Gumerman 1997 Food and Complexity Societies

8/12/2019 Gumerman 1997 Food and Complexity Societies

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/gumerman-1997-food-and-complexity-societies 1/35

Journal of Archaeological M ethod and Theory VoL 4 N o. 2 1997

Food and om plex Soc ie t ie s

G e o r g e G u m e r m a n I V 1

In com plex soc ie ties ind iv iduals f ro m d is t inc t socia~ econom ic gender or agegroup s often consu m e d i ffe ren t fo od s b ecause o f var ious economic po li ti ca~an d ideo logica l fac tors. Th e fo o d sys tem no t on ly involves wha t i s con sum edbu t i nc ludes t he l abo r an d t echn o logy tha t goes i n to the p rod uc t ion andprepara t ion o f foo d as wel l as ho w certa in fo od s a re d i st r ibu ted an d eventua llyd iscarded . Food sys tems wi th in and among complex soc ie t ies a re thus t igh t lyin ter twined w i th soc ia l d i ffe ren t ia tion a nd the po l i t i ca l eco nom y an d par tic ipa tein defining and maintaining different ial social relat ions.KEY WORDS: foodways;paleodiet; consumption;social relations.

I N T R O D U C T I O N

Archaeologis ts have produced s igni f icant advances in understandingsubs i s t ence - -o f t en employ ing m ode l s tha t focus on popu la tion , env i ron-m ent , a nd technology to predic t and explaingenera lchanges in subsistence

throu gh t im e (e.g., Binford, 1968; Bo seru p, 1965; Christenson, 1980; Co hen,1977; Earle, 1980; King, 1993; M orrison , 1994; Sobolik, 1994; Trierwieler,1990; Wym er, 1993; cf. Browm an, 1987; Keen e, 1983; O C onne l let al . 1982;Re idhea d, 1980). Al though these var iables are cr i tica l in understan ding hu-m an behav io r, t he m ode l s typ ica lly address on ly a na r row range o f the m anyfactors that are encom passed by the s tudy o f food. Topics such as or ig ins,adaptat ion, r i sk , and cost minimizat ion usual ly are couched in terms of anormat ive se t of actors- -s i tes , per iods, and cul tures . As such, the modelsof ten do not adequately address how subsis tence i s affected by individualact ion (see Bruraf ie l , 1992) . Cost minim izat ion, for examp le , does n ot ex-

1Department of Anthropology,No rthern Arizona University,P.O . Box 15200, Flagstaff, Ari-zona 86011.

1 5

1072-5369/97/0600-0105512.50/0 9 1997 Hcnum Publishing Corporation



1 6 u m e r m a n

p l a i n a l l b e h a v i o r, e s p e c i al ly i n c o m p l e x s o c i e ti e s wh e r e s u b s i s t e n c e d e c i -s i o n s a l s o a r e b a s e d o n s t a t u s a n d p o l i t i c a l c o n c e r n s . E c o n o m i c s i s c l e a r l ya f a c t o r i n t h e s e d e c i si o n s , y e t f o r s o m e i n d i v i d u a ls m i n i m i z i n g c o s t m a yn o t b e a n i s su e . E l it e s m a y c o n s u m e e x p e n s iv e r e so u r c e s b e c a u s e t h e y c a n

a f fo r d t h e m a n d b e c a u se th e f o o d s - - a n d t h e ir c o n s u m p t i o n - -s y m b o l i z et h e i r we a l t h a n d p o we r. F o o d , t h u s , i n c o r p o r a t e s n u m e r o u s a s p e c t s o f c u l -t u r e - r a n g i n g f r o m t e c h n o l o g y t o n u t r it io n a n d t h e s y m b o l ic ( s ee B i n f o r d ,1962 ; Goody, 1982 ; Har r i s , 1987 ; Hodder, 1986 ; Ra th j e and Sch i ffe r, 1982 ;Ross, 1987; Schiffer, 1992).

Food i s i n t r i n s i ca l l y soc i a l . Indeed , soc i a l r e l a t i ons a re de f ined andm a i n t a i n e d t h r o u g h f o o d . F o o d t h u s s h o u l d n o t b e a n a l y z e d f o r t h e s o l ep u r p o s e o f d e s c ri b i n g d i e t a n d n u t r i t i o n ( e. g. , B r o w n a n d M u s s e l l, 1 98 4;C o e , 1 99 4; Do u g l a s , 1 9 71 ; D o u g l a s , 1 9 84 ; F a r b a n d A r m e l a g o s , 1 9 8 0;G o o d e e t a l . 1984a ,b ; Menne l l , 1985 ; Ohnuk i -Tie rney, 1993 ; Powers andPowers , 1984; Wal l , 1994; Weismante l , 1988; Wi l l i s , 1990) . As Ross (1987 ,p . 8 ) p o i n t s o u t , Va r i a ti o n i n w h a t p e o p l e e a t r e f l e c ts s u b s ta n t i v e v a r i a t i o ni n s t a tu s a n d p o w e r a n d c h a r a c t e r iz e s s o c i e ti e s t h a t a r e i n t e r n a ll y s tr a t if i e di n to r i ch a n d p o o r , s ic k a n d h e a l t h y, d e v e l o p e d a n d u n d e r d e v e l o p e d , o v e r -f e d a n d u n d e r n o u r i s h e d . A m e a l , w h e t h e r a s h a r e d m o r n i n g t o rt il la o r af o r m a l d i n n e r p a r t y, i s a n e v e n t t h a t d e v e l o p s a n d m a i n t a i n s a ff i l i a t i o n sa m o n g p a r t ic i p a n ts a n d n o n p a r t ic i p a n t s, a s w e ll a s p r e p a r e r s a n d c o n s u m -e rs . F o o d w a y s a ls o c h a n g e t h r o u g h t i m e a n d t h e c h a n g e s m a y v a r y a m o n gi n d i v id u a l s o f d if f e r in g s ta t u s , o c c u p a t i o n , g e n d e r, a n d a g e . I n d e e d , t h es t u d y o f th e s e c h a n g e s w i ll in f o r m u s a b o u t g e n e r a l c a u s e s o f so c i a l c h a n g e .

R e c e n t l y, a r c h a e o l o g i s t s h a v e c o n t e m p l a t e d s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s a n d s y m -b o l i s m t h r o u g h t h e d e t a i l e d s t u d y o f f o o d ( s e e e x a m p l e s b e l o w) . Ty p ic a ll y,t h e s e a r e f i n e - g r a i n e d a p p r o a c h e s t h a t a c c e p t t h e e x i s t e n c e o f e c o n o m i c ,po l i ti ca l , and ideo log ica l va r i a t i on w i th in soc i e t i e s and ev en va r i a t i on w i th inh o u s e h o l d s s u c h t h a t m a l e s m a y e a t d i f f e r e n t ly t h a n f e m a l e s . T h i s v a r i a t i o ni s e s p e c ia l ly v it a l in u n d e r s t a n d i n g c o m p l e x s o c ie t ie s b e c a u s e t h e s e s o c i e t ie sa r e o rg a n i z e d a r o u n d a r e g i o n a l p o l i ti c a l e c o n o m y w h e r e t h e r e i s d i f f e r e n -t ia l a cc e s s t o g o o d s , we a l t h , p o we r, a n d t h e m e a n s o f p r o d u c t i o n . As s u c h ,c o m p l e x s o c i e ti e s ar e c o m p o s e d o f h i e ra r c h i c a ll y a n d h e t e r a r c h i c a l l y r a n k e di n d i v id u a l s w i t h m a r k e d v a r i a t io n i n t e r m s o f t h e i r n e e d s , wa n t s , a n d a b i li -t i e s t o fu l f i l l t he i r goa l s (e .g . , Eh ren re i che t a l . 1 9 9 5 ; J o h n s o n a n d E a r l e ,1987; Redman, 1978; Yoffee , 1993) .

T h e n a t u r e o f c o m p l e x s o c ie t ie s c re a t e s a n e x t r e m e l y e la b o r a t e f o o ds y s t e m - - t h e s e t o f co n d i t io n s u n d e r w h i c h f o o d i s p r o d u c e d a n d d i s t ri b u t e d ,p r e p a r e d a n d c o n s u m e d , a n d f i n a l l y, d i s c a r d e d ( e . g . , B o we n , 1 9 9 2 ; Go o d y,1982 ; Ho l t , 1991 ; Hue l sbeck , 1991 ; Johannessen , 1993 ; LaBianca , 1991 ;P o we r s a n d P o we r s , 1 9 8 4; W h i t e h e a d , 1 98 4). I n c o m p l e x s o c i e ti e s , f o o d i so f t e n p r o d u c e d a n d p r e p a r e d o u t s id e o f t h e h o u s e h o l d a n d d i s t r i b u t e d t o



Food and omp lex Societies 1 7

nonp roduc ers . Specia lis ts , for instance, may produ ce an d cook fo od forother individuals who may be served in var ious ways, ranging f rom indi -vidual me als to feasts involving m an y guests. In ad dit ion, the fo od o ften isdi fferent ia lly a l located to var ious groups. E l i tes o r com m oners , for instance,m ay r ece ive ce rt a in types and po r t ions o f food tha t a r e impo r tan t in de -f in ing thei r s ta tus . Food dis t r ibut ion a lso may be regulated through bu-r e a u c r a t i c a n d a d m i n i s tr a ti v e o f f i c e s - - o f t e n th r o u g h a m a r k e t sy s te m .Co nsum ption involves no t only the fo od i tself , bu t th e social co ntex t inwhich the me a l i s se rved . Di ff e ren t foods o f t en a re consum ed by ind ividua ls

wi th d is t inct s ta tuses and roles and are impor tant in def in ing and main-taining their social posi t ions. Finally, lef tovers and the residues of produc-t ion and consumpt ion are d iscarded. The rules for d isposal , such as thedisposal location, ma y indicate h ow space is v iewed. By inquir ing in to thesecom ponen t s o f the food sys tem, f rom p roduc t ion to d isposa l, t he in te r re -l a ted aspec ts o f food and cu l tu re can be exp lo red- -W ho a re the p roduc er sa n d c o n su m e rs? W h o c o o ks f o r w h o m ? W h o c o n su m e s w h a t ? W h e r e a r especif ic foods disposed? and H ow are foo d preparat ion and dis t r ibutiondel inea ted across e thnic , c lass , gen der, an d g enerat iona l bou ndar ies ?

In this ar t icle, I f i rst present an introduction to various theoret ical as-pects of food and social relat ions. I bel ieve that , as anthropologists, i t isour p r imary goa l to unde r s t and hum an behav io r see Skiboe t a l . 1995).Be hav ior involving foo d is affec ted by a variety of inte rrelate d factors, in-e luding the environm ent , econom ics, socia l organization, bel ief systems, andeven evo lu t ionary f itness . Ins t ead o f r ev iewing a ll an th ropo log ica l ap -proache s conc erned wi th food, I have foc used on th e social and sym bol iccomponents . This i s not to say that the ecological , envi ronmental , and nu-tr i tional aspects that archae ologists have trad it ionally fol lowed are no t cr i ti -ca l to un der s t and ing food . Ra ther, i t is necessa ry to bu i ld up on these

advances by focusing on the socia l and symbol ic e lem ents of the food sys-tem. We therefore gain comprehensive insights in to many aspects of cul -tu re -n o t so le ly subsi st ence .

Fol lowing the d iscussion of food and socia l re la t ions, I address somegeneral methodological i ssues wi thin the context of the food system, in-e luding the product ion, preparat ion, d is t r ibut ion, consumpt ion, and dis-posal of food. Th en using a var ie ty of exam ples , wi th a par t icular em phasison complex societ ies , I dem ons t r a t e h ow the food sys tem can be ana lyzedwith a conce rn towa rd unde rstand ing the socia l and sym bol ic aspects offood . As such, th is r ev iew presen t s a r ec ipe- - the food sy s tem - - tha t a r chae-

ologists can follow, modify, and expa nd i f they are in terested in consu m ingthe socia l and symbol ic aspects of food and complex socie t ies .



1 8 G u m e r m a n

F O O D A N D S O C I A L R E L AT IO N S

C u l t u r a l a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s h a v e a l o n g t r a d i t i o n o f s t u d y i n g t h e s o c i a la n d s y m b o l ic r o le s o f f o o d . E a r l y r e s e a rc h f o c u s e d o n f o o d t a b o o s a n dsac r if i ce s , o f t en em pha s i z ing the re l i g ious a spec t s o f foo d (F raze r, 1907 ;S m i t h , 18 89 ). T h i s in t e r e s t l a te r t u r n e d t o t h e f u n c t i o n a l a s p e c t s o f f o o d ,p a r t ic u l a r ly t h e v a l u e o f f o o d i n d e v e l o p i n g a n d m a i n t a i n i n g s o c i a l r e l a ti o n s .R a d c l i f f e - B r o wn ( 1 9 2 2 , p . 2 7 0 ) v i e we d f o o d a s a m e a n s o f r e g u l a t i n g t h esoc i a l sy s t em. H e focus ed on r i t ua l s i nvo lv ing food , s tre s s ing the soc i a l func -t i o n r a t h e r t h a n t h e r e l i g i o u s e v e n t . A l t h o u g h i n t e r e s t e d i n n u t r i t i o n ,R i c h a r d s ( 1 9 3 2 , 19 39 ) a l s o e m p h a s i z e d t h e f u n c t i o n a l a s p e c t s o f f o o d b ye x p l o r i n g h o w f o o d e x p re s s e s a n d s y m b o l i z es s o c ia l r e l a t io n s h i p s : T h ewh o l e s o c i a l o rg a n i z a t i o n i s h e l d t o g e t h e r v e r y l a rg e l y b y t h e s t r e n g t h o ft h e s e n u t r i ti v e t ie s , a n d i f we d i v o r c e t h e e c o n o m i c a c ti v it ie s o f f o o d - g e t t i n gf r o m t h e s t u d y o f m a n ' s p h y s i o lo g i c a l n e e d s a n d a p p e t i t e s , we s h a l l fa il t oun de rs t a nd the na tu re o f soc i e ty i t se lf (R ic ha rd s 1932, p . 15) .

Lev i -S t rauss ' (1963 , 1966) s t ruc tu ra l focus p ro pe l l e d t he em ph as i s awayf r o m h o w f o o d s e r v e s i n s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s t o wa r d a m e a n s o f a n a l y z i n g t h es t r u c t u r e o f a s o c i et y. Us i n g a l i n g u is t ic m o d e l , h e d e v e l o p e d t h e c u l i n a r yt ri a ng l e, w h i c h m o d e l e d t h e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n o f f o o d f r o m r a w t o c o o k e d t or o t t e n . T h e t r ia n g l e wa s e l a b o r a t e d u p o n b y a d d i n g v a r io u s a g e n t s ( a ir , o il ,a n d wa t e r ) a n d c o o k i n g t e c h n i q u e s ( b r o il in g , b o i li n g , r o a s t in g , a n d f r y in g ) .L e v i - S t r a u s s ( 1 9 6 6 , p . 5 9 5 ) wa s a t t e m p t i n g t o f i n d u n d e r l y i n g c o n s t a n t s i no r d e r t o d i s c o v e r f o r e a c h s p e c i fi c c a s e h o w t h e c o o k i n g o f a s o c i e ty is al a n g u a g e in wh i c h it u n c o n s c i o u s l y t r a n s la t e s i ts s t r u c t u r e . H i s a p p r o a c hc o m p a r e d a s s o c ia t io n s a n d o p p o s i t i o n s f r o m t h e c u l i n a r y s u b s y s t e m t oo t h e r s u b s y s t e m s ( e . g . , e c o n o m i c , k i n s h i p , m y t h , a n d r i t u a l ) , r e v e a l i n g t h eu n d e r l y i n g s t r u c t u r e o f a c u l t u r e . T h e m o d e l wa s t e s t e d c r o s s -c u l t u ra l ly b yL e h r e r ( 19 7 2) . S h e m o d i f i e d L e v i -S t ra u s s' m o d e l b y a d d i n g c o m p o n e n t ss u c h a s s e a s o n i n g s , t h o r o u g h n e s s o f c o o k i n g , u t e n s i l s u s e d , a n d d i f f e r e n tt e r m s f o r a n i m a l a n d p l a n t p r o c e ss in g . L e h r e r c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e c u l in a r yt r ia n g l e h a d l e ss to d o w i t h th e u n d e r l y i n g s t r u c t u r e o f a c u l t u r e t h a n w i t ha v a i l a b l e m a t e r i a l s a n d t e c h n i q u e s a n d t h u s s e r v e s b e t t e r t o d e s c r i b e a c u -l i na ry sy s t em.

R e g a r d l e s s o f w h e t h e r t h e c u l i n a ry t ri a n g l e p r o v i d e s a u n i v e r s a l s tr u c -t u r e ( s e e Do u g l a s , 1 97 1, p . 3 2 ; M e n n e l l , 1 98 5) , c o o k i n g a n d e a t i n g p r a c t i c e sa r e s t r u c t u r e d . C u l i n a r y r u l e s a re s h a r e d wa y s o f p r e p a r i n g a n d e a t i n g f o o dt h a t a r e s o c i a ll y p a t t e r n e d . T h e r u l e s g u i d e b e h a v i o r. T h e y a r e s o c i a ll yl e a r n e d a n d s h a p e d - - o f t e n t r a n s m i t t e d t h r o u g h f a m i l i a l r e l a t i o n s ( e . g . ,m o t h e r t o d a u g h t e r ) a n d v a r i o u s o t h e r s o c i a l n e t wo r k s . T h i s r e s u l t s i n as h a r e d f o o d s y s t em w i th i n b o u n d e d g r o u p s ( e .g ., G o o d ee t a l . 1984 a ,b ;M e n n e U, 1 9 8 5; W e i s m a n t e l , 1 9 8 8 ). T h e r e a r e , f o r in s t a n c e , s h a r e d r u l e s f o r



Food and omplex Societies 1 9

prepar ing and mixing ingredients , methods of cooking, and serving indi -v idua ls . As a n example , m any d i ff e ren t e thn ic g roups use tom ato-basedsauces. I ta l ian-Amer ican cuis ine , however, i s def ined not so much by thetomatoes bu t by the meth od o f p repar ing the sauce - -espec ia l ly the use o fcertain spices and other ingredients (Goode et al . , 1984a,b) .

Food systems also change through t ime. As Weismantel (1988, p. 23)noted, Th e s t ructures of cuis ine are not f ixed and im mutable , bu t are in aconstan t s ta te of t ransform at ion. Chan ging rules for cooking and eat ingneed explanat ion. We must therefore understand the h is tory and develop-m ent o f the food system. How d id the food sys tem change th rough t ime , andwh at are the processes that acc ount for the ch anges (M ennel l , 1985, p . 16)?Fur the rm ore, cul inary ru les are n ot a lways fo llowed and not a l l m em bers o fa soc iety fol low the s am e rules. This is especial ly true in com plex societ iesw here d i fferent cul inary ru les of ten co r respond to c lass , gender, age , and oc-cupat ion. A n approach that accounts for d iverse foodways i s preferab le be-cause s t andard s t ructu ra l approaches o f t en m ask impor tan t va ri a tion am ongdifferen t individuals and groups w ithin a soc iety (e.g. , G oody, 1982; Menn ell ,1985). As such, we will not neglect those impo r tant aspects of that c ul turethat a re l inked with social or individual differen ces (Goo dy, 1982, p. 28).

Food and cooking not only provide calor ies fxom avai lable resources ,bu t a r e c t i v e l yinvolved in part icipating in and defining social relat ions. A sH odd er (1986 , p . 6 ) s t at es abou t mate r i a l cu l tu re , food sy m b ol i s m . . , doesno t passivelyr e f l e c tsocie ty- - ra the r, it creates socie ty through th e act ions ofindividuals (italics in original). A c erta in w ay of pre pa ring a foo d item, forexam ple, may symb olize ethnic, class, o r g end er identi ty and the reb y activelydel ineate the s ta tus and role of the subgroup. The act ive ro le of food isc learly dem onst ra te d by S idney Mintz 's (1979, 1985) s tudy of sugar. S ugarwas one of the f i r s t commodi t ies to be mass adver t i sed and i t s product ionwas cr i t ica l in the development of the s lave t rade. I t s product ion and con-sum ption; thus, had pow erful effects on various ec onom ic, social , a nd poli ti -cal inst itu tions dur ing the e ighteen th and ninetee nth centur ies .

By analyzing s t ructure and symbol ism we see that foo d is v ita l in d e-f in ing everyday socia l re la tions. I t thus seem s app ropr ia te that w e c an bui ldupo n ear l ier subsis tence s tudies by emph asiz ing the socia l and symbol ic as-pec t s o f food . Such an approach l eads to an enr i ched under s t and ing o f theinner workings of co mp lex socie ties .

Methodological onsiderations

To understand food and socia l re la t ions in complex socie t ies , data ob-v ious ly nee d to be co l lec ted and ana lyzed in a m ann er tha t r e f lec t s the



1 1 G u m e r m a n

i n t e rna l va r i a t i on wi th in a soc i e ty (Dee tz , 1982 ; Sch i l l e r, 1975 ; Wi lk andR a t h j e , 1 9 8 2). M o s t c o n t e m p o r a r y a r c h a e o l o g i c a l re s e a r c h i n c l u d e s s y s t e m -a t ic r e c o v e r y o f f l o ra l a n d f a u n a l r e m a i n s f r o m h o u s e h o l d c o n t e x ts . B y s a m -p i i n g a n d a n a l y z in g v a r i o u s c o n t e x t s , d i e t a r y v a r i a t i o n c a n b e e x a m i n e db e t w e e n e l it e s a n d c o m m o n e r s , m a l e s a n d f e m a l e s , a n d o l d a n d y o u n g ( e .g . ,Ha s t o r f , 1 99 1; L e n n s t r o m , 1 99 2; L e n n s t r o m a n d Ha s t o r f , 1 99 2, 1 9 95 ; P e a r-sall , 1989; To ll , 1988 ). F u r th e rm ore , t h ro ug h ske l e t a l ana ly ses w e can s tudyt h e c o n s u m p t i o n p a t t e r n s o f i n d iv i d u a l s ( s e e b e lo w) . As s u c h , a c o n c e r nw i th i n t e rna l ly d i ffe ren t i a t ed cu i s ines (G ood y, 1982 , p . 38 ) i s nec essa ryw h e r e f o o d i s e x p l o r e d a t t h e h o u s e h o l d l e ve l . I t th u s b e c o m e s p o s s i b l e t oa p p r o a c h s u b j e c t s s u c h a s c l a s s , g e n d e r, a n d a g e i n r e l a t i o n t o f o o d .

S t a t u s m a y b e d e f i n e d t h r o u g h a r c h i t e c t u r a l a n d a r t if a c t u a l a n a l y se s .F o o d r e m a i n s t h e n c a n b e c o n s i d e r e d i n l i g h t o f t h e d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l s t r a t a .G e n d e r m a y b e i d e n t i f i e d b y e x a m i n i n g g e n d e r e d a c t i v i t y a r e a s w i t h i nh o u s e h o l d s ( e. g. , B r u m f i e l, 1 9 9 2 ; E h r e n b e rg , 1 98 9; G e r o a n d C o n k e y, 1 9 9 1;Gibbs , 1987 ; Gi ffo rd -Go nza l e s , 1993 ; H as to r f , 1991 ; Reyn o lds , 1986; W yl ie ,1 9 9 2 ) . Da t a o n g e n d e r a n d g e n e r a t i o n a l s u b s i s t e n c e a l s o c a n b e c o l l e c t e dt h r o u g h s t o m a c h c o n t e n t s , c o p r o l i t e a n a l y s e s ( G r e m i l l i o n a n d S o b o l i k ,1996 , R e in ha rd an d Brya n t , 1992 ), and b on e chem is t ry (e .g . , B ro w n , 1981;B u m s t e d , 1 9 85 ; De Ni r o , 1 98 7; D e N i m a n d H a s t o r f , 1 9 85 ; Ha s t o r f , 1 99 1;Larsen , 1987; Pa te , 1994; Powel l , 1991; Pr ice , 1989a; Pr icee t a l . 1985 ; Sand -f o r d , 1 9 9 3 ; S a u n d e r s a n d Ka t z e n b e rg , 1 9 9 2 ; S o b o l i k , 1 9 9 4 ; v a n d e r M e r weand Voge l , 1978 ; Verano and Ube lake r, 1992 ) .

S o c i a l v a r i a t i o n i s a l s o i m p o r t a n t f o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g f o o d s y m b o l i s mb e c a u s e v a r i o u s g r o u p s - - e t h n i c , s t a tu s , o r g e n d e r - - m a y v i e w f o o d s i n d is -t i n c t wa y s . C o n t e x t u a l , s t ru c t u r a l, a n d s y m b o l i c a p p r o a c h e s o ff e r i m p o r t a n ta v e n u e s f o r e x a m i n in g t h e a c ti ve r o le o f fo o d . C l u e s c o n c e r n i n g t h e m e a n -i n g o f f o o d t o a s o c i et y o r g r o u p o f in d i v id u a ls c a n b e d i s c e r n e d t h r o u g hc o n t e x t u a l a s s o c i a t i o n s a n d e t h n o h i s t o r i c a n d e t h n o g r a p h i c a n a l o g y. T h ec o n t e x t o f f o o d p r e p a r a t i o n , c o n s u m p t i o n , a n d d i s c a r d , a s we l l a s a r t i fa c t u a la s s o ci a ti o n s , m a y p r o v i d e p o s s ib l e i n t e rp r e t a t io n s a b o u t f o o d s y m b o l i s m(e .g . , Doug la s , 1990 ; Hodder, 1982a , b , 1986 , 1987a ; Marcus and F l anne ry,1994 ; McGhee , 1977 ; Ren f rew, 1994 ) . Assoc i a t i ons ac ross va r ious t ypes o fd a t a - - s p a t i a l , t e m p o r a l , d e p o s it io n a l , a n d t y p o l o g i c a l - - c a n l e a d t o u n d e r -s t a n d i n g s y m b o li c m e a n i n g ( H o d d e r , 1 9 8 7 b) . W h a t a r e t h e f o o d i t e m s a s-s o c i a t e d w i t h ? Ar e c e r t a i n f o o d s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h c e r t a i n l o c a t i o n s ( e . g . ,d o m e s t i c o r r i tu a l ), a r t if a c ts , o r a c t iv i ti e s? An u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f th e p a t t e r n st h a t a r e o b s e r v e d a n d t h e i r sy s te m i c c o n t e x t m a y s u g g e s t h o w f o o d s s y m -b o l ic a Uy o p e r a t e w i t h in a c o m p l e x s o c ie t y.

O t h e r p o s s ib i li ti e s f o r i n t e r p r e t i n g s y m b o l i c m e a n i n g i n c l u d e t h e a n a l y -s i s o f wr i t i n g s y s t e m s a n d i c o n o g r a p h y. F o r t h o s e c o m p l e x s o c i e t i e s w i t hwr i t t e n l a n g u a g e , a n a l y s i s c a n f o c u s o n t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s b e t we e n l a n g u a g e



Food and omplex Societies

and foo d (e .g ., Ba ines , 1988 ; Ki l len , 1994 ; Sch e l e and Fre ide l , 1990 ; Taube ,1 98 9). I n w h a t c o n t e x t is t h e w o r d f o r a c e r t a in f o o d u s e d ? W h a t c o g n a t e se x is t f o r t h e wo r d ? H o w a r e s p e c i f ic a n i m a l s o r p l a n t s r e f e r r e d t o i n m y t h s ?I n r i tu a l ? T h e w o r d u s e d f o r a c e r ta i n f o o d i t e m a n d i ts m e t h o d o f p r e p a -r a t i o n a r e d a t a t h a t c a n b e e v a l u a t e d i n t e r m s o f f o o d s y m b o l i s m . I n as imi l a r way, i conograph ic dep ic t i ons may a l so p l ay a c r i t i ca l ro l e i n i n t e r-p r e t i n g p r e h i s t o r i c f o o d s y m b o l i s m ( B e n s o n , 1 97 2; D o n n a n , 1 97 8, 1 9 8 2;Fre ide l , 1992 ; Ho l t , 1996 ; La th rap , 1985 ; Mi l l e r and Burge r, 1995 ; Morphy,1989; Paul , 1990; Pohl , 1981; Schele and Mi l le r, 1986; Taube , 1989) . Wem i g h t a s k, wh a t k i n d s o f p l a n t s a n d a n i m a l s a r e d e p i c t e d o n w h a t a r ti fa c t sa n d i n w h a t l o c a t i o n s ? A r e t h e r e a s s o c ia t io n s w i t h o t h e r i t e m s o r b e i n g s ?A r e t h e y a n t h r o p o m o r p h i z e d ? T h e s t u d y o f l a n g u a g e a n d a r t, a r t ic u l a te dwi t h a n a n a ly s is o f f l o ra l a n d f a u n a l r e m a i n s , p r e s e n t s a n o p p o r t u n i t y t oe x p l o r e f o o d m e t a p h o r s a n d s y m b o l i s m .

E t h n o h i s t o r i c a n d e t h n o g r a p h i c a n a l o g y a l s o c a n b e v a l i d t o o l s f o r i n -t e rp r e t i ng fo od sym bo l i sm (e .g ., D oug la s , 1990 ; Hi l l , 1994; H od de r, 1986 ;Marcus , 1982 ; Marcus and F l anne ry, 1978 , 1994 ; McGhee , 1977 ; Poh l , 1981 ,1985; Saunders , 1990; Stark , 1993; Whi t ley, 1994; Wi l l i s , 1990; Zuidema,1 9 8 3 ) . I n s o m e i n s t a n c e s , t h e s e d a t a c a n b e u s e d a s a n a l o g i e s t o p o s t u l a t ep r e h i s t o r i c f o o d wa y s . T h e e v e r y d a y u s e o f f o o d s , t h e i r u s e i n r i tu a l s , f e a st s,l a n g u a g e , a n d m y t h s,, p r o v i d e s i n t e r p r e t a b l e e v i d e n c e f o r f o o d s y m b o l i s m .La ng uag e , fo r i n s t ance , is a symbo l i c sy s t em and the an a ly s is o f , fo r exam-p i e, m y t h s a n d c o g n a t e s , m a y p r o v i d e d a t a o n w h a t a p a r t i c u l a r f o o d i t e mm i g h t m e a n t o a c e r t a i n g r o u p ( e .g ., F a r b a n d A r m e l a g o s , 1 9 80 ; F o wl e r,1972 ; Marcus , 1982 ; Saunde rs , 1990 ; Whi t l ey, 1994 ) . Among the Yuka tekM a y a , f o r i n s ta n c e , m a i z e wa s s y n o n y m o u s w i t h G o d ( F a rr is s , 1 9 8 4; F r e i d e le t a l . 1 99 3, p . 5 5 ) a n d i n M a y a n m y t h s it is a ls o a s s o c i a t e d w i t h j a d e ( B o -h e r e r, 1 99 4; T h o m p s o n , 1 95 4, p . 2 3 7 ), d e m o n s t r a t i n g i t s d i v i n e a n d p r e c i o u sn a t u r e .

O f c o u r s e , li k e a n y o t h e r a s p e c t o f a r c h a e o l o g y, th e d e t a i ls o f s y m b o l -i s m n e e d t o b e e x a m i n e d r i g o r o u s ly w i t h i n a s c i e n ti fi c f r a m e w o r k ( e .g . , G i b -bon , 1989 ; Hanen and Ke l l ey, 1989 ; Hi l l , 1994 ; Hodder, 1986 ; Ren f rew,1 99 4; S t a r k , 1 9 93 ; W h i tl e y, 1 99 2). T h r o u g h a c o m b i n a t i o n o f d e d u c t i v e a n di n d u c t i v e r e a s o n i n g , a lt e r n a t iv e h y p o t h e s e s n e e d t o b e e v a l u a t e d u s i n g m u l -t i p le l in e s o f e v i d e n c e - - c o n t e x t , a s s o c i a ti o n s , a n d l in k s t o e t h n o g r a p h y a n de t h n o h i s t o r y - - t o p r o d u c e r e l i a b l e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . A s B a r k e r a n d G a m b l e(1985, p . 11 ) a s se r t, R igo rou s con tex tua l ana ly s is an d ade qu a te sam p l inga re c l ea r ly e s sen t i a l p re requ i s i t e s fo r any rea l i s t i c a s se ssmen t o f t he l i ke lyr e l a t io n s h i p b e t we e n .r e si d u es f r o m c o m p l e x si te s a n d t h e b e h a v i o u r o f th ei n h a b i t a n t s . . . .

C l e a rl y, n o t a ll p a t t e r n s o b s e r v e d i n th e a r c h a e o l o g i c a l r e c o r d a r e t h er e s u l t o f h u m a n b e h a v i o r a n d c a r e f u l c o n s i d e r a t i o n m u s t b e g i v e n t o t h e



2 umerman

n o n c u l t u r a l a s we l l a s t h e c u l t u r a l p r o c e s s e s t h a t a ff e c t t h e a r c h a e o l o g i c a lr e c o r d S c h i ff e r, 1 97 2, 1 98 7). Ou r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s m u s t t h e r e f o r e b e b a s e do n a n a l y s e s o f d e p o s i t i o n a i c o n t e x t e .g ., p r i m a r y a n d s e c o n d a r y ) , s a m p l es ize , and d i ffe ren t i a l p re se rva t ion B arke r and G am ble , 1985 ; Fo rd , 1979;Gi ffo rd , 1981 ; Gi lbe r t and S inge r, 1982 ; Gordon , 1993 ; Kle in and Cruz -Uribe , 1984; Lyman, 1982 , 1987 , 1994; Mal tby, 1985; Miksicek , 1987; Pear-sai l, 1988 ; Sch i l l e r, 1987 ). A se con da r y re fu se d epo s i t , fo r i n s t ance , o f t enr e p r e s e n t s a v a r ie t y o f a c t iv i t ie s - - fr o m p r e p a r a t i o n t o c o o k i n g t o c o n s u m p -t ion and ev en non foo d ac t iv i ti e s M a l tby, 1985 ; M iks i cek , 1987 ). In con t ra s t ,a p r i m a r y d e p o s i t o n a k it c h e n f lo o r m a y i n d i c a t e f o o d p r e p a r a t i o n e .g .,H a s t o r f 1 98 8). S a m p l i n g s tr a te g i e s, i n c l u d i n g t h e c o n t e x t a n d t h e s i z e o ft h e s a m p l e , w i ll a ls o e ff e c t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f d i v e r si ty a n d c o m p a r i s o n s b e -tw een va r ious un i t s e .g ., C ru z -Ur ibe , 1988 ; G ord on , 1993 ; Grayso n , 1979 ;L en ns t ro m and H as to r f , 1992; L eo na rd an d Jones , 1989 ; PearsaU, 1989 ).I t is n e c e s s a r y to b e m o r e t h a n s i m p l y c o g n i z a n t o f i ss u e s s u r r o u n d i n g f o r-m a t i o n p r o c e s s e s a n d s a m p l in g . T h e y e x p l ic it ly n e e d t o b e f a c t o r e d i n t oo u r r e s e a r c h d e s i g n s , a n a l y s e s , a n d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . E t h n o a r c h a e o l o g y a n de x p e r i m e n t a l a r c h a e o l o g y o b v io u s l y h a v e t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r m o d e l i n g t h e s ep r o c e s s e s t h r o u g h t h e e x a m i n a t i o n o f d i s c a rd , p r e s e r v a t i o n , a l t e r a ti o n s , a n dso fo r th e .g ., B in fo rd , 1981; Gi ffo rd , 1977 ; G i ffo rd -G onz a l e s , 1993 ; H ay de nand Cannon , 1983 ; Hudson , 1993 ; King , 1994 ; Kramer, 1982 ; Ma l tby, 1985 ;Miksicek , 1987; Moore , 1981; Skibo , 1992 , 1994; Stark , 1993; Stask i andSutro, 1991a; Yel len, 1977).

We c a n b e t t e r a p p r e c ia t e t h e r o le s o f f o o d i n c o m p l e x s o c ie ti e s th r o u g ha n u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f c u l tu r a l a n d n a t u r a l f o r m a t i o n p r o c e ss e s . T h e p a t t e r n sr e s u lt in g f r o m h u m a n a c ti o n ca n b e a n a l y z e d i n a d e t a il e d m a n n e r a n d a r ev i e w e d h e r e a s a c ti ve ly p a r ti c ip a t in g i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t a n d m a i n t e n a n c eo f s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s . Ar c h a e o l o g i s t s h a v e t h e a b i l i t y t o d e t e c t v a r i a t i o n i nd i e t a n d c a n u s e c o n t e x t u a l a s s o c i a t i o n s , l a n g u a g e , i c o n o g r a p h y, e t h n o g r a -p h y, a n d e t h n o h i s t o r y t o p r o v i d e d e t ai l s c o n c e r n i n g t h e s y m b o l ic n a t u r e o ff o o d . T h r o u g h s u c h c o n c er n s w e c a n p r o m o t e a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e v ar i-o u s r o l e s f o o d p l a y e d i n t h e p a s t . W h i l e c o n s i d e r i n g t h e s e m e t h o d o l o g i c a li s s u e s , a f r u i t f u l a n a l y s i s o f f o o d a n d c u l t u r e c a n f o c u s o n t h e f o o d s y s t e mf r o m p r o d u c t i o n t o f i n a l d i s p o s a l .

roduction and reparation

M a n y r e c e n t a r c h a e o l o g i c a l s t u d i e s e x p l o r e t h e e ff e c t s o f d i v e r s e p r o -d u c t i o n a n d p r e p a r a t i o n s t r a t e g i e s o n f o o d w a y s a n d c u l t u r e . T h e p r o d u c -t i o n a n d p r e p a r a t i o n o f fo o d i n c o m p l e x s o c ie t ie s a r e o f t e n e l a b o r a t ep r o c e s s e s o r i e n t e d t o wa r d f u lf il li n g a v a r i e t y o f i n te r e s t s , wa n t s , a n d n e e d s



Food and omp lex Societies 113

t h a t a r e d i c t a t e d b y a n u m b e r o f f a c to r s , i n c l u d i n g su p p l y a n d d e m a n d , a sw e l l a s r e g u l a t i o n s b y g o v e r n i n g b u r e a u c r a c i e s . T h e s t u d y o f f o o d t h u ss h o u l d i n c o r p o r a te n o t o n l y w h a t is p r o d u c e d a n d w h e r e i t is p r o d u c e d b u ta l so w h o p r o d u c e s a n d p r e p a r e s i t. S u b s i s te n c e l a b o r t y p ic a ll y f u l fd l s th ep r o d u c e r ' s n e e d s , b u t o f t e n , e s p e c ia l ly i n c o m p l e x s o c ie t ie s , t h e p r o d u c e ri s n o t t h e c o n s u m e r ( C r a b t r e e , 1 9 9 0 ) . I t i s t h e r e f o r e i m p o r t a n t t o u n d e r-s t a n d h o w t a s k s a r e d i v i d e d a m o n g t h e l a b o r f o r c e t h r o u g h a g e , g e n d e r,a n d s p e c i a l i z a t i o n . T h e i n t e r a c t i o n s b e t w e e n p r o d u c e r a n d c o n s u m e r t h u sn o t o n l y i n f o r m a b o u t d i e t, b u t p r o v i d e i n s i g h ts i n t o t h e s o c i a l o rg a n i z a t io no f p r o d u c t i o n . A l s o c r i t i c a l i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g p r o d u c t i o n a r e t h e a v a i l a b l et e c h n o l o g y a n d t h e q u a n t i t y a n d q u a l i t y o f f o o d p r o d u c e d a s w e l l a s t h ea v a i l a b il it y o f p r o d u c t i v e r e s o u r c e s , s u c h a s la n d , w a t e r, a n d f e r ti l iz e r(Goody, 1982 , p . 44) .

F o o d p r o d u c t i o n a n d p r e p a r a t i o n a c t iv i ti e s t y p ic a ll y a r e i d e n t i f i e dt h r o u g h t h e c o n t e x t u a l d i s t ri b u t io n o f f l o ra l a n d f a u n a l r e m a i n s . T h e f re -q u e n c y o f we e d s a n d c r o p b y - p r o d u c t s ( e .g ., c h a ff a n d s p i k e le t s ) r e la t iv e t oc r o p s i n d i c a t e t h e t y p es o f p r o c e s s i n g p e r f o r m e d ( e. g. , c l e a n in g , w i n n o wi n g ,pa rch ing , and s to rage ) (Denne l l , 1972 , 1976 , 1979 ; Green , 1981 ; Hi l lman ,1973, 1981, 1984; Jones, 1984, 1985; Schiffer, 1975; Sikkink, 1988; Welsh andS c a rr y, 1 9 9 5 ) . T h e c o n t e x t o f t h e p l a n t r e m a i n s a l so d i s ti n g u i s h e s a m o n gp r o c e s s i n g , c o o k i n g , a n d c o n s u m p t i o n a c t i v it ie s ( De n n e l l , 1 97 2; H a s t o r f ,1988 , 1991 ; Lenns t rom, 1992 ) . S imi l a r ly, t he d i s t r i bu t ion o f fauna l rema inso f t e n i s in d i c at iv e o f fo o d p r o d u c t i o n a n d p r e p a r a t i o n a c ti v it ie s . I n t h e Ne a rE a s t e r n B y z a n t i n e v i ll ag e o f Qa s r i n , a r e a s o f f o o d p r e p a r a t i o n we r e i n f e r re db a s e d o n t h e f r e q u e n c y a n d d i s t r ib u t i o n o f v a r i o u s a n i m a l b o d y p a r t s a n d ac o m p a r i s o n t o a m o d e m D r u z e v i l l a g e i n t h e G o l a n H e i g h t s . U s i n g t h e s ef a u n a l d a t a , t h e r e s e a rc h e r s a l s o we r e a b l e t o d i s t in g u i s h b e t w e e n d o m e s t i ca n d n o n d o m e s t i c c o n t e x ts ( G r a n t h a m a n d H e s s e , 1 99 1).

N o t o n l y a r e a n im a l s u s e d f o r fo o d , b u t t h e i r s e c o n d a r y p r o d u c t s ,such a s mi lk , h ide , and woo l , a s we l l a s t he i r u se a s d ra f t an ima l s , a rec r it ic a l t o t h e o p e r a t i o n o f a s o c i et y a n d o f t e n i n f l u e n c e p r o d u c t i o n s t r a te -g i e s (She r ra t t , 1981 , 1983 ; c f . Ha l s t ead , 1986 ) . Harves t p ro f i l e s f rom twoAn g l o - S a x o n s i te s in We s t S u ffo l k E n g l a n d d o c u m e n t a sh i ft in t h e u s e o fs h e e p f o r m e a t t o th e p r o d u c t i o n o f w o o l . S h e e p d u r i n g t h e e a r li e r o c c u -p a t i o n s w e r e k i l l e d p r i m a r i ly i n t h e f ir s t 2 y e a r s, i n d i c a t i n g p r o d u c t i o n f o rm e a t . B e c a u s e t h e r e wa s a s h i f t t o wa r d wo o l p r o d u c t i o n , t h e l a t e r o c c u p a -t i o n c o n t a i n e d h i g h e r f r e q u e n c i e s o f o l d e r s h e e p ( 4 - 8 y e a r s ). T h i s c h a n g ei n p r o d u c t i o n s t r a t e g i e s d u r i n g t h e M i d d l e An g l o - S a x o n P e r i o d i s l i n k e dt o t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f c o m p l e x s o c ie t ie s w i t h m a r k e t e c o n o m i e s ( C r a b t r e e ,1991 , 1996) . In M eso po tam ia , Ga lv in (1987 ) dem on s t ra t e s a s imi l a r sh i f ti n a n i m a l p r o d u c t i o n c u l m i n a t i n g i n s p e c i a l i z e d l i v e s t o c k p r o d u c t i o n o r i -e n t e d f o r e x c h a n g e i n t h e m a r k e t .



4 u m e r m a n

Th e a m oun t of produc t ive land avai lable to cer ta in groups wi thin acom plex soc iety is o f t en ins t rumen ta l in the cons t ruc tion and m ain tena nceof pow er relat ions (e.g., H arvey , 1 984, 1991; Hicks, 1984 , 1991). In Hic k's(1991) discussion of A ztec surplus, ethn ohisto rical and a rcha eolog ical evi-den ce suggests that the sm al l s ize of p lots wo rked by peasants was th e m ini -m u m a m o u n t n e c e s s a r y fo r s u b s is t en c e , w h e r e a s l a rg e e s ta t e s w e r econ t ro ll ed by the e l i te and p rod uce d a su rp lus . Pow er was m ani fes t ed inthe individuals wi th large landholdings throug h the i r cont rol of surplus andby minimizing the s ize o f pea san t p lots . O ther s tudies in th e Val ley of Me x-ico fur ther document how, over t ime, agr icul tural land was control led . Re-ferr ing to the ci ty of Teo tihuacan, Parson s (1991, p. 36) states, . . . T heci ty appears to have fed i t se l f in a ve ry di rect fashion, wi th f i rm a nd im-m ediate co ntrol over both th e ag r icul tural land a nd the ag r icul tural labore rsthat m ost d irect ly affected i ts subsis tence base . Later, agr icul ture focusedon chin mp or ra ised f ield agr icul ture to pro duc e a surplus ne cessary formain ta in ing power among the popu la t ions in the Aztec cap i t a l o f Teno-cbti t lan (Brumfiel , 1991a, b; Parsons, 1991). These studies suggest that ,wi th in complex socie t ies , agr icul tural product ion i s an impor tant aspect informing and mainta ining power re la t ions.

Other r ecen t a r chaeo log ica l r esearch inves tiga tes how the p roduc t ionof foo d symbol izes e thnic i ty, socia l s ta tus , and gen der re la t ions. By ex am -ining the archaeological record , e thnography, and his tory, Yentsch (1992)dem ons t r a t ed tha t Af r i can-Am er ican e thn ic i ty was def ined , in pa r t , t h roughf ishing. Slaves a t the Calver t s ite ad apte d W est Afr ican f i shing m etho ds tothe Chesapeake , the reby main ta in ing the i r he r it age in such a way tha t acaught f i sh was a symbol of thei r accompl ishment .

A de ta i led und er s t and ing o f the soc ia l o rgan iza t ion o f p roduc t ion canbe real ized by s tudying divis ion of labor and changing work pat terns be-tween males and f emales ( e.g. , Brumf ie l , 1991b ; Go heen , 1996) . A m on g

the prehis tor ic Maya, fem ale product ive act iv it ies we re cr i tica l to the eco n-omy. Livestock product ion, especia l ly dogs and fowl , were essent ia l com-ponents to r i tuals , ce lebrat ions, bar ter, and t r ibute (Pohl and Feldman,1982). In the M anta ro Valley o f Peru , the p roduc t ion an d c onsum pt ion o fma ize bee r act ively re inforce d dom inan t gen de r re la t ions (Hastor f , 1991).H asto rf ' s (1991) insightful stud y uti l ized mac robo tanica l , isotopic, and e th-nohistor ic data to suggest that d i fferent ia l access to m aize an d its associa tedsymbol ism played an act ive ro le in const ruct ing re la t ions between malesa n d f e m a le s . W o m e n b e c a m e t h e f o c u s o f te n s io n s a s t h e y p r o d u c e d m o r e[maize] bee r whi le a t the sam e t ime they were m ore r es t r i c t ed in the i rpar ti c ipa t ion in so c i e ty . . . [ and the i r] po l it ica l pos i tion d imin i shed (Has-torf, 1991, p. 152).



Food and omplex Societies 5

Children a lso play a very imp or tan t ro le in food produc t ion and prepa -rat ion (e.g. , Hawkese t a t . 1995; Ke hoe , 1978). In com plex socie t ies paren tsm ay be specia lis ts who lack time for produc ing subsis tence goods. Th e pro-duct ive ro les of chi ldren the refo re a re of ten cr i t ica l in ob ta ining food . Di-vis ion o f labor thus is im por tant in term s o f how specia lis ts m ee t thei rsubsistence needs. Full- time specialists, for instance, are una ble to pr od uc esubsis tence goods and m ay re ly on kin, s taple f inance (s taples provided byinst i tut ions to support their act ivi t ies) , or markets to provide food (see be-low) (G um erm an, 1991, 1994a) .

Under s t and ing food p roduc t ion a nd social re l a tions has been expandedby archaeological approaches that ut i l ize Levi-Strauss' (1963, 1966) ideasof t r ansfo rmat ion and oppos i tion. M any o f these approaches exa mined there la t ionsh ip be tween na tu re and cu l tu re . A c om mo n them e is the t r ansfo r-m at ion of food f rom i ts natural o r wi ld form to a m ore cu l tural s ta te . Has-tor f and Johannessen (1993) , for example , show that the impor tance ofc h i c h a or maize beer in Andean socie t ies re la tes in par t to the fact thatin the Andes the re a re no wi ld coun te rpar t s o f maize . I t i s the u l t imatet r ansfo rm ed c rop . In add i t ion , the p rocess o f p roduc ing ( t r ansfo rming)ma ize in to a n a lcohol ic bevera ge i s very e labora te and there a lso i s a s ig-ni f icant t ransformat ion that occurs to the imbiber.

In a s imi lar vein , Len nst rom 's (1992) resea rch in the M anta ro Valleyof Peru exam ined changes in th e c ontextual d is t r ibut ion of wi ld p lants . H eranalysis indicates that an increase in th e f reque ncy of wi ld p lants wi th inhouse compounds th rough t ime may r e f l ec t a change in the percep t ion o fwi ld and domest ic space. Increasing agr icul tural product ion t ransformedthe sur rounding environm ent f rom a m ore wi ld s ta te in to a cul tural land-scape tha t m ay have a ff ec ted how in te r io r space was v iewed .

In terms of food preparat ion, analyses should examine the labor thatgoes in to processing and cooking, including who cooks for w hom as wel l asthe technology of cooking (hear ths , co ntainers , and ki tchens) (Cowan, 1983;de la Pe na Brown, 1983; Go ody , 1982 ; Levi-Strauss, 1963, 1966; M enneU,1985; Stahl, 1991, W hiteh ea d, 1984; W illiams, 1984). Cook ing vessels, fo r in-s tance, ma y denote speci fic food p repa rat ion techniques. Var ia t ion in ceram -ics , am ong g roups and th roug h t ime , m ay i l lus t r a t e t r ansfo rm at ions infoodw ays (Johannessen , 1993; W elsh and Starry, 1995; el. Haw kins, 1992).

Of ten the m ethod o f p repara t ion , r a the r than the spec if ic food i t em,is cr it ica l in de f in ing dis tinct foodways ( G ood ee t a l . 1984a). M ethod s ofp repara t ion include ru les fo r segrega ting o r m ix ing e l ement s , the m ediumused for cooking, the type of heat appl icat ion, the way i tems are c leanedand cut , and spices or flavor ing used (G oo dee t a l . 1984a, p. 148). Maize,fo r ins tance , is p repared m uch d i ff e ren t ly in Me soam er ica than in the A n-des. Tortillas , on e pr imary symbol of Me soa m er ica n foodways, are n ot m ade



116 Gumerman

in the Andes, where maize i s most ly boi led , roasted , or turned in to an a l -cohol ic beverage. Butchery pract ices may also def ine e thnic i ty. Fol lowingBinford (1978) and YeUen (1977), Lyman (1987, pp. 288-289; i tal ics inor ig inal ) suggests . . . that animals are butc here d according to a se t ofrules that d i ffers f rom cul ture to cul turend f rom na tu ra l se t t ing to na tu ra ls e t t i n g . . . Bu t c h e r y p r ac ti ce s t h u s m a y v a r y b e t w e e n g r ou p s , w h e r e acer t a in cu t o f mea t may r epresen t g roup iden t i ty.

In complex socie t ies , butchery may be regulated by s ta te inst i tu t ions(Mal tby, 1985 ; Ze der, 1988, 1991) . Ne ar the c en te r o f the Ro m an town ofCirencester (Gloucestershire) , specif ic butchering act ivi t ies were identif ied.Ca t t le dom ina ted the assemblage w h e r e . . , l a rge- sca le p rocess ing o f ca t t lecarcases in the R om an per iod can leave qui te d ist inct and spat ia l ly sepa rateaccum ulat ions of bones (Mal tby, 1985, p . 53) . Th ey were processe d in a spe -cial ized manner, suggesting the possibi l i ty that the meat was sold at the fo-r u m . I n s o u t h w e s t h i g h l a n d I r a n , a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c o n t r o l o v e r f o o dprepa rat ion was e xam ined through the chemical analysis o f c lay seals a nd bycom par ing faunal remains f rom a publ ic build ing an d an insti tu t ional k i tchen.Th e deve lopment o f a spec ia li zed u rban econom y resu lt ed in food p rocess ingthat was t ight ly control led and local ized (Blackm an and Ze der, 1986). Ea r l ieroccupat ions contained a var ie ty of species, ages, and cuts of me at , sugg est ingtha t the an imal s were p roduced by the consumers o r were d i r ec tly p roc uredfrom the producers . Later, there we re fewe r species (most ly sheep and goat ) ,age was restr ic ted to 2 and 3 ye ar o lds, and the cuts of m ea t were s tand-ardized. Butchery, thus, was regulated and meat was l ikely procured indi -rect ly, proba bly throug h the state (Z ed er, 1988, 1991).

Food preparat ion in complex socie t ies of ten takes p lace outs ide thehousehold and involves preparat ion by specia l i s t s for non-food-producingindividuals who m ay be served individually, a t banque ts , feasts , or eve nrestauran ts ( see C hang, 1977; Go ody, 1982; M ennel l , 1985) . Inca coo ks an dbrewers , for instance, prepared food for feasts used by the s ta te to recip-roca te the labor provided by com m one rs . This system was crucia l in sus-ta in ing pol i t ica l , h ierarchical , and gender re la t ionships wi thin the s ta te(H as to r f and Johan nessen , 1993; Mor r is , 1974 ; M or r i s and Th om pso n ,1985; Murra, 1960).

A deare r, more de ta i l ed comprehens ion o f the d iver se o rgan iza t iona ls t ra tegies com m on to com plex socie t ies is gained throug h rese arch tha t fo-cuses on individuals in teract ing wi thin groups. Subsis tence pract ices va rywi th in com plex soc iet ies because d i ff e ren t peop le em ploy d iverse p rodu c-t ion and preparat ion s t ra tegies . At one ext reme there i s ser f -suff ic iencywh ere f ami l ies p roduce and p re pare the i r own food . Ye t wi th in hou seho ldsthere is no equa l i ty - - some ind iv idua ls r e ly on the l abor o f o ther s to p rov idemeal s , which may cause var ia t ion in d ie t and c l ear ly nur tu res g end er and



Food and om plex Societies 7

age re la t ions. A t the opposi te end of ho useh old se l f - suff ic iency are indi-viduals who re ly exclusively o n food pro du ced and prep ared by others ou t -s ide the household . Again , th is causes subsis tence var ia t ion wi thin thatsocie ty and re inforces socia l d i fferences. Var ious product ion and prepara-t ion s t ra tegies therefore affect not only wh at i s consum ed but a lso the n e-go t ia t ion o f power and con t ro l be tween p roducer s and consumers .

i s t r i b u t i o n

Food dis t r ibut ion in complex socie t ies i s of ten an e laborate processand is closely related to a so ciety s polit ical and eco nom ic organization.Food often is al located through gif ts, reciprocal exchange, feasts, fest ivals,ma rkets , an d obl igatory t ransfer (Goo dy, 1982; Mal tby, 1985) . This d ist ri -but ion is rare ly equal , especia l ly in com plex socie t ies , and there fore d i ffer-ent ia l a l location may be u nd ersto od by focusing on how food is d is tr ibuted,by whom , and to whom.

Foo d o f ten is d i fferent ia lly a l located a m ong var ious segm ents of a so-cie ty. Different types of food, for example , are of ten segregated betweene l it e s and comm oners because they have d iver se me ans o f p rocuring sub-sis tence resource s ( see Crab t ree , 1990; Ha stor f , 1988, 1990, 1991, 1993;Ho lt , 1 991; Ives, 1988; M iller and Bu rger, 1995; Reid, 1 996; W elsh andScarry, 1995; Zeder, 1991, cf. Bowen, 1992; Powell, 1991; Reitz, 1987; Reitze t a l . 1985) . Am ong the p rehis tor ic Maya, several research projects dem-onst ra te that var ious foods w ere associa ted wi th d i fferent econ om ic c lasses .In m any cases, m amm als , especia lly dog and d ee r but a lso peccary, dom i-nate the e l i te faunal assemblage and e l i tes a lso apparent ly had greater ac-cess to t ree f ru i t s (Carr, 1985; Cra ne and Carr, 1994; Pohl , 1985). A t thesites of Cerros and C opan, data suggest that e l i tes we re a l located a greaterdiversi ty of food. Nonel i tes a t Cerros apparent ly u t i l ized more food f romaquat ic habita ts , especia lly m ar ine environm ents (Crane and Carr, 1994;Lentz, 1991).

In coasta l Peru , data suggest that e l i tes had access to and consumedcost ly resources such as llama, chi le pepper, and coca. In contrast , com-m one rs used m ore opp or tunis tic resources , such as wi ld p lants a nd shell fi sh(Gu m erm an, 1991, 1994a, c) . Co m m oners , w ho w ere l ikely agricul tural la-borers, had access to wild plants that grew in f ields and along irr igat ioncanals . Commoners thus u t i l ized a d i fferent se t of foods than e l i tes , whocould afford the more cost ly goods. The dis t r ibut ion of the var ious foodsl ikely symbol ized, and thus su ppor ted , the socia l posi tions of the d i fferentgroups. L lamas, for examp le , w ere abu nd ant in e l i te contexts, they weresacr if iced and bur i ed , the y p rodu ced va luab le wool , t hey were dep ic ted



8 G u m e r m a n

i conograph ica l ly and e thnoh i s to r i ca lly in num erou s A nd ea n r itua ls , an dthey were expensive fo r coas ta l popu la t ions to m ain ta in (F lannerye t a l . ,

1989; Gi lm ore, 1950; G um erm an, 1991, 1994a, c ; Mil ler and Burger, 1995;Shim ada and Shimad a, 1985, 1987; Topice t a l . , 1987; Tschopik, 1946). Su b-sis tence var ia t ion wi thin a complex socie ty therefore resul ts f rom the di f -ferential effects of cost , accessibi l i ty, controllabil i ty, and the cultural valueof a resource (Gumerman, 1991, 1994a) .

Al tho ugh food is of ten dis t r ibuted di fferent ia l ly am ong var ious group swithin a society, i t is also possible th at d iffere nce s in social status are no tref le cte d in diet (Powell , 1991 ; Reitz, 1987; Reitze t a l . , 1985) . Markets andthei r burea ucra t ic regulat ion, for instance, may cau se a level ing of foodw aysacross s ta tus groups a nd c ontr ibute to a less d iverse ar ray of goods, cutso f mea t , and ages o f an imals be ing d i st r ibu ted (G oodee t a . , 1984b; Ma ltby,1985; Rothschi ld , 1989; Ze der, 1991). In co m par ing 19th c entu ry Ne w E ng-land f auna l assemblages be tween an upper midd le -c lass whi t e househo ldand an Afr ican m eet ing house, Bowen (1992) suggests that d ie ts w ere s imi-l a r because the m ar ke t sys tem regu la ted bu tchery and the cu t s o f me a tso ld . The use o f a m arke t (depen d ing on the sca le and loca tion), how ever,a lso m ay contr ibute to subsis tence diversi ty, becau se exot ic and expensiver e so u r c e s m a y e n t e r t h e d i e t o f t h o se w h o c a n a f f o r d t h e m ( G u m e r m a n ,1994a; Mennell, 1985).

G end er r e la t ions m ay be an im por tan t f ac to r a ff ec ting the d i s tr ibu tionof food wi thin households. Clear ly, fami ly re la t ionships are n ot bui l t up onident ical r ights and dut ies but up on reciprocal rights and dut ies; these ro lesof t en involve r e la t ions o f m arked dom inance and subord ina t ion which a l lowsom e individuals to benef i t f rom the labor of o thers (We ismantel , 1988,p . 26) . Hastor f (1991) apt ly demonst ra ted that changing gender re la t ionsin the Mantaro Val ley of Peru were responsible for var ia t ion in food dis-t r ibu t ion be twe en males and f emales . The conques t o f the loca l popu la t ionby the Inca e mp i re r eorgan ized the economy, caus ing changes in the d i s-t r ibu t ion o f food . Som e males were apparen t ly work ing fo r the s t a t e , whichcaused an inc rease in the ir maize consum pt ion because the s t a t e d i s tr ibu tedmaize , including ma ize beer, throu gh feasting. This e xam ple i l lust ra tes tha t ,to understand food dis t r ibut ion, i t i s impor tant to examine the var ious a t -t r ibutes of the food i t se l f . Maize , for instance, has cer ta in features thatm a d e i t a n i d e a l s t a p l e f i n a n c e f o o d a m o n g A n d e a n a n d Me so a m e r i c a nsta te socie t ies ; i t i s product ive and an excel lent s torable resource that i scompac t and very t r anspor tab le . I t was the re fo re used by these soc ie t i esto susta in non-food producers , such as adminis t ra tors , warr iors , and labor-e r s (G um erm an , 1994b ; Johann essen an d Has to r f, 1994).

Oth er r esearch co ncerne d wi th d i s tr ibu t ion inves tiga tes how and wh ycer t a in subs i s t ence r esources a re ob ta ined and consumed by spec ia l i s t s .




Crabtree (1990, 1996) examines th is i s sue when she asks how nonhuntersproc ure m eat pro ducts in com plex socie t ies . By examining k ill pat terns , sexrat ios , body par t d is tr ibut ions , and the range and imp or tance of speciespresent , we can explore the deta i led re la t ionships between producers andconsumers . Specia l iza t ion a lso was exam ined o n the nor th c oas t of Peru ,where va r ious foods were co nsum ed depend ing on the in tens ity and deg reeof specialized activities . Full- t ime specialists at tach ed to eli tes w ere dis tr ib-u ted more s taple f inance food, such as maize , because they had l i t t le t imeto p rodu ce the i r own foo d and w ere o f ten sus ta ined by the e l it e s theyse rved . Pa rt - time spec ia li st s who w ere indep enden t consum ed m ore oppor-tuni st ic foo ds - - fo ods tha t they ob ta ined themse lves o r had f ami ly memb ersprocure (Gumerman, 1994a) .

I t i s c lear f rom these d iverse analyses that in com plex socie t ies gender,s tratif ication, and specialization are important factors affecting the dis tr i-but ion of cer ta in resources . This , of course , i s obvious ; yet mos t archae-ological research, unti l recently, has ignored this variation. Depending onthe resource , i t s a t t r ibutes , and the method of d is t r ibut ion , var ious indi-v iduals may receive d iffering quant i t ies and por t ions b ecause o f socia l , eco-nom ic, poli t ical , and ideolo gical variation. T he dis tr ibution, how ever, is no tpass ive but ac t ively symbol izes the socia l d i fferences between groups andis used to develop and mainta in the assor ted re la t ionships common to com-plex societies.

o n s u m p t i o n

Th e c onsum ption o f food involves not on ly wh at i s ea ten , bu t the gath-er ing and serv ing of the par t ic ipants as wel l as the c lear ing away of themeal (Goody, 1982) . As such, the par t ic ipat ion or nonpar t ic ipat ion in ame al and the locat ion of the even t of ten affect the contents and h elp es -

tabl ish and mainta in socia l re la t ions whi le imbuing the food and occas ionwith sym bolic mean ing. This is appa ren t in Weism antel s (1988, 1989a, b,1991a, b) e thnographic research in h ighland Ecuador :

For the Z um bagu a household, the m eal represents m any things: botharticulation with the outside world and the household s own internal integrity;the subordination of fem ale to male and yet a locus of feminine power withinthe family;, the product of wo rk transformed in to the satisfaction of desire, andthe proo f of the househo ld s ability to surv ive and to reproduce itself.(Weismantel, 1988, p. 29)

Clear ly, there is much more to unders tanding consumption than the actualcalor ic value o f the food i tsel f. The type of meal cons um ed (e .g . , dailymeals , snacks , and feas ts ) and i t s s t ructure , man ners , and tech nolog y (con-tainers , utensils , tables , etc.) also are cr i t ical in terms of understan ding the



1 2 u m e r m a n

r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t we e n f o o d a n d c u l t u r e ( G o o d y, 1 98 2). S e r v i n g a n d e a t i n gv e s s el s, fo r i n s ta n c e , c a n b e s t u d i e d i n t e r m s o f fo o d c o n s u m p t i o n ( B l i n m a n ,1 9 8 9 ; B l i t z , 1 9 9 3 ; C o s t i n a n d E a r l e , 1 9 8 9 ; De B o e r a n d L a t h r a p , 1 9 7 9 ;H e r o n a n d E v e r s h e d , 1 9 93 ; J o h a n n e s s e n , 1 9 93 ; R e e n t s - B u d e t , 1 9 9 4; S k ib o ,1 99 2; W e l s h a n d S c a rr y, 1 99 5) . D o d i f f e r e n t g r o u p s u s e d i f f e r e n t c o n t a i n -e r s ? D o c e r a m i c s c h a n g e t h r o u g h t i m e a n d d o e s t h i s r e p r e s e n t a c h a n g ei n f o o d w a y s ? We t h u s c an g o b e y o n d t i m e - s p a c e s y s te m a t ic s b y o r i e n t in go u r a t t e n t io n t o w a r d f o o d c o n s u m p t i o n a n d s o c ia l r el a ti o n s.

S p e c i f i c f o o d i t e m s o f t e n a r e s i g n i f i c a n t i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g s o c i a l r e l a -t i o n s - s u c h a s th e c o n s u m p t i o n o f d o g b y t h e O g l a la ( e .g ., P o w e r s a n dPowers , 1984 ) . Ye t t he soc i a l s i gn i f i cance p l aced on rec ipes , t he s t ruc tu reo f m e a l s , a n d m e a l c y cl es ( t h e p a t t e r n i n g o f m e a l s i n a t e m p o r a l a n d s e a -s o n a l f r a m e w o r k ) i s u s u a ll y m o r e i m p o r t a n t t h a n t h e a c t u a l f o o d i t e m ( e .g .,Doug las , 1971 , 1984 ; Goodee t a l . 1 9 8 4 a , b ) . M e n u n e g o t i a t i o n t a k e s t h ea n a ly s is o f f o o d a s t e p f u r t h e r b y a d d r e s s i n g t h e d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g p r o c e s si n v o lv e d in t h e c o n t e n t o f m e a ls a n d t h e i r f o r m a t . R u l e s c o n c e r n i n g f o o da r e s h a r e d b y g r o u p s , b u t t h e s e r u l e s i n t e r a c t w i t h a v a r i e t y o f e x t e r n a lf a c t o rs , s u c h a s t i m e , m o n e y, a n d p e r s o n a l p r e f e r e n c e , t o c r e a t e t h e a c t u a lm e a l ( G o o d ee t a l . 1984a).

I n d i v i d u a l m e a l s a r e d i f fi c u lt f o r t h e a r c h a e o l o g i s t t o r e c o v e r, e x c e p ti n c a s e s s u c h a s t h e i n t e s t i n a l c o n t e n t s o f m u m m i e s a n d f r o m c o p r o l i t e s(e .g . , B ryan t , 1974 ; Ca l l en , 1963 ; Re inha rd and Bryan t , 1992 ) . Archaeo log i -c a ll y d e r i v e d s u b s i s te n c e d a t a t y pi c al ly a r e a g g r e g a t e d , s u c h a s t h e s e e d sf r o m a n u m b e r o f f l o ta t i o n sa m p l e s o r s t a b le i s o t o p e d a t a . B y a n a ly z i n gt h e a g g r e g a t e d h o u s e h o l d d a t a w e c a n d e t e c t o v e r a ll c o n s u m p t i o n p a t t e r n sa m o n g t h e v a r i o u s g r o u p s w i t h i n a s o c i e t y ( e . g . , s t a t u s o r g e n d e r ) . T h i sa l s o p r o v i d e s l a rg e r, m o r e r e l i a b l e s a m p l e s t h a t m a y d i s c l o s e s i g n i f i c a n tv a r i a t io n . T h e s ig n i fi c an c e o f t h e l o n g - t e r m p a t t e r n i s c o n f i r m e d b y G o o d ee t a l . ( 1 9 84 b , p . 7 3 ), wh e r e t h e y e m p h a s i z e t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f l o o k i n g a tt h e f o o d s y s t e m h o li st ic a ll y . . . . T h e p a t t e r n s w h i c h e m e rg e d . . . w o u l dh a v e b e e n m i s se d i f w e h a d o n l y s a m p l e d m e a ls , d ay s , o r e v e n w e e k s . T h el o n g - t e r m p a t t e r n s t h a t a r c h a e o l o g i s t s e x a m i n e t h u s m a y p r o v i d e a r e a l i s t i ca s s es s m e n t o f f o o d c o n s u m p t i o n an d m e n u n e g o t i a t i o n - - w e m u s t , h o w e v e r,f o c u s o n t h e h o u s e h o l d .

H a s t o r f ( 1 98 8 ) e ff e ct iv e l y a rg u e s t h a t a r c h a e o l o g i s ts , wh i l e o f t e n c l a im -i n g t o e x a m i n e c o n s u m p t i o n d a ta , u s u a ll y a r e e x p l o r i n g p r o d u c t i o n a n dpro ces s in g (see a l so Denn eU , 1976 , 1979; Pl i i lrnan , 1973 , 1984). Flo ra l an df a u n a l r e m a i n s t y p ic a ll y a r e r e c o v e r e d i n c o n t e x t s w h e r e f o o d i s p r o c e s s e da n d p r e p a r e d ( e . g . , t h e h e a r t h o r k i t c h e n f l o o r ) a n d d i s c a r d e d ( e . g . , m i d -d e n s a n d f il l) . To e x z m i n e c o n s u m p t i o n , a r c h a e o l o g i s t s s h o u l d f o c u s o n d a t at h a t p r o v i d e d i r e c t e v i d e n c e o f c o n s u m p t i o n , s u c h a s s k e l e ta l a n a l y s is ( e .g . ,Bro w n , 1981 ; B um sted , 1985; D eN i ro , 1987 ; La rsen , 1987 ; Pa t e , 1994 ; Pr i ce ,




1989a; Pricee t a l . , 1985; Sandford , 1993; Saun ders a nd Katzen berg, 1992;Sobo lik, 1994 ; van der M erwe and Voge l, 1978 ; Verano and Ube laker,1992), coproli tes (e.g. , Bryant , 1 974; Callen, 19 63; Re inh ard an d B ryant ,1992) , and con tex t s in which food i s consumed ( e .g . , Has to r f , 1988 ;Le nns trom , 19 92; Pearsal l, 1988).

Skele ta l analyses offer som e o f the be st op por tuni t ies for s tudying con-sumption among diverse groups of individuals. Variat ion in diet , nutr i t ion,heal th , a nd disease can be invest igated using metr ic analyses , paleop atholo-gies, and bon e chemist ry. S ta tus d i fferences, for exam ple , w ere appare nt lyref lected in the s t ront ium levels of bones f rom the M eso am er ica n s ite ofCha lca tzingo , w here h igher r anked ind iv idua ls l ike ly consum ed m ore m ea tthan com mo ners (Schoen inger, 1979) . Along the nor th coas t o f Peru , pa -leopathologies changed through t ime wi th respect to s ta tus . Ear l ier popu-la t ions showed minimal heal th problems, whereas populat ions dur ing theLa te In te rme dia te Per iod d em ons t r a t ed hea l th d i ff e rences be twee n e l it e sand commoners , wi th none l i t e s exh ib i t ing more d ie t a ry s t r ess (Verano ,1992) . In contrast , a var ie ty of chemical s tudies among complex socie t iesin the E astern W oodlands suggests that , a t som e sites, s ta tus d id no t great lyaffect d ie t (Brown and Blakely, 1985; Blakely and Beck, 1981; La m be r te t

a l . , 1979) . A t the Dal las s i te in Tennessee, however, e l i te d ie t app arent lyw a s m o r e b a l a n c e d a n d i n c l u d e d m o r e i r o n a n d p r o t e i n t h a n c o m m o n e rdie t (H atch and Geidel , 1985). Al though few specif ics are m ent ion ed, Buik-s t r a (1992, p . 97) sugges t s tha t soc ia l and po l i t i ca l f a c t o r s - -n o t jus td ie t - - in f lue nc ed var ia t ion in nut r it ion and d isease am ong M ississippianagricultural ists. She no ted . . . seve re i ll hea lth . . . including elevatedrates of porotic hype rostosis, osteoa rthri t is, infect ious lesions, bo ne frac-tu res , and deve lopmenta l den ta l de fec t s . . . . Ra ther than so le ly the r e -sul t of increases in maize con sum pt ion, these problem s l ikely we re d ue tochanges in social and poli t ical complexity.

Skele ta l analyses a lso provide a valuable me ans of exam ining consum p-t ion di fferences among groups of individuals of varying gender and age.Al tho ugh th e n um ber of individuals sampled was ex t rem ely smal l, i so topicda ta f rom the nor th coas t o f Peru may ind ica te tha t m ales had a m orevar ied die t than females (Er icsone t a l . , 1989) . As discussed above, Ha stor f(1991) suggested that m aize was di fferent ia l ly d is t r ibuted by th e Inca s ta tebetw een m ales and females , resul t ing in d i ffer ing bo ne chem istry. Dieta ryd i ffe rences a lso were ap paren t a t severa l Eas te rn W oodland s i tes be tweenma les and fema les . Based o n an analysis of t race e lem ents (Sr, Zn, a ndCa) a t Le dde rs in I llinois , . . . La te W oodland m ales m ay have had dis-prop or t ionate access to animal prote in , or perhap s nuts or legum es (Buik-stra e t a l . , 1989, p . 161) and som e age d i fferences in d ie t were app aren t(Beck, 1985; La m ber te t a l . , 1979) . S imi lar gender and age var ia t ion was



2 2 G u m e r m a n

also observed a t the Dal las s ite (Hatc h and Ge idel , 1985). Along the so uth-eas te rn At lan ti c coas t, Con tac t Per iod males m ani fes t ed h igher f r equenc iesof per iost i t i s (pathologies resul t ing f rom infect ion and t rauma) comparedto females . He al th decl ined in general for south easte rn Nat ive populat ionsfo llowing Span ish con tac t . Based on bone chem is t ry (ca rbon and n i t rogenstable i sotopes) and pathologies (osteoar thr i t i s , denta l car ies , porot ic hy-perostosis , an d e nam el hypoplasia), there w as a red uct ion in d ie tary qual i tywi th an inc rease in maize consumpt ion and a na r row ing o f d ie t a ry b read th(Lar sen and H am , 1994 ; Lar sen e ta l . 1992).

Pa tho log ies and bone chemis t ry tha t r e f l ec t d i e t c lea r ly a re som e ofthe best data to examine consumpt ion pat terns and socia l re la t ions. As acau t ionary no te , however, t oo l it tl e is known a t p res en t r egard ing theso u r c e s o f v a ri a ti o n i n th e c o m p o s i ti o n o f c o n t e m p o r a r y h u m a n b o n e .W hi le i t is c lear that d ie t i s a ma jor contr ibutor, o ther b iological and n atu-ra l factors are a lso impo r tant (Pr icee t a l . 1989, p. 251). D iet, thus, is no tthe only factor affect ing bone chemist ry. Var ia t ion i s caused by format ionprocesses ( i. e. , geochem istry) , age, ge nd er ( including repro duct ive s ta tus ,pregna ncy, and lacta t ion) , and the typ e of bone t issue sam pled (e .g . , Buik-stra e t a l . 1989; Bum sted, 1985; Jackes, 1993; La m be r te t a l . 1985; Pateand Brown, 1985; Price, 1989b; Pricee t a l . 1989; Sand ford , 1993; W oode t

a l . 1992) . I t i s therefore cr i t ica l that the var ious factors involved in thef o r m a t i o n a n d t r an s fo r m a t io n o f h u m a n b o n e a r e e x a m i n e d w h e n m a k i n gconclusions about d ie t .

Besides the knowledge acquired f rom skele ta l s tudies , excel lent con-sumpt ion data a lso are der ived f rom the analysis of coprol i tes (Bryant ,1974; Callen, 1963; Re inha rd an d B ryant , 1 992). Co proli tes co nsist of sev-eral consecu t ive me als and thus provide s t rong ev idence for the k inds ofmea l s consum ed by an indiv idua l. Re cen t r esea rch suggest s tha t D N A andhormones can r evea l the gender o f the per son who p roduced the copro l i t e(Su t ton e t a l . 1996; Sobolike t a l . 1996) . The in test inal contents of mum-mies, where the age and sex of the individual are known, a lso can be ex-amined (Re inhard and Bryan t , 1992) . In tes t ina l con ten t s , coup led wi thbo ne chem istry, provide an i l luminat ing view into a n individual' s d i e t - - f ro mthe ind iv idua l me a l to an accumula t ion o f a l if e o f mea l s (R e inhard andBryant , 1992) . Th ese analyses nee d to be in tegra ted wi th f lora l and fauna lda ta co l l ec ted f rom food consumpt ion con tex t s (Gremi l l ion and Sobo l ik ,1996; R ein ha rd and Bryant , 1992; Sobolik, 1994).

The context , par t ic ipants , and food served a t cer ta in meals vary andare in ter twined wi th socia l re la tions a nd symbol ic m eaning . Feasts , for ex-ample , a r e com munica t ive even ts me an t fo r d i sp lay and in te rac t ion . Th en u m b e r a n d m a k e u p o f g u es ts a n d t h e q u a n t i ty a n d t y p e o f f o o d a t t h eeve nt are s ignif icant in terms of m ainta ining an d d evelop ing kin and social



Food and omplex Societies 2 3

ne tworks (Whi t ehead , 1984 ) . As Powers and Powers (1984 , p . 83 ) s t a t e ,F e a s t s m a y i n f a c t sa t is fy h u n g e r, b u t t h e y a r e s e e n a s h a v i n g s o m e i n t r in s i c

s o c i a l v a l u e wh i c h t r a n s c e n d s t h e n u t r i t i v e f u n c t i o n o f e a t i n g . F e a s t s h a v es o c i al g o a l s a c h i e v e d b y c u l t u r a l m e a n s . F e a s t i n g wa s a n i n t e g r a l p a r t o fM a y a n b a l l g a m e s t h a t l ik e ly wa s a s t r a te g y u s e d b y r u l e r s i n n e g o t i a t in gr e l a t i o n s o f p o we r. I m p o r t a n t l y, t h e b a Ug a m e s a n d f e a s t i n g r i t u a l s we r es t a g e d i n a n d a r o u n d a s u p e r n a t u r a l a r e n a - - t h e b a l l c o u r t - - e n d o w i n g th ef e a s t w i t h a d d e d m e a n i n g ( F o x , 1 9 9 6 ) . T h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e e a t i n g e v e n t ,t h u s , is i m p o r t a n t i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e s o c i a l s i g n if i ca n c e o f f o o d c o n s u m p -t i o n . D i ff e r e n t f o o d s a r e o f t e n c o n s u m e d i n v a r i o u s s e t t i n g s - - r e s i d e n t i a l ,p u b li c, o r p r iv a t e s p a c e s - - w h i c h m a y h a v e d i f f e re n t m e a n i n g s c o r r e s p o n d -i n g t o t h e m e a l ' s l o c a t i o n ( e . g . , R i c h a r d s a n d T h o m a s , 1 9 8 4 ; We l s h a n dS c a rr y, 1 99 5). A t t h e s i te o f C a r d a l o n t h e c e n t r a l c o a s t o f P e r u , U m l a u f( 1 99 1 ) i l l u s tr a t e d t h a t , in g e n e r a l , e x o t ic a n d d o m e s t i c a t e d p l a n t f o o d s we r em o r e a b u n d a n t i n p r i v a t e c e r e m o n i a l c o n t e x t s , w h e r e a s w i l d p l a n t s w e r er e la t iv e l y m o r e c o m m o n wi th i n d o m e s t i c s p a ce s . T h i s s u g g e s t s t h a t c e r t a inf o o d s we r e c o n s i d e r e d a p p r o p r i a t e f o r c o n s u m p t i o n i n s p e c i f i c l o c a t i o n s .T h e f o o d s c o n s u m e d i n d i f f e r e n t c o n t e x t s l i k e l y s y m b o l i z e d t h e r i t u a l a n dd o m e s t i c n a t u r e o f t h e e a t i n g e v e n t s .

S p e c i f i c s o c ia l d i ff e r e n c e s r e f le c t i n g t h e c o m p l e x o rg a n i z a t i o n o f a s o -c i e t y o f t e n a r e s y m b o l i z e d t h r o u g h t h e c o n s u m p t i o n o f c e r t a i n f o o d s . Asm e n t i o n e d a b o v e , t h e c o n s u m p t i o n o f l l am a w a s p r o b a b l y a s y m b o l o fw e a l t h a n d p o w e r a l o n g t h e n o r t h c o a s t o f P e r u t h a t r e i n f o r c e d t h e s o c ia la n d p o l i ti c a l a u t h o r i ty o f t h e e l it e a n d t h u s wa s i m p o r t a n t i n m a r k i n g s t a t u s( G u m e r m a n , 1 99 4c ). S i m il ar ly, t h e c o n s u m p t i o n o f m a n y M a y a n f o o d s s y m -b o l i z e d a b u n d a n c e a n d we a l t h ( e .g ., M a r c u s , 1 9 82 ; P u l e s t o n , 1 9 7 7) . A m o n gp r e h i s t o r i c F i j i a n c h i e f d o m s , m e a t c o n s u m p t i o n , e s p e c i a l l y c a n n i b a l i s m ,i d e o l o g ic a l ly f u n c t i o n e d i n n e g o t i a t i n g p o w e r r e l a t i o n s ( R e c h t m a n , 1 99 2).F r a g m e n t e d h u m a n b o n e s ( n o n b u r i a l ) w e r e t h e m o s t a b u n d a n t b o n e s r e -c o v e r e d f r o m m i d d e n s . A d e t a i l e d a n a ly s is o f b r e a k a g e p a t t e r n s ( f ra c t u rea n g l e a n d o u t l i n e ) a s w e l l a s n u m e r o u s e t h n o h i s t o r i e d o c u m e n t s d e m o n -s t ra t e s a b u n d a n t c a n n i b al is m . I t w a s s u g g e s te d t h a t t h e c o n s u m p t i o n o f h u -m a n f l e s h wa s a s y m b o l o f p o w e r l e g i ti m i z i n g t h e s t a t u s o f c h ie f s . Va r i a ti o ni n m e a t c o n s u m p t i o n b e t w e e n e l it e s a n d c o m m o n e r s w a s e s s e n t ia l in l e-g i ti m i z i n g p o w e r f o r e l i te s , p a rt ic u l a rl y f o r wa r c h i e fs , w h o u s u r p e d p o w e rf r o m t h e t r a d i t i o n a l c h i e f s t h r o u g h , i n p a r t , c a n n i b a l i sm ( R e c h t m a n , 1 99 2).

A d i s t i n c t io n i s o f t e n m a d e b e t w e e n h i g h - s t a t u s a n d l o w- s ta t u sf o o d ; h o w e v e r, l o w- s t at u s f o o d a c t u a ll y m a y b e p r e f e r r e d b y t h e g r o u pc o n s u m i n g it o v e r t h e h i g h - st a tu s f o o d u s e d b y e li te s ( B e n n e t t , 19 43 ;Bowen, 1992; Rei tz , 1987; Weismante l , 1988; c f . Singer, 1985 , 1987) . Thefood , eve n i f l ow s t a tu s , symb o l i zes soc i a l i den t i t y, w here , fo r example ,e a t i n g b a rl e y g r u e l in i n d i g e n o u s h i g h l a n d E c u a d o r is a n i m p o r t a n t d a il y



2 4 u m e r m a n

activi ty that establishes ethn ic iden ti ty an d aff il iation. Hig h-statu s w hiter ice , a l though a luxury that i s desi red by the indigenous populat ion, i s nota prefer red food i tem for dai ly use . Indeed, i t s consumpt ion, and even i t suse in d iscourse , is of ten rese nted (We ismantel , 1988) . Fu r therm ore, thes ta tus o f a food , e i the r h igh o r low, accep tab le o r unaccep tab le , m ay cha ngethrough t ime. In the Oglala food system, for instance, in t roduced govern-m en t ra t ions (e .g ., beef , sa l t pork , coffee , and f lour) w ere in i tia lly ined iblebu t , t h rough t ime , becam e accep tab le , and so me were even cons idered In -dian food (Powers and Powers , 1984).

I t i s thus impor tan t to go beyon d me re ly desc r ib ing wha t i s con sum edby explor ing the re la tionship betw een co nsu m pt ion and socia l re la t ions, thelocat ion of the eat ing event , and the u se of var ious serving vessels . T hesocial s ignif icance of food c onsum pt ion is poin ted out by W eisman tel (1988,p . 194) : Th e shared mea l represe nts the uni ty of the family that gath ersto eat i t , but the manner in which i t i s served and eaten a lso speaks tothe divis ions betw een household m em ber s . M eals , such as the Victor iand inner pa r ty ana lyzed by Jam eson (1987), o f t en go be yond the f ami ly andserve to def ine membership in cer ta in socia l groups. The meal , therefore ,is act ively involved in creat ing, establishing, a nd m ainta ining social relat ion s(see Dou glas , 1971) . Th e par t ic ipants involved in a mea l , the co ntexts inwhich the mea l i s se rved , and the conduc t dur ing a mea l a r e imbued wi thsymbolism that structures social behavior.

isposal

An ana lys i s o f food a l so can incorpora te the r es idues o f consump-t i o n - t h e d isposa l o f l e f tover s - - and the by-produc t s o f p rocessing and p repa-ra t ion. Th e disposal o f food of ten has mea ning and should be co nsidere d ina wa y that provides data o n the under ly ing s tructure of a food system as wel las def in i tions concerning the conce pt of space (Deetz , 1982; H odd er, 1987c;Ho lt , 1991; M oore , 1981, 1982, 1986; Santley, 1992). M em be rs of individualsocie ties not only produce and d ef ine t rash , but a lso decid e how to d isposeof i t . . . appropria te , cu l turaUy-def ined me ans o f depos i tion o f t en vary wi th insingle societ ies and even at a single point in t ime, and not al l people alwaysfollow the rules (Staski and Su tro, 1991b, p. 3).

Lef tovers , even though they are the sam e food i tem, are in teresting be-cause they o f ten assume a d i ff e ren t me an ing on ce they becom e l e f tover s(e .g . , Farb and Arm elagos, 1980). Yet lef tovers m ayb e prep ared di fferen t ly(e.g ., consum ed co ld ) and o f t en a re cons um ed in d i ffe ren t con tex ts . Indee d ,to the consume r the food ma y have a d i ff e ren t t a s t e than the o r ig ina l me a l .Lef tove rs may also have mea ning that i s const ructed f rom i ts or ig inal use . In




Hindu food systems, for instance, lef tovers are ranked relat ive to the hierar-chical posi t ion of the perso n wh o a te the foo d (K_hare, 1976, 1992).

Given that archaeologis ts of ten s tudy refuse , i t i s surpr is ing that re-search focusing on the socia l and symbol ic aspects of food discard i s un-com m on. Nev er theless , the contextual analysis of var ious d iscard pat ternsm ay identify the rules for foo d disposal. I t is possible that certa in speciesm ay be t r ea ted and d i sposed o f in ce r t a in ways . E thnograph ica l ly in theAm er ican S ou thwes t, a r tiodac ty le bones w ere t r ea ted in a spec ia l man-ne r-p os sib ly indicat ing di fferentia l d isposal (Szuter, 1991) . G ran tha m andHe sse (1991) exam ine discard pat terns to def ine the funct ion of variousroom s wi thin a se t tleme nt in the G olan H eights . Pat terns ob served in thedisposal of anim al rem ains a t a r i tual feast ing N eol i th ic s i te in W essex wereinterpreted as cul tural ru les represent ing a wi ld /domest ic d ichotomy. Pigand catt le rem ains, as well as certain wild species, wer e d ifferential ly dis-ca rde d across the s ite. This suggests that som e species w ere ac ceptablewi thin specif ic areas whi le o thers we re excluded. Som e refus e was the resul tof r i tual feast ing and was bur ied in specia l p i t s (Richards and Thomas,1984) . Such refuse may be considered sacr i f ic ia l because of i t s contentsand locat ion (e .g . , specia l ly prepared pi t s) ; however, i t of ten representstrash result ing from ceremonial act ivi t ies that is disposed of in a specialm an ne r or location. This i s refe r red to as cere m onial t rash by W alker(1995) and points to the d is tinction that m any cul tures mak e betw een eve-ryday refuse and refuse that i s prod uce d dur ing specia l occasions.

Al though rare ly a focus of research, these s tudies suggest that the in-vest igat ion of food disposal i s a promising avenue for understanding foodsymbolism, i ts meaning, and i ts relat ionship to culture. Are specif ic foodi tems or bo dy par ts d isposed of in cer ta in ways? In cer ta in locat ions? W hatpar ts o f a com m uni ty or s t ructure contain refu se or, conversely, are c leanof r e fuse? Indeed , the con tex t and m ann er in which food r es idues a re d i s-pose d re la te to how space is v iewed wi thin a socie ty.

C O N C L U S I O N S

A comprehensive explorat ion of the var ious s tages in the food sys-t e m - f r o m p r o d u ct io n t o d i sp o sa l -- g r e at ly e x p a nd s o u r u n d e r s t a n d in g o ffood and i t s re la t ionship to complex socie t ies . The var ie ty of cul tural an-th ropo log ica l approaches and many r ecen t a r chaeo log ica l advances haveproduced insights in to understanding the dynamics of food and cul ture .Th roug h such s tudies , wi th a focus on speci fic var ia t ion and the act ive ro leof food , we can ga in a be t t e r under s t and ing o f human behav io r.



2 6 u m e r m a n

In model bui ld ing we must cons ider that wi th in complex socie t ies , d i f -ferent indiv iduals - -e l i tes and commoners , males and females , specia l is tsand nonspec ia l i s t s , o ld and young- -o f ten consume d i ff e ren t r esources fo ra var ie ty of reasons . B y v iewing com plex socie t ies as groups of indiv idualsthat in ter re la te wi th each o ther and have varying needs , wants, and abi l it ies,we can ga in a m ore com ple te under s tand ing o f food and com plex soc ie ti e s .This is no t to say that s tudies of small-scale societies (e.g. , ban ds and tr ibes)cannot prof i t through such approaches (see Whit ley, 1994) , but that thedev elopm ent o f st rat i fica tion , special izat ion , an d a pol it ica l eco nom y cre-

a tes a wider range o f i s sues that can b e explored .Food provides nour ishment , but i t s s t ructure and symbol ism also are

in t imately involved in dev eloping and mainta in ing everyday socia l re la t ions .Explorat ion of the fo od sys tem at a deta i led level leads to an act ive v iewof foo d and com plex societ ies . W e thus gain t rem end ous insights in to theinner work ings o f cu ltu re wh i le a l so more fu lly comp rehend ing the p roc-es ses o f cu ltu re change. As such , we migh t ho pe to deve lop an u nder-s tand ing o f the causes tha t under l i e the behav io r beh ind the food . Inde ed ,the table is se t , we have looked a t the menu, and now i t i s t ime for the

par t ic ipants to feas t on a meal that goes beyond descr ib ing the types offood pas t socie t ies consumed.

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S

This ar t ic le has benef i ted f rom discuss ions wi th and reviews by anum ber o f peop le . The f r i endsh ip o f Da ve W hi t l ey and h i s c rea t ive in -s i g h t s i n t o u n d e r s t a n d i n g m e a n i n g i n t h e a r c h a e o l o g i c a l r e c o r d h a v e

g r e a t ly i n f l u e n c e d m y a p p r o a c h t o u n d e r s t a n d i n g f o o d . I a m a l s o in -deb ted to Tim Ear le , Chr i s tine Has to r f , S i s se l Johann es sen , and M aryWeisman te l fo r ou r numerous d i s cus s ions concern ing food and cu l tu re .Thanks go a l so to Donna Boyd , Pare Crab t ree ,th G e o r g e G u m e r m a n ,C h r i s t i n e H a s t o r f , K e n K e l ly, J o y c e M a r c u s , M i c h a e l S c h i ff e r , D a v eW h i t le y, t h e e d i t o ri a l b o a r d o f C a m b r i d g e s N e w D i r e c t io n s i n A r c h a e -o logy Ser ies , and the r ev iewers o f JA M T fo r the ir co m me nts on d ra f t so f th i s a r t i c le . Kev in Harper, Loue l la Ho l te r, and Chr i s ty Wicker p ro -v ide d va luab le ed i to r ia l a s s i s t ance . I a l so thank the Na t ion a l S c ienceF o u n d a t i o n ( G r a n t B N S - 8 7 0 6 2 9 5) , th e U C L A F r i e n d s o f A r c h a e o l o g y,a n d t h e U C L A D e p a r t m e n t o f A n t h r o p o l o g y f o r t h e ir f in a n ci al s u p p o r to f m y P a c a t n a m u r e se a r ch .



Food and Com plex Societies 27

R E F E R E N C E S C I T E D

Baines , J . 1988). Li t e racy, soc ia l o rgan iza t ion , and the a rchaeo log ica l r eco rd : The case o fea r ly Egyp t . In Gledh i l l , J . , Ben der, B. , and La rsen , M . T. eds . ) ,State and Society: TheEmergence and Development of Social Hierarchy and Political Centralization,U n w i nHyman , London , pp . 192-214 .

Barke r, G. , and G am ble , C. 1985) . Beyo nd dom es t i ca t ion : A s t r a t egy fo r inves t iga t ing thep r o c e s s a n d c o n s e q u e n c e o f so c i a l c o mp l e x i ty. I n B a r k e r, G . , a n d G a m b l e , C . e d s .) ,Beyond Dom estication in P rehistoric Europe: Investigations in Subsistence Archaeology a ndSocial Complexity,Ac a d e mi c P r e ss , Lo n d o n , p p . 1 - 3 1.

Beck , L . A. 1985) . Biva r i a t e ana lys i s o f t r ace e lem en ts in bone .Journal of Human Evolution14: 493-502.

Ben ne t t , J . W . 1943) . Food an d soc ia l s t a tus in a ru ra l soc ie ty.Am erican Sociological Review8: 561-569.

Ben son, E. P. ed . ) 1972).The Cult of the Feline: A Conference in Pre -Columb ian Iconography,Du m b a r t o n Oa k s R e s e a r c h L i b r a r y a n d Co l l e c ti o n s , W a s h i n g t o n , DC.

Bin fo rd , L . R. 1962). Archa eo logy a s an th ropo logy .American Antiquity28: 217-225.Bin fo rd , L . R. 1968). Pos t -Ple i s tocen e adap ta t ion s . In Bin fo rd , S . R. , and Bin fo rd , L . R.

eds.), N ew Perspectives in Archa eology,Ald ine , Ch icago , pp . 313-341 .Binford , L. R. 1978).Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology,Ac a d e mi c P r e s s , Ne w Yo r k .Binfo rd , L. R. 1981).Bones: Ancie nt Men and M odern Myths,Ac a d e mi c P r e s s , Ne w Yo r k .Blackm an , M . J . , and Ze de r, M. A. 1986) . O rgan iza t ion and adm in i s t r a t ion o f p rov i s ion ing

a t B a n e s h M a l y a n . P a p e r p r e s e n t e d a t t h e 8 5 t h A n n u a l M e e t i n g o f t h e A m e r i c a nAn t h r o p o l o g i c a l As s o c i a t io n . Ph i l a d e l p h i a .

B l a k e l y, R . L . , a n d Be c k , L . A . 1 9 8 1 ) . Tr a c e e l e m e n t s , n u t r i t i o n a l s t a t u s , a n d s o c i a ls t r a t i f i ca t ion a t Etowah , Georg ia .Anna ls o f the New York Academy of Sciences376:417--431.

Bl inm an , E . 1989) . Po t luck in the p ro tok iva : Ceram ics and ce rem onia l i sm in Pue b lo I v il l ages.In Lipe , W . D. , and Heg mo n , M. eds . ) , TheArchitecture o f Social Integration in PrehistoricPueblos, Oc c a s i o n a l Pa p e r s o f t h e Cr o w C a n y o n Ar c h a e o l o g i c a l Ce n t e r, No . 1 , p p .113-124.

Bl i t z , J . H. 1993) . Big po t s fo r b ig sho t s : f eas t ing and s to rage in a M iss i ss ipp ian com muni ty.American Antiquity58 1): 80-95.

Bo h r e r, V. L . 1 99 4) . Ma i z e in Mi d d l e Am e r i c a n a n d S o u t h we s t e r n Un i t e d S t a t e s a g r ic u l t u ra lt r ad i t ions . In Johannessen , S . , and H as to r f , C. A. eds . ) ,Corn and Culture in the PrehistoricNew World,W estv iew Press , Bou lde r, CO , pp . 469-512 .

Bo seru p, E. 1965).The Conditions o f Agricultural Growth,Ald ine , Ch icago .Bo we n , J . 1 9 92 ). F a u n a l r e m a i n s a n d u r b a n h o u s e h o l d s u b s i s te n c e i n Ne w En g l a n d . I n

Yen tsch , A. E . , and Beaud ry, M. C. eds . ) ,The A rt and Mystery of HistoricalArchaeology,CR C Pr e ss , Bo c a R a t o n , FL , p p . 2 6 7 -2 8 1 .

Br o wm a n , D . L . 1 98 7) . Ag r o - p a s t o r a l r i s k ma n a g e m e n t i n t h e c e n t r a l An d e s .Research inEconomic Anthropology8: 171-200.

Br o wn , A . B . 1 98 1 ). A s s e s s me n t o f p a l e o n u t r i t i o n f ro m s k e l e t a l re ma i n s .Annals of the NewYork Academy o f Sciences376: 405--416.

Brown , A. B. , and Blake ly, R. L . 1985). B iocu l tu ra l adap ta t ion a s r e f l ec ted in t r ace e leme n tdis t r ibut ion.Journal of Human Evolution14: 461--468.

Brow n, L. K. , an d M ussel l , IC eds . ) 1984).Ethnic and R egional Foodways in th e U.S.: ThePerformance o f Group Identity,Unive rs i ty o f Tennesse e Press , Knoxv il le .

Bryan t , V. , J r. 1974). The ro le o f copro l i t e ana lys i s in a rchaeo logy.Bulletin of the TexasArchaeological Society45: 1-28.

Bru ra t i e l , E . M . 1991a). A gr icu l tu ra l dev e lopm en t and c la s s s t r a t i f i ca t ion in the sou the rnva l l ey o f Mex ico . In Harvey, H. R. ed . ) ,Lan d and Politics in the Valley o f Mexico: ATwo Thousand Y ear Perspective,Un i v e r s i t y o f Ne w Me x i c o P r e s s , A l b u q u e r q u e , p p . 4 3 - 6 2.



2 8 G u m e r m a n

Brumfiel, E. M. (1991b). Weaving and cooking: W om en s produ ction in Az tec Mexico. InGero, J. M., and Conkey, M. W. (eds.),Engendering Archaeology: W omen and Prehistory,Basil Blackwell, Cambridge, M A, pp. 224-251.

Brumfiel , E. M. (1992). D ist inguished lecture in archeology: Breaking a nd entering theecosystem--gender, class, and faction steal the show.American Anthropologist94(3):551-567.

Buikstra, J. E. (1992). Diet and disease in late prehistory. In V erano, J. W ., and U belak er,D. H. (eds.), Disease and D emog raphy in the Am ericas,Smithsonian Institution Press,Washington, DC, pp. 87-101.

Buikstra, J . E. , Frankenberg, S. , Lambert , J . B. , and Xue, L. (1989). Multip le elements:Multiple expectations. In Price, T. D. (ed.), TheChemistry of Prehistoric Hu m an Bone,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 155-210.

Bumsted, M. P. (198 5). pas t human behavior from bo ne chemical a nalysis--res pects and

prospects.Journal of Human Evolution14: 539-551.Callen, E. O . (196 3). D iet as revealed by coprolites. In BrothweU, D., a nd H iggs, E. (eds.),

Science in Archaeology,Thames and Hudson, London, pp. 186-194.Ca rt, H . S. (1985). Subsistence and ceremony: Fau nal utilization in a late preclassic comm unity

at Cerros , Bel ize . In Poh l , M. (ed . ) ,Prehistoric Lowland Maya Environment andSubsistence Economy,Papers of the Peabo dy Museum of Archaeology and E thnology,Vol. 77, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, pp. 115-132.

Chang, IC C. (1977).Food in Chinese C ulture: Anthropological and H istorical Perspectives,YaleUniversity Press, New Haven, CT.

Christenson, A . L. (1980). Change in human niche in response to po pulatio n growth. In Ea rle,T. IC, and C hristenson, A . L. (eds.),M odeling C hange in Prehistoric Subsistence Economies,Ac adem ic Press, New York, pp. 31-72.

Coe, S. D. (1994).America s First Cuisines,University of Texas Press, Austin.

Cohen, M. N. (1977).The Food Crisis in Prehistory: Overpopulation and the Orig ins ofAgriculture,Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.

Costin, C. L., and Earle T. (1989). Status distinction and legitimation of power as reflectedin changing patte rns of consumption in late prehistoric Peru.American Antiquity54(4):691-714.

Cowan, R. S. (1983).More Work for M other. The Ironies of HousehoM Technology fro m theOpen Hearth to the M icrowave,Basic Books, New York.

Crab tree, P. J. (1990). Zooarch aeolog y and complex societies: Some uses of fauna l analysisfor the study of trade , social status, and ethnicity. In Schiffer, M. B . (ed.),ArchaeologicalMethod and Theory,Vol. 2, University of A rizona Press, Tucson, pp. 155-206.

Cra btree , P. J. (1991). Changing pa tterns of livestock husbandry and the rise of complexsocieties in Anglo-Saxon England. Pape r presented at the 9 0th Annual M eeting of theAm erican An thropo logical Association, C hicago.

Cra btree, P.J. (1996). Production and consumption in an early complex society: A nim al usein Middle Saxon East Anglia.World Archaeology28(1): 58-75.Crane, C. J., and Cart, H. S. (1994). The integration and quantification of economic data

from a Late Preclassic Maya community in Belize. In Sobolik, K. (ed.),Paleonutrition:The Diet and Health o f Prehistoric Americans,Center for Archaeological Investigations,Occasional Pap er N o. 22, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbo ndale, pp. 66-79.

Cruz-Uribe, K. (1988). The use and meaning of species diversity and richness in a rchaeo logicalfaunas.Journal of Archaeological Science15: 179-196.

DeBoer, W. R., and Lathrap, D. W. (1979). The making and breaking of Shipibo-Coniboce ram ics . In K ram er, C . ( ed . ) ,Ethnoarchaeology: Implications o f Ethnography o fArchaeology,Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 102-138.

de la Pena Brown, M. H. (1983). Una tamalada: the special event. In Jones, M. O., Giuliano,B., and Krell, R . (eds.), Foodw ays and Eating Habits: Directions fo r Research,Cal i fo rn ia

Folklore Society, Los Angeles, pp. 64-71.De nnell, R. W . (1972). Th e interp retation of plan t remains: Bulgaria. In H iggs, E. S. (ed .),Papers in Econom ic Prehistory,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 149-159.



Food and Complex Societies 29

D e n n e l l , R . W. 1 9 76 ). T h e e c o n o m i c i m p o r t a n c e o f p l a n t r e s o u rc e s r e p r e s e n t e d o na rchaeo log ica l s i t e s .Journal o f Archaeological Science1: 275-284.

D e n n e l l , R . W. 1 9 7 9) . P r e h i s t o r i c d i e t a n d n u t r i t i o n : s o m e f o o d f o r t h o u g h t .WorldArchaeology11 2): 121-135.

De Ni ro , M . J . 1987). S tab le iso topy and a rchaeo log y.American Scientist75 2):182-191.De Ni ro , M . J . , and H as to r f , C. A. 1985) . Al te ra t io n o f 15N/14N an d 13C/12C ra t io s o f p lan t

m a t te r du r ing the in i t i a l s t ages o f d iagenes i s : S tud ie s u t il i z ing a rchaeo log ica l spec im ensf r o m Pe r u .Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta49: 97-115.

De e t z , J. 1 9 8 2 ). Ho u s e h o l d s : A s t r u c t u r a l k e y t o a r c h a e o l o g i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n .AmericanBehavioral Scientist25: 717-724.

Do n n a n , C . B . 1 9 7 8 ).Moche Art o f Peru ,M u s e u m o f C u l t u r a l H i s t o r y, U n i v e r s i t y o fCa l i fo rn ia , Los Ange les .

Do n n a n , C . B . 1 98 2) . La Ca z a d e l Ve n a d o e n e l A r t e Mo c h i c a .Revista del Museo Naciona~

To m o X LV I .Doug las , M. 1971) . De c iphe r ing a mea l . In Geer tz , C. ed . ) ,Myth, Symbol and Culture, W.W. Nor ton , New York , pp . 61 - -82 .

Do uglas , M . 1984).Food in the Social Order. Studies o f Food and Festivities n Three Ame ricanCommunities,Ru s s e ll Sa g e Fo u n d a t i o n , Ne w Yo r k .

Doug las , M. 1990). The pan go l in r ev i s i ted : A n ew ap proac h to an ima l symbol i sm. In Wi l l i s ,R. ed . ) , Signifying Animals: Hu man Meaning in the Natural W orld,U n w i n H y m a n ,London , pp . 25 -36 .

Ear le , T. K. 1980). A m ode l o f subs i s t ence change . In Ea r le , T. IC, and Chr i s t enson , A . L .eds . ) ,Mo deling Change in P rehistoric Subsistence Econom ies,Ac a d e m i c P re s s , Ne w Yo r k ,

pp. 1-29.Ehren be rg , M. 1989).Wom en in Prehistory,Un i v e r s i ty o f Ok l a h o m a Pr e s s, No r ma n .Ehren re ich , R. M . , Crumley, C. L . , and Levy, J . E . eds . ) 1995) .Heterarchy and the Ana~sis

of Complex Societies,Ar c h e o l o g i c a l Pa p e r s o f t h e A me r i c a n An t h r o p o l o g i c a l As s o c i a ti o nNu m b e r 6 , Am e r i c a n An t h r o p o l o g i c a l As s o c i a t i o n , Ar l i n g t o n .

Er ic son , J. E . , W es t , M. , Su l livan , C. H. , and Krue ge r, H. W. 1989) . The d eve lo pm en t o fma i z e a g r i c u l t u r e in t h e V i m v a l l e y, Pe r u . I n P r ic e , T. D . e d . ) ,The Chemistry ofPrehistoric Hum an Bone,Cam br idge U n ive r s i ty Press , Cam br idge , pp . 68 -104 .

F a r b , P., a n d A r m e l a g o s , G . 1 9 8 0) .Consuming Passions: The Anthropology of Eating,Ho ugh to n Miff l in , Bos ton .

Fa rr iss , N. M. 1984).M aya Society U nder Colonial Rule: The Collective Enterprise o f Survival,Pr ince ton U n ive r s i ty Press , Pr ince ton , NJ .

Flanne ry, K. V. , M arcus , J . , and Reyno lds , R. G . 1989) .The Flocks of the W amani: A Studyof Llama Herders on the Punas o f Ayacucho, Peru,Ac a d e mi c P r e s s , Sa n D i e g o .

Fo rd , R. I . 1979). Pa le oe th nob o tan y in Am er ica n a rchaeo logy. In Sch i f fe r, M. B. ed . ) ,Advances in Archaeological M ethod and Theory, VoL 2,Ac a d e mi c P r e s s , Ne w Yo r k , p p .285-337.

Fow le r, C. S . 1972) . Som e eco log ica l c lues to Pro to -N um ic homelan ds . In Fowle r, D. D.ed.) , Great Basin Cultural Ecology: A Sympo sium,Un i v e r s i ty o f Ne v a d a , D e s e r t R e s e a r c h

Ins t i tu te Pu b l i ca t ion in the So c ia l Sc iences 8 , pp . 105-121 .Fox , J . G. 1996) . P lay ing wi th pow er : Ba l l eour t s and po l i t i ca l r i tua l in sou the rn M esoam er ica .

Current Anthropology37 3): 483-509.Fra zer , J . G. 1907).Questions on the Customs, Beliefs and Languages of Savages,Ca mb r i d g e

Unive r s i ty Press , Cambr idge .F r e i d e l , D . A . 1 99 2 ). T h e t r e e o f l i fe : Ah a u a s i d e a a n d a r t if a c t in C l a s s i c l o wl a n d Ma y a

c iv i li za t ion . In Dem ares t , A. A. , and C onrad , G. W. eds . ) ,Ideology and Pre-ColumbianOv/ // zat /ons, Schoo l o f Am er ica n Rese a rch Press , San ta Fe , pp . 115-134.

Fre ide l , D. , Sche le , L . , and Pa rke r, J . 1993) .M aya Cosmos: Three Thousand Years on theShaman s Path,Wi l l i a m Mo r r o w, Ne w Yo r k .

Ga l v i n , K . F. 1 98 7) . Fo r ms o f fi n a n c e a n d f o r m s o f p r o d u c t io n : Th e e v o l u t i o n o f s p e c i a l iz e d

l ives tock p roduc t ion in the anc ien t Nea r Eas t . In Brumf ie l , E . M . , and E ar le , T. K. eds . ) ,Specialization, Exchange, and Com plex Societies,Ca m b r i d g e U n i v e r s it y P re s s , Ca m b r i d g e ,pp. 119-129.



1 3 G u m e r m a n

Ge ro , J . M . , and Conkey, M . W. ( eds . ) (1991) .Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory,Bas i l Blackwe l t , Cam br idge .

Gibbon , G. (1989) .Explanation in Archaeology, Bas i l Blackw e l l , Oxfo rd .Gibb s , L . (1987). Iden t i fy ing gen der r ep rese n ta t ion in the a rchaeo log ica l r eco rd : A c on tex tua l

s tudy. In H odd er, I . ( ed . ) , TheArchaeology of Contextual Meanings, Ca mb r i d g e Un i v e r s i t yPress , Cambr idge , pp . 79 -89 .

Gifford , D. P. (1977) .Observations Of Modem Human Settlements as an Aid to ArchaeologicalInterpretation, Ph . D . d i s s e rt a t io n , De p a r t m e n t o f An t h r o p o l o g y, Un i v e r s i t y o f Ca l i f o rn i a ,Un i v e r s it y Mi c r o fi l ms , An n Ar b o r, MI .

Gi ffo rd , D. P. (1981) . Tap hon om y and pa leoeco logy : A c r i t i ca l r ev iew o f a rchae o logy s s i s t e rdisc ip l ines . In S chiffer, M. B. (ed . ) ,Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol4 , Academic Press , New York , pp . 365- -438 .

Gi ffo rd -G onza le z , D. (1993) . G aps in zooa rcha eo log ica l ana lyses o f bu tche ry : I s ge nd e r a n

i s sue? In Hud son , J . ( ed . ) ,From Bones to Behavior. Ethnoarchaeological and ExperimentalContributions to the Interpretation of Faunal Remains, C e n t e r f o r A r c h a e o l o g i c a lInves t iga t ions , Occa s iona l Pape r N o . 21 , Sou the rn I l l ino i s Un ive r s i ty, Ca rbon da le , pp .181-199.

Gi lbe r t , A. , and Singe r, B. H. (1982) . Reassess ing zooa rchaeo log ica l quan t i f i ca t ion .WorldArchaeology 14: 21-40.

Gi l m o r e , R . M . ( 19 50 ). F a u n a a n d e t h n o z o o l o g y o f So u t h Am e r i c a . I n S t e wa r d , J . H . ( e d . ),Phys ica l An th ropo logy , Lingu is ti cs , and Cu l tu ra l G eogra phy o f Sou th A m er ica n Ind ians ,Handbook of South American Indians, VoL 6, Bu r e a u o f Ame r i c a n E t h n o l o g y Bu l l e t i n143 , Smi thson ian Ins t i tu t ion Press , Wash ing ton , DC, pp . 345-364 .

Goheen , M. (1996) .Men Own the Fields, Women Own the Crops: Gender and Power in theCameroon Grassfields, Unive rs i ty o f Wiscons in Press , Mad ison .

Goode , J . G. , Cur t i s , K. , and Theophano , J . (1984a) . Mea l fo rma ts , mea l cyc le s , and menun e g o t i a t i o n in t h e m a i n t e n a n c e o f a n I t a l i a n - Am e r i c a n c o mm u n i t y. In D o u g l a s , M. ( e d . ) ,Food in the Social Order:. Studies of Food and Festivities in Three American Communities,Russe l l Sage Founda t ion , New York , pp . 143-218 .

Go ode , J . G. , The ophan o , J . , and Cur t i s K. (1984b). A f ram ew ork fo r the ana lys i s o f con t inu i tya n d c h a n g e i n s h a r e d s o c i o c u l t u ra l r u l e s f o r fo o d u s e : t h e I t a l i a n - Am e r i c a n p a t t e r n . I nBrown , L. tC and Musse l l , K. ( eds . ) ,Ethnic and Regional Foodways in the United States:The Performance of Group Identity, Univ e rs i ty o f Ten nessee Press , K noxv i l le , pp . 66 --88.

Goody, J . (1982) .Cooking~ Cuisine and Class: A Study in Comparative Sociology, C a m b r i d g eUnive r s i ty Press , Cambr idge .

Go rdon , E . A. (1993). S c reen s i ze and d i f f e ren t i a l f auna l r ecove ry : A Ha wai ian exa mp le .Journal of Field Archaeology 20:453--460.

G r a n t h a m , B . , a n d H e s s e , B . ( 1 9 9 1 ) . C u i s i n e a n d b o n e c o u n t s : K a b o b , d a m i a n d t h ea r c h a e o l o g y o f Ca n a a n . Pa p e r p r e s e n t e d a t t h e 9 0 th An n u a l M e e t i n g o f t h e Am e r i c a nAnth ropo log ica l Assoc ia t ion , Ch icago .

Gray son , D. K. (1979). On the quan t i f i ca t ion o f ve r t eb ra te a rcha eofauna s . In Sch i f fe r, M . B.(ed .) ,Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, VoL 2, A c a d e m i c P r es s , N e w Yo r k ,pp. 200-238.

Gr e e n , F. J . (1 9 81 ). I r o n A g e , Ro m a n a n d S a x o n c ro p s : Th e a r c h a e o l o g i c a l e v i d e n c e f r o mWessex . In Jones , M. , and Dimbleby, G. ( eds . ) , TheEnvironment of Man. The Iron Ageto the Anglo-Saxon Period, Br i t i sh Arc haeo log ica l Re por t s , B r i t ish Se r ie s 87 , Oxfo rd , pp .129-153.

Grem iUion , K. J . , and Sobo l ik , K. D. (1996). D ie ta ry va r i ab l i l i ty am ong p reh i s to r i c fo rag e r-f a r me r s o f e a s t e r n No r t h Ame r i c a .Current Anthropology 37(3) : 529-539.

G u m e r m a n , G . , I V ( 19 9 1) .Subsistence and Complex Societies: Diet Between DiverseSocio-Economic Groups at Pacatnarnu, Peru, P h . D . d i s s e r t a t i o n , D e p a r t m e n t o fAn t h r o p o l o g y, U n i v e r s it y o f C a l i fo r n i a , Lo s A n g e l e s .

G um erm an , G. , IV (1994a) . F eed in g spec ia l i s t s : The e ffec t o f spec ia l i za t ion on su bs i s t ence

va r ia t ion . In S obo l ik , K. ( ed . ) ,PaleonutritiorL The Diet and Health of Prehistoric Americans,Ce n t e r f o r Ar c h a e o l o g i c a l I n v e s t ig a t i o n s , Oc c a s i o n a l Pa p e r N o . 2 2 , So u t h e r n I l l i n o i sUnive r s i ty Press , Ca rbo nda le , pp . 80 -97 .




Gu m erm an , G. , IV (1994b). C orn fo r the dead : Th e s ign i f icance o fZe a ma y s i nMo c h e b u r i a lo ffe r ings . In Johannessen , S . and H as to r f , C. A. ( eds . ) ,Corn and Culture in the PrehistoricNew Wor ld ,W es tv iew Press , Bou lde r, CO , pp . 399- -410.

Gu m e r ma n , G . , I V ( 1 99 4 r L l a m a p o we r a t t h e p r e h is t o r i c s i t e o f Pa c a tn a r n u , Pe r u . Pa p e rp r e s e n t e d a t t h e 9 3 r d An n u a l M e e t i n g o f t h e Am e r i c a n An t h r o p o l o g i c a l As s o c i a t i o n ,A t l a n t a .

Ha l s t ead , P. (1996) . Pas to ra l s i sm o r househo ld he rd ing? Prob lems o f sca le and spec ia l i za t ioni n e a r l y Gr e e k a n i ma l h u s b a n d r y.W odd Archaeology,28(1): 20--42.

Ha nen , M. , and K e l l ey, J . (1989). In fe re nce to the b es t exp lana t ion in a rchae o logy. In Pinsky,V. , and W yl ie , A. ( eds . ) ,Crit ical Traditions in Contemporary Archaeology,C a m b r i d g eUnive r s i ty Press , Cam br idge , pp . 14 -17 .

Har r i s , M. (1987). Fo odway s : His to r i ca l ove rv iew and theo re t i ca l p ro lego m enon . In H ar r i s ,M. , and Ross , E. B. (eds . ) ,Foo d and Evolut iorL" Toward a Theory o f H um an Fo od H abi ts ,

Temple Un ive r s i ty Press , Ph i l ade lph ia , pp . 57 -90 .Harvey, H. R. (1984). A spec t s o f l and t en ure in anc ien t Mex ico . In Harvey, H. R. , and P rem,

H. J. (eds.) , Explorations in Ethnohistory: Indians o f Central M exic o in the Sixteenth Century,Un ive r s i ty o f New Mexico Press , Albuquerque , pp . 83 -102 .

Harvey, H. R. (ed . ) (1991) .Lan d and Po l it ic s in the Va l l ey o f Mex ico : A Two Thousand YearPerspective,Un i v e r s i ty o f Ne w Me x i c o P r e s s , A l b u q u e r q u e .

Has to r f , C. A. (1988) . The use o f pa leoe thnobo tan ica l da ta in p reh i s to r i c s tud ie s o f c ropproduc t ion , p rocess ing , and consumpt ion . In Has to r f , C. A. , and Popper, V. S . ( eds . ) ,Current Paleoethnobotany: An a~ tica l Metho ds and C ultural Interpretations of ArchaeologicalPlan t Remains ,Un ive r s i ty o f C h icago Press , Ch icago , pp . 119-144 .

Has to r f , C. A. (1990) . The e ffec t o f the Inka s t a t e on Sausa ag r icu l tu ra l p roduc t ion and c ropc o n s u mp t i o n .Amer ican An t iqu i ty55(2): 262-290.

Has to r f , C. A. (1991) . Gender, space , and food in p reh i s to ry. In Gero , J . M. , and Conkey, M.

9W. (eds . ) , Engender ing Archaeology: Women and Prehis tory,Bas i l Blackwe l l , Cambr idge ,pp. 132-159.Has to r f , C. A. (1993) .Agr icu l tu re and the Onse t o f Po l i t i ca l Inequa l i ty Befo re the Inka ,

Ca m b r i d g e U n i v e r si t y P r e s s, C a mb r i d g e .Has to r f , C. A. , and Johanne ssen , S . (1993) . Pre -h i spa n ic po l i t i ca l change and the ro le o f ma ize

i n t h e c e n t r a l An d e s o f Pe r u .American Anthropologis t95(1): 115-138.Ha tch , J . W . , and Ge id e l , R. A. (1985). S ta tus - spec i f i c d ie ta ry va r i a t ion in two w or ld cu l tu re s .

Jou rna l o f H um an Evo lu tion14: 469--476.Haw kes , K. , O Conne l l , J . F., and Jones , N. G . B. (1995). H adz a ch i ld ren s fo rag ing : Juven i l e

d e p e n d e n c y , s o c ia l a r r a n g e m e n t s , a n d m o b i l i t y a m o n g h u n t e r - g a t h e r e r s .CurrentAnthropology36(4): 688-700.

Haw kins , R. A. (1992) . Subs i s t ence in fe rences f rom W ood land a nd M iss i s s ipp ian ce ramics :The cen t ra l O h io V a l l ey, c i r ca 1000 B.C. -A .D. 1200 . In Croes , D . R. , Hawk ins , R. A. ,and Isaac , B. L. , (ec ls . ) ,Lon g-Te rm Subsis tence Change in Prehis toric North Am erica ,Re s e a r c h i n Ec o n o m i c An t h r o p o l o g y, Su p p l e m e n t 6 , J A I P r e s s , Gr e e n w i c h , CT, p p .47-76.

Ha y d e n , B . , a n d Ca n n o n , A . ( 1 9 8 3 ) . W h e r e t h e g a r b a g e g o e s : Re f u s e d i s p o s a l i n t h e Ma y ahighlands. Jou rnal of Anthropological A rchaeology2: 117-163.

He ron , C. , and E vershed , R. P. (1993). T he ana lys i s o f o rgan ic r e s idues and the s tudy o fpo t t e ry use . In S ch i f fe r, M. B. ( ed . ) ,Archaeological Method and Theory, VoL 5 ,Un ive r s i tyo f Ar izona Press , Tucson , pp . 247-284 .

Hi c k s , F. ( 1 98 4) . Ro t a t i o n a l l a b o r a n d u r b a n d e v e l o p me n t i n p r e h i s p a n i c Te t z c o c o . I n H a r v e y,H. R. , and Prem, H. J . ( eds . ) ,Explorations in Ethnohistory: Indians of Central Mexico inthe Sixteenth Century,Un ive r s i ty o f New M exico , Albu querqu e , pp . 147-174 .

Hicks , F. (1991) . La rge e s ta te s and peasan t p lo t s : the p roduc t ion and d i s t r ibu t ion o f food inA z t e c M e x i co . P a p e r p r e s e n t e d a t th e 9 0 th A n n u a l M e e t i n g o f th e A m e r i c a nAn t h r o p o l o g i c a l As s o c i a t io n , Ch i c a g o .

Hi l l , J . N. (1994) . Preh i s to r i c cogn i t ion and the sc ience o f a rchaeo logy. In Renf rew, C. , andZubrow, E. W. ( eds . ) ,The A nci ent Mind." Elem ents of Cogni tive Archaeology,Ca mb r i d g eUnive r s i ty Press , Cam br idge , pp . 83 -92 .



32 Gumer rnan

Hil lman , G. C . 1973). Crop husbandry and food p roduct ion : M ode m models fo r theinterpretation of plant remains.Anatolian Studies23: 241-244.

Hillman, G. C . 1981). Reconstructing crop husbandry practices from charred rem ains ofcrops. In M ercer, R. ed.),Farming Practice in British Prehistory,Edinburgh UniversityPress, Edinburgh, pp. 123-162.

Hillman, G. C . 1984). In terpretation of archaeological p lant remains: The application ofethnog raphic models from Turkey. In Van Z eist, W., and Casparie, W. eds.),Plants andAnc ient M are Studies in P aleoethnobotany,A. A . Balkema, R otterdam, pp. 1-41.

Ho dde r, I. e d.) 1982a).Symbols in Action: Ethnoarchaeological Studies of Material Culture,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Ho dde r, I. ed .) 1982b).Symb olic and Structural Anthropology,Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

H odd er, I . 1986).Reading the P as t: Current Approach es to Interpretation in Archaeology,

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Ho dde r, I. ed.) 1987a). TheArchaeology of C ontextual Mea nings,Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

Ho dder , I. 1987b). The contextual analysis of symbolic meanings. In Hod der, I. ed.),TheArchaeology o f Contextual Meanings,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1-10.

H odd er, I. 1987c). The meaning of discard: Ash and space in Baringo. In Kent, S. ed.),Method and Theory fo r Activity Area Research,Co lum bia University Press, New Y ork, pp.42A, A/.8.

H olt, C. A. 1991). Plants, humans, and culture: a n edible mode l of consuming behavior.Historical Archaeology25 2): 46-61.

Hu dson , J . ed .) 1993).From Bones to Behavior: Ethnoarchaeological and ExperimentalContributions to the Interpretation of Fau nal Rem ains,C en te r fo r A rch aeo lo g ica lInvestigations, Occasional Paper N o. 21, Southe rn Illinois University, Ca rbond ale.

Huelsbeck, D . R . 1991). Faunal remains an d consumer behavior: W hat is being measured?Historical Archaeology25 2): 62-76.Ires, J. W . 1988). On the relationships linking social structures, local grou p size, and econ om ic

strategies. In Kennedy, B. V., and LeM oine, G. M. eds.),Diet and Subsistence: CurrentArchaeological P erspectives,University of C algary, Al berta , pp. 66-79.

Jackes, M. 1993). On p aradox and osteology.Current Anthropology34 4): 434--439.Jameson, R . 1987). Purity and power at the Victorian dinner party. In Ho dder, I ed .) ,The

Archaeology o f Contextual Meanings,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 55-65.Johannessen, S. 1993). Foo d, dishes, and society in the Mississippi Valley. In Scarry, C. M .

ed.) , Foraging and Farming in the Eastern Woodlands,Univers i ty Press o f F lo r ida ,Gainesville, pp. 182-205.

Johannessen, S., and Hastorf, C. A. eds.) 1994).Co rn and Culture: In the Prehistoric Ne wWorld,Westview Press, Boulder, C O.

Johnson, A. W., and Earle, T. 1987).The E volution o f Hum an Societies: From Foraging Groupto Agrarian State,Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.

Jones, G. 1984). Interpre tation of archaeological plan t remains: Ethn ograp hic models fromGreece. In Van Zeist, W., and Ca spade, W. eds.) ,Plants and Ancient Man: Studies inPaleoethnobotany,A. A . Balkema, R otterdam, pp. 43-59.

Jones, M. 1985). Archaeob otany beyon d subsistence reconstruction. In Barker, G., andGa mb le, C. eds.),Beyond Do mestication in PrehistoricEurope: Investigations in SubsistenceArchaeology and Social Complexity,Acad emic Press, Lo ndon, pp. 107-128.

Ke ene, A . S. 1983). Biology, behavior, and borrowing: A critical examination of optim alforaging theory in archaeology. In M oore, J. A., and Ke ene, A. S. eds.),ArchaeologicalHammers and Theories,Aca dem ic Press, New York, pp . 137-155.

Ke hoe, A. B. 1978). Comm ents on Cord elrs congruences, Tijeras Pueblo.American Antiquity43 3): 501.

Khare, R. S. 1976).Culture and Reality: Essays on the Hindu System o f Managing Food,Indian

Insti tu te of Advan ced Study, Simla.Kh are, R. S. ed.) 1992). TheEternal Food. Gastonomic Ideas and Experiences o f Hindus a ndBuddhists, State University of New York, A lbany.




Ki l l en , J . T. (1994). T hebe s sea l ings , Knosso s t ab le t s and M ycen aean s t a t e banqu e t s .Bulletino f the Institute o f C lassical Studies67-84.

King , F. B. (1993). C l ima te , cu l tu re , and O neo ta subs i s t ence in cen t ra l I l l ino i s . In S ta r ry, C.M. ( ed . ) ,Foraging and Farming in the E astern WoodlandsUn i v e r s i ty P r e s s o f F l o r i d a ,Ga ine sv i l l e , pp . 232-254 .

King , F. B. (1994) . In te rp re t ing wi ld p lan t foods in the a rchaeo log ica l reco rd . In Etk in , N.L. (ed . ) ,Eating on the W ild Side: The Pharmacologic Ecologic and So cial Implications ofUsing NoncultigensUnive rs i ty o f Ar izo na Press , Tucson , pp . 185-209 .

Kle in , R. G . , and C ruz -Ur ibe , IC (1984). TheAnalysis o f An ima l Bones from ArchaeologicalSites Un ive rs i ty o f Ch icago Press , Ch icago .

K r a m e r , C . ( 1 9 8 2 ) .Village Ethnoarchaeo logy: R ural Iran in Archaeological PerspectiveAc a d e mi c P r e s s , Ne w Yo r k .

La Bi a n c a , O . S . ( 1 99 1) . Fo o d s y s t e ms re s e a r c h : An o v e rv i e w a n d a c a s e s t u d y fr o m M a d a b aPla ins , Jo rdon .Food and Foodways4: 221-235.

Lam ber t , J . B. , Szpunar, C. B. , and Bu iks t r a , J . E . (1979) . Che m ica l ana lys i s o f excava tedh u ma n b o n e f r o m Mi d d l e a n d La t e Wo o d l a n d s i t e s .Arehaeometry21: 115-129.

Lamber t , J . B. , S impson , S . V. , Szpunar, C. B. , and Bu iks t r a , J . E . (1985) . Bone d iagenes i sand d ie ta ry ana lys i s .Journal o f Human Evolution14: 477--482.

Larsen , C. S . (1987) . Bioa rch aeo log ica l in te rp re ta t io ns o f subs i s t ence econom y and b ehav io rf rom hum an ske le ta l r ema ins . In Sch i f fe r, M. B. , ( ed . ),Advances in Archaeological Methodand TheoryVol . 10 , Aca dem ic Press , New York , pp . 339--445 .

L a r s e n , C . S . a n d H a r n , D . E . ( 1 9 9 4 ) . N u t r i t i o n , i n f e c t i o n , a n d h e a l t h s t a t u s i n t h ep reh i s to r i c -h i s to r i c tr ans i t ion . In Sobo l ik , IC (ed . ),Paleonutrition: The D iet and Health o fPrehistoric Am ericansCen te r fo r Archae o log ica l Inves t iga t ions , Occ as iona l Pap e r N o . 22 ,Sou th e rn I l l ino i s Un ive r s i ty Press , Ca rbonda le , pp . 222-234 .

Larsen , C. S . , Ruff , C. B. , Schoen inge r, M. J . , and Hu tch inson , D. L . (1992) . Popu la t iondec l ine and ex t inc t ion in La F lo r ida . In Verano , J . W . , and U be tak e r, D. H . ( eds . ) ,Diseaseand Demography in the AmericasSmi thson ian Ins t i tu t ion Press , Wash ing ton , DC, pp .25-39.

La t h r a p , D . W . ( 19 85 ) J a ws: Th e c o n t r o l o f p o w e r i n t h e e a r l y n u c l e a r Am e r i c a n c e r e m o n i a lcen te r. In Donnan , C. B. ( ed . ) ,Early Cerem onial Architecture in the AndesD u m b a r t o nOa ks R esea rch Lib ra ry and Co l lec t ion , W ash ing ton , DC, pp . 241-267 .

L e h r e r , A . ( 1 9 7 2 ). C o o k i n g v o c a b u l a r i e s a n d t h e c u l i n a r y t r i a n g l e o f L e v i - S t r a u ss .Anthropological Linguistics14(5): 155-171.

Lenns t rom, H. A. (1992) .lntrasite Spatial Variability and Resource Utilization in the PrehistoricPeruvian Highlands: An Exploration of Method and Theory in PaleoethnobotanyPh .D.d i s s e r ta t i o n , De p a r t me n t o f An t h r o p o l o g y, Un i v e rs i ty o f M i n n e s o t a , M i n n e a p o l i s.

Len ns t rom , H. A. , and Ha s to r f , C. A. (1992) . Tes t ing o ld wives t a l e s in pa laeoe th nobo tany :A c o m p a r i s o n o f b u l k a n d s c a t t e r s a m p l in g s c h e m e s f r o m P a n c a n , P e r u .Journal ofArchaeological Science19: 205-229.

Lenns t rom, H. A. , and Has to r f , C. A. (1995) . In te rp re ta t ion in con tex t : Sampl ing and ana lys i si n p a l e o e t l mo b o t a n y.American Antiquity60(4): 701-721.

Len tz , D. L . (1991) . Maya d ie t s o f the r i ch and poor : . Pa leoe thnobo tan ica l ev idence f romCopan. Latin American Antiquity2: 269-287.

Leo nard , R. D . , and Jones , G . T. ( eds . ) (1989).Quantifying Diversity in ArchaeologyCa mb r i d g eUnive r s i ty Press , Cambr idge .

Lev i-Strauss , C. (1963) .Structural AnthropologyBas ic Books , Inc . , New York .Lev i -St rauss , C. (1966). The cu l ina ry t r iang le .Partisan Review33(4) : 586-595.Lym an , R. L . (1982) . Arc haeofa unas and subs i s t ence s tud ie s . In Sch i f fe r, M. B . ( ed . ) ,Advances

in Archaeological Method and Theory VoL 5Academic Press , New York , pp . 331-393 .Ly m a n , R . L . (1 98 7) . A r c h a e o f a u n a s a n d b u t c h e r y s t u d i e s: A t a p h o n o m i e p e r s p e c ti v e . I n

Schiffer, M. B. (ed . ) ,Advances in Archaeological M ethod and Theory VoL 10A c a d e m i cPress , New York, pp . 249-337.

Lyman, R. L. (1994) .Vertebrate Taphonom yCa m b r i d g e Un i v e r s i ty P r e s s , Ca mb r i d g e .



3 4 G u m e r m a n

M al tby, J . M. . (1985) . Pa t t e rns in f auna l a s sem blage va r i ab i l ity. In Bark e r, G. , and G am ble ,C . ( e d s . ) ,Beyond Domestication in Prehistoric Europe: Investigations in SubsistenceArchaeology and Social Complexity,Ac a d e m i c P r e ss , Lo n d o n , p p . 3 3 -7 4 .

M arcus , J . (1982) . P lan t wor ld o f the s ix teen th - and seven teen th -ce n tu ry low land Maya . InF l a n n e r y, K . V. ( e d . ) ,Maya Subsistence: Studies in Mem ory of Dennis E. Puleston,Academic Press , New York , pp . 239-273 .

M arcus , J . , and Flan ne ry, K. V. (1978) . Ethno sc ienc e o f the s ix teen th -cen tu ry Va l l ey Za po te c .In Ford , R. I . (ed . ) ,The Nature and Status o f Ethnobotany,An t h r o p o l o g i c a l Pa p e r s No .6 7 , Mu s e u m o f An t h r o p o l o g y, Un i v e r s i t y o f Mi c h i g a n , An n Ar b o r, p p . 5 1 - 8 0 .

M arcus , J ., and Flanne ry, IC V. (1994) . Anc ien t Za po tec r i tua l and re l ig ion : An app l i ca t ionof the d i r ec t h i s to ri ca l approach . In R enf rew, C . , and Zubrow , E. W. ( eds . ) ,The AncientMincL Elemen ts o f C ognitive Archaeology,Ca m b r i d g e Un i v e r s i t y P r e s s , Ca mb r i d g e , p p .55 -74 .

M c G h e e , R . ( 1 9 7 7 ) . I v o r y f o r t h e s e a wo m a n : T h e s y m b o l i c a t t r i b u t e s o f a p r e h i s t o r i ct echno logy.Canadian Journal of Archaeology1: 141-159.Mennel l , S. (1985) .Al l Manners of Food: Eating and Taste in England and France from the

Middle Ages to the Present,Bas i l Blackw e l l , Oxfo rd .Miks icek , C. H. (1987) . Fo rma t ion p rocesses o f the a rchaeobo tan ica l r eco rd . In Sch i f fe r, M.

B. (ed . ) ,Advances in Archaeological Me thod an d Theory, VoL 10,Ac a d e mi c P r e s s , Ne wYork, pp . 211-247.

Mi l l e r, G . R . , a n d Bu rg e r, R . L . ( 19 9 5) . Ou r f a t h e r t h e c a y ma n , o u r d i n n e r t h e l l a ma : An i m a lu t i l i za t ion a t Chav in de Hua n ta r, Pe ru .American Antiquity60(3): 421--458.

Min tz , S . W. (1979) . Time , suga r, and swee tness .Marxist Perspectives2(4): 57--73.Mintz , S. W. (1985) .Sweemess and Power,Vi k i n g Pe n g u i n , Ne w Yo r k .M oore , H . L . (1981). B one re fuse - -P oss ib i l i t i e s fo r the fu tu re . In Sh e r idan , A. , and Ba i l ey,

G. ( eds . ) ,Ec on om ic Archaeology: Tow ards an Integration o f Ecological and Social

Perspectives,BAR In te rna t iona l Se r i e s 96 , Oxfo rd , pp . 87 -94 .Mo o r e , H . L . ( 1 9 8 2 ) . Th e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f s p a t i a l p a t t e r n i n g i n s e t t l e me n t r e s i d u e s . I nH o d d e r , I . ( e d . ) ,Symbolic and Structural Archaeology,C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s it y P r e ss ,Ca mb r i d g e .

Moore , H. L . (1986) .Space, Tex t and Gender. An Anthropological Study o f the Marakwet o fKenya,Cam br idge Un ive r s i ty Press , Cam br idge .

Mo r p h y, H . ( e d . ) ( 1 9 8 9 ) .Animals in to Art ,D e p a r t m e n t o f E th n o l o g y a n d P r e h i s to r y,Un ive r s i ty o f Oxfo rd , London .

M or r i s , C. (1974) . Recons t ruc t ing pa t t e rns o f non-ag r ic u l tu ra l p rod uc t io n in the Inc a econom y:Arc haeo logy and do cum en ts in in s t i tu t iona l ana lys is . In M oore , C . B. ( ed . ) ,ReconstructingComplex Societies,Su p p l e me n t t o Ame r i c a n Sc h o o l s o f Or i e n t a l Re s e a r c h Bu l l e t i n No .20, Cambridge, pp . 49--60.

Mor r i s , C. , and Thompson , D. E . (1985) .Huanuco Pampa: A n Inca C ity and Its Hinterland,Th a me s a n d Hu d s o n , Lo n d o n .

M or r i son , K. D. (1994). The in tens i f i ca t ion o f p roduc t ion : a rchae o log ica l approac hes .Journalof Archaeological Method and Theory1: 111-159.

Mnr ra , J . V. (1960) . Ri t e and c rop in the Inca s t a t e . In Diamond , S . ( ed . ) ,Culture in H istory:Essays in Honor o f Paul Radin,Colu m bia U n ive r s i ty Press , New York , pp . 393--407 .

O Co n n e l l , J . F. , Jo n e s , K . T. , a n d S i mm s , S . R . ( 1 9 82 ) . So me t h o u g h t s o n p r e h i s t o r i ca r c h a e o l o g y i n t h e Gr e a t Ba s i n . I n M a d s e n , D . B . a n d O Co n n e l l ( e d s . ),Man an dEnvironment in the G reat Basin ,S A A P a p e r s N o . 2 , S o c ie t y f o r A m e r i c a n A r c h a e o lo g y,Wash ing ton , DC, pp . 227-240 .

Ohnuki-Tierney, E. (1993) . R/ce asSelf, Pr ince ton Un ive r s i ty Press , Pr ince ton , NJ .Pa r sons , J . R. (1991). P o l i t i ca l imp l ica t ions o f p reh i spa n ic Ch ina m pa a g r icu l tu re in the V a l l ey

of Mex ico . In Harvey, H. R. ( ed . ) ,La nd and Poraics in the Valley o f Mexico,Un i v e r s i t yo f New Mexico Press , Albuquerque , pp . 17 - -42 .

Pa te , F. D. (1994). B one chem is t ry and pa leod ie t .Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory

1: 161-209.Pa te , F. D. , and Brown , K. A. (1985). Th e s t ab i l i ty o f bone s t ro n t ium in the geochem ica le n v i r o n me n t .Journal o f Human Evolution14: 483--491.



Food and Complex Societies 35

Pau l , A. 1990).Paracas Ritual Attire: Sym bols o f Authority in Anc ient Peru,Un i v e r s i ty o fOk l a h o ma Pr e s s , No r ma n .

Pe a r s a l l, D . M. 1 9 88 ). I n t e r p r e t i n g t h e me a n i n g o f r n a c r o r e ma i n a b u n d a n c e : Th e i m p a c t o fsource and con tex t . In Has to ff , C. A. , and Popp er, V. S . eds . ) ,Current Paleoethnobotany:Anatytical M ethods an d Cultural Interpretations o f Archaeological Plant Rem ains,Unive rs i tyo f Ch icago Press , Ch icago , pp . 97 -118 .

Pea rsa l l , D. M. 1989).Paleoethnobotany: A Handb ook o f Procedures,A c a d e m i c P r e ~ , S a nDi e g o .

Poh l , M. 1981). Ri tua l con t inu i ty and t r ans fo rm a t ion in M esoam er ica : Recons t ruc t ing theanc ien t Maya cuch r i tua l .American Antiquity46: 513-529.

Poh l , M . 1985). T he p r iv i l eges o f Maya e l i t e s : Preh i s to r i c ve r t e b ra te f a una f rom Se iba l . InPoh l , M. ed . ) ,Prehistoric Lowland M aya Environment and Subsistence Economy,Pa p e r so f t h e Pe a b o d y Mu s e u m o f Ar c h a e o l o g y a n d E t h n o l o g y, Vo l . 7 7 , Ha r v a r d Un i v e r s i t y

Press , Cambr idge , MA, pp . 133-145 .Poh l , M. , and F e ldm an , L . H. 1982).The t r ad i t iona l ro le o f wo m en an d an im a ls in lowland

M aya econom y. In Flanne ry, 14. V. ed . ) ,M aya Subsistence: Studies in M emory of DennisE. Puleston,Academic Press , New York , pp . 295-311 .

Pow el l , M. L. 1991) . Ranke d s t a tus and hea l th in the Miss i s s ipp ian ch ie fdo m a t M oundv i l l e .In Powel l , M. L. , Br idges , P. S. , and Mires ,A. M . W. eds.), W hat Mean These Bones?Studies in Southeastern Bioarchaeology,Un i v e r s i t y o f A l a b a ma Pr e s s , Tu s c a l o o s a , p p .22 -51 .

Pow ers , W . IC, and Pow ers , M . M. N. 1984) . Me tap hys ica l a spec t s o f an Og la la food sys tem.In Doug las , M . ed . ) ,Food in the Social Order. Studies of Food and F estivities in T hreeAmerican Communities,Ru s s e ll Sa g e Fo u n d a t i o n , Ne w Y o r k , p p . 4 0 - 9 6 .

Pr ice , T. D. ed . ) 1989a).The Chemistry of P rehistoric Hum an Bone,Ca mb r i d g e Un i v e r s i t yPress , Cambr idge .

Pr ice , T. D. 1989b). M ul t i - e l eme n t stud ie s o f d iagenes i s in p reh i s to r i c bone . In Pr i ce , T. D.ed.) , The Chemistry of Prehistoric Human Bone,Ca m b r i d g e U n i v e r si t y P r e ss , Ca m b r i d g e ,

pp. 126-154.Pr ice , T. D. , Schoe n inge r, M. J . , and Arm elago s , G. J . 1985). Bon e chem is t ry and pas t

behavior : An overview.Journal of Hum an Evolution14: 419--447.Pr ice , T. D. , Armelagos , G. J . , Bu iks t r a , J . E . , Bumsted , M. P. , Ch i sho lm, B. S . , Er i c son , J .

E . , Lam ber t , J . B. , van de r M erwe , N. J . , Schoen inge r, M. J . , and Si l l en , A. 1989) . Thec h e mi s t r y o f p r e h i s to r i c h u ma n b o n e : R e c o m me n d a t i o n s a n d d i r e c t io n s f o r f u tu r e s t u d y.In Pr ice , T. D. ed . ) ,The Chemistry of Prehistoric Human Bone,Ca m b r i d g e U n i v e rs i tyPress , Cambridge, pp . 245-252.

Pu les ton , D . E . 1977) . Ar t and a rcha eo logy o f hydrau l i c ag r i cu l tu re in the M aya lowlands .I n Ha m mo n d , N . e d . ),Social Process in M aya Prehistory: Ess ays in Honor of Sir EricThompson,Ac adem ic Press , New York , pp . 449--469 .

Radc l i f f e -Brown , A. R. 1922). TheAndaman Islanders,Fr e e P r e s s , Ne w Yo r k .Ra thje , W . L. , an d Schiffer, M . B. 1982).Archaeology,Ha r c o u r t B r a c e J o v a n o v ic h , Ne w Yo r k .Re ch tm an , R. 1992) . TheEvolution of Sociopolitical Complexity in the Fiji Islands,Ph .D.

d i s s e r ta t i o n , De p a r t m e n t o f A n t h r o p o l o g y, Un i v e rs i t y o f Ca l i f o r n ia , Lo s An g e l e s .Re dm an , C. L . 1978). The R/seof Civilization: From Early Farmers to Urban Society in the

Ancient Near East,W. H. F r e e ma n , Sa n F r a n s e i s c o .Ree n t s -Bu de t , D. 1994) .Painting the M aya Universe: Royal Ceramics o f the Classic Period,

Du k e Un i v e r s i ty P r e s s, Du r h a m, NC.Re id , A. 1996). C a t t l e he rds and the r ed i s t r ibu t ion o f ca t t l e r e sources .W orld Archaeology

28 1): 43--57.Re i d h e a d , V. A . 1 98 0) . Th e e c o n o mi c s o f s u b s is t e n c e c h a n g e : A t e s t o f a n o p ti mi z a t i o n

mo d e l . I n Ea r l e , T. K . a n d C h r i st e n s o n , A . L . e d s . ),Modeling Change in PrehistoricSubsistence Economies,Ac a d e mi c P r e s s, Ne w Yo r k , p p . 1 4 1 -1 8 6 .

Re inha rd , K. J ., and B ryan t , V. M. , J r. 1992) . Cop ro l i t e ana lys i s : A b io log ica l pe r spec t iveon a rcha eo logy . In Sch i f fe r, M. B. ed . ) ,Archaeological Method and Theory,Vol . 4 ,Un ive r s i ty o f Ar izona Press , Tucson , pp . 245-288 .



3 6 G u m e r m a n

Rei tz , E . J . 1987). Ver teb ra te f auna and soc ioeco nom ic s t a tus . In Spe nce r-W ood , S . M . ed . ) ,Consum er C hoice in Historical Archaeology,Plenum Press , New York , pp . 101-119 .

Re i t z , E . J ., Gibbs , T. , and R a thburn , T . A. 1985). A rchaeo log ica l ev idence fo r subs i s t enceon coas ta l p lan ta t ions . In Sing le ton , T. A . ed . ) ,The Archaeology of Slavery and PlantationLife, Aca dem ic Press , New Y ork , pp . 163-191 .

Renf rew , C. 1994) . Th e a rcha eo logy o f r e l ig ion . In Renf rew, C. , and Zubrow , E. B. W . eds . ) ,The An cien t Mind Elements o f Cognitive Archaeology,C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s ,Cambr idge , pp . 47 -54 .

Rey no lds , R. G. 1986). M ul t id im ens ion a l sca l ing o f fou r Gu i la Naqu i t z l iv ing f loo r s . InFla rmery, IC V. ed . ) ,Gu ila Naquit~ Archaic Foraging and Early Agriculture in Oaxa ca,Mexico,Academic Press , New York , pp . 385- -421 .

Ric hard s , A. I . 1932).Hunger and Work in a Savage Tribe: A Functional Study of NutritionAm ong the Southern Bantu,G. Ro u t l e d g e a n d So n s , Lo n d o n .

Ric hard s , A. I. 1939). Lan d,Labour and Diet in Northern Rhodesia: An Economic Study o fthe Bemba Tribe,Oxford Un ive r s i ty Press , London .

Richa rds , C., and Tho ma s J . 1984). Ri tu a l ac t iv i ty and s t ruc tu red depos i t ion in l a t e r Ne o l i th icW essex . In Brad ley, R. , and G ard in e r, J . eds . ) ,Neolithic Studies: A Review of Som eCurrent Research,Br i t i sh Archaeo log ica l Repo r t s , Br i t i sh Se r ie s 133 , Oxfo rd , pp . 189-218 .

Ross , E . B. 1987) . An ove rv iew o f tr ends in d ie ta ry va r i a t ion f rom hu n te r-ga the re r to m ode rncap i t a l i s t soc ie t ie s . In Har r i s , M. and Ross , E . B. eds . ) ,Food and Evolution: Toward aTheory of Human Food H abits,Temple Un ive r s i ty Press , Ph i l ade lph ia , pp . 7 -55 .

Ro thsch i ld , N. A. 1989) . The e ffec t o f u rban iza t ion on faun a l d ive rs i ty : A com par i son be tw eenNe w Yo r k C i t y a n d S t . Au g u s t i n e , F l o r i d a , in t h e s i x t e e n t h t o e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r i e s . I nLeo nard , R. D. , and Jones , G. T. eds . ) ,Quantifying Diversity in A rchaeology,C a m b r i d g eUnive r s i ty Press , Cambr idge , pp . 92 -99 .

San dford , M . K. ed . ) 1993).Investigations o f Anc ient H uman Tissue: Chemical An a~ ses in

Anthropology,Go r d o n a n d Br e a c h Sc i e n c e , Ph i l a d e l p h i a .Sa n t l e y, R . S . 1 99 2) . A c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e O l me c p h e n o m e n a i n Tu x t l a s: Mi d d l e Fo r m a t i v es e t t l e me n t p a t t e r n , l a n d u s e , a n d r e f u s e d i s p o s a l a t Ma t a c a p a n , Ve r a c r u z , Me x i c o . I nKi l lon , T. W. ed . ) ,Gardens of Prehistory: The Archaeology of Settlement Agriculture inGreater Meso america,Un i v e r s it y o f A l a b a m a Pr e s s , Tu s c a l o o s a a n d Lo n d o n , p p . 1 5 0 - 18 3 .

Sa u n d e r s , N . J. 1 99 0 ). Te z c a t l ip o c a : J a g u a r m e t a p h o r s a n d t h e A z t e c mi r r o r o f n a t u r e . I nW il l is , R. ed . ) ,Signifying Animals: H uman M eaning in the Natural W orld,Un wi n Hy r n a n ,London, pp . 159-177.

Saund ers , S . R. , and K a tzenbe rg , M. A. 1992) .Skeletal Biology of Past Peoples: ResearchMethods,W i l e y - L i ss , Ne w Yo r k .

Sche le , L . , and F re ide l , D. 1990) .A Forest of Kings: The Untold Story of the Ancient M aya,W i l l ia m Mo r r o w, Ne w Yo r k .

Sch ele , L., and M il ler, M. E. 1986). TheBlood of K ings: Dynasty and Ritual in Maya A rt,Ki mb e l l Ar t Mu s e u m, F t . Wo r t h , TX.

Sch i f fe r, M. B. 1972) . Archa eo log ica l con tex t and sys temic con tex t .American Antiquity37:156-165.

Sch i f fe r, M. B. 1975). B ehav io ra l cha in ana lys i s : Ac t iv i t i e s , o rgan iza t ion , and the us e o f space .In Mar t in , P. S . , Zubrow, E. B. W. , Bowman , D. C. , Gregory, D. A. , Hanson , J . A. ,Sch i l ler, M . B. , and W ilcox, D. 1L eds . ) ,Chapters in the Prehistory of E astern Arizona/ V, F i e l d i a n a : An t h r o p o l o g y, F i e l d M u s e u m o f N a t u r a l H i s t o r y, Ch ic a g o , Vo l . 6 5 , p p .103-119.

Sch iffer, M . B. 1987).Formation P rocesses of the Archaeological Record,Un i v e r s i t y o f Ne wMexico Press , Albuquerque .

Sch iffer, M . B. 1992).Technological Perspectives on Behavioral Change,Un i v e r s it y o f Ar i z o n aPress , Tucson .

Schoen inge r, M. J. 1979) . Die t and s t a tus a t Cha lca tz ingo : Som e empi r i ca l and t ec hn ica laspects of s t ront ium analys is .American Journal o f Physical Anthropology51: 295-310.

She r ra t t , A. 1981) . P lough and pas to ra l i sm: As pec t s o f the secondary p roduc t s r evo lu t ion .In Hodde r, I. , I saac , G. , and Ham m ond , N . eds . ) ,Pattern of the PasL Studies in H ono uro f David Clarke,Cam br idge U n ive r s i ty Press , Cam br idge , pp . 261-305 .




S h e r r a t t , A . ( 1 9 8 3 ). T h e s e c o n d a r y e x p l o i t a t i o n o f a n i m a l s in t h e O l d W o r l d .WorldArchaeology15: 90-104.

Sh i ma d a , M . , a n d Sh i ma d a I . ( 19 85 ). P r e h i s t o r i c l l a ma b r e e d i n g a n d h e r d i n g o n t h e n o r t hc o a s t o f P e r u .American Antiquity50(1) : 3-26.

Sh imada , M. , and Sh imada I . (1987) . Comment on the func t ions and husbandry o f a lpaca .American Antiquity52(4): 836--839.

S i k k in k , L . ( 1 98 8) . F r o m f i e ld t o h o u s e : E t h n o a r c h a e o l o g y a n d e t h n o b o t a n y o f h a r v e s t a n dc r o p - p r o c e ss i n g i n An d e a n p e a s a n t h o u s e h o l d s . Un p u b l i s h e d M a s t e r ' s t he s is , De p a r t m e n to f An t h r o p o l o g y, Un i v e r si t y o f M i n n e s o t a , M i n n e a p o l is .

S i n g e r, D . A . ( 1 98 5) . Th e u s e o f f i sh r e ma i n s a s a s o c i o - e c o n o mi c me a s u r e : An e x a mp l e f r o m19th cen tu ry new eng land .Historical Archaeo logy19(2): 132-136.

Singe r, D. A. (1987). Th e th re sho ld o f a f fo rdab i l i ty : Assess ing fi sh r ema ins fo r soc ioeconom ics .In Spe nce r-W ood , S . M. ( ed . ) ,Con sume r Choice in Historical Archaeology,Plenum Press ,

New York, pp . 85-99.Skibo, J . M. (1992) .Pottery Fu nction : A Use-A lteration Perspective,Pl e n u m Pr e s s , Ne w Yo r k .Sk ibo , J . M. (1994). The Ka l inga cook ing po t : An e thnoa rchaeo log ica l and ex pe r im en ta l s tudy

o f t e c h n o l o g i c a l c h a n g e . I n L o n g a c r e , W. A . , a n d S k i b o , J . M . ( e d s .) ,KalingaEthnoarchaeology: Expanding Archaeological Metho d and Theo ry,Smi thson ian Ins t i tu t ionPress , W ash ing ton , DC , pp . 113-126 .

Sk i b o , J . M . , Wa l k e r, W. H . , a n d N i e l s e n , A . E . ( e d s . ) ( 1 9 9 5 ) .Expanding Archaeology,Unive rs i ty o f Uta h Press , Sa l t Lake Ci ty.

Smith , W. R. (1889) .Lectures on the Religion o f the Sem ites,A. and C. Black , Ed inburgh .Sobol ik , K. (1994) . In t roduct ion. In Sobol ik , K. (ed . ) ,Paleonutrition: The Diet a nd Health o f

Prehistoric Am erican s,Ce n t e r f o r Ar c h a e o l o g i c a l I n v e st i g a ti o n s , Oc c a s i o n a l Pa p e r N o . 2 2 ,Sou the rn I l l ino i s Un ive r s i ty Press, Ca rbo nda le , pp . 1 -18 .

Sobo l ik , K. D. , Grem i l l ion , K. J ., Wh i t t en , P. L . , and W atson , P. J . (1996). Sex de te rm ina t ion

a n d d i e t a r y a n a ly s i s o f p r e h i s t o r i c h u m a n p a l e o f e c e s .American Journal of PhysicalAnthropology( in press) .Stah l , A. B. (1991) . P lan t - food p rocess ing : Impl ica t ions fo r d ie ta ry qua l i ty. In Har r i s , D . R. ,

and Hi l lman , G. C. ( eds . ) ,Foraging and Farm ing: The Evolution o f Plant Exploitation,Alle n and Un win , in a s soc ia t ion wi th Por t Nicho l son Press , New Ze a lan d , pp . 171-194 .

Sta rk , M. T. (1993). Re - f i t t ing the c racke d and b rok en facade : Th e case fo r em pi r i c i sm inpos t -p rocessua l e thnoa rcha eo logy. In Yoffee , N. , and S he r ra t t , A. ( eds . ) ,ArchaeologicalTheory: Who Sets the Agenda?Cambr idge Un ive r s i ty Press , Cambr idge , pp . 93 -104 .

Staski , E. , and Sutro , L. D. (eds . ) (1991a) . TheEthnoarehaeology o f Refuse D isposal,Ar i z o n aS t a t e U n i v e rs i ty An t h r o p o l o g i c a l Re s e a r c h Pa p e r s No . 4 2, Te m p e .

Stask i , E . , and S u t ro , L . D. (1991b). The e thnoa rchaeo logy o f r e fuse d i sposa l : Cu r ren t r e sea rchand fu tu re p rospec t s . In Sta sk i , E . a nd Su t ro , L . D. ( eds . ), TheEthnoarchaeology o f RefuseDisposal,Ar i z o n a S t a t e U n i v e rs i ty An t h r o p o l o g i c a l Re s e a r c h Pa p e r s N o . 4 2 , Te m p e , p p .1-4 .

Su t ton , M. Q . , M a l ik , M. , and Ogram , A. , (1996). Ex per im en ts on the de te rm ina t io n o f gend e rf r o m c o p r o l i te s b y D NA a n a ly s is .Journa l of Archaeological Science23(2): 263-267.

Sz u t e r, C . R . ( 19 91 ). H u n t i n g b y Ho h o k a m d e s e r t f a r me r s .Kiva56(3) : 277-291.Ta ube , K. A. (1989). The ma ize t ama le in c l a s sic M aya d ie t , ep ig raphy, and a r t .American

Antiquity54: 31-51.Thompson, J . E. S. (1954) .The Rise and Fall of M aya C ivilization,Un i v e r s i t y o f Ok l a h o ma

Press , Norman .To l l , M. S . (1988). F lo ta t ion sampl ing : Prob le ms a nd som e so lu t ions , wi th exam ples f rom the

A m e r i c a n S o u t h w e s t . I n H a s t o r f , C . A . , a n d P o p p e r , V. S . ( e d s . ) , C urrentPaleoethnobotany: Ana tical Metho ds an d Cultural Interpretations of Archaeological PlantRem ains , Un ive r s i ty o f Ch icago Press , Ch icago , pp . 36 -52 .

Top ic , T. L . , Mc Greevy, T. H . , and T op ic , J. R. (1987 ') . A c om m ent o n the b reed ing andh e r d i n g o f l l a ma s a n d a l p a c a s o n t h e n o r t h c o a s t o f Pe r u .American Antiquity52(4):

832-835.Tr ierwei ler, W. N. (1990) .Prehistoric Tew a Econom y: M odeling Subsistence Production on thePajarito Plateau,Ga r l a n d , Ne w Yo r k .



3 8 G u m e r m a n

Tscho p ik , H. , J r. 1946) . The A ym ara . In Steward , J . H. eeL), The A nde an C iv i l i za tions ,Handbook of South American IndiansB u r e a u o f A m e r i c a n E t h n o l o g y B u l l e t i n 1 4 3,Smi thson ian Ins t i tu t ion , Wash ing ton , DC, pp . 501-574 .

Um l a u f , M. 1 9 91 ). Pu b l i c a n d p r iv a t e me a l s a t Ca r d a l , Ce n t r a l Co a s t o f Pe r u . Pa p e r p r e s e n t e da t 5 6 t h An n u a l Me e t i n g So c i et y f o r Am e r i c a n A r c h a e o l o g y, Ne w Or l e a n s .

van de r M erwe , N. J. , and Vo ge l , J . C. 1978) . C-13 con te n t o f hum an c o l l agen a s a m easu reo f p r e h is t o r i c d i e t i n wo o d l a n d N o r t h Am e r i c a .Nature 276: 815-16.

Ve rano , J . W. 1992) . Preh i s to r i c d i sease and demo graph y in the And es . In Verano , J . W . ,a n d Ub e l a k e r, D . H . e d s . ),Disease and Demography in the AmericasS m i t h s o n i a nIns t i tu t ion Press , Wash ing ton , DC, pp . 15 -24 .

Ve rano , J . W . , and Ub e lake r, D. H. eds . ) 1992) .Disease and Demography in the AmericasSmi thson ian Ins t i tu t ion Press , Wash ing ton , DC, pp . 15 -24 .

W alke r, W. H. 1995) . Ce rem onia l Trash? In Sk ibo , J . M. , Walke r, W. H. , and Nie l sen , A.E. eds . ) ,Expanding ArchaeologyUn ive rs i ty o f Uta h Press , Sa l t Lak e C i ty, pp . 67 -79 .

W all , D. D. 1994).The Arch aeology o f G ender:. Separating the S pheres in Urban Am ericaPl e n u m Pr e s s , Ne w Yo r k .

W eisma n te l , M. J. 1988) .Food Gender and Poverty in the Ecuadorian AndesUn i v e r s i t y o fPennsy lvan ia Press , Ph i l ade lph ia .

W e i s ma n t e l , M . J . 1 98 9a ). Ma k i n g b r e a k f a s t a n d r a i s i n g b a b i e s : Th e Z u m b a g u a h o u s e h o l das cons t i tu ted p rocess . In Wi lk , R. E . ed . ) ,The Household Economy: Reconsidering theDomestic Mode of ProductionWestv iew Press , Bou lde r, CO, pp . 55 -72 .

W e i s ma n t e l , M . J . 1 9 89 b) . Th e c h i l d r e n c ry f o r b r e a d : He g e mo n y a n d t h e t r a n s f o r ma t i o n o fc o n s u m p t i o n . I n O r l o v e , B . S . , a n d R u t z , H . J . e d s . ) ,T h e S o c ia l E co n o m y o fConsumptionSoc ie ty fo r Econ om ic An th ropo lo gy, Vo l . VI , pp . 105-124 .

W e i s ma n t e l , M . J . 1 99 1 a) . M a i z e b e e r a n d A n d e a n s o c i a l t r a n s fo r ma t i o n s : Dr u n k e n I n d i a n s ,b r e a d b a b i e s a n d c h o s e n wo me n .Modem Language Notes106 : 861-879 .

W eisma n te l , M. J . 1991b). Tas ty mea l s and b i t t e r gi f ts : Consu mp t ion and p ro duc t ion in theEc u a d o r i a n An d e s .Food and Foodways5 1) : 79-94.

W elsh , P. D. , and Sca r ry, C. M. 1995) . S ta tus r e l a t ed va r i a t ion in foodways in the M oundv i l l ech ie fdom.American Antiquity60 3): 397-420.

W hi tehea d , T. L . 1984). Soc iocu l tu ra l dynam ics and food hab i t s in a sou the rn co mm uni ty.In Doug las , M. ed . ) ,Food in the Social Order. Studies of Food and Festivities in ThreeAmerican CommunitiesRusse l l Sage Founda t ion , New York , pp . 97 -142 .

W hi t l ey, D. S . 1992). Preh i s to ry and po s t -pos i t iv i s t s c ience : A p ro lego m enon to cogn i t ivearcha eolog y. In Schiffer, M . B. ed . ) ,Archaeological M ethod and TheoryVol . 4 , Un iv e r s i tyo f A r izona P ress , Tucson , pp . 57 -100 .

W hi t l ey, D. S . 1994). B y the hun te r, fo r the ga th e re r : A r t , soc ia l r e l a t ions and subs i s t en cechange in the p reh i s to r i c Grea t Bas in .World Archaeology25 3) : 3 57-373.

W i lk , R. R. , and Ra th je , W. L. 1982). Ho useh o ld a rchaeo logy.American Behavioral Scientist25: 617-639.W i l li a ms , B . 1 98 4 ). W h y mi g r a n t wo m e n f e e d t h e i r h u s b a n d s ta ma l e s : Fo o d wa y s a s a b a s i s

fo r a r ev i s ion i s t v iew o f Te jano fam i ly l i f e . In Brown , L. K. and M usse l l , K. eds . ) ,Ethnicand Regional Foodways in the United States: The Performance of G roup IdentityUn i v e r s i t yof Ten ness ee Press , Kno xvi l le , pp . 113-126.

W il l is , R. ed . ) 1990).Signifying Animals: H um an Meaning in the Natural W oHdU n w i nHy ma n , Lo n d o n .

W ood , J . W. , M i lne r, G. R. , Ha rpend ing , H. C. , and W eiss , K. M. 1992). T he os teo log ica lp a r a d o x : P r o b l e m s o f i n f e r ri n g p r e h i s t o r i c h e a l t h f r o m s k e l e t a l s a m p l e s .CurrentAnthropology33 4): 343-370.

W y l i e , A . 1 9 9 2 ) . Th e i n t e r p l a y o f e v i d e n t i a l c o n s t r a i n t s a n d p o l i t i c a l i n t e r e s t s : r e c e n ta r c h a e o l o g i c a l r e s e a r ch o n g e n d e r.American Antiquity57 1): 15-35.

W y m e r, D . A . 1 9 93 ). Cu l t u r a l c h a n g e a n d s u b s is t e n c e : Th e M i d d l e W o o d l a n d a n d La t eW o o d l a n d t r a n s i t i o n i n t h e Mi d - O h i o Va l l e y. I n Sc a r r y, C . M. e d . ),Foraging and Fanningin the Eastern WoodlandsUnive rs i ty Press o f Flo r id a , Ga inesv i l l e , pp . 138-156.




Yellen, J. E. (1977). Cultural pattern ing in faunal remains: Evidence from the Kung Bushman.In Ingersoll , D., Yellen, J . E. , and M acdon ald, W. (eds.) ,Experim ental Archeology,Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 271-331.

Yentseh, A . E. (19 92). Gudgeons, M ullet, and pro ud pigs: Historicity, black fishing, andsouthern myth. In Yentsch, A. E., and Beau&y,M. C. eels.), The Art and Mystery ofHistorical Arch aeolog y,CR C Press, Boca Raton, F L, pp. 283-314.

Yoffee, N. (1993). Too many chiefs? (or, safe texts for the '90s). In Yoffee, N., and Sherratt,A. eds.), Archaeological Theory: Who Sets the Agenda?,Cam bridge U niversi ty Press,Cambridge, pp. 60-78.

Zed er, M . A. (1988). Un derstand ing urban p rocess through the study o f specialized subsistenceeconomy in the Near East.Journa l of Anthropological Archaeology7: 1-55.

Zeder, M. A. (1991).Feeding Cities: Specialized Anim al Econ om y in the Ancient Near Ea st,Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

Zuidema, R. T . (1983). The lion in the city: Royal symbols of transition in Cuzco.Journal ofLatin American Lore9: 39-100.

Documents

Gumerman 1997 Food and Complexity Societies