There are numerous ethnographic examples of food sharing amongst hunter gatherer groups from a variety of different climatic regions and with different levels of social organisation; e.g. Peterson (1993), Kaplan and Hill (1985), Kent (1993), Enloe (2003), Binford (1978) and Wiessner (2002) to name but a few. Further details of the variations in food sharing and distribution for arctic and sub-arctic reindeer or caribou hunting groups can be found in the appendix. These groups all practice delayed return economies; in that they live with a climate that shows “marked seasonality in scarcity and abundance of resources” (Stiles 2001, 50), and food is stored to “tide over lean seasons” (Ingold 1983, 558). The variations between the groups are great; even amongst those that share similar climates, and this has led to a number of theories that try to explain the motives behind food sharing.

There are many possible reasons for food sharing given in the theoretical literature; Hill and Kaplan (1993, 701) give four reasons for food sharing: 1) kin selection, 2) variance reduction, 3) exchange for something other than food and 4) tolerated theft. Furthermore they suggest that these reasons can vary within groups depending on the context of the food sharing (Hill and Kaplan 1993, 701). Waguespack (2002, 397) gives similar reasons for sharing: kinship distance, social obligations and whether the resource was procured individually or through group effort. Some of these ideas are explored in depth elsewhere, with various arguments as to the importance of each to provide an explanation for the variation in practices; e.g. Winterhalder (1996) and Bliege Bird and Bird (1997). One concept that remains constant throughout the literature is the idea of food sharing occurring as a form of risk reduction (Waguespack 2002, 398; Peterson 1993, 865; Wiessner 2002, 408; Smith 1981, 45; Bell 1995, 829; Hughes 1984, 181; Bliege Bird and Bird 1997, 50).

There very few studies that have looked at archaeological patterns for these theories; Waguespack (2002) is one of these and looks at the types of archaeological patterning that would be present for variance reduction and tolerated theft. Therefore the variance reduction and tolerated theft patterns will be discussed, in consideration of delayed return economies, for the analysis of the site of Pincevent.

The arctic and sub-arctic groups should all be considered to practice delayed return economies, in that their environment displays marked seasonality (Stile 2001, 50). There is some debate in the literature about delayed return economies and food sharing, Testart (1982) is of the opinion that once storage is being used by a group food sharing stops, while Stiles (2001, 51) places a number of restrictions on how sharing would occur. Ingold (1983) presents a very different view; and states that “there is no necessary contradiction between storage and sharing” (Ingold 1983, 562 my emphasis), this view is also supported by the appendix, which shows there are many groups with delayed return economies that do share food. Binford (2001) presents a framework within which the variability of food sharing behaviour can be studied; he suggests (Binford 2001, 40) that in order to fully understand the processes a consideration of the habitat and its variables is vital, and that it is only when the full picture of the situation is clear that and variations in behaviour can be understood. This ecological approach provides a basis for considering patterns of sharing in delayed return economies. Storage is seen as a means of risk reduction in climates with marked seasonal variations (Rowley-Conway and Zvelebil 1989, 40), Binford (2001, 40) also see the pooling and sharing of stores as a risk reduction mechanism. This shows that storage and sharing are not incompatible and can complement each other in terms of risk reduction in a habitat that displays seasonality.