Ephemeral work group formation of Jenu Kuruba honey collectors and late 19th Century Colorado silver prospectors

in Behaviour
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

Humans frequently form short-lived cooperative groups to accomplish subsistence and economic tasks. We explore the ecological and cultural factors behind ephemeral work-group formation in two disparate cultural contexts: groups foraging for wild honey in present day South India and groups prospecting for silver ore in the Elk Mountain Mining District of Colorado in the late 19th century. Contrary to traditional economic foraging predictions, we find little evidence that per capita yields are the most important factor in determining size and composition of ephemeral work groups. We explore factors in each of these cultures that may be of importance for group formation such as kinship, reputation, and pleasure. Models that only incorporate economic parameters will make poor predictions of how humans interact with their environments.

Ephemeral work group formation of Jenu Kuruba honey collectors and late 19th Century Colorado silver prospectors

in Behaviour

Sections

References

  • AkaikeH. (1975). Markovian representation of stochastic processes by canonical variables. — SIAM J. Control 13: 162-173.

  • AlvardM. (2003). Kin preference and partner choice: patrilineal descent and biogical kinship in Lamaleran cooperative relationships. — Hum. Nat. 22: 156-176.

  • AlvardM.NolinD. (2002). Rousseau’s whale hunt? Coordination among big game hunters. — Curr. Anthropol. 43: 533-539.

  • BairdR.W.DillL.M. (1996). Ecological and social determinants of group size in transient killer whales. — Behav. Ecol. 7: 408-416.

  • BeckermanS. (1983). Optimal foraging group size for a human population: the case of Bari fishing. — Am. Zool. 23: 283.

  • Benoit-BirdK.J.AuW.W.L. (2009). Cooperative prey herding by the pelagic dolphin, Stenella longirostris. — J. Accost. Soc. Am. 125: 125-137.

  • Bliege BirdR.CoddingB.F.KauhanenP.G.BirdD.W. (2012). Aboriginal hunting buffers climate-driven fire-size variability in Australia’s spinifex grasslands. — Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109: 10287-10292.

  • BoeschC. (1994). Cooperative hunting in wild chimpanzees. — Anim. Behav. 48: 653-667.

  • BrownJ.L. (1982). Optimal group size in territorial animals. — J. Theor. Biol. 95: 793-810.

  • CaracoT. (1979). Time budgeting and group size: a test of theory. — Ecology 60: 618-627.

  • CaracoT.WolfL.L. (1975). Ecological determinants of group sizes of foraging lions. — Am. Nat. 109: 343-352.

  • Census of India (2001). — Census of India 2001 available online at http://www.censusindia.gov.in/Tables_Published/SCST/STRC_29.pdf

  • ClarkC.W. (1987). The lazy, adaptable lions: a Markovian model of group foraging. — Anim. Behav. 35: 361.

  • ClarkC.W.MangelM. (1984). Foraging and flocking strategies: information in an uncertain environment. — Am. Nat. 123: 626-641.

  • CodyM.L. (1971). Finch flocks in the Mohave desert. — Theor. Popul. Biol. 2: 142.

  • Colorado Historical Society. Denver Colorado: Colorado State Business Directories (1880–1885).

  • CreelS.CreelN.M. (1995). Communal hunting and pack size in African wild dogs, Lycaon pictus. — Anim. Behav. 50: 1325-1339.

  • GiraldeauL.A. (1988). The stable group and the determinants of foraging group size. — In: The ecology of social behavior ( SlobodchikoffC.N. ed.). Academic PressSan Diego, CA p.  33-53.

  • GiraldeauL.A.CaracoT. (1993). Genetic relatedness and group size in an agregation economy. — Evol. Ecol. 7: 429-438.

  • GloverS.M. (2009). Propaganda, public information, and prospecting: explaining the irrational exuberance of central place foragers during a late nineteenth century Colorado silver rush. — Hum. Ecol. 37: 519-531.

  • GloverS.M.TownerM.C. (2009). Long-distance dispersal to the mining frontier in late 19th century Colorado. — Behaviour 146: 677-700.

  • Gunnison County Recorder’s Office. Gunnison Colorado; Judge’s notes on criminal and civil court cases (1880–1884); Mining Claim Records 1879–2002.

  • HaaseC.L. (1971). Gothic CO City of Silver Wires. — Master’s Dissertation Western State College Gunnison CO.

  • HawkesK.HillK.O’ConnellJ.F. (1982). Why hunters gather: optimal foraging and the Ache of Eastern Paraguay. — Am. Ethnol. 9: 379-398.

  • HigashiM.YamamuraN. (1993). What determines animal group size? Insider-outsider conflict and its resolution. — Am. Nat. 142: 553-563.

  • HowellD.J. (1979). Flock foraging in nectar-feeding bats: advantages to the bats and to the host plants. — Am. Nat. 114: 23-49.

  • Imamura-HayakiK. (1996). Gathering activity among the Central Kalahari San. — Afr. Stud. Monogr. 22: 47-66.

  • JanssenM.A.HillK. (2013). Benefits of grouping and cooperative hunting among Ache hunter-gatherers: insights from an agent-based foraging model. — CSID Working Paper Series 2013-009. CSID Tempe AZ.

  • JarmanP.J. (1974). The social organization of antelope in relations to their ecology. — Behaviour 58: 215-267.

  • KramerD.L. (1985). Are colonies supraoptimal groups?Anim. Behav. 33: 1031-1032.

  • KruukH. (1975). Functional aspects of social hunting by carnivores. — In: Function evolution and behavior ( BaerendsG.BeerC.ManningA. eds). Clarendon PressOxford p.  119-141.

  • Leslie J. Savage Library at Western College. Gunnison Colorado: Elk Mountain Bonanza (July 1880–March 1881).

  • LopezP.F.M.ClauzetM.HanazakiN.RamiresM.SilvanoR.BegossiA. (2011). Foraging behavior of Brazilian riverine and coastal fishers: how much is explained by the optimal foraging theory?Conserv. Soc. 9: 236-246.

  • MathotK.J.GiraldeauL. (2010). Within-group relatedness can lead to higher levels of exploitation: a model and empirical test. — Behav. Ecol. 21: 843-850.

  • NuddsT.D. (1978). Convergence of group size strategies by mammalian social carnivores. — Am. Nat. 112: 957-960.

  • PackerC.ScheelD.PuseyA.E. (1990). Why lions form groups: food is not enough. — Am. Nat. 136: 1-19.

  • RantaE. (1993). There is no optimal foraging group size. — Anim. Behav. 46: 1032-1035.

  • RasmussenG.S.GussetM.CourchampF.MacdonaldD.W. (2008). Achilles’ heel of sociality revealed by energetic poverty trap in cursorial hunters. — Am. Nat. 172: 508-518.

  • RodmanP.S. (1981). Inclusive fitness and group size with a reconsideration of group sizes in lions and wolves. — Am. Nat. 118: 275-283.

  • SchmidtP.A.MechL.D. (1997). Wolf pack size and food acquisition. — Am. Nat. 150: 513-517.

  • SchoenerT.W. (1971). Theory of feeding strategies. — Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 2: 369-404.

  • SiblyR.M. (1983). Optimal group size is unstable. — Anim. Behav. 31: 947-948.

  • SmithE.A. (1981). The application of optimal foraging theory to the analysis of hunter-gatherer group size. — In: Hunter gatherer foraging strategies ( WinterhalderB.SmithE.A. eds). University of Chicago PressChicago, IL p.  35-65.

  • SmithE.A. (1985). Inuit foraging groups: some simple models incorporating conflicts of interest, relatedness, and central-place sharing. — Ethol. Sociobiol. 6: 27-47.

  • SmithE.A.WinterhalderB. (1992). Evolutionary ecology and human behavior. — Aldine de GruyterNew York, NY.

  • SosisR. (2002). Patch choice decisions among Ifaluk fishers. — Am. Anthropol. 104: 583-598.

  • StanderP.E. (1992). Cooperative hunting in lions: the role of the individual. — Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 29: 445-454.

  • StanderP.E.AlbonS.D. (1993). Hunting success of lions in a semi-arid environment. — Symp. Zool. Soc. Lond. 65: 127-143.

  • StrahornR.E. (1881). Gunnison and San Juan. A late and reliable description of the wonderful gold and silver belts and iron and coal fields of that newest and best land for prospector and capitalist southwestern Colorado… as presented in a series of letters written to the “New York world” by its special correspondent “R. E. S.” Also containing a valuable appendix on mining laws. — The New WestOmaha, NE.

  • Times of India (15 July 2013). Journey of Indian rupee since independence.

  • U.S. Census Bureau. Gunnison County Colorado 1880 Census. — Available online at http://www.ancestry.com (accessed 4 May 2005).

  • VandenbuscheD. (1980). The Gunnison Country. — B&B PublishersGunnison, CO.

  • VucetichJ.A.PetersonR.O.WaiteT.A. (2004). Raven scavenging favours group foraging in wolves. — Anim. Behav. 67: 1117-1126.

  • WarrenE. (1924). Diary of Edgar Warren Written in 1924 recalling the old days May 1882–Fall 1896. — Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory Archives Gothic.

  • WinterhalderB. (2002). Models. — In: Darwin and archaeology: a handbook of key concepts ( HartJ.TerrelJ. eds). GreenwoodNew York, NY p.  201-233.

  • WolleM.S. (1949). Stampede to Timberline: the ghost towns and mining camps of Colorado. — SageDenver, CO.

  • YipE.C.PowersK.S.AvilesL. (2008). Cooperative capture of large prey solves scaling challenge faced by spider societies. — Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105: 11818-11822.

Figures

  • View in gallery

    Graphical model of group formation depending on group composition. If group members have no control over group membership, then individuals will join the group until the rewards of joining a group are the same as foraging alone (nS: Sibly size). Typically group members do have control over group membership. Point nA is where the cooperative benefits are outweighed by the costs of competition over the resources gained or ‘optimal group size’. If potential joiners are related to group members, group members may allow the relative to join the group past nA and to nB because of inclusive fitness and increased trust. All individuals do not have equal competitive abilities. Those individuals that are particularly competitive will be more productive than other individuals. Groups with highly competitive members will be generally larger than groups without because the group foraging yield can be potentially larger. Also, a group of less competitive individuals may try to pick up a competitive member to increase total group product. Generally, the optimal size for these groups will be larger than groups without competitive members (nC).

  • View in gallery

    Box plots representing per capita profits in Rupees by group size for (a) hejjenu honey (A. dorsata, N=19) and (b) thuduvejenu honey (A. cerana, N=33). Groups are larger, on average, for collecting hejjenu, but there is no apparent correlation between group size and foraging success.

  • View in gallery

    Box plots representing the length of time a claim was of active legal interest (years) by group size (N=435). There is no apparent change in the median length of interest by group size. Note that few large groups are actually formed, which might indicate that these groups were actively avoided by prospectors.

Index Card

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 42 42 7
Full Text Views 139 139 0
PDF Downloads 7 7 0
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0