Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to World
Archaeology.
http://www.jstor.org
When
is
food
luxury?
Abstract
This paperexploresdefinitionsof luxuryfoods and considersthe role of luxuriesin markingsocial
distinction.It is proposedthatluxuryfoods are those foods that offer a refinementin texture,taste,
fat content or other quality(suchas stimulantor inebriant)and offer distinction,becauseof either
theirquantityor quality.Ethnographicresearchhas revealedthat an emphasison quantityof food
and elaborationof commonstaplesis found mostlyin societieswithoutstrongsocial stratification,
while an emphasison qualityand style is characteristicof societies with institutionalizedformsof
socialranking.In the formercontextthe consumptionof luxuryfoods is used primarilyto createor
enhancesocial bonds,in the latterto createor enhanceexclusivityanddistance.The archaeological
recognitionof luxuryfoods is reviewed to demonstratehow archaeologyis well placed to add
regionalbreadthand chronologicaldepth to the studyof the changingrole and meaningof luxury
foods.
Keywords
Food;luxury;consumption;elites;exotics;semiotics;materialculture;archaeology;feasting.
Introduction
Food can be described as 'a highly condensed social fact' (Appadurai 1981: 494). While
food debris per se has long been studied by archaeologists, there is now a growing awareness of the value of studying the social context of food; of seeing food as material culture
(e.g. Gerritsen 2000; Gosden and Hather 1999;Gumerman 1997; Miracle and Milner 2002;
Thomas, K. 1999; Wilkins et al. 1995). This paper and this issue of World Archaeology
represent further contributions to this discussion, and focus on one area of food consumption, that of luxury foods. Definitions of 'luxury' are rarely fully comprehensive and they
vary in the degree to which emphasis is placed on economic rather than social aspects of
the concept. The definition offered in the Concise Oxford Dictionary (1991) is three-fold:
'1) choice or costly surroundings, possessions, food, etc.... 2) something desirable for
comfort or enjoyment, but not indispensable, and 3) providing great comfort, expensive.'
In terms of foods, luxury usually denotes foods that are desirable or hard to obtain but
not essential to human nutrition. These frequently, though not necessarily, include exotic
Routledge
Taylor&FrancisGroup
l\
406
foods, that is, foods that are unusual or desirable because of their foreign origin. Defining what is and is not essential is, of course, fraught with problems, and the first part of
this paper will consider the opposition between needs and desires. I shall then focus on
which types of food may be considered luxuries. The consumption of luxury foods often
takes place on special occasions, from small-scale family celebrations to large-scale feasts,
and the archaeology of luxury foods is thus closely linked to the archaeology of feasting.
Finally, I examine how luxury foods are often directly associated with elites: they are seen
as the preserve of the upper classes, who use expensive and exotic foods to mark social
status, to identify distinction. Is this the true arena of luxury foods? Is the study of luxury
foods essentially a study of food consumption within hierarchical societies, or is this
assessment too strongly prejudiced by current Western perceptions of luxury?
408
result in a drop in expenditure on luxuries (Douglas and Isherwood 1979: 68-9). The
problem with this definition is that demand is not always functional. Leibestein (1950)
identified three instances of this phenomenon (as quoted by Berry 1994: 27):
a) Bandwagon effect: demand increases due to the fact that others are consuming the
product (i.e. fashion).
b) Snob effect: demand decreases due to the fact that others are consuming a particular
product.
Veblen
effect: demand increases when the price is higher rather than lower.
c)
Thus, in certain circumstances, people will forgo basic needs and spend money on
luxuries in order to maintain their social status. This brings us to the next aspect of luxury
consumption, that of the exclusive nature of luxuries and their use in conspicuous
consumption.
Exclusivity and social distinction
A slightly different approach is that which sees luxuries primarily in terms of 'social
meaning', in line with the view that consumption is a system of meanings or signs (e.g.
Appadurai 1986; Baudrillard 1988; Douglas 1984; Douglas and Isherwood 1979; Miller
1995). Here the consumption of luxury goods is regarded solely as a means of advertising
and displaying social status, as conspicuous consumption: that is, the lavish consumption
of goods with a view to enhancing one's prestige. Here the focus is not on the inherent
characteristic of what is consumed, but on the signal it gives to those who cannot consume
it.
This has led to a new definition of luxuries, as goods 'whose principal use is rhetorical
and social, goods that are simply incarnated signs' (Appadurai 1986: 38). Rather than
representing a particular class of things, Appadurai suggests that they are seen as a special
'register' of consumption. The signs of this register comprise some or all of the following
(ibid.: 38):
a) restriction, either in price or by law, to elites;
b) complexity of acquisition, which may or may not be a function of real 'scarcity';
c) semiotic virtuosity, that is, the capacity to signal fairly complex social messages (as do
pepper in cuisine, silk in dress, jewels in adornment and relics in worship);
d) specialized knowledge as a prerequisite for their 'appropriate' consumption, that is,
regulation by fashion; and
e) a high degree of linkage of their consumption to body, person and personality.
Many scholars see social distinction and exclusivity as the true arena of luxury goods,
while all agree that luxury goods are, by definition, outside the reach of mass consumption; using Berry's words, it is not possible to 'democratize' luxuries (1994: 32). The
conclusion sometimes drawn from this is that luxury goods will occur only in societies with
strong social stratification, where elites require goods in order to display and maintain
their status. Diamond (1997: 269), for example, suggests that luxury foods occur only in
chiefdoms and states, not in bands and tribes. This argument fails to acknowledge,
however, that most, if not all, human beings know the desire for luxuries, that all societies
His studies of three social contexts in Hindu South Asia, those of the household, the
marriage feast and the temple, revealed how in these contexts food served two diametrically opposed semiotic functions: homogeneity and heterogeneity. Food can be used to
mark and create relations of equality, intimacy or solidarity or, instead, to uphold relations
signalling rank, distance or segmentation (Appadurai 1981). Each food consumption
event will contain a contrast between host and guest, giver and receiver, insider and
outsider, though most contexts will contain components of both homogeneity and heterogeneity. The acts of sitting down to eat together express these tensions by highlighting
who is doing the sharing who is participating and who is excluded.
Feasts
Feasts are, par excellence, contexts of luxury food consumption, being often used either
to enhance or to establish social relations. They have two principal characteristics: the
414
communal consumption of food (including drink) - usually of foods that are different
from everyday practice - and the social component of display - usually of success, social
status or power (Dietler and Hayden, 2001a, 2001b). Hayden (1990, 1996, 2001 this
volume) sees feasts primarily as displays of biological or ecological success and as the principal context for investing surpluses and the consumption of luxury foods. He argues that
we should regard the intensification of food procurement as a process driven by the status
quest, which resulted, perhaps most significantly, in the transition to farming. Dietler
(1990, 1996) meanwhile emphasizes the political role and ritual nature of many feasts.
Both have categorized different types of feasts; for the purpose of this paper, I mainly
follow Dietler's categories:
a) celebratory feasts, which usually serve to reinforce existing social bonds, either
between individuals of approximately equal social standing or between individuals of
different social standing in instances where the feast does not include a competitive
aspect. These include small family celebrations, larger community feasts in societies
with little emphasis on inequality and many ritual feasts, where issues of rank and
distance may be temporarily suspended (Appadurai 1981: 509; Hayden 1996: 128);
b) entrepreneurial or empowering feasts, which are used to acquire social power and/or
economic advantage. Here unequal relations are created: by hosting a feast the host
raises his standing, and his prestige; and by eating the food the guests accept the obligation to give something in return, either deference or, in the case of work-party
feasts, labour (Dietler 1996: 92-6);
c) patron-role feasts, which use commensal hospitality to reiterate and legitimize existing unequal relations of status and power (corresponding to redistribution). Here,
unlike the previous category, there is no expectation of equal reciprocation. The
unequal social relations are accepted through the repetition of unequal hospitality
events. Chiefs are expected to host lavish parties, though some of the food offered
may be the result of tribute or work-parties (ibid.: 96-7);
d) diacritical feasts, which serve to naturalize or reify differences in social status, but
where, unlike the previous two categories, there is no element of reciprocity. Here the
'audience' no longer participates, and the emphasis is on style and on foods that
symbolize that exclusivity (expensive foods, exotics) (ibid.: 98-9).
Each of these feasts serves to homogenize or heterogenize the participants, with elements
of both present at all. The first three categories, on balance, are more concerned with the
creation or maintenance of social bonds, while diacritical feasts are first and foremost
concerned with exclusivity, with the creation of distance, with the erection of fences,
rather than the construction of bridges. The role of the host varies too, from looking for
prestige to looking for distance. Following Bourdieu (1994) we see how feasts can convert
economic capital into either symbolic power (first three categories of feasts) or cultural
capital (diacritical feasts). As argued above, the types of food used in these situations also
diverge.
While the consumption of luxury foods always contains an element of exclusivity (as
noted, luxury foods cannot be 'democratized'), they tend to be favoured for what Berry
calls their 'naturalism', for their ability to fulfil universal satisfaction because of their
texture, fat content, flavour and/or quantity. But when food is used first and foremost to
Archaeological recognition
In order to clarify the contrast between these two types of luxury food consumption, it
was necessary to talk about the extremes, in what may be a continuum of use. This can
be hazardous, as too close a focus on the meaning of food may give the illusion that we
are dealing with a static situation, and may fail to observe the process. As outlined earlier,
cohesion and distance are part of all commensal acts; our challenge as archaeologists
should be to identify their relative importance in different sets of circumstances. A
diachronic study of the role and significance of luxury foods, exotics and sumptuary regulation will help detect the process.
Rolutinepractice
If, for a moment, this simplistic dichotomy between simple societies (those with no formalized or institutionalized inequality) and highly complex societies (those with institutionalized hierarchies) is maintained, then what distinguishes these, in terms of luxury
foods, is the routine with which these latter are consumed. The daily routine of food
consumption reflects and recreates the social and symbolic codes of a society (Bourdieu
1990). In simple societies, day-to-day consumption consists of foods locally produced, with
the emphasis on staples and occasional meat. There will be little or no differentiation
between households, except that the leader may have access to more or better cuts of
meat. Here luxury foods will be eaten in exceptional circumstances only, usually during
feasts. Feasts are large-scale consumption events, both in terms of the number of participants and in the quantity of food consumed. Such events will often take place at special
locations and thus be identifiable as such. By contrast, in strongly hierarchical societies
day-to-day consumption will be characterized by differences between households, groups
of households and types of settlement, and these differences are displayed not during
occasional feasts, but on a regular basis, if not every day. Here, in some households, it is
'party time' every day. Thus, some households will display consumption of food that is
different from the rest, in terms of either quantity or quality, and this may include expensive, rare or exotic foods. Here, the consumption of luxury foods is a regular event, though
only at certain households. Thus, in simple societies we need to look for the exceptional,
in highly complex societies for the ordinary, the everyday events.
Critical here is an accurate identification of households. While Pompeii-style catastrophic abandonment events have been found in several regions and periods (e.g. Emery
416
this volume), they remain exceptions and most archaeologists are forced to wrestle with
the complexity of continuous occupation and the temporality of data sets. Households
may, of course, contain members of more than one social class and the dichotomy between
the 'haves' and the 'have-nots' will be far too simplistic in many societies especially across
any extended time span (e.g. Emery this volume; Ervynck et al. this volume; for a detailed
discussion of these issues, see Allison 1999).
Transience
The distinguishing characteristic of food in comparison to other forms of material culture
is that food is transient: it is eaten and thus largely disappears from the record. While this
presents a challenge to archaeologists, it is one that can be and has been successfully met,
though it may explain why archaeologists have often focused more on food production
rather than on its consumption. Goody (1982: 37) has shown how a study of the phases of
production, distribution, preparation, consumption and disposal can help identify the
social context of food:
Phase
Process
Locus
Production
Distribution
Preparation
Consumption
Disposal
Growing
Allocating/storing
Cooking
Eating
Clearingup
Farm
Granary/market
Kitchen
Table
Scullery
All leave archaeologically recognizable traces, and this scheme can be profitably applied
in archaeology (e.g. Gumerman 1997; Samuel 1996; see also Barker and Grant 1999).
Much of environmental archaeology has been focused on the various aspects of the
production phase: the identification of wild versus domesticated plant and animal species,
production and consumption sites, types and scales of arable cultivation, types of animal
husbandry regime, changes in agricultural tools and implements, etc.; too many to refer
to here explicitly. The distribution phase has also been well studied, with analyses of the
type and spatial patterning of storage facilities (storage vessels and pits, granaries), longerdistance movement of agricultural staples (sometimes identified by the spread of insect
infestations) and the rise of markets. The preparation phase has proved more difficult,
but not impossible. There are ample studies on grinding and pounding tools, butchery
techniques, some on issues such as marrow extraction, boiling versus roasting of animal
meat on the bone (e.g. Monton 2002; Outram 2002), and recently some discussion of
different preparations of cereals (frike, bulgur) (e.g. Hubbard and al-Azm 1990; Valamoti 2002). The analysis of residues in cooking pots should also prove useful (Evershed et
al. 2001). The spatial patterning of food preparation structures (such as stoves or hearths)
and implements (such as grindstones, cooking pots, etc.) is another very profitable area
of study (e.g. Hastorf 1991; Samuel 1999). A change from individual household arrangements to central provisions (or vice versa) is very informative: for example, when and
where do we see the grinding of grain organized centrally in mills or the slaughtering of
418
Evidence for the consumption of more meat (or other animal protein) and/or better
cuts of meat in high-status households or by high-status individuals has been identified all
over the world, as in early state Hawaii (Kirch and O'Day this volume), Maya Guatemala
(Emery this volume), late Iron Age Mozambique (Barker 1978), Roman and medieval
Britain (Grant 1988a 1988b, 2002; Stokes 2000) and Europe (Ervynck et al. this volume)
and eighteenth-/nineteenth-century USA (Singer 1987; see Reitz 1987 for an unsuccessful attempt). An example of a rather select feast is that of the seventeenth-century
ecclesiastical community in Worcester Cathedral, England, again with an emphasis on
meat (Thomas, R. 1999). These interpretations are mostly based on the quantitative and
spatial patterning of faunal remains, but isotopic analyses of human skeletal material are
also highlighting the preferential access of high-status individuals to meat (e.g. late
Roman Poundbury, Britain (Richards et al. 1998) and Olmec Chalcatzingo, Mexico
(Schoeninger 1979)).
There is a very considerable literature on the role of alcoholic drink as a positive
stimulant to festive occasions, as a facilitator of social interactions and as a status differentiator (e.g. Mandelbaum 1965). Archaeological and ethno-archaeological examples
include Iron Age France (Dietler 1990), prehistoric Europe and the Mediterranean (Sherratt 1987, 1995; Vend 1994), classical Greece (Murray 1990), ancient Western Asia (Joffe
1998), present-day Ethiopia (Arthur this volume), Kushite Sudan (Edwards 1996),
Pharaonic Egypt (Murray 2000; Samuel 2000) and the late pre-Hispanic central Andes
(Hastorf and Johannessen 1993). For examples of the role of other stimulants, see Lovejoy
(1995) on kola nut and Sherratt (1995) on narcotics.
The proposition that early domesticates should be regarded as luxury foods and
competitive feasting as the driving force behind the transition to farming has been well
argued by Hayden (e.g. 1990, and this volume), while the role of early domesticates as
prestige goods rather than subsistence material, and the associated sumptuary practices,
has been highlighted by Stahl (this volume, with further examples and references) and
previously by Lewthwaite (1986).
Exotic food items are possibly the category of luxury foods most easily identifiable in
the archaeological record. The temporal and spatial patterning of their occurrence in any
one region will almost certainly reveal luxury consumption, as well as status differences
between sites or households. The elevated position of spices, such as black pepper, cinnamon, cloves, nutmeg, and ginger, is signalled by the expense to which nations were
prepared to go to obtain these from foreign shores (e.g. Braudel 1981; Miller 1969; Milton
1999). Their initial occurrence on high-status sites is a witness to their value (e.g. pepper
- see Bakels and Jacomet this volume; Cappers 1999), while their ultimate commonplace
occurrence is an example of their universal appeal and the reduction of their acquisition
costs. Shipwrecks may offer specific time capsules for the study of long-distance transport
of luxury food items, and the late fourteenth-century Uluburun and mid-eighteenthcentury Sandana Island wrecks are classic examples (Ward 2001 this volume). Isotopic
analyses and dental caries may help identify the uptake and spread of sugar in Europe
(Moore and Corbett 1978). An interesting example of an exotic food that became a staple
not because of its taste but because it was technologically undemanding and economically
important is, of course, the introduction of potato in late sixteenth-century Britain and
Ireland (Leach 1999).
Acknowledgements
While researching this paper I have benefited from discussions with colleagues, their
suggestions for further reading, and/or from their comments on earlier drafts. I should
particularly like to thank Neil Christie, Paul Courtney, Lin Foxhall, Andrew Sherratt,
Carol Palmer, Rob Young, David Waines and Jane Webster. I am grateful to the
University of Leicester for the sabbatical leave during which this paper was written and
this volume was edited.
School of Archaeology & Ancient History
University of Leicester, Leicester LEI 7RH, UK
422
References
Abrams, H. L. 1987a. The preference for animal protein and fat: a cross-cultural survey. In Food
and Evolution: Toward a Theory of Human Food Habits (eds M. Harris and E. B. Ross). Philadelphia: Temple, pp. 207-23.
Abrams, H. L. 1987b. Hominid proclivity for sweetness: an anthropological view. Journal of Applied
Nutrition, 39(1): 35-41.
Ahsan, M. M. 1979. Social Life under the Abbasids, 170-289 AH, 786-902 AD. London: Longman.
Albarella, U. and Serjeantson, D. 2002. A passion for pork: meat consumption at the British late
Neolithic site of Durrington Walls. In Consuming Passions and Patterns of Consumption (eds P.
Miracle and N. Milner), Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, pp. 33-49.
Allison, P. M. (ed.) 1999. The Archaeology of Household Activities. London: Routledge.
Anderson, E. N. 1988. The Food in China. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Andre, J. 1981. L'Alimentation et la Cuisine a Rome. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
Appadurai, A. 1981. Gastropolitics in Hindu South Asia. American Ethnologist, 8: 494-511.
Appadurai, A. 1986. Introduction: commodities and the politics of value. In The Social Life of
Things: Commodities in CulturalPerspective (ed. A. Appadurai). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, pp. 3-63.
Arthur, J. W. 2003. Brewing beer: status, wealth, and ceramic use alteration among the Gamo of
southwestern Ethiopia. World Archaeology, 34(3): 516-528.
Baart, J. 1990. Ceramic consumption and supply in early modern Amsterdam: local production and
long-distance trade. In Work in Towns: 850-1850 (eds P. J. Corfield and D. Keene). Leicester:
Leicester University Press, pp. 74-85.
Bakels, C. and Jacomet, S. 2003. Access to luxury foods in Central Europe during the Roman period:
the archaeobotanical evidence. World Archaeology, 34(3): 542-557.
Barker, G. 1978. Economic models for the Manekweni Zimbabwe, Mozambique. Azania, 13:71-100.
Barker, G. and Grant, A. 1999. Food and farming. In Companion Encyclopedia of Archaeology (ed.
G. Barker). London: Routledge, pp. 546-607.
Baudrillard, J. 1988. Selected Writings (ed. M. Poster). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Berry, C. J. 1994. The Idea of Luxury: A Conceptual and Historical Investigation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Blitz, J. 1993. Big pots for big shots: feasting and storage in a Mississippian community. American
Antiquity, 58: 80-96.
Bourdieu, P. 1990. The Logic of Practice. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, P. 1994. Distinction. London: Routledge.
Braudel, F. 1981. Civilization and Capitalism 15th-18th century, Vol. 1, The Structures of Everyday
Life. London: Collins.
Bulliet, R. W. 1992. Pottery styles and social status in medieval Khurasan. In Archaeology, Annales
and Ethnohistory (ed. A. B. Knapp). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 75-82.
Campbell, C. 1993. Understanding traditional and modern patterns of consumption in eighteenth
century England: a character action approach. In Consumption and the World of Goods (eds J.
Brewer and R. Porter). London: Routledge, pp. 40-57.
Cappers, R. T. J. 1999. Archaeobotanical evidence of Roman trade with India. In Archaeology of
Seafaring (ed. H. P. Ray). Delhi: Pragati/Indian Council of Historical Research, pp. 51-69.
423
Chang, K. C. (ed.) 1977. Food in Chinese Culture. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Courtney, P. 1997. Ceramics and the history of consumption: pitfalls and prospects. Medieval
Ceramics 21: 95-108.
Davis, F. 1992. Fashion, Culture and Identity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Deetz, J. 1996. Of Small Things Forgotten: An Archaeology of Early American Life. New York:
Anchor Books.
Diamond, J. 1997. Guns, Germs and Steel. London: Cape.
Dietler, M. 1990. Driven by drink: the role of drinking in the political economy and the case of early
Iron Age France. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 9: 352-406.
Dietler, M. 1996. Feasts and commensal politics in the political economy: food, power and status in
prehistoric Europe. In Food and the Status Quest: An Interdisciplinary Perspective (eds P. Wiessner
and W. Schiefenh6vel). Providence, RI: Berghahn, pp. 87-125.
Dietler, M. and Hayden, B. (eds) 2001a. Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on
Food, Politics, and Power. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Dietler, M. and Hayden, B. 2001b. Digesting the feast: good to eat, good to drink, good to think. In
Feasts:Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power (eds M. Dietler
and B. Hayden). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp. 1-20.
Douglas, M. 1984. Standard social uses of food: introduction. In Food in the Social Order (ed. M.
Douglas). New York: Russel Sage Foundation, pp. 1-39.
Douglas, M. and Isherwood, B. 1979. The World of Goods: Towards an Anthropology of Consumption. London: Allen Lane.
Edwards, D. N. 1996. Sorghum, beer and Kushite society. Norwegian Archaeological Review, 29(2):
65-77.
Elias, N. 1978. 7IheCivilizing Process, Vol. 1, The History of Manners (trans. from the German by
E. Jephcott). Oxford: Blackwell.
Emery, K. F. 2()()3.The noble beast: status and differential access to animals in the Maya world.
World Archaeology, 34(3): 498-515.
Emmerson, R. 1992. British Teapots randTea Drinking. London: HSMO.
Ervynck, A., Van Neer, W., Htister-Plogmann, H. and Schibler, J. 20()3. Beyond affluence: the zooarchaeology of luxury. World Archaeology, 34(3): 428-441.
Evershed, R. P., Dudd, S. N., Lockheart, M. J. and Jim, S. 2()001.Lipids in archaeology. In
Handbook of Archaeological Sciences (eds D. R. Brothwell and A. M. Pollard). Chichester: Wiley,
pp. 331-49.
Fairbairn, A. 1999. Charred plant remains. In The Hlarm,tony
of Symbols: The Windm7illHill Clausewaved Enclosure, Wiltshire(eds A. Whittle, J. Pollard and C. Grigson). Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 139-56.
Flandrin, J. L. and Montanari, M. (eds) 1999. A Culinary History of Food. New York: Columbia
Press (English edition by A. Sonnenfeld; original French edition 1996).
Foxhall, L. 1998. Cargoes of the heart's desire: the character of trade in the archaic Mediterranean
world. In Archaic Greece: New Approaches and New Evidence (eds N. Fisher and H. van Wees).
London: Duckworth, pp. 295-309.
Garine, I. L. de 1976. Food, tradition and prestige. In Food, Man, and Society (eds D. N. Walcher,
N. Kretchmer and H. L. Barnett). New York: Plenum, pp. 150-73.
Gerritsen, F. (ed.) 2000. Food and foodways. Archaeological Dialoglues, 7(2).
Giacosa, I. G. 1992. A Taste of Ancient Rome. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
424
425
Jelliffe, D. B. 1967. Parallel food classifications in developing and industrialized countries. The
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 20(3): 279-81.
Joffe, A. H. 1998. Alcohol and social complexity in ancient Western Asia. Current Anthropology
39(3): 297-322.
Kirch, P. V. and O'Day, S. J. 2003. New archaeological insights into food and status: a case study
from Pre-Contact Hawaii. World Archaeology, 34(3): 484-497.
Leach, H. 1999. Food processing technology: its role in inhibiting or promoting change in staple
foods. In The Prehistory of Food (eds C. Gosden and J. Hather). London: Routledge,
pp. 129-38.
Leach, H. 2003. Did East Polynesians have a concept of luxury foods? World Archaeology, 34(3):
442-457.
Leibestein, H. 1950. Bandwagon, snob and Veblen effects in the theory of consumers' demand.
Quarterly Journal of Economics, 64: 183-207.
Lewicki, T. 1974. West African Food in the Middle Ages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lewthwaite, J. 1986. The transition to food production: a Mediterranean perspective. In Hunters in
Transition (ed. M. Zvelebil). Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press, pp. 53-66.
Lovejoy, P. E. 1995. Kola nuts: the 'coffee' of the central Sudan. In Consuming Habits: Drugs in
History and Anthropology (eds J. Goodman, P. E. Lovejoy and A. Sherratt). London: Routledge,
pp. 103-25.
MacLean, R. and Insoll, T. 2003. Archaeology, luxury and the exotic: the examples of Islamic Gao
(Mali) and Bahrain. World Archaeology, 34(3): 558-570.
Mandelbaum, D. 1965. Alcohol and culture. Current Anthropology, 6: 281-93.
Mennell, S. 1985. All Manners of Food. Oxford: Blackwell.
Mennell. S. 1997. On the civilizing of appetite. In Food and Culture: A Reader (eds C. Counihan
and P. van Esterik). New York: Routledge, pp. 315-37.
Miller, D. (ed) 1995. Acknowledging Consnumption.London: Routledge.
Miller, J. I. 1969. The Spice Trade of the Roman Empire. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Milton, G. 1999. Nathaniel's Nutmeg. London: Hodder & Stoughton.
Mintz, S. W. 1985. Sweetness and Power. New York: Viking/Penguin.
Mintz, S. W. 1993. The changing roles of food in the study of consumption. In Consumptitonand the
World of Goods (eds J. Brewer and R. Porter). London: Routledge, pp. 261-73.
Miracle, P. 2002. Mesolithic meals from Mesolithic middens. In Consuming Passions rn(d Patterns
of Consumlption(eds P. Miracle and N. Milner). Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological
Research, pp. 65-88.
Miracle, P. and Milner, N. (eds) 2002. Consuming Passions and Patterns of Consumption.
Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
Montanari, M. 1996. The Culture of Food. Oxford: Blackwell.
Monton, S. 2002. Cooking in zooarchaeology: is this issue still raw'? In Consuming Passions and
Patterns of Consumption (eds P. Miracle and N. Milner). Cambridge: McDonald Institute for
Archaeological Research, pp. 7-15.
Moore, W. J. and Corbett, M. E. 1978. Dental caries experience in man. In Diet, Nutrition and Dental
Care (ed. N. H. Rowe). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, pp. 3-19.
Murray,M. A. 2000. Viticulture and wine production. In Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology
(eds P. T. Nicholson and I. Shaw). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 505-36.
426
Murray, O. (ed.) 1990. Sympotica: The Papers of a Symposium on the Symposium. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Outram, A. K. 2002. Bone fracture and within-bone nutrients: an experimentally based method for
investigating levels of marrow extraction. In Consuming Passions and Patternsof Consumption (eds
P. Miracle and N. Milner). Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, pp. 51-63.
Paynter, R. 1989. The archaeology of equality and inequality. Annual Review of Anthropology, 18:
369-99.
Reitz, E. J. 1987. Vertebrate fauna and socio-economic status. In Consumer Choice in Historical
Archaeology (ed. S. M. Spencer-Wood). New York: Plenum, pp. 101-19.
Richards, M. P., Hedges, R. E. M., Molleson, T. and Vogel, J. C. 1998. Stable isotope analysis reveals
variations in human diet at the Poundbury Camp cemetery site. Journal of Archaeological Science,
25: 1247-52.
Rodinson, M. 1949. Recherches sur les documents arabes relatifs a la cuisine. Revue des Etudes
Islamiques, 23: 95-165.
Samuel, D. 1996. Approaches to the archaeology of food. Petits Propos Culinaires, 54: 12-21.
Samuel, D. 1999. Bread making and social interactions at the Amarna workmen's village, Egypt.
World Archaeology, 31(1): 121-44.
Samuel, D. 2000. Brewing and baking. In Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology (eds P. T.
Nicholson and I. Shaw). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 537-76.
Schoeninger, M. J. 1979. Diet and status at Chalcatzingo: some empirical and technical aspects of
strontium analysis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 51: 295-310.
Sealy, J. 2001. Body tissue chemistry and palaeodiet. In Handbook of Archaeological Sciences (eds
D. R. Brothwell and A. M. Pollard). Chichester: Wiley, pp. 269-79.
Sherratt, A. 1986. The pottery of the early Bronze Age at Sittagroi. In Excavations at Sitagroi (eds
C. Renfrew, M. Gimbutas and E. S. Elster). Los Angeles: University of California, pp. 429-76.
Sherratt, A. 1987. Cups that cheered. In Bell Beakers of the WesternMediterranean (eds W. Waldren
and R. C. Kennard). Oxford: BAR International Series 287, pp. 81-114.
Sherratt, A. 1991. Palaeoethnobotany: from crops to cuisine. In Paleoecologia e Arqueologia II:
Trabalhos dedicados a A. R. Pinto da Silva (eds F. Queiroga and A. P. Dinis). Famalicao: Centro
de Estudos Arqueol6gicos Famalicenses, pp. 221-36.
Sherratt, A. 1995. Alcohol and its alternatives: symbol and substance in pre-industrial cultures. In
Consuming Habits: Drugs in History and Anthropology (eds J. Goodman, P. E. Lovejoy and A.
Sherratt). London: Routledge, pp. 11-46.
Sherratt, A. and Sherratt, S. 1991. From luxuries to commodities: the nature of Mediterranean
Bronze Age trading systems. In Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean (ed. N. Gale). Jonsered: P.
Astr6m Forlag, pp. 351-86.
Singer, D. A. 1987. Threshold of affordability: assessing fish remains for socioeconomics. In
Consumer Choice in Historical Archaeology (ed. S. M. Spencer-Wood). New York: Plenum,
pp. 85-99.
Spencer-Wood, S. M. 1987. Miller's indices and consumer-choice profiles: status-related behaviors
and white ceramics. In Consumer Choice in Historical Archaeology (ed. S. M. Spencer-Wood). New
York: Plenum, pp. 321-58.
Stahl, P. W. 2003. Pre-Columbian Andean animal domesticates at the edge of empire. World
Archaeology, 34(3): 470-483.
Stokes, P. 2000. A cut above the rest? Officers and men at South Shields Roman Fort. In Animal
Bones, Human Societies (ed. P. Rowley-Conwy). Oxford: Oxbow, pp. 145-51.
427