Risk and reciprocity in Meriam food sharing |
| |
Affiliation: | 1. Department of Mathematical and Systems Engineering, Shizuoka University, Hamamatsu 432-8561, Japan;2. Department of Biological Sciences, Pusan National University, Busan 609-735, Republic of Korea;3. Marketing Center for Neural Decision Making, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 19122, USA;4. National Robotics Research Center, Pusan National University, Busan 609-735, Republic of Korea;1. Department of Anthropology, University of Utah, United States;2. Department of Anthropology, Purdue University, United States;1. Department of Anthropology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA;2. Global Change and Sustainability Center, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA;3. Center for Latin American Studies, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA;4. Department of Anthropology, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC 27858, USA;5. Rancho La Capilla, Santa Maria de Toris, Baja California Sur 23983, Mexico |
| |
Abstract: | Foragers who do not practice food storage might adapt to fluctuating food supplies by sharing surplus resources in times of plenty with the expectation of receiving in times of shortfall. In this paper, we derive a number of predictions from this perspective, which we term the risk reduction reciprocity (RRR) model, and test these with ethnographic data on foraging (fishing, shellfish collecting, and turtle hunting) among the Meriam (Torres Strait, Australia). While the size of a harvest strongly predicts that a portion will be shared beyond the household of the acquirer, the effects of key measures of foraging risk (e.g., failure rate) are comparatively weak: Harvests from high-risk hunt types are usually shared more often than those from low-risk hunt types in the same macropatch, but increases in risk overall do not accurately predict increases in the probability of sharing. In addition, free-riders (those who take shares but do not reciprocate) are not discriminated against, those who share more often and more generously do not predictably receive more, and most sharing relationships between households (over 80%) involve one-way flows. |
| |
Keywords: | |
本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录! |
|