
Thomas, D.H., 1976. The awful truth about statistics in archaeology. American
Antiquity 43, 231–244.
Thomas, D.H., 1982. The 1981 Alta Toquima Village Project: A Preliminary Report.
Desert Research Institute Social Sciences and Humanities Publications 27.
Underhill, A.P., Feinman, G.M., Nicholas, L.M., Fang, H., Luan, F., Yu, H., Cai, F., 2008.
Changes in Regional Settlement Patterns and the Development of Complex
Societies in Southeastern Shandong, China. Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology 27, 1–29.
Urban, D., Miller, C., 1996. Modeling Sierran Forests: Capabilities and Prospectus for
Gap Models, Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, Final Report to Congress, Status
of the Sierra Nevada. Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, University of
California, Davis.
Voorrips, A., O’Shea, J.M., 1987. Conditional spatial patterning: beyond the nearest
neighbor. American Antiquity 52, 500–521.
Walsh, K., 2005. Risk and marginality at high altitudes: new interpretations from
fieldwork on the Faravel Plateau, Hautes-Alpes. Antiquity 79, 289–305.
Walsh, K., Richer, S., Beaulieau, J.-L.d., 2006. Attitudes to altitude: changing
meanings and perceptions within a ‘Marginal’ alpine landscape – the
integration of paleoecological and archaeological data in a high-altitude
landscape in the French Alps. World Archaeology 38, 436–454.
Washburn, J., 1974. Nearest neighbor analysis of Pueblo I–III settlement patterns
along the Rio Puerco of the East, New Mexico. American Antiquity, 39.
White, D.M., 1985. Settlement Pattern Implications of Bedrock Milling Implement
Analysis: An Example from the Kern River, Southwest Anthropological
Association Meetings, Chico, California.
Willey, G.R., 1953. Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Viru Valley, Peru. Bureau
of Ethnology Bulletin 155. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.
Winterhalder, B., 1980. Environmental analysis in human evolution and adaptation
research. Human Ecology 8, 135–170.
Winterhalder, B., Leslie, P., 2002. Risk-sensitive fertility, the variance compensation
hypothesis. Evolution and Human Behavior 23, 59–82.
Woodburn, J., 1980. Hunters and gatherers today and reconstruction of the past. In:
Gellner, E. (Ed.), Soviet and Western Anthropology. Duckworth, London, pp. 95–
117.
Woolfenden, W.B., 1996. Quaternary vegetation history, Sierra Nevada Ecosystem
Project, Final Report to Congress, Status of the Sierra Nevada. Centers for Water
and Wildland Resources, University of California, Davis, pp. 47–70.
Wright, G.A., Bender, S., Reeve, S., 1980. High country adaptations. Plains
Anthropologist 25, 181–197.
Yellin, J., Levy, T.E., Rowan, Y.M., 1996. New evidence on prehistoric trade routes:
the obsidian evidence from Gilat, Israel. Journal of Field Archaeology 23, 361–
368.
Zeanah, D.W., 2000. Transport Costs, Central Place Foraging, and Hunter–Gatherer
Alpine Land Use Strategies. In: Madsen, D.B., Metcalfe, M.D. (Eds.),
Intermountain Archaeology. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No.
122, Salt Lake City, pp. 1–14.
Zeanah, D.W., 2002. Central place foraging and prehistoric pinyon utilization in the
Great Basin. In: Fitzhugh, B., Habu, J. (Eds.), Beyond Foraging and Collecting:
Evolutionary Change in Hunter–Gatherer Settlement Systems. Kluwer
Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, pp. 231–256.
Zhang, H.Q., Zhao, W.M., Liu, B., 2007. Mathematical Modelling of the Relationship
Between Neolithic Sites and the Rivers In Xi’an (Shaanxi Province, China).
Archaeometry 36, 765–773.
Zvelebil, M., Green, S.W., Macklin, M.G., 1992. Archaeological landscapes, lithic
scatters, and human behavior. In: Rossignal, J., Wandsnider, L. (Eds.), Space,
Time, and Archaeological Landscapes. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 193–226.