Social inequality evolved in the Middle Fraser(Mid-Fraser) Canyon of British Columbiaprior to European contact (Teit 1906). Long

before the coming of Europeans, the ancient peo-ple of the Mid-Fraser Canyon constructed large vil-lages (or towns) and their chiefs presided overmassive households of sometimes 50 or more per-

sons. Archaeological research in the Mid-Fraservillages offers the opportunity to develop and testtheoretical models of emergent inequality (Prentissand Kuijt 2012; Prentiss et al. 2007).

Our research is concerned with the emergenceof material wealth-based inequality. By emer-gence we mean development of a new or previ-

THE CULTURAL EVOLUTION OF MATERIAL WEALTH-BASEDINEQUALITY AT BRIDGE RIVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA

Anna Marie Prentiss, Thomas A. Foor, Guy Cross, Lucille E. Harris, and Michael Wanzenried

A fundamental problem for anthropological archaeology lies in defining and explaining the evolutionary origins of socialinequality. Researchers have offered a range of models emphasizing variability in the roles of managers, aggrandizers, eco-logical variability, and historical contexts. Recent studies suggest that the form of emergent inequality may have varied sig-nificantly between groups, implying that pathways to inequality may have varied as well. Unfortunately it has been difficultto test many of these models using archaeological data given their requirements for fine-grained assessments of spa-tiotemporal variability in many data classes. Recent research at the Bridge River site in British Columbia provides theopportunity to explore the utility of a range of explanatory models associated with early social inequality. Results of thestudy suggest that inequality, measured as significant variability in accumulation of a range of material wealth items, camelate to the Bridge River site (ca. 1200–1300 cal. B.P.) and was associated with a period of demographic packing and appar-ent declining access to some critical subsistence resources. Assessment of interhousehold variability in demography, wealthaccumulation, and occupational longevity suggests that markers of significant affluence manifested only in newly estab-lished houses. An important implication is that material wealth-based inequality may not have been hereditary in nature atBridge River during the period prior to 1100 cal. B.P.

La definición y explicación de los orígenes evolutivos de la desigualdad social son problemas fundamentales para la arque-ología antropológica. Diferentes investigadores han proporcionado una gama de modelos que enfatizan la variabilidad en losroles de administradores y aggrandizers, versatilidad ecológica, y de los contextos históricos. Estudios recientes sugieren quela forma de desigualdad emergente pudo haber variado notablemente entre los grupos, lo cual implica que los caminos haciala desigualdad pudieron haber variado también. Desafortunadamente ha sido difícil probar estos modelos usando datos arque-ológicos, debido a que estos requieren detalladas evaluaciones sobre variabilidad espacio-temporal en diferentes clases dedatos. Investigaciones recientes en el sitio Bridge River (Columbia Británica) ofrecen la oportunidad de explorar la utilidadde un rango de modelos explicativos asociados a desigualdad social temprana. Los resultados sugieren que la desigualdad,medida como variabilidad significativa en cuanto a acumulación de artículos de lujo, se presentó de forma tardía en BridgeRiver (1200–1300 AP); y que ésta es asociada a un periodo de concentración demográfica y a una aparente declinación enel acceso a recursos de subsistencia. La evaluación de variabilidad demográfica entre viviendas, acumulación de riquezas ylongevidad ocupacional sugieren que los marcadores de afluencia se manifestaron solamente en casas recién establecidas.Una implicación importante es que la desigualdad basada en riqueza material pudo no haber sido hereditaria en el sitio BridgeRiver durante el periodo anterior a 1100 AP.

Anna Marie Prentiss � Department of Anthropology, The University of Montana, Missoula, Montana 59812 (anna.prentiss@umontana.edu)Thomas A. Foor � Department of Anthropology, The University of Montana, Missoula, Montana 59812Guy Cross � Terrascan Geophysics, 4506 West 4th Avenue, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6R 1R3Lucille E. Harris � Department of Anthropology, 19 Russell Street, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5S2S2Michael Wanzenried � Department of Anthropology, The University of Montana, Missoula, Montana 59812

American Antiquity 77(3), 2012, pp. 542–564Copyright ©2012 by the Society for American Archaeology

542

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Ful

l Acc

ess

(289

-07-

305)

IP

Add

ress

: 150

.131

.73.

254

W

edne

sday

, Jan

uary

30,

201

3 5:

05:2

4 PM

WEALTH-BASED INEQUALITY AT BRIDGE RIVER 543

ously unknown sociocultural configuration man-ifested on the scale of a village (Prentiss 2009).Inequality accepts that individuals and/or groupsseek to accumulate differential material wealth forself-serving reasons, particularly for economicand reproductive advantage (Ames 2008). Theconcept of wealth can include relational wealth(one’s position in social networks) and embodiedwealth (biological manifestation of opportunity asin immune function, strength, weight, etc.)(Bowles et al. 2010). Here, we focus on material wealth— things that “store” wealth such as land,food resources, household possessions, and itemsof adornment or jewelry (Bowles et al. 2010:9).

Material wealth can be acquired through indi-vidual or group achievements (Hayden 1995) or itcan be inherited arrangements (Ames 2008; e.g.,Matson and Coupland 1995). Achievement-basedinequality in material wealth is theoretically pos-sible in virtually any ranked society, but inheritedwealth is more tricky. Recent comparative ethnog-raphy suggests that material wealth is most easilyinherited when it occurs in recognizable and de-fensible packages like field systems, livestockherds, or fishing sites (Mulder et al. 2009). Amonghunter-gatherers, these packages commonly in-clude seasonal access to concentrated food re-sources such as fish or sea mammals (Binford2001). While ecological heterogeneity may be op-timal for such a system to develop and persist, itdoes not explain the historical process by which in-equality develops (e.g., Wiessner 2002). Indeed,there may be quite different pathways to the dif-ferent forms of inequality depending upon whetherone is measuring simple wealth-based inequalityor an inherited status system. Here, we offer datathat provides information on this process in onecase study from the Pacific Northwest.

Recent excavations at the Bridge River house-pit village (EeRl4 in the Canadian system) insouthern British Columbia (Prentiss et al. 2008)record a complex historical process that led towealth-based and eventually hereditary inequal-ity. We use evolutionary models to help under-stand this process, assuming that any evolution-ary history includes both deterministic law-likeprocesses but also by incidents of historical con-tingency (Prentiss 2011). Our initial review ex-plores a range of theoretical approaches to in-equality. Then we provide a detailed case study of

village growth and socioeconomic and politicalchange at Bridge River. We use a multivariateanalysis of indices to measure interhouseholdvariability in subsistence, material wealth, andpopulation density.

One significant outcome is recognizing thatwealth-based inequality evolved here without ob-vious indicators of inherited status. If materialwealth were inherited, we would expect to seegreatest wealth developing in the most long-livedand economically and demographically success-ful houses (e.g., Ames 2006). However, our datasuggest greatest wealth accumulations occurred inlate houses that were only briefly occupied. Thisresult implies that the evolution of the ethno-graphically observed form of inequality in thePacific Northwest may have involved an inter-mediate step that retained elements of socioeco-nomic egalitarianism (e.g., no inheritance of ma-terial wealth). The simple ability to accumulatewealth may have been a historical prerequisite fora culture of ascribed inequality recognized ethno-graphically in the region.

Theoretical Views of Emergent InequalityThe evolution of material wealth-based inequality(henceforth, inequality) has been approached froma wide range of theoretical viewpoints, some gen-eralizing and others more particularistic in scope.Processualists have sought general explanationsand have emphasized adaptive solutions to suchconditions as population growth and informationmanagement (Ames 1985; Johnson 1982), eco-logical variability, population packing, territorial-ity and access to nonlocal goods (Kelly 1991), andresource heterogeneity, population packing, and la-bor management (Binford 2001). Models favoringsocioeconomic and political advantage of con-trolling resource hot-spots have been popular inthe Pacific Northwest (Coupland 1988; Matson1983, 1989; Matson and Coupland 1995).

Another school of thought implicates person-ality type as a general force in emergent inequal-ity (Hayden 1994, 1995, 1998; Maschner andPatton 1996). To Clark and Blake (1994), it is thecompetition between self-promoters (aggrandiz-ers) for prestige that is most critical to buildingcadres of followers, intensifying production, ex-panding social networks, and increasing numbers

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Ful

l Acc

ess

(289

-07-

305)

IP

Add

ress

: 150

.131

.73.

254

W

edne

sday

, Jan

uary

30,

201

3 5:

05:2

4 PM

of marriages and children. Arnold (1993) favorsa similar scenario but implicates adverse condi-tions as optimal for development of institutional-ized inequality.

Human behavioral ecologists have also offereda range of general models. Smith and Choi (2007)recast population growth and information man-agement as managerial mutualism. Boone (1992;see also Henrich and Gil-White 2001) suggeststhat patron-client relationships develop under con-ditions of differential access to critical resources.Mulder et al. (2009) and E.A. Smith et al. (2010),drawing from cross-cultural ethnographic data,agree that control of optimal resource patchesmust be significant to the emergence of inequality.Kennett et al. (2009) offer a mathematically so-phisticated retake on economic and political pay-offs of controlling the best resource patches.

A number of general models have also been of-fered by evolutionary anthropologists (e.g., Rich-erson and Boyd 1999, 2005; Richerson et al.2003). Henrich and Gil-While (2001) favor a gen-eral social learning model in which inequalitydevelops from the cultural transmission process(e.g., people imitate those who are most success-ful and in essence become their clientele; themost successful persons compete for such groupsof followers). Costly signaling theorists (e.g.,Bird et al. 2001; Boone 1998; Gurven et al. 2000)provide general models of the competitiveprocess. Boone (1998) argues that the competitivesignaling via altruism with food (e.g., feasting)should most readily occur under conditionswhereby competition for access to food within thegroup is severe, establishing cooperating groups(as in for territory defense) offers significant pay-offs, and that there is some long-term fitness pay-off for altruists as might occur during periods ofanticipated resource short-fall.

Not all scholars have favored generalizing ex-planations. Political economists and social theo-rists recognize that historical contingency plays asignificant role in the development of social in-stitutions, particularly when considered in thecontext of the intended and unintended outcomesof actions taken by individuals and groups (e.g.,Bender 1985; Pauketat 2007; Saitta 1997; Sas-saman 2011). This perspective is also appropriateto a Darwinian evolutionary theory that promotesevolutionary explanations as historical narratives

incorporating general processes like natural se-lection and the effects of historically contingentevents (e.g., Mayr 1982).

Cultural macroevolutionists (Prentiss et al.2009) use the concept of exaptation to describe asituation where a trait that evolves for one reason(whether adaptive or not) is later co-opted forsome other use, for example, spandrels in gothicchurches (Gould and Vrba 1982; Gould andLewontin 1979). With its emphasis on unintendedoutcomes the concept of exaptation may also helpexplain the origin of inequality as an adaptivestrategy that does not directly benefit most users.

Rosenberg (2009) explains the developmentof coercive social inequality as the consequence ofelected leaders taking on coercive roles in conflictresolution. Inequality becomes institutionalizedwhen such social systems are extrapolated (e.g.,Spencer 1997) on to other groups in new areasleading to greater distinctions in power and po-tential differential access to resources by the orig-inal delegated leader and immediate followers.Prentiss (2011) addresses first development ofnon-equals in a different way suggesting that in-equality is incipiently coded into some otherwiseegalitarian living arrangements. For example,house size evolves to solve problems to do with la-bor management, kin relations, and defense, butonce house-size inequality is present it can cometo represent differences in social standing andevolve further in that direction under altered so-cioeconomic conditions. Such a scenario, wherebya built environment designed to solve one problemis instrumental in triggering new concepts includ-ing institutionalized inequality, could apply to ide-ology and monument construction.

Although not originally couched in evolution-ary terms, Sassaman and Heckenberger (2004)outline a scenario whereby anthropogenic land-scapes of earthen mounds were created to cele-brate or reify new socio-religious beliefs but even-tually came to provide the blueprint for a newsociety featuring inequality. Theoretically, theconcept of dualities (sacred and profane, earth andsky) evolved first and was later co-opted to framerelationships between human groups (e.g., non-elite and elite as manifestations of earth and sky[e.g., Marcus and Flannery 1996]).

Other models of emergent inequality can be re-worked in evolutionary terms employing exapta-

544 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 77, No. 3, 2012

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Ful

l Acc

ess

(289

-07-

305)

IP

Add

ress

: 150

.131

.73.

254

W

edne

sday

, Jan

uary

30,

201

3 5:

05:2

4 PM

tion. Clark and Blake’s (1994) model is a partic-ularly good fit since it asserts that institutionalizedinequality in human societies is an unexpectedoutcome of competition between individuals. Thisinteresting scenario implies that social rules forstructuring inequality come about as a by-productof struggles for wealth, influence, and reproduc-tive success by individuals within emergingtransegalitarian communities. Under many sce-narios this process would develop under moreadverse resource conditions implying fitness re-ductions during the transition period (e.g., Arnold1993). This presents the possibility that inequal-ity could come about in a maladaptive or at best,non-aptive (per Gould and Vrba 1982) process.Once stabilized it could conceivably have groupbeneficial effects (e.g., Henrich and Boyd 2008),for example, if it permitted one group to better or-

ganize economically and/or militarily againstneighbors (e.g., Oliver 1962). Initial appearancethrough a competition for prestige, mates, andresources followed by further evolution undersay group selection for military advantage impliesan exaptive process.

The Bridge River Site and Mid-Fraser Archaeology

The Middle Fraser (Mid-Fraser) Canyon ofBritish Columbia (Figure 1) contains a number oflarge and well-preserved winter villages that pro-vide abundant evidence for an in situ develop-ment of wealth-based inequality during the past2,000 years (Prentiss and Kuijt 2012). The majorsites include Keatley Creek, Bridge River, Bell,Seton Lake, McKay Creek, and Kelly Lake

Prentiss et al.] WEALTH-BASED INEQUALITY AT BRIDGE RIVER 545

Figure 1. The Middle Fraser Canyon in context with key sites.

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Ful

l Acc

ess

(289

-07-

305)

IP

Add

ress

: 150

.131

.73.

254

W

edne

sday

, Jan

uary

30,

201

3 5:

05:2

4 PM

(Morin et al. 2008/2009). The most extensiveexcavations have been conducted at Bridge River(Prentiss et al. 2008), Keatley Creek (Hayden1994, 1997a, 1997b, 1998, 2000a, 2005; Haydenet al. 1996; Hayden and Mathewes 2009; Haydenand Schulting 1997; Prentiss et al. 2003; Prentisset al. 2005; Prentiss et al. 2007), and Bell (Stryd1973), located near the rich 6-Mile salmon fish-ery (Figure 1). This work provides a platform forfurther developing ideas about processes of emer-gent inequality.Keatley CreekOur dating sequence at the large village of Keat-ley Creek suggested a primary occupational his-tory spanning ca. 1700–900 cal. B.P. (Prentiss etal. 2003; Prentiss et al. 2005). We argued that ma-terial-wealth based ranking did not characterizeinterhousehold relationships at the village untilimmediately prior to abandonment (Prentiss etal. 2007; Prentiss et al. 2011). We also argued thathereditary inequalitymay have also been presentat Keatley Creek during the latter time frame(Prentiss et al. 2007). Kuijt (2001) and Kuijt andPrentiss (2004) highlighted regional ecologicalchanges and population growth as contributingfactors in the development of inequality and sub-sequent village abandonments after ca.1200–1300 cal. B.P. Prentiss et al. (2007; see alsoPrentiss 2009, 2011) hypothesized that inequalitymay have emerged at Keatley Creek through acompetitive process to attract new members intodemographically stressed households under in-creasingly harsh foraging conditions.Bridge RiverThe Bridge River site is one of the largest villagesin the Mid-Fraser area (Figure 2) consisting of ap-proximately 80 housepits and numerous externalpit features that include roasting ovens and cachepits (Prentiss et al. 2008). The occupational his-tory of Bridge River is similar to nearby KeatleyCreek. Earliest housepit occupations occurred atca. 1800 cal. B.P. followed by steady growth inhousepit numbers from the initial occupational pe-riod (Period BR 1, ca. 1600–1800 cal. B.P.),through the second period (Period BR 2, ca.1600–1300 cal. B.P.). Village size peaked at ca.1300–1100 cal. B.P. during a third occupationalperiod (Period BR 3) (Figure 3). The village was

subsequently abandoned and then reoccupied af-ter about 500–600 cal. B.P. during the fourth pe-riod (Period BR 4).

During the BR 2 and 3 periods housepit groupswere arranged in arcuate patterns that becameparticularly distinct during BR 3 times (Figure 3)(Prentiss et al. 2008). The exact meaning and cul-tural implications of the arcuate and ring-shapedpatterns are still being considered, but we knowthat similar ring-like arrangements of housepitsare present in other village sites, including Belland Kelly Creek (Sheppard and Muir 2010). Itseems likely that these could reflect occupationsby distinct social groups like lineages and clans asare known from the ethnographic period (Teit1906). They do not necessarily imply formal in-terhousehold or inter-individual ranking.

Radiocarbon evidence does tell us that therewas substantial growth in the Bridge River villagebetween ca. 1800 and 1100 cal. B.P. Indeed, plot-ting of cumulative probability distributions of ra-diocarbon dates from Bridge River households(91 dates; see Prentiss et al. 2008; Prentiss et al.2010) and external cooking features (13 dates; seePrentiss et al. 2004) using the CalPal calibrationprogram and the CalPal-Hulu 2007 calibrationdata (Weninger and Jöris 2003; Weninger et al.2010) demonstrate that the Bridge River villagedeveloped in a punctuated fashion with briefplateaus during the periods we identify as BR 1,2, and 3 (Figure 4). BR 3 may have been charac-terized by a potential doubling of the populationthat was short lived as the village was largelyabandoned by ca. 1100 cal. B.P. An interesting im-plication here is that normal practices for curtail-ing excess population growth (e.g., Hayden 1981)could have been relaxed under very good eco-nomic conditions as was evidently the case at ca.1300–1400 cal. B.P. Interestingly, external cook-ing ovens first appear in BR 3 times and reappearduring BR 4.

Zooarchaeological research conducted to datesuggests two major trends. First, frequency ofsalmon remains decline in most houses betweenBR 2 and 3 times suggesting the possibility of de-clining access to this critical food resource (Carl-son 2010; Smith, Prentiss, Lepofsky, Carlson,and Endo 2010; Ward 2011). This is very similarto what Prentiss et al. (2007) recognized at Keat-ley Creek at similar dates. Independent paleoe-

546 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 77, No. 3, 2012

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Ful

l Acc

ess

(289

-07-

305)

IP

Add

ress

: 150

.131

.73.

254

W

edne

sday

, Jan

uary

30,

201

3 5:

05:2

4 PM

Prentiss et al.] WEALTH-BASED INEQUALITY AT BRIDGE RIVER 547

Figure 2. Bridge River site map illustrating site grid, generalized contours, housepits, external pit features (EPFs), andtest excavation units from initial testing in 2003–2004 (Prentiss et al. 2008). EPFs are only in approximate positions andmultiple EPFs west of Housepit 25 were unfortunately not included in the GIS map.

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Ful

l Acc

ess

(289

-07-

305)

IP

Add

ress

: 150

.131

.73.

254

W

edne

sday

, Jan

uary

30,

201

3 5:

05:2

4 PM

548 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 77, No. 3, 2012

336

338

334

328

332

330

329

337

335

333

331

330

330

329

333

331

329

9

25

26 27

58

38

52

Matt Hogan19 September 2010

336

338

334

328

332

330

329

337

335

333

331

330

330

329

333

331

329

3

56

23

20

32

6

11

26

4950

35

15

71

54

28

78

64 48

336

338

334

328

332

330

329

337

335

333

331

330

330

329

333

331

329

1

4

3

25

20

59

24

39

63

29

77

19

17

70

37

55

61

31

58 60

54

28

62

66

16

51

12

18

65

33

336

338

334

328

332

330

329

337

335

333

331

330

330

329

333

331

329

4

8

3

20

34

22

57

50

5

38

60

54

10

18

Bridge River 1 Bridge River 2

Bridge River 3 Bridge River 4

Bridge River SiteBritish Columbia, Canada

EeR14

Housepit Rim

ContoursIndex : 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Meters

Figure 3. Map of occupation patterns at the Bridge River site including updates from Prentiss et al. (2008) based uponradiocarbon dating results of 2008–2009 field investigations (Table 3). Note in particular addition of Housepit 20 to BR2, Housepit 25 to BR 3 and Housepit 54 to BR 4.

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Ful

l Acc

ess

(289

-07-

305)

IP

Add

ress

: 150

.131

.73.

254

W

edne

sday

, Jan

uary

30,

201

3 5:

05:2

4 PM

cological research suggests that declining salmonin the eastern Pacific during the Medieval Warmperiod (ca. 1200–700 cal. B.P.) was a conse-quence of natural processes operating beyond hu-man control (e.g., Chatters et al. 1995; Finney etal. 2002; Patterson et al. 2005). Second, deer re-mains shift in nearly all houses from a pattern oflargely complete skeletal representation to a pat-tern dominated by lower limbs (Carlson 2010;Ward 2011), also similar to patterns recognized atKeatley Creek for these dates and considered tobe a likely consequence of intense local predationand resource depression (Prentiss et al. 2007).Normally this kind of change in foraging practiceimplies a local population facing reduced local ac-cess to its critical food sources, in this case salmonand deer (e.g., Broughton 1994). Further work isrequired to fully understand change in plant har-vesting practices.

All told, it would appear that the Bridge Rivervillage grew significantly, developed geometricarrangements of houses, and eventually sufferedsome forms of subsistence stress between 1800and 1100 cal. B.P. The history of nearby KeatleyCreek (Prentiss et al. 2007) implies the possibilityof social evolution favoring expanding materialwealth-based inequality during this time. But wecannot consider this without further analysis of in-ter-household variability in wealth/status markers.

Inequality at Bridge RiverThe 2007–2009 excavations at Bridge River weredesigned to develop data permitting us to assessthe evolution of inequality in BR 2 and 3 house-holds (excavation details are outlined in Prentisset al. 2010). Briefly our approach was to use geo-physical methods (Cross 2004, 2005, 2010; Pren-tiss et al. 2008; Prentiss et al. 2010) to identify do-

mestic activity areas (places where families con-ducted household work associated with artifactmanufacture and use, cooking, and food storage)in a sample of BR 2 and 3 houses of different sizesfrom northern and southern areas of the village(Figure 5–7; Table 1). Excavations in these areaswere highly successful and typically resulted inidentification of complex stratified sequences ofburied floors (often with domestic activity areasinclude cache pits filled with refuse). Stratifiedfloor/roof sequences (Figures 8–10) were highlyvariable and ranged from very thin single floors(Housepits 24 and 25) to stratified floor sequences(Housepits 11, 16, 20, 54), some interspersedwith buried roof deposits (Housepits 16, 20, and54). While only a limited sample of houses wasinvestigated, we are satisfied that the range ofcontexts identified with aid of geophysical re-connaissance yielded sufficient data for an initialexamination of the timing and process of emer-gent inequality at Bridge River. Ethnographic FrameworkEthnographies provide substantial detail regard-ing inequality in traditional societies in the Mid-Fraser area (Kennedy and Bouchard 1977, 1978,1998; Teit 1900, 1906). Archaeologists havedrawn from these records to develop ethnoar-chaeological frames of reference for interpretingthe archaeological record (Alexander 1992, 2000;Prentiss 2000; Prentiss and Kuijt 2012). In brief,traditional villages occupied by St’át’imc (UpperLillooet) and other ethnographic groups func-tioned economically as classic collectors (perBinford 1980) harvesting salmon, deer, roots, andother items for winter survival and use in so-ciopolitical ventures. St’át’imc villages were or-ganized socially using a system of inherited andachieved statuses. Hereditary chiefs were the

Prentiss et al.] WEALTH-BASED INEQUALITY AT BRIDGE RIVER 549

Figure 4. Cumulative probability distributions for all housepit (lower) and external pit feature (upper) radiocarbondates.

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Ful

l Acc

ess

(289

-07-

305)

IP

Add

ress

: 150

.131

.73.

254

W

edne

sday

, Jan

uary

30,

201

3 5:

05:2

4 PM

heads of descent groups, termed “clans” by Teit(1906), which could make up an entire village orcould be dispersed over multiple villages(Kennedy and Bouchard 1978). Achieved status

chiefs served such roles as war chief, hunt chief,etc. Elite (hereditary and achieved) familiesowned critical fishing rocks and likely controlledaccess to other segments of the landscape like

550 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 77, No. 3, 2012

Figure 5. Bridge River site highlighting housepits excavated in 2008–2009 field seasons.

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Ful

l Acc

ess

(289

-07-

305)

IP

Add

ress

: 150

.131

.73.

254

W

edne

sday

, Jan

uary

30,

201

3 5:

05:2

4 PM

Prentiss et al.] WEALTH-BASED INEQUALITY AT BRIDGE RIVER 551

Figure 6. Surface measured vertical magnetic gradient for northern “neighborhood” pithouses. Indicated gradients lev-els are approximate and based on interpolation/extrapolation from discrete measurements at .5 m x .5 m intervals.Approximate distribution and designation of investigated excavation units are as indicated. Depression directly south ofHousepit 24 is External Pit Feature (EPF) 13, a BR 3 roasting oven (Dietz 2004). Depression to the northeast of Housepit25 is another large EPF, though not excavated.

Figure 7. Surface measured vertical magnetic gradient for southern neighborhood pithouses. Indicated gradients levelsare approximate and based on interpolation/extrapolation from discrete measurements at .5 m x .5 m intervals.Approximate distribution and designation of investigated excavation units are as indicated.

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Ful

l Acc

ess

(289

-07-

305)

IP

Add

ress

: 150

.131

.73.

254

W

edne

sday

, Jan

uary

30,

201

3 5:

05:2

4 PM

deer hunting locales and lithic quarries (e.g.,Morice 1893).

Much as described by Ames (2006) for theNorthwest Coast, families sought to preserve sta-ble households socioeconomically through house-hold production activities and exchange partner-ships. Solid household economies and goodleadership could translate into effective politicalventures including hosting of public ceremonieslike potlatches or “scrambles” (Kennedy andBouchard 1978). Well-functioning householdswere also in a better position to attract new mem-bers (whether by marriage, adoption, or estab-

lishment of patron-client relationships) as a meansof preventing demographic loss.

Our challenge as archaeologists is to develop abetter understanding of how these traditions var-ied in the past, how they evolved, and how they arereflected in material culture. The Bridge Riversite provides an ideal opportunity to pursue thesegoals. In order to accomplish this we need to cre-ate measures that replicate key elements of past or-ganization. Drawing from ethnographic informa-tion it is clear that elite households could besuccessful if they maintained control of certain re-source procurement localities permitting them to

552 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 77, No. 3, 2012

Table 1. Excavated Housepit Components at Bridge River During 2008 and 2009.

Occupation Neighborhood House Size Housepit (Bridge River 1-4) (North, South) (Medium, Large)11 2, 4 South Medium16 3 South Medium20 2, 3, 4 South Large24 3 North Large25 1, 3 North Large54 2, 3, 4 North MediumNote: Medium 10-14.99 m. maximum diameter across rim crests; larger 15+ m. maximum diameter across rim crests.

Figure 8. Housepit 24 Area 3 stratigraphic profile illustrating thin single BR 3 floor (Stratum II) capped by roof/rim androof deposits (Strata III and V). Features 1 and 5 are cache pits containing among other things remains of two butchereddomestic dogs.

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Ful

l Acc

ess

(289

-07-

305)

IP

Add

ress

: 150

.131

.73.

254

W

edne

sday

, Jan

uary

30,

201

3 5:

05:2

4 PM

produce excess quantities of goods for winter sub-sistence, exchange, and potlatching. While salmonwas the core food resource, mammals were highlysought after to relieve the monotony of dried fishbut also as a feasting item. Favored mammals in-cluded deer and other ungulates, but apparentlycould also include dogs on some occasions (e.g.,Prentiss et al. 2003). Establishment of positiverelationships between village groups could resultin access to a variety of nonlocal goods such asrare lithic raw materials, artifacts, and foods. Thesein turn could be used to signify household and in-dividual status (Teit 1906). Households neededto maintain enough members to facilitate the laborneeded during critical food harvesting and pro-cessing seasons (e.g., during the late summer sock-eye salmon run) but also to produce goods forgive-away in potlatches or exchange contexts.Thus, there was a systemic relationship betweenhousehold demographics, subsistence and goodsproduction activities, and political ventures bring-ing in new goods signaling status.

If this social framework was operating in thepast we should be able to measure archaeologicalvariability in these dimensions that should corre-late with one another in predictable ways. All

things being equal, we could expect that if theethnographic pattern (e.g., Teit 1906) is correctthen markers for access to the most sought afterfoods (e.g., mammals) should correlate with in-dicators of other material wealth (rare or presti-gious lithic raw materials and artifacts). Indices ofhighly sought foods and material wealth shouldcorrelate with population density and ability tohouse large numbers of persons (e.g., housepitsize). Elite households should generate highestscores on all of these items while poorer houseswould likely score lower.Measuring Variability in Subsistence, MaterialWealth, and Relative Population DensityWe employed a number of indices to measurevariation in subsistence, material wealth, and rel-ative demographics (Tables 2 and 3). Subsistencevariability was measured directly with a mammalindex much like that of Broughton (1994)whereby total NISP taxonomically identifiablemammalian elements per housepit componentwere divided by the sum of total NISP mammalsand NISP fish (again relying only upon specimensto which a genus level taxon could be identified).This index allows us to gain insight into access to

Prentiss et al.] WEALTH-BASED INEQUALITY AT BRIDGE RIVER 553

Figure 9. Housepit 11 Area 2 stratigraphic profile illustrating multiple BR 2 floors (Strata IIA sequence) capped by a sin-gle roof (Stratum Va) and subsequent BR 4 floor (Stratum II) and roof deposit (Stratum V). Note Feature 1 cache pitcapped by three episodes of hearth construction.

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Ful

l Acc

ess

(289

-07-

305)

IP

Add

ress

: 150

.131

.73.

254

W

edne

sday

, Jan

uary

30,

201

3 5:

05:2

4 PM

mammals in comparison to the dominant foodsource, salmon. Subsistence was also measured ina secondary way using a biface index whereby to-tal formed bifaces per housepit component weredivided by bifaces plus other chipped stone tools.Data from this index correlated strongly withmammal index patterns in studies at KeatleyCreek where higher proportions of bifaces (com-pared in relation to all lithic tools) paralleled ac-cumulation of mammalian remains (as a ratio toall faunal remains), implying greater engagementin hunting activities (Prentiss et al. 2007).

Variability in material wealth was measured inseveral ways in an attempt to capture differentfacets of prestige economies (e.g., Hayden 1998).We developed two measures of prestige items

drawing from previous research by Hayden(1998, 2000b) at Keatley Creek. The prestigeitems index is a count of prestige items per cubicmeter excavated sediment per housepit compo-nent where prestige items consist primarily ofdisplay items such as groundstone pipes, beads,pendants, vessels, and effigy-statuettes. Differingfrom Hayden (2000b), we exclude bifacial knivesand other chipped stone items as too ambiguouseven if they could have been used in ceremoniesor in manufacture of prestige goods. We alsomeasured prestige raw materials as the count oflithic artifacts (including debitage) made fromprestige raw materials per cubic meter excavatedsediment in each housepit component. Prestigeraw materials are defined per Hayden (1998,

554 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 77, No. 3, 2012

Figure 10. Housepit 54 Area 1 stratigraphic profile illustrating multiple BR 2, 3 and 4 floors (Stratum II sequence) androofs (Stratum V sequence).

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Ful

l Acc

ess

(289

-07-

305)

IP

Add

ress

: 150

.131

.73.

254

W

edne

sday

, Jan

uary

30,

201

3 5:

05:2

4 PM

2000b) as those raw materials recognized ethno-graphically to have special value for performancecharacteristics but also other factors (e.g., color,luster, etc.). For purposes of our analysis we in-clude copper, obsidian, nephrite, and steatite.1Another potential measure of wealth could be ac-cess to lithic raw material that is highly useful inmanufacturing chipped stone tools but that donot occur in the Bridge River valley or immedi-ately adjacent mountains. There are many lithicraw material types present in the Bridge River sitelithic assemblages, but very few can be confi-dently associated with extralocal sources requir-ing trade, travel to other valleys, and in somecases probably some kind of sociopolitical oreconomic agreements with neighboring villagegroups. Three of these are obsidian, Fountain Val-ley pisolite, and Hat Creek jasper (Hayden et al.1996). Our final wealth measure is the count ofthese three raw material types per cubic meter ofeach excavated housepit component.

We employ three indirect measures of rela-tive housepit demographics (numbers and densi-ties of persons per house). Housepit diameter(measured as maximum diameter between rimcrests) has often been considered to be a goodmarker of demographics assuming that the largerthe house the greater number of inhabitants (Bin-ford 1990). Indeed, large houses are routinely as-sumed to not only reflect highest numbers of in-habitants but generally, highest status inMid-Fraser archaeology (Sheppard and Muir2010). Measuring density of persons per housepitis probably impossible for archaeologists but wecan gain some idea of potential variability in rel-ative density using two additional measures. Wedeveloped a cache pit index consisting of exca-vated cache pit volume (cubic cm) per squaremeter of excavated floor as a crude measure ofstorage capacity assuming greater storage capac-ity reflects greater numbers of consumers. Per-formance of this index could be adversely af-

Prentiss et al.] WEALTH-BASED INEQUALITY AT BRIDGE RIVER 555

Table 2. Raw Count Data Used to Construct Indices (see Table 3).

Exc.Prest. N-L Prest. Bifaces M/ CP/ Cubic

Component Items RM RM Total tools M+F sq.cma FCR MetersHP25/3 5 105 9 11/172 73/464 1756 2.34 HP 24/3 40 173 29 27/265 101/388 833/55 3933 1.87HP 20/3 6 12 6 6/127 26/201 447/40 2972 1.76HP 54/3 4 97 38 48/294 35/274 641/42.5 2179 2.5HP 16/3 3 26 7 11/277 18/1201 704/42.5 4078 1.82HP 20/2 7 17 14 21/200 103/1754 927/40 2340 .88HP 54/2 10 4/33 15/163 27/22.5 411 .7HP11/2 10 29 16 22/210 70/942 638/43 3219 2.77athousands.Note: Prest. = Prestige; N-L = Non-Local; RM = Raw Material; CP = Cache pit volume in cm3; sq. cm = square centime-ters excavated; M = Mammal NISP for taxonomically identifiable elements; F = Fish NISP for taxonomically identifiableelements; FCR = Fire-Cracked Rock; sq. cm. = square centimeters; Exc. = Excavated.

Table 3. Data Measuring Variability in Material Wealth and Relative Population Density.

Housepit/ Max. Prest. N-L Prest. Biface Mam. CP FCRComponent Diam. Items RM RM Index Index Vol. IndexHP25/3 17.3 2.1 44.9 3.8 .06 .16 751HP 24/3 15.1 21.4 92.5 15.7 .1 .26 15.2 2103HP 20/3 16.6 3.4 6.8 3.4 .05 .12 11.17 1689HP 54/3 12.2 1.6 38.8 15.2 .16 .13 15.1 872HP 16/3 13.4 1.7 14.3 3.9 .04 .01 16.56 2247HP 20/2 16.6 8. 19.3 15.9 .11 .06 23.17 2659HP 54/2 12.2 15.2 .12 .09 1.2 555HP11/2 13.9 3.6 10.5 5.8 .1 .07 15. 1162Note: Prest. = Prestige; N-L = Non-Local; RM = Raw Material; CP = Cache pit; Mam. = Mammal; FCR = Fire-CrackedRock.

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Ful

l Acc

ess

(289

-07-

305)

IP

Add

ress

: 150

.131

.73.

254

W

edne

sday

, Jan

uary

30,

201

3 5:

05:2

4 PM

fected by a number of variables. Sampling is onepossibility since we did not excavate entire floors.Another scenario is surplus production; if cachepit volume reflects production for exchange alongwith winter subsistence then it cannot be a directindicator of variability in density of householdconsumers. A final scenario concerns actual stor-age tactics. For example, a small house with a pre-mium on floor space could have chosen to storesome food in baskets on racks or in householdrafters. Thus, it is important to also measure vari-ability in numbers of potential consumers in a dif-ferent way. To do this we developed a fire-crackedrock (FCR) index consisting of FCR count (in-cluding only pebble and more rare cobble sizedclasts [Wentworth scale]) per cubic meter of ex-cavated sediment in each housepit component. Allthings being equal, variability in FCR outputshould reflect cooking frequency and this shouldbe most strongly affected by number of occu-pants per house and average length of winter sea-sons. We can hold the latter constant when com-paring simultaneously occupied houses since allwould have been affected to a similar degree bypersistence of winter weather preventing adventof spring time mobility. If we achieve a strongpositive correlation between FCR and cache pitvolume we can interpret these measures as goodrelative indicators of variability in housepit oc-cupation density.

Data AnalysisPrior to multivariate statistical analysis we as-sessed the performance of the variables by look-ing for significant inter-correlations assumingthat if any variable failed to produce at least onethen it was probably not relevant for further mul-tivariate analysis. We rejected housepit diameteron these grounds. Given its failure to signifi-cantly correlate with subsistence, wealth, or de-mographic variables, housepit diameter is proba-bly not a reliable measure of variability inhousehold status at Bridge River.

We employed principal components analysis(PCA) to better understand variability in preda-tion, wealth, and demography between housecomponents. The PCA was based upon a correla-tion matrix (Table 4) and generated a very robustsolution with the first three components capturingover 95 percent of the variance (Table 5). Thethree component solution was rotated using theVarimax method (Table 6). Factor scores werecaptured for each component and case (Table 7).

Component one has rotated component scoreson prestige objects, nonlocal raw materials, pres-tige raw materials, and mammals near or above .5in the positive dimension suggesting that compo-nent one is measuring variability in accumulationof different forms of material wealth. Factorscores indicate that Housepit 24 (BR 3) con-tributes very strongly to this component followed

556 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 77, No. 3, 2012

Table 4. Correlation Matrix with Associated Significance Matrix Employed in PCA Analysis of Prestige, Predation andFood Storage/Preparation.

Prestige Non-Local Prestige CacheItems Raw Mats. Raw Mats. Biface Mammal Pit FCR

Correlation Prestige Items 1.000 .799 .636 .068 .697 .380 .529Non-Local Raw Mats. .799 1.000 .560 .205 .877 -.015 .084Prestige Raw Mats. .636 .560 1.000 .540 .379 .695 .471Biface .068 .205 .540 1.000 .185 .152 -.314Mammal .697 .877 .379 .185 1.000 -.238 -.141Cache Pit .380 -.015 .695 .152 -.238 1.000 .798FCR .529 .084 .471 -.314 -.141 .798 1.000

Sig. (1-tailed) Prestige Items .009 .045 .436 .027 .177 .089Non-Local Raw Materials .009 .074 .313 .002 .486 .422Prestige Raw Materials .045 .074 .084 .177 .028 .119Biface .436 .313 .084 .330 .360 .225Mammal .027 .002 .177 .330 .285 .370Cache Pit .177 .486 .028 .360 .285 .009FCR .089 .422 .119 .225 .370 .009

Note: FCR = Fire-Cracked Rock Index.

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Ful

l Acc

ess

(289

-07-

305)

IP

Add

ress

: 150

.131

.73.

254

W

edne

sday

, Jan

uary

30,

201

3 5:

05:2

4 PM

to a much lesser degree by Housepit 25 (BR 3)and then the others. Component two loads moststrongly on cache pit volume and FCR followedby prestige raw materials and prestige objects.This component is likely identifying variability indensity of persons per housepit and this appearsto have some positive effect on ability to collectsome kinds of prestige goods. Cache pit volumeonly correlates significantly with prestige rawmaterials and FCR (Table 5). Housepit 20 (BR 2)contributes most strongly in the positive dimen-sion to this component, followed by Housepits 16(BR 3) and 24 (BR 3). Component three is lesseasy to interpret given its loadings on bifaces andprestige raw materials and its comparatively low

variance. Housepit 54 (BR 3) is the only signifi-cant contributor in the positive dimension.

It is clear that Housepit 24 (BR 3) stands outfrom all other housepit components given itsstrong scores on virtually every measure (Table4). Housepit 25 (BR 3) is next in line but consid-erably weaker, particularly in prestige goods. Sig-nificantly, despite variability in demographic sig-nals there do not seem to be strong indicators ofmaterial wealth accumulation associated with BR2 occupations. This outcome suggests that mate-rial wealth-based status inequality, at least asquantified with these measures using current data,did not develop until Bridge River 3 times.

These results combined with additional exca-vation data (Table 8) permit us to conduct a pre-liminary test of the hypothesis that “Classic Lil-looet” villages featured ascribed wealth-basedinequality (e.g., Hayden 1994, 1997a; Prentiss etal. 2007). Since component one clearly measuresvariability in material wealth we can use the fac-tor scores to effectively rank the house compo-nents. Then, if we plot the component one scoresagainst occupation floor thickness,2 we are able totest the hypothesis that prior success (reflected inlongevity) played an important role in emergentinequality. Considering radiocarbon-dated floorsequences from housepits with the most strati-graphically distinctive floor sequences (Housepits11, 16, and 54), reflooring events appear to haveoccurred on 15–25 year intervals, coinciding withexpectations for periodic reroofing events(Alexander 2000). Thus, floor thickness and num-ber of floors is more likely a measure of house-hold longevity than variability in household ap-proaches to cleanliness (e.g., Samuels 2006).Figure 11 demonstrates a significant inverse lin-

Prentiss et al.] WEALTH-BASED INEQUALITY AT BRIDGE RIVER 557

Table 5. Initial PCA Statistics.

Extraction Sums Rotation SumsInitial of Squared of Squared

Eigenvalues Loadings LoadingsComponent Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance1 3.350 47.854 47.854 3.350 47.854 47.854 2.763 39.4692 2.079 29.699 77.553 2.079 29.699 77.553 2.482 35.4593 1.274 18.203 95.756 1.274 18.203 95.756 1.458 20.8274 .139 1.984 97.7395 .095 1.353 99.0926 .055 .779 99.8717 .009 .129 100.000

Table 6. Rotated Component Matrix.

Component Index 1 2 3Prestige Items .841 .047 -.017Non-Local Raw Materials .959 .047 .14Prestige raw Materials .456 .646 .571Biface .085 -.044 .981Mammal .951 -.197 .108Cache Pit -.09 .956 .217Fire-Cracked Rock .087 .937 -.3

Table 7. Factor Scores.

House/Occupation Component 1 Component 2 Component 325/3 .537 -1.29 -.71224/3 2.249 .589 -.0820/3 -.267 -.043 -1.01854/3 -.1028 -.172 1.916/3 -.869 .736 -1.18820/2 -.441 1.581 .48954/2 -.48 -1.383 .3511/2 -.625 -.018 .26

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Ful

l Acc

ess

(289

-07-

305)

IP

Add

ress

: 150

.131

.73.

254

W

edne

sday

, Jan

uary

30,

201

3 5:

05:2

4 PM

ear relationship between wealth ranking and floorthickness (r = -.73, p = .04). Since floor thicknesscould also be a measure of construction tech-nique rather than occupational longevity, we alsoplotted a number of excavator identified occupa-tion floors3 against component one scores (Figure12), recognizing the same relationship, thoughthe correlation coefficient is slightly less thansignificant at the .05 level (r = -.611, p = .108). Weinterpret these results to suggest that the length ofprior occupations played an inverse role in the ac-cumulation of wealth. In other words, the greaterthe number of re-floorings of a housepit the lesslikely it was to develop significant wealth; rightsto material wealth were unlikely to have been in-herited within Bridge River 2–3 houses underthis system.

DiscussionThe Bridge River village was likely initiatedaround 1800 cal. B.P. and with a storage-basedeconomy centered on salmon and supplemented bya host of other food sources, grew to substantialsize in what appears to be three punctuations. Cur-rent data suggest that the final growth period wasvery rapid and may have effectively doubled thepopulation. Once at peak size (ca. 1200–1250 cal.B.P.) the village declined and was apparently aban-doned by sometime around 1100 cal. B.P. Zooar-chaeological studies tentatively confirm indicatorsof reduced access to salmon in many BR 3 housesand a likely pattern of resource depression (e.g.,Broughton 1994; Janetski 1997) in ungulates re-quiring longer hunting trips and more extensivefield butchery at the same time. Construction of

558 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 77, No. 3, 2012

Table 8. Number of Hearth and Cache Pit Features, Excavator Identified Floors and Maximum Floor Thicknesses byOccupation Component and Housepit.

Bridge River Maximum MaximumHousepit Occupation Component Floor Thickness (cm)a Number of Floors25 3 25 324 3 10 120 3 35 254 3 40 716 3 70 620 2 20 454 2 50 511 2 40 11aRounded to the nearest 5 cm.

Figure 11. Plot of Factor One scores against maximum housepit floor thickness per occupation component.

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Ful

l Acc

ess

(289

-07-

305)

IP

Add

ress

: 150

.131

.73.

254

W

edne

sday

, Jan

uary

30,

201

3 5:

05:2

4 PM

houses in this final time (BR 3) brought with it thefirst appearance of quantitatively obvious materialwealth-based inequality as new households (e.g.,Housepits 24 and 25) apparently collected prestigeobjects more effectively than others and appear tohave put on feasts.4 Finally, it is also at this timethat we see the first appearance of large extra-mural ovens5 likely used for meat, fish, and berryroasts (Dietz 2004).

All things considered, it would appear that theBridge River village followed a similar history tothat of Keatley Creek where we also recognizesubsistence change and emergent inequality in thesame time frame. However, there are also some in-teresting differences. Drawing on current data,significant quantities of prestige items and othersigns of affluence appear first in the newly estab-lished houses of Bridge River, not the older pre-sumably well-established houses as seen at Keat-ley Creek. Outdoor cooking ovens appear after1300 cal. B.P. at Bridge River while this is ap-proximately the time when they disappear at Keat-ley Creek. Finally, Bridge River was abandoned atleast a century if not earlier than Keatley Creek. In-deed, the abandonment process may have been un-derway even as inequality expanded.6

These data may imply somewhat different his-tories for emergent inequality in the two villages.Our current evidence suggests that populationpacking and the beginnings of a decline in salmon

access coincided in early BR 3 times (ca.1200–1300 cal. B.P.). It may have created theconditions whereby some family groups simplychose to leave the village while others developednew strategies for survival. One option couldhave been establishment of new social networksof cooperators engaged in controlling access tocrucial food resources. This would help to explainwhy only newly established housepits like House-pits 24 and 25 would retain large salmon and un-gulate assemblages, while others (Housepits 16,20, and 54) would see declines in these items. In-vestment in new social arrangements could alsobe marked by signs of costly signaling (e.g.,Boone 1998) as manifested in possible feasting inHousepits 24 and 25.

In contrast, current data from Keatley Creek(Prentiss et al. 2007) seem to indicate that greatestwealth was accumulated in large houses that had al-ready been in existence for a number of centuries,thus implying a different competitive processwhereby long-lived households perhaps took ad-vantage of prior social standing in the communityto outcompete neighbors (e.g., Boone 1992).Within this scenario it is even possible to imaginethat the breakdown and final abandonment ofBridge River could have offered benefits to selecthouseholds at Keatley Creek if some of the BridgeRiver peoples made moves to other villages andsought refuge with those large house groups.

Prentiss et al.] WEALTH-BASED INEQUALITY AT BRIDGE RIVER 559

Figure 12. Plot of number of Factor one scores versus excavator identified housepit floors per occupation component.

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Ful

l Acc

ess

(289

-07-

305)

IP

Add

ress

: 150

.131

.73.

254

W

edne

sday

, Jan

uary

30,

201

3 5:

05:2

4 PM

Our understanding of the evolution of materialwealth-based inequality at Bridge River offers im-plications for theories of emergent inequality. It isevident that simple deterministic models (resourceconditions, packing, and personality types) areproblematic given the possibility that emergent in-equality may have taken somewhat different pathseven in villages 10 km apart. To fully understandthe cultural trappings of inequality we need tolook beyond ecological conditions to consider un-derlying historical/evolutionary processes.

Historical/evolutionary pathways are alwaysconstrained by previous designs; brand new de-velopments do not simply arise out of nothing(e.g., Goldschmidt’s [1940] “hopeful monsters”),even in cultural contexts. This implies that previ-ous developments provided structural constraintson future evolutionary pathways and that unin-tended consequences and cultural exaptations(Rosenberg 2009) may also have been important.Our data suggest that there had always been atleast some variability in household size, foragingreturns, and ability to accumulate jewelry andother so-called prestige objects. It is possible thatthe large houses that originally evolved as an ef-fective way to shelter cooperating extended kingroups and to organize defense and labor, now be-came a tool for defining group success and wealth(Prentiss 2009, 2011). Rules for food-sharing,evolved as strategies for insuring all communitymembers were fed (among other things), were po-tentially co-opted for establishing new networksof factional cooperators (e.g., Boone 1998). Jew-elry originally developed as perhaps an indicatorof personal and group identity could have be-come a marker of differential status (e.g., Hayden2000b). Even more speculatively, perhaps someconcept of private property originally evolved tomark family space and property within houseswas extrapolated (e.g., Rosenberg 2009; Spencer1997) on to a larger scale to include hunting,gathering, and fishing landscapes.

There is one more possible implication of theBridge River data. In this new framework it is dif-ficult to imagine inequality in BR 3 as an adaptiveachievement. Indeed, it materialized in an ar-chaeologically obvious way only after the BridgeRiver village had peaked demographically andwas in a process of demographic decline andheaded for eventual depopulation. Fascinatingly,

when reoccupied centuries later the same villageappears to have been characterized by the ethno-graphic pattern that likely included hereditary in-equality (Prentiss et al. 2010; Reininghaus 2010).This prompts us to ask, was the Mid-Fraser aban-donment an accident temporarily disturbing along-lived adaptation (e.g., Hayden and Ryder1991)? Or could it mark a more interesting his-torical process? If so, then future researchers willneed to further consider the impacts of the eventsof 1100–1200 cal. B.P. on later developments inthe Mid-Fraser Canyon.

Acknowledgments. The 2007–2009 field investigations at theBridge River site were conducted under a partnership agree-ment with the Bridge River (Xwisten) Band and with the gen-eral encouragement of the St’át’imc Nation. We thank in par-ticular Saul Terry, Bradley Jack and Gerald “Bobo” Michel.Funding for this research was provided by the National Sci-ence Foundation (Award No. BCS-0713013). Final profilemaps were drafted by Eric Carlson, Lee Reininghaus, and LisaSmith. GIS maps of the Bridge River site were produced byMatt Hogan. A large number of students from The Universityof Montana, Simon Fraser University, and the University ofMichigan participated in the project both in the field and lab-oratory. We thank all of them for their dedication and hardwork. Radiocarbon dating was completed by the NSF ArizonaAMS Facility, University of Arizona. Raven Garvey translatedthe abstract into Spanish. We thank Alison Rautman, KenAmes, Michael Lenert, and four anonymous peer reviewers fortheir comments on the manuscript.

References CitedAlexander, Diana

1992 Prehistoric Land Use in the Mid-Fraser Area Based onEthnographic Data. In A Complex Culture of the British Co-lumbia Plateau, edited by B. Hayden, pp. 99–176. Uni-versity of British Columbia Press, Vancouver.

2000 Pithouses on the Interior Plateau of British Colum-bia: Ethnographic Evidence and Interpretation of theKeatley Creek Site. In The Ancient Past of Keatley CreekVol. II Socioeconomy, edited by B. Hayden, pp. 29–66. Ar-chaeology Press, Burnaby.

Ames, Kenneth M. 1985 Hierarchies, Stress, and Logistical Strategies amongHunter-Gatherers in Northwestern North America. InPrehistoric Hunter-Gatherers: The Emergence of Cultur-al Complexity, edited by T.D. Price and J. Brown, pp.155–180. Academic Press, New York.

2006 Thinking about Household Archaeology on the North-west Coast. In Household Archaeology on the NorthwestCoast, edited by Elizabeth A. Sobel, D. Ann Trieu Gahr,and Kenneth M. Ames, pp. 16–36. International Monographsin Prehistory Archaeological Series 16, Ann Arbor.

2008 The Archaeology of Rank. In Handbook of Archaeo-logical Theories, edited by R. Alexander Bentley, HebertD.G. Maschner, and Christopher Chippindale, pp. 487–514.Altamira Press, Lanham, Maryland.

560 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 77, No. 3, 2012

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Ful

l Acc

ess

(289

-07-

305)

IP

Add

ress

: 150

.131

.73.

254

W

edne

sday

, Jan

uary

30,

201

3 5:

05:2

4 PM

Amsden, Charles1977 A Quantitative Analysis of Nunamiut Settlement Dy-namics: 1898 to 1969. Ph.D. dissertation, Department ofAnthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.

Arnold, Jeanne E.1993 Labor and the Rise of Complex Hunter-Gatherers. Jour-nal of Anthropological Archaeology 12:75–119.

Bender, Barbara1985 Emergent Tribal Formations in the American Mid-continent. American Antiquity 50:52–62

Binford, Lewis R. 1980 Willow Smoke and Dog’s Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Set-tlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation.American Antiquity 45:4–20.

1990 Mobility, Housing, and Environment: A ComparativeStudy. Journal of Anthropological Research 46:119–152.

2001 Constructing Frames of Reference. University ofCalifornia Press, Berkeley.

Bird, Rebecca Bliege, Eric Alden Smith, and Douglas W. Bird2001 The Hunting Handicap: Costly Signaling in Human For-aging Strategies. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology50:9–19.

Boone, James L.1992 Competition, Conflict, and the Development of SocialHierarchies. In Evolutionary Ecology and Human Behav-ior, edited by Eric Alden Smith and Bruce Winterhalder,pp. 301–338. Aldine de Gruyter, New York

1998 The Evolution of Magnanimity: When It Is Better toGive Than to Receive? Human Nature 9:1–21.

Bowles, Samuel, Eric A. Smith, and Monique BorgerhoffMulder

2010 The Emergence and Persistence of Inequality in Pre-modern Societies: An Introduction to the Special Section.Current Anthropology 51:7–18.

Broughton, Jack M. 1994 Late Holocene Resource Intensification in the Sacra-mento River Valley: The Vertebrate Evidence. Journal ofArchaeological Science 21:501–514.

Cail, Hannah, Anna M. Prentiss, and Michael P. Richards2010 Cultural Implications of the Dog Remains at the BridgeRiver Site: Taphonomic and Isotopic Analyses. Poster pre-sented at the 75th meeting of the Society for American Ar-chaeology, St. Louis Missouri.

Carlson, Eric2010 Subsistence Change and Emergent Social Inequalityin an Early Complex Hunter-Gatherer Winter Village: AZooarchaeological Assessment of the Bridge River Site(EeRl4), Middle Fraser, B.C. M.A. thesis, Department ofAnthropology, The University of Montana, Missoula.

Chatters, James C.1995 Population growth, Climatic Cooling, and the De-velopment of Collector Strategies on the Southern plateau,Western North America. Journal of World Prehistory 9:341–400.

Chatters, James C., Virginia L. Butler, Michael J. Scott, DavidM. Anderson, and Duane A. Neitzel

1995 A Paleoscience Approach to Estimating the Effects ofClimatic Warming on Salmonid Fisheries of the Colum-bia Basin. Canadian Special Publication in Fisheries andAquatic Sciences 21:489–496.

Clark, John, and Michael Blake1994 The Power of Prestige: Competitive Generosity andthe Emergence of Rank Societies in Lowland Mesoamer-ica. In Factional Competition and Political Developmentin the New World, edited by E. Brumfiel and J. Fox, pp.17–30. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Coupland, Gary G.1988 Prehistoric Cultural Change at Kitselas Canyon.Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada PaperNo. 138. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Ottawa.

Cross, Guy2004 Bridge River Archaeological Project: Geophysical In-vestigations, Phase I Final Report. Terrascan Geophysics,Vancouver, Canada, Report on File, Department of An-thropology, The University of Montana, Missoula.

2005 Bridge River Archaeological Project: Geophysical In-vestigations, Phase-II Final Report, Terrascan Geophysics,Vancouver, Canada, Report on File, Department of An-thropology, The University of Montana, Missoula.

2010 Bridge River Archaeological Project: Geophysical In-vestigations, Phase-Iic Final Report, Terrascan Geo-physics, Vancouver, Canada, Report on File, Departmentof Anthropology, The University of Montana, Missoula.

Dietz, Catherine A. 2004 A Study of Earth Ovens at the Bridge River Site (EeRl4)near Lillooet, British Columbia. M.A. thesis, Departmentof Anthropology, The University of Montana, Missoula.

Finney, Bruce P., Irene. Gregory-Eaves, Marianne S.V. Douglas,and John P. Smol

2002 Fisheries Productivity in the Northeastern Pacific Oceanover the Past 2,200 Years. Nature 416:729–733.

Goldberg, Paul2010 Bridge River Micromorphology. In Report of the 2009University of Montana Investigations at the Bridge RiverSite (EeRl4), by Anna Marie Prentiss, Lisa Smith, Lee Rein-inghaus, Maggie Schirack, Michael Wanzenried, and Og-den Ward, Appendix D. Report on file National ScienceFoundation and Bridge River Band Office, Lillooet B.C.

Goldschmidt, Richard1940 The Material Basis of Evolution. Yale University Press,New Haven.

Gould, Stephen J., and Elizabeth S. Vrba1982 Exaptation–A Missing Term in the Science of Form.Paleobiology 8:4–15.

Gould, Stephen J., and Richard Lewontin1979 The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Par-adigm: A Critique of the Panglossian Program. Proceed-ings of the Royal Society of London B 205:581–598.

Gurven, Michael, Wesley Allen-Arave, Kim Hill, and MagdalenaHurtado

2000 “It’s a Wonderful Life”: Signaling Generosity amongthe Ache of Paraguay. Evolution and Human Behavior21:263–282.

Hayden, Brian1981 Research and Development in the Stone Age: Tech-nological Transitions among Hunter-Gatherers. Current An-thropology 22:519–548.

1994 Competition, Labor, and Complex Hunter-Gatherers. InKey Issues in Hunter Gatherer Research, edited by E. S. Bur-chand and L. J. Ellana, pp. 223–239. Berg Press, Oxford.

1995 Pathways to Power: Principles for Creating Socioe-conomic Inequalities. In Foundations of Social Inequali-ty, edited by T.D. Price and G.M. Feinman, pp. 15–86.Plenum Press, New York.

1997a The Pithouses of Keatley Creek. Harcourt Brace Col-lege Publishers, Fort Worth.

1997b Observations on the Prehistoric Social and EconomicStructure of the North American Plateau. World Archae-ology 29:242–261.

1998 Practical and Prestige Technologies: The Evolution ofMaterial Systems. Journal of Archaeological Method andTheory 5:1–55.

Prentiss et al.] WEALTH-BASED INEQUALITY AT BRIDGE RIVER 561

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Ful

l Acc

ess

(289

-07-

305)

IP

Add

ress

: 150

.131

.73.

254

W

edne

sday

, Jan

uary

30,

201

3 5:

05:2

4 PM

2000a Dating Deposits at Keatley Creek. In The Ancient Pastof Keatley Creek Volume I: Taphonomy, edited by B. Hay-den, pp. 35–40. Archaeology Press, Simon Fraser University,Burnaby, B.C.

2000b Prestige Artifacts at Keatley Creek. In The AncientPast of Keatley Creek Volume II: Socioeconomy, edited byB. Hayden, pp. 35–40. Archaeology Press, Simon FraserUniversity, Burnaby, B.C.

2005 Emergence of Large Villages and Large Residential Cor-porate Group Structures among Complex Hunter-Gather-ers at Keatley Creek. American Antiquity 70:169–174.

Hayden, Brian, Edward Bakewell, and Robert Gargett1996 World’s Longest-Lived Corporate Group: LithicAnalysis Reveals Prehistoric Social Organization near Lil-looet, British Columbia. American Antiquity 61:341–356.

Hayden, Brian, and Rolf Mathewes2009 The Rise and Fall of Complex Large Villages on theBritish Columbian Plateau: A Geoarchaeological Contro-versy. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 33:281–296.

Hayden, Brian, and June Ryder1991 Prehistoric Cultural Collapse in the Lillooet Area. Amer-ican Antiquity 56:50–65.

Hayden, Brian, and Rick Schulting 1997 The Plateau Interaction Sphere and Late Prehistoric Cul-tural Complexity. American Antiquity 62:51–85.

Henrich, Joseph, and Robert Boyd2008 Division of Labor, Economic Specialization, and theEvolution of Social Stratification. Current Anthropology49:715–724.

Henrich, Joseph, and Francisco J. Gil-White2001 The Evolution of Prestige Freely Conferred Deferenceas a Mechanism for Enhancing the Benefits of CulturalTransmission. Evolution and Human Behavior 22:165–196.

Janetski, Joel C.1997 Fremont Hunting and Resource Intensification in theEastern Great Basin. Journal of Archaeological Science24:1075–1088.

Johnson, G. A.1982 Organizational Structure and Scalar Stress. In Theo-ry and Explanation in Archaeology, edited by Colin Ren-frew, M.J. Rowlands, and B.A. Segraves, pp. 389–421. Aca-demic Press, New York.

Kelly, Robert L.1991 Sedentism, Sociopolitical Inequality, and Resource Fluc-tuations. In Between Bands and States, edited by Susan A.Greg, pp. 135–158. Center for Archaeological Investiga-tions Occasional paper No. 9. Southern Illinois Universi-ty, Carbondale.

Kennedy, Dorothy I.D., and Randy Bouchard1977 Lillooet Stories. Sound Heritage Series Volume 4 (1).Provincial Archives of British Columbia, Victoria.

1978 Fraser River Lillooet: An Ethnographic Summary. In Re-ports of the Lillooet Archaeological Project. Number 1. In-troduction and Setting, edited by Arnoud H. Stryd andStephen Lawhead, pp. 22–55. Mercury Series, Archaeo-logical Survey of Canada paper No. 73. National Museumof Man, Ottawa.

1998 Lillooet. In Handbook of North American Indians, Vol-ume 12, Plateau, edited by Deward E. Walker Jr., pp.174–190. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Kennett, Douglas J., Bruce Winterhalder, Jacob Bartruff, and JonM. Erlandson

2009 An Ecological Model for the Emergence of institu-tionalized Social Hierarchies on California’s Channel Is-lands. In Pattern and Process in Cultural Evolution, edit-ed by Stephen Shennan, pp. 297–314. University of Cal-ifornia Press, Berkeley.

Kuijt, Ian2001 Reconsidering the Cause of Cultural Collapse in theLillooet Area of British Columbia: A Geoarchaeological Per-spective. American Antiquity 66:692–703.

Kuijt, Ian, and Anna Marie Prentiss2009 Niche Construction, Macroevolution, and the Late Epi-paleolithic of the Near East. In Macroevolution in HumanPrehistory: Evolutionary Theory and Processual Archae-ology, edited by Anna Marie Prentiss, Ian Kuijt, and JamesC. Chatters, pp. 253–271. Springer, New York.

Kuijt, Ian, and William C. Prentiss2004 Villages on the Edge: Pithouses, Cultural Change, andthe Abandonment of Aggregate Pithouse Villages. InComplex Hunter-Gatherers: Evolution and Organizationof Prehistoric Communities on the Plateau of Northwest-ern North America, edited by W.C. Prentiss and I Kuijt, pp.155–170. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Lepofsky, Dana, and Sandra L. Peacock2004 A Question of Intensity: Exploring the Role of PlantFoods in Northern Plateau Prehistory. In Complex Hunter-Gatherers: Evolution and Organization of Prehistoric Com-munities on the Plateau of Northwestern North America,edited by William C. Prentiss and Ian Kuijt, pp. 115–139.University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Marcus, Joyce, and Kent V. Flannery 1996 Zapotec Civilization. Thames and Hudson, London.

Maschner, Herbert D. G., and John Q. Patton 1996 Kin Selection and the Origins of Hereditary Social In-equality: A Case Study from the Northern Northwest Coast.”In Darwinian Archaeologies, edited by Herbert Donald Gra-ham Maschner, pp. 89–108. Plenum Press, New York.

Matson, R.G. 1983 Intensification and the Development of CulturalComplexity: The Northwest versus Northeast Coast. In TheEvolution of Maritime Cultures on the Northeast and North-west Coasts, edited by R. Nash. Publication No. 11, SimonFraser University Department of Archaeology, Burnaby.

1989 The Locarno Beach Phase and the Origins of the North-west Coast pattern. In Development of Hunting-Fishing-Gathering Maritime Societies along the West Coast of NorthAmerica. Edited by B. Onat. Reprint Proceedings, Vol. IIIC,The Circum-Pacific Prehistory Conference, Seattle, WA,Washington State University Press, Pullman.

Matson, R. G., and Gary Coupland 1995 The Prehistory of the Northwest Coast. Academic Press,San Diego.

Mayr, Ernst1982 The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolu-tion, and Inheritance. Belknap Press, Cambridge.

Morice, A.1893 Notes Archaeological, Industrial and Sociological onthe Western Denes. Transactions of the Royal Society ofCanada, 1892–1893.

Morin, Jesse, Ryan Dickie, Takashi Sakaguchi, and Jamie Hoskins2008/09 Late Prehistoric Settlement Patterns and PopulationDynamics along the Mid-Fraser. BC Studies 160:9–35.

Mulder, Monique Borgerhoff, Samuel Bowles, Tom Hertz, Adri-an Bell. Jan Beise, Greg Clark, Ila Fazzio, Michael Gur-ven, Kim Hill, Paul L. Hooper, William Irons, Hillard Ka-plan, Donna Leonetti, Bobbi Low, Frank Marlowe, RichardMcElreath, Suresh Naidu, David Nolin, Patrizio Piraino,Rob Quinlan, Eric Schniter, Rebeccca Sear, Mary Schenk,Eric Alden Smith, Christopher von Rueden, and Polly Wiess-ner

2009 Intergenerational Wealth Transmission and the Dy-namics of inequality in Small-Scale Societies. Science326:682–688.

562 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 77, No. 3, 2012

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Ful

l Acc

ess

(289

-07-

305)

IP

Add

ress

: 150

.131

.73.

254

W

edne

sday

, Jan

uary

30,

201

3 5:

05:2

4 PM

Oliver, Symmes C.1962 Ecology and Cultural Continuity as Contributing Fac-tors in the Social Organization of the Plains Indians. Uni-versity of California Press, Berkeley.

Patterson, R. Timothy, Andreas Prokoph, Arun Kumar, Alice S.Chang, and Helen M. Roe

2005 Late Holocene Variability in Pelagic Fish Scales andDinoflagellate Cysts along the West Coast of VancouverIsland, NE Pacific Ocean. Marine Micropaleontology55:183–204.

Pauketat, Timothy R.2007 Chiefdoms and other Archaeological Delusions. Al-tamira Press, Lanham, Maryland.

Prentiss, Anna Marie2009 Emergence of New Socio-Economic Strategies in theMiddle and Late Holocene Pacific Northwest Region ofNorth America. In Macroevolution in Human Prehistory:Evolutionary Theory and Processual Archaeology, editedby A.M. Prentiss, I. Kuijt, and J.C. Chatters, pp. 111–132.Springer, New York.

2011 Social Histories of Complex Hunter-Gatherers: PacificNorthwest Prehistory in a Macroevolutionary Frame-work. In Hunter-Gatherer Archaeology as HistoricalProcess, edited by Kenneth Sassaman and Donald Holly.Amerind Foundation SAA Seminar Series, University ofArizona Press, Tucson, in press.

Prentiss, Anna Marie, James C. Chatters, Natasha Lyons, and Lu-cille E. Harris

2011 Archaeology of the Middle Fraser Canyon, British Co-lumbia: Changing Perspectives on Paleoecology andEmergent Cultural Complexity. Canadian Journal of Ar-chaeology 35:143–174.

Prentiss, Anna Marie, Guy Cross, Thomas A. Foor, DirkMarkle, Mathew Hogan, and David S. Clarke

2008 Evolution of a Late Prehistoric Winter Village on theInterior Plateau of British Columbia: Geophysical Inves-tigations, Radiocarbon Dating, and Spatial Analysis of theBridge River Site. American Antiquity 73:59–82.

Prentiss, Anna Marie, and Ian Kuijt2012 People of the Middle Fraser Canyon: An ArchaeologicalHistory. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver.

Prentiss, Anna Marie, Ian Kuijt, and James C. Chatters (editors)2009 Macroevolution in Human Prehistory: EvolutionaryTheory and Processual Archaeology. Springer, New York.

Prentiss, Anna Marie, Natasha Lyons, Lucille E. Harris, MelisseR.P. Burns, and Terrence M. Godin

2007 The Emergence of Status Inequality in IntermediateScale Societies: A Demographic and Socio-Economic His-tory of the Keatley Creek Site, British Columbia. Journalof Anthropological Archaeology 26:299–327.

Prentiss, Anna Marie, Lisa Smith, Lee Reininghaus, MaggieSchirack, Michael Wanzenried, and Ogden Ward

2010 Report of the 2009 University of Montana Investiga-tions at the Bridge River Site (EeRl4). Report on file, Na-tional Science Foundation and Bridge River Band, Lillooet,B.C. Electronic document, http://www.cas.umt.edu/casweb/for_faculty/FacultyDetails.cfm?id=518, accessed June 20,2012.

Prentiss, William C.2000 The Formation of Lithic Debitage and Flake Tool As-semblages in a Canadian Plateau Winter Housepit Village:Ethnographic and Archaeological Perspectives. In The An-cient Past of Keatley Creek, Volume I: Taphonomy, edit-ed by Brian Hayden. Archaeology Press, Burnaby, B.C.

Prentiss, William C., James C. Chatters, Michael Lenert, DavidS. Clarke, and Robert C. O’Boyle

2005 The Archaeology of the Plateau of Northwestern North

America During the Late Prehistoric Period (3500–200 B.P.):Evolution of Hunter and Gathering Societies. Journal ofWorld Prehistory 19:47–118.

Prentiss, William C., Catherine A. Dietz, Sierra Mandelko, Jack-ie Orcholl, Emily Wilkerson, Nathan Goodale, and MichaelLenert

2004 Report of the 2003 University of Montana Investiga-tions at the Bridge River Site (EeRl4). Report on file BridgeRiver Band Office and Department of Anthropology, TheUniversity of Montana.

Prentiss, William C., Michael Lenert, Thomas A. Foor, NathanB. Goodale, and Trinity Schlegel

2003 Calibrated Radiocarbon Dating at Keatley Creek: TheChronology of Occupation at a Complex Hunter-Gather-er Community. American Antiquity 68:719–735.

Prentiss, William C., Michael Lenert, Thomas A. Foor, and NathanB. Goodale

2005 The Emergence of Complex Hunter-Gatherers on theCanadian Plateau: A Response to Hayden. American An-tiquity 70:175–180.

Reininghaus, Lee2010 An Inter-Household Analysis of the Proto-Historic Oc-cupation at the Bridge River site. Poster presented in thesymposium Complex Hunter-Gatherers of Interior BritishColumbia: New Interdisciplinary Research at the BridgeRiver Site, 75th Annual Meeting of the Society for Amer-ican Archaeology, St. Louis, Missouri.

Richerson, Peter J., and Robert Boyd1999 Complex Societies: The Evolutionary Origins of aCrude Superorganism. Human Nature 10:253–289.

2005 Not By Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed HumanEvolution. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Richerson, Peter J., Robert Boyd, and Joseph Henrich2003 The Cultural Evolution of Human Cooperation. In TheGenetic and Cultural Evolution of Cooperation, edited byP. Hammerstein, pp. 357–388. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass-achusetts.

Rosenberg, Michael2009 Proximate Causation, Group Selection, and the Evo-lution of Hierarchical Human Societies: System, Process,and Pattern. In Macroevolution in Human Prehistory: Evo-lutionary Theory and Processual Archaeology, edited byAnna Marie Prentiss, Ian Kuijt, and James C. Chatters, pp.23–50. Springer, New York.

Saitta, Dean J.1997 Power, Labor, and the Dynamics of Change in Cha-coan Political Economy. American Antiquity 62:7–26.

Samuels, Stephan R.2005 Households at Ozette. In Household Archaeology onthe Northwest Coast, edited by Elizabeth A. Sobel, D. AnnTrieu Gahr, and Kenneth M. Ames, pp. 200–232. Interna-tional Monographs in Prehistory Archaeological Series 16.Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Sassaman, Kenneth E. 2011 History and Alterity in the Eastern Archaic. Hunter-Gatherer Archaeology as Historical Process, edited by Ken-neth E. Sassaman and Donald H. Holly Jr., pp. 187–208.University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Sassaman, Kenneth E., and Michael J. Heckenberger2004 Crossing the Symbolic Rubicon in the Southeast. InSigns of Power: The Rise of Cultural Complexity in theSoutheast, edited by Jon L. Gibson and Philip J. Carr, pp.214–233. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Sheppard, Jon, and Bob Muir2010 “Oh, I’ve Seen One Way Bigger Than That!” CurrentResearch on Housepit Settlement Patterns in the Mid-Fras-er Region of B.C. The Midden, in press.

Prentiss et al.] WEALTH-BASED INEQUALITY AT BRIDGE RIVER 563

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Ful

l Acc

ess

(289

-07-

305)

IP

Add

ress

: 150

.131

.73.

254

W

edne

sday

, Jan

uary

30,

201

3 5:

05:2

4 PM

564 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 77, No. 3, 2012]

Smith, Eric Alden, and Jung-Kyoo Choi2005 The Emergence of Inequality in Small Scale Societies:Simple Scenarios and Agent based Simulations. In The Mod-el-Based Archaeology of Socio-Natural Systems, edited byTimothy Kohler and Sander E. Van Der Leuw, pp.105–120. School of Advanced Research, Santa Fe.

Smith, Eric A., Kim Hill, Frank W. Marlowe, David Nolin, Pol-ly Wiessner, Michael Gurven, Samuel Bowles, MoniqueBorgerhoff Mulder, Tom Hertz, and Adrian Bell

2010 Wealth Transmission and Inequality among Hunter-Gatherers. Current Anthropology 51:19–34.

Smith, Lisa, Anna M. Prentiss, Dana Lepofsky, Eric Carlson, andNaoko Endo

2010 Resource Intensification at Bridge River: A Case Studyin Subsistence Practices within A Complex Hunter-Gath-erer Village. Poster presented at the 75th Meeting of the So-ciety for American Archaeology, St. Louis, Missouri.

Spencer, Charles S.1997 Evolutionary Approaches in Archaeology. Journal ofArchaeological Research 5:209–264.

Stryd, Arnoud H.1973 The Later Prehistory of the Lillooet Area, British Co-lumbia. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Archaeology,University of Calgary.

Teit, James1900 The Thompson Indians of British Columbia. Memoirsof the American Museum of Natural History, Jesup NorthPacific Expedition 1:63–392. American Museum of Nat-ural History, New York.

1906 The Lillooet Indians. Memoirs of the American Mu-seum of Natural History, Jesup North Pacific Expedition2:193–300. American Museum of Natural History, NewYork.

Ward, Wyatt2011 Zooarchaeology of the Bridge River Site. M.A. the-sis, Department of Anthropology, The University of Mon-tana, Missoula.

Weninger, Bernhard, Uwe Danzeglocke, and Olaf Jöris2007 Comparison of Dating Results achieved using DifferentRadiocarbon-Age Calibration Curves and Data.http://www.calpal.de/calpal/files/CalCurveComparisons.pdf.

Weninger, Bernhard, and Olaf Jöris2003 A 14C Calibration Curve for the Last 60 ka: The Green-land-Hulu U/Th Timescale and Its Impact on Understandingthe Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transition in Western Eura-sia. Journal of Human Evolution 55:772–781.

Weninger, Bernhard, Olaf Jöris, and Uwe Danzeglocke 2010 CalPal–2007. Cologne Radiocarbon Calibration & Pa-leoclimate Research Package. Electronic document,http://www.calpal.de/, accessed 2010–05–16.

Wiessner, Polly2002 The Vines of Complexity: Egalitarian Structures andthe Institutionalization of Inequality. Current Anthropolo-gy 43:233–271.

Notes1. We used debitage in the calculation of the prestige and

nonlocal raw materials indices. We cannot guarantee that flakeswere not exchanged and even if they were not, debitage pro-vide an at least crude measure of the importance of thosesources relative to other items. Given that these are only twoout of a series of indices we do not believe that they unduly biasthe matrix.

2. Floor thickness was measured as the maximum thicknessof accumulated floors excluding buried roof deposits withineach house component. Some may complain that this is not anaccurate measure but at Bridge River, housepit occupants rou-tinely refloored their houses by merely covering over the oldfloor leading to stratified floor sequences. Rim deposits in thehousepits with the thinnest floors (HPs 24 and 25) are relativelyshallow, homogeneous, and roof-like and thus very differentfrom the complexly stratified rims of Keatley Creek wherefloors and roofs were excavated and discarded on rims byoriginal occupants. Thus we believe that floor thickness andnumber of floors actually do measure occupational longevity.

3. Field identification of floors was supported by micro-morphological assessments (Goldberg 2010).

4. Evidence for feasting includes butchery and discard oftwo domesticated dogs in two similarly dated adjacent pits inHousepit 24 accompanied by a bear canine tooth and otheritems (Cail et al. 2010). Additional evidence for possible feast-ing comes from Housepit 25 where extensive numbers of min-imally butchered deer remains were recovered in one sector ofthe floor. The center of the house also featured a unique largedepression containing evidence for fires and resembling feast-ing contexts at Ozette, House 1 (Samuels 2005).

5. Two of the largest of these are located immediately ad-jacent to Housepits 24 and 25.

6. Our understanding of dispersal processes associatedwith the depopulation of the dense aggregate Mid-Fraser vil-lages remains inadequate and will be the subject of future re-search (Kuijt 2001). Lepofsky and Peacock (2004) offerprovocative evidence for expansion in the use of upland geo-phyte resources during the period post-dating the depopulationof the Mid-Fraser villages. This evidence could mark a tem-porary return to more residentially mobile lifestyles. Thiswould not be surprising; semi-sedentary hunter-gatherers haveoften resorted to enhanced residential mobility during reduc-tions in productivity of critical subsistence resources (e.g.,Amsden 1977; Chatters 1995; Kuijt and Prentiss 2009).

Received November 15, 2010; Revised March 15, 2011;Accepted April 11, 2011.

Del

iver

ed b

y ht

tp://

saa.

met

apre

ss.c

om

Soci

ety

for

Am

eric

an A

rcha

eolo

gy -

Ful

l Acc

ess

(289

-07-

305)

IP

Add

ress

: 150

.131

.73.

254

W

edne

sday

, Jan

uary

30,

201

3 5:

05:2

4 PM