Caribou sharing and storage: refitting the Palangana site

The distribution of caribou at the Palangana site (XCL-00130), Alaska, is compared to two models of hunter–gatherer food sharing. Variance reduction and tolerated theft based on ethnographic observations and mathematical modeling are translated into residual archaeological faunal assemblages based on element frequencies and anatomical refitting. These models, applied to the Palangana caribou assemblage, indicate that food sharing occurred between the site occupants in a manner similar to tolerated theft. Food sharing behaviors are established through comparison of the faunal assemblages of two discrete households occupied contemporaneously. Analysis concludes that stored caribou were distributed among the households in response to consumer needs. 2002 Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved. The sharing of food resources is frequently cited as a fundamental characteristic of human behavior and the foundation of hunter–gatherer economies (Binford, 1981, 1985; Boyd and Richerson, 1988; Gowdy, 1998; Isaac, 1978; Isaac and Crader, 1981; Lee and Devore, 1968; Sahlins, 1972; Service, 1966; Vos and Zeggelink, 1996). ‘‘Sharing’’ an act that results in the distribution of goods from a provider to one or more recipients is alternatively seen as evidence of human altruism (Mauss, 1950; Service, 1966), a consequence of living in groups (Bell, 1995; Trivers, 1971), as part of a suite of procurement or risk reducing strategies (Blurton Jones, 1984; Smith, 1988; Winterhalder, 1986), or a means of acquiring prestige and mating opportunities (Hawkes, 1990, 1991; Hill and Kaplan, 1988a,b). Recent ethnoarchaeological and ethnographic works among contemporary foraging societies have identified a variety of principles influencing both the contexts and the extent to which the sharing of resources occurs (e.g., Binford, 1984; Cashdan, 1985; Hawkes, 1993; Kaplan and Hill, 1985; Kent, 1993a; Marshall, 1994; Minnegal, 1997). The purpose of this study is to determine the presence, extent, and nature of faunal resource sharing at the Palangana Site, Alaska (Binford, 1978, 1984). Ethnographic information enables faunal data to be related to the economic and social conditions at the time of occupation. After considering variation in sharing behaviors, a model is developed to recognize two major forms of sharing (variance reduction and tolerated theft) archaeologically. These models are then examined with the Palangana site faunal assemblage. Sharing in living systems The propensity of hunting and gathering peoples to share food resources has long been noted by anthropologists, but it has not, until recently, been shown that marked variability in the type Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21 (2002) 396–417 www.academicpress.com E-mail address: [email protected]. 0278-4165/02/$ see front matter 2002 Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved. PII: S0278 -4165 (02 )00006 -5 and frequency of sharing behaviors exists within and between hunting and gathering groups (Blurton Jones, 1984; Hawkes, 1992; Kaplan and Hill, 1985; Kelly, 1995). This makes it difficult to explain food sharing solely as the direct result of an intrinsic morality of ‘‘good will’’ (Ingold, 1980) or strict obedience to an ‘‘egalitarian social order’’ (Endicott, 1988; Kent, 1993b). The sharing of goods, land, or information is a mechanism whereby participants reduce the risks inherent in foraging, especially hunting, or exploit the different procurement abilities of individuals and groups. When practiced, sharing exerts considerable influence on the social and economic relationships between participants, affecting the butchery process of carcasses (Gould, 1968; Marshall, 1993; Yellen, 1977), residential camp layout (Binford, 1991b; Fisher and Strickland, 1991; Whitelaw, 1989), and household faunal assemblage composition of residential units or households (Kent, 1993b; Marshall, 1993). Such effects vary among hunter–gatherer communities, depending on the frequency and context in which food resources are shared. Though sharing has received much theoretical and ethnographic attention, it has relatively low archaeological visibility and its identification is neither simple nor straightforward (Enloe, 1991; Enloe and David, 1992; Henshaw, 1999, 1995; Rapson, 1990). Identifying its existence archaeologically is currently predicated on the ability to discern contemporaneous procurement and consumption units at the level of individuals, families, or residences. Where archaeologists have investigated sharing, they have done so by focusing on discrete features such as hearths (Enloe, 1991; Rapson, 1990) and residential structures (Henshaw, 1999, 1995; Zeder and Arter, 1996). Without contemporaneous features, sharing must be inferred from far less direct lines of evidence based on theoretical arguments and empirical ethnographic patterns such as reliance on big-game hunting, small group size, or high mobility. If sharing is to be detected archaeologically, variability in living systems cannot be overlooked. Sharing is a context-dependent behavior, effectively distributing resources when and where necessary. Thus, we cannot seek evidence simply of sharing archaeologically but must also address different forms of sharing behavior. The categorization of past human groups simply as ‘‘sharers’’ versus ‘‘hoarders’’ would be a meaningless endeavor. Recognizing variability in sharing behaviors, however, raises two questions: why do people share and can different kinds of sharing be seen archaeologically? Before addressing food sharing at the Palangana site, we must examine the variables that govern sharing in modern foraging communities and how different forms of sharing relate to the material record available to archaeologists.