Hunter-Gatherer Storage, Settlement, and the Opportunity Costs of Women's Foraging

Food storage is a crucial subsistence strategyfor hunter-gatherers who live in environ-ments with predictable seasonal fluctuations

in resource availability (Goland 1991; Rowley-Conwy and Zvelebil 1989), but few models havebeen developed to explain the choice of resourcesfor storage (see Bettinger 2009 for one example).Optimal foraging theory has become a standard ap-proach for examining subsistence decisions, in-cluding which foods to include in the diet (e.g.,Broughton 2002; Cannon 2003; Madsen 1993;

Madsen and Schmitt 1998; Simms 1987; Ugan2005), where to locate central villages (e.g., Mor-gan 2008, 2009, 2012; Zeanah 2000, 2004), andwhen to field process resources (e.g., Barlow andMetcalfe 1996; Bettinger et al. 1997; Bird andBliege Bird 1997; Metcalfe and Barlow 1992).Storage falls outside the scope of traditional opti-mal foraging models, however, because it separatesforaging effort from consumption. The extra timethat hunter-gatherers must spend accumulating asurplus for storage has the potential to conflict

HUNTER-GATHERER STORAGE, SETTLEMENT, AND THE OPPORTUNITY COSTS OF WOMEN’S FORAGING

Carly S. Whelan, Adrian R. Whitaker, Jeffrey S. Rosenthal, and Eric Wohlgemuth

Food storage is a crucial adaptation for hunter-gatherers who face seasonal resource shortfalls, but the extra time thathunter-gatherers must spend accumulating food surpluses has the potential to conflict with the time they need for otheractivities during seasons of abundance. Since the activities that conflict with storage may be different for women and men,it is important to consider which gender is responsible for storage. We argue that when women perform most storage tasks,the tradeoff between foraging and childcare is likely to shape storage behavior, particularly the decision of which foods tostore. Our analysis of storage food preferences among the prehistoric hunter-gatherers of California’s Sierra Nevada sug-gests that women altered their storage strategy during the late Holocene when the shift to a semi-sedentary settlement sys-tem increased the conflict they faced between foraging and providing childcare. The adoption of an acorn-based storageeconomy during this period allowed women to minimize the time they spent foraging away from their residential bases, sothey could better accommodate their childcare needs. This study demonstrates the utility of considering issues beyond therate of caloric return from foraging to develop more complete models of hunter-gatherer behavior and explanations of thearchaeological record.

El almacenamiento de la comida es una adaptación crítica para cazadores-recolectores quien se enfrentan déficits estacio-nales en los alimentos, pero el tiempo que los cazadores-recolectores tienen que gastar en acumular excedentes de comidapuede estar en pugna con otras demandas en su tiempo durante las estaciones de abundancia. Como las actividades que estánen conflicto con el almacenamiento pueden ser diferentes para hombres y mujeres, también es importante considerar cual sexoes lo responsable para almacenar. Sostenemos que cuando las mujeres hacen la mayoría del trabajo relacionado con alma-cenamiento, la interacción entre buscar la comida o cuidar los niños va a influenciar su comportamiento con respecto al alma-cenamiento. Nuestro análisis de las preferencias entre cazadores-recolectores prehistóricos de las montañas de la Sierra Nevadade California sugiere que las mujeres cambiaron su estrategia de almacenamiento durante el Holoceno Tardío cuando el cam-bio a un sistema de asentamiento semi-sedentario aumentó el conflicto que se enfrentaron entre buscar comida y cuidar losniños. La adopción de una economía basada en el almacenamiento de bellotas durante esta época permitió que las mujeresacomodaran sus necesidades de cuidar niños en una mejora manera. Este estudio muestra la utilidad de considerar asuntosafuera de la taza calórica de retorno de forrajear para desarrollar modelos más completos del comportamiento de los caza-dores-recolectores y explicaciones del registro arqueológico.

Carly S. Whelan � Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616 ([email protected])Adrian R. Whitaker, Jeffrey S. Rosenthal, and Eric Wohlgemuth � Far Western Anthropological Research Group,Davis, CA 95618

American Antiquity 78(4), 2013, pp. 662–678Copyright © 2013 by the Society for American Archaeology

662

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 99.

113.

68.1

60

Wed

nesd

ay, O

ctob

er 0

2, 2

013

11:2

7:50

PM

Whelan et al.] STORAGE, SETTLEMENT, AND THE OPPORTUNITY COSTS OF WOMEN’S FORAGING 663

with the time they need for other activities duringseasons of abundance, creating an opportunity costto storage (Morgan 2012). The decision of whichfoods to store may, therefore, be shaped not just bythe need to efficiently acquire calories, but by theneed to accommodate competing activities. Sincethe activities that conflict with storage may be dif-ferent for women and men (Bliege Bird 1999,2007; Bliege Bird and Bird 2008; Codding et al.2011), it is also important to consider which gen-der is responsible for storage. We argue that whenwomen perform most storage tasks, the tradeoff be-tween foraging and childcare is likely to shapestorage behavior, particularly the decision of whichfoods to store.

We examine the role that the tradeoff betweenforaging and childcare may have played in dri-ving shifts in storage economies with a case studyfrom the central Sierra Nevada of California. Thearchaeological record of the central Sierra Nevadaindicates that fall-ripening gray pine (Pinus sabini-ana) nuts and acorns (Quercus spp.) were impor-tant foods for storage during the majority of theHolocene. Though the return rate range of graypine nuts at 786–1335 kcal/hr is similar to that ofacorns at 599–1347 kcal/hr (Table 1), acorns in-creased in importance relative to gray pine nuts af-ter 1100 cal B.P. This shift in storage preferencescoincides with a change from a residentially mobilesettlement strategy to a semi-sedentary one that re-quired longer logistical trips to procure resources.We argue that such lengthy foraging trips createda conflict for women between foraging to accu-mulate food stores and providing childcare, mak-ing a storage strategy that minimized foraging timemore preferable. By analyzing the potential of sev-eral Sierra Nevada plant foods to minimize forag-ing time, we find that acorns are best suited forsuch a strategy. We propose that the shift in storagestrategies that occurred in the central Sierra Nevadawas caused by an increase in the opportunity costswomen experienced while foraging.

Optimal Foraging Theory and Models for Food Storage

Optimal foraging theory provides a framework forexplaining hunter-gatherer behavior by producingmodels that can be tested against the archaeologi-cal record (Bettinger 1987; Kaplan and Hill 1992;

Winterhalder and Smith 1981). These models usu-ally assume that strategies that maximize the net ac-quisition rate of energy while foraging will havehigher fitness, and selection will favor cognitivemechanisms and culturally inherited rules of thumbto produce behaviors that meet this goal (Winter-halder and Smith 2000:54). One of the most com-monly used models to predict hunter-gatherer dietchoice is the prey choice, or diet breadth, model(MacArthur and Pianka 1966; Schoener 1971;Stephens and Krebs 1986). The model ranks po-tential prey items according to the number of calo-ries they produce per unit time spent procuringand processing them for consumption— a measurereferred to as post-encounter return rate. Though anoptimal diet set can be calculated by taking preyabundance into account, a general prediction of thismodel is that items with high post-encounter returnrates will be preferred.

The prey choice model is not well suited toevaluating hunter-gatherer storage decisions, how-ever, because it aggregates all time required toprocure and process a resource for consumptioninto a single measure of handling time. Though thisis appropriate if resources are procured, processed,and consumed at a single point in time, it presentsproblems if resources are procured and prepared forstorage at one time and processed and consumed atanother. Divorcing resource acquisition from con-sumption creates the possibility that stored foodmay never be consumed and all effort expended onstoring it will be wasted. The front- and back-loaded resource model (Bettinger 2009) addressesthis problem by quantifying pre- and post-storagehandling time separately and labeling resourcesthat require more pre-storage handling time asfront-loaded and those that require more post-stor-age handling time as back-loaded. The model pre-dicts that front-loaded resources will be preferredfor storage when uncertainty that a cache will beused is low because they have higher post-en-counter return rates than back-loaded resourcesand there is less chance the time spent cachingthem will be wasted. Back-loaded resources will bepreferred for storage when uncertainty is high be-cause there is a good chance that caches will neverbe used and back-loaded resources require littletime to store.

The time lag that exists between resource ac-quisition and consumption in a storage economy

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 99.

113.

68.1

60

Wed

nesd

ay, O

ctob

er 0

2, 2

013

11:2

7:50

PM

creates an additional problem from the perspectiveof optimal foraging theory: time expended on pro-ducing surplus for storage during one season maynot hold the same value as time expended on pro-cessing stored foods for consumption during an-other. This is because time devoted to storage can-

not be used for other important activities, such asproviding childcare, conducting trade, or engagingin social pursuits. When the same effort cannot beallocated to two tasks simultaneously, choosingeither entails opportunity costs (Hames 1992;Hawkes et al. 1985; Smith 1987; Winterhalder

664 AMERICAN ANTIqUITY [Vol. 78, No. 4, 2013

Table 1. Post-Encounter Return Rates of Sierra Nevada Plant Foods.

Ranka Plant Type Scientific Name Common Name Post-Encounter Return Rate (kcal/hr)1 Root Lomatium spp. Biscuit Root 143–3867bc

2 Nut Quercus lobata Valley Oak 1138–1335d

2 Nut Quercus kelloggii Black Oak 786–1276de

2 Nut Quercus chrysolepis Canyon Live Oak 979d

2 Nut Quercus douglasii Blue Oak 915–1038df

2 Nut Pinus sabiniana Gray Pine 599–1347g

2 Nut Pinus lambertiana Sugar Pine 600–1340g

3 Fruit Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon 500–700h

3 Fruit Rhus spp. Sumac 500–700h

3 Fruit Ribes spp. Currant 500–700h

3 Fruit Rosa gymnocarpa Wood Rose 500–700h

3 Fruit Rubus spp. Blackberry, Raspberry 500–700h

3 Fruit Sambucus spp. Elderberry 500–700h

4 Small Seed Elymus spp. Rye Grass 267–1238i

4 Small Seed Poa spp. Bluegrass 312–805i

4 Small Seed Lepidium fremontii Peppergrass 537i

4 Small Seed Helianthus annus Sunflower 426–561i

4 Small Seed Hordeum spp. Native Barley 138–274i

5 Buckeye Aesculus californica Buckeye 179–717j

6 Green Claytonia perfoliata Miner’s Lettuce 150–400k

6 Green Lupinus spp. Lupine 150–400k

6 Green Pteridium aquilinum Bracken Fern 150–400k

6 Green Trifolium spp. Clover 150–400k

7 Root Calochortus spp. Lily 425c

7 Root Camassia quamash Camas 260c

7 Root Allium spp. Wild Onion 150caRanks are determined for each plant type, based on its mean post-encounter return rate. Biscuit root (Lomatium spp.) andbuckeye (Aesculus californica) are ranked individually.bData from Couture et al. (1986:Table 3).cData from Trammel et al. (2008).dData from Barlow and Heck (2002:Table 11.3).eData from Bettinger et al. (1997:Table 1).fData from McCarthy (1993:316).gPost-encounter return rate ranges for gray pine (Pinus sabiniana) and sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana) nuts are calculatedusing caloric values reported by Farris (1982:78) and collection and processing rates reported for piñon pine (Pinus mono-phylla) by Barlow and Metcalfe (1996:Table 3).hPost-encounter return rate range for fruits is estimated from reported rates for similar-sized berries from Raven and Elston(1989), Winterhalder (1981), and Zeanah et al. (1995).iData from Simms (1987:113-125).jPost-encounter return rate range for buckeye is estimated using the caloric value reported by Gilliland (1985:Table 4-3);the collection rate is reported by Rosenthal and Elsasser (1980:Table 5); acorn processing rates are reported by Barlow andHeck (2002:Table 11.3).kPost-encounter return rate range for greens is estimated from reported rates for similar resources from Zeanah et al. (1995).

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 99.

113.

68.1

60

Wed

nesd

ay, O

ctob

er 0

2, 2

013

11:2

7:50

PM

1983). The opportunity cost of an activity is theamount of benefit forgone by choosing to engagein that activity instead of an alternative (Hames1992:205). As one engages in an activity, the mar-ginal benefit provided by that activity diminishesover time as the need for it is met (Figure 1). At thesame time, the opportunity cost of forgoing an al-ternative activity increases as the neglect of it be-gins to impose a cost. The opportunity cost of stor-age will, therefore, vary seasonally, depending onthe number and nature of activities that competewith it.

Previous research has demonstrated the utilityof the opportunity cost model for explaining sub-sistence decisions. In his evaluation of acorn stor-age in the southern Sierra Nevada, Morgan (2012)finds that the Western Mono strategy of cachingacorns in the groves in which they are gathered,rather than transporting them to a centralized win-ter settlement for storage, minimizes the time thatmust be devoted to storage in the fall. This allowsthe Western Mono to spend more time harvesting

grass seeds and participating in social gatheringsduring this season. Eerkens et al. (2004) argue thatthe season of piñon pine (Pinus monophylla) nutharvesting was shifted from fall to spring in theOwens Valley of Eastern California when the in-troduction of irrigated seed plots created a timeconflict in the fall. Though it is less energeticallyefficient to harvest piñon pine nuts in the spring,there are few activities that compete with it duringthis season. In an ethnographic study of the Martuof Western Australia, Zeanah et al. (2012) notethat women do not process seeds immediately af-ter gathering them, but delay this labor for weeksor even months. They argue that the introduction ofmotorized vehicles to the area has both made it eas-ier to delay seed processing (by allowing womento transport large quantities of unprocessed seedsback to camp) and created an opportunity cost toimmediate seed processing, since this time could bespent using vehicles to access new foragingpatches.

Despite the utility of the opportunity cost modelfor explaining subsistence decisions, it has pri-marily been used to evaluate the tradeoffs faced byentire groups of hunter-gatherers. Men and womenhave different foraging goals and experience dif-ferent tradeoffs with non-subsistence activities(Bliege Bird 1999, 2007; Bliege Bird and Bird2008; Codding et al. 2011). This means that stor-age tradeoffs will vary among hunter-gatherer so-cieties, depending on which gender is responsiblefor storage. Because women are responsible forgathering and processing plant foods in most con-temporary foraging groups (Kelly 1995), and wereapparently responsible for the same activities inhistoric Native American societies in the WesternUnited States (e.g., Barrett and Gifford 1933; Kroe-ber 1925; Steward 1938), they were likely respon-sible for storage in prehistoric groups that relied onplant foods. To explain storage behavior in such so-cieties, it is necessary to evaluate the opportunitycosts that women face while foraging.

The Opportunity Costs of Women’s ForagingAmong non-subsistence activities, childcare likelyposes the most significant tradeoff to foraging thatwomen face (Hurtado et al. 1992). Little conflictexists between food processing activities and child-care, because women tend to process food at the


Figure 1. Graphical representation of the opportunitycost model, adapted from Hames (1992:Figure 7.1). Asone engages in an activity, the marginal benefit providedby that activity diminishes over time as the need for it ismet (represented by the solid curve). At the same time, theopportunity cost of forgoing an alternative activityincreases as the neglect of it begins to impose a cost (rep-resented by the dashed curves). The optimal time to allotto the activity is the maximum distance between thecurves (represented by the dotted lines). Dashed curves i,j, and k represent opportunity costs of different magni-tudes with different corresponding optimal activity allot-ment times (Ti, Tj, and Tk). Generally, the model predictsthat an activity with a high opportunity cost will have alow optimal allotment time.

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 99.

113.

68.1

60

Wed

nesd

ay, O

ctob

er 0

2, 2

013

11:2

7:50

PM

residential base where they can simultaneouslymonitor their children (Hawkes et al. 1997; Hur-tado et al. 1985; Hurtado and Hill 1987). Womenof reproductive age may also be able to shift someof the burden of food processing to post-repro-ductive female relatives, allowing them to focus onproviding direct childcare while in camp (Gurvenet al. 2009:163). When they leave the residentialbase to forage, however, women must decidewhether to bring their children along or leave themin the care of others.

Children often compromise the efficiency oftheir mothers on foraging trips because they requirecare and are unable to walk at an adult pace. Theburden that young children impose on their moth-ers while foraging is well illustrated by the empir-ical finding that women with infants forage less ef-ficiently than women without infants (Hames 1988;Hawkes et al. 1997; Hurtado et al. 1985; Hurtadoet al.1992; Marlowe 2003). Toddlers place a greaterburden on women, and it is no surprise that they areoften left in the care of others when women go onforaging trips (Bird and Bliege Bird 2005; Good-man et al. 1985:1207; Marlowe 2003:219, 2005).

Even children who are able to walk on their owncan decrease the foraging efficiency of their moth-ers if they are unable to contribute to the foragingeffort. !Kung women often say that taking childrenon gathering trips “spoils the work” because chil-dren get tired, thirsty, and plead to be taken home(Blurton Jones et al. 1994a, 1994b). Martu womenremark that children are too slow to keep pacewhen they are tracking goanna lizards and do notbring them on such hunting trips (Bird and BliegeBird 2005:135). Similarly, Agta women do notbring children on hunting trips until they reach anage at which they are deemed useful (Goodman etal. 1985:1207). When they must take young chil-dren on foraging trips to the reef, Meriam womentypically engage in the second most profitable fish-ing activity, because the most profitable one sufferssignificant declines in efficiency when childrenare present (Bliege Bird 2007).

Children are regularly taken on foraging tripsonly when their foraging gains offset their mothers’losses. Both Mikea and Hadza children can prof-itably dig for tubers when close to camp, but Hadzachildren’s foraging return rates decline on longtrips due to their slow pace (Hawkes et al. 1995;Tucker and Young 2005). To compensate for this,

Hadza women typically target berries on long ex-cursions, since children can feed themselves asthey gather (Hawkes et al. 1995).

When women do not take their children on for-aging excursions, they must rely on others to carefor them at the residential base. The decision toleave children in the care of others while foragingis potentially risky, however, because the level ofattention children receive from their babysittersvaries according to the age of the children andtheir relationship to the babysitter (Hurtado et al.1985:8). Aché, Hiwi, and Hadza women withfewer suitable caregivers for their children tend tospend less time foraging far from camp thanwomen with more suitable caregivers (Hawkes etal. 1997; Hurtado et al. 1985; Hurtado et al. 1992),suggesting that the cost of leaving children in thecare of others can outweigh the benefit of spend-ing more time foraging.

The conflict between foraging and childcarewas likely as pressing for prehistoric hunter-gath-erer women as it is for contemporary hunter-gath-erer women. The severity of this conflict may havefluctuated for particular groups over time, however,as changes in climate, population density, or set-tlement strategy altered foraging conditions.Women likely adopted new foraging strategies inthe face of such changes, allowing them to betteraccommodate their childcare needs. We examinethe potential of changing settlement strategies to af-fect women’s storage decisions with a case studyfrom the central Sierra Nevada of California.

Storage and Settlement in the Central Sierra Nevada

Ethnographic and Archaeological ContextThe ethnographically documented Sierra Me-Wuk1

of the central Sierra Nevada were semi-sedentaryhunter-gatherers who used seasonal transhumanceand storage to cope with resource variability (Bar-rett and Gifford 1933; Merriam 1967). From falluntil early summer, the Sierra Me-Wuk lived inpermanent villages below the snow line (Barrettand Gifford 1933:129). Each village controlled asmall tract of land and held exclusive rights to theuse of resources within it (Gifford 1926:389). Bothwomen and men embarked on logistical foragingtrips from these residential bases to procure food


Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 99.

113.

68.1

60

Wed

nesd

ay, O

ctob

er 0

2, 2

013

11:2

7:50

PM

(Barrett and Gifford 1933). In summer, foothillvillages were largely abandoned for temporarycamps at higher elevations in the mountains wherefood was more plentiful, due to seasonal deer mi-grations and delayed seasons of plant food ripen-ing (Barrett 1908:336; Barrett and Gifford1933:137; Kroeber 1925:442–443). Though menstill hunted logistically from these camps (Barrettand Gifford 1933), women likely did not have totravel as far to find food. Because plant foods wereunavailable during the winter, both women andmen accumulated surplus quantities of food duringthe productive seasons for storage in foothill vil-lages (Barrett and Gifford 1933:139–140). Plantfoods made up the bulk of the stores, and amongthese, fall-ripening acorns were considered themost important and provided the vegetable stapleof the diet for much of the year (Barrett and Gifford1933:142).

The archaeological record of the central SierraNevada suggests that seasonal transhumance andstorage have considerable antiquity in the region,but repeated use of permanent foothill villages didnot begin until the Recent Prehistoric (RP) period(1100–150 cal B.P.). It is likely that archaeologicalsites located in the foothills were primarily falland winter settlements, as deep snow at higher el-evations would have precluded occupation of themontane zone during that part of the year. Resi-dential sites from all time periods in the foothillsare dominated by fall-ripening nut crops; foodsthat appear to have been stored for winter con-sumption since at least the Middle Holocene(Meyer 2008; Rosenthal 2011). Foothill sites fromthe Middle Archaic (MA) period (7000–3000 calB.P.) and Late Archaic (LA) period (3000–1100 calB.P.) are larger on average than those from the RPperiod (Table 2), and they typically lack midden de-posits (Rosenthal 2011). They also contain narrowtool assemblages and few residential features.Taken together, this suggests repeated, short-termuse of broad landforms during the MA and LA pe-riods, typical of a fairly fluid settlement system. Incontrast, foothill sites from the RP period tend to besmall, have charcoal-rich middens with abundantfire-affected rock, house structures, and other res-idential features (including graves), and contain avariety of artifact classes indicating a broad rangeof residential activities (Rosenthal 2011). Perma-nent milling features, known as bedrock mortars,

are ubiquitous at these sites, indicating a substan-tial investment of time and providing evidence forrepeated use of the sites. RP period deposits alsocontain more spring- and summer-ripening smallseeds and fruits than MA and LA period deposits,suggesting foothill sites were occupied for a greaterpart of the year during the RP period.

Though the southern Sierra Nevada boasts animpressive number of rock ring cache features(Morgan 2006, 2008, 2012), no such features havebeen identified in the central Sierra Nevada. Theonly documented storage features in this region aresubterranean pits containing charred acorn andgray pine nut shell identified at the MA locus ofCA-TUO-4559 (Meyer 2008; Rosenthal 2008).The absence of subterranean storage features fromLA and RP sites may be due to the adoption ofabove-ground granaries like those used ethno-graphically by the Sierra Me-Wuk. These featuresare built entirely of perishable materials (Figure 2;Barrett and Gifford 1933:207–208) and wouldleave few traces archaeologically. With a dearth ofrecognizable storage features, the archaeobotanicalrecord of fall-winter camp sites can provide a rea-sonable approximation of the storage diet, since


Table 2. Central Sierra Nevada Site Size by Period.

Sitea Components Presentb Area (m2)CA-MRP-1881 Middle/Late Archaic 5500CA-MRP-1990 Middle/Late Archaic 625CA-MRP-1992 Middle Archaic 250CA-MRP-2036 Middle/Late Archaic 800CA-TUO-2192/H Late Archaic 1782CA-TUO-2193 Late Archaic 19792CA-TUO-4513 Middle/Late Archaic 2275CA-TUO-4514 Middle/Late Archaic 23561CA-TUO-4523 Middle Archaic 9554CA-TUO-4559 Middle/Late Archaic 20420Average 8456

CA-018-TM-4 Recent Prehistoric 1350CA-MRP-1878 Recent Prehistoric 450CA-MRP-1993 Recent Prehistoric 150CA-TUO-2194 Recent Prehistoric 235Average 546aData from sites in Tuolumne County (TUO) are fromRosenthal 2008. Data from sites in Mariposa County(MRP) are previously unpublished.bComponents within sites were identified using chronos-tratigraphy with radiocarbon dates and marker artifacts.Their date ranges are as follows: Middle Archaic7000–3000 cal B.P.; Late Archaic 3000–1100 cal B.P.;Recent Prehistoric 1100–150 cal B.P.

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 99.

113.

68.1

60

Wed

nesd

ay, O

ctob

er 0

2, 2

013

11:2

7:50

PM

these sites served as repositories for stored foodconsumed during the unproductive winter season.

We have compiled archaeobotanical data from30 components of low elevation sites in the centralSierra Nevada (Figure 3) that date to the MA, LA,and RP periods (Table 3). For each component, wepresent the density values (in milligrams per liter)of wood charcoal, acorns, and gray pine nuts re-covered from soil samples. We also present the av-erage plant density values for each time period. Be-cause plant remains are subject to differentialpreservation through time, average density valuesdo not provide the best means to detect temporalchange in plant use. To control for these factors, weuse several relational indices (following Asch et al.1972; Pearsall 2000) to investigate change in the re-lationship between acorns and gray pine nuts fromthe MA through the RP period. Since most com-ponent assemblages in our sample have too fewidentified specimens to generate meaningful num-bers on their own, we use the average density val-ues for each time period to calculate indices com-paring acorns and gray pine nuts to each other andto non-dietary wood charcoal (Table 4). Figure 4graphically compares these indices by period on alogarithmic scale. The gray pine nut to wood char-

coal index drops off precipitously after the MA pe-riod, suggesting declining use of gray pine nutsover time. The acorn to wood charcoal index dropsslightly during the LA period, but increases four-fold during the RP period to reach its highest level.This trend is mirrored by the acorn to gray pine nutindex, which makes steady gains throughout alltime periods. The ubiquity of bedrock mortars inRP period sites lends further support to an increasein acorn use during this period, as bedrock mortarswere used ethnographically to prepare acorns forconsumption (Barrett and Gifford 1933; Merriam1967).

We argue that this shift in the storage diet wascaused by the change in settlement strategy that oc-curred during the RP period. Central Sierra Nevadaforagers appear to have been more residentiallymobile during the MA and LA periods and more lo-gistically mobile during the RP period (Rosenthal2011). In residentially mobile settlement systems,women forage in short bouts within the vicinity oftheir camp, which is moved as soon as the re-sources surrounding it become depleted (Kelly1995). It is easier to bring children on such shortforaging trips (Hawkes et al. 1995), and when theyare left with others at camp it is only for a brief du-


Figure 2. Historical photograph of two women and a child with an acorn granary in Yosemite Valley, from the C. HartMerriam Collection of Native American Photographs (Bancroft Unit ID:5, courtesy of the Bancroft Library, Universityof California, Berkeley).

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 99.

113.

68.1

60

Wed

nesd

ay, O

ctob

er 0

2, 2

013

11:2

7:50

PM

ration. Though moves between camps are more fre-quent in residentially mobile systems, they are of-ten taken at a leisurely pace to allow women to for-age and tend to their children along the way(Hurtado et al. 1985; Kelly 1995). Foragers with lo-gistically mobile settlement systems use residentialsites for longer periods of time, requiring womento make longer daily foraging trips as resources be-come exhausted in the vicinity of their camp (Kelly

1995). This is more energetically expensive forwomen because it increases the transport cost of in-fants while foraging (Surovell 2000). It also forceswomen to choose between bringing young childrenon long foraging trips or leaving them in the careof others for long periods of time. The opportunitycosts of foraging are, therefore, higher for womenwith logistically mobile settlement systems than forwomen with residentially mobile ones.


Figure 3. Map of central California with the sites used in this study.

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 99.

113.

68.1

60

Wed

nesd

ay, O

ctob

er 0

2, 2

013

11:2

7:50

PM


If the opportunity costs of foraging increased forcentral Sierra Nevada women during the RP period,they may have decreased the time they spent for-aging (Figure 1). They could have done this bychoosing to store foods that can be accumulatedquickly during the fall. Though these foods may re-quire a greater amount of time to process, this la-bor could have been delayed until the winter andcarried out at the residential base while childrenwere monitored. The best foods to target for stor-age during the RP period would, therefore, be theones that minimize pre-storage handling time, notthe ones with the highest post-encounter returnrates.

Storage Potential of Sierra Nevada Plant FoodsTo evaluate the potential of Sierra Nevada plantfoods to minimize pre-storage handling time, weconstruct a measure we refer to as the “storage re-turn rate,” the number of calories that will be pro-vided by a stored food, divided by the time requiredto gather and prepare it for storage. We use pub-lished measurements of caloric content and esti-mates of collection and processing times for fourSierra Nevada plant food types (acorns, smallseeds, fruits, and gray pine nuts) to calculate theirstorage return rates.

Central Sierra Nevada hunter-gatherers col-lected acorns from the ground after they fell from

Table 3. Average Archaeobotanical Densities of Site Components by Period.

Wood (mg/L) Acorn (mg/L) Gray Pine (mg/L) ReferenceRecent Prehistoric (1100–150 cal B.P.)CA-018-TM-4 2075.52 23.18 46.51 Previously unpublishedCA-CAL-116 1710.10 60.09 17.64 Siskin and Martin 2013CA-CAL-1722 419.28 .95 35.66 Wohlgemuth and Whitaker 2009CA-CAL-1856 1.45 .37 11.70 Rosenthal et al. 2007CA-CAL-1866 1.14 .02 1.52 Rosenthal et al. 2007CA-CAL-2054 (locus 1) 203.98 .16 .99 Wohlgemuth and Whitaker 2009CA-CAL-2054 (locus 2) 275.35 2.98 17.28 Wohlgemuth and Whitaker 2009CA-ELD-44 229.50 12.61 32.61 Waechter and Andolina 2008CA-MRP-1989 938.59 12.00 49.17 Previously unpublishedCA-TUO-2194 9880.79 25.96 45.74 Rosenthal 2012CA-TUO-2197 2875.00 13.93 89.25 Waugh and Rondeau 1992CA-TUO-2642 3224.43 99.80 145.24 Rosenthal 2011CA-TUO-2643 308.94 24.39 47.84 Rosenthal 2011CA-TUO-2797 1387.00 16.10 67.97 Whitaker and Rosenthal 2010aAverage 1647.12 20.97 43.32 -

Late Archaic (3000–1100 cal B.P.)CA-CAL-789 73.49 .74 8.84 Rosenthal and McGuire 2004CA-CAL-1722 51.69 .12 1.96 Wohlgemuth and Whitaker 2009CA-CAL-1983 2563.60 .97 .63 Whitaker and Rosenthal 2011CA-CAL-2049 43.00 .04 .26 Thorpe et al. 2007CA-ELD-44 185.70 7.69 40.02 Waechter and Andolina 2008CA-MRP-1881 28.76 .05 .97 Previously unpublishedCA-MRP-1989 7.37 .33 .19 Previously unpublishedCA-TUO-2469 64.40 .10 .10 Rosenthal 2012CA-TUO-4514 (lower) 26.77 .16 .49 Rosenthal 2011CA-TUO-4514 (ten steaks) 10.94 .05 .15 Rosenthal 2011CA-TUO-4514 (upper) 9.56 .02 .24 Rosenthal 2011CA-TUO-4559 96.00 .10 4.26 Rosenthal 2011Average 263.44 .86 4.84 -

Middle Archaic (7000-3000 cal B.P.)CA-MRP-1881 32.19 .27 11.20 Previously unpublishedCA-MRP-1992 15.01 - 1.01 Previously unpublishedCA-TUO-4523 10.20 .02 .21 Rosenthal 2011CA-TUO-4559 8.82 .14 1.88 Rosenthal 2011Average 26.36 .10 2.89 -D

eliv

ered

by

http

://sa

a.m

etap

ress

.com

So

ciet

y fo

r A

mer

ican

Arc

haeo

logy

- A

mer

ican

Ant

iqui

ty a

cces

s (3

92-8

9-74

6)

IP A

ddre

ss: 9

9.11

3.68

.160

W

edne

sday

, Oct

ober

02,

201

3 11

:27:

50 P

M

oak trees in late fall, and dried them before bring-ing them to camp for storage (Barrett and Gifford1933:143; Bettinger et al. 1997:894; McCarthy1993:270). To calculate the storage return rate ofacorns, we use the caloric value and experimentalgathering and processing times provided by Bet-tinger et al. (1997:Table 1) for black oak acorns(Quercus kelloggii).

The Sierra Me-Wuk collected small seeds fromlate spring until late summer using seed beaters andburden baskets, or by uprooting entire plants andleaving them to dry in the sun before beating theseeds out (Barrett and Gifford 1933:151–155). Tocalculate the storage return rate of small seeds, weuse the caloric value and experimental gatheringand processing times provided by Simms(1987:117–118) for peppergrass (Lepidium spp.).Simms’ processing times include only winnowing

and parching, while the Sierra Me-Wuk winnowedand sun-dried seeds after collecting them andparched and pounded them into meal after remov-ing them from stores (Barrett and Gifford1933:152–155). Though this means the storage re-turn rate we calculate for small seeds is somewhatlower than it should be, this difference would notbe great enough to affect the rank order of storagereturn rates for the four resources we consider.

The Sierra Me-Wuk picked fruits from latespring until late summer and sun-dried them forstorage (Barrett and Gifford 1933:161–163). Tocalculate the storage return rate of fruits, we use thecaloric value and experimental gathering time pro-vided by Winterhalder (1981:83) for blueberries(Vaccinium spp.). Because fruits were passivelysun-dried before storage, we assume that the pre-storage processing time for this resource was neg-ligible and do not include it in our estimate of pre-storage handling time.

In early fall, the Sierra Me-Wuk detached graypine cones from trees, burned them, and brokethem open with hammer stones to remove theseeds for transport back to camp (Barrett and Gif-ford 1933:150). We use Farris’s (1982:78) measureof caloric value for gray pine nuts, but becausegathering and processing times have not been ex-perimentally derived for them, we use data col-lected by Barlow and Metcalfe (1996:Table 3)from piñon pine nut processing experiments as aproxy. Though their processing times are likelysimilar, gray pine cones are more time consuming


Table 4. Archaeobotanical Indices by Period.

Acorn Gray PineNut to Wood IndicesRecent Prehistoric .012 .026Late Archaic .003 .018Middle Archaic .006 .216

Acorn to Gray Pine IndexRecent Prehistoric .480 -Late Archaic .178 -Middle Archaic .029 -Note: Period date ranges are as follows: Middle Archaic7000–3000 cal B.P.; Late Archaic 3000–1100 cal B.P.;Recent Prehistoric 1100–150 cal B.P.

Figure 4. Archaeobotanical indices by period.

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 99.

113.

68.1

60

Wed

nesd

ay, O

ctob

er 0

2, 2

013

11:2

7:50

PM

to collect than piñon pine cones (Barrett and Gif-ford 1933:149; Farris 1982:20), so the storage re-turn rate we calculate for gray pine nuts may be aslight overestimate. However, this differencewould not be great enough to affect the rank orderof storage return rates for the four resources weconsider.

Table 5 compares the caloric values, pre-storagehandling times (the combined collection and pre-storage processing times), and storage return ratesof acorns, small seeds, fruits, and gray pine nuts.The caloric values are presented in kilograms of ed-ible (completely processed) resource and the stor-age return rates are calculated in kilograms of ed-ible resource per hour. Acorns have by far thehighest storage return rate at 14,535 kcal/hr, whilegray pine nuts rank second with a storage returnrate of 3,634 kcal/hr. Fruits and small seeds haveconsiderably lower storage return rates at 650 and548 kcal/hr, respectively.

To further highlight the time requirements ofprocuring and preparing these four resources forstorage, we calculate the weight of each plant foodthat would be necessary to feed a single forager forthe winter season and the amount of time neededto collect and prepare this quantity of food forstorage. Assuming an average daily need of 2,440kcal (Kelly 1995:102), a forager would require219,600 kcal during a storage period of 90 days.Table 6 presents the weight and pre-storage han-dling time of each plant food that would be re-quired to meet this caloric need. It would take only15.1 hours to accumulate and store enough acornsto last a three-month period, while it would take60.4 hours for gray pine nuts, 338 hours for fruits,and 400.8 hours for small seeds. While these num-bers are based on a rough approximation of caloricneeds over a winter, the vast superiority of acorns

as a storage food would be apparent under any as-sumed requirement.

DiscussionThe increased use of acorns relative to gray pinenuts for storage during the RP period is puzzlingfrom the perspective of the prey choice model be-cause these resources have similar post-encounterreturn rates. Prolonged droughts that occurred inthe Sierra Nevada at the beginning and end of theMedieval Climatic Anomaly (1150–600 cal B.P.)(Graham and Hughes 2007; Jones et al. 1999; Stine1994) could explain the shift to an acorn-basedstorage economy if gray pine nuts became lessabundant relative to acorns during this period.However, a pollen study from high-elevation con-texts in the Sierra Nevada shows no change in thepercentage of pine or oak pollen in the record dur-ing the Late Holocene (Brunelle and Anderson2003). In the lower elevations where Sierra Me-Wuk villages were located, the foothill woodlandvegetation community is composed of blue oak(Quercus douglasii), valley oak (Q. lobata), andgray pine (Griffin 1977:387). This vegetation com-munity is xerophytic (Griffin 1977:405) and mayhave simply moved upslope during periods of pro-longed drought (Watts 1959:114). If this was trueduring the RP period, Sierra Nevada hunter-gath-erers would have encountered gray pine nuts andacorns in the same frequencies as they had duringthe preceding LA period, only at a higher elevation.Therefore, we do not believe that the occurrence ofdroughts alone can account for the emergence of anacorn-based storage economy in the RP period.

We argue that the shift in storage strategies thatoccurred in the central Sierra Nevada can be ex-plained by examining the tradeoffs between for-


Table 5. Energetic Value, Handling Time, and Storage Return Rate of Four Sierra Nevada Plant Foods.

Rank Resource Energetic Value (kcal/kg) Pre-Storage Handling Time (min/kg) Storage Return Rate (kcal/hr)1 Acornsa 4443 18.34 145352 Gray Pine Nutsb 5710 94.27 36343 Fruitsc 572 52.84 6504 Small Seedsd 3223 352.94 548Note: All measurements are given in kilograms of edible (completely processed) resource.aData for black oak (Quercus kelloggii) from Bettinger et al. (1997:Table 1).bCaloric value of gray pine nuts (Pinus sabiniana) reported by Farris (1982:78); collection and processing rates reportedfor piñon pine nuts (Pinus monophylla) by Barlow and Metcalfe (1996:Table 3).cData for blueberries (Vaccinium spp.) from Winterhalder (1981:83).dData for peppergrass (Lepidium spp.) from Simms (1987:117–118).

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 99.

113.

68.1

60

Wed

nesd

ay, O

ctob

er 0

2, 2

013

11:2

7:50

PM

aging and childcare that varying settlement strate-gies imposed on women. Childcare may have im-posed few opportunity costs on women while for-aging during the MA and LA periods, when aresidentially mobile settlement strategy allowedthem to make shorter trips. In such a situation,acorns would offer no particular advantage overgray pine nuts, since both have high post-encounterreturn rates. This settlement strategy gave way toa semi-sedentary one that relied on logistical mo-bility during the RP period. Land-use and techno-logical changes recognized at this time have longbeen suspected to be the result of colonization ofthe central Sierra Nevada by Me-Wuk-speakersfrom the neighboring Central Valley (e.g., Moratto1984). Whitaker and Rosenthal (2010b), however,found no compelling archaeological evidence forethnic replacement during the RP and instead ar-gued that the convergence of several factors pre-cipitated an in situ adaptive shift. Chief amongthese are improved hunting efficiency related to theintroduction of the bow and arrow, and growingpopulation-resource imbalances in the SierraNevada and Central Valley.

Whatever its cause, the shift to a semi-sedentarysettlement system during the RP period likely in-creased the opportunity cost of foraging for womenby forcing them to take longer daily excursions forfood (Figure 5). Though babysitting can alleviatethe cost of logistical mobility (Surovell 2000), it isunknown how many suitable caregivers a centralSierra Nevada woman would have had for herchildren during the RP period. The average SierraMe-Wuk village during the Ethnographic periodcontained 21 people (Cook 1955:35), and Hewlett(1991:10) estimates that only about 59 percent ofan active hunter-gatherer group will consist of in-dividuals age 15 or older. A village containing 21individuals would, therefore, consist of approxi-mately 9 children under the age of 15, 6 adultwomen, and 6 adult men. Among the Tsimane andHadza, fathers provide direct care for their childrenonly 7.3 percent and 6.1 percent of the time thechildren are in camp, respectively (Marlowe2005:184; Winking et al. 2009:299). If men couldnot be relied upon to routinely provide childcareduring lengthy gathering trips, a woman in a villageof 21 people would have only 5 alternative adult fe-male caretakers to choose from, most of whomwould be of reproductive age (Weiss 1973:115–186) and would likely have their own depen-dent offspring to care for.

Codding et al. (2011) suggest that when womenare unable to rely on others to care for their chil-dren during foraging trips, they will spend lesstime foraging and rely on men to play a greaterrole in offspring provisioning by bringing in largeharvests. However, this may not have been a viableoption for food storage in the central SierraNevada. Sierra Me-Wuk men did contribute peri-odically to food stores during the winter by hunt-


Figure 5. Graphical representation of the proposed changein opportunity costs of women’s foraging in the centralSierra Nevada. During the Middle and Late Archaic peri-ods (7000–1100 cal B.P.), the opportunity cost that child-care imposed on women while foraging would have beenrelatively low, due to a residentially mobile settlementstrategy. When residential mobility decreased during theRecent Prehistoric period (1100–150 cal B.P.), womenwould have been forced to take longer logistical foragingtrips, increasing the opportunity cost of childcare. Theoptimal time women allotted to foraging during the RecentPrehistoric period (Ti) should, therefore, have been lessthan it was during the Archaic periods (Tj).

Table 6. Weight and Pre-Storage Handling Time ofResources Required to Feed One Forager for 90 Days.

Weight Needed Pre-Storage Handlingfor Caloric Time Needed

Resource Minimum (kg) for Caloric Minimum (hr)Acorns 49.4 15.1Small Seeds 68.1 400.8Fruits 383.9 338Gray Pine Nuts 38.5 60.4Note: All measurements are given in kilograms of edible(completely processed) resource and assume an averagedaily need of 2,440 kcal (Kelly 1995:102).

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 99.

113.

68.1

60

Wed

nesd

ay, O

ctob

er 0

2, 2

013

11:2

7:50

PM

ing deer, but these additions were irregular and themeat could not be stored for long (Barrett andGifford 1933:140). It likely fell on women, then,to find a way to balance the need to provide child-care with the need to ensure that the winter foodsupply was sufficient. We argue that the most ef-fective way to do this was to minimize the timespent gathering food for storage during the fall,and to delay processing time until the unproduc-tive winter season.

In addition to limiting the conflict betweenforaging and childcare during the RP period, min-imizing time spent away from camp may have de-creased the danger women faced from beingcaught alone by men from neighboring groups.Specific ethnographic accounts of such eventsare rare, but John Muir (1911:41) reported in1869 that the Paiute of the eastern Sierra Nevadaoccasionally raided Sierra Me-Wuk territory tosteal wives. In addition, several of the summariesof California ethnographic information mentionrape or abduction as a cause for interpersonal vi-olence (Aginsky 1943; Bean and Theodoratus1978; Essene 1942; Kroeber 1925; LaPena 1978;Johnson 1978; Silver 1978; Wilson and Towne1978). In fact, the practice was common enoughto be included in the Culture Element Distribution(CED) lists that Alfred Kroeber used in his sal-vage ethnography effort (Aginsky 1943; Driver1937; Essene 1942; Gifford and Kroeber 1937;Voegelin 1942). Taken together, 47 of 83 infor-mants in 5 California CEDs reported that eitherabduction or rape was a cause for war. It is hardto tell how frequent such violence against womenwas, but it is likely that small groups of foragingwomen and children would have been vulnerableto attack on long foraging trips.

Minimizing foraging time during the fall could,therefore, have served more than one purpose forwomen during the RP period. Acorns would be theideal storage food for this strategy, because theycan be gathered and stored more quickly than graypine nuts, small seeds, and fruits. Though acornsrequire a great amount of time to be processed forconsumption once they are removed from the store(Bettinger et al. 1997:Table 1), this time can be de-layed until the winter months and carried out at theresidential base, where women could simultane-ously monitor their children.

Summary and Conclusions

The opportunity cost model provides a useful toolfor evaluating hunter-gatherer storage decisionsbecause it considers the influence that non-subsis-tence activities can have on foraging strategies.This study demonstrates that it is also important toconsider gender-specific tradeoffs to storage.Among hunter-gatherer groups that store plantfoods, the conflict that women face between accu-mulating food for storage and providing childcaremay play a significant role in shaping storagestrategies. We argue that the shift to an acorn-based storage economy that occurred in the centralSierra Nevada can best be explained by examiningthe changing nature of this tradeoff for women.

Childcare may have imposed few opportunitycosts on women while foraging during the MA andLA periods, when a residentially mobile settle-ment strategy allowed them to forage for short du-rations, close to the residential base. Increasedsedentism during the RP period likely forcedwomen to make lengthier foraging excursions,making it more difficult for them to take childrenon foraging bouts. The potential for violent en-counters with groups of men while foraging mayalso have increased during this period. We arguethat women reacted to these changes by seeking tominimize their foraging time. Under such a strat-egy, acorns are the best resource for storage be-cause they can be accumulated and stored morequickly than other types of plant foods. Thoughacorns require extensive processing once they areremoved from the store, this labor could have beendelayed until winter and carried out at the residen-tial base.

Women and men have differing foraging goalsand constraints (Bliege Bird 1999, 2007; BliegeBird and Bird 2008; Codding et al. 2011), andthese must be considered when explaining subsis-tence and settlement patterns in the archaeologicalrecord (Elston and Zeanah 2002; Zeanah 2004).Though it is important for women to efficiently ac-quire calories to provision themselves and theirchildren, women’s foraging strategies may deviatefrom predictions made by traditional optimal for-aging models when women face tradeoffs betweenforaging and childcare (Bliege Bird 2007; Hur-tado et al. 1985; Hurtado et al. 1992) or betweenlarge harvests and certainty in foraging returns


Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 99.

113.

68.1

60

Wed

nesd

ay, O

ctob

er 0

2, 2

013

11:2

7:50

PM

(Bliege Bird 2007; Bliege Bird and Bird 2008;Codding et al. 2011). By considering issues beyondthe rate of caloric return from foraging, archaeol-ogists can develop more complete models ofhunter-gatherer behavior and explanations of thearchaeological record.

Acknowledgments. Financial support for this research wasprovided by the Davis Anthropology Department and theConsortium for Women and Research at the University of Cal-ifornia. We thank Kathleen Montgomery and Tamara Nortonfor creating the graphics and obtaining permission for use ofthe historic photograph in Figure 2. We also appreciate thework of Paul Brandy, who created the map, and AndrewUgan, who provided the Spanish translation of the abstract.This manuscript was greatly improved by the feedback pro-vided by Curtis Atkisson, Bob Bettinger, Monique BorgerhoffMulder, Brian Codding, Jelmer Eerkens, Bill Hildebrandt,Joseph Hill, John Lambert, Nicole Naar, Kristin Rauch, RyanSchacht, Bruce Winterhalder, and two anonymous reviewers.Any errors or omissions, however, are entirely our own.

References CitedAginsky, Burt W.

1943 Culture Element Distributions, XXIV: Central Sierra.Anthropological Records Vol. 8, No. 4. University of Cal-ifornia Press, Berkeley.

Asch, Nancy B., Richard I. Ford, and David L. Asch 1972 Paleoethnobotany of the Koster Site: The Archaic Hori-zons. Reports of Investigations No. 24. Illinois State Mu-seum, Springfield.

Barlow, K. Renee, and Melissa Heck 2002 More on Acorn Eating during the Natufian: Expect-

ed Patterning in Diet and the Archaeological Record of Sub-sistence. In Hunter-Gatherer Archaeobotany: Perspectivesfrom the Northern Temperate Zone, edited by Sarah L. R.Mason and Jon G. Hather, pp. 128–145. Institute of Ar-chaeology, University College, London.

Barlow, K. Renee, and Duncan Metcalfe 1996 Plant Utility Indices: Two Great Basin Examples. Jour-nal of Archaeological Science 23:351-371.

Barrett, S.A.1908 The Geography and Dialects of the Miwok Indians.University of California Publications in American Ar-chaeology and Ethnology 6:333–368.

Barrett, S. A., and Edward W. Gifford 1933 Miwok Material Culture. Bulletin of the MilwaukeePublic Museum 2:117–376.

Bean, Lowell J., and Dorothea Theodoratus 1978 Western Pomo and Northeastern Pomo. InCalifornia,

edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 289–305. Handbook of NorthAmerican Indians, Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, generaleditor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Bettinger, Robert L. 1987 Archaeological Approaches to Hunter-Gatherers. An-nual Review of Anthropology 16:121–142.

2009 Hunter-Gatherer Foraging: Five Simple Models. EliotWerner, New York.

Bettinger, Robert L., Ripan Malhi, and Helen McCarthy 1997 Central Place Models of Acorn and Mussel Process-

ing. Journal of Archaeological Science 24:887–899.

Bird, Douglas W., and Rebecca Bliege Bird 1997 Contemporary Shellfish Gathering Strategies among

the Meriam of the Torres Strait Islands, Australia: TestingPredictions of a Central Place Foraging Model. Journal ofArchaeological Science 24:39–63.

2005 Martu Children’s Hunting Strategies in the WesternDesert, Australia. In Hunter-Gatherer Childhoods: Evo-lutionary, Developmental, and Cultural Perspectives,edited by Barry S. Hewlett and Michael E. Lamb, pp.129–146. Transaction, New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Bliege Bird, Rebecca 1999 Cooperation and Conflict: The Behavioral Ecology of

the Sexual Division of Labor. Evolutionary Anthropology8:65–75.

2007 Fishing and the Sexual Division of Labor among theMeriam. American Anthropologist 109:442–451.

Bliege Bird, Rebecca, and Douglas W. Bird 2008 Why Women Hunt: Risk and Contemporary Foraging

in a Western Desert Aboriginal Community. Current An-thropology 49:655–693.

Blurton Jones, N., Kristen Hawkes, and Patricia Draper 1994a Differences between Hadza and !Kung Children’s

Work: Original Affluence or Practical Reason? In Key Is-sues in Hunter-Gatherer Research, edited by Ernest S. Burchand Linda J. Ellanna, pp. 189–215. Berg, Oxford.

1994b Foraging Patterns of !Kung Adults and Children: WhyDidn’t !Kung Children Forage? Journal of Anthropolog-ical Research 50:217–248.

Broughton, Jack M. 2002 Prey Spatial Structure and Behavior Affect Archaeo-

logical Tests of Optimal Foraging Models: Examples fromthe Emeryville Shellmound Vertebrate Fauna. World Ar-chaeology 34:60–83.

Brunelle, Andrea, and Scott Anderson 2003 Sedimentary Charcoal as an Indicator of Late-

Holocene Drought in the Sierra Nevada, California, and ItsRelevance to the Future. The Holocene 13:21–28.

Cannon, Michael D. 2003 A Model of Central Place Forager Prey Choice and an

Application to Faunal Remains from the Mimbres Valley,New Mexico. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology22:1–25.

Codding, Brian F., Rebecca Bliege Bird, and Douglas W. Bird 2011 Provisioning Offspring and Others: Risk-Energy

Trade-Offs and Gender Differences in Hunter-Gatherer For-aging Societies. Proceedings of the Royal Society, BiologicalSciences 278:2502–2509.

Cook, Sherburne F. 1955 The Aboriginal Population of the San Joaquin Valley,

California. University of California AnthropologicalRecords 16(2):31–80, University of California, Berkeley.

Couture, Marilyn D., Mary F. Ricks, and Lucile Housley1986 Foraging Behavior of a Contemporary Northern

Great Basin Population. Journal of California and GreatBasin Anthropology 8:150–160.

Driver, H. E. 1937 Culture Element Distributions, VI: Southern Sierra

Nevada. University of California Anthropological Records,Vol. 1, No. 2. University of California, Berkeley.

Eerkens, Jelmer W., Jerome King, and Eric Wohlgemuth 2004 The Prehistoric Development of Intensive Green-Cone

Piñon Processing in Eastern California. Journal of FieldArchaeology 29:17–27.

Elston, Robert G., and David W. Zeanah 2002 Thinking outside the Box: A New Perspective on Diet

Breadth and Sexual Division of Labor in the PrearchaicGreat Basin. World Archaeology 34:103–130.


Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 99.

113.

68.1

60

Wed

nesd

ay, O

ctob

er 0

2, 2

013

11:2

7:50

PM


Essene, F. 1942 Culture Element Distributions, XXI: Round Valley. Uni-versity of California Anthropological Records,Vol. 8, No.1. University of California, Berkeley.

Farris, Glenn J. 1982 Aboriginal Use of Pine Nuts in California: An Eth-

nological, Nutritional, and Archaeological Investigation intothe Uses of the Seeds of Pinus lambertiana Dougl. and Pi-nus sabiniana Dougl. by the Indians of Northern Califor-nia. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Uni-versity of California, Davis.

Gifford, Edward W. 1926 Miwok Lineages and the Political Unit in Aboriginal

California. American Anthropologist 28:389–401.Gifford, Edward W., and Alfred L. Kroeber

1937 Culture Element Distribution III: Pomo. University ofCalifornia Anthropological Records 37:117–254.

Gilliland, Linda E. 1985 Proximate Analysis and Mineral Composition of

Traditional California Native American Foods. UnpublishedMaster’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Universityof California, Davis.

Goland, Carol 1991 The Ecological Context of Hunter-Gatherer Storage:

Environmental Predictability and Environmental Risk.Michigan Discussions in Anthropology 10:107–125.

Goodman, Madeleine J., P. Bion Griffin, Agnes A. Estioko-Grif-fin, and John S. Grove

1985 The Compatibility of Hunting and Mothering amongthe Agta Hunter-Gatherers of the Philippines. Sex Roles12:1199–1209.

Graham, Nicholas E., and Malcolm K. Hughes 2007 Reconstructing the Mediaeval Low Stands of Mono

Lake, Sierra Nevada, California, USA. The Holocene17:1197–1210.

Griffin, James R. 1977 Oak Woodland. In Terrestrial Vegetation of Califor-nia, edited by Michael G. Barbour and Jack Major, pp.383–415. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Gurven, Michael, Jeffrey Winking, Hillard Kaplan, Christophervon Rueden, and Lisa McAllister

2009 A Bioeconomic Approach to Marriage and the Sexu-al Division of Labor. Human Nature 20:151–183.

Hames, Raymond 1988 The Allocation of Parental Care among the Ye’kwana

. In Human Reproductive Behavior, edited by Laura Bet-zig, Monique Borgerhoff Mulder, and Paul Turke, pp.237–254. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

1992 Time Allocation. In Evolutionary Ecology and HumanBehavior, edited by Eric A. Smith and Bruce Winterhalder,pp. 203–235. Aldine de Gruyter, New York.

Hawkes, Kristen, James F. O’Connell, Kim R. Hill, and Eric L.Charnov

1985 How Much Is Enough? Hunters and Limited Needs.Ethnology and Sociobiology 6:3–15.

Hawkes, Kristen, James F. O’Connell, and N. G. Blurton Jones 1995 Hadza Children’s Foraging: Juvenile Dependency, So-

cial Arrangements, and Mobility among Hunter-Gatherers.Current Anthropology 36:688–700.

1997 Hadza Women’s Time Allocation, Offspring Provi-sioning, and the Evolution of Long Postmenopausal LifeSpans. Current Anthropology 38:551–577.

Heizer, Robert F., and Albert B. Elsasser1980 The Natural World of the California Indians. University

of California Press, Berkeley.Hewlett, Barry S.

1991 Demography and Childcare in Preindustrial Societies.

Journal of Anthropological Research 47:1–37.Hurtado, A. Magdalena, Kristen Hawkes, Kim R. Hill, and Hillard

Kaplan 1985 Female Subsistence Strategies among Aché Hunter-

Gatherers of Eastern Paraguay. Human Ecology 13:1–47.Hurtado, A. Magdalena, and Kim R. Hill

1987 Early Dry Season Subsistence Ecology of Cuiva (Hiwi)Foragers of Venezuela. Human Ecology 15:163–187.

Hurtado, A. Magdalena, Kim R. Hill, Hillard Kaplan, and InesHurtado

1992 Tradeoffs between Female Food Acquisition andChild Care among Hiwi and Ache Foragers. Human Na-ture 3:185–216.

Johnson, Jerald Jay 1978 Yana. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp.

225–235. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8,William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Insti-tution, Washington, D.C.

Jones, Terry L., Gary M. Brown, L. Mark Raab, Janet L.McVickar, W. Geoffrey Spaulding, Douglas J. Kennett, An-drew York, and Phillip L. Walker

1999 Environmental Imperatives Reconsidered: Demo-graphic Crises in Western North America during the Me-dieval Climatic Anomaly. Current Anthropology40:137–170.

Kaplan, Hillard, and Kim R. Hill 1992 The Evolutionary Ecology of Food Aquisition. In Evo-lutionary Ecology and Human Behavior, edited by Eric A.Smith and Bruce Winterhalder, pp. 167–201. Aldine deGruyter, New York.

Kelly, Robert L. 1995 The Foraging Spectrum: Diversity in Hunter-Gath-erer Lifeways. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Kroeber, Alfred L. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Smithsonian

Institution, Washington, D.C.LaPena, Frank R.

1978 Wintu. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp.324–340. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8,William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Insti-tution, Washington, D.C.

MacArthur, Robert H., and Eric R. Pianka 1966 On Optimal Use of a Patchy Environment. TheAmerican Naturalist 100:603–609.

McCarthy, Helen 1993 A Political Economy of Western Mono Acorn Pro-duction. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,University of California, Davis.

Madsen, David B. 1993 Testing Diet Breadth Models: Examining Adaptive

Change in the Late Prehistoric Great Basin. Journal of Ar-chaeological Science 20:321–329.

Madsen, David B., and Dave N. Schmitt 1998 Mass Collecting and the Diet Breadth Model: A Great

Basin Example. Journal of Archaeological Sci-ence 25:445–455.

Marlowe, Frank 2003 A Critical Period for Provisioning by Hadza Men: Im-

plications for Pair Bonding. Evolution and Human Behavior24:217–229.

2005 Who Tends Hadza Children? In Hunter-Gatherer Child-hoods: Evolutionary, Developmental, and Cultural Per-spectives, edited by Barry S. Hewlett and Michael E. Lamb,pp. 177–190. Transaction, New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Merriam, C. Hart 1967 Central California Indian Tribes. In Ethnographic Noteson California Indian Tribes, Vol. 3. Archaeological Survey

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 99.

113.

68.1

60

Wed

nesd

ay, O

ctob

er 0

2, 2

013

11:2

7:50

PM

Reports No. 68. University of California, Berkeley.Metcalfe, Duncan, and K. Renee Barlow

1992 A Model for Exploring the Optimal Trade-Off betweenField Processing and Transport. American Anthropologist94:340–356.

Meyer, Jack 2008 Prehistory of the Sonora Region: Archaeological andGeoarchaeological Investigations for Stage 1 of the EastSonora Bypass Project, State Route 108, Tuolumne Coun-ty, California. Volume IIa: Projectwide GeoarchaeologicalStudy and Archaeological Investigations at Four PrehistoricSites: CA-TUO-2640, -2643, -4556, and -4559. Far West-ern Anthropological Research Group, Inc., Davis, California.Prepared for and on file at Central California Cultural Re-sources Branch, California Department of Transportation,District 6, Fresno.

Moratto, Michael J. 1984 California Archaeology. Academic, New York.

Morgan, Christopher 2006 Late Prehistoric Territorial Expansion and Maintenance

in the South-Central Sierra Nevada. Ph.D. dissertation, De-partment of Anthropology, University of California, Davis.

2008 Reconstructing Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherer ForagingRadii: A Case Study from California’s Southern Sierra Neva-da. Journal of Archaeological Science 35:247–258.

2009 Climate Change, Uncertainty and Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherer Mobility. Journal of Anthropological Archaeol-ogy 28:382–396.

2012 Modeling Modes of Hunter-Gatherer Food Storage.American Antiquity 77:714–736.

Muir, John 1911 My First Summer in the Sierra. Houghton Mifflin,

Boston, Massachusetts.Pearsall, Deborah M.

2000 Paleoethnobotany: A Handbook of Procedures. Aca-demic Press, San Diego, California.

Raven, Christopher, and Robert G. Elston 1989 Prehistoric Human Geography in the Carson Desert.Part I: A Predictive Model of Land-Use in the StillwaterManagement Area. Cultural Resource Series No. 3. U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.

Rosenthal, Jeffrey S. (editor)2008 Prehistory of the Sonora Region: Archaeological andGeoarchaeological Investigations for Stage 1 of the EastSonora Bypass Project, State Route 108, Tuolumne Coun-ty, California. Volume I: Synthesis. Far Western Anthro-pological Research Group, Inc., Davis, California. Preparedfor and on file at Central California Cultural ResourcesBranch, California Department of Transportation, District6, Fresno.

2011 A New Frame of Reference: Prehistoric CulturalChronology and Ecology in the North-Central Sierra Neva-da. Publication No. 16. Center for Archaeological Researchat Davis, Davis, California.

2012 Data Recovery Excavations at CA-TUO-2194, -2469, and -4627/H for Stage 2 of the East Sonora BypassProject, State Route 108, Tuolumne County, California. FarWestern Anthropological Research Group, Inc., Davis, Cal-ifornia. Prepared for California Department of Trans-portation, District 6, Fresno. Manuscript on file, CentralCalifornia Information Center, Stanislaus State Universi-ty, Turlock.

Rosenthal, Jeffrey S., and Kelly R. McGuire2004 Middle Holocene Adaptations in the Central SierraNevada Foothills: Data Recovery Excavations at theBlack Creek Site, CA-CAL-789. Far Western AnthropologicalResearch Group, Inc., Davis, California. Prepared for Cal-

ifornia Department of Transportation, District 10, Stock-ton. Manuscript on file, Central California Information Cen-ter, Stanislaus State University, Turlock.

Rosenthal, Jeffrey S., Jack Meyer, Julia Costello, and Judith Marvin2007 Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation for the Tus-cany Hills Project, Lake Tulloch, Calaveras County. FarWestern Anthropological Research Group, Inc., Davis, Cal-ifornia. Prepared for Red Mountain Resorts, LLC,Jamestown, California. Manuscript on file, Central Cal-ifornia Information Center, Stanislaus State University,Turlock.

Rowley-Conwy, Peter, and Marek Zvelebil 1989 Saving It for Later: Storage by Prehistoric Hunter-Gath-

erers in Europe. In Bad Year Economics: Cultural Responsesto Risk and Uncertainty, edited by Paul Halstead and JohnO’Shea, pp. 40–56. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Schoener, Thomas W. 1971 Theory of Feeding Strategies. Annual Review ofEcology and Systematics 2:369–404.

Simms, Steven R. 1987 Behavioral Ecology and Hunter-Gatherer Foraging:An Example from the Great Basin. BAR International Se-ries No. 381. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.

Silver, Shirley 1978 Shastan Peoples. InCalifornia, edited by Robert F Heiz-

er, pp. 211–224. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol.8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian In-stitution, Washington, D.C.

Siskin, Barbara, and Thomas Martin 2013 Archaeological Evaluation Report for CA-CAL-116,Mountain Ranch Road Shoulder Improvements Project,Calaveras County, California. Garcia and Associates,Auburn, California. Prepared for County of Calaveras. Sub-mitted to California Department of Transportation, District10, Stockton. Manuscript on file, Central California In-formation Center, Stanislaus State University, Turlock.

Smith, Eric A. 1987 On Fitness Maximization, Limited Needs, and Hunter-

Gatherer Time Allocation. Ethnology and Sociobiology8:73–85.

Stephens, David W., and John R. Krebs 1986 Foraging Theory. Princeton University Press, Prince-

ton, New Jersey.Steward, Julian H.

1938 Basin-Plateau Aboriginal Sociopolitical Groups. Bu-reau of American Ethnology Bulletin No. 120. Smithson-ian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Stine, Scott1994 Extreme and Persistent Drought in California and Patag-

onia during Mediaeval Time. Nature 339:546–549.Surovell, Todd A.

2000 Early Paleoindian Women, Children, Mobility, and Fer-tility. American Antiquity 65:493–508.

Thorpe, Linda, Judith Marvin, Julia Costello, Eric Wohlgemuth,and Darren Andolina

2007 Cultural Resource Survey and Evaluation at MurphysCreek Estates, Murphys, California. Foothill Resources, Ltd.,Mokelumne Hill, California. Prepared for Leroy and VeraGinn, and Daniel and Debra Ginn. Manuscript on file, Cen-tral California Information Center, Stanislaus State Uni-versity, Turlock.

Trammell, Joshua, James F. O’Connell, Sarah E. Bush, Christo-pher H. Parker, Penni Borghi, Lori Hunsaker, and DouglasW. Bird

2008 Exploring Geophyte Use in the Northern Great Basin:Nutrient Content, Handling Costs, Effects of Fire and Tillage,and Archaeological Implications. Paper presented at the


Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 99.

113.

68.1

60

Wed

nesd

ay, O

ctob

er 0

2, 2

013

11:2

7:50

PM


Great Basin Anthropology Association Conference, Port-land, Oregon.

Tucker, Bram, and Alyson G. Young 2005 Growing up Mikea: Children’s Time Allocation and

Tuber Foraging in Southwestern Madagascar. In Hunter-Gatherer Childhoods: Evolutionary, Developmental, andCultural Perspectives, edited by Barry S. Hewlett andMichael E. Lamb, pp. 147–171. Transaction, NewBrunswick, New Jersey.

Ugan, Andrew 2005 Does Size Matter? Body Size, Mass Collecting, and

Their Implications for Understanding Prehistoric ForagingBehavior. American Antiquity 70:75–89.

Voegelin, Erminie 1942 Culture Element Distributions, XX: Northeast Cali-

fornia. Anthropological Records,Vol. 7, No. 2. Universi-ty of California, Berkeley.

Waechter, Sharon A., and Darren Andolina 2008 Salvage Excavations in a Portion of CA-ELD-44/H atWhite Oak Flat, Western El Dorado County. Far WesternAnthropological Research Group, Inc., Davis, California.Prepared for El Dorado Irrigation District, Placerville, Cal-ifornia.

Watts, David 1959 Human Occupance as a Factor in the Distribution of

the Digger Pine (Pinus sabiniana). Unpublished Master’sthesis, Department of Geography, University of California,Berkeley.

Waugh, Georgie, and Michael F. Rondeau1990 Phase II Test Evaluation Report for Archaeological SitesCA-TUO-2192, CA-TUO-2197, and CA-TUO-2349 on StateRoute 108, for the East Sonora Bypass Project TuolumneCounty, California. 10-TUO-108 P.M. R2.0/ R6.9, 10-340400. California Department of Transportation, Sacra-mento. Prepared for Environmental Planning Branch,California Department of Transportation, District 10,Stockton. On file, Central California Information Center,Stanislaus State University, Turlock.

Weiss, Kenneth M. 1973 Demographic Models for Anthropology. Memoir No.

27. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D.C.Whitaker, Adrian R., and Jeffrey S. Rosenthal

2010a 9,000 Years of Prehistory at the Poppy Hills Site: DataRecovery Excavations at CA-TUO-2797/H for the PoppyHills Curve Realignment Project, Tuolumne County, Cal-ifornia. Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc.,Davis, California. Prepared for California Department ofTransportation, District 10, Stockton. Manuscript on file,Central California Information Center, Stanislaus State Uni-versity, Turlock.

2010b Data Recovery Excavations at CA-AMA-34 for theDefender Grade State Route 88 Left Turn Lane Project,Amador County, California. Far Western AnthropologicalResearch Group, Inc., Davis, California. Prepared for Cal-ifornia Department of Transportation, District 10, Stock-ton. Manuscript on file, Central California Information Cen-ter, Stanislaus State University, Turlock.

2011 Phase II Archaeological Evaluation of CA-CAL-1983 Savage Way Rehabilitation Project San Joaquin andCalaveras Counties, California. Far Western Anthropo-logical Research Group, Inc., Davis, California. Preparedfor California Department of Transportation, District 10,Stockton. Manuscript on file, Central California Informa-tion Center, Stanislaus State University, Turlock.

Wilson, Norman L., and Arlean H. Towne 1978 Nisenan. InCalifornia, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp.

387–397. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8,

William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Insti-tution, Washington, D.C.

Winking, Jeffrey, Michael Gurven, Hillard Kaplan, and JonathanStieglitz

2009 The Goals of Direct Paternal Care among a SouthAmerindian Population. American Journal of Physical An-thropology 139:295–304.

Winterhalder, Bruce 1981 Foraging Strategies in the Boreal Forest: An Analy-

sis of Cree Hunting and Gathering. In Hunter-Gatherer For-aging Strategies: Ethnographic and Archaeological Analy-ses, edited by Bruce Winterhalder and Eric A. Smith, pp.66–98. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

1983 Opportunity-Cost Foraging Models for Stationary andMobile Predators. American Naturalist 122:73–84.

Winterhalder, Bruce, and Eric A. Smith (editors)1981 Hunter-Gatherer Foraging Strategies: Ethnograph-ic and Archaeological Analyses. University of ChicagoPress, Chicago.

Winterhalder, Bruce, and Eric A. Smith2000 Analyzing Adaptive Strategies: Human Behavioral

Ecology at Twenty-Five. Evolutionary Anthropology9:51–72.

Wohlgemuth, Eric, and Adrian R. Whitaker 2009 Data Recovery Investigations at the Angels Camp By-pass, Calaveras County, California. Far Western Anthro-pological Research Group, Inc., Davis, California. Submittedto Caltrans District 6, Fresno, California. Report on file, Cen-tral California Information Center, Stanislaus State Uni-versity, Turlock.

Zeanah, David W. 2000 Transport Costs, Central Place Foraging, and Hunter-

Gatherer Alpine Land-UseStrategies. In Intermountain Archaeology, edited by David B.

Madsen and Duncan Metcalfe, pp. 1–14. AnthropologicalPapers No. 122. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

2004 Sexual Division of Labor and Central Place Foraging:A Model for the Carson Desert of Western Nevada. Jour-nal of Anthropological Archaeology 23:1–32.

Zeanah, David W., James A. Carter, Daniel P. Dugas, Robert G.Elston, and Julia E. Hammett

1995 An Optimal Foraging Model of Hunter-GathererLand Use in the Carson Desert. Intermountain Research,Silver City, Nevada.

Zeanah, David W., Brian F. Codding, Douglas W. Bird, RebeccaBliege Bird, and Peter Veth

2012 Diesel and Damper: Disintensification among the Mar-tu of Western Australia. Paper presented at the 77th AnnualMeeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Mem-phis, Tennessee.

Note1. We use the preferred spelling (“Me-Wuk”) of the

Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk, but note that other groups preferalternate spellings, including “Mi-Wuk,” and that the traditionalanthropological spelling has been “Miwok.”

Submitted December 12, 2012; Revised April 26, 2013;Accepted May 10, 2013.

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Am

eric

an A

ntiq

uity

acc

ess

(392

-89-

746)

IP

Add

ress

: 99.

113.

68.1

60

Wed

nesd

ay, O

ctob

er 0

2, 2

013

11:2

7:50

PM

Hunter-Gatherer Storage, Settlement, and the Opportunity Costs of Women's Foraging

Documents