Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Food-Sharing Networks in Lamalera, Indonesia

Reciprocity, Kinship, and Distance

  • Published:
Human Nature Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Exponential random graph modeling (ERGM) is used here to test hypotheses derived from human behavioral ecology about the adaptive nature of human food sharing. Respondents in all (n = 317) households in the fishing and sea-hunting village of Lamalera, Indonesia, were asked to name those households to whom they had more frequently given (and from whom they had more frequently received) food during the preceding sea-hunting season. The responses were used to construct a social network of between-household food-sharing relationships in the village. The results show that kinship, proximity, and reciprocal sharing all strongly increase the probability of giving food to a household. The effects of kinship and distance are relatively independent of each other, although reciprocity is more common among residentially and genealogically close households. The results show support for reciprocal altruism as a motivation for food sharing, while kinship and distance appear to be important partner-choice criteria.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Brian Wood and Frank Marlowe, “Where do men’s foods go? The sharing and eating of male-acquired foods among the Hadza.” Unpublished manuscript.

  2. I address the effects of household-level covariates and tests of the costly signaling hypothesis in a forthcoming publication (in preparation).

  3. These numbers exclude three priests and their housekeeper as well as 18 students from other villages housed at the junior high school. Also excluded are the two outlying agricultural dusun of Lamamanu and Krokowolor. These are incorporated under the administration of Lamalera A and B, respectively, but are not themselves part of Lamalera historically considered (Barnes 1996).

  4. Indonesia is not a signatory to the International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling (International Whaling Commission 2007), though Lamalera would almost certainly qualify for a subsistence exemption if Indonesia were to sign. Sperm whales are categorized as “vulnerable,” the lowest of the “threatened” categories on the IUCN Red List (International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources; Taylor et al. 2009). Recent estimates of the global sperm whale population place the number around 360,000 (Whitehead 2003). Lamaleran subsistence whale hunting poses no conservation risk to global sperm whale populations. Other cetacean species hunted in Lamalera are of even lower conservation concern on the IUCN Red List or are currently unclassified.

  5. Sperm whales were rarely seen, and none were caught during the study period, though one particularly large specimen was caught just before the study began and cured whale meat was in circulation throughout the study period.

  6. Meat and fish account for 73% of foods transferred by frequency; vegetal foods account for 27%. In addition to direct transfers to other households, food is shared in other ways, most commonly by contributing to or participating in communal meals associated with marriage and death rites or boat ceremonies. These modes of sharing occur less frequently and are not addressed here. See Nolin 2008.

  7. For example, both husband’s and wife’s kinship have independent and positive effects on sharing (Nolin 2008: Table 6.5).

  8. In pretesting, use of preprinted forms was found to bias the number of nominations toward the number of lines printed on the forms.

  9. The preferred method of capturing variation in sharing frequency was to ask respondents to rank the households they named in order of sharing frequency. However, in pretesting this method respondents were reluctant to provide rank-orderings. The common explanation offered was that “people give as they are able,” and that how often one received from or gave to others depended primarily on the success of the fishery.

  10. These totals include 93 giving and 66 receiving ties mistakenly omitted from previous analyses (cf. Nolin 2008:153).

  11. Characteristics of out-of-network ties are presented in Nolin 2008, Tables 5.1 and 5.2.

  12. Since every giving relationship is also a receiving relationship, mean outdegree and indegree must by definition be equal. Both are calculated as total ties divided by total households, or 3,111/317 = 9.81.

  13. Networks composed of valued ties can be binarized for use with ERGM, but this entails a loss of statistical information.

  14. A special volume of the Journal of Statistical Software (Vol. 24, 2008) on statnet provides an excellent introduction.

  15. Mutuality, indicating reciprocity in binary directed networks (Wasserman and Faust 1994), should not be confused with mutualism, a mode of cooperation itself plagued by a confusing proliferation of definitions (Brown 1983; Conner 1986; Maynard Smith 1983; Maynard Smith and Szathmary 1995). The similarity of the two terms in this context is unfortunate.

  16. The matrix Pearson correlation between kinship and distance is −0.075.

  17. One hundred networks were simulated using the coefficients from Table 2, Model EDK. ERGM models were then estimated on each of the simulated networks and their results averaged to produce the density-controlled residual deviance estimates reported.

References

  • adams, j, & Moody, J. (2007). To tell the truth: measuring concordance in multiply reported network data. Social Networks, 29, 44–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19, 716–723.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen-Arave, W., Gurven, M., & Hill, K. (2008). Reciprocal altruism, rather than kin selection, maintains nepotistic food transfers on an Ache reservation. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 305–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Altmann, S. (1979). Altruistic behaviour: the fallacy of kin deployment. Animal Behaviour, 27, 958–959.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alvard, M. S. (2002). Carcass ownership and meat distribution by big-game cooperative hunters. Research in Economic Anthropology, 21, 99–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alvard, M. S., & Nolin, D. A. (2002). Rousseau’s whale hunt? Coordination among big game hunters. Current Anthropology, 43, 533–559.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, R. H. (1986). Educated fishermen: social consequences of development in an Indonesian whaling community. Bulletin de l’Ecole Française d’Extrème-Orient, 75, 295–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, R. H. (1996). Sea hunters of Indonesia. Oxford: Clarendon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, R. H., & Barnes, R. (1989). Barter and money in an Indonesian village economy. Man, 24, 399–418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, H. R., Killworth, P., Kronenfeld, D., & Sailer, L. (1984). The problem of informant accuracy: the validity of retrospective data. Annual Review of Anthropology, 13, 495–517.

    Google Scholar 

  • Betzig, L. L., & Turke, P. W. (1986). Food sharing on Ifaluk. Current Anthropology, 27, 397–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bliege Bird, R. L., & Bird, D. W. (1997). Delayed reciprocity and tolerated theft: the behavioral ecology of food-sharing strategies. Current Anthropology, 38, 49–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bliege Bird, R., & Bird, D. W. (2008). Why women hunt: risk and contemporary foraging in a Western Desert aboriginal community. Current Anthropology, 49, 655–693.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bliege Bird, R. L., Smith, E. A., & Bird, D. W. (2001). The hunting handicap: costly signaling in human foraging strategies. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 50, 9–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bliege Bird, R. L., Bird, D. W., Smith, E. A., & Kushnick, G. C. (2002). Risk and reciprocity in Meriam food sharing. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23, 297–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bliege Bird, R., Codding, B. F., & Bird, D. W. (2009). What explains differences in men’s and women’s production? Determinants of gendered foraging inequalities among Martu. Human Nature, 20, 105–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blurton Jones, N. G. (1984). A selfish origin for food sharing: tolerated theft. Ethology and Sociobiology, 5, 1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blurton Jones, N. G. (1987). Tolerated theft, suggestions about the ecology and evolution of sharing, hoarding and scrounging. Social Science Information, 26, 31–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. L. (1983). Cooperation—A biologist’s dilemma. In J. S. Rosenblatt (Ed.), Advances in the study of behaviour (pp. 1–37). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conner, R. C. (1986). Pseudoreciprocity: investing in mutualism. Animal Behaviour, 34, 1652–1654.

    Google Scholar 

  • Damas, D. (1972). Central Eskimo systems of food sharing. Ethnology, 11, 220–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, R. (1979). Twelve misunderstandings of kin selection. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, 51, 184–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeMaris, A. (1992). Logit modeling: Practical applications. Sage University Paper, Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, no. 07-086. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

  • de Waal, F. B. M., & Luttrell, L. M. (1988). Mechanisms of social reciprocity in three primate species: symmetrical relationship characteristics or cognition? Ethology and Sociobiology, 9, 101–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franzen, M., & Eaves, J. (2007). Effect of market access on sharing practices within two Huaorani communities. Ecological Economics, 63, 776–785.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, L. C., Romney, A. K., & Freeman, S. C. (1987). Cognitive structure and informant accuracy. American Anthropologist, 89, 310–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gintis, H., Smith, E. A., & Bowles, S. (2001). Costly signaling and cooperation. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 213, 103–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodreau, S. M., Handcock, M. S., Hunter, D. R., Butts, C. T., & Morris, M. (2008). A statnet tutorial. Journal of Statistical Software, 24, 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grafen, A. (1980). Opportunity cost, benefit, and degree of relatedness. Animal Behaviour, 28, 967–968.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gurven, M. (2004a). To give or not to give: the behavioral ecology of human food transfers. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 543–583.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gurven, M. (2004b). Reciprocal altruism and food sharing decisions among Hiwi and Ache hunter-gatherers. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 56, 366–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gurven, M. (2006). The evolution of contingent cooperation. Current Anthropology, 47, 185–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gurven, M., & Hill, K. (2009). Why do men hunt? A reevaluation of “Man the Hunter” and the sexual division of labor. Current Anthropology, 50, 51–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gurven, M., & Hill, K. (2010). Moving beyond stereotypes of men’s foraging goals: reply to Hawkes, O’Connell, and Coxworth. Current Anthropology, 51, 265–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gurven, M., Allen-Arave, W., Hill, K., & Hurtado, M. (2000a). “It’s a wonderful life”: signaling generosity among the Ache of Paraguay. Evolution and Human Behavior, 21, 263–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gurven, M., Hill, K., Kaplan, H., Hurtado, A., & Lyles, R. (2000b). Food transfers among Hiwi foragers of Venezuela: tests of reciprocity. Human Ecology, 28, 171–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gurven, M., Allen-Arave, W., Hill, K., & Hurtado, M. (2001). Reservation food sharing among the Ache of Paraguay. Human Nature, 12, 273–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gurven, M., Hill, K., & Kaplan, H. (2002). From forest to reservation: transitions in food-sharing behavior among the Ache of Paraguay. Journal of Anthropological Research, 58, 93–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gurven, M., Hill, K., & Jakugi, F. (2004). Why do foragers share and sharers forage? Explorations of social dimensions of foraging. Research in Economic Anthropology, 23, 19–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guven, M., Winking, J., Kaplan, H., von Reuden, C., & McAllister, L. (2009). A bioeconomic approach to marriage and the sexual division of labor. Human Nature, 20, 151–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagen, E. H. (2005). Descent. Version 0.2.0.2. Retrieved from http://itb.biologie.hu-berlin.de/~hagen/Descent/.

  • Hagle, T. M., & II Mitchell, G. E. (1992). Goodness of fit measures for probit and logit. American Journal of Political Science, 36, 762–784.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hames, R. (1987). Relatedness and garden labor exchange among the Ye’kawa. Ethology and Sociobiology, 8, 354–392.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hames, R. (2000). Reciprocal altruism in Yanomamö food exchange. In L. Cronk, N. Chagnon, & W. Irons (Eds.), Adaptation and human behavior: An anthropological perspective (pp. 397–416). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hames, R., & McCabe, C. (2007). Meal sharing among the Ye’kwana. Human Nature, 18, 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, W. D. (1963). The evolution of altruistic behavior. American Naturalist, 97, 354–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behaviour, I & II. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7, 1–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Handcock, M. S., Hunter, D. R., Butts, C. T., Goodreau, S. M., & Morris, M. (2003). ERGM: Fit, simulate and diagnose exponential-family models for networks, Version 2.1. Retrieved from http://statnetproject.org/.

  • Handcock, M. S., Hunter, D. R., Butts, C. T., Goodreau, S. M., & Morris, M. (2008). statnet: software tools for the representation, visualization, analysis and simulation of network data. Journal of Statistical Software, 24, 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkes, K. (1991). Showing off: tests of an hypothesis about men’s foraging goals. Ethology and Sociobiology, 12, 29–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkes, K. (1993a). Why hunter-gatherers work: an ancient version of the problem of public goods. Current Anthropology, 34, 341–361.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkes, K. (1993b). On why male foragers hunt and share food: reply to Hill and Kaplan. Current Anthropology, 34, 706–710.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkes, K., & Bliege Bird, R. (2002). Showing off, handicap signaling, and the evolution of men’s work. Evolutionary Anthropology, 11, 58–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkes, K., O’Connell, J. F., & Blurton Jones, N. G. (2001a). Hunting and nuclear families: some lessons from the Hadza about men’s work. Current Anthropology, 42, 681–709.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkes, K., O’Connell, J. F., & Blurton Jones, N. G. (2001b). Hadza meat sharing. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22, 113–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkes, K., O’Connell, J. F., & Coxworth, J. E. (2010). Family provisioning is not the only reason men hunt: a comment on Gurven and Hill. Current Anthropology, 51, 259–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, K., & Kaplan, H. (1993). On why male foragers hunt and share food. Current Anthropology, 34, 701–710.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland, P. W., & Leinhardt, S. (1981). An exponential family of probability distributions for directed graphs. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 76, 33–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, D. R., Handcock, M. S., Butts, C. T., Goodreau, S. M., & Morris, M. (2008). ERGM: a package to fit, simulate and diagnose exponential-family models for networks. Journal of Statistical Software, 24, 1–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Whaling Commission. (2007). International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling Schedule, as Amended 2007. Cambridge: International Whaling Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isaac, G. (1978). The food-sharing behavior of protohuman hominids. Scientific American, 238, 90–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, H., & Hill, K. (1985). Food sharing among Ache foragers: tests of explanatory hypotheses. Current Anthropology, 26, 223–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, H., & Robson, A. J. (2002). The emergence of humans: the coevolution of intelligence and longevity with intergenerational transfers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99, 10221–10226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, R. D. (2003). Rethinking the evolutionary theory of aging: transfers, not births, shape senescence in social species. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100, 9637–9642.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, R. D. (2008). Sociality, selection, and survival: simulated evolution of mortality with intergenerational transfers and food sharing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105, 7124–7128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loftus, E. F., & Marburger, W. (1983). Since the eruption of Mt. St. Helens, has anyone beaten you up? Improving the accuracy of retrospective reports with landmark events. Memory and Cognition, 11, 114–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovejoy, C. O. (1981). The origin of man. Science, 211, 341–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mace, R., & Sear, R. (2005). Are humans cooperative breeders? In E. Voland, A. Chasiotis, & W. Schiefenhövel (Eds.), Grandmotherhood: The evolutionary significance of the second half of female life (pp. 143–159). New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magdanz, J. S., Utermohle, C. J., & Wolfe, R.J. (2002). The production and distribution of wild food in Wales and Deering, Alaska (Technical Paper 259). Juneau: Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

  • Marsden, P. V. (1990). Network data and measurement. Annual Review of Sociology, 16, 435–463.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maynard Smith, J. (1983). Models of evolution. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B, 219, 315–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maynard Smith, J., & Szathmary, E. (1995). The major transitions in evolution. Oxford: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrew, W. C., & Feistner, A. T. C. (1992). Two nonhuman primate models for the evolution of human food sharing: Chimpanzees and callitrichids. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 229–243). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noë, R. (2001). Biological markets: Partner choice as the driving force behind the evolution of cooperation. In R. Noë, J. van Hooff, & P. Hammerstein (Eds.), Economics in nature: Social dilemmas, mate choice and biological markets. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noë, R., & Hammerstein, P. (1994). Biological markets: supply and demand determine the effect of partner choice in cooperation, mutualism and mating. Behaviour Ecology and Sociobiology, 35, 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noë, R., & Hammerstein, P. (1995). Biological markets. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 10, 336–339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nolin, D. A. (2008). Food-sharing networks in Lamalera, Indonesia: Tests of adaptive hypotheses. Ph.D. thesis, University of Washington, Seattle.

  • Pampel, F. C. (2000). Logistic regression: A primer. (Sage University Papers Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, no. 07-132). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

  • Parker, S. T., & Gibson, K. R. (1979). A developmental model for the evolution of language and intelligence in early hominids. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2, 367–408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton, J. Q. (2005). Meat sharing for coalition support. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 137–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • R Development Core Team (2007). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Version 2.7.0. Retrieved from http://www.R-Project.org/.

  • Roberts, G. (1998). Competitive altruism: from reciprocity to the handicap principle. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 265, 427–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robins, G., Pattison, P., Kalish, Y., & Lusher, D. (2007). An introduction to exponential random graph (p*) models for social networks. Social Networks, 29, 169–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robson, A. J., & Kaplan, H. S. (2003). The evolution of human life expectancy and intelligence in hunter gather economies. American Economic Review, 93, 150–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sear, R., & Mace, R. (2008). Who keeps children alive? A review of the effects of kin on child survival. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E. A. (1988). Risk and uncertainty in the ‘original affluent society’: Evolutionary ecology of resource-sharing and land tenure. In T. Ingold, D. Riches, & J. Woodburn (Eds.), Hunter-Gatherers, vol. 1: History, evolution, and social change. Oxford: Berg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E. A., & Bliege Bird, R. L. (2000). Turtle hunting and tombstone opening: public generosity as costly signaling. Evolution and Human Behavior, 21, 245–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E. A., Bliege Bird, R. L., & Bird, D. W. (2003). The benefits of costly signaling: Meriam turtle hunters. Behavioral Ecology, 14, 116–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sosis, R. (2000). Costly signaling and torch fishing on Ifaluk Atoll. Evolution and Human Behavior, 21, 223–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spence, M. (1973). Job market signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87, 355–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, J. R., & Stephens, D. W. (2002). Food sharing: a model of manipulation by harassment. Behavioral Ecology, 13, 393–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sugiyama, L. S. (2004). Patterns of Shiwiar health insults indicate that provisioning during health crises reduces juvenile mortality. In M. S. Alvard (Ed.), Socioeconomic aspects of human behavioral ecology (Research in Economic Anthropology 23) (pp. 379–402). New York: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sugiyama, L. S., & Chacon, R. (2000). Effects of illness and injury among the Yora and Shiwiar: Pathology risk as adaptive problem. In N. A. Chagnon, L. Cronk, & W. Irons (Eds.), Human behavior and adaptation: An anthropological perspective (pp. 371–395). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, B. L., Baird, R., Barlow, J., Dawson, S. M., Ford, J., Mead, J. G., et al. (2009). Physeter macrocephalus. In IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2009.1. Retrieved from http://www.iucnredlist.org.

  • Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology, 46, 35–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, B. (2004). Giving, scrounging, hiding, and selling: minimal food sharing among Mikea of Madagascar. Research in Economic Anthropology, 23, 43–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Washburn, S. L., & Lancaster, C. S. (1968). The evolution of hunting. In R. B. Lee & I. DeVore (Eds.), Man the hunter (pp. 293–303). Chicago: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wasserman, S., & Pattison, P. (1996). Logit models and logistic regressions for social networks, I: an introduction to Markov graphs and p*. Psychometrika, 61, 401–425.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weissner, P. (2002). Hunting, healing and hxaro exchange: a long-term perspective on !Kung (Ju/’hoansi) large-game hunting. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23, 407–436.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitehead, H. (2003). Sperm whales: Social evolution in the ocean. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winterhalder, B. (1986). Diet choice, risk, and food sharing in a stochastic environment. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 5, 369–392.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winterhalder, B. (1990). Open field, common pot: Harvest variability and risk avoidance in agricultural and foraging societies. In E. Cashdan (Ed.), Risk and uncertainty in tribal and peasant economies (pp. 67–87). Boulder: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winterhalder, B. (1996). A marginal model of tolerated theft. Ethology and Sociobiology, 17, 37–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winterhalder, B. (1997). Gifts given, gifts taken: the behavioral ecology of nonmarket, intragroup exchange. Journal of Archaeological Research, 5, 121–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, S. (1922). Coefficients of inbreeding and relationship. American Naturalist, 56, 330–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahavi, A. (1975). Mate selection—a selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 53, 205–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahavi, A. (1977). The cost of honesty (further remarks on the handicap principle). Journal of Theoretical Biology, 67, 603–605.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziker, J. (2004). Nonmarket cooperation in the indigenous food economy of Taimyr, Arctic Russia: evidence for control and benefit. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 571.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziker, J. (2007). Subsistence and food sharing in Northern Siberia: social and nutritional ecology of the Dolgan and the Nganasan. Ecology of Food and Nutrition, 46, 445–467.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziker, J., & Schnegg, M. (2005). Food sharing at meals: kinship, reciprocity, and clustering in the Taimyr Autonomous Okrug, Northern Russia. Human Nature, 16, 178–211.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to the residents of Lamalera, Indonesia, for their patience, help, and hospitality, especially to my hosts, Y. B. Blikololong and family. I thank Michael Alvard, Steven Goodreau, Darryl Holman, Donna Leonetti, and Eric Smith for comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript, and Wesley Allen-Arave, Michael Gurven, Hillard Kaplan, Jeremy Koster, Paul Leslie, and Mary Shenk for insightful discussions on this topic. Field research was conducted under the auspices of the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI), with the cooperation of research counterpart Dedi Adhuri. Field research was funded by a National Science Foundation Dissertation Improvement Award (BCS-0514559). Postdoctoral research was supported by a Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Population Training Award (5T32 HD007168) to the Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina, CB# 8120, Chapel Hill, NC, 27516-2524, USA

    David A. Nolin

Authors
  1. David A. Nolin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David A. Nolin.

Additional information

Winner of the Evolutionary Anthropology Section’s Best Student Paper Award at the 2007 annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nolin, D.A. Food-Sharing Networks in Lamalera, Indonesia. Hum Nat 21, 243–268 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-010-9091-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-010-9091-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation