Data for: The Effect of Ownership on Ecosystem Management among Human Foragers

Published: 13 November 2017| Version 2 | DOI: 10.17632/7gg9zh7srd.2
Jacob Freeman


These are supplemental statistical data and the data used to conduct the analysis in the paper The Effect of Ownership on Ecosystem Management among Human Foragers. The variables in the data file Supp_data.csv are defined in the body of the paper (``Data and Methods") and below. burn=presence of burning defined by Keeley (1995), 0=no burning, 1=burning for animals, 2=burning for plants burnID=presence or absence of burning, 0=absence. Sow=presence of planting and tending wild plants defined by Keeley (1995) 0=no planting, 1=planting tobacco/other non-food sources, 2=planting edible species of plant SowID=presence or absence of planting, 0=absence Owners=categorical variable of ownership defined by Binford (2001) 1 = no ownership reported, but associations with a territory may be recognized. 2 = local groups claim exclusive use rights over resource locations and households may claim exclusive rights to particular resources (e.g., tree species) 3 =local groups claim ownership over hunting and fishing locations and these rights are administered by leaders or smaller segments of local groups (see \citealp[p.~426]{Binford2001}). 4 = Elite ownership of land and resources. In addition, there may be family claims to particular resource locations. Resource patches may be owned by a family and can be given away, inherited or disposed of within the group OWN=Collapse of the owners variable into 3 categories instead of 4. 0=No ownership 1=corporate ownership 2=Ownership with inheritance DENSITY=Population density people.sq. km CVRAIN=Coefficient of variation in rainfall NPP2=Net primary productivity Area=Area of ethno-linguistic group in 100 sq. km Population=Population of an ethno-linguistic group. War=Level of warfare defined by Binford (2001) 1= No organized competition. Success in armed conflict is not an accepted male role in the overall life of the people. 2= Conflict is continually present on an on-again/off-again basis. Accelerated raiding (i.e., tit-for-tat raiding that becomes progressively more encompassing) is not a normal condition. 3= Conflict is more common than in category two and there are unprovoked attacks on intruders. There is planned and tactically executed raiding on other groups not necessarily in the context of revenge or feuding. 4= Conflict is common in the region, but it may flare up to major proportions periodically. Goals are more commonly to plunder and take land or resources. 5= All the properties of category four but with the additional feature that such conflict is sustained and results in long-term expansion of groups at the expense of others. War2=The above war variable collapsed into three ordinal categories: 1= no warfare (corresponding to category 1), 2= low warfare (corresponding to categories 2 and 3), 3 = high warfare (corresponding to categories 4 and 5). geodist=mean distance of a group from other groups avglldist=mean linguistic distance of a group from other groups


Steps to reproduce

References to reconstruct the data. Keeley LH. 1995. Protoagricultural Practices among Hunter-gatherers. In: Price Douglas T, Bebaur AB, editors, Last Hunters First Farmers. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press. p. 243-272. Freeman J. 2014. Feedbacks, critical transitions and social change in forager- resource systems [PhD thesis]. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University. Binford LR. 2001. Constructing frames of reference: An analytical method for archaeological theory building using hunter-gatherer and environmental data sets. Berkeley: University of California Press.


Anthropology, Agriculture Land Use, Hunter Gatherer