Exploring the Importance of Strong Reciprocity in the Greater Caribbean

SOMETHING FOR NOTHING: EXPLORING THE IMPORTANCE OF STRONG RECIPROCITY IN THE GREATER CARIBBEAN

Angus A. A. Mol Faculty of Archaeology Leiden University P.O. Box 9515 2300 RA Leiden The Netherlands [email protected]

Abstract When discussing exchange in the archaeological record, this often entails a prehistory of exchange that is focused on the economic or the political aspect of exchanges. These particular views very often suppose a direct quid-pro-quo attitude to exchanges. Although direct reciprocity was no doubt important for the constitution of pre-Columbian sociality, many other social strategies are available that were at least as important. This article focuses on the possible role of strong reciprocity in pan-Caribbean interactions. This entails that objects and concepts should not be only considered for their value as exchange valuables in an economic or ideological sense, but also from their ability to create material manifestations of social strategies and their resulting relations. This position will be illuminated by a case- study taken from Melanesian ethnography and Caribbean archaeology.

Résumé Lorsque l’on traite des échanges dans les travaux archéologiques, il est généralement fait référence à une préhistoire des échanges centrée sur les seuls aspects économiques ou poli- tiques. Ce point de vue implique très souvent une attitude de contrepartie directe dans les échanges. Bien que la réciprocité directe occupât sans doute une place importante dans la constitution de la sociabilité précolombienne, beaucoup d’autres stratégies sociales, au moins aussi importantes, étaient envisageables. Cet article se concentre sur le possible rôle de la réciprocité stricte dans les interactions pan-caribéenne. Cela implique que les objets et les concepts ne doivent pas être seulement considérés pour leur valeur comme objets pré- cieux d’échange, au sens économique ou idéologique, mais doivent l’être aussi pour leur capacité à créer des manifestations matérielles des stratégies sociales et des relations résul- tantes. Cette réflexion sera illustrée d’une étude de cas tirés de l’ethnographie mélanésienne et de l’archéologie caribéenne.

Resumen Cuando se habla sobre intercambio en el registro arqueológico, esto implica a menudo la asunción de una prehistoria centrada en los aspectos económicos o políticos de los intercambios. Estos puntos de vista, frecuentemente suponen una disposición directa quid- pro-quo, a los intercambios. Aunque la reciprocidad directa fue, sin dudas, importante para la constitución de la sociabilidad pre-colombina, hay muchas otras estrategias sociales que tuvieron al menos, tanta importancia como esta. El presente artículo se centra en el posible

Journal of Caribbean Archaeology, Special Publication #3 2010 76 Something for nothing Mol papel jugado por una “reciprocidad fuerte”, en las interacciones pan-caribeñas. Esto implica que objetos y conceptos no deben ser solo considerados por su valor como bienes de cambio, en un sentido económico o ideológico sino también por su habilidad de crear manifestaciones materiales de estrategias sociales y de sus relaciones resultantes. Esta posición será ilustrada por casos de estudio tomados de la Etnografía de Melanesia y de la Arqueología del Caribe.

Introduction social narratives that would have been an A theory of a pan-Caribbean sphere of integral part of them I will concentrate in interaction - i.e., the notion of the “Greater particular on the overrated significance of Caribbean” (Rodríguez Ramos 2007) - direct reciprocity as a social strategy states that the pan-Caribbean has to be en- among precolonial communities and indi- visaged as “one landscape whose inhabi- viduals. tants played an active and significant role in the establishment and maintenance of Social Valuables local and regional circuits of mobility and “Social valuables” (Spielmann 2002) are exchange as they navigated its waters and often finely manufactured items that in trekked across its (is)lands, without down- some cases take months to create, never- playing their cultural, social, biological, or theless they are valued even more than linguistic particularities” (Hofman, per- their production costs. These valuables can sonal communication 2007).1 Accordingly, be material in nature, but also function on one of the many challenges that this theory the level of what is nowadays termed has to meet is to come to an understanding “intellectual property”, for instance knowl- of how the precolonial Greater Caribbean edge of a certain ritual, a dance, or how to world was affected by a greater number of cure a certain disease. In addition to their much further-reaching social interactions production cost these items derive their that were far more complicated in practice value from a distinct uniqueness: a per- than Caribbean archaeologists could previ- sonal character (Appadurai 1986; Kopytoff ously have envisioned. Ironically, this di- 1986). When a social valuable is ex- lemma must also have been one of the changed it is not only the item that is ex- greatest challenges for the individuals and changed, but also the narrative around it: communities operating within a pan- its life trajectory (Weiner 1976). This nar- Caribbean interaction sphere: they would rative can be given context in a variety of have had to mediate and integrate many manners: by acquiring items through spe- more extra-local, extra-cultural and, thus, cial means, e.g., over long distances extra-social elements in the form of cultur- (Helms 1988); making an item with excep- ally and linguistically distinct groups of the tionally exquisite craftsmanship (Helms region in order for them to successfully 1993); associating an item with the ances- transform Greater Caribbean value systems tors (Helms 1998); and/or other means. into local systems of value. Here, I will fol- The transfer of these objects between ex- low this line of thought in a discussion of a change partners serves to (re)produce the pan-Caribbean theory for precolonial ex- reputation of communal structures and in- change. By using and expanding on the dividual agents within that structure and concept of the “social valuable” and the thereby doubly reaffirms its social value

Journal of Caribbean Archaeology, Special Publication #3 2010 77 Something for nothing Mol

(Munn 1986). considering reasons, tactics and benefits of It would seem that the most closely cor- a model of exchange that does not work related concept in anthropology is that of from a formalist type of reciprocity. First I the ‘gift,’ as first put forward by Mauss will present and explain the model. Then I (1925). This is true in the way that social will present two short case-studies and dis- valuables are best understood as the physi- cuss why this model is also integral to a cal manifestation of the “personal relations pan-Caribbean theory of exchange. between people that the exchange of things in certain social contexts creates” (Gregory Tracking exchange 1982: 8). Indeed, a social valuable should It is my hypothesis that in its social foun- be seen as a gift in the way that it is para- dation the exchange of a social valuable is doxically personal and interpersonal in na- precisely not about reciprocity, but about ture and that as a rule a social relation is showing more dedication than you would hardly ever valued without it. Yet, by using strictly need in order to have a balanced the term social valuables rather than gift I equation (Mol 2007; cf. Ssorin-Chaikov would like to shift the focus away from 2006). The direct consequence for archae- what is inextricably attached to the Maus- ologists is that we should not always take sian gift: its reciprocal nature. for granted that when we “find” exchange, Marcel Mauss’ seminal essay “the Gift” reciprocal action is to be expected. This starts by asking (1990: 4, his italics) "[w] would certainly be a normal reaction when hat rule of legality and self-interest, in so- an elite valuable is found at a location that cieties of a backward or archaic type, com- is exotic to the object, but in fact the expec- pels the gift that has been received to be tations of reciprocal modes of exchange are obligatorily reciprocated? What power re- far more widespread in Caribbean archae- sides in the object given that causes its re- ology than only models of elite interaction. cipient to pay it back?" Mauss established For instance, when evidence is found for and cross-culturally discussed the obliga- the import of all sorts of objects from other tion to give, receive and give back; this has islands by communities from one particular led many scholars to view “the Gift” as one region or island, one side of the story of the first substantive anthropological in- would invariably focus on what the receiv- quiries into “archaic” economy (Sykes ing community would have been exporting. 2005). It is undeniably one of the most im- If it is not clear what the recipient could portant anthropological texts of the 20th have exported we postulate that it must century. However, the application of have been dependent on and thus subordi- Mauss’ ideas in practice often comes down nate to the donor community. In other to a quid-pro-quo formalist version of re- words when talking about archaeologically ciprocity, i.e., a prehistory of market ex- established exchange from one region to change (Godbout and Caillé 1998).2 The another, we often seem to feel that we are problem is that these kinds of models ig- missing one end of the spectrum. It seems nore opposite views on the foundation of that the receiving party has not recipro- exchange as it is understood through a cated and has gained something for noth- large and still growing cross-disciplinary ing. Sometimes this can be explained by corpus of scholarly work. Using theories the incompleteness of the archaeological from Evolutionary Psychology I wish to representation of the exchange system, be- expand the horizon on gift exchange by cause it is to be expected that a considerate

Journal of Caribbean Archaeology, Special Publication #3 2010 78 Something for nothing Mol part of the objects that were exchanged are behavior a strong reciprocator will punish a of a perishable nature. Nevertheless, it is a freerider. Conversely, a strong reciprocator fact that among sedentary peoples across also rewards social behavior. Punishing or the globe one of the most valued qualities rewarding is altruistic, because it is costly of successful social valuables is their dura- to the one who is meting out the reward or bility (Clark 1986; Jacobson 1987; Weiner punishment (Fehr and Fischbacher 2003, 1992). Therefore I would argue that the 2004; Fehr and Gächter 2000; Gintis 2000; lack of visibility of perishable materials in Gintis, et al. 2001; Gintis, et al. 2005; the archaeological record cannot be the Gintis, et al. 2008). whole story. This behavior has been tested in a num- The norm of direct reciprocal gain is so ber of games. A clarifying example of one ingrained in our system that it almost of these games is a variant of the so-called seems naïve to postulate the existence of “dictator game” (Figure 1). indirect reciprocal patterns of exchange. In this variant a certain amount of money Because of its perceived irrational eco- is divided between two players by only one nomic inefficiency philosophers, evolution- of the players, without the consent of the ists and economists have been puzzled by other. After this division a third player can altruism, i.e., indirect reciprocal behavior, decide to reward or punish the other two to such an extent that it was even not sup- players by paying the amount with which posed to exist (Alexander 1987). Yet, there he or she wants to punish or reward. It has is a growing community of scholars who to be pointed out that there will not be a posit that human beings can act in a way subsequent round of payments. If the third that, on the face of it, is altruistic. Research player chooses to pay to reward or punish in primarily the area of the evolution of he/she solely acts on his/her sense of what human social behavior, suggests that there is socially desirable. It appears that cross- are those who do not expect to be recipro- culturally and in almost all the cases the cated as a necessity for being social (Sober third player chooses to punish or reward, and Wilson 1998). Through various in- although this comes at a cost to him or her depth and cross-cultural studies it has been and he or she cannot gain anything by it shown that non-reciprocal action may be (Fehr, et al. 2002; Flesch 2007: 33). undertaken because humans as highly so- Actually, strong reciprocation can only cial beings are continuously checking on remain a guiding element in human interac- the social acts of others (Henrich, et al. tion if we actually punish those who fail to 2006; Henrich, et al. 2004). This universal punish. And punish those who fail to pun- process that is called “tracking” is vital to ish someone who fails to punish, and so on our survival in an environment that consists (Henrich and Boyd 2001). In effect, social- primarily of non-kin (Goodnight 2005; ity necessitates that a social actor has a ten- Richerson and Boyd 2004; Sober and Wil- dency to be a strong reciprocator (Boyd, et son 1998). al. 2003). To keep a record of all these Tracking is done by “strong reciproca- punishments and rewards humans have de- tors”. Strong reciprocation, also called veloped sophisticated tracking skills. These gerenalized reciprocity or altruistic punish- skills are so important to navigate in hu- ment, is a type of behavior that is engaged man social groups that we engage in it al- when a “freerider” engages in anti-social most compulsively. Think for example behavior.3 As a reaction to this anti-social about the hard-to-resist urge to gossip,

Journal of Caribbean Archaeology, Special Publication #3 2010 79 Something for nothing Mol

which is a very effective means of keeping up with the patterns of social punishment and reward and also punish and reward at the same time by spreading gossip (Axelrod 1997; Flesch 2007).

Furthermore, the literature critic William Flesch has proposed that the universal love for stories that are filled with heroic punishers and evil egoists stems directly from our interest in tracking social interaction (Flesch 2007). In other words the human urge to track is expressed in our love for narratives. It has been postulated that human folk psychology is designed to build narratives around social interaction (Hutto 2007, 2008).4 This would be a logical necessity since social exchange is almost never a simple matter of X giving to Y and Y recipro- cating to X. A simple exchange situation might already resemble the follow- ing: X punishes or rewards Y, because Y has harmed or benefited Z and Z has harmed/benefited W in the past with whom X also has a social relation –e.g., the Hunter kills the Wolf because he has eaten Little Red Riding Hood, who did not deserve to be eaten because she has always been Figure 1. A sample three party, two stage Dictator Game consisting of a kind to animals and other Dictator, Subject and Strong Reciprocator.

Journal of Caribbean Archaeology, Special Publication #3 2010 80 Something for nothing Mol people of whom the Hunter is also quite new thought that what separates commod- fond.5 ity from gift is that the latter holds a biography, while the former does not Narrating exchange (Appadurai 1986; Kopytoff 1986). What The above are integral aspects of the makes a gift even more valuable is an ex- concept of the social valuable. In the frame tended pedigree that consists of a history of of mind of a strong reciprocator, a social what has happened to the object (Gosden valuable would be given and often recipro- and Marshall 1999; Graeber 2001; Thomas cated as a way of keeping track of the dis- 1991).8 This is framed in terms of where, position of one’s social partners to act in a when and, most importantly, by whom it socially desirable manner. Secondly, if a has been held and exchanged (Thomas strong reciprocator gives away a social 1991: 100). So, if the act of exchange valuable without the intent to be recipro- stands for the creation of a new page in the cated this shows to others that he or she is narrative, the exchanged object itself em- set on acting in a non-egoistic, i.e., altruis- bodies the possibility for that narrative to tic, manner. This shows him or her to be a be remembered and retold. To interact with trustworthy and capable social actor who an object in the present rekindles the mem- has proved to also act in the interest of oth- ory of past social action and its rewards ers.6 and punishments: the social valuable acts Aside from the general suggestions as a mnemonic tool for social exchange.9 above I would like to focus on another The above suggests that on a proximal critical aspect of the tracking of social level we should not expect exchange to al- valuables. In addition to the exchange of ways be a reciprocal affair, because valu- services, the exchange of socially valuable ables can move back and forth between objects would be one of the ways with social partners. On an ultimate level strong which stories of the social capabilities of reciprocity is reciprocal, because strong social actors would have been created. The reciprocators get to enjoy the profit of con- action of giving, receiving, and reciproca- tinued or new social relations. So, on an tion of social valuables that construct a pat- archaeological level sometimes things will tern of social interaction is itself subject to be given but nothing will be reciprocated narration. A gift of a social valuable from due to the human tendency to be a strong one community or person to another could reciprocator. Other objects will be re- be seen as a new page in the narrative of ceived, yet will not be reciprocated, be- the social history between these persons or cause they were a reward/punishment for communities. It is in this sense that the ex- social action. In even other cases objects change of social valuables is not a matter might be given out of sheer interest for the of quid-pro-quo reciprocity, but a process narrative of a certain object and the oppor- of the narration of one’s own and others’ tunity to be part of that particular objects’ social capabilities. narrative. I will now shortly explore two For archaeologists it is imperative to re- case-studies that will provide some back- alize that the narrative contained in ex- ground for the model outlined above. change also has a material reflection. One of the main reasons for the social value of Kula valuables a social valuable lies in the fact that it is The Trobriand Islands are part of the ideally suited to hold a narrative.7 It is not a Massim, an archipelago that trails of to the

Journal of Caribbean Archaeology, Special Publication #3 2010 81 Something for nothing Mol south and east of the main island of New the foundation of kula is that of an ex- Guinea. It is on these islands that Mali- change game that is geared towards social nowski conducted fieldwork from 1915 standing and not power accumulation until 1918 and the subject of the most well- (Munn 1986). known ethnographic account of exchange, When playing kula the central purpose is the Argonauts of the Western Pacific to gain “fame”, both at the level of the indi- (Malinowski 1922). In this work Ma- vidual and at the level of the community linoswki describes in a most elaborate (Damon 2002; Munn 1986). It appears that manner the practice of kula that was later only a minor part of the measure of success used by Mauss in his cross-cultural discus- of a kula player is ascribed by reference to sion of gift giving (Mauss 1925). The kula how many kula valuables they have and is an exchange in which vaygu'a, kula valu- what the values of the owned objects are ables – necklaces of red shell, called sou- (Campbell 1983; Weiner 1992). Instead, lava, and white shell bracelets, called for a kula player the constitution of his suc- mwali – are exchanged along “kula paths” cess is for a great deal dependent on his between players from communities from fame, i.e., the narratives of what valuable different islands. A kula exchange consists he exchanged why, when, where and with of A giving to a desired exchange partner B whom. This spread of their fame is possible an opening gift. This is done with the idea because kula valuables are individually in mind that when B gets his hand on either recognizable artifacts to experienced play- a desirable soulava or mwali A will receive ers and are often named. In addition, the this as a return gift. In this manner a sou- value of an individual mwali or soulava is lava social valuable travels in a clockwise constructed through its circulation - some- manner through the area known as the thing Malinowski already remarked upon ‘kula ring’, while a mwali social valuable (Malinowski 1922: 511). Therefore, in or- makes this journey in a counter clockwise der to know the value of a mwali or sou- motion (Leach and Leach 1983; Mali- lava those who participate in kula must nowski 1922: 81-104). also know the entire exchange history of The kula is the favourite example of the kula path that the object “travelled on.” ‘quid-pro-quo’ reciprocity among anthro- For instance, for the documented case of pologists (Sykes 2005). When it is quoted the mwali “Nonowan” the recorded history by non-Melanesian specialists it is often runs from 1938 to 1976 and comprised a remarked how important kula is as an ac- list of 24 different exchange partners who tivity for males to increase their political were divided among fourteen different power through prestige driven exchanges. communities (Damon 1980). Less often these non-specialists draw atten- It is easy to recognize the skill in track- tion to the fact that the exchange of shell ing which advanced kula players, partaking valuables is only a minor part of the totality in several kula paths, should have in order of exchanges in the kula ring, among which to be successful and gain fame. I would a huge number of intra-island and interis- also like to point out that fame in the kula land perishable and non-perishable materi- ring depends largely on how strong recip- als that function as the constituents of this rocal acts are remembered with the func- exchange system (Weiner 1987). It is even tion of the kula valuable as focal point for less often acknowledged that, although the collective social memory. Additionally, kula is unmistakably connected to power, it is important to stress that being social

Journal of Caribbean Archaeology, Special Publication #3 2010 82 Something for nothing Mol

Figure 2. Map of The Late Ceramic Age Caribbean indicating the spread of shell faces and the Chican Ostionoid heartland. and open-handed are highly valued quali- analogy with contemporary Arawakan lan- ties in the communities that make up the guages it is known that guaíza probably kula ring (Munn 1986). Kula would be one means “our face” (Brinton 1871; Oliver of many ways in which these qualities 2009). The shell face guaíza would have would be made visible and traceable. been worn in a configuration with other materials around the neck or around the Guaízas waste as part of a girdle. It is very likely Guaízas are a class of face-depicting ob- that it would have been further adorned jects from the latter part of the Late Ce- with gold or tumbaga inlays (Alegría ramic Age (+/- AD 1000-1492) and are al- 1981). Together with statements in Spanish most all made of parts of the Strombus gi- historical sources of the early contact pe- gas and (more rarely) Srombus costatus riod and other sources of information on shell. They are far from a common find in Taíno worldview we can postulate that the archaeological record, but they do oc- these shell faces are the materialization of cur in almost the whole of the Antillean the faces of superhuman beings and ances- archipelago with reported findings from tors. They are also intimately linked with central Cuba all the way to the Grenadines personhood and the lineage of the individ- in the southern Lesser Antilles (Figures 2, ual who is wearing the guaíza (Las Casas 3 and 4).10 1875, 1992; Mol 2007; Oliver 1997, 2000; Additionally, they all have iconographic Pané 1999 [1571]; Siegel 1998). Addition- elements that are strongly reminiscent of ally, it is stated in one ethnohistorical the Chican or Meillacan Ostionoid style source and further postulated through evi- that is connected to the Taíno, yet they are dence from a petroglyph at the ball court in a sense all unique (Mol 2007). Through site of Caguana in Puerto Rico that the

Journal of Caribbean Archaeology, Special Publication #3 2010 83 Something for nothing Mol

Figure 3. Table with absolute numbers of guaízas per island and pie chart with percentual distribution of guaízas per region. guaíza was part of the “regalia” of Taíno Ethnohistorical evidence might not be caciques (Las Casas 1992: Chapter 59; enough to definitely prove that these ob- Oliver 1998). jects would have been exchanged in the The above suggests that a guaíza would pre-Columbian period or whether it is have probably been an important object for merely the idea of a shell face that was dif- the establishment and symbolic expression fused through a larger area. It could be said of political power relations among the that the archaeometric impossibility of Taíno. However, the ethnohistorical record finding a detailed provenance of seashell tells us that guaízas were also favoured as a debilitates my argument for those who de- gift by the Taíno to the Spaniards. From lude themselves that archaeology can ever 1495 to 1497 Christopher Columbus re- find “proof of exchange.” Therefore, at- ceived 45 guaízas and 6 girdles with faces tractive as it might be, I am not out to show at the settlement of La Isabela (Alegría that certain guaízas were transported from 1980; Mol 2008). In a later shipping list certain islands to other specific islands. from 1506, guaízas are still named as one One could make a case against the notion of the few objects among shipments of that guaiza distribution is caused by the gold (Mira Caballos 2000). We have sev- diffusal of an idea. First there is the stylis- eral specific descriptions of the gift of a tic similarity, balanced with the individual- guaíza to Colón (Fernandez de Navarete ity of every artefact, which shows that the 1922: 129, 154 & 229). The gift of a guaíza unique nature of a guaiza was more impor- seems to have been aimed at drawing Co- tant than the idea behind it. Also, the small lumbus and other Europeans into the social number of guaízas in the Lesser Antilles sphere of the donor.11 makes it less parsimonious to posit that the

Journal of Caribbean Archaeology, Special Publication #3 2010 84 Something for nothing Mol idea of a guaíza spread through some or production of communal and individual other means but was only put into material reputations. form once or twice for the islands in which So, I would say that, analogously to the they occur. In the end it is not the argument Trobriand kula system and many other ex- if they were exchanged or not that interests change systems across the globe, the ex- me, but how they functioned as social valu- change of these guaízas was part of a ables in local social strategies and (re) strong reciprocal tactic. This tactic was

Figure 4. Greater and Lesser Antillean guaízas: a. guaíza from Potrero de El Mango, located at Museo Indocu- bano Baní, Banes, Cuba; b. guaíza with an unknown context, located at the Fundación García Arévalo, Santo Domingo, Republica Dominicana; c. guaíza from Sandy Hill, Anguilla; d. Guaíza from Morne Cybèle-1, La Désirade, Guadeloupe; e. Guaíza from Potrero de El Mango, located at the Gabineta de Arqueología, Havana, Cuba (a, b& e photographed by author, c & d courtesy of Menno L.P. Hoogland).

Journal of Caribbean Archaeology, Special Publication #3 2010 85 Something for nothing Mol used by the indigenous people of the the wider context of the politics of general Greater Antilles to influence and keep track human social interaction (cf. "practice of of the disposition of extra-social others to exchange": Bourdieu 1977; Bourdieu 1990, engage in social behavior.12 It would not be 1997). The exchange of social valuables is necessary for such an exchange to be recip- something that every member of society rocal in nature. Indeed, a guaíza is an ideal will engage in, not only aggrandizing elite artefact to have an object narrative. All men. guaízas share a similar style, but are unique Furthermore, strong reciprocity and individuals and therefore easily recogniz- tracking would be especially important in able. Also, the fact that the guaíza seems to situations in which the disposition of social be connected to personhood gives it an partners is something that should be care- identity that would have been retraceable in fully moderated or situations in which non- an exchange network. Although the spe- kin social networks take an especially im- cific histories are lost to us, a specific portant place among social relations. These guaíza could have represented memories of would have been situations that would have past exchanges and could have held the been prevalent in the pan-Caribbean names and biographies of previous owners. spheres of intensive and extensive interac- The biggest incentive for the gift of a tion: e.g., exogamous marriage patterns guaíza might have been that it would add a (Keegan and Machlachlan 1989), network- new part of the donor’s social narrative and type strategies for gaining political power that of the donor’s lineage by spreading (Blanton, et al. 1996), a combination of the his/her social nature, name and “fame”.13 above (Keegan, et al. 1998; Siegel 2004), intergroup contact (Hofman, et al. 2007; Implications for a pan-Caribbean theory Hofman and Bright 2008), the problem of of exchange social distance and lifelines for migrants Although the two case-studies above are (Keegan 2004; cf. Kirch 1988), but also the not meant to be exhaustive, I hope they interactions with superhuman beings and show that strong reciprocal interaction de- ancestors (Oliver 1997). In these and other serves a place as an alternative explanation situations the strong reciprocal giving of alongside formalist models of exchange. social valuables would be an important Provided the cognitive foundations for the strategy to draw in extra-social others into social system are not vastly different for one’s sphere of familiarity and from contemporary human groups than for the thereon keep track of and influence their indigenous groups of the pre-Columbian social behavior (cf. Mol 2007; compare Caribbean we should expect distribution Santos-Granero 2007). patterns and emic valuation of social valu- What I hope this shows is that Caribbean ables to be partly influenced by strong re- archaeologists would do well to take ac- ciprocity instead of only direct gain count of exchange tactics other than direct through reciprocity. This would entail that reciprocity or chiefly redistribution. For less focus should be put on exchange as it future work I will continue to map and is operated in conventional models of model various social strategies that can be socio-political evolution (e.g., Earle 1981, retraced using ethnoarchaeological, ethno- 1997). When vesting the exchange of so- historical and archaeological resources and cial valuables within this framework it present these in conjunction with new ideas politicizes exchange on a different level: in on social networks in the Greater Carib-

Journal of Caribbean Archaeology, Special Publication #3 2010 86 Something for nothing Mol bean (Mol and Mans in prep.). The exam- 7. I would argue that certain objects are better ples of strong reciprocity given here is just equipped to hold narrative than others, although appearances can be deceiving. I think that this qual- one out of many available social strategies ity would be detectable by archaeologists because in the Caribbean Late Ceramic Age, but it certain objects are more easily recognizable and would have been important to cement so- memorable than others -, e.g., through the use of cial relations along Greater Caribbean local particular iconographic patterns. It certainly is the and long-distance lines of exchange. So, case that the more durable an object is, the more likely it will be that its narrative will be remem- although on a proximal level strong recip- bered (Helms 1998: Chapter 11). rocity entails that something could have 8. Of course, it is impossible for archaeologists to been given away for nothing or next to reconstruct that narrative. Even if it were possible to nothing, on an ultimate level it would still compose such a narrative it would exist of a long have been a profitable exchange tactic in list of names and in itself would not be that interest- ing (Graeber 2001: 33). However, for the under- an interconnected pan-Caribbean exchange standing of exchange it is crucial to realize that nar- landscape. rative plays an integral part to the constitution of a social valuable. 9. Of course this focus on exchange valuables as 1. This characterization of a pan-Caribbean sphere mnemonic devices for social interaction is in line of interaction is taken from a 2007 NWO with the recent upsurge of memory studies in ar- (Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research) chaeology (Mills and Walker 2008; Van Dyke project proposal of Corinne L. Hofman. 2009; Van Dyke and Alcock 2003). 2. This particular version of the Maussian gift be- 10. See Mol (2007) for an extended overview of came institutionalized for archaeologists in the theoretical, socio-cultural, ethnohistorical and ar- works of another founding father of economic an- chaeological contexts of guaízas and their ex- thropology: Polanyi (1944; and for archaeologists change. especially 1957). 11. It has to be noted that in some cases Colón actu- 3. A freerider is someone who is not bearing the ally directly gives back object to the donors of a cost for communal efforts or who consumes more guaíza. However the initiation of gift giving comes than his or her fair share. from the side of the indigenous inhabitants of His- 4. In a recent book the cognitive psychologist and paniola. Additionally, the gift of a guaíza often di- philosopher Daniel D. Hutto places narratives at the rectly follows a precarious social situation, e.g., the core of a child’s development of its folk psychol- shipwreck of Colón’s flagship the Santa María ogy, i.e., how one deduces how other people reason (Fernandez de Navarete 1922: 129), the battle of the (Hutto 2008). Bay of Arrows (Fernandez de Navarete 1922: 154), 5. Or consider other variants: Christopher Colum- and the return of Colón on his second voyage at La bus captures the cacique Caonabo, because the ca- Navidad, only to find the settlement deserted and cique Guacanagarí reports that Caonabo was re- burned to the ground (Fernandez de Navarete 1922: sponsible for the destruction of La Navidad, the first 229). Spanish settlement on Hispaniola. Columbus be- 12. See Santos-Granero (2007) for an excellent dis- lieves Guacanagarí because he has helped Colón cussion for motives and media of similar types of when he was shipwrecked during his first journey. strong reciprocal exchange in Amazonia. Conversely it is possible to put into narrative form 13. For an analogous argument concerning the ex- that Scholar A writes a damning review of a grant change of Greater Antillean zemi objects and a simi- application by B, since scholar B did not support a lar discussion of guaíza exchange, see Oliver’s major article by C, who was the mentor of D who is thought provoking new monograph (Oliver 2009). a collaborator on a research project with A. 6. It is reasonable to suspect that this trustworthi- ness may be a deciding quality in a struggle for References cited leadership positions. In this sense being a leader is not about controlling wealth, but about being a Alegría, R.E. clever social actor. 1980 Cristóbal Colón y el Tesoro de los Indios Taínos de Española. Santo

Journal of Caribbean Archaeology, Special Publication #3 2010 87 Something for nothing Mol

Domingo: Ediciones Fundación States of America 100(6): 3531- García Arévalo. 3535. 1981 El Uso de la Incrustación en la Brinton, D. G. Escultura de los Indios Antillanos. 1871 The Arawack Language of Guyana Santo Domingo: Fundación García in its Linguistic and Ethnological Arévalo. Relations., Philadelphia: McCalla Alexander, R.D. and Stavely Printers. 1987 The Biology of Moral Systems., Campbell, S. F. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1983 Kula in Vakuta: the mechanics of Hawthorne. Keda. In The Kula: New perspec- Appadurai, A. tives on Massim exchange, edited 1986 Commodities and the Politics of by J. W. Leach and E. R. Leach, pp. Value. In The Social Life of Things: 201-227. Cambridge: Cambridge Commodities in Cultural Perspec- University Press. tive, edited by A. Appadurai, pp. 3- Clark, G. 63. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer- 1986 Symbols of Excellence. Cambridge: sity Press. Cambridge University Press. Axelrod, R. M. Damon, F. H. 1997 The Complexity of Cooperation: 1980 The Kula and Generalised Ex- Agent-Based Models of Competi- change: Considering Some Uncon- tion and Collaboration. Princeton: sidered Aspects of the Elementary Princeton University Press. Structures of Kinship. Man 15(2): Blanton, R. E., G. M. Feinman, S. A. 267-292. Kowalewski and P. N. Peregrine 2002 Kula Valuables: The Problem of 1996 A Dual-Processual Theory for the Value and the Production of Names. Evolution of Mesoamerican Civili- L'Homme 162(2): 107-136. zation. Current Anthropology 37 Earle, T. (1): 1-14. 1981 The Ecology and Politics of Primi- Bourdieu, P. tive Valuables. In Culture and 1977 Outline of a Theory of Practice. Ecology: Eclectic Perspectives, ed- Cambridge: Cambridge University ited by J. G. Kennedy and R. G. Press. Edgerton, pp. 65-83. Special Publi- 1990 The Logic of Practice. Translated by cations of the American Anthropo- Translation by R. Nice. Cambridge: Polity logical Association. vol. 15. Wash- Press. ington D.C.: American Anthropo- 1997 Marginalia: Some Additional Notes logical Association. on the Gift. In The Logic of the 1997 How Chiefs Come to Power: The Gift : Toward an Ethic of Generos- Political Economy in Prehistory. ity, edited by A. D. Schrift, pp. 231- Stanford: Stanford University Press. 245. London/New York: Routledge. Fehr, E. and U. Fischbacher Boyd, R., H. Gintis, S. Bowles, and P. J. 2003 The Nature of Human Altruism. Richerson Nature 425: 785-791. 2003 The evolution of altruistic punish- 2004 Third-party punishment and social ment. Proceedings of the National norms. Evolution and Human Be- Academy of Sciences of the United havior 25(2): 63-87.

Journal of Caribbean Archaeology, Special Publication #3 2010 88 Something for nothing Mol

Fehr, E., U. Fischbacher, and S. Gächter Population Ecology 47(1): 3-12. 2002 Strong reciprocity, human coopera- Gosden, C., and Y. Marshall tion, and the enforcement of social 1999 The Cultural Biography of Objects. norms. Human Nature 13(1): 1-25. World Archaeology 31(2): 169-178. Fehr, E., and S. Gächter Graeber, D. 2000 Cooperation and Punishment in 2001 Toward an Anthropological Theory Public Goods Experiments. The of Value: The False Coin of Our American Economic Review 90(4): Own Dreams. New York: Palgrave. 980-994. Gregory, C. A. Fernandez de Navarete, M. 1982 Gifts and Commodities. London: 1922 Viajes de Cristóbal Colón. Madrid: Academic Press. Calpe. Helms, M. W. Flesch, W. 1988 Ulysses’ sail: an ethnographic Od- 2007 Comeuppance: Costly Signalling, yssey of power, knowledge, and Altruistic Punishment and Other geographical distance. Princeton: Biological Components of Fiction. Princeton University Press. Cambridge/London: Harvard Uni- 1993 Craft and the Kingly Ideal. Austin: versity Press. University of Texas Press. Gintis, H. 1998 Access to Origins: Affi- 2000 Strong Reciprocity and Human So- nes, Ancestors and Aristocrats. ciality. Journal of Theoretical Biol- Austin: University of Texas Press. ogy 206(2): 169-179. Henrich, J. and R. Boyd Gintis, H., E. Alden Smith and S. Bowles 2001 Why People Punish Defectors: 2001 Costly Signaling and Cooperation. Weak Conformist Transmission can Journal of Theoretical Biology 213: Stabilize Costly Enforcement of 103-119. Norms in Cooperative Dilemmas. Gintis, H. S. Bowles, R. Boyd and E. Fehr Journal of Theoretical Biology 208 (eds) (1): 79-89. 2005 Moral Sentiments and Material In- Henrich, J., R. McElreath, A. Barr, J. terests: The Foundations of Coop- Ensminger, C. Barrett, A. Bolyanatz, J. eration in Economic Life. Cam- Camilo Cardenas, M. Gurven, E. Gwako, bridge: The MIT Press. N. Henrich, C. Lesorogol, F. Marlowe, D. Gintis, H., J. Henrich, S. Bowles, R. Boyd Tracer and J. Ziker and E. Fehr 2006 Costly Punishment Across Human 2008 Strong Reciprocity and the Roots of Societies. Science 312(5781): 1767- Human Morality. Social Justice Re- 1770. search 21(2): 241-253. Henrich, J. P., R. Boyd, S. Bowles, C. Godbout, J. T., and A. Caillé Camerer, E. Fehr and H. Gintis 1998 The World of the Gift. Translated 2004 Foundations of Human Sociality: by D. Winkler. Montreal & King- Economic Experiments and Ethno- ston: McGill-Queen's University graphic Evidence from Fifteen Press. Small-Scale Societies. Oxford: Ox- Goodnight, C. J. ford University Press. 2005 Multilevel selection: the evolution of cooperation in non-kin groups.

Journal of Caribbean Archaeology, Special Publication #3 2010 89 Something for nothing Mol

Hofman, C. L., A. J. Bright, A. Boomert Kirch, P. V. and S. Knippenberg 1988 Long-distance exchange 2007 Island Rhythms: The web of social and island colonization: The Lapita relationships and interaction net- case. Norwegian Archaeological works in the Lesser Antillean archi- Review 21(2): 103-117. pelago between 400 BC and AD Kopytoff, I. 1492. Latin American Antiquity 18 1986 The Cultural Biography of Things: (3): 243-268. Commoditization as process. In The Hofman, C. L., and A. J. Bright Social Life of Things: Commodities 2008 Ideas Atractivas, Bienes Deseables: in cultural perspective, edited by A. influencias taínas en las Antillas Appadurai, pp. 64-95. Cambridge: Menores. Caribe Arqueológico 10: Cambridge University Press. 31-42. Las Casas, B. de Hutto, D. (ed) 1875 Historia de las Indias: Tomo I. 2007 Narrative and Understanding Per- Madrid: Imprente de Miguel sons. Cambrigde: Cambridge Uni- Ginesta. versity Press. 1992 Apologética historia sumaria. 2008 Folk Psychological Narratives: The Madrid: Allianza. socio-cultural basis of understand- Leach, J. W., and E. R. Leach ing reasons., Cambridge: The MIT 1983 Introduction. In The Kula: New per- Press. spectives on Massim exchange, ed- Jacobson, S. E. ited by J. W. Leach and E. R. 1987 The Art of Giving. New York: Leach, pp. 1-26. Cambridge: Cam- Harry N. Abrams Publishers. bridge University Press. Keegan, W. F. Malinowski, B. 2004 Islands of Chaos. In Late Ceramic 1922 Argonauts of the Western Pacific. Age Societies in the Eastern Carib- Prospect Heights: Waveland Press. bean, edited by A. Delpuech and C. Mauss, M. L. Hofman, pp. 33-44. Paris Mono- 1925 Essai sur le don: Forme et raison de graphs in American Archaeology l’échange dans les sociétés archaï- 14/BAR International Series. vol. ques. L’Année Sociologique 1273. Oxford: Archaeopress. (nouvelle serie) 1: 30-186. Keegan, W. F., and M. D. Machlachlan Mills, B. J. and W. H. Walker (eds) 1989 The Evolution of Avuncolocal 2008 Memory Work: Archaeologies of Chiefdoms: A Reconstruction of Material Practices. Santa Fe: Taino Kinship and Politics. Ameri- School for Advanced Research can Anthropologist 91: 613-630. Press. Keegan, W. F., M. D. Maclachlan, and B. Mira Caballos, E. Byrne 2000 Las Antillas Mayores, 1492-1550. 1998 Social foundations of Taíno Ca- Ensayos y documentos., Madrid: ciques. In Chiefdoms and chief- Ibereoamericana. taincy in the Americas, edited by Mol, A. A. A. Elsa M. Redmond, pp. 215-244. 2007 Costly Giving, Giving Guaízas: To- Gainesville: University Press of wards an organic model of the ex- Florida. change of social valuables in the

Journal of Caribbean Archaeology, Special Publication #3 2010 90 Something for nothing Mol

Late Ceramic Age Caribbean. Spun by Taíno Rulers between His- MPhil thesis, Faculty of Archae- paniola and Puerto Rico. Caribbean ology, Leiden University. Leiden: Archaeology and Ethnohistory Se- Sidestone Press. ries. Tuscaloosa: University of Ala- 2008 Universos Socio-cósmicos en bama Press. colisión: descripciones Pané, Ramón etnohistóricas de situaciones de 1999 [1571] An Account of the Antiq- intercambio en la Antillas Mayores uities of the Indians. 1999 edition durante el perodo de proto-contacto with an introductory study, notes, Caribe Arqueológico 10: 13-22 and appendixes by J. J. Arrom ed. (translated by R. Valcárcel Rojas). Translated by S.C. Griswold. Dur- Mol, A. A. A., and J. L. Mans ham and London: Duke University in prep. Old Boys Networks in the In- Press. digenous Caribbean: When the Polanyi, K. value of social relations surpasses 1944 The Great Transformation: The Po- that of material wealth. In Regional litical and Economic Origins of Network Analysis in Archaeology, Our Time. London: Camelot Press. edited by C. Knappett. Oxford: Ox- 1957 The Economy as Instituted Process. ford University Press. In Trade and Market in the Early Munn, N. D. Empires, edited by Karl Polanyi, 1986 The Fame of Gawa: A Symbolic Conrad M. Arensberg and Harry W. Study of Value Transformation in a Pearson, pp. 243-270. Glencoe, Illi- Massim (Papua New Guinea) Soci- nois: Free Press. ety. Durham and London: Duke Richerson, P. J. and R. Boyd University Press. 2004 Not By Genes Alone: How Culture Oliver, J. R. Transformed Human Evolution. 1997 The Taíno Cosmos. In The indige- Chicago: Chicago University Press. nous people of the Caribbean, ed- Rodríguez Ramos, R. ited by S. M. Wilson, pp. 140-153. 2007 Puerto Rican Precolonial History Gainesville: University Press of Etched in Stone. Unpublished Ph.D. Florida. dissertation, University of Florida, 1998 El Centro Ceremonial de Caguana, Gainesville. Puerto Rico: Simbolismo Santos-Granero, F. iconográfico, cosmovisión y el 2007 Of fear and friendship: Amazonian poderío caciquil Taíno de sociality beyond kinship and affin- Borinquen. 727. Oxford: ity. Journal of the Royal Anthropo- Archaeopress. logical Institute 13(1):1-18. 2000 Gold symbolism among Caribbean Siegel, P. E. chiefdoms: Of feathers, Cibas, and 1998 Ancestor worship and cosmology guanín power among Taíno elites. among the Taino. In TaÍno: Pre- In Precolumbian Gold. Technology, columbian Art and Culture from the style and iconograph, edited by Caribbean, edited by F. Bercht, E. Colin McEwan, pp. 198- 219. Lon- Brodsky, J. A. Farmer and D. Tay- don: British Museum Press. lor, pp. 106-111. New York: The 2009 Caciques and Cemí Idols: The Web Monacelli Press.

Journal of Caribbean Archaeology, Special Publication #3 2010 91 Something for nothing Mol

2004 What happened after AD 600 in New Perspectives in Trobriand Ex- Puerto Rico?: Corporate groups, change. Austin: University of population restructuring, and Post- Texas Press. Saladoid changes. In Late Ceramic 1987 The Trobrianders of Papua New Age Societies in the Eastern Carib- Guinea. Belmont: Wadsworth bean, edited by A. Delpuech and C. Group/Thomson Learning. L. Hofman, pp. 87-101. Paris 1992 Inalienable Possessions: The Para- Monographs in American Archae- dox of Keeping-While-Giving. ology 14/BAR International Series Berkeley [etc.]: University of Cali- 1273. Oxford: Archaeopress. fornia Press. Sober, E. and D. S. Wilson 1998 Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior. Cambridge, Massachussets/London: Harvard University Press. Spielmann, K. A. 2002 Feasting, Craft Specialization, and the Ritual Mode of Production in Small-Scale Societies. American Anthropologist 104(1):195-207. Ssorin-Chaikov, N. 2006 On heterochrony: birthday gifts to Stalin, 1949. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 12(2): 355-375. Sykes, K. 2005 Arguing with Anthropology: An introduction to critical theories of the gift., London and New York: Routledge. Thomas, N. 1991 Entangled Objects: Exchange, Ma- terial Culture, and Colonialism in the Pacific. Cambridge /London: Harvard University Press. Van Dyke, R. M. 2009 Chaco reloaded: Discursive social memory on the post-Chacoan landscape. Journal of Social Archae- ology 9(2): 220-248. Van Dyke, R. M., and S. E. Alcock (eds) 2003 Archaeologies of Memory. Malden: Blackwell Publishing. Weiner, A.B. 1976 Women of Value, Men of Renown:

Journal of Caribbean Archaeology, Special Publication #3 2010 92