Halstead, Farming and Feasting in the Neolithic of Greece

151

UDK 903’1(495)“633/634”:394

Documenta Praehistorica XXXI

Farming and feasting in the Neolithic of Greece:the ecological context of fighting with food

Paul HalsteadDepartment of Archaeology, University of Sheffield, UK

[email protected]

INTRODUCTION

A concern with feasting is currently fashionable inthe archaeology of various periods and regions, butthere are solid empirical grounds for emphasisingthis topic with respect to the Neolithic of southeastEurope. First, fine and sometimes elaborately deco-rated ceramic vessels, in shapes suitable for servingor consuming food and drink and perhaps other sti-mulants, indicate that Neolithic societies accordedconsiderable cultural significance to at least someacts of consumption (e.g., Vitelli 1989; Pappa at al.in press). And, as Sherratt (1991) has noted, theprovision of some fine vessels with flat bases mayliterally indicate their use as ‘tableware’, thus fur-ther underlining the importance of certain consump-tion events. Secondly, the broad distribution of manyceramic styles (e.g., Washburn 1983) and growingevidence that at least some fine vessels were ex-

changed over considerable distances (e.g., Tomkins,Day 2001; Hitsiou 2003) imply that ceremonial con-sumption may have played an important role in so-cial interaction on a supra-local as well as local scale.

Moreover, while many forms of exchange may serveto initiate or maintain amicable social relationships(Mauss 1970), the giving and receiving of food anddrink are widely regarded as symbolising particula-rly close and binding social relationships (e.g., Ri-chards 1939; Sahlins 1974.215–219). The archaeo-logical record from the Neolithic of Greece providescircumstantial clues to some of the social contexts inwhich commensality is likely to have played an im-portant role. First, despite legitimate cautioningagainst the simple equation of Neolithic with seden-tary (e.g., Whittle 1997), the available bioarchaeolo-

ABSTRACT – Fine Neolithic ceramics from Greece are widely interpreted in terms of ceremonial eat-ing and drinking, while the spatial organisation of settlement suggests that such commensality playeda significant role in shaping social relationships. Faunal evidence implies consumption of many do-mestic animals in large-scale commensality and supports the view that this promoted competition aswell as solidarity. This paper explores the ecological context of such ‘fighting with food’. Feasting,and ceremonial consumption of livestock, was enabled by and helped to reinforce domestic strate-gies of surplus production and labour mobilisation that were driven as much by ‘economic’ as ‘po-litical’ imperatives.

IZVLE∞EK – Fino neolitsko gr∏ko keramiko ponavadi povezujejo s ceremonialnim u∫ivanjem hranein pija≠e, prostorska organiziranost naselbin pa ka∫e, da so bili skupni obedi zelo pomembni prioblikovanju dru∫benih odnosov. Po ∫ivalskih ostankih lahko sklepamo, da so u∫ivali ∏tevilne doma-≠e ∫ivali na velikih pojedinah, kar naj bi pospe∏evalo tekmovalnost pa tudi solidarnost. V ≠lanku raz-i∏≠emo ekolo∏ke vidike ‘tekmovanja s hrano’. Gostije in ceremonialno u∫ivanje ∫ivali je bilo mo∫nozaradi na≠rtovanja vi∏kov proizvodnje in organiziranega dela in ju hkrati utrjevalo. Motiv za to paje bil tako ‘gospodarski’ kot ‘politi≠ni’.

KEY WORDS – Neolithic; Greece; feasting; domestic animals; overproduction

Paul Halstead

152

gical evidence suggests that many or even mostknown Neolithic sites in Greece were occupied on amore or less year-round basis (Halstead in press).The evident long-term continuity of many such se-dentary communities implies mechanisms for resol-ving or counteracting the inevitable tensions be-tween neighbours that are often defused through fis-sion in a more mobile population. Moreover, thegradual development of many Neolithic settlementsinto long-lived ‘tells’ is accompanied by increasingarchitectural segregation of constituent ‘households’or ‘neighbourhoods’ (Hourmouziadis 1979; Theo-chares 1980; Kotsakis 1982; Halstead 1995) andindeed it has been argued persuasively that thesetwo processes are causally related (Kotsakis 1999).At an intra-settlement level, commensality betweenneighbours is likely to have played a central role inpromoting community solidarity in the face of theseinevitable tensions and tendencies to residential se-gregation. Secondly, at least in Thessaly, some long-lived sites were located sufficiently close together(e.g., Perlès 1999) to imply significant investmentin the maintenance of peaceful relations and avoid-ance of the endemic warfare characteristic of recenthorticultural villages in parts of New Guinea (Forge1972; Brown 1978) and South America (Chagnon1968). At this inter-settlement level, commensalitymay again have served to affirm such peacefulrelations.

On the other hand, the example of highland NewGuinea underlines how feasts may be an importantarena not only for alliance building, but also forcompetition both within and between communities(also Dietler 2001.72). Such competitive commen-sality may be reflected in the recent discovery atLN Makriyalos in Central Macedonia of the remainsof what seems to be a short-lived episode or phaseof consumption, involving the slaughter of hundreds(probably thousands) of domestic animals (Pappa etal. in press). The implied consumption of many tonsof meat over a period of several months suggestsparticipation on at least a community-wide and per-haps regional scale and raises the possibility of spec-tacular cycles of herd expansion and mass slaughtersuch as accompany pig feasts in parts of highlandNew Guinea (Rappaport 1968; Brown 1978; Wies-sner 2001).

There are thus reasonable grounds for claiming thatceremonial commensality, probably on a range ofsocial and temporal scales, played a major role inthe Neolithic of Greece both in helping to shape thedevelopment of some distinctive forms of material

culture and in negotiating vital but potentially con-tentious social relationships. Both these points havebeen made elsewhere (e.g., Vitelli 1989; Halstead1995; Andreou et al. 1996). The present paper seeksto develop these themes and then to explore theecological context of the relationship between feast-ing and early farming and, more particularly, therole therein of domestic animals. The discussion iscast in terms of the Neolithic of Greece, but could inlarge measure be extended to adjacent parts of south-east Europe and Anatolia, which share a broadly si-milar Neolithic archaeological record and broadlysimilar ecological conditions for early farming.

FEASTING, COMMENSAL POLITICS AND FARMING

Thus far, in asserting that feasting may have playeda significant role in the Neolithic societies of Greece,it has been tacitly assumed that ‘feasting’ refers to‘ceremonial commensality’. Essentially similar defi-nitions have been offered by Hayden – ‘any sharingbetween two or more people of special foods (i.e.,foods not generally served at daily meals) in a mealfor a special purpose or occasion’ (Hayden 2001a.29) – and Dietler – ‘public ritual activity centeredaround the communal consumption of food anddrink’ (Dietler 2001.67). In addition, Dietler has em-phasised the political dimension of feasting or ‘com-mensal politics’ (Dietler 2001.73) and, as alreadyindicated, this dimension is of central interest in thecontext of the Neolithic of Greece.

This emphasis on commensal politics highlights theimportance of the distinction between host/ provi-der and guest/consumer (Hayden 2001a.44) andthe fundamental enabling role of the provision offood and drink in abundance (Wiessner 2001.117).As Hayden observes, the opportunities for politicalmanipulation of commensality are thus restrictedamong ‘generalized’ foragers (Hayden 2001a.44–45): an ethos of collective rights to consumptiondownplays the distinction between host/ providerand guest/consumer (Barnard, Woodburn 1991; In-gold 1983; Kent 1993), while scope for the provi-sion of abundance is modest in the absence of bothfood production and large-scale storage. Conversely,food production and large-scale storage greatly faci-litate the provision of abundance and, in turn, arepredicated on significant circumscription of collec-tive rights to consumption. Indeed, Ingold has ar-gued that the most fundamental difference betweena wild animal and its domestic counterpart is thatthe latter belongs to some person(s) (Ingold 1986.

Farming and feasting in the Neolithic of Greece: the ecological context of fighting with food

153

113). Among generalized ‘immediate-return’ for-agers, therefore, with an ethos of collective rights toconsumption, the sharing out of a kill may earn pre-stige for the hunter; among hunters or farmers heav-ily dependent on storage, with more limited collec-tive rights, the giving of food tends to leave the reci-pient indebted to the donor (Ingold 1980.172–176;Barnard, Woodburn 1991). This shift in the relation-ship between donor and recipient is crucial to com-mensal politics.

While a capacity for abundant provision may bemore likely, and the distinction between host/pro-vider and guest/consumer generally clearer, amongfarmers than generalized foragers, is there any evi-dence that Hayden’s two suggested preconditionsfor dynamic commensal politics were met by theNeolithic communities of Greece? We may begin byconsidering the capacity for abundant provisioningof feasts in the Neolithic of Greece. Rare direct evi-dence for such a capacity is provided by the massivedump of animal remains at Makriyalos, referred toabove, but circumstantial arguments suggest that pe-riodic abundance may have been endemic to Neoli-thic communities in Greece. Bioarchaeological evi-dence from habitation sites in this region suggeststhat Neolithic subsistence was overwhelmingly do-minated by cultivated grains and domestic animals,with only a modest contribution from gatheredplants and hunted animals, but leaves open to de-bate the relative contribution of crops and livestock.Many of these sites, however, take the form of villa-ges comprising numerous ‘houses’ and probably re-presenting between several tens and a few hundredsof inhabitants; available bioarchaeological evidencefor seasons of human presence favours year-roundoccupation. The combination of village settlementand year-round habitation strongly favours depen-dence on stored cereal and pulse grain crops ratherthan livestock as the basis of Neolithic subsistence(e.g., Halstead 1989a). The difficulty of detectingthe impact of early farming in regional pollen re-cords (Bottema 1982; also Willis, Bennett 1994)also makes extensive animal husbandry unlikely,while there is circumstantial evidence that Neolithiccereal and pulse cultivation was intensive (Halstead1989a; for more direct evidence from other regions,see Jones 1992; Bogaard this volume). Such inten-sive cultivation, especially if closely integrated withthe rearing of livestock, should theoretically havebeen capable of high yields per unit area (cf. Boga-ard this volume) and, given sufficient labour (seebelow), significant levels of overproduction. In prac-tice, as has been argued elsewhere, the early sum-

mer harvest of cereals and pulses will have beensubject to significant fluctuations in yields, as a re-sult of variable growing conditions, forcing cultiva-tors dependent on such crops into regular overpro-duction and the generation of a ‘normal surplus’ (Al-lan 1965; Forbes 1982; Halstead 1989b). In sum,unless the foregoing arguments as to the size andpermanence of Neolithic village communities andtheir primary dependence on grain crops are radi-cally wrong, periodic agricultural surpluses suffi-cient to finance large-scale feasting will have beenendemic to the Neolithic of Greece.

Turning to the clarity of distinction between host/provider and guest/consumer, rights to consump-tion are not easily recognised in the archaeologicalrecord, but claims to such rights are often exercisedthrough the spatial organisation of residence and soare amenable to archaeological investigation. Forexample, in the ethnographic record, non-storingforagers live at higher residential densities than sto-ring hunters or farmers (Fletcher 1981): in the for-mer case, close proximity helps peer pressure to en-force sharing; in the latter case, wider spacing re-duces such pressure and facilitates hoarding (cf.Whitelaw 1983). Habitation density is difficult toassess archaeologically, but a striking characteristicof Neolithic material culture in Greece and adjacentregions is architectural and symbolic emphasis on‘houses’ (Hodder 1990; Kotsakis 1999). Whether ornot such structures are seen as representing theemergence of some form of ‘family household’, theyimply segregation of small residential units. Associa-ted facilities suggest circumscription of activities thatincluded at least some storage and cooking of food(Hourmouziadis 1979; Halstead 1995; 1999), whilethe elaboration of ‘domestic’ material culture (cf.Hodder 1990) may indicate that this social fragmen-tation was contentious. Similar arguments have beenadvanced on comparable empirical grounds for earlyfarming communities in other regions (Flannery1972; Wright 2000). There is thus at least circum-stantial evidence that early farming communities inGreece met both of Hayden’s preconditions for dyna-mic commensal politics: periodic overproduction ofstaple grains was almost certainly endemic, whilefood was arguably private property at least to theextent that any ethos of collective rights to consump-tion was constrained and contested by domestic ar-chitecture and portable material culture.

The existence of periodic agricultural surpluses doesnot, of course, mean that such surpluses necessarilyhad to be used to finance feasting. Among general-

Paul Halstead

154

ized foragers, the egalitarian ethos of sharing, espe-cially of large carcasses, is at least reinforced by pra-ctical considerations: if meat given away wouldotherwise have spoiled, the hunter’s generosity costsnothing; and, given the relative rarity with whichlarge animals tend to be killed, even the most succes-sful hunter stands some chance of benefitting froma future reciprocal act of generosity. Among storinghunters and farmers, however, surpluses tend tocomprise foods that have been, or could be, preser-ved for future consumption; in such cases, givensome uncertainty as to future returns from huntingor farming and some variability in the ‘shelf-life’ ofstores, it is far harder for the prospective host to besure that generosity is cost-free – that food givenaway would not otherwise have been consumed be-fore it spoiled. The generous host thus risks eitherrunning out of stored food or incurring unnecessaryfuture labour costs in food procurement and proces-sing for storage. Admittedly, work may be regardedas a virtue (e.g., Malinowski 1921). In societies de-pendent on bulk storage of seasonal abundance,however, the need for human labour can be subjectto sharp peaks and additional demands on labourduring peak periods may pose a threat to survival,rather than merely eating into leisure time. It is ar-gued below that this will have been the case for Neo-lithic communities in Greece.

The potential costs and risks of giving away storedfood are integrally bound up with the limited collec-tive rights to consumption found in the ethnogra-phic record of societies dependent on storage. Notonly does restriction of collective rights to consum-ption facilitate hoarding and storage, but the linkagebetween generosity and indebtedness increases thelikelihood that the opportunity costs of giving awaysurplus food will, sooner or later, be balanced bytangible benefits. Again, the new conditional ethosmust be sought rather indirectly in the archaeologi-cal record. First, the widespread emphasis, in theearly Neolithic record of Greece and adjacent re-gions, on production of ceramic ‘tableware’ suggeststhat particular importance was attached to cooked(as opposed to raw) food. Indeed, many of theshapes, decorative motifs and forming techniques ofthe early Neolithic ceramic repertoire mimic woodenor basketry prototypes (Childe 1957; Tomkins 2001)and it is possible that the initial proliferation of ce-ramic tableware was due not to any functional supe-riority of fired clay, but to the symbolic homologybetween firing and cooking. Either way, the highcultural value placed on cooked food is at least com-patible with its being subject to greater obligations

of collective enjoyment than was raw food. Such acontrast between raw/private and cooked/public,widely encountered in the ethnographic record (e.g.,Sahlins 1974.125–126) and even in modern westernsociety, helps to mediate the contradiction betweenobligations to share food and rights to accumulatestores. Secondly, if Neolithic ‘domestic’ architecturearguably served to identify a small group of co-res-idents with unconditional rights to consumption ofstored food, the variable location of cooking facili-ties both indoors and outdoors suggests some flexi-bility as to the social distance over which rights tocommensality were recognised (Halstead 1995). Asin modern European society, the boundaries of com-mensality were probably extended on ‘special’ occa-sions and the frequent co-existence of elaboratelydecorated and plain, but functionally comparable,ceramic vessels may well reflect the attribution ofgreater or lesser social significance to different con-sumption events.

If rights to commensality in the Neolithic were in-deed conditional and flexible, is there any evidencethat hospitality was reciprocated? In the ethnogra-phic record, hospitality is commonly reciprocated inkind or with labour, and both forms are at leastcompatible with the archaeological record from theNeolithic of Greece. First, ceramic tableware exhibitssimilar shapes and decorative styles over substantialdistances in space (≤50–75 km) and time (severaldecades to a few centuries) (e.g., Washburn 1983;Cullen 1984; Rondiri 1985). Such far-flung and long-lasting committment to a shared material culture ofcommensality might, in a more obviously hierarchi-cal social context, be interpreted in terms of regio-nal emulation of a notably generous elite (cf. Wrightin press), but is more plausibly comprehended herein terms of webs of reciprocal hospitality. Secondly,if Neolithic domestic architecture does representsomething like a household, it will have defined agroup that shared obligations of labour as well asrights of consumption (cf. Sahlins 1974). In thiscontext, the flexible social boundaries, implied bythe existence of external as well as internal hearths,may well reflect collaboration as much as commen-sality between neighbours and kin. Similarly, by joi-ning the workforce of a household, distant kin oreven non-kin may have gained access to hospitalityon which they would otherwise have had no claim.Thus, on a range of social scales, hospitality mayhave been reciprocated both in kind and with la-bour, the former representing interaction betweensocial equals and the latter something closer to a pa-tron-client relationship (cf. Dietler, Herbich 2001).


155

The dynamic behind both types of relationship maybe better understood by considering the risks facedby early farmers in Greece and the probable buffer-ing strategies adopted to mitigate these risks. In ef-fect, it will be argued that routine practices of earlyfarmers in this region not only made feasting pos-sible, but strongly disposed it to become an impor-tant arena of social competition.

AGRICULTURAL RISK AND RISK-BUFFERING:THE IMPORTANCE OF HUMAN LABOUR

For early farmers in Greece, supplies of staple graincrops will inevitably have been at risk to natural ha-zards at four successive stages (Forbes 1982; Hal-stead 1990):❶ unfavourable weather in autumn-early wintermight result in crops being sown on an insufficientscale or on inadequately prepared ground;❷ unfavourable weather or crop pests during win-ter and spring might harm or, occasionally, even de-stroy growing crops;❸ ripe crops in early summer might be decimatedin the field by birds or spoiled during threshing bya sudden storm;❹ at any point in the year, stored grain might belost to insect pests or damp (as well as cultural ha-zards such as fire or theft).At the first and third of these stages, in particular,the impact of natural hazards might be mitigated ormagnified by an abundance or scarcity, respectively,of human labour. For recent non-mechanised farm-ers in Greece, the autumn-winter period of tillageand sowing and, even more so, the early summerharvesting and processing period for staple graincrops placed major strain on human labour (Hal-stead, Jones 1989), to the extent that either unfa-vourable weather conditions or a reduced workforcemight result in the partial, inadequate or delayedcompletion of tasks. In such a seasonal environment,even delayed completion of some tasks carried seri-ous risks: for example, late sowing makes crop yieldsless reliable – as the modern Greek saying goes, ‘theearly-sown crop is blessed by God, the late-sown cropby fortune’. Moreover, for Neolithic farmers, the de-mands on human labour during tillage may havebeen significantly higher, if little or no use was madeof plough-animals (cf. Sherratt 1981). Thus, any lossof human labour (or increased demands on labour)during the autumn-winter or early summer peak pe-riods of agricultural activity could have dangerouslyexacerbated the risks to crop production posed bynatural hazards.

In combination, these hazards will have constituteda serious threat to survival and, in response, earlyfarmers will almost certainly have deployed a rangeof buffering strategies:❶ Diversification The role of crop diversification incushioning the effects of growing-season hazardshas been discussed at length elsewhere (Forbes1976; 1982; 1989; Halstead 1990) and there issome evidence that Neolithic farmers in Greece didindeed grow a range of cereal and pulse crops (Hal-stead 1992a). Growing a range of crops may alsohave extended the sowing and harvesting seasonsand so helped to ease the pressures on human la-bour in autumn-early winter and early summer. Onthe other hand, there is surprisingly little evidencefor foraging at early farming villages in Greece (e.g.,Halstead 1999), although a potentially importantcontribution of domestic animals to subsistence di-versification is discussed below.❷ Overproduction and storage As was notedabove, regular overproduction of grain may reaso-nably be regarded as an essential element of grain-based subsistence in strongly seasonal environments.Overproduction also increases stress on the humanworkforce during the autumn-early winter and earlysummer peaks of labour input, however, and so maybe unachievable if key tasks are curtailed by unfa-vourable weather. Partly for this reason, overpro-duction may be insufficient to cushion farmers aga-inst a run of bad years. Ironically, a run of goodyears might also cause problems: if farmers’ estima-tes of the level of overproduction required for secu-rity were determined by both traditional norms(‘grandfather responses’ – Forbes 1989) and perso-nal experience, repeated failure to consume costlysurpluses is likely to have led to less cautious beha-viour.❸ Exchange One means of extending the ‘shelf-life’of surpluses is to give them away in the expectationof future reciprocation. Although food may be ex-changed for valuables, especially between distant so-cial contacts and in circumstances of extreme scar-city (O’Shea 1981), reciprocation in kind and reci-procation with labour are more commonplace andpossible evidence for both from the Neolithic ofGreece has already been noted. The implications of,and interplay between, reciprocation in kind andwith labour are of particular interest in the presentcontext.

Clearly, shortage of labour at crucial points in theagricultural year could restrict the scale and com-promise the reliability of grain production and couldalso undermine attempts to enhance subsistence se-

Paul Halstead

156

curity through overproduction. Conversely, accessto additional labour at the same crucial points in theyear could boost overproduction and enhance subsi-stence security.

In the Neolithic, as in the recent past, neighboursand kin probably provided mutual assistance, to thebenefit of both parties, in laborious tasks such asfield clearance. Reciprocal hospitality too doubtlessplayed an important, and often mutually beneficial,role in initiating or affirming social (as opposed toanti-social) relations within and between Neolithiccommunities. Exchanges of labour for food at timesof peak agricultural activity, however, will have pro-moted social inequality. Households with disposablesurplus will have been able to acquire additional la-bour and so to minimise the risk that future overpro-duction be jeopardised by time stress during the cri-tical sowing and harvesting periods; the use of sur-plus food to secure additional labour will also havereduced the risk that overproduction might come tobe regarded, after a run of good years, as an unjusti-fied burden. Conversely, households forced to ex-port labour will have been more likely to fall foul ofunfavourable weather during sowing or harvestingand so to end up underproducing. The clear implica-tion of this self-reinforcing assymetry is that the giv-ing away of food may have been especially advanta-geous if at least some of the recipients were unableto reciprocate in kind. One means of achieving thisend may have been to escalate the cost of hospita-lity, by sponsoring large-scale feasts or serving ‘partyfood’ (e.g., beer or meat rather than staples such asbread or gruel). The following section considers thepossible significance of domestic animals in suchcompetitive commensality. At this juncture, how-ever, it should be noted that, in the Neolithic of Gre-ece, feasting may not only have been predicated onthe existence of surplus, but may equally have jus-tified and facilitated the production of surplus. Mo-reover, feasting may have been so integrally boundup with the risk-buffering strategies of early farmersthat it was as essential to their economic viability asto social reproduction.

LIVESTOCK, MEAT AND FEASTING

Domestic animals doubtless played a variety of rolesin Neolithic farming. They were a source of food,perhaps including milk (e.g., Rowley-Conwy 2000)and blood as well as meat, and also provided rawmaterials, including hides, hair, horn and bone. Theirmanure probably boosted crop yields, while theircontribution to clearance (cf. Rowley-Conwy 1981)

and possible use as pack- or plough-animals (cf.Sherratt 1981) may have helped farmers to makethe most of favourable weather at sowing and har-vest times. In the event of scarcity of staple grains,fattened livestock may have been a vital alternativesource of sustenance, while the feeding of unwantedor spoiled grain to livestock (e.g., Robinson, Ras-mussen 1989) may have provided a welcome meansof ‘indirect storage’ (cf. Flannery 1969; Halstead1993). In addition to this wealth of ‘practical’ uses,livestock may have been valued for less obviouslymaterial reasons. First, if surplus grain was fed todomestic animals, then fattened livestock will havebeen a very visible and immediately intelligible sym-bol of the wealth of their owner. Secondly, a rangeof ethnographic and historical evidence suggeststhat the killing of domestic animals will have beenan event of far greater cosmological significancethan is a visit to a modern butcher’s shop or super-market (e.g., Burkert 1983); the consumption ofmeat, therefore, may well have been a profoundlymeaningful experience in the Neolithic. Thirdly, sinceit is unlikely that individual Neolithic householdscould maintain viable breeding populations of allfour common domestic animal species (sheep, pigs,cattle and goats), livestock were almost certainly ex-changed between different productive units within,and perhaps between, villages (Halstead 1992b).Given that such exchanges are likely to have reaf-firmed or reshaped existing social relationships, it isinherently likely that livestock thus served as a me-taphor for Neolithic society (cf. Dahl 1979).

One context in which many of the practical and sym-bolic values of domestic animals may have been com-bined is in feasting. Meat is likely to have been este-emed simply because it was less regularly availablethan foods based on staple grains and, in a physicallyactive population, particular appreciation of animalfat is likely to have been dictated by human biology,if not also by cultural values. In addition, the killingof domestic animals may have been regarded as asacrificial act, leading to conspicuous consumptionof something that simultaneously represented accu-mulated wealth and perhaps a particular nexus ofsocial relationships. The meat of domestic animalswould thus have been a highly valued form of ‘partyfood’ and so an important ingredient in competitivefeasting. Were domestic animals consumed in suchcommensal contexts in the Neolithic of Greece?

Circumstantial evidence in this direction comes fromconsideration of the practicalities of consuming do-mestic animals. Whereas most plant foods can be


157

prepared for consumption in quantities appropriateto an individual consumer, a family household or acommunity-wide feast, an animal cannot be slaugh-tered piecemeal. In recent Greek rural communities,prior to the widespread availability of refrigerators,a family household might eat a chicken or a sucklinglamb or kid, but an older lamb or kid would usuallybe shared with neighbours and a yearling of thesame species was likely to be slaughtered for an ex-tended social gathering such as a wedding. An adultsheep might be consumed at a wedding, or preser-ved and stored for domestic consumption over a pe-riod of months; a yearling or older pig similarly ten-ded to be preserved and stored. A steer might beslaughtered for a village-wide festival, but most cat-tle were sold in urban markets.

Much of this oral history refers to the mid-twentiethcentury, when rural households were often largeand carcass weights of livestock often low. Survivingand recovered faunal remains from Neolithic villa-ges in Greece indicate high levels of later first- andsecond-year slaughter of pigs; high levels of laterfirst- and second-year and also older slaughter insheep and goats; and perhaps even older averageage of slaughter in rather poor samples of cattle(Halstead in prep.). Thus almost all the availableevidence for slaughter of domestic animals is deri-ved from animals too big to have been consumedfresh by a single household, even if these were ra-ther more extended than their recent counterparts.There is little if any hint in Neolithic mortality datathat age of slaughter was heavily shaped by the de-sire for secondary products (milk, wool or traction).On the contrary, the high proportions of older juve-niles, subadults and young adults represented aresuggestive rather of emphasis on the raising of largecarcasses for consumption. It might be argued thatmany of these animal carcasses were preserved forlong-term domestic consumption, but in the recentpast slaughter for storage typically took place in thecold winter months to minimise the risk of meatspoiling while being salted, smoked or sealed in fat.Available mortality data suggest that slaughter wasmore or less staggered through the year (Halsteadin press), implying that many carcasses were consu-med fresh. Finally, studies of butchery traces offer nohint of a high level of wastage of carcasses (Pappaet al. in press; Isaakidou 2004).

In sum, it is likely that many, perhaps most, of thedomestic animals slaughtered at Neolithic villageswere consumed by a social group larger, and oftenmuch larger, than the household. Moreover, a high

proportion of these animals could have been slau-ghtered at a substantially younger age, without anyloss of secondary products, and could then plausi-bly have been consumed by a smaller social groupwithout sharing with outsiders. The implication isthat these animals were not merely consumed atlarge-scale feasts, but were reared for this purpose.As in recent rural society, the slaughter of cattle willhave been appropriate for especially large commen-sal occasions, perhaps marking particularly impor-tant points in the life-cycle of a household or largersocial group. This may be one source of the apparen-tly exceptional cultural value of cattle in Neolithicsociety, implied by their dominance in the reper-toire of zoomorphic figurines (Toufexis 2003).

CONCLUSION: THE POLITICAL ECOLOGY OFFEASTING IN THE NEOLITHIC OF GREECE

It has been argued here that feasting, in the sense ofcommensality on a social scale larger than the ba-sic unit of agricultural producers, was an importantpractice in the Neolithic of Greece. This claim findssome empirical support in the Neolithic material cul-ture of Greece, in which decorated ceramic ‘table-ware’ is prominent. Attempts to model society andeconomy in the Neolithic of Greece suggest that fea-sting will have served, inter alia, to mobilise addi-tional agricultural labour, to negotiate and affirm so-cial relationships at both an intra- and inter-settle-ment level, and to convert agricultural surpluses intosymbolic capital in the context of social competition.All of these roles are well exemplified in ethnogra-phic accounts of feasting in recent horticultural so-cieties (e.g., Richards 1939; Allan 1965; Dietler2001; Dietler, Herbich 2001; Hayden 2001a).

It has also been argued that the large size of manyor most of the domestic animal carcasses represen-ted on Neolithic settlements in Greece implies con-sumption in the context of large-scale commensality.Most of these domestic animals could have beenslaughtered at a younger age, at a carcass size appro-priate to consumption by a much smaller social unit,equivalent perhaps to a ‘household’ group of produ-cers. In this respect, it might be argued that domes-tic animals in the Neolithic of Greece were raised forconsumption in feasting – again a suggestion thathas already been made for other cultural contexts(e.g., Keswani 1994; Hayden 2001b).

As Dietler and Hayden have recently emphasised(Dietler, Hayden 2001), feasting is a very wide-

I am grateful to Miha Budja, for the invitation to par-ticipate in a most enjoyable and productive meeting,and to the University of Sheffield, for contributing tothe costs of attendance. I am also indebted to AmyBogaard and Valasia Isaakidou, for comments onthis paper, and to Kostas Kotsakis, Maria Pappa, Dus-ka Urem-Kotsou and Valasia Isaakidou for discus-sions, while working on the Makriyalos and Paliam-bela projects, of food consumption in the Neolithic.

Paul Halstead

158

spread phenomenon, takes a great variety of formsin different cultural contexts, and has significant po-tential to generate social change. This paper has at-tempted to develop this last point by exploring theecological context of competitive commensality. Diet-ler and Hayden draw attention to some fundamen-tal paradigmatic divergences between those, such asDietler, who see feasting primarily as a competitivepolitical activity, and others, including Hayden, whoemphasise the ‘practical’ benefits of feasting. As Diet-ler and Hayden acknowledge, however, there isroom for manouevre between these perspectivesand this paper seeks to exploit this potential ratherthan to endorse either paradigmatic pole.

The starting point for this attempt is the observationthat feasting expends substantial surpluses and thatsuch surpluses are often accumulated as a risk-buffe-ring measure in societies dependent on storage andliving in environments characterised by marked sea-sonality and inter-annual variability. In such con-texts, food production, and even more so overpro-duction, tends to place significant strain on humanlabour resources, to the extent that the expenditureof unused food surpluses to mobilise additional la-bour may significantly enhance survival prospectsas well as leisure time. In a highly seasonal environ-ment, where the scheduling of tasks may be bothtightly constrained and critical to their success, reci-procal exchanges of labour may reduce the drudgeryof agricultural labour. The acquisition of human la-bour in return for surplus food, however, is highlybeneficial to the ‘host’ and potentially disastrous forthe ‘guest’. Moreover, the transition from egalitarianreciprocal hospitality to inegalitarian exchange of

food for labour may have been subject to few cultu-ral constraints, precisely because such patronage canbe construed as no more than the welcoming of anadditional member to the household.

In this context, conspicuous feasting may play an im-portant ‘economic’ role both in driving less succes-sful households into indebtedness and subservienceand in enabling successful farmers to compete witheach other for the position of preeminent host andlabour-beneficiary. Feasting is thus enabled by, butalso helps to promote and perpetuate, overproduc-tion. In this respect, competitive feasting could beregarded as a political strategy for promoting subsi-stence security. Whether the goal of overproductionand feasting, as perceived by the Neolithic inhabi-tants of Greece, was subsistence security or politicaladvantage is arguably unimportant and certainly un-knowable. In this ecological context, however, notonly does overproduction have the potential to en-hance subsistence security and enable feasting, butthe hosting of feasts can justify and facilitate over-production and subsistence security.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

REFERENCES

∴

ALLAN W. 1965. The African Husbandman. Edin-burgh. Oliver and Boyd.

ANDREOU S., FOTIADIS M., KOTSAKIS K. 1996. Re-view of Aegean prehistory 5: the Neolithic and BronzeAge of northern Greece. American Journal of Archa-eology 100: 537–597.

BARNARD A., WOODBURN J. 1991. Property, powerand ideology in hunting and gathering societies: anintroduction. In T. Ingold, D. Riches and J. Wood-burn (eds.), Hunters and Gatherers, 2: Property,Power and Ideology: 4–31.

BOTTEMA S. 1982. Palynological investigations inGreece with special reference to pollen as an indica-tor of human activity. Palaeohistoria 24: 257–289.

BROWN P. 1978. Highland Peoples of New Guinea.Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.

BURKERT W. 1983. Homo necans: the Anthropo-logy of Ancient Greek Sacrificial Ritual and Myth.Berkeley. University of California Press.

CHAGNON N. A. 1968. Yanomamo: the Fierce Peo-ple. New York. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.


159

CHILDE V. G. 1957. The Dawn of European Civili-sation. London. Routledge and Kegan Paul.

CULLEN T. 1984. Social implications of ceramic stylein the Neolithic Peloponnese. In W. D. Kingery (ed.),Ancient Technology to Modern Science, volume 1:77–100.

DAHL G. 1979. Ecology and equality: the Boran case.In Pastoral Production and Society: 261– 281.

DIETLER M. 2001. Theorizing the feast: rituals ofconsumption, commensal politics, and power in Af-rican contexts. In M. Dietler and B. Hayden (eds.),Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspec-tives on Food, Politics and Power: 65–114.

DIETLER M., HAYDEN B. 2001. Digesting the feast:good to eat, good to drink, good to think. In M. Diet-ler and B. Hayden (eds.), Feasts: Archaeological andEthnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics andPower: 1–20.

DIETLER M., HERBICH I. 2001. Feasts and labor mo-bilization. In M. Dietler and B. Hayden (eds.), Feasts:Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives onFood, Politics and Power: 240–264.

FLANNERY K. V. 1969. Origins and ecological effectsof early Near Eastern domestication. In P. J. Uckoand G. W. Dimbleby (eds.), The Domestication andExploitation of Plants and Animals: 73–100.

1972. The origins of the village as a settlementtype in Mesoamerica and the Near East: a compa-rative study. In P. J. Ucko, R. Tringham and G. W.Dimbleby (eds.), Man, Settlement and Urbanism:23–53.

FLETCHER R. 1981. People and space: a case studyon material behaviour. In I. Hodder, G. Isaac and N.Hammond (eds.), Pattern of the Past: Studies inHonour of David Clarke: 97–128.

FORBES H. 1976. ‘We have a little of everything’: theecological basis of some agricultural practices in Me-thana, Trizinia. Annals of the New York Academyof Sciences 268: 236–250.

1982. Strategies and Soils: Technology, Produc-tion and Environment in the Peninsula of Me-thana, Greece. PhD dissertation. University ofPennsylvania.

1989. Of grandfathers and grand theories: thehierarchised ordering of responses to hazard in aGreek rural community. In P. Halstead and J.O’Shea (eds.), Bad Year Economics: 87–97.

FORGE A. 1972. Normative factors in the settlementsize of neolithic cultivators (New Guinea). In P. J.Ucko, R. Tringham and G. W. Dimbleby (eds.), Man,Settlement and Urbanism: 363–376.

HALSTEAD P. 1989a. Like rising damp? An ecologi-cal approach to the spread of farming in southeastand central Europe. In A. Milles, D. Williams and N.Gardner (eds.), The Beginnings of Agriculture (BARInternational Series 496): 23–53.

1989b. The economy has a normal surplus: eco-nomic stability and social change among early far-ming communities of Thessaly, Greece. In P. Hal-stead and J. O. ’Shea (eds.), Bad Year Economics:68–80.

1990. Waste not, want not: traditional responsesto crop failure in Greece. Rural History 1: 147–164.

1992a. Agriculture in the Bronze Age Aegean: to-wards a model of palatial economy. In B. Wells(ed.), Agriculture in Ancient Greece: 105–116.

1992b. From reciprocity to redistribution: model-ling the exchange of livestock in Neolithic Greece.Anthropozoologica 16: 19–30.

1993. Banking on livestock: indirect storage inGreek agriculture. Bulletin on Sumerian Agricul-ture 7: 63–75.

1995. From sharing to hoarding: the neolithicfoundations of Aegean Bronze Age society? In R.Laffineur and W.-D. Niemeier (eds.), Politeia: So-ciety and State in the Aegean Bronze Age (Aega-eum 12): 11–20.

1999. Neighbours from hell: the household inNeolithic Greece. In P. Halstead (ed.), NeolithicSociety in Greece: 77–95.

in press. Resettling the Neolithic: faunal evidencefor seasons of consumption and residence at Neo-lithic sites in Greece. In D. Bailey and A. Whittle(eds.), Unsettling the Neolithic.

Paul Halstead

160

HALSTEAD P., JONES G. 1989. Agrarian ecology inthe Greek islands: time stress, scale and risk. Jour-nal of Hellenic Studies 109: 41–55.

HAYDEN B. 2001a. Fabulous feasts: a prolegomenonto the importance of feasting. In M. Dietler and B.Hayden (eds.), Feasts: Archaeological and Ethno-graphic Perspectives on Food, Politics and Power:23–64.

2001b. The dynamics of wealth and poverty inthe transegalitarian societies of southeast Asia.Antiquity 75: 571–581.

HITSIOU E. 2003. Production and Circulation ofthe Late Neolithic Pottery from Makrygialos (PhaseII), Macedonia, Northern Greece. PhD dissertation.University of Sheffield.

HODDER I. 1990. The Domestication of Europe. Ox-ford. Blackwell.

HOURMOUZIADIS G. 1979. To Neolithiko Dimini.Volos. Society for Thessalian Studies.

INGOLD T. 1980. Hunters, Pastoralists and Ran-chers: Reindeer Economies and their Transforma-tions. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.

1983. The significance of storage in hunting socie-ties. Man 18: 553–571.

1986. The Appropriation of Nature: Essays onHuman Ecology and Social Relations. Manche-ster. Manchester University Press.

ISAAKIDOU V. 2004. Bones from the Labyrinth: Fau-nal Evidence for the Management and Consump-tion of Animals at Neolithic and Bronze Age Knos-sos, Crete. PhD dissertation. University College Lon-don.

JONES G. 1992. Weed phytosociology and crop hus-bandry: identifying a contrast between ancient andmodern practice. Review of Palaeobotany and Paly-nology 73: 133–143.

KENT S. 1993. Variability in faunal assemblages: theinfluence of hunting skill, sharing, dogs, and mode ofcooking on faunal remains at a sedentary Kalaharicommunity. Journal of Anthropological Archaeo-logy 12: 323–385.

KESWANI P. 1994. The social context of animal hus-bandry in early agricultural societies. Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology 13: 255–277.

KOTSAKIS K. 1982. Recent research at Sesklo. InSymposia Thracica 1982: 265–269.

1999. What tells can tell: social space and settle-ment in the Greek Neolithic. In P. Halstead (ed.),Neolithic Society in Greece: 66–76.

MALINOWSKI B. 1922. Argonauts of the WesternPacific. London. Routledge.

MAUSS M. 1970. The Gift. London. Routledge andKegan Paul.

O’SHEA J. 1981. Coping with scarcity: exchange andsocial storage. In A. Sheridan and G. Bailey (eds.),Economic Archaeology (BAR International Series96): 167–183.

PAPPA M., HALSTEAD P., KOTSAKIS K., UREM-KOT-SOU D. in press. Evidence for large-scale feasting atLate Neolithic Makriyalos, N Greece. In P. Halsteadand J. Barrett (eds.), Food, Cuisine and Society inPrehistoric Greece.

PERLÈS C. 1999. The distribution of magoules in eas-tern Thessaly. In P. Halstead (ed.), Neolithic Societyin Greece: 42–56.

RAPPAPORT R. A. 1968. Pigs for the Ancestors. Lon-don. Yale University Press.

RICHARDS A. I. 1939. Land, Labour and Diet inNorthern Rhodesia. Oxford. Oxford University Press.

ROBINSON D., RASMUSSEN P. 1989. Leaf hay and ce-reals as animal fodder. In A. Milles, D. Williams andN. Gardner (eds.), The Beginnings of Agriculture(BAR International Series 496): 149–163.

RONDIRI V. 1985. Epifaniaki keramiki neolithikontheseon tis Thessalias: katanomi sto khoro. Anthro-pologika 8: 53–74.

ROWLEY-CONWY P. 1981. Slash and burn in thetemperate European Neolithic. In R. J. Mercer (ed.),Farming Practice in British Prehistory: 85–96.

2000. Milking caprines, hunting pigs: the Neoli-thic economy of Arene Candide in its West Medi-


161

terranean context. In P. Rowley-Conwy (ed.), Ani-mal Bones, Human Societies: 124–132.

SAHLINS M. 1974. Stone Age Economics. London.Tavistock Publications.

SHERRATT A. 1981. Plough and pastoralism: aspectsof the secondary products revolution. In I. Hodder,G. Isaac and N. Hammond (eds.), Pattern of the Past:Studies in Honour of David Clarke: 261–305.

1991. Palaeoethnobotany: from crops to cuisine.In F. Queiroga and A. P. Dinis (eds.), Paleoecolo-gia e Arqueologia 2: 221–36.

THEOCHARIS D. R. 1980. To neolithiko spiti. Anthro-pologika 1: 12–14.

TOMKINS P. 2001. The Production, Circulation andConsumption of Ceramic Vessels at Early NeolithicKnossos, Crete. PhD dissertation. University of Shef-field.

TOMKINS P., DAY P. 2001. Production and exchangeof the earliest ceramic vessels in the Aegean: a viewfrom Early Neolithic Knossos, Crete. Antiquity 75:259–260.

TOUFEXIS G. 2003. Animals in the Neolithic art ofThessaly. In E. Kotjabopoulou, Y. Hamilakis, P. Hal-stead, C. Gamble and P. Elefanti (eds.), Zooarchaeo-logy in Greece: Recent Advances: 263–271.

VITELLI K. D. 1989. Were pots first made for food?Doubts from Franchthi. World Archaeology 21: 17–29.

WASHBURN D. K. 1983. Symmetry analysis of cera-mic design: two tests of the method on neolithic ma-terial from Greece and the Aegean. In D. K. Wash-burn (ed.), Structure and Cognition in Art: 138–164.

WHITELAW T. M. 1983. People and space in hunter-gatherer camps: a generalising approach in ethno-archaeology. Archaeological Review from Cam-bridge 2: 48–66.

WHITTLE A. 1997. Moving on and moving around:neolithic settlement mobility. In P. Topping (ed.),Neolithic Landscapes: 15–22.

WIESSNER P. 2001. Of feasting and value: Enga feastsin a historical perspective (Papua New Guinea). InM. Dietler and B. Hayden (eds.), Feasts: Archaeolo-gical and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Po-litics and Power: 115–143.

WILLIS K. J., BENNETT K. D. 1994. The neolithic tran-sition fact or fiction? Palaeoecological evidence fromthe Balkans. The Holocene 4: 326–330.

WRIGHT J. in press. Mycenaean drinking servicesand standards of etiquette. In P. Halstead and J. Ba-rrett (eds.), Food, Cuisine and Society in Prehisto-ric Greece.

WRIGHT K. 2000. The social origins of cooking anddining in early villages of western Asia. Proceedingsof the Prehistoric Society 66: 89–121.

cont ent s

Documents

Halstead, Farming and Feasting in the Neolithic of Greece