Beyond Optimization: Legaliform (Law-like) Principles and Bounded Rationality in Lithic Technology

This article proposes a formal epistemological and methodological framework for the analysis of lithic technology, moving beyond traditional optimization-oriented models and normative typologies. Grounded in Mario Bunge’s socio-natural science and Herbert Simon’s theory of bounded rationality, we introduce the concept of legaliform (law-like) principles. These principles are defined as stable, necessary relationships between technical procedures and morphological outcomes, dictated by the physics of brittle fracture and enacted through procedural memory. To enhance analytical precision and cross-cultural comparability, we develop a semi-formal symbolic notation that identifies the core “techno-scientific” operators underlying lithic reduction. We argue that stone tool morphology is not a static reflection of a “mental template,” but a dynamic sequence of technically adequate states achieved through satisficing behavior. By framing these legaliform regularities as epistemological meta-standards, this article establishes a standardized framework for data reproducibility, verification, and quality control in technological analysis. The framework identifies eight primary legaliform principles—including bifacial reduction (PBR), thermal alteration (PTT), and maintenance and reactivation (PMR)—illustrating how they structure technical action under material and cognitive constraints. The utility of this approach is demonstrated through a case study of Paleoindian Fell projectile points in South America. By operationalizing the Maintenance and Reactivation Principle (PMR), we explain the high morphological variability of these points as a predictable result of life-history and functional restoration rather than cultural “drift” or failed design. This perspective provides a rigorous basis for identifying Guided Convergence in the archaeological record, offering a scientific alternative to diffusionist explanations and purely morphological comparisons that often overlook the underlying techno-scientific regularities of lithic practice.