Emergence of persistent institutionalized inequality at the Bridge River site, British Columbia: the roles of managerial mutualism and coercion

Abstract

Persistent institutionalized inequality (PII) emerged at the Bridge River site by ca 1200–1300 years ago. Research confirms that PII developed at a time of population packing associated with unstable fluctuations in a critical food resource (anadromous salmon) and persisted across multiple generations. While we understand the demographic and ecological conditions under which this history unfolded, we have yet to address details of the underlying social process. In this paper, we draw on Bridge River's Housepit 54 to examine two alternative hypotheses. Hypothesis 1, mutualism, suggests that household heads signalled to maintain and attract new members as a means of supporting the demographic viability of the house. Inequality is indicated by variation in prestige markers but less obviously in economic fundamentals. Hypothesis 2, coercion, asserts that the more successful households developed control over access to critical food resources, forcing others into the choice between emigration and subjugation. Inequality is indicated by inter-family differences in prestige markers and economic fundamentals. Results suggest that inequality emerged under a mutualism scenario but persisted for subsequent generations under more coercive conditions. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Evolutionary ecology of inequality’.

Toward an evolutionary ecology of (in)equality

“…The near absence of institutionalized differences in wealth and power for most of the history of our species raises the question of what changed. Several papers in this special issue offer important clues [10,14,18]. The development and spread of agriculture certainly accounts for some of the temporal dynamics of institutionalized inequality, but its absence in low-intensity 'horticultural' societies [65], muted presence even among some agriculturally dependent state-level societies [66][67][68] and multiple cases of non-egalitarian hunter-gatherers [69,70] indicate it cannot be the only, or perhaps even the main, explanation.…”

“…Although any of the three forms of wealth noted above can be transmitted to descendants, material forms are generally more successfully inherited. These can include arable land, livestock, durable goods, resource patches, burrows, food caches, nesting sites and the like, as discussed in several papers in this issue [12][13][14]20,27,28]. However, embodied wealth such as skills or knowledge passed down from parents [27] or parental investment in offspring condition [29,30] can be important as well, contributing to developmental origins of inequality [30].…”

“…In this issue, theoretical and cross-cultural analyses highlight the effect of these variables in shaping the form and degree of inequality [ 10 – 12 ]. Their importance is given further support in archaeological case studies, which also implicate Malthusian population dynamics involving competition for diminishing resources [ 13 , 14 ].…”