This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Food and Complex Societies
George Gumerman IV 1
In complex societies individuals from distinct socia~ economic, gender, or age groups often consume different foods because of various economic, politica~ and ideological factors. The food system not only involves what is consumed but includes the labor and technology that goes into the production and preparation of food as well as how certain foods are distributed and eventually discarded. Food systems within and among complex societies are thus tightly intertwined with social differentiation and the political economy and participate in defining and maintaining differential social relations. KEY WORDS: foodways;paleodiet;consumption;social relations.
INTRODUCTION Archaeologists have produced significant advances in understanding subsistence--often employing models that focus on population, environment, and technology to predict and explain general changes in subsistence through time (e.g., Binford, 1968; Boserup, 1965; Christenson, 1980; Cohen, 1977; Earle, 1980; King, 1993; Morrison, 1994; Sobolik, 1994; Trierwieler, 1990; Wymer, 1993; cf. Browman, 1987; Keene, 1983; O'Connell et al., 1982; Reidhead, 1980). Although these variables are critical in understanding human behavior, the models typically address only a narrow range of the many factors that are encompassed by the study of food. Topics such as origins, adaptation, risk, and cost minimization usually are couched in terms of a normative set of actors--sites, periods, and cultures. As such, the models often do not adequately address how subsistence is affected by individual action (see Brurafiel, 1992). Cost minimization, for example, does not ex1Departmentof Anthropology,NorthernArizonaUniversity,P.O. Box 15200, Flagstaff,Arizona 86011.
1072-5369/97/0600-0105512.50/0 9 1997 Hcnum PublishingCorporation
plain all behavior, especially in complex societies where subsistence decisions also are based on status and political concerns. Economics is clearly a factor in these decisions, yet for some individuals minimizing cost may not be an issue. Elites may consume expensive resources because they can "afford" them and because the foods--and their consumption--symbolize their wealth and power. Food, thus, incorporates numerous aspects of culture-ranging from technology to nutrition and the symbolic (see Binford, 1962; Goody, 1982; Harris, 1987; Hodder, 1986; Rathje and Schiffer, 1982; Ross, 1987; Schiffer, 1992). Food is intrinsically social. Indeed, social relations are defined and maintained through food. Food thus should not be analyzed for the sole purpose of describing diet and nutrition (e.g., Brown and Mussell, 1984; Coe, 1994; Douglas, 1971; Douglas, 1984; Farb and Armelagos, 1980; Goode et al., 1984a,b; Mennell, 1985; Ohnuki-Tierney, 1993; Powers and Powers, 1984; Wall, 1994; Weismantel, 1988; Willis, 1990). As Ross (1987, p. 8) points out, "Variation in what people eat reflects substantive variation in status and power and characterizes societies that are internally stratified into rich and poor, sick and healthy, developed and underdeveloped, overfed and undernourished." A meal, whether a shared morning tortilla or a formal dinner party, is an event that develops and maintains affiliations among participants and nonparticipants, as well as preparers and consumers. Foodways also change through time and the changes may vary among individuals of differing status, occupation, gender, and age. Indeed, the study of these changes will inform us about general causes of social change. Recently, archaeologists have contemplated social relations and symbolism through the detailed study of food (see examples below). Typically, these are fine-grained approaches that accept the existence of economic, political, and ideological variation within societies and even variation within households such that males may eat differently than females. This variation is especially vital in understanding complex societies because these societies are organized around a regional political economy where there is differential access to goods, wealth, power, and the means of production. As such, complex societies are composed of hierarchically and heterarchically ranked individuals with marked variation in terms of their needs, wants, and abilities to fulfill their goals (e.g., Ehrenreich et al., 1995; Johnson and Earle, 1987; Redman, 1978; Yoffee, 1993). The nature of complex societies creates an extremely elaborate food system--the set of conditions under which food is produced and distributed, prepared and consumed, and finally, discarded (e.g., Bowen, 1992; Goody, 1982; Holt, 1991; Huelsbeck, 1991; Johannessen, 1993; LaBianca, 1991; Powers and Powers, 1984; Whitehead, 1984). In complex societies, food is often produced and prepared outside of the household and distributed to
Food and Complex Societies
nonproducers. Specialists, for instance, may produce and cook food for other individuals who may be served in various ways, ranging from individual meals to feasts involving many guests. In addition, the food often is differentially allocated to various groups. Elites or commoners, for instance, may receive certain types and portions of food that are important in defining their status. Food distribution also may be regulated through bureaucratic and administrative offices--often through a market system. Consumption involves not only the food itself, but the social context in which the meal is served. Different foods often are consumed by individuals with distinct statuses and roles and are important in defining and maintaining their social positions. Finally, leftovers and the residues of production and consumption are discarded. The rules for disposal, such as the disposal location, may indicate how space is viewed. By inquiring into these components of the food system, from production to disposal, the interrelated aspects of food and culture can be explored--Who are the producers and consumers? Who cooks for whom? Who consumes what? Where are specific foods disposed? and How are food preparation and distribution delineated across ethnic, class, gender, and generational boundaries? In this article, I first present an introduction to various theoretical aspects of food and social relations. I believe that, as anthropologists, it is our primary goal to understand human behavior (see Skibo et al., 1995). Behavior involving food is affected by a variety of interrelated factors, ineluding the environment, economics, social organization, belief systems, and even evolutionary fitness. Instead of reviewing all anthropological approaches concerned with food, I have focused on the social and symbolic components. This is not to say that the ecological, environmental, and nutritional aspects that archaeologists have traditionally followed are not critical to understanding food. Rather, it is necessary to build upon these advances by focusing on the social and symbolic elements of the food system. We therefore gain comprehensive insights into many aspects of cult u r e - n o t solely subsistence. Following the discussion of food and social relations, I address some general methodological issues within the context of the food system, ineluding the production, preparation, distribution, consumption, and disposal of food. Then using a variety of examples, with a particular emphasis on complex societies, I demonstrate how the food system can be analyzed with a concern toward understanding the social and symbolic aspects of food. As such, this review presents a recipe--the food system--that archaeologists can follow, modify, and expand if they are interested in consuming the social and symbolic aspects of food and complex societies.
p. mother to daughter) and various other social networks. He focused on rituals involving food.. 1985. utensils used. This results in a shared food system within bounded groups (e. kinship. 595) was attempting to find underlying constants in order "to discover for each specific case how the cooking of a society is a language in which it unconsciously translates its structure. Smith. 32. p. often emphasizing the religious aspects of food (Frazer. 1988). Mennell. 1889). thoroughness of cooking. Goode et al. 1985). and ritual). 15).. Using a linguistic model. stressing the social function rather than the religious event. roasting. 270) viewed food as a means of regulating the social system. and frying). Richards (1932. She modified Levi-Strauss' model by adding components such as seasonings. There are.. Although interested in nutrition. The triangle was elaborated upon by adding various agents (air. boiling. The rules guide behavior.108 Gumerman FOOD AND SOCIAL RELATIONS Cultural anthropologists have a long tradition of studying the social and symbolic roles of food. p. 1939) also emphasized the functional aspects of food by exploring how food expresses and symbolizes social relationships: "The whole social organization is held together very largely by the strength of these nutritive ties. oil. shared rules for . and if we divorce the economic activities of food-getting from the study of man's physiological needs and appetites. particularly the value of food in developing and maintaining social relations.g. 1907. This interest later turned to the functional aspects of food. 1984 a. 1966) structural focus propelled the emphasis away from how food serves in social relations toward a means of analyzing the structure of a society. myth. and different terms for animal and plant processing.g. and water) and cooking techniques (broiling. Levi-Strauss' (1963. Weismantel. revealing the underlying structure of a culture. 1971. he developed the culinary triangle. Regardless of whether the culinary triangle provides a universal structure (see Douglas.. p. economic. which modeled the transformation of food from raw to cooked to rotten. cooking and eating practices are structured. Radcliffe-Brown (1922." His approach compared associations and oppositions from the culinary subsystem to other subsystems (e. Levi-Strauss (1966.g. for instance. we shall fail to understand the nature of society itself" (Richards 1932. The model was tested cross-culturally by Lehrer (1972).b. They are socially learned and shaped--often transmitted through familial relations (e. Lehrer concluded that the culinary triangle had less to do with the underlying structure of a culture than with available materials and techniques and thus serves better to describe a culinary system. Early research focused on food taboos and sacrifices. Culinary rules are shared ways of preparing and eating food that are socially patterned. MenneU.
may symbolize ethnic. and serving individuals. By analyzing structure and symbolism we see that food is vital in defining everyday social relations. culinary rules are not always followed and not all members of a society follow the same rules.g. 23) noted. 28). and what are the processes that account for the changes (Mennell. p. methods of cooking. Food systems also change through time. It thus seems appropriate that we can build upon earlier subsistence studies by emphasizing the social and symbolic aspects of food. p. "The structures of cuisine are not fixed and immutable. A certain way of preparing a food item. many different ethnic groups use tomato-based sauces.Food and Complex Societies 109 preparing and mixing ingredients. we will not "neglect those important aspects of that culture that are linked with social or individual differences" (Goody. had powerful effects on various economic. Methodological Considerations To understand food and social relations in complex societies. An approach that accounts for diverse foodways is preferable because standard structural approaches often mask important variation among different individuals and groups within a society (e. As Hodder (1986. social. p. does not passively reflect society--rather.. is defined not so much by the tomatoes but by the method of preparing the sauce--especially the use of certain spices and other ingredients (Goode et al. Food and cooking not only provide calories fxom available resources. 1985) study of sugar.. 6) states about material culture. for example. data obviously need to be collected and analyzed in a manner that reflects the . but are actively involved in participating in and defining social relations. thus. Goody. We must therefore understand the history and development of the food system. p. 16)? Furthermore. Mennell. How did the food system change through time. The active role of food is clearly demonstrated by Sidney Mintz's (1979. 1984a.. As such." Changing rules for cooking and eating need explanation. and occupation. 1985. however. As Weismantel (1988. but are in a constant state of transformation. Such an approach leads to an enriched understanding of the inner workings of complex societies. gender. As an example. Italian-American cuisine. or gender identity and thereby actively delineate the status and role of the subgroup. class. Sugar was one of the first commodities to be mass advertised and its production was critical in the development of the slave trade. food symbolism". it creates society through the actions of individuals" (italics in original). This is especially true in complex societies where different culinary rules often correspond to class.b). and political institutions during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. 1982. 1982. age. 1985).. Its production and consumption.
Sandford. What are the food items associated with? Are certain foods associated with certain locations (e. van der Merwe and Vogel. 1992. males and females. or gender--may view foods in distinct ways.g. 1996. Reynolds. Schiller. Toll.g. Hastorf. coprolite analyses (Gremillion and Sobolik. Food remains then can be considered in light of the different social strata. 1975. 1991. 1991. 1985. Data on gender and generational subsistence also can be collected through stomach contents.. 1982. Gibbs. Reinhard and Bryant. 1991. The context of food preparation. domestic or ritual). Gender may be identified by examining gendered activity areas within households (e. For those complex societies with written language. 1989. 1982a. Associations across various types of data--spatial. 1978. 1992. DeNiro. 1993. 1986. 1977. analysis can focus on the relationships between language . Larsen. Verano and Ubelaker. 1991. Lennstrom. gender. Pearsall. 1981. 1992). 1989a. Powell. It thus becomes possible to approach subjects such as class. or activities? An understanding of the patterns that are observed and their systemic context may suggest how foods symbolicaUy operate within a complex society. and bone chemistry (e. Bumsted. Contextual. and symbolic approaches offer important avenues for examining the active role of food. Pate.g. and age in relation to food. p. 1995.. Price et al.. status. a concern with "internally differentiated cuisines" (Goody. Douglas. 1993. Price. 1982). McGhee. 1992.g. Most contemporary archaeological research includes systematic recovery of floral and faunal remains from household contexts. 1987b). and old and young (e. 1991. Wilk and Rathje. 1994. artifacts.110 Gumerman internal variation within a society (Deetz. Lennstrom and Hastorf. 1992. As such. 1990. Social variation is also important for understanding food symbolism because various groups--ethnic. and typological--can lead to understanding symbolic meaning (Hodder. Furthermore. dietary variation can be examined between elites and commoners. Clues concerning the meaning of food to a society or group of individuals can be discerned through contextual associations and ethnohistoric and ethnographic analogy. 1985. 1987a. 1987. through skeletal analyses we can study the consumption patterns of individuals (see below). 38) is necessary where food is explored at the household level. Other possibilities for interpreting symbolic meaning include the analysis of writing systems and iconography. Gero and Conkey. 1994. Gifford-Gonzales. and discard.. Marcus and Flannery. Hodder.. 1986. DeNim and Hastorf. 1989. Brown. 1985. Status may be defined through architectural and artifactual analyses. 1988). 1994. temporal. may provide possible interpretations about food symbolism (e. Hastorf. By sampiing and analyzing various contexts. Hastorf. 1987. Renfrew.. depositional. 1982. 1992). Brumfiel.g. b. consumption. Ehrenberg. 1987. Saunders and Katzenberg. 1992). structural. 1994). Sobolik. Wylie. as well as artifactual associations.
1993. 1992).Food and Complex Societies 111 and food (e. Lathrap. 1986. 1994. Marcus.g. and links to ethnography and ethnohistory--to produce reliable interpretations. 1990. Willis. Whitley. myths and cognates. . Farb and Armelagos. Saunders. Pohl. 1989). As Barker and Gamble (1985. 1994. . 1990. Marcus and Flannery.. 1990. Stark. feasts. . may provide data on what a particular food item might mean to a certain group (e. Stark. p. 1990. 1986.g. 1993.g. 1954. 1989. 1982. "Rigorous contextual analysis and adequate sampling are clearly essential prerequisites for any realistic assessment of the likely relationship between . We might ask.. 1989. 1981. 1994. 55) and in Mayan myths it is also associated with jade (Boherer. 1988. 1981. Whitley. 1972.. Language. the details of symbolism need to be examined rigorously within a scientific framework (e. 1992. Of course. 1983). Miller and Burger. Freidel. Fowler. Zuidema. Ethnohistoric and ethnographic analogy also can be valid tools for interpreting food symbolism (e.. Saunders. 237). these data can be used as analogies to postulate prehistoric foodways. Among the Yukatek Maya.residues from complex sites and the behaviour of the inhabitants . 1986. Holt. 11) assert. 1978. Schele and Freidel. for instance. language. provides interpretable evidence for food symbolism. 1990. associations. In what context is the word for a certain food used? What cognates exist for the word? How are specific animals or plants referred to in myths? In ritual? The word used for a certain food item and its method of preparation are data that can be evaluated in terms of food symbolism. Killen. not all patterns observed in the archaeological record are the result of human behavior and careful consideration must be given to the . McGhee. maize was synonymous with God (Farriss. Hodder. Douglas. 1994). Donnan. Hill.g. 1994. their use in rituals. Baines. Freidel et al. " Clearly. what kinds of plants and animals are depicted on what artifacts and in what locations? Are there associations with other items or beings? Are they anthropomorphized? The study of language and art. 1994. 1980. 1985. 1994. 1995. Pohl. Taube. Paul. presents an opportunity to explore food metaphors and symbolism. 1989. 1982. 1990. In some instances. In a similar way. Marcus. like any other aspect of archaeology. 1996. 1982.. is a symbolic system and the analysis of. p. Whitley. Hodder. 1972. Gibbon. 1984. Morphy. iconographic depictions may also play a critical role in interpreting prehistoric food symbolism (Benson. alternative hypotheses need to be evaluated using multiple lines of evidence--context. for exampie. for instance. Hill. demonstrating its divine and precious nature. 1994. 1977. 1993. The everyday use of foods. articulated with an analysis of floral and faunal remains. Thompson.. 1989). Hanen and Kelley. p. Renfrew. Schele and Miller. 1978. and myths. Through a combination of deductive and inductive reasoning. 1985. Taube.
g. They explicitly need to be factored into our research designs. ethnography. 1985.. Archaeologists have the ability to detect variation in diet and can use contextual associations. Stark. 1982. a fruitful analysis of food and culture can focus on the food system from production to final disposal. 1994.. Ethnoarchaeology and experimental archaeology obviously have the potential for modeling these processes through the examination of discard. Through such concerns we can promote an understanding of the various roles food played in the past. Skibo. a primary deposit on a kitchen floor may indicate food preparation (e. analyses. 1993. Gordon. 1993. We can better appreciate the roles of food in complex societies through an understanding of cultural and natural formation processes. 1992.. King. and differential preservation (Barker and Gamble. Miksicek. preservation. Gilbert and Singer. Hastorf 1988). 1989). 1983. Kramer. Schiller. and needs . Hayden and Cannon. Maltby. 1987). 1994.g. PearsaU. While considering these methodological issues.g. Pearsail. It is necessary to be more than simply cognizant of issues surrounding formation processes and sampling. Hudson. Gifford-Gonzales. often represents a variety of activities--from preparation to cooking to consumption and even nonfood activities (Maltby. 1985. Leonard and Jones. Maltby. 1989. Staski and Sutro. 1994. 1979. Sampling strategies. 1993. 1985. Ford.g. In contrast. Binford. Cruz-Uribe. wants. 1977. 1981.. alterations. Miksicek. Our interpretations must therefore be based on analyses of depositionai context (e. 1977). Gordon. 1993. Miksicek. 1985.112 Gumerman noncultural as well as the cultural processes that affect the archaeological record (Schiffer. 1987. and so forth (e. Moore. for instance. 1988. including the context and the size of the sample. 1981. Gifford. 1987. The production and preparation of food in complex societies are often elaborate processes oriented toward fulfilling a variety of interests. 1981. and interpretations. 1993. Klein and CruzUribe. 1987). language. 1992. Grayson. 1987. 1972. Yellen. A secondary refuse deposit. iconography. Lyman. Gifford. 1984. 1991a. and ethnohistory to provide details concerning the symbolic nature of food. The patterns resulting from human action can be analyzed in a detailed manner and are viewed here as actively participating in the development and maintenance of social relations. Production and Preparation Many recent archaeological studies explore the effects of diverse production and preparation strategies on foodways and culture. will also effect interpretations of diversity and comparisons between various units (e. 1988. 1979. Lennstrom and Hastorf. 1982. 1987). sample size. 1982. primary and secondary).
are critical to the operation of a society and often influence production strategies (Sherratt. indicating production for meat. 1990). gender. 1985.Food and Complex Societies 113 that are dictated by a number of factors. water. and consumption activities (Dennell. Jones. 1991. Using these faunal data. 1972. This change in production strategies during the Middle Anglo-Saxon Period is linked to the development of complex societies with market economies (Crabtree.. hide. as well as regulations by governing bureaucracies. 1984. cooking. 1991). Welsh and Scarry. including supply and demand. 1976. It is therefore important to understand how tasks are divided among the labor force through age. the later occupation contained higher frequencies of older sheep (4-8 years). but often. 1995). the producer is not the consumer (Crabtree. Galvin (1987) demonstrates a similar shift in animal production culminating in specialized livestock production oriented for exchange in the market. Sheep during the earlier occupations were killed primarily in the first 2 years. and fertilizer (Goody. 1981. Not only are animals used for food. winnowing." such as milk. 1973. 1979. 44). Food production and preparation activities typically are identified through the contextual distribution of floral and faunal remains. areas of food preparation were inferred based on the frequency and distribution of various animal body parts and a comparison to a modem Druze village in the Golan Heights. 1988.g. 1991. Similarly. the distribution of faunal remains often is indicative of food production and preparation activities. 1981. 1984. and specialization. 1975. 1988. the researchers also were able to distinguish between domestic and nondomestic contexts (Grantham and Hesse. chaff and spikelets) relative to crops indicate the types of processing performed (e. Also critical in understanding production are the available technology and the quantity and quality of food produced as well as the availability of productive resources. but provide insights into the social organization of production. Lennstrom. The interactions between producer and consumer thus not only inform about diet. 1982. In Mesopotamia. cleaning. Subsistence labor typically fulfdls the producer's needs. The frequency of weeds and crop by-products (e. cf. especially in complex societies. In the Near Eastern Byzantine village of Qasrin. . Because there was a shift toward wool production. Hillman. Schiffer.. but their "secondary products. 1992). parching. 1986). The study of food thus should incorporate not only what is produced and where it is produced but also who produces and prepares it. 1996). Halstead. and storage) (Dennell. such as land. Green. as well as their use as draft animals. The context of the plant remains also distinguishes among processing. Sikkink. Harvest profiles from two Anglo-Saxon sites in West Suffolk England document a shift in the use of sheep for meat to the production of wool. and wool. p. 1981.g. 1983. Hastorf. 1972.
1984. the production and consumption of maize beer actively reinforced dominant gender relations (Hastorf.g. 1991a. and tribute (Pohl and Feldman. thereby maintaining their heritage in such a way that a caught fish was a symbol of their accomplishment. Hastorf's (1991) insightful study utilized macrobotanical. [and their] political position diminished" (Hastorf. Among the prehistoric Maya. in part. 1991). agriculture focused on chinampa or raised field agriculture to produce a surplus necessary for maintaining power among the populations in the Aztec capital of Tenocbtitlan (Brumfiel. By examining the archaeological record. 1991b.114 Gumerman The amount of productive land available to certain groups within a complex society is often instrumental in the construction and maintenance of power relations (e." Later. agricultural land was controlled. and gender relations. 1991. Parsons (1991. . isotopic. Hicks. Yentsch (1992) demonstrated that African-American ethnicity was defined. "Women became the focus of tensions as they produced more [maize] beer while at the same time they were more restricted in their participation in society.. Harvey. social status. Brumfiel. especially dogs and fowl. 36) states. 152). Parsons.. A detailed understanding of the social organization of production can be realized by studying division of labor and changing work patterns between males and females (e. 1982). Other recent archaeological research investigates how the production of food symbolizes ethnicity. p. female productive activities were critical to the economy. . and history. barter. ethnography. Goheen. through fishing. Power was manifested in the individuals with large landholdings through their control of surplus and by minimizing the size of peasant plots. The city appears to have fed itself in a very direct fashion. with firm and immediate control over both the agricultural land and the agricultural laborers that most directly affected its subsistence base. Slaves at the Calvert site adapted West African fishing methods to the Chesapeake. 1991. were essential components to rituals. 1991). and ethnohistoric data to suggest that differential access to maize and its associated symbolism played an active role in constructing relations between males and females. These studies suggest that. 1984. 1991).. Livestock production. Referring to the city of Teotihuacan. ethnohistorical and archaeological evidence suggests that the small size of plots worked by peasants was the minimum amount necessary for subsistence.. within complex societies. 1996). In Hick's (1991) discussion of Aztec surplus.g. " . b. . over time. celebrations. Other studies in the Valley of Mexico further document how. agricultural production is an important aspect in forming and maintaining power relations. In the Mantaro Valley of Peru. p. whereas large estates were controlled by the elite and produced a surplus.
1966. the way items are cleaned and cut. 148). 1966) ideas of transformation and opposition. Maize. may illustrate transformations in foodways (Johannessen. 1984. Stahl. Tortillas. for instance.Food and Complex Societies 115 Children also play a very important role in food production and preparation (e. among groups and through time. 1995. 1991. staple finance (staples provided by institutions to support their activities). Division of labor thus is important in terms of how specialists meet their subsistence needs. 1995. 1984a). containers. Often the method of preparation. Hastorf and Johannessen (1993).. Hawkins. Variation in ceramics. and kitchens) (Cowan. 1985. 1978). el.. 1982. In addition. Hawkes et at. Many of these approaches examined the relationship between nature and culture. A common theme is the transformation of food from its natural or wild form to a more cultural state. one primary symbol of Mesoamerican foodways. Welsh and Starry. is prepared much differently in Mesoamerica than in the Andes.. Full-time specialists. may denote specific food preparation techniques. MenneU. 1983. Increasing agricultural production transformed the surrounding environment from a more wild state into a cultural landscape that may have affected how interior space was viewed. the medium used for cooking. 1983.g. Her analysis indicates that an increase in the frequency of wild plants within house compounds through time may reflect a change in the perception of wild and domestic space. 1992). for example. It is the ultimate transformed crop. de la Pena Brown. show that the importance of chicha or maize beer in Andean societies relates in part to the fact that in the Andes there are no wild counterparts of maize. 1963. In complex societies parents may be specialists who lack time for producing subsistence goods. Whitehead. or markets to provide food (see below) (Gumerman. In terms of food preparation. 1991. for instance. Understanding food production and social relations has been expanded by archaeological approaches that utilize Levi-Strauss' (1963. Lennstrom's (1992) research in the Mantaro Valley of Peru examined changes in the contextual distribution of wild plants. and spices or flavoring used" (Goode et al. for instance. Williams. Goody. the process of producing (transforming) maize into an alcoholic beverage is very elaborate and there also is a significant transformation that occurs to the imbiber. In a similar vein. is critical in defining distinct foodways (Goode et al. rather than the specific food item.. Kehoe. 1994a). 1993. are not made . Levi-Strauss. are unable to produce subsistence goods and may rely on kin. 1984a. analyses should examine the labor that goes into processing and cooking. Cooking vessels. p. including who cooks for whom as well as the technology of cooking (hearths. The productive roles of children therefore are often critical in obtaining food. the type of heat application. "Methods of preparation include rules for segregating or mixing elements. 1984).
italics in original) suggests " . 1974. for instance. and cuts of meat. 1986). . 53). At one extreme there is serf-sufficiency where families produce and prepare their own food. 1985. . . or even restaurants (see Chang. In southwest highland Iran. Butchery practices may also define ethnicity. p. where a certain cut of meat may represent group identity. that animals are butchered according to a set of rules that differs from culture to culture and from natural setting to natural s e t t i n g . Inca cooks and brewers. 1991). administrative control over food preparation was examined through the chemical analysis of clay seals and by comparing faunal remains from a public building and an institutional kitchen. large-scale processing of cattle carcases in the Roman period can leave quite distinct and spatially separate accumulations of bones" (Maltby. 1988. This system was crucial in sustaining political. Later. Mennell. was regulated and meat was likely procured indirectly. age was restricted to 2 and 3 year olds. Butchery. 1982. . Goody. and the cuts of meat were standardized. Near the center of the Roman town of Cirencester (Gloucestershire). probably through the state (Zeder. where maize is mostly boiled. A dearer. Lyman (1987. 1993. prepared food for feasts used by the state to reciprocate the labor provided by commoners. hierarchical. Food preparation in complex societies often takes place outside the household and involves preparation by specialists for non-food-producing individuals who may be served individually. there were fewer species (mostly sheep and goat). more detailed comprehension of the diverse organizational strategies common to complex societies is gained through research that focuses on individuals interacting within groups. " Butchery practices thus may vary between groups. 1977. 1960). The development of a specialized urban economy resulted in food processing that was tightly controlled and localized (Blackman and Zeder. Zeder. 1985. or turned into an alcoholic beverage. specific butchering activities were identified. 1988. 1985). 1991).116 Gumerman in the Andes. Cattle dominated the assemblage w h e r e " . Yet within households there is no equality--some individuals rely on the labor of others to provide meals. Subsistence practices vary within complex societies because different people employ diverse production and preparation strategies. Morris and Thompson. at banquets. suggesting that the animals were produced by the consumers or were directly procured from the producers. and gender relationships within the state (Hastorf and Johannessen. . Earlier occupations contained a variety of species. They were processed in a specialized manner. Following Binford (1978) and YeUen (1977). ages. thus. butchery may be regulated by state institutions (Maltby. which may cause variation in diet and clearly nurtures gender and . In complex societies. 288-289. . 1985. roasted. feasts. Morris. pp. Murra. suggesting the possibility that the meat was sold at the forum.
Holt. for example.. especially dog and deer but also peccary. In many cases. and coca. they produced valuable wool. Bowen. 1982. Commoners thus utilized a different set of foods than elites. 1996. festivals. Nonelites at Cerros apparently utilized more food from aquatic habitats. Miller and Burger. for example. 1985). Various production and preparation strategies therefore affect not only what is consumed but also the negotiation of power and control between producers and consumers.Food and Complex Societies 117 age relations. had access to wild plants that grew in fields and along irrigation canals. commoners used more opportunistic resources. data suggest that elites had access to and consumed costly resources such as llama. Reitz et al. Food often is differentially allocated among various segments of a society. 1991. Lentz. they were depicted . 1995. Crane and Carr. c). The distribution of the various foods likely symbolized. In coastal Peru. At the opposite end of household self-sufficiency are individuals who rely exclusively on food produced and prepared by others outside the household. several research projects demonstrate that various foods were associated with different economic classes. 1990. and thus supported. Zeder. 1991). markets. 1994a. were abundant in elite contexts. are often segregated between elites and commoners because they have diverse means of procuring subsistence resources (see Crabtree. Ives. Distribution Food distribution in complex societies is often an elaborate process and is closely related to a society's political and economic organization. Again. 1985). 1985). Powell. mammals. Welsh and Scarry. 1994. 1991. and therefore differential allocation may be understood by focusing on how food is distributed. 1995. especially marine environments (Crane and Carr. this causes subsistence variation within that society and reinforces social differences. 1988. Reid. 1988. and to whom. the social positions of the different groups. This distribution is rarely equal. by whom. 1991. 1991. 1985. feasts. and obligatory transfer (Goody. 1994. 1993. Reitz. Llamas. In contrast. 1992. cf. who were likely agricultural laborers. chile pepper. especially in complex societies. Pohl. data suggest that elites were allocated a greater diversity of food. Commoners. such as wild plants and shellfish (Gumerman. reciprocal exchange. Maltby. Different types of food. Among the prehistoric Maya. who could afford the more costly goods. 1987. they were sacrificed and buried. Food often is allocated through gifts. At the sites of Cerros and Copan. Hastorf. 1990. 1991. dominate the elite faunal assemblage and elites also apparently had greater access to tree fruits (Carr.
Gumerman. In comparing 19th century New England faunal assemblages between an upper middle-class white household and an African meeting house. 1994a. has certain features that made it an ideal staple finance food among Andean and Mesoamerican state societies. Rothschild. 1994). it is productive and an excellent storable resource that is compact and very transportable. and laborers (Gumerman. "family relationships are not built upon identical rights and duties but upon reciprocal rights and duties. to understand food distribution. The use of a market (depending on the scale and location). Reitz et al. and ages of animals being distributed (Goode et a!. 1991. 1987. causing changes in the distribution of food. 1984b. 26). it is also possible that differences in social status are not reflected in diet (Powell. The conquest of the local population by the Inca empire reorganized the economy. such as administrators. 1985. 1985). 1989. Mennell. 1989. and the cultural value of a resource (Gumerman. Miller and Burger. Reitz. Shimada and Shimada. 1994a. Hastorf (1991) aptly demonstrated that changing gender relations in the Mantaro Valley of Peru were responsible for variation in food distribution between males and females. . Johannessen and Hastorf. 1950. 1995. it is important to examine the various attributes of the food itself. may cause a leveling of foodways across status groups and contribute to a less diverse array of goods. Clearly. Markets and their bureaucratic regulation.. including maize beer. Gilmore. 1991). 1994a). for instance. Tschopik. which caused an increase in their maize consumption because the state distributed maize.. 1994b. c. p. Some males were apparently working for the state. Bowen (1992) suggests that diets were similar because the market system regulated butchery and the cuts of meat sold. Maltby. Subsistence variation within a complex society therefore results from the differential effects of cost. 1946). Gender relations may be an important factor affecting the distribution of food within households. these roles often involve relations of marked dominance and subordination which allow some individuals to benefit from the labor of others" (Weismantel. because exotic and expensive resources may enter the diet of those who can afford them (Gumerman. also may contribute to subsistence diversity. This example illustrates that. 1991. 1987. cuts of meat. 1987. 1991. Other research concerned with distribution investigates how and why certain subsistence resources are obtained and consumed by specialists. It was therefore used by these societies to sustain non-food producers.118 Gumerman iconographically and ethnohistorically in numerous Andean rituals. Zeder. through feasting. warriors. for instance. controllability. accessibility. Although food is often distributed differentially among various groups within a society. Topic et al. however. Maize.. 1988.. 1985). and they were expensive for coastal populations to maintain (Flannery et al. 1985.
sex ratios. 1982). 1988. 1996) examines this issue when she asks how nonhunters procure meat products in complex societies. because they had little time to produce their own food and were often sustained by the elites they served. is not passive but actively symbolizes the social differences between groups and is used to develop and maintain the assorted relationships common to complex societies.. and ideological variation. This is apparent in Weismantel's (1988. there is much more to understanding consumption than the actual caloric value of the food itself. however. etc. This. is obvious.. the participation or nonparticipation in a meal and the location of the event often affect the contents and help establish and maintain social relations while imbuing the food and occasion with symbolic meaning.Food and Complex Societies 119 Crabtree (1990. until recently. yet most archaeological research. 29) Clearly. and feasts) and its structure. snacks. and technology (containers. Full-time specialists attached to elites were distributed more staple finance food. such as maize. The distribution. utensils. b. of course. body part distributions. As such. Depending on the resource. and the proof of the household's ability to survive and to reproduce itself. and specialization are important factors affecting the distribution of certain resources. p. stratification. tables. It is clear from these diverse analyses that in complex societies gender. political. By examining kill patterns. has ignored this variation. manners. Part-time specialists who were independent consumed more opportunistic foods--foods that they obtained themselves or had family members procure (Gumerman. we can explore the detailed relationships between producers and consumers. the subordination of female to male and yet a locus of feminine power within the family. 1989a. Specialization also was examined on the north coast of Peru.) also are critical in terms of understanding the . daily meals. various individuals may receive differing quantities and portions because of social. Consumption The consumption of food involves not only what is eaten. 1991a. economic.the product of work transformed into the satisfactionof desire. and the method of distribution. where various foods were consumed depending on the intensity and degree of specialized activities. but the gathering and serving of the participants as well as the clearing away of the meal (Goody. the meal represents many things: both articulation with the outside world and the household's own internal integrity.g. 1994a). The type of meal consumed (e. its attributes. and the range and importance of species present. (Weismantel. b) ethnographic research in highland Ecuador: For the Zumbagua household.
Brown. 1984a). Pliilrnan. Johannessen.g. Heron and Evershed. The significance of the long-term pattern is confirmed by Goode et al.. 1992. however. where they "emphasize the importance of looking at the food system holistically ..g. 1987. Larsen. 1979.g. Reinhard and Bryant. . Costin and Earle. 1992). 1989. Menu negotiation takes the analysis of food a step further by addressing the decision-making process involved in the content of meals and their format. . the structure of meals. days. .. Specific food items often are significant in understanding social relations-such as the consumption of dog by the Oglala (e. 1984a. Serving and eating vessels. 1987. . Douglas. By analyzing the aggregated household data we can detect overall consumption patterns among the various groups within a society (e. 1994. Individual meals are difficult for the archaeologist to recover. 73). The patterns which emerged . 1976. . money.g. Pate. the hearth or kitchen floor) and discarded (e.g. 1993. DeBoer and Lathrap.g. 1973. 1981. while often claiming to examine consumption data. focus on the household. Floral and faunal remains typically are recovered in contexts where food is processed and prepared (e. such as the seeds from a number of flotation samples or stable isotope data. Callen. 1982). 1979. and meal cycles (the patterning of meals in a temporal and seasonal framework) is usually more important than the actual food item (e.. 1994. Reents-Budet... such as skeletal analysis (e.g. can be studied in terms of food consumption (Blinman. Bryant.. status or gender). Blitz. Do different groups use different containers? Do ceramics change through time and does this represent a change in foodways? We thus can go beyond time-space systematics by orienting our attention toward food consumption and social relations. archaeologists should focus on data that provide direct evidence of consumption. more reliable samples that may disclose significant variation. 1984). 1989. 1984). to create the actual meal (Goode et al. such as time. To exzmine consumption. or even weeks.. Price. Yet the social significance placed on recipes. This also provides larger. 1993.120 Gumerman relationship between food and culture (Goody. Powers and Powers. 1974. b). 1984. DeNiro. Hastorf (1988) effectively argues that archaeologists. Archaeologically derived subsistence data typically are aggregated." The long-term patterns that archaeologists examine thus may provide a realistic assessment of food consumption and menu negotiation--we must. 1971. would have been missed if we had only sampled meals. middens and fill). 1985. except in cases such as the intestinal contents of mummies and from coprolites (e. usually are exploring production and processing (see also DenneU. but these rules interact with a variety of external factors. 1995). p. 1993. . Welsh and Scarry. for instance. Skibo. Goode et al. 1963. Bumsted. and personal preference. Rules concerning food are shared by groups.. (1984b.
. 1978. isotopic data from the north coast of Peru may indicate that males had a more varied diet than females (Ericson et al. Zn. . Variation in diet. Lambert et al. Price et al. van der Merwe and Vogel. Status differences. 161) and some age differences in diet were apparent (Beck. Sandford. At the Dallas site in Tennessee. As discussed above. . 1992. Reinhard and Bryant. " Rather than solely the result of increases in maize consumption.g. Lambert et al. . 1985. 1992). 1985. Hastorf. p. Buikstra (1992.. severe ill health . whereas populations during the Late Intermediate Period demonstrated health differences between elites and commoners.. health. paleopathologies changed through time with respect to status. status did not greatly affect diet (Brown and Blakely. 1985). Bryant. Late Woodland males may have had disproportionate access to animal protein.Food and Complex Societies 121 1989a. Based on an analysis of trace elements (Sr. were apparently reflected in the strontium levels of bones from the Mesoamerican site of Chalcatzingo. Similar gender and age variation was .. Sobolik.. Dietary differences also were apparent at several Eastern Woodland sites between males and females. resulting in differing bone chemistry. . 1974. Lennstrom. 1992). . and disease can be investigated using metric analyses. p. . . 1985. bone fractures. for example. 1963. 1989.. Callen. 1992. paleopathologies. and developmental dental defects . 1988). Blakely and Beck. and Ca) at Ledders in Illinois. however. and bone chemistry. 1979). where higher ranked individuals likely consumed more meat than commoners (Schoeninger. Saunders and Katzenberg. Skeletal analyses offer some of the best opportunities for studying consumption among diverse groups of individuals. 1992). or perhaps nuts or legumes" (Buikstra et al. She noted " . Verano and Ubelaker. 1979).. these problems likely were due to changes in social and political complexity. 1989). with nonelites exhibiting more dietary stress (Verano. at some sites. nutrition. In contrast. elite diet apparently was more balanced and included more iron and protein than commoner diet (Hatch and Geidel. Although the number of individuals sampled was extremely small. 97) suggests that social and political factors--not just diet--influenced variation in nutrition and disease among Mississippian agriculturalists. coprolites (e.. osteoarthritis. Hastorf (1991) suggested that maize was differentially distributed by the Inca state between males and females. 1979). " . Pearsall. 1994. and contexts in which food is consumed (e. Although few specifics are mentioned. . Earlier populations showed minimal health problems. Skeletal analyses also provide a valuable means of examining consumption differences among groups of individuals of varying gender and age. infectious lesions. 1993. 1981. a variety of chemical studies among complex societies in the Eastern Woodlands suggests that. including elevated rates of porotic hyperostosis. 1988.g. Along the north coast of Peru.
. Callen. Sobolik et al. coupled with bone chemistry.122 Gumerman also observed at the Dallas site (Hatch and Geidel. Variation is caused by formation processes (i. 1992. 1994). 1996. there was a reduction in dietary quality with an increase in maize consumption and a narrowing of dietary breadth (Larsen and Ham. Pathologies and bone chemistry that reflect diet clearly are some of the best data to examine consumption patterns and social relations. These analyses need to be integrated with floral and faunal data collected from food consumption contexts (Gremillion and Sobolik. Coprolites consist of several consecutive meals and thus provide strong evidence for the kinds of meals consumed by an individual. Lambert et al. Pate and Brown. Larsen et al. 1989. are communicative events meant for display and interaction. porotic hyperostosis. 1989. 1992). Feasts. The number and makeup of guests and the quantity and type of food at the event are significant in terms of maintaining and developing kin and social . Buikstra et al... Intestinal contents. 1974. provide an illuminating view into an individual's diet--from the individual meal to an accumulation of a life of meals (Reinhard and Bryant. and food served at certain meals vary and are intertwined with social relations and symbolic meaning. 1992). pregnancy. gender (including reproductive status. thus. The intestinal contents of mummies. dental caries. 251). 1963.g. 1985). Wood et al. The context.. Price. Based on bone chemistry (carbon and nitrogen stable isotopes) and pathologies (osteoarthritis. 1989b. 1992).. 1985. Jackes. Health declined in general for southeastern Native populations following Spanish contact. Contact Period males manifested higher frequencies of periostitis (pathologies resulting from infection and trauma) compared to females. Sandford. 1985. for example. It is therefore critical that the various factors involved in the formation and transformation of human bone are examined when making conclusions about diet.. 1996.. Recent research suggests that DNA and hormones can reveal the gender of the person who produced the coprolite (Sutton et al.. where the age and sex of the individual are known. 1992). "too little is known at present regarding the sources of variation in the composition of contemporary human bone. 1989. Besides the knowledge acquired from skeletal studies. participants. age. Reinhard and Bryant. also can be examined (Reinhard and Bryant.e.. 1994.. Reinhard and Bryant. Diet. geochemistry). other biological and natural factors are also important" (Price et al. and lactation). 1993. While it is clear that diet is a major contributor. Along the southeastern Atlantic coast. 1985. and the type of bone tissue sampled (e. however. 1996). Bumsted. Price et al. As a cautionary note. Sobolik. 1992). p. excellent consumption data also are derived from the analysis of coprolites (Bryant. is not the only factor affecting bone chemistry. 1993. and enamel hypoplasia).
Similarly. 1984). As mentioned above. The foods consumed in different contexts likely symbolized the ritual and domestic nature of the eating events. especially cannibalism. At the site of Cardal on the central coast of Peru.g. 1994c). "Feasts may in fact satisfy hunger. for example. even if "low status. Reitz. Bowen. cannibalism (Rechtman. As Powers and Powers (1984. 83) state. 1943.g. the consumption of llama was probably a symbol of wealth and power along the north coast of Peru that reinforced the social and political authority of the elite and thus was important in marking status (Gumerman. Umlauf (1991) illustrated that. 1982. Weismantel. Among prehistoric Fijian chiefdoms.Food and Complex Societies 123 networks (Whitehead. 1977). p. 1988.. Puleston. cf. particularly for war chiefs. meat consumption. Importantly. Marcus. whereas wild plants were relatively more common within domestic spaces. 1987. "low-status" food actually may be preferred by the group consuming it over t h e "high-status" food used by elites (Bennett.. ideologically functioned in negotiating power relations (Rechtman. It was suggested that the consumption of human flesh was a symbol of power legitimizing the status of chiefs. 1985. 1992. the baUgames and feasting rituals were staged in and around a supernatural arena--the ball court--endowing the feast with added meaning (Fox." Feasting was an integral part of Mayan ballgames that likely was a strategy used by rulers in negotiating relations of power. who usurped power from the traditional chiefs through. Welsh and Scarry. however. 1996). where. 1995). A distinction is often made between "high-status" and "low-status" food. in general. A detailed analysis of breakage patterns (fracture angle and outline) as well as numerous ethnohistorie documents demonstrates abundant cannibalism. 1984. the consumption of many Mayan foods symbolized abundance and wealth (e. Feasts have social goals achieved by cultural means. 1992). 1987). Specific social differences reflecting the complex organization of a society often are symbolized through the consumption of certain foods. The location of the eating event. exotic and domesticated plant foods were more abundant in private ceremonial contexts. in part. 1992). thus. This suggests that certain foods were considered appropriate for consumption in specific locations. Variation in meat consumption between elites and commoners was essential in legitimizing power for elites. Different foods are often consumed in various settings--residential. The food. is important in understanding the social significance of food consumption. Richards and Thomas. eating barley gruel in indigenous highland Ecuador is an important daily . but they are seen as having some intrinsic social value which transcends the nutritive function of eating. Singer. or private spaces--which may have different meanings corresponding to the meal's location (e. public. Fragmented human bones (nonburial) were the most abundant bones recovered from middens." symbolizes social identity.
194): "The shared meal represents the unity of the family that gathers to eat it.. 1991b. but the manner in which it is served and eaten also speaks to the divisions between household members. Hodder. is not a preferred food item for daily use. salt pork. 1982. 1987c." Meals.124 Gumerman activity that establishes ethnic identity and affiliation. 1981. The social significance of food consumption is pointed out by Weismantel (1988. appropriate. 1986. Yet leftovers maybe prepared differently (e. Moore. "Members of individual societies not only produce and define trash. to the consumer the food may have a different "taste" than the original meal. is actively involved in creating. Furthermore. In the Oglala food system. for instance. It is thus important to go beyond merely describing what is consumed by exploring the relationship between consumption and social relations. p. . Leftovers may also have meaning that is constructed from its original use. but also decide how to dispose of i t . coffee. p. Disposal An analysis of food also can incorporate the residues of consumpt i o n . often go beyond the family and serve to define membership in certain social groups.g. and flour) were initially "inedible" but. is often resented (Weismantel. Leftovers. through time. establishing. 3). the status of a food. The meal. and even its use in discourse. and some were even considered "Indian" food (Powers and Powers. In . either high or low.t h e disposal of leftovers--and the by-products of processing and preparation. Indeed. and the use of various serving vessels.. are interesting because they often assume a different meaning once they become leftovers (e. 1984). 1988). the contexts in which the meal is served. and maintaining social relations (see Douglas. and not all people always follow the rules" (Staski and Sutro. even though they are the same food item. 1991. such as the Victorian dinner party analyzed by Jameson (1987). therefore.g. acceptable or unacceptable. introduced government rations (e. its consumption. and the conduct during a meal are imbued with symbolism that structures social behavior. . may change through time. beef.. Farb and Armelagos. Santley. became acceptable. 1971). culturaUy-defined means of deposition often vary within single societies and even at a single point in time. 1982. "High-status" white rice. the location of the eating event. 1980). The disposal of food often has meaning and should be considered in a way that provides data on the underlying structure of a food system as well as definitions concerning the concept of space (Deetz. 1992).g. The participants involved in a meal. consumed cold) and often are consumed in different contexts. Indeed. although a luxury that is desired by the indigenous population. Holt.
This is referred to as "ceremonial trash" by Walker (1995) and points to the distinction that many cultures make between everyday refuse and refuse that is produced during special occasions. Although rarely a focus of research. specially prepared pits). 1984). these studies suggest that the investigation of food disposal is a promising avenue for understanding food symbolism. however. are clean of refuse? Indeed. with a focus on specific variation and the active role of food. artiodactyle bones were treated in a special manner-possibly indicating differential disposal (Szuter. Patterns observed in the disposal of animal remains at a ritual feasting Neolithic site in Wessex were interpreted as cultural rules representing a wild/domestic dichotomy. Ethnographically in the American Southwest. the context and manner in which food residues are disposed relate to how space is viewed within a society. Some refuse was the result of ritual feasting and was buried in special pits (Richards and Thomas. 1991). CONCLUSIONS A comprehensive exploration of the various stages in the food syst e m . 1992). the contextual analysis of various discard patterns may identify the rules for food disposal. Through such studies. leftovers are ranked relative to the hierarchical position of the person who ate the food (K_hare. The variety of cultural anthropological approaches and many recent archaeological advances have produced insights into understanding the dynamics of food and culture. This suggests that some species were acceptable within specific areas while others were excluded. as well as certain wild species. and its relationship to culture. Given that archaeologists often study refuse. were differentially discarded across the site. its meaning. it often represents trash resulting from ceremonial activities that is disposed of in a special manner or location. Such refuse may be considered sacrificial because of its contents and location (e.f r o m production to disposal--greatly expands our understanding of food and its relationship to complex societies. . Are specific food items or body parts disposed of in certain ways? In certain locations? What parts of a community or structure contain refuse or. Pig and cattle remains. conversely. Grantham and Hesse (1991) examine discard patterns to define the function of various rooms within a settlement in the Golan Heights. we can gain a better understanding of human behavior. Nevertheless.g. for instance.Food and Complex Societies 125 Hindu food systems.. 1976. It is possible that certain species may be treated and disposed of in certain ways. it is surprising that research focusing on the social and symbolic aspects of food discard is uncommon.
Indeed. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This article has benefited from discussions with and reviews by a number of people. I am also indebted to Tim Earle. males and females. wants. As such. Dave Whitley. but that the development of stratification. and Christy Wicker provided valuable editorial assistance. This is not to say that studies of small-scale societies (e. 1994). Thanks go also to Donna Boyd. we can gain a more complete understanding of food and complex societies. Louella Holter. Michael Schiffer. the table is set. the editorial board of Cambridge's New Directions in Archaeology Series. and Mary Weismantel for our numerous discussions concerning food and culture. Joyce Marcus. the UCLA Friends of Archaeology. Exploration of the food system at a detailed level leads to an active view of food and complex societies. . specialists and nonspecialists. but its structure and symbolism also are intimately involved in developing and maintaining everyday social relations. bands and tribes) cannot profit through such approaches (see Whitley. and the reviewers of JAMT for their comments on drafts of this article.g. old and young--often consume different resources for a variety of reasons. and the UCLA Department of Anthropology for their financial support of my Pacatnamu research. different individuals--elites and commoners. specialization. The friendship of Dave Whitley and his creative insights into understanding meaning in the archaeological record have greatly influenced my approach to understanding food. Sissel Johannessen. I also thank the National Science Foundation (Grant BNS-8706295). Pare Crabtree. and now it is time for the participants to feast on a meal that goes beyond describing the types of food past societies consumed. we might hope to develop an understanding of the causes that underlie the behavior behind the food. and abilities.126 Gumerman In model building we must consider that within complex societies. and a political economy creates a wider range of issues that can be explored. Christine Hastorf. Kevin Harper.. we have looked at the menu. Ken Kelly. By viewing complex societies as groups of individuals that interrelate with each other and have varying needs. We thus gain tremendous insights into the inner workings of culture while also more fully comprehending the processes of culture change. Christine Hastorf. Food provides nourishment. the George Gumerman.
J. Blinman. K. M. New York. T. L. M. The Art and Mystery of HistoricalArchaeology. Biocultural adaptation as reflected in trace element distribution. Paper presented at the 85th Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association.). and Hastorf.. Bivariate analysis of trace elements in bone. Potluck in the protokiva: Ceramics and ceremonialism in Pueblo I villages. R. New Perspectives in Archaeology. R. University of New Mexico Press. The Cult of the Feline: A Conference in Pre-Columbian Iconography. (1974).. (1981). and Blakely.. L. Bulletin of the Texas Archaeological Society 45: 1-28. 1-31. (1985). London. 1. London. L. C. Agricultural development and class stratification in the southern valley of Mexico. A. Literacy. M. L. Brown. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 376: 417--431. pp. D. E. A. (1943). B. L. (ed. D. Westview Press. (1981). M. (1985). Archaeology as anthropology. Georgia. B. No. Benson. R. (1962).S. Blakely. A. S. and Mussell. G. (1994). J. Organization and administration of provisioning at Banesh Malyan. M. B.). Journal of Human Evolution 14: 493-502.). R. (1991a).). In Binford. Ethnic and Regional Foodways in the U. V.. Aldine.. Maize in Middle American and Southwestern United States agricultural traditions. Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. and Gamble. In Harvey. Brown. E. and Zeder. social organization. (eds. G. In Gledhill. FL. nutritional status. H. Boca Raton.). (1986). Academic Press. American Antiquity 58(1): 80-95.). W. L. Research in Economic Anthropology 8: 171-200. Food and social status in a rural society. Bryant. (1978). Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collections. (1987). V. Bowen. C.. Barker. Knoxville. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 376: 405--416. E. M. J. Bruratiel. 469-512. Big pots for big shots: feasting and storage in a Mississippian community. R. L. In Johannessen. E. Aldine. Philadelphia. S.. H. Academic Press. (1985). pp. Binford. Jr. DC. (1988). and Binford.) (1972).). L.) (1984). W. L. pp. (eds. and the archaeological record: The case of early Egypt. American Antiquity 28: 217-225...Food and Complex Societies 127 REFERENCES CITED Baines. J. (1965). Faunal remains and urban household subsistence in New England. Corn and Culture in the Prehistoric New World. In Lipe. Chicago. University of Tennessee Press. R. C. Bender. Boserup. 267-281. Journal of Human Evolution 14: 461--468. (1981). R. Browman. A. (eds. L. (1992). In Barker. 313-341. and Larsen. R. (1989). 113-124. (eds. J. E. Albuquerque. J. L. Assessment of paleonutrition from skeletal remains. C. Unwin Hyman.. A. CRC Press. Washington. pp. pp. (1993). and Beck. 192-214. Boulder. In Yentsch. Land and Politics in the Valley of Mexico: A Two Thousand Year Perspective. L. R. A. Blitz. Beck. Bennett. Bohrer. pp. The role of coprolite analysis in archaeology. Chicago. Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths. Occasional Papers of the Crow Canyon Archaeological Center. Agro-pastoral risk management in the central Andes. CO. pp. New York. (eds. Beyond Domestication in Prehistoric Europe: Investigations in Subsistence Archaeology and Social Complexity. The Conditions of Agricultural Growth.. (1968). Binford. Binford. P. Academic Press. Beyond domestication: A strategy for investigating the process and consequence of social complexity. (eds.: The Performance of Group Identity. 43-62.. Blackman. Post-Pleistocene adaptations. Binford. American Sociological Review 8: 561-569.. The Architecture of Social Integration in Prehistoric Pueblos. (ed. Brown. and social stratification at Etowah. . IC (eds. State and Society: The Emergence and Development of Social Hierarchy and Political Centralization. and Hegmon. and Beaudry. Trace elements. and Gamble. A.
California Folklore Society. 66-79. Chicago. J. and Lathrap. P. Paleonutrition: The Diet and Health of Prehistoric Americans. In Higgs. pp. 2. and faction steal the show. L. Diet as revealed by coprolites. (ed. R. Journal of Human Evolution 14: 539-551. New Haven. K. Production and consumption in an early complex society: Animal use in Middle Saxon East Anglia. O. Journal of Archaeological Science 15: 179-196. In Price. J. Status distinction and legitimation of power as reflected in changing patterns of consumption in late prehistoric Peru. pp. Weaving and cooking: Women's production in Aztec Mexico. M. (ed. . J. (1983). London. Smithsonian Institution Press. In Kramer. New York. (1989). Christenson. pp. E. 155-210. Austin. Ethnoarchaeology: Implications of Ethnography of Archaeology.). M. Brumfiel. and ethnicity. American Anthropologist 94(3): 551-567. past human behavior from bone chemical analysis--respects and prospects. 224-251. C. S. pp. N.J. Center for Archaeological Investigations. H. pp. and Christenson. (ed. University of Arizona Press. Multiple elements: Multiple expectations. C.). W. (1979). Papers in Economic Prehistory. Yale University Press. (1994). 31-72. Foodways and Eating Habits: Directions for Research. Callen. The Chemistry of Prehistoric Human Bone. P. E. S. pp..). Cohen. Cambridge.. D. Basil Blackwell. and Krell. E.128 Gumerman Brumfiel. Changing patterns of livestock husbandry and the rise of complex societies in Anglo-Saxon England. class. (1990). pp. A. J. R. S.. Una tamalada: the special event. Modeling Change in Prehistoric Subsistence Economies. Prehistoric Lowland Maya Environment and Subsistence Economy. H.. E. S. S. R. T. S. (eds.. (1983). Subsistence and ceremony: Faunal utilization in a late preclassic community at Cerros. L. Academic Press. (eds. social status. Carbondale. M. University of Texas Press. J. Yale University Press. Giuliano. 149-159. In Schiffer. (1992). Thames and Hudson. IC. 64-71. A. (ed. Crabtree. M. (1977). 87-101. DC. (1991b). and Cart. In Earle. New Haven. M. (1977). R. 77.. D. M. In BrothweU. (1988). W. 186-194. Cambridge University Press. Lambert. H. Zooarchaeology and complex societies: Some uses of faunal analysis for the study of trade. Buikstra. and Higgs. D. In Gero. O.). 155-206. Cambridge.. W. Disease and Demography in the Americas. H. New York. M. MA. The use and meaning of species diversity and richness in archaeological faunas. Washington. W. CT. Cambridge. Distinguished lecture in archeology: Breaking and entering the ecosystem--gender. D. (ed. Vol. In Verano. Dennell. K. L.). 22. Tucson. Cruz-Uribe. and Earle T. W. DeBoer. MA. Crabtree. Crane. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology..). 102-138. M. Occasional Paper No. (1992). (1972). Basic Books. (1985). More Work for Mother. pp. The Ironies of HousehoM Technology from the Open Hearth to the Microwave. New York. Chang. (1985). Frankenberg. M. J.. Bumsted. P. America's First Cuisines.. E. pp. In Pohl. Costin. E. (eds. Archaeological Method and Theory. pp. Coe. B. P. American Antiquity 54(4): 691-714. M. Vol. Cambridge University Press. Change in human niche in response to population growth. E. (1996). In Jones. and Conkey. 115-132. B. Cowan. J.. Science in Archaeology. Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory. Food in Chinese Culture: Anthropological and Historical Perspectives. The interpretation of plant remains: Bulgaria. and Ubelaker. Belize.).). Paper presented at the 90th Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association. (1989). The Food Crisis in Prehistory: Overpopulation and the Origins of Agriculture. (1991). L. pp. and Xue. J. (1980).).). IC C. CT.). Cart. In Sobolik. The making and breaking of Shipibo-Conibo ceramics. World Archaeology 28(1): 58-75. (ed. de la Pena Brown. (1994). Diet and disease in late prehistory. B. T. Harvard University. Columbia University Press. (eds. Los Angeles. The integration and quantification of economic data from a Late Preclassic Maya community in Belize. (1963). C. D. Southern Illinois University Press. (eds. Crabtree. Cambridge. Buikstra.
Ideology and Pre-Columbian Ov///zat/ons. Some ecological clues to Proto-Numic homelands. Donnan. C. Households: A structural key to archaeological explanation. M. G. Academic Press. B. (ed. Cambridge. Freidel. Academic Press. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association Number 6. Specialization. S. New York. A. The pangolin revisited: A new approach to animal symbolism. 61--82. Douglas. P. Maya Cosmos: Three Thousand Years on the Shaman's Path. and Christenson. Moche Art of Peru. Arlington. L.. J. VoL 2. NJ. Peru. M. University of Oklahoma Press. H. and Krueger. Boston. Women in Prehistory. Fox. Douglas. University of California. Cambridge University Press. Fowler. W. R. K. M. Heterarchy and the Ana~sis of Complex Societies. and Earle. J. A. Peru. D. Prehistoric diet and nutrition: some food for thought. 25-36.. and Reynolds. Schele. Studies of Food and Festivitiesin Three American Communities. C. Farriss. A.. E.Food and Complex Societies 129 Dennell. F. pp. C. (1990).. Playing with power: Balleourts and political ritual in southern Mesoamerica. .). Freidel. M. pp. Ehrenberg. In Brumfiel. K.. C. Beliefs and Languages of Savages. Symbol and Culture.. T. Consuming Passions: The Anthropology of Eating. World Archaeology 11(2): 121-135. Galvin. J. (ed. Alteration of 15N/14N and 13C/12C ratios of plant matter during the initial stages of diagenesis: Studies utilizing archaeological specimens from Peru.. New York. Marcus. (1979). Norton. (1980). J. In Willis. pp. 119-129. M. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 49: 97-115. New York. (eds. (eds. (1984). San Diego. Deciphering a meal. New York. Earle. Cambridge. Sullivan. In Geertz. Food in the Social Order. Crumley. and Hastorf. Princeton. DeNiro. 115-134.. School of American Research Press. Flannery. 105-121. G. In Earle.. Exchange. American Scientist 75(2):182-191. pp. R. Paleoethnobotany in American archaeology. The economic importance of plant resources represented on archaeological sites. G. J.). C. and Conrad. J. The tree of life: Ahau as idea and artifact in Classic lowland Maya civilization. Desert Research Institute Publication in the Social Sciences 8. Santa Fe. Myth. H. Princeton University Press. C. (1989). Ehrenreich. (1980). (1989). (1993). (ed. University of Nevada.) (1995). G. William Morrow. IC. Unwin Hyman. V. Cambridge University Press. W. and Armelagos. M. (1976). In Demarest. and Parker. and Complex Societies. West. Frazer. Donnan. pp. E. K. The development of maize agriculture in the Vim valley. Maya Society Under Colonial Rule: The Collective Enterprise of Survival. Farb. Modeling Change in PrehistoricSubsistence Economies. pp. D. Signifying Animals: Human Meaning in the Natural World. (ed. 68-104. (ed. pp. K. 1-29. pp. (1982). (1907). Ford. L.). W.). (1984). Deetz. Dennell. R. American Behavioral Scientist 25: 717-724. J. B. C. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory. W. D. Forms of finance and forms of production: The evolution of specialized livestock production in the ancient Near East. (1996). The Flocks of the Wamani: A Study of Llama Herders on the Punas of Ayacucho. M. Ericson. (eds. Stable isotopy and archaeology. Questions on the Customs. In Schiffer. T. W. (1979).). Current Anthropology 37(3): 483-509. (1978). T. (1971). I.. J. New York. In Price. M. (1985). B. A model of subsistence change. American Anthropological Association. Cambridge University Press. Journal of Archaeological Science 1: 275-284. W. G. The Chemistry of Prehistoric Human Bone.. Los Angeles. M. DeNiro. A. R. Douglas. London. Cambridge. (1987). Houghton Mifflin. (1987). D.). Revista del Museo Naciona~ Tomo XLVI. Norman. T. J. (1972). (eds.). 285-337. D. R. M. Great Basin Cultural Ecology: A Symposium. and Levy.. Russell Sage Foundation. (1982). Museum of Cultural History. In Fowler.. M. (1992). La Caza del Venado en el Arte Mochica.). N. R. Academic Press. (1989). A. E. L.
DC.. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory. pp. M. P. and Conkey. 129-153. (1996). D. and Dimbleby.. Peru. 365--438. Dietary variablility among prehistoric foragerfarmers of eastern North America.. In Douglas. (eds. (1981). Carbondale. J. Southern Illinois University. J. Gibbs. K. 66--88. J. D. Academic Press. pp. J. pp. Goode. (1984a).. Smithsonian Institution Press.130 Gumerman Gero. Carbondale. Gaps in zooarchaeological analyses of butchery: Is gender an issue? In Hudson. University of California. G. R. Gibbon." The Iron Age to the Anglo-Saxon Period. Identifying gender representation in the archaeological record: A contextual study.) (1991). University of California.). Ph. H. World Archaeology 14: 21-40.. (ed. B. (1984b). B. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 143. Goheen. B. The Environment of Man. In Brown. M. (ed. Advances in ArchaeologicalMethod and Theory. (ed. Explanation in Archaeology. Cooking~ Cuisine and Class: A Study in Comparative Sociology. 22. Iron Age. 345-364.). M. (1991). Goody. Oxford. D. Theophano. pp.). 21. University of Wisconsin Press. Gordon. G. D. Handbook of South American Indians. (1989). VoL 2. and Singer. In Schiffer.. (eds. dissertation. Observations Of Modem Human Settlements as an Aid to Archaeological Interpretation. Grayson. pp. J. (ed. Curtis. In Steward. 200-238. Fauna and ethnozoology of South America. Knoxville. From Bones to Behavior. Feeding specialists: The effect of specialization on subsistence variation. Occasional Paper No. A. G. Basil Blackwell. and Theophano. EngenderingArchaeology: Women and Prehistory. Gumerman. (1982). Gilmore. K.). Center for Archaeological Investigations. K. M. K.. British Series 87. (1950). Center for Archaeological Investigations. Subsistence and Complex Societies: Diet Between Diverse Socio-Economic Groups at Pacatnarnu. GremiUion. Journal of Field Archaeology 20:453--460. IV (1991). (ed. (1977). H. Chicago. A.).).. Green. (1981). L. Madison. In Sobolik. J.). New York. Ethnoarchaeological and Experimental Contributions to the Interpretation of Faunal Remains. Cambridge. P. . Ethnic and Regional Foodways in the United States: The Performance of Group Identity. Russell Sage Foundation. Linguistics. Food in the Social Order:. Women Own the Crops: Gender and Power in the Cameroon Grassfields. Gifford. VoL 6. Cambridge University Press. M. Department of Anthropology. In Jones.). Roman and Saxon crops: The archaeological evidence from Wessex. pp. In Schiffer. W. A framework for the analysis of continuity and change in shared sociocultural rules for food use: the Italian-American pattern. Reassessing zooarchaeological quantification. Gifford-Gonzalez.. On the quantification of vertebrate archaeofaunas. I. Screen size and differential faunal recovery: A Hawaiian example. (1979). Academic Press. (1996). MI.Studies of Food and Festivities in ThreeAmerican Communities. Basil Blackwelt. pp. In Hodder. 79-89. Gumerman. Cambridge. Gifford. (1993). meal cycles. K. 80-97. pp.D. University Microfilms. The Archaeology of Contextual Meanings. Ann Arbor. Cuisine and bone counts: Kabob. New York. D. Department of Anthropology. K. Men Own the Fields. M. J.). B.D. Southern Illinois University Press. G. Oxford.. B. Occasional Paper No. New York. dami and the archaeology of Canaan. G. J. IV (1994a). and Cultural Geography of South American Indians. M. tC and Mussell. (1982). University of Tennessee Press. L. pp. and Sobolik. Current Anthropology 37(3): 529-539. F. (ed. E. 181-199. dissertation. Paper presented at the 90th Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association. Taphonomy and paleoecology: A critical review of archaeology's sister disciplines. J. Goode. Gilbert. PaleonutritiorL" The Diet and Health of PrehistoricAmericans. Meal formats. (1993). Los Angeles. Ph. Vol 4.. and Curtis K. (eds. Cambridge University Press. (1987). G. J. Physical Anthropology. Grantham. 143-218. British Archaeological Reports. (ed. Washington. M. Cambridge. and menu negotiation in the maintenance of an Italian-American community. and Hesse.
Subsistence inferences from Woodland and Mississippian ceramics: The central Ohio Valley. Large estates and peasant plots: the production and distribution of food in Aztec Mexico. (ed. 399--410. Pre-hispanic political change and the role of maize in the central Andes of Peru. (1989). (eds. J. Hastorf. (ed.. P. Heron. A..) (1991). Cambridge. Harris. 47-76. (1996).. Albuquerque. (1984). and Ross. R. C. Corn for the dead: The significance of Zea mays in Moche burial offerings. Hayden. (1995). H. 119-144. The use of paleoethnobotanical data in prehistoric studies of crop production. H. Hill. Hastorf. (eds. M. F. C. processing. (1987). and Prem. Hastorf.(1991)... B. 57-90. Chicago. pp. N. In Harvey. Hatch. A. Peru. D.. University of Chicago Press. and Cannon. (eds. and Wylie. (1988). Cambridge University Press. Albuquerque.. Explorations in Ethnohistory: Indians of Central Mexico in the Sixteenth Century. and mobility among hunter-gatherers. B. 147-174. pp. Gumerman. Cambridge University Press. social arrangements. Prehistoric cognition and the science of archaeology. V. W. R.. Aspects of land tenure in ancient Mexico. CO. American Anthropologist 95(1): 115-138. IV (1994b). C. Current Anthropology 36(4): 688-700.-A. A. (1993). and Popper. Hicks. In Pinsky." Elements of Cognitive Archaeology. R. and Geidel. Critical Traditions in Contemporary Archaeology.). Boulder. Temple University Press. Current Paleoethnobotany: Ana~tical Methods and Cultural Interpretations of Archaeological Plant Remains.. Agriculture and the Onset of Political Inequality Before the Inka. 14-17. pp.). J. Where the garbage goes: Refuse disposal in the Maya highlands. space. S. Albuquerque. Harvey. W. pp. Explorations in Ethnohistory: Indians of Central Mexico in the Sixteenth Century. N. 83-102. J. and Hastorf. (1985). and Jones. F. pp. The analysis of organic residues and the study of pottery use. J. Hastorf. (1991). University of New Mexico Press. Chicago. Cambridge. M. K. A.). Wodd Archaeology. (1994). Paper presented at the 93rd Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association. . Hastorf. Tucson. C. B. B. 132-159. G. 247-284. Archaeological Method and Theory.. Hawkins. Hicks. and Kelley. C. In Harris. University of New Mexico. Pastoralsism or household herding? Problems of scale and specialization in early Greek animal husbandry. A. C. (1993). Hawkins. Inference to the best explanation in archaeology.D. circa 1000 B. A.). and Johannessen. CT. J.. C. J. Cambridge University Press.. In Gero. Research in Economic Anthropology. H. and Evershed.C. Westview Press. E. H. Foodways: Historical overview and theoretical prolegomenon. R. In Hastorf. E. Land and Politics in the Valley of Mexico: A Two Thousand Year Perspective. Journal of Human Evolution 14: 469--476. S. University of New Mexico Press. Hanen. Status-specific dietary variation in two world cultures. Hadza children's foraging: Juvenile dependency. A. Food and EvolutiorL" Toward a Theory of Human Food Habits. pp. S. and Isaac. (ecls. M. 9W.. Cambridge. The Ancient Mind. In Croes. (eds. Hawkes. Atlanta. A. (eds. Philadelphia. pp. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 2: 117-163. Corn and Culture in the Prehistoric New World. V. M. O'Connell. Greenwich. and Zubrow. P. R.). R. G. In Schiffer. The effect of the Inka state on Sausa agricultural production and crop consumption. pp. H.. A. Long-Term Subsistence Change in Prehistoric North America. (1983).. JAI Press.. and Prem. (1990). Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory.). R. 83-92. A. pp.. B. C.. (eds. (1984).). C. A. and consumption. L. Supplement 6. M.Food and Complex Societies 131 Gumerman. In Harvey.). Cambridge. In Renfrew. Harvey. 28(1): 20--42. M. 1200. pp. R. Halstead. IV (1994r Llama power at the prehistoric site of Pacatnarnu. and Conkey. F. G. J. H. and food in prehistory. Basil Blackwell. Gender. A. VoL 5. In Johannessen. (eds. (eds. University of Arizona Press.. R.). (1993).). Paper presented at the 90th Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association. Rotational labor and urban development in prehispanic Tetzcoco. American Antiquity 55(2): 262-290. (1992).
Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. W. In Kennedy. I.) (1982a). Cambridge.. Stanford. C. Johnson. Occasional Paper No. pp. (1987). Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology. and Keene. Tijeras Pueblo. Archaeobotany beyond subsistence reconstruction. In Mercer. Plants. Anatolian Studies 23: 241-244. G. 42A. (1976). J. Cambridge. Crop husbandry and food production: Modem models for the interpretation of plant remains.).) (1982b).). A/. Gainesville. New York. Purity and power at the Victorian dinner party. and Gamble. Keene.) (1993). C. The Archaeology of Contextual Meanings. . The meaning of discard: Ash and space in Baringo. G. Jones. Columbia University Press. (1987b). Cambridge University Press. Albany. Holt. Cambridge. Rotterdam. State University of New York. pp. Hodder.). Jones. and culture: an edible model of consuming behavior. Jackes. pp.). In Barker. local group size. S. A. (1983). Alberta. Plants and Ancient Man: Studies in Paleoethnobotany. A.) (1994). (ed. Carbondale. I (ed. CA. Historical Archaeology 25(2): 46-61. (eds. Cambridge. pp. Academic Press. In Scarry. 137-155. V. (ed. M. Kehoe. dishes. R. 43-59. and economic strategies. Indian Institute of Advanced Study. M. In Hodder. W. M. Balkema. R. W. Southern Illinois University. Interpretation of archaeological plant remains: Ethnographic models from Greece. (eds. New York. 1-10. A. pp. (1987). Boulder. 21. (1987c). Cambridge University Press. In Hodder. 107-128. pp. A. On the relationships linking social structures. 55-65. University Press of Florida. (ed. A. Archaeological Hammers and Theories. Biology. D. American Antiquity 43(3): 501. In Van Zeist. (1993). Current Anthropology 34(4): 434--439. B. A.. University of Calgary. and LeMoine. Farming Practice in British Prehistory. Symbolic and Structural Anthropology. A. S. W. (1973). C. I.. S. (ed. G. and Hastorf. Hodder. Edinburgh. A.. G. Hodder.. and society in the Mississippi Valley. CO. (1991).8. Hodder. (ed. I. Foraging and Farming in the Eastern Woodlands.). In Moore. R. Diet and Subsistence: Current Archaeological Perspectives. 123-162. (ed. Johannessen. In Kent. (1985). Cambridge. S. pp. (1981). pp. J. Ires. (1991). C. Academic Press. The Archaeology of Contextual Meanings. In Van Zeist. C. London.. A. Culture and Reality: Essays on the Hindu System of Managing Food." Gastonomic Ideas and Experiences of Hindus and Buddhists. Food. Balkema. B. pp. (eds. G. On paradox and osteology. (1986).). Khare. Center for Archaeological Investigations. A. Symbols in Action: Ethnoarchaeological Studies of Material Culture. From Bones to Behavior: Ethnoarchaeological and Experimental Contributions to the Interpretation of Faunal Remains. R. The Eternal Food. Huelsbeck.132 Gumerrnan Hillman. Hillman. 1-41. humans. Cambridge University Press. Simla. C. The Evolution of Human Societies: From Foraging Group to Agrarian State. Johannessen. The contextual analysis of symbolic meanings. (ed. A.). The Archaeology of Contextual Meanings.) (1987a). I.). 182-205. (1984). Plants and Ancient Mare Studies in Paleoethnobotany. W. I. G. behavior. Edinburgh University Press. Hillman. and borrowing: A critical examination of optimal foraging theory in archaeology.. Cambridge University Press. J. Jameson. pp. Corn and Culture: In the Prehistoric New World. (1978). (ed. Rotterdam.). (1988). (eds. Westview Press. S. (ed. Stanford University Press. (eds. T. and Earle. S. I. (1984). Hodder. and Caspade.) (1992).). Khare. Hudson. Beyond Domestication in PrehistoricEurope: Investigations in Subsistence Archaeology and Social Complexity. Hodder. Reconstructing crop husbandry practices from charred remains of crops. (1993). Cambridge University Press. C. Method and Theory for Activity Area Research. M. S. and Casparie. R. Interpretation of archaeological plant remains: The application of ethnographic models from Turkey. (eds. Faunal remains and consumer behavior: What is being measured? Historical Archaeology 25(2): 62-76. I. W. 66-79. Comments on Cordelrs congruences.
Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory. M. pp. University of Arizona Press. C. B. S. pp. B. Lennstrom. Basic Books. Academic Press. F. University of Chicago Press. C. Journal of Human Evolution 14: 477--482. Chemical analysis of excavated human bone from Middle and Late Woodland sites. (1979). Cooking vocabularies and the culinary triangle of Levi-Strauss. Paleoethnobotanical evidence from Copan... (1985) Jaws: The control of power in the early nuclear American ceremonial center. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection.) (1989). D.. (1992).. Knossos tablets and Mycenaean state banquets. W. Climate. Inc. culture. Lentz. R. Southern Illinois University Press. Anthropological Linguistics 14(5): 155-171. Early Ceremonial Architecture in the Andes. New York. 222-234. Larsen. B.Food and Complex Societies 133 Killen. The Analysis of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. and Hastorf. Food and Foodways 4: 221-235. In Donnan. R. L. and Jones. VoL 5. Food systems research: An overview and a case study from Madaba Plains. dissertation. Larsen. Lehrer. J. Archaeofaunas and butchery studies: A taphonomie perspective. . (1992). C. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies. A.D.. Smithsonian Institution Press. and Ubetaker. In Verano.). Maya diets of the rich and poor:. (1987). (1982). M. New York. Vertebrate Taphonomy. Bioarchaeological interpretations of subsistence economy and behavior from human skeletal remains. (1991). University Press of Florida. pp. M. Cambridge. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory. infection. Partisan Review 33(4): 586-595. Lathrap. In Sobolik. 185-209. H.. (ed. Levi-Strauss. 22. C. In Starry. A. C. (1982). and Oneota subsistence in central Illinois. American Antiquity 60(4): 701-721. E. J. Academic Press. M... G. Occasional Paper No. (ed. B. Ruff. T. In Etkin. (1994). (1972).). pp. (1994). H. L. C. H. Cambridge University Press. In Schiffer. pp. R. Population decline and extinction in La Florida. King. Simpson. C. Szpunar. (1994). R. Kramer. pp. Gainesville. (1993). Arehaeometry 21: 115-129. Lyman. and Buikstra. D. and health status in the prehistoric-historic transition. C. Vol. (1985). lntrasite Spatial Variability and Resource Utilization in the Prehistoric Peruvian Highlands: An Exploration of Method and Theory in Paleoethnobotany. New York. Washington. Village Ethnoarchaeology: Rural Iran in Archaeological Perspective. and Harn. IC (ed. Chicago. and Buikstra. Lambert. D. C. D. A.S. King. Interpreting wild plant foods in the archaeological record. (1995). Bone diagenesis and dietary analysis. Klein. DC. C.. O. B. B. L. D. J. B. N. Larsen. M. J.. E. Thebes sealings.. Ecologic. Levi-Strauss. pp. Lyman. Academic Press.. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory. L. C.). 10. Center for Archaeological Investigations. Jordon. B. Lennstrom. Lambert.. Journal of Archaeological Science 19: 205-229.). J. C. University of Minnesota. Archaeofaunas and subsistence studies. L. Paleonutrition: The Diet and Health of Prehistoric Americans. 241-267. The culinary triangle.). V. 67-84. LaBianca. Interpretation in context: Sampling and analysis in paleoetlmobotany. Lyman. 331-393. DC. S. (ed. Peru. (ed. Latin American Antiquity 2: 269-287. B. Ph.. (1994). Foraging and Farming in the Eastern Woodlands. (eds. Leonard.). Disease and Demography in the Americas. New York.). T. S. B. A. C. Washington. G. (ed. 339--445.. J. Testing old wives' tales in palaeoethnobotany: A comparison of bulk and scatter sampling schemes from Pancan. and Hastorf. E. A. Cambridge University Press. Academic Press. W. and Hutchinson. (eds. R. Schoeninger. Cambridge. A. and Cruz-Uribe. (1963). Tucson. 249-337. L. Eating on the Wild Side: The Pharmacologic. Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology. IC (1984). and Social Implications of Using Noncultigens. Lennstrom. In Schiffer. F. In Schiffer. 25-39. D. J. (1991). Nutrition. Structural Anthropology. Szpunar. Minneapolis. VoL 10. (1987). (1966). B. (ed. S. New York. pp.). Department of Anthropology. H. 232-254. (1992). Carbondale.
V. Cambridge. C. Oxford. G. Huanuco Pampa: An Inca City and Its Hinterland. and Gamble. In Schiffer. T. 49--60. 20. 393--407. (1985). Morphy. pp. (ed. Text and Gender. Jones. 67. (1995). Journal of Human Evolution 14: 483--491. The Ancient MincL" Elements of Cognitive Archaeology. R. Marcus. Puleston. 51-80. (1986). (1978). Reconstructing Complex Societies. New York. (eds. B. H. Plant world of the sixteenth. London. Sweemess and Power. our dinner the llama: Animal utilization at Chavin de Huantar. . W. Society for American Archaeology. Reconstructing patterns of non-agricultural production in the Inca economy: Archaeology and documents in institutional analysis. pp. D.. The intensification of production: archaeological approaches. Cambridge. pp. University of Oxford. D. Political implications of prehispanic Chinampa agriculture in the Valley of Mexico. D. London. Peru. (ed. and Flannery. R. Academic Press.. and Bailey.). An Anthropological Study of the Marakwet of Kenya. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 1: 111-159. M. I. Moore. K. L. New York. Thames and Hudson. (1982). S. K. Economic Archaeology: Towards an Integration of Ecological and Social Perspectives. Bone refuse--Possibilities for the future. W. 33-74. Anthropological Papers No. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 1: 141-159.). Miller. In Hodder. E. In Diamond. All Manners of Food: Eating and Taste in England and France from the Middle Ages to the Present. Man and Environment in the Great Basin. Washington. Morrison.).. pp. 211-247. University of New Mexico Press. (1982).) (1989). (1979). Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory. Formation processes of the archaeobotanical record. American Antiquity 60(3): 421--458. Supplement to American Schools of Oriental Research Bulletin No. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 1: 161-209. E. (1982). pp.).. and Burger. Princeton University Press. McGhee. Ethnoscience of the sixteenth-century Valley Zapotec. F. Cambridge. In Barker. C. G. Space. University of Michigan.). pp. sugar. I. (1987). The Nature and Status of Ethnobotany. and Simms. 17--42. H. Miksicek. In Sheridan. Our father the cayman.. pp. Cambridge. R. Patterns in faunal assemblage variability.134 Gumerman Maltby. (eds.). 55-74. Pate. Beyond Domestication in Prehistoric Europe: Investigations in Subsistence Archaeology and Social Complexity. DC. pp. (ed. H.). and Flannery. R. Academic Press. (1985). H. Viking Penguin. Maya Subsistence: Studies in Memory of Dennis E. E.). Department of Ethnology and Prehistory. J. J. (1985). Marcus. Mintz.). S. (ed. W. New York. Columbia University Press. H. L. Princeton. pp.). H. R.). and sweetness. A. (ed. and Zubrow.. Pate.. (ed. Some thoughts on prehistoric archaeology in the Great Basin. C. Culture in History: Essays in Honor of Paul Radin. C. S. pp. IC V. Ivory for the sea woman: The symbolic attributes of a prehistoric technology. London. Mintz. L. The stability of bone strontium in the geochemical environment.and seventeenth-century lowland Maya. B. Symbolic and Structural Archaeology. D. (1994). Moore. (1993). S. and Thompson. G. In Madsen. and Brown. (1981). K. C. In Flannery.. S. (1977). Cambridge University Press. A. J. Ancient Zapotec ritual and religion: An application of the direct historical approach. K. C. and O'Connell (eds. Mnrra. Moore. (ed. Marcus. Parsons. Mennell. 239-273. In Moore. Ann Arbor.. SAA Papers No. V. Marxist Perspectives 2(4): 57--73. (1994). (eds. L. F. Academic Press. BAR International Series 96. R. Oxford. (1960). Basil Blackwell. In Ford. (1985). (1991). In Harvey. M. Museum of Anthropology. J. J. R/ce as Self.. VoL 10. O'Connell. (1994). (1974). Time. J. 87-94. (1985). V. Animals into Art. R. Cambridge University Press. Land and Poraics in the Valley of Mexico. Bone chemistry and paleodiet. Cambridge University Press. Morris.. D. B. J. NJ. Albuquerque. Ohnuki-Tierney. 227-240. K. (ed. The interpretation of spatial patterning in settlement residues. Morris. New York. F. Rite and crop in the Inca state. In Renfrew. 2.
Price. New York. Chisholm. 295-311. Tuscaloosa. Current Paleoethnobotany: Anatytical Methods and Cultural Interpretations of Archaeological Plant Remains.. Studies of Food and Festivities in Three American Communities. 133-145.). C. A. Academic Pre~.. Pohl. (eds. Redman. Powell. Cambridge University Press. M.. Archaeology. M. Pearsall. Chicago. (ed. pp. Ph. (1992). 4. (1981). P. L. Archaeological Method and Theory. Harvard University Press. University of Chicago Press. B.).. Puleston. H. In Pohl. University of California. R.. In Price. Price. A. T. W. (1982). (ed. Ritual continuity and transformation in Mesoamerica: Reconstructing the ancient Maya cuch ritual. Cambridge.). New York. D. H. Radcliffe-Brown. Schoeninger. Interpreting the meaning of rnacroremain abundance: The impact of source and context. New York..). pp. In Powell. Painting the Maya Universe: Royal Ceramics of the Classic Period. In Schiffer. Vol. A. Cambridge. C. pp. 245-252.. (1985).. pp. M. The privileges of Maya elites: Prehistoric vertebrate fauna from Seibal. Puleston. G.D. Armelagos. Academic Press. D. M. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Reidhead. Powers. (eds. Rechtman.). Bumsted. and Schiffer. D.. K. Journal of Human Evolution 14: 419--447. J. In Douglas. dissertation. S. D. Cambridge. D. Paleoethnobotany: A Handbook of Procedures. M. M. V. J. Pohl. J. S. V. and Bryant. T. (ed. 77. pp.). (1988). . 22-51. E. V.). and Armelagos. L. Lambert. J. In Hastoff. Cambridge University Press. T. Reents-Budet. M. 141-186. and Christenson. A. Reinhard. The Chemistry of Prehistoric Human Bone.. J. B. Coprolite analysis: A biological perspective on archaeology. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. B. D. In Hammond. V. University of Alabama Press. The Andaman Islanders. L. University of Arizona Press. (1991). G. University of Oklahoma Press. M. D. B. L. (eds.. (ed. New York. and Popper. Norman. M.The traditional role of women and animals in lowland Maya economy. Pohl. Ericson. Jr. (1922). Los Angeles. Prehistoric Lowland Maya Environment and Subsistence Economy. M. pp. (ed. Cattle herds and the redistribution of cattle resources. World Archaeology 28(1): 43--57. San Franseisco. In Earle.. (1980).). Schoeninger. Reid. N.) (1989a). Food in the Social Order. M. 449--469. N. D. (1985). M. M. Academic Press. Vol. W. R.. Maya Subsistence: Studies in Memory of Dennis E. M. Social Process in Maya Prehistory: Essays in Honor of Sir Eric Thompson. W. (1978). K. (1982).. The Evolution of Sociopolitical Complexity in the Fiji Islands. Cambridge University Press. pp. Free Press. (ed... L. Russell Sage Foundation. Pearsall.). Modeling Change in Prehistoric Subsistence Economies. T. P. A. 14. What Mean These Bones? Studies in Southeastern Bioarchaeology. (1994). (ed.. 40-96. A. and Mires. M. L. Ranked status and health in the Mississippian chiefdom at Moundville. Duke University Press. San Diego. 126-154. pp. A. The chemistry of prehistoric human bone: Recommendations and directions for future study. Art and archaeology of hydraulic agriculture in the Maya lowlands. E. Bridges. American Antiquity 46: 513-529. N. The Chemistry of Prehistoric Human Bone. pp. M. (1990). 245-288. The economics of subsistence change: A test of an optimization model. (1989). The R/se of Civilization: From Early Farmers to Urban Society in the Ancient Near East. and Feldman.. T. Rathje. T. Department of Anthropology. (1992). In Flannery. W. Freeman. Tucson. M. J. New York. Price.Food and Complex Societies 135 Paul. Multi-element studies of diagenesis in prehistoric bone. The Chemistry of PrehistoricHuman Bone. Academic Press. IC. (ed. pp. Price. (1989b). Durham. J. D. S. 97-118.). J. (1996). In Price. D. Cambridge. MA. (1989). Buikstra. van der Merwe. and Sillen. and Powers. E. (1977). Paracas Ritual Attire: Symbols of Authority in Ancient Peru. NC. Metaphysical aspects of an Oglala food system. A. (1984). New York. Bone chemistry and past behavior: An overview. T. J. M.
C. Albuquerque. N. R. Tucson. C. I. (1939). In Spencer-Wood. Cambridge. T. In Bradley. Gregory. B. S. M. I. N. and Ross. N. Schiffer. New York. Kimbell Art Museum. Hanson. The Blood of Kings: Dynasty and Ritual in Maya Art. Augustine. G. A. (1992). A Forest of Kings: The Untold Story of the Ancient Maya.. Reynolds. In Leonard. S. R. Investigations of Ancient Human Tissue: Chemical Ana~ses in Anthropology. M. (1981). An overview of trends in dietary variation from hunter-gatherer to modern capitalist societies. Cambridge University Press. (1994). E. G. In Martin. London. R.. Gordon and Breach Science. 65. M. Chapters in the Prehistory of Eastern Arizona /V. pp. M. T. B. (ed. (ed. (1986). Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology. and Katzenberg. 92-99. New York. 163-191. pp. Isaac. In Harris. M.. (ed. B. 159-177. and Miller. T. G. In Renfrew. IC V. T. University of New Mexico Press. In Flarmery. Rothschild. T.. pp. Diet and status at Chalcatzingo: Some empirical and technical aspects of strontium analysis. Labour and Diet in Northern Rhodesia: An Economic Study of the Bemba Tribe. B. New York.. M. pp.). London. Schiffer. In Willis. A. (ed. Vol. C. and Wilcox... Ft. Richards. Richards. B. In Singleton. (1992). Technological Perspectiveson Behavioral Change. British Series 133. R. Schele. 1L (eds. E.). (1979). W. and Gardiner. Worth. in the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries. (eds. and refuse disposal at Matacapan. (1989). A consideration of the Olmec phenomena in Tuxtlas: Middle Formative settlement pattern. Routledge and Sons. . S. E. Multidimensional scaling of four Guila Naquitz living floors. D. J.). A. (ed.). J.). pp. 189-218.. 47-54. Plough and pastoralism: Aspects of the secondary products revolution. (ed. Pattern of the PasL"Studies in Honour of David Clarke. and the use of space. and Rathburn. B. (1990).) (1993). Renfrew. Tezcatlipoca: Jaguar metaphors and the Aztec mirror of nature. (1987). Cambridge. Fieldiana: Anthropology. B.. J. Schiffer. Academic Press. Richards. Gibbs. Land. Saunders. Mexico. E. American Antiquity 37: 156-165. (eds.).136 Gumerman Reitz. pp. and Freidel. G. A. British Archaeological Reports. Schiffer. Temple University Press. (1986). pp. (1987). A. pp. P. Field Museum of Natural History. A. R. New York.). Reitz. The archaeology of religion. J. A. E. M. The effect of urbanization on faunal diversity: A comparison between New York City and St.. Archaeological evidence for subsistence on coastal plantations.. Cambridge University Press. (eds. Consumer Choice in Historical Archaeology.). J. (eds. Florida. (1975). Tuscaloosa and London. M.. 103-119. SignifyingAnimals: Human Meaning in the Natural World. and Zubrow. M. 101-119. Oxford University Press. Academic Press. E. Chicago. (1990). Unwin Hyrnan. New York. TX. Mexico. A. The Archaeology of Slavery and Plantation Life. M. L.). University of Alabama Press. land use. Oxford. and Thomas J. J. B. In Hodder.. W. London. Santley. Neolithic Studies: A Review of Some Current Research. Behavioral chain analysis: Activities. Veracruz. W. D. (1972). Ross.). Bowman.. B. Schele. L. Vertebrate fauna and socioeconomic status. (1992). Gardens of Prehistory: The Archaeology of Settlement Agriculture in Greater Mesoamerica. Cambridge. Food and Evolution: Toward a Theory of Human Food Habits. Philadelphia. D. A.). 7-55. (eds. D. R. (1984). Sherratt. E. pp.. University of Arizona Press. D. C. pp... Cambridge University Press. 150-183. 385--421. K. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 51: 295-310. Plenum Press. and Jones. Guila Naquit~" Archaic Foraging and Early Agriculture in Oaxaca. Philadelphia. S. Schoeninger. (1987). (1985). Schiller. I. Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. Hunger and Work in a Savage Tribe: A Functional Study of Nutrition Among the Southern Bantu. Ritual activity and structured deposition in later Neolithic Wessex. Archaeological context and systemic context. pp. organization. M. In Killon. Zubrow. Wiley-Liss. 261-305. Saunders. The Ancient Mind" Elements of Cognitive Archaeology. Skeletal Biology of Past Peoples: Research Methods. (1932). William Morrow. and Hammond. Sandford.
D. R. (1991). Black. Staski. Kalinga Ethnoarchaeology: Expanding Archaeological Method and Theory. Edinburgh.. E. In Staski. Q. R. Paleonutrition: The Diet and Health of Prehistoric Americans. Topic.. (eds. J. M. E.Food and Complex Societies 137 Sherratt. and Ogram. S. J. L. American Antiquity 52(4): 832-835. Szuter. K. The use of fish remains as a socio-economic measure: An example from 19th century new england. Chicago. J. pp.. A. A. C. American Antiquity 52(4): 836--839. Skibo. The secondary exploitation of animals in the Old World. M. B. Walker. Whitten. D. Introduction.. P.). and Hillman. Archaeological Theory: Who Sets the Agenda? Cambridge University Press.. M. Shimada. (1987). and Nielsen. (1987'). M. Flotation sampling: Problems and some solutions. In Longacre. (1991). (eds.. Garland. and art. A. and Shimada I. and Topic. A. (1988). D. World Archaeology 15: 90-104.). The Rise and Fall of Maya Civilization. Smith. Comment on the functions and husbandry of alpaca. J. M. T. M. A. L. Historical Archaeology 19(2): 132-136. R. 42. H. In Sobolik. (eds. The Kalinga cooking pot: An ethnoarchaeological and experimental study of technological change. 171-194. Foraging and Farming: The Evolution of Plant Exploitation. Prehistoric llama breeding and herding on the north coast of Peru. E. Taube. and Skibo. Carbondale. Re-fitting the "cracked and broken facade": The case for empiricism in post-processual ethnoarchaeology. (1989). pp.. M. M. American Antiquity 54: 31-51. A. M. (1985). A. 113-126. E. Plenum Press. K. Arizona State University Anthropological Research Papers No. S. 1-18. In Spencer-Wood.Center for Archaeological Investigations. American Antiquity 50(1): 3-26. (1996). The Ethnoarchaeology of Refuse Disposal. Hunting by Hohokam desert farmers. (1987). A. G. (1990). Sex determination and dietary analysis of prehistoric human paleofeces. In Hastorf. W.). Staski. N. A comment on the breeding and herding of llamas and alpacas on the north coast of Peru.. Smithsonian Institution Press. Occasional Paper No. L. Arizona State University Anthropological Research Papers No. Singer. University of Minnesota. 36-52. D. A. Journal of Archaeological Science 23(2): 263-267. Thompson. Stark. Allen and Unwin. Toll. and Watson. New York. Prehistoric Tewa Economy: Modeling Subsistence Production on the Pajarito Plateau. epigraphy. The maize tamale in classic Maya diet. W. L.. H. Trierweiler.) (1995). E.. The threshold of affordability: Assessing fish remains for socioeconomics. University of Oklahoma Press. T. Southern Illinois University Press. and Sutro. K. and Sutro. S.). R. Tempe. (1996). Tempe. Skibo. Malik. Plenum Press. 42. Stahl. M. Sikkink. 93-104. From field to house: Ethnoarchaeology and ethnobotany of harvest and crop-processing in Andean peasant households.). N. Sutton. (ed.. K. In Yoffee. The Ethnoarehaeology of Refuse Disposal. K. The ethnoarchaeology of refuse disposal: Current research and future prospects. New York. Cambridge. (1992). Kiva 56(3): 277-291. J. (1988).). University of Chicago Press. D. Unpublished Master's thesis.. New York. Norman.. American Journal of Physical Anthropology (in press). S. and Shimada I.) (1991a). A. (1993). McGreevy. Pottery Function: A Use-Alteration Perspective. In Harris. (1954). Skibo. pp. Minneapolis. pp.. with examples from the A m e r i c a n Southwest. (1983). W. L. 85-99. Consumer Choice in Historical Archaeology. J. J. D. C.). (eds. pp. V. (eds. L. and C. in association with Port Nicholson Press. M. pp. (1985). (1994). T. (eds. Sobolik. P. A. 22. and Popper. (1889). Experiments on the determination of gender from coprolites by DNA analysis. (eds. and Sutro. Current Paleoethnobotany: Ana&tical Methods and Cultural Interpretations of Archaeological Plant Remains. (ed. Singer. 1-4.. Department of Anthropology. Sobolik. Plant-food processing: Implications for dietary quality... . New Zealand. C.. D. University of Utah Press. Shimada. Salt Lake City. and Sherratt. (1991b). DC. pp. Expanding Archaeology. Washington. (1994). J. Gremillion. W. Lectures on the Religion of the Semites.
Whitley. pp. W.). C. C. Wilk. H. (1984). (1991). E. Smithsonian Institution Press. The Social Economy of Consumption. (1989a). In Schiffer. Society for Economic Anthropology. Washington. Tucson. and Ubelaker.. D. 501-574. M. R. (eeL). Salt Lake City. Plenum Press. and Rutz. By the hunter. R. Ceremonial Trash? In Skibo. pp. and Mussell. (1994). Nature 276: 815-16. Weismantel. and Rathje. In Orlove. Archaeological Method and Theory. Washington. The Archaeology of Gender:. A. Russell Sage Foundation. In Steward. H. K. (1988). H. (eds. P. (1992). Williams. 4. J. bread babies and chosen women. Food in the Social Order. and Ubelaker. Washington. J. W. 97-142. (1995). (1991a). for the gatherer: Art. Modem Language Notes 106: 861-879. (eds. Tasty meals and bitter gifts: Consumption and production in the Ecuadorian Andes. University of Pennsylvania Press. Wymer. DC. (1978).). J. pp. R. Welsh. 105-124. C-13 content of human collagen as a measure of prehistoric diet in woodland North America. Wood. B.). J. Umlauf. N.) (1992). pp.)... 138-156. The children cry for bread: Hegemony and the transformation of consumption. M.. New York. DC. Gainesville. (ed. In Verano. Sociocultural dynamics and food habits in a southern community. University of Arizona Press. Expanding Archaeology. Weismantel. Verano... The Andean Civilizations. J. C. New Orleans. J. Cultural change and subsistence: The Middle Woodland and Late Woodland transition in the Mid-Ohio Valley. G. Public and private meals at Cardal. T. H. (eds. The osteological paradox: Problems of inferring prehistoric health from skeletal samples. and Nielsen. S. L. M. Maize beer and Andean social transformations: Drunken Indians. CO. Why migrant women feed their husbands tamales: Foodways as a basis for a revisionist view of Tejano family life. pp.). Whitley. pp. M.. L. Milner. American Behavioral Scientist 25: 617-639. In Scarry. and Poverty in the Ecuadorian Andes. Paper presented at 56th Annual Meeting Society for American Archaeology. J. R. Signifying Animals: Human Meaning in the Natural WoHd. Studies of Food and Festivities in Three American Communities. 57-100. (1992). Smithsonian Institution. In Brown. W. M. 55-72. Wylie. Willis. Walker. Weismantel. Weismantel. D. B. B. University of Utah Press. University Press of Florida. D. (eds. H. Disease and Demography in the Americas. 113-126. E. A. M. C. K. J.138 Gumerman Tschopik. Smithsonian Institution Press. D. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 143. M. J. (ed. (ed. S. .). (1992).. (1984).. W. University of Tennessee Press. K. D. Walker. (1946). M. (1991b). Making breakfast and raising babies: The Zumbagua household as constituted process. H. 15-24. In Douglas. 15-24. Weismantel. J. Vol. Boulder. H. (1995). M. Philadelphia. Vol. Status related variation in foodways in the Moundville chiefdom. New York. W. W. W. Verano.. pp. social relations and subsistence change in the prehistoric Great Basin. Westview Press. Prehistoric disease and demography in the Andes. (1989b). (1982). Food. M. S. Disease and Demography in the Americas. In Wilk. The Aymara. The interplay of evidential constraints and political interests: recent archaeological research on gender. M. pp.. American Antiquity 57(1): 15-35. London. World Archaeology 25(3): 357-373. Whitehead. M. A. Prehistory and post-positivist science: A prolegomenon to cognitive archaeology. Knoxville. Foraging and Fanning in the Eastern Woodlands. D. Food and Foodways 5(1): 79-94. Wall. Central Coast of Peru.J. pp. and Weiss. (ed. VI. (1992). J. (ed. van der Merwe. The Household Economy: Reconsidering the Domestic Mode of Production. J. (1993). Separating the Spheres in Urban America. J. D. American Antiquity 60(3): 397-420. H. and Scarry. pp. Household archaeology. Handbook of South American Indians. (1994).). Unwin Hyman.. Current Anthropology 33(4): 343-370. and Vogel. R. Gender. L. D. DC. Ethnic and Regional Foodways in the United States: The Performance of Group Identity.) (1990). Jr. (eds. 67-79. Harpending.).
pp. N. In Ingersoll.. Feeding Cities: Specialized Animal Economy in the Ancient Near East. black fishing. . CRC Press. (eels.). 283-314. A. Gudgeons. Columbia University Press. Journal of Latin American Lore 9: 39-100.). C. A. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington. (1991). N. Yoffee. A. (eds. and proud pigs: Historicity. pp. and Beau&y. Zeder. W. Cambridge. (1983). and Macdonald. safe texts for the '90s). New York. Yentseh. Zeder..). J. Cultural patterning in faunal remains: Evidence from the !Kung Bushman. D.Food and Complex Societies 139 Yellen. Cambridge University Press. Archaeological Theory: Who Sets the Agenda?. Experimental Archeology. and Sherratt. The lion in the city: Royal symbols of transition in Cuzco. A. Zuidema. In Yoffee. Understanding urban process through the study of specialized subsistence economy in the Near East. Boca Raton. J. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 7: 1-55. M. T. (1977). Mullet. In Yentsch... M. pp. R. E. FL. (1993). 60-78. (1988). Yellen. 271-331. Too many chiefs? (or. A. (eds. E. and southern myth. DC. The Art and Mystery of Historical Archaeology. E. M. (1992). E.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.