In chapter 8, I stated that, by my estimates, contemporary Seltaman men and women are roughly balanced in their access to meat protein over the course of their lifetimes. A more detailed examination of this point is worth undertaking as part of the dialogue over gender and generosity initiated by Raymond Kelly.
Kelly was able to report for the Etoro some (slight) material disprivileging of men entailed by their assumption of the owner's pork taboo and the longer hours of labor time involved in male hunting (1993:532, 539, 578). By demonstrating this, he was able to put a very fine point on his generosity argument. He summarizes his findings as follows:
Men devote more hours of labor to subsistence food production than women because prestige is earned through individual effort and the division of labor puts men not women in a position to earn prestige. Women obtain items of greater material value in exchange for items of lesser material value in that they receive scarce animal protein for amply available starch staples. Women also have superior access to animal protein over the course of a lifetime. When the system is evaluated in terms of these material benefits, women are thus seen to be in an advantaged position. However, an evaluation of the system in terms of the distribution of prestige is conducive to precisely the opposite conclusion . . . The critical point is to recognize that a complementary distribution of prestige and material benefit is intrinsic to these systems insofar as prestige is often earned by providing material benefits to others (e.g., by distributing game widely). (498-99; emph. added)
Are prestige and material benefit (as Kelly is defining the latter) in the same sort of complementary distribution among the Seltaman? I have no labor data to offer on the point of labor equality, other than to observe that Seltaman men do very little hunting compared to the Etoro and thus could not be putting in longer hours in that fashion. I have been able to examine in greater detail the other metric chosen by Kelly, access to meat protein over the course of a lifetime, so I will turn to this.
In table C1, I have put together estimates of both the typical weights and the availability of the principal meat species consumed yearly by the Seltaman to produce an availability ranking of the primary meat sources. Running beside this ranking is an estimate of the relative portion of the yearly meat supply going to "womenfolk" and "menfolk."
Table C1. Seltaman Primary Meat Sources, by Proportion to Total and by Gender Allocation
Creature |
Mean Wt |
No./Year |
Wt/Year, Rounded |
% Total/Yr |
% Accessible |
Yearly Portion |
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Wo/Chi |
Wo/Chi |
Men |
|||||
grown domestic pig |
36 |
15 |
540 |
25.72 |
50 |
270 |
270 |
piglets and shoats |
6 |
75 |
450 |
21.43 |
90 |
405 |
45 |
midsize domestic pig |
15 |
20 |
300 |
14.29 |
50 |
150 |
150 |
wild pig |
22 |
9 |
198 |
9.43 |
0 |
0 |
198 |
cassowary |
18 |
9 |
162 |
7.72 |
0 |
0 |
162 |
watom |
3 |
37.59 |
112.77 |
5.37 |
50 |
56.39 |
56.38 |
kwemnok |
2.75 |
24.76 |
68.09 |
3.24 |
50 |
34.05 |
34.04 |
ngarem |
2.5 |
23.83 |
59.58 |
2.84 |
50 |
29.79 |
29.79 |
kitem |
2 |
20.16 |
40.32 |
1.92 |
50 |
20.16 |
20.16 |
birds, frugivores |
0.2 |
180 |
36 |
1.71 |
50 |
18 |
18 |
python sp. |
6 |
4 |
24 |
1.14 |
50 |
12 |
12 |
kayang |
1.75 |
12.83 |
22.45 |
1.07 |
50 |
11.23 |
11.22 |
deim-arik |
2 |
9.16 |
18.32 |
0.87 |
50 |
9.16 |
9.16 |
akhuni |
8 |
2.75 |
22 |
1.05 |
0 |
0 |
22 |
brush turkeys |
0.7 |
12 |
8.4 |
0.40 |
90 |
7.56 |
0.84 |
sop |
0.6 |
10.09 |
6.1 |
0.29 |
50 |
3.05 |
3.05 |
kuter |
0.8 |
6.42 |
5.1 |
0.24 |
75 |
3.83 |
1.27 |
birds, insectivores |
0.1 |
40 |
4 |
0.19 |
75 |
3 |
1 |
sarip |
4 |
1 |
4 |
0.19 |
50 |
2 |
2 |
frogs (packet) |
0.1 |
40 |
4 |
0.19 |
50 |
2 |
2 |
water rats and lizards |
0.4 |
8 |
3.2 |
0.15 |
100 |
3.2 |
0 |
kayuuk |
0.4 |
4.58 |
1.83 |
0.09 |
50 |
0.92 |
0.91 |
ngarfem |
0.5 |
4.58 |
2.29 |
0.11 |
75 |
1.72 |
0.57 |
kimisok |
0.8 |
2.75 |
2.2 |
0.10 |
75 |
1.65 |
0.55 |
mein |
1.3 |
0.91 |
1.18 |
0.06 |
75 |
0.89 |
0.29 |
ngorim |
1 |
1.82 |
1.82 |
0.09 |
50 |
0.91 |
0.91 |
bakonkaak |
1 |
0.91 |
0.91 |
0.04 |
90 |
0.82 |
0.09 |
somin |
0.7 |
0.91 |
0.64 |
0.03 |
75 |
0.48 |
0.16 |
wares |
0.5 |
0.91 |
0.46 |
0.02 |
75 |
0.35 |
0.11 |
Total |
2,099.66 |
1,048.16 |
1,051.5 |
The table embeds a number of assumptions that require comment. Of my various data those on domestic pig consumption are the firmest, being based on a running inventory of the Seltaman pig herd over the course of fourteen months. But even here, weight assumptions had to be made, since it was impossible to get the real weight of every consumed pig. For estimates of pig weights in the field, I measured a range of full-grown, midsized, shoat-sized, and piglets then applied the American pig farmer's formula:
heart girth x heart girth x length
400
The weight figures derived in this fashion were adjusted downward 20 percent for the many moribund piglets and shoats killed to forestall their natural demise, as these were often emaciated. From these operations, mean weights of full-grown, midsized, and the downward adjusted category "piglet-shoat" were derived. It is these mean weights that appear in the table.
In regard to the large game species, wild pig and cassowary, I split the difference between two rather divergent capture rates recorded during my first and later visits to arrive at an estimate of 1.5 of these creatures per month. Weight averages were estimated from using diverse strategies. (1)
Midsized game, the marsupials and rodents, produced primarily by male archers (often accompanied by dogs) presented less of a problem. The proportional representation of the different species in the hunters' catch became clear from a sample of reported hunting excursions, and the mean weights for these recorded by zoologist Timothy Flannery served to fill in the weight column. The question of how many such creatures are consumed over the course of a given interval was rather more difficult, but I was able to arrive at a ballpark figure, using methods described in appendix A. It should be pointed out that the capture rate and weights for midsized game do not make a whole lot of difference to the "gender fairness" argument, since the majority of midsized game species are equally permitted to "people of women's houses" and "people of men's houses." In order to gain some sense of the proportion of consumed meat falling into the midsized game category, however, I took very seriously the capture rates that came from the sacred hunts and large group hunts that Seltaman reported to me (see app. A).
The next matter to be taken up was how to translate the food taboos into a portrait of men's and women's portion of the meat diet. The key distinction, it seems to me, is the one that the Seltaman themselves make through the taboo system: that between "people of women's houses"--that is, all females and uninitiated male children--and all others, roughly "menfolk." With this as a starting point, I translated the taboos as follows:
We will keep in mind that men are subject, somewhat unpredictably throughout the remainder of their life course, to the sudden imposition of temporary funerary taboos, which may sideline them from an occasional large domestic pork feast (simultaneously doubling the supply going to women and children on that occasion) or, much less often, from consumption of any game unwittingly brought into the village on the day of a death (this too would have to be routed to the wanangameriin). The first imposition occurred twice during my first two visits; the second, never. Weighing against this, however, are the meats taken by men on sacred hunts, and these hunts occurred roughly quarterly during my first two visits. All of the creatures taken on sacred hunts are consumed entirely in the men's house, with senior initiates receiving the "women/children" items. My calculations put the sacred hunt meat yearly weight at a level approximately equivalent to one midsize pig. Since funerary taboos might block roughly this amount of pork to the initiated men, let us pronounce these two imbalances a wash.
In regard to the question of gender inequality in the distribution of meat, we can cut to the chase simply by eliminating the meat sources that are allocated evenly and taking a look at what remains. The results appear in table C2.
Table C2. Seltaman Unequally Allocated Meats, by Proportion to Total and by Gender Allocation
Creature |
Mean Wt |
No./Year |
Wt/Year, Rounded |
% Total/Yr |
% Accessible |
Yearly Portion |
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Wo/Chi |
Wo/Chi |
Men |
|||||
piglets and shoats |
6 |
75 |
450 |
52.30 |
90 |
405 |
45 |
wild pig |
22 |
9 |
198 |
23.01 |
0 |
0 |
198 |
cassowary |
18 |
9 |
162 |
18.83 |
0 |
0 |
162 |
akhuni |
8 |
2.75 |
22 |
2.56 |
0 |
0 |
22 |
brush turkeys |
0.7 |
12 |
8.4 |
0.98 |
90 |
7.56 |
0.84 |
kuter |
0.8 |
6.42 |
5.1 |
0.59 |
75 |
3.83 |
1.27 |
birds, insectivores |
0.1 |
40 |
4 |
0.46 |
75 |
3 |
1 |
water rats and lizards |
0.4 |
8 |
3.2 |
0.37 |
100 |
3.2 |
0 |
ngarfem |
0.5 |
4.58 |
2.29 |
0.27 |
75 |
1.72 |
0.57 |
kimisok |
0.8 |
2.75 |
2.2 |
0.26 |
75 |
1.65 |
0.55 |
mein |
1.3 |
0.91 |
1.18 |
0.14 |
75 |
0.89 |
0.29 |
bakonkaak |
1 |
0.91 |
0.91 |
0.11 |
90 |
0.82 |
0.09 |
somin |
0.7 |
0.91 |
0.64 |
0.07 |
75 |
0.48 |
0.16 |
wares |
0.5 |
0.91 |
0.46 |
0.05 |
75 |
0.35 |
0.11 |
Total |
860.38 |
428.5 |
431.88 |
The sleeper in the system, if we consider what anthropologists usually measure when discussing food taboos, is the category of moribund piglets and shoats. These account for an astonishing proportion of the Seltaman total yearly meat consumption, coming in a close second behind the top-ranked "grown domestic pig" and at the head of the list of the unevenly distributed meats. (2) Moreover, it seems to overcome handily the gender gap that would appear if we considered wild species only and may in some years put women slightly ahead. At any rate, the totals are too close to give an edge to either gender.
Meanwhile, women and children's monopolization of that wide assortment of hunted and foraged species, the assortment that often preoccupies anthropologists' accounts of New Guinea food taboos, is virtually insignificant in the allocation of meat between the genders. Why is this? Because, as already discussed in chapter 6, the "women and children" designated species are overwhelmingly medium to tiny in size and infrequently to rarely caught.
The next question that arises is whether these relatively egalitarian findings apply to the Seltaman of that hypothetically more traditional past, prior to pacification? Is there, in other words, an earlier (or simply a historically probable other) state of the system that would enable us to better see how the system itself bears upon gender equality? It is illuminating to alter our model in the direction of Barth's study of the neighboring and highly comparable Baktaman done in the late 1960s. It is not important that the comparison table we construct here be historically accurate--the data are too imprecise to attain any hope of that--but only that it bring out a picture of what the gendered allocation of meats would look like if we moved the contemporary Seltaman backward in time, in the direction of the 1960s Baktaman. Accordingly, I propose the following adjustments:
The results of these adjustments appear in table C3.
Table C3. Seltaman Earlier Situation, by Proportion to Total and by Gender Allocation
Creature |
Mean Wt |
No./Year |
Wt/Year, Rounded |
% Total/Yr |
% Accessible |
Yearly Portion |
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Wo/Chi |
Wo/Chi |
Men |
|||||
piglets and shoats |
6 |
56 |
336 |
26.75 |
90 |
302.4 |
33.6 |
wild pig |
22 |
18 |
396 |
31.53 |
0 |
0 |
396 |
cassowary |
18 |
18 |
324 |
25.80 |
0 |
0 |
324 |
kwemnok |
2.75 |
50 |
137.5 |
10.95 |
0 |
0 |
137.5 |
brush turkeys |
0.7 |
24 |
16.8 |
1.34 |
90 |
15.12 |
1.68 |
kuter |
0.8 |
14 |
11.2 |
0.89 |
75 |
8.4 |
2.8 |
birds, insectivores |
0.1 |
80 |
8 |
0.64 |
75 |
6 |
2 |
frogs (packet) |
0.1 |
80 |
8 |
0.64 |
100 |
8 |
0 |
water rats and lizards |
0.4 |
16 |
6.4 |
0.51 |
100 |
6.4 |
0 |
ngarfem |
0.5 |
10 |
5 |
0.40 |
100 |
5 |
0 |
mein |
1.3 |
2 |
2.6 |
0.21 |
100 |
2.6 |
0 |
bakonkaak |
1 |
2 |
2 |
0.16 |
100 |
2 |
0 |
somin |
0.7 |
2 |
1.4 |
0.11 |
100 |
1.4 |
0 |
wares |
0.5 |
2 |
1 |
0.08 |
100 |
1 |
0 |
Total |
1255.9 |
358.32 |
897.58 |
The gender gap is now substantial: men's share of the unequally distributed meat is 2.5 times women's share. In a word, moving the system back in a more "traditional" direction increases the material advantage that Seltaman men enjoyed over Seltaman women. This puts Seltaman more in line with not just the Barth-era Baktaman but the other Mountain Ok groups studied during that same earlier ethnographic period (Morren 1975; Hyndman 1979; Jones 1980; Brumbaugh 1980a; Poole 1976). There is, of course, not a shred of evidence that the men of any of these groups enjoyed any less prestige than the contemporary Seltaman men. I am of the opinion, then, that Kelly's vision of a complementary distribution of prestige and material advantage in small tribal cultures receives no support from the Mountain Ok area.
The change from the probable earlier state of affairs to the contemporary, more egalitarian state of affairs is crucially linked to the decline of men's hunting and a compensatory increased reliance on the domestic pig. Two factors should be mentioned as probably most important in the historical decline of Seltaman men's hunting. One is the fixing of the southeastern Min villages in long-term locations subsequent to pacification and in response to the urgings of the various missions. This has meant that the close hunting ranges surrounding these villages have been hunted down over the past three decades for virtually all of the southeastern Faiwol speakers, including Seltaman.
The second factor is simply an apparent growing disinclination on the part of men to maintain a high game yield, as indicated by lax trap checking, but also by the general decline in excursions. This disinclination may be conditioned by several factors, including the dietary ones of increased pork consumption and access to trade store meats, and the more "energic" one of having over the years to travel longer distances to effect the same capture rate. The role of the flashlight requires investigation too. Some men told me that once a man has become accustomed to its use, he is ineffective at spotting night game without it. The crucial skill of hunting "eye-nothing" in the traditional manner is thus being lost, and night excursions accordingly become limited by the flashlight battery supply. Finally, I speculate that pacification has entailed a relaxing of male sociality and a concomitant decrease in gender-segregated eating and that this too has helped to shape the hunting disinclination.