View
217
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
8/20/2019 When is Food a Luxury
1/24
When Is Food a Luxury?Author(s): Marijke van der VeenSource: World Archaeology, Vol. 34, No. 3, Luxury Foods (Feb., 2003), pp. 405-427Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3560194 .
Accessed: 05/08/2013 17:09
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.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
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancishttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3560194?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3560194?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis
8/20/2019 When is Food a Luxury
2/24
h e n
s
f o o
l u x u r y
Marijke
van der Veen
Abstract
This
paper explores
definitions f
luxury
oods
and considers he role
of luxuries
n
marking
ocial
distinction.
t is
proposed
hat
uxury
oods are
those foods
that offer a refinement
n
texture,
aste,
fat content
or other
quality
such
as stimulant
or
inebriant)
and
offer
distinction,
because of
either
theirquantityorquality.Ethnographicesearchhas revealed hat anemphasison quantityof food
and elaboration
of
common
staples
s
found
mostly
n societies
without
strong
social
stratification,
while an
emphasis
on
quality
and
style
is
characteristic
f societies with
institutionalized
orms of
social
ranking.
n the former
context the
consumption
f
luxury
oods
is
used
primarily
o
create
or
enhance
social
bonds,
n the
latter
o
create or
enhance
exclusivity
nd
distance.
The
archaeological
recognition
of
luxury
oods is reviewed to demonstrate
how
archaeology
s well
placed
to
add
regional
breadthand
chronologicaldepth
to
the
study
of the
changing
role and
meaning
of
luxury
foods.
Keywords
Food;
uxury; onsumption;
lites;
exotics;
semiotics;
material
ulture;
archaeology; easting.
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
aware-
ness
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 consump-
tion,
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
3
Routledge
World
Archaeology
Vol.
34(3):
405-427
Luxury
Foods
l\
aylor FrancisGroup
0
2003 Taylor
Francis Ltd
ISSN 0043-8243 print/1470-1375
online
DOI: 10.1080/0043824021000026422
This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Mon, 5 Aug 2013 17:09:53 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/20/2019 When is Food a Luxury
3/24
406
Marijke
van
der Veen
foods,
that
is,
foods that are unusual
or
desirable because of
their
foreign origin.
Defin-
ing
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?
The
concept
of
luxury
Needs
and desires
Definitions
of the
concept
of
'luxury'
as
found
in
many
dictionaries all
stress
the
non-
essential
nature of
luxury
goods, using
terms such
as
extra,
extravagance, indulgence,
treat,
affluence,
sumptuousness
and
splendour;
but how do we
differentiate between a
need
and a
luxury?
The
concept
of needs versus luxuries is a
complex
one,
because
they
are
clearly
relative
terms.
In
his
book
The
Idea
of
Luxury (1994) Christopher Berry
explores
these
concepts
in detail and
he
identifies two
types
of
need:
a)
Basic
needs,
such as
sustenance,
shelter,
clothing
and leisure. All
four
are
universally
regarded as necessary features of human life, and they can be described as objective
or
universal,
in
that
they
do not
refer to
the
particular
requirement
of
an
individual,
but to the
general
needs
of
all human
beings. Following Wiggins
(1985:
152-3)
such
needs are described
as 'the
way
the
world
is'.
For
example,
we all need
vitamin
C to
avoid
getting
scurvy
(that
is the
way
the world
is),
but this
is
independent
of our desire
to
eat fruit.
In
this
sense,
needs are
not
intentional
and not
privileged; they
are 'states
of the
world',
as
opposed
to
'principles
of action'
(Berry
1994:
9-10).
b)
Volitional or instrumental
needs,
which
are
'instrumental
means
to an end'.
These
are
often,
though
not
necessarily,
utilitarian
objects
such as a
pen
or
an electric
knife,
which one needs to fulfil
a
desire,
i.e.
to
write
a
letter or
to carve
a
joint
of
meat. Thus
these
needs
are different
from basic
needs,
in that
they
arise
by
virtue
of
a
prior
desire
(ibid.: 9-10).
In
contrast,
luxuries
are
to
be viewed
as
'objects
of
desire',
which
give
physical
or
bodily
satisfactions,
and
are
usually
associated
with
physical
or
sensory enjoyment. Examples
given
by Berry
are:
being
hungry
and
needing
bread to
satisfy
this
hunger,
but
desiring
fresh
bread,
or
being
cold
and
needing
clothing
but
desiring
a
cashmere
coat
rather
than
a
sheepskin.
Thus,
luxuries
are
things
that offer
pleasure
and
enjoyment
and
are charac-
terized
by
a
qualitative
refinement of
a basic
good:
they
represent
an
indulgence.
In this
sense,
they
are intentional
and
privileged
and allow choice
(some
may
desire
fresh
bread,
This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Mon, 5 Aug 2013 17:09:53 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/20/2019 When is Food a Luxury
4/24
When
is
food
a
luxury?
407
others
wholemeal,
organic
bread,
etc.;
some
may
desire
coffee,
others
tea,
etc.)
(ibid.:
12).
It
is
not,
however,
sufficient
for a
good simply
to
be
desired,
to be
expensive
or
to
be a
qualitative
refinement: for
a
good
to be a
luxury
it
needs to be
desired
by
many
but
attained
by
few. Goods coveted
or
much desired
by
one
or
more
individuals
(Berry's
example
is a book lover who desires a
special edition)
or
goods
that have sentimental
value
to
one
or more
individuals
are not luxuries in his
definition of the term.
Nor
are
foods used
in
funerary
rites,
religious
offerings
and other rituals. These foods
are
not
desired as
a refinement of a basic food or
a
means of
marking
distinction,
but
because
of
their
symbolic
meaning.
They
are used
in an
attempt
to facilitate the
journey
or
improve
the afterlife
of the
deceased,
placate
the
gods,
honour
deities,
etc.;
as
such,
they
are a
means to an
end and
thus,
in
Berry's
terminology,
'instrumental
needs',
not
luxuries.
Health
foods,
in the
sense
of
foods eaten
as
medicines,
i.e.
home
remedies,
may similarly
be
regarded
instrumental
needs,
in
so
far as
they
are
desired and eaten as a means to
main-
tain health
or to
restore
the
body
to
a
previous
state
of health.
Moreover,
'health' is a
basic bodily need (ibid.: 22). But here the issue is more complex. The current use of the
term includes
expensive
and
organic
foods,
the
consumption
of
which
may
be
used
to
express
status,
and
the
term also refers to medicinal nutrients mentioned
in
the
culinary
manuals and dietetic
texts
of the medieval Islamic world
(see
Waines this
volume).
Here,
their association
with
bourgeois
households
gives
them a
clear status
context,
even
though
their
consumption
may
not
be
directly
instigated by
the desire
for
refinement
or
prestige.
Nevertheless,
some
members
of
society
may
view
such
consumption,
and that of
foods
employed
in
religious offerings
and
rituals,
as 'luxurious'.
Luxuries have
a
wide
appeal precisely
because
they
are concerned
with
basic human
needs
(food,
shelter,
clothing
and
leisure).
This and
the fact that the
process
of
refinement
is,
in
principle,
infinite
gives luxury goods fluidity;
their
status can
change
over time. If the
number of
people
who
have access
to
a
luxury
increases,
the
status
of
these
goods
changes;
they
turn into
commonplace goods
and
may ultimately
become
necessities. This is an
important point:
needs
and
luxuries
are
not
absolute
but
rather relative
concepts,
just
as
poverty
is. There
is
no fixed
minimal
necessity.
Needs are deemed social
necessities,
and
luxuries are deemed
socially unnecessary:
both are
culturally specific. Berry
concludes
that
a
luxury good
is a
widely
desired
(because
not
yet
widely
attained)
good
that is
believed
to be
'pleasing',
and
the
general desirability
of
which
is
explained by
it
being
a
specific
refinement,
or
qualitative
aspect,
of
some
universal
generic
need.
(Berry
1994:
41)
Thus,
members of
late
twentieth-century
industrial
societies
will
all
recognize
caviar,
a
palace,
a Christian Dior
gown
and
a
weekend
in an
exclusive
hotel
as luxuries.
Members
of
earlier,
or
different,
cultures would
have
specified
other
goods,
but the same four basic
categories
(food,
shelter,
clothing
and
leisure)
would
have been
identifiable
(ibid.: 42).
This
is
a broader definition of
luxury
than that
used
by
economists.
The
latter see needs
as
goods
that are
bought
in
the
same
quantities regardless
of
changes
in
price
or
income,
and luxuries as
goods
that have
a
high
income
elasticity
of demand: once
expenditure
has
covered
that which
is
needed,
the
surplus
will
be
spent
on luxuries. A
drop
in
income
will
This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Mon, 5 Aug 2013 17:09:53 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/20/2019 When is Food a Luxury
5/24
408
Marijke
van
der Veen
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.
c)
Veblen effect:
demand increases when
the
price
is
higher
rather than
lower.
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
consump-
tion;
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
This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Mon, 5 Aug 2013 17:09:53 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/20/2019 When is Food a Luxury
6/24
When is
food
a
luxury?
409
show elements
of
social
stratification,
and that the
status
quest
is
inherent
in
all
human
societies
(Paynter
1989;
Wiessner
1996).
The
question
is not
why
and when
inequality
emerged,
but when
inequality
became
formalized
or
institutionalized,
and
whether
or
how
this
process
affects the nature
of
luxury
goods (see
below).
The 'trickle-down'
effect
A
well-recognized
phenomenon
in
the
history
of
luxury
goods
is the
'trickle-down' effect
which refers
to
the
tendency
of
luxury goods
to
change
status over
time,
from
being
desired
by
many
but
possessed by
few,
to
becoming widely
available
and,
ultimately,
to
being
deemed social necessities. Classic
examples
include
the
history
of
sugar,
coffee,
tea,
chocolate,
televisions and indoor sanitation.
Most
of
these
changes
in
status
concern
shifts
downwards,
though
the
opposite
does also occur
-
as with
oysters
in
Europe
(see Ervynck
et al.
this
volume)
and
blue
jeans
(Davis
1992).
While
there
has been little research
to
date
on
exactly why
and
how such
changes
in
status
occur,
a reduction in
production
and
thus purchasing cost, the power of social emulation and the 'naturalism' of luxury goods
have been
put
forward.
Hayden
(1998,
and
this
volume)
has
proposed
that,
as leaders
use
some
luxury
foods
in
feasting
to enhance or maintain their social
position
in
the
community,
it is in their
self-interest
to reduce the cost of these foods where
possible.
While
this
is
initially
beneficial
to
them,
it
changes
the
status of
such
foods
in
the
long
run
and thus their
value
in
prestigious displays.
Mintz
(1985,
1993)
has
discussed
how the
shift
in
status
of
sugar,
coffee,
tea,
chocolate
and
tobacco
was
also
strongly
connected
with a
reduction
in
production
costs
(associated
with the use of
slave
labour),
and
a
consequent
drop
in
prices,
coincident with an
increase
in
the
buying
power
of
the masses.
In a
study
of
the
character of Bronze
Age
trade
in
Greece,
Sherratt
and
Sherratt
(1991)
illustrate
how the
social
significance
of
luxury goods,
such as fine
metalwork and
perfumes,
often
goes
beyond
their
actual
scarcity
value and
is
derived from their association
with
certain
social
practices
(see
also
Foxhall
1998).
They emphasize
the
power
of
competitive
emula-
tion
between elites
in
raising
the demand
for
and
thus
the
production
and
availability
of
luxuries.
The
critical
role
of
social
emulation in
the
'trickle-down'
effect
is
widely recognized:
the
drive to
improve
one's
standing
in
society
is
universal,
as is the
desire
for
luxury
foods;
their
consumption
has
become
diagnostic
of the attainment
of
a
certain
standard
of
living.
Campbell
warns,
however,
that
imitative conduct
does
not
automatically
imply
the
pres-
ence
of emulative
motives,
and
suggests
that emulation is 'a
goal
with
many
different
motives'
(1993:
41).
Goods
may
and are
desired
for
their own
sake,
rather
than for
any
prestige that may be attached to them: coffee, tea, chocolate and sugar, for example,
provide
immediate
satisfactions
independent
of their
expense,
status
or
origin.
A
shop-
keeper
who is able and
willing
to
purchase
a
product
previously
viewed as
a
characteristic
of
superior
aristocratic
consumption patterns
does
not
necessarily
seek
to
imitate an
aris-
tocratic
way
of
life;
likewise a maid
who
imitates
her
lady's
dress
style
may
desire to rival
her
in
fashionableness,
rather than
seek to be considered her social
equal
(ibid.:
40-1).
This matches
Berry's
unease with
too
great
an
emphasis
on the
semiotic
meaning
of
luxu-
ries,
and his concern to underline
the
'naturalism'
of
these
goods,
that is
their
ability
to
provide
universal satisfaction
(Berry
1994:
31).
This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Mon, 5 Aug 2013 17:09:53 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/20/2019 When is Food a Luxury
7/24
410
Marijke
van der Veen
Attempts
to thwart
the
tendency
of
luxuries to become
widely
available are found
in
most
societies,
often
taking
the form
of
prohibited
foods and/or
sumptuary
laws
regulating
expenditure,
especially
with
a
view
to
restraining
excess
in food and
clothing.
Mennell
(1985: 30) gives
the
example
of
a
sixteenth-century
French
law which
forbade
private
families
to have meals
of more
than
three
courses,
and
specified
the number and
type
of
dishes to constitute each course. It
goes
without
saying
that this law was not
very
effec-
tive. While such
regulations
are
often
couched in the moral and
political
views
prevalent
at
the
time,
their
underlying
rationale was the maintenance
of
the
existing hierarchy, by
monopolizing
certain
foods, cloth,
etc.,
solely
for
elite
consumption (Berry
1994:
31, 85;
Dietler
1996;
Goody
1982:
103,
141).
The
process
of
staying
ahead
became almost a
sport:
each time
'the lower orders drew
closer,
appropriating
to
themselves
the
goods previously
owned
by
higher
groups,
so
did
the elites
innovate, refine,
and increase the value of
their
goods
in an
attempt
to
re-establish
correct social
distances'
(Guerzoni
1999:
336).
For
example,
in
sixteenth-century Europe,
when
meat became
plentiful,
the
aristocracy
emphasized
the
consumption
of
game
animals
(from
their
estates)
and
strengthened
the
anti-poaching laws (Mennell 1985: 61).
Social order
and
political morality
In
today's
Western world of commerce
and consumerism
the
private
desire for
goods may
be
regarded
as both innocent and
legitimate;
however,
this is
not
a
universally
held
senti-
ment.
Many
hierarchical societies and world
religions
have a moral
code
concerning
food
consumption,
with
over-consumption
or
luxury consumption regarded
as
a
vice
-
giving
rise
to
resentment and tension
-
and abstinence as
the
path
to holiness
(Goody
1982:
112ff.;
see also
Glennie
1995;
Guerzoni
1999;
Waines this
volume). Berry (1994)
investi-
gates
the intellectual career
of the idea of
luxury, highlighting
how
in
the Classical world
and
in
early
Christianity
the
concept
of
luxury
had
a
negative
connotation,
being
associ-
ated
with the
corruption
of
a
virtuous,
manly
life.
During
the
pre-modern
period
the
boundless
uncontrollability
of
bodily
desire was
regarded
as a threat to
liberty.
This
changed
in
Europe during
the
eighteenth century
when
the
liberty
of individuals
to
pursue
their
own
desires became viewed
as a
value;
noticeably,
it is at this
time
that the
sumptu-
ary
laws
disappear
(Appadurai
1986).
While
early
criticisms focused
primarily
on the
ability
of
luxuries
to undermine
virtue,
the
modern
critique emphasizes
the moral
obligation
to
meet the needs
of
others. Thus
the
socialist
perspective
holds that
it is
morally wrong
for
some
individuals to
indulge
in
luxuries
while others have
not
yet
met their
basic needs.
A full discussion of these
issues
falls outside the scope of this paper, but it is important to stress here that the social value
put
on luxuries
has
varied over
time.
The
definition
of
what
is
regarded
as a need and
what as a
luxury
is
culturally
determined
and,
as
such,
can
give
us
a
clear
insight
into
the
social
order
of
that culture.
It
helps identify
what
that
society
is
about,
and
gives
us
the
'social
grammar'
of
that
society (Berry
1994:
37-8).
The
value
judgement
attached to the
concept
of
luxury
is linked
directly
to the
political
morality
of the individual or the
society
making
the
judgement.
Rather than
see this as a
constraint,
and
retreat into
relativism,
this
should, instead,
be
regarded
as
a
positive opportunity
to
use
the
study
of
luxury
foods
as a
way
towards
understanding
past
societies.
This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Mon, 5 Aug 2013 17:09:53 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/20/2019 When is Food a Luxury
8/24
When
is
food
a
luxury?
411
Quantity
or
quality
Having
considered
the wider
concept
of
luxury,
we next need to focus on what
types
of
food are consumed
as luxuries.
In
a cross-cultural classification of
food,
Jelliffe
gives
the
following
definition of
luxury
or
prestige
foods:
All cultures have
prestige
foods,
which are
mainly
reserved for
important
occasions
or,
even
more,
for the illustrious
of
the
community....
Examination
suggests
that,
even
in
vegetarian
societies,
these are
usually protein, frequently
of animal
origin. They
are
usually
difficult to
obtain,
so that
they
are
expensive
and
relatively
rare.
In
the western
world
they may
have been hunted
wild,
as
opposed
to
domesticated,
or
imported
from
distant
regions.
Lastly,
and of much
significance, they may
quite
often
have been
long
associated
with the dominant socio-historical
group
-
as,
for
example,
with
'game'
in
western
Europe,
probably dating
back to the medieval social
system
and
hunting
laws.
(Jelliffe
1967:
279-81)
Other examples of prestige foods given are a special milk dessert (shreekand) in vege-
tarian
communities of
India,
camel stuffed
successively
with
goat,
turkey,
chicken and
dove
in
some Arab
communities,
and
poi dog
in
ancient Hawaii
(ibid.: 280).
In
addition
to
being
difficult to
obtain,
difficulty
of
preparation
is
a further characteristic
of
prestige
foods. This is also
emphasized by
Hayden
(1996: 137),
who identifies as feast foods those
foods
that are the
rarest,
the most
difficult to
procure
or the most-labour intensive to
produce, together
with labour-intensive
preparations;
they
include the
richest,
largest,
sweetest and
most
succulent
foods available.
The
prominence
of animal
protein
and fat as
preferred
foods is
highlighted
in
many
other cross-cultural studies
(e.g.
Abrams
1987a;
Tannahill
1973).
Some evidence exists to
suggest
that this
preference
has
a
genetic
basis,
but it
may
also reflect cultural
codings
that
favour meat and other animal
products,
as these
represent
more
complete
and
concen-
trated forms
of
protein
and
more efficient nutrient and
energy
sources than other foods
(Harris 1987).
A
genetic
basis
for our
preference
for sweet foods
appears
more
certain,
as
a
sweet taste tends to characterize
high-energy,
and thus
nutritious,
substances,
whereas
a bitter
taste often characterizes harmful
or
poisonous
substances
(Abrams 1987b).
However,
Harris cautions
us
against
too
simplistic
an
application
of this
phenomenon;
there are
plenty
of
examples
where cultural
programming
has
overridden these innate
tendencies
(1987:
80).
De Garine
(1976)
and
Goody
(1982)
have drawn attention
to the fact that there
are
marked
differences
between
societies
in
the
types
of
foods
used at
special
occasions. Both
have carried out fieldwork in Africa, where they noted that the foods used in celebrations
and
conspicuous consumption
are often the same foods
that are
consumed
normally,
and
that
it
is
usually
a matter
of 'more of the
same',
especially
more
meat,
rather
than
different
foods
-
in
other
words,
quantity
not
quality.
The
only aspect
of
quality
that
they
both
identify
is that a headman or chief
may
get
some better cuts
of
meat,
rather than
just
more
meat.
They
contrast
this situation
with
Europe
where
prestige
or
luxury
foods
are
usually
foods
that are
different and/or
in
short
supply,
and include
different
constituents,
especially
foreign
ingredients,
great
complexity
in the combination
of
ingredients
and
in
the
prep-
aration,
presentation
and
consumption
(table
manners,
etiquette).
This
emphasis
on
'high
This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Mon, 5 Aug 2013 17:09:53 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/20/2019 When is Food a Luxury
9/24
412
Marijke
van
der Veen
cuisine'
is,
of
course,
not
restricted to
Europe,
but can be found in
other hierarchical
societies,
such as
ancient
Egypt, Mesopotamia,
ancient Greece and
Rome,
ancient China
and
the
medieval Islamic world
(Goody
1982;
see
also Waines this
volume).
That
quantity
of food and
especially
of meat
was and is a
potent
symbol
of success can
be seen
everywhere,
especially
in
situations where food was/is scarce
and
its
availability
irregular.
In medieval
Europe
the
powerful distinguished
themselves from their
inferiors
by
the
sheer
quantity they
ate: 'those who
could,
gorged
themselves;
those
who
couldn't,
aimed to'
(Weber
1973:
202,
quoted
by
Mennell
1997:
324).
The
importance
of
quantity
and
elaborate
presentation
of
daily
foods
(meat,
dairy
products,
cereals and
beer),
in what
Goody
calls 'low'
cuisine,
has also been
identified elsewhere:
Leach
(this
volume)
observes that
in
eighteenth-
and
nineteenth-century
East
Polynesia
staple
foods were
elevated
in
status
through
labour-intensive
processing,
the
diversity
of
forms
in
which
they
were
served
or the sheer
abundance
of
display.
Similarly,
MacLean and Insoll
(this
volume)
stress
the
quantity
of
food and the effort invested
in
its
preparation,
as well
as
the
importance
of formal
communal
dining
and
feasting
in
Goa,
West
Africa,
and
in
Bahrain. Thus, in many societies, 'a feast was a time of plenty, not a time of difference'
(Goody
1982:
78).
Both De
Garine
(1976)
and
Goody
(1982)
suggest
that this
distinction between
quan-
tity
and
quality
is connected to
the social structure of societies. Those
without
strong,
insti-
tutionalized forms
of
social
ranking ('hieratic'
societies
in
Goody's
terminology),
with
little difference
in
lifestyle
between
members,
seem to be
characterized
by
the use of
quantity
of food to mark
special
occasions,
whereas hierarchical
societies where
major
differences in
lifestyle
between individuals and
groups
of
individuals
are embedded
in
social institutions
-
i.e.
where sub-cultures exist
-
tend
to
use
quality
and
'foreignness'.
Goody
(1982: 44ff.)
also
stresses the
contrasting
modes
of
production,
with African
communities, along
with most
pre-industrial societies, displaying
close
links
between the
processes
of
production,
distribution,
preparation
and
consumption,
the use of
reciprocal
exchange
and the
consumption
of food that
originates
from within the
region.
In
contrast,
in
modern Western societies there is no direct link
between those
that
produce
the food
and those that
consume
it,
goods
are traded
through
markets,
and
many
of
the foods
consumed
originate
from far
away.
In
Europe
the transition to a
differentiated cuisine
may
be
relatively
late. Braudel
(1981: 187ff.) suggests
that
before the fifteenth or sixteenth
century
the
emphasis
was
on
the
quantity
of
food
(especially
meat
and
alcohol),
not on
sophisticated
cooking,
and,
in
his
fascinating
account
of
European eating
habits,
Mennell
(1985)
shows how it was the
improved availability
of food
for the masses
that
led to the
development
of a
high
cuisine
from the sixteenth/seventeenth century onwards. With increasingly more
people
able to
imitate the elite and
distinguish
themselves from
the lower classes
by
the
quantity they
ate,
it
simply
was no
longer
possible
for the
nobility
to set itself
apart
by eating
more.
By
the
early post-medieval period,
Mennell
argues,
it became
physically
impossible
for
the
elite to continue to increase the
quantity
of their
food
intake,
and
new forms of distinc-
tion were
required (1985: 32).
This is
when
new
ingredients (spices
and foods from
the
Americas)
arrive
and an
emphasis
on
new
ways
of
preparing
and
combining
foods,
cookery
books,
table manners and the
development
of
a
menu
-
that
is,
foods
being
served
in a
particular
'order',
rather
than
being placed
on the
table
all at
the same time. It
was
This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Mon, 5 Aug 2013 17:09:53 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/20/2019 When is Food a Luxury
10/24
When
is
food
a
luxury?
413
no
longer
desirable
to
put
quantity
on the
table; instead,
what
was
needed
to
distinguish
oneself
was the
knowledge
of
how
to
put
the
food
together. Gluttony
became
vulgar,
and
obesity,
from
being
a
sign
of the
wealthy
and the
powerful,
was
deemed a characteristic
of the lower classes.
Returning
to the definitions
of
luxury presented
earlier,
recall
that
luxury
foods
were
defined not as
specific
items of
food,
but as foods
offering
a refinement of a basic food
that is
widely
desired
(because
not
yet widely attained)
and
a
means
of
distinction. Refine-
ments of food
may
be
expressed
in terms of texture
(e.g.
'white' versus unrefined or
'brown' bread or
rice;
fresh rather
than
dried
food;
succulent
versus
tough meat),
additional
flavour
(salt, sugar,
herbs,
spices,
chilli),
a
higher
fat content
(meat, dairy
products,
nuts,
chocolate,
avocado,
etc.)
or
other
qualities
(especially
stimulants and
inebriants
such
as
coffee,
tea,
beer
and
wine).
Means
of distinction
may
be
expressed
in
either
quantity
or
quality, whereby
the former
conveys
success and
prestige
(symbolic
power)
and the latter
exclusivity
and distance
(cultural
power).
Building
bridges
or
erecting
fences
Many
anthropologists
and
sociologists
have
demonstrated
how
food
is
used as a semiotic
device,
signalling
rank and
rivalry, solidarity
and
community, identity
or
exclusion,
and
intimacy
or distance.
Appadurai,
among
others,
has tried to combine
the
role
of
food
in
the social
organization
of a
society
with its
role
as
a
system
of
symbols,
categories
and
meanings,
by
seeing
food
as
part
of the semiotic
system
in a
particular
social context
(Appadurai
1981:
494-5).
He
poses
a
series of
questions
that
might
be
helpful
in our
study
of food
in an
archaeological
context:
a) what do particular actions involving food (and particular foods) say'?
b)
to
whom'?
c)
in
what context?
d)
with
what
immediate social
consequences'?
e)
to what
structural end?
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
diametri-
cally
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 hetero-
geneity.
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
This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Mon, 5 Aug 2013 17:09:53 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/20/2019 When is Food a Luxury
11/24
414
Marijke
van der Veen
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
prin-
cipal
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 obli-
gation
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
exist-
ing
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
This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Mon, 5 Aug 2013 17:09:53 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/20/2019 When is Food a Luxury
12/24
When
is
food
a
luxury?
415
express
distance this
changes:
now we see foods desired
not for
their
texture,
flavour,
etc.,
but
for the
message they convey.
Thus exotic
or
foreign
foods are
desired
not
so much as
foods,
but as
symbols,
as
markers of
distance,
and the
paraphernalia surrounding
their
consumption
(presentation,
table
manners,
menu,
etc.)
are
developed
not
to
enhance the
enjoyment
of
the
food,
but
to
enhance
the
message
of
exclusivity.
What
this alteration
in
use
identifies is a shift from the
consumption
of
luxury
food
primarily
as a desire to the
consumption
of
luxury
food
primarily
as an 'instrumental
need',
and
with
it
the
'natural-
ism' of
luxury
food
is
in
danger
of
disappearing
(Berry
1994:
31).
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 regu-
lation
will
help
detect the
process.
Rolutinepractice
If,
for
a
moment,
this
simplistic
dichotomy
between
simple
societies
(those
with no
formal-
ized
or
institutionalized
inequality)
and
highly complex
societies
(those
with insti-
tutionalized
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
partici-
pants
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
expen-
sive,
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
cata-
strophic
abandonment
events have
been found
in
several
regions
and
periods (e.g.
Emery
This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Mon, 5 Aug 2013 17:09:53 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/20/2019 When is Food a Luxury
13/24
416
Marijke
van
der Veen
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
Growing
Farm
Distribution
Allocating/storing Granary/market
Preparation
Cooking
Kitchen
Consumption
Eating
Table
Disposal
Clearing
up
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),
longer-
distance
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;
Valam-
oti
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
arrange-
ments 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
This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Mon, 5 Aug 2013 17:09:53 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/20/2019 When is Food a Luxury
14/24
When is
food
a
luxury?
417
animals
by
butchers,
rather than
performed
on a
household basis? Such
changes
highlight
the
separation
of and
increasing
distance between consumers
and
producers,
often a
sign
of
growing
inequality.
The
consumption phase
itself
is,
as
mentioned
above,
the most difficult
phase
to
identify. Apart
from
the occasional
stomach/intestinal
content,
coprolite
and
cesspit,
ceramic evidence can assist. The
quantity
of
pots
may
signify
the use of ceramic vessels
as status
indicators;
the
presence
of
exceptionally
large
vessels
may point
to
the
likely
occurrence
of
feasts;
and a
change
from
large
communal
pots
and
serving
bowls to
the use
of individual
plates,
drinking
vessels and
cutlery may point
to
a
shift from
eating
out
of
a
communal
bowl to
helpings
served
out
to
individuals,
(e.g.
Deetz
1996;
Dietler
1996;
Hayden
2001;
Sherratt
1986,
1991).
Variability
in
the access to meat
(more
meat for
higher
status individuals
and
men
in
general)
will,
of
course,
be
visible
in
the stable
isotope
ratios
of individual
skeletons,
and this area of research offers
tremendous
prospects (Sealy
2001).
Finally,
there is the
phase
of
disposal,
the true arena
of
archaeological practice:
here we
hit the realm of formation processes. Food remains, because of their biological nature, are
preserved
only
in
certain circumstances. Meat and
vegetable
foods
decay,
as do
animal
bones
in
acid sediments and
plant
remains
in
most
aerated
sediments,
unless
they
have
been
accidentally
charred or
waterlogged,
and
both
require
sieving through
fine
meshes
to ensure
full and accurate
retrieval.
Sample
size and method
of
quantification
are
additional issues
of
concern,
and all
of
these factors
are,
justifiably,
the focus of much
research
in environmental
archaeology.
While these
factors and
their
study may
some-
times seem
to
obscure that what
we
are
looking
for,
it
is worth
stressing
here that
many
formation
processes
can be
controlled for
in
our
analyses,
while others
may actually
be
indicators
of
exactly
the
types
of behaviour we are
searching
for;
after
all,
the
disposal
of
rubbish is
socially
and
culturally
defined.
Types
of
food
Many
of the
types
of
luxury
food
mentioned earlier have
been
identified
in
the
archaeo-
logical
record.
Starting
with
feasts
in
simple
societies,
I
have
already
mentioned the
publi-
cations
by Hayden
(1990,
1996),
Dietler
(1990,
1996)
and Dietler
and
Hayden
(2001),
but
other
examples
include the evidence
for
feasting
at the
henge
enclosure of
Durrington
Walls
(Albarella
and
Serjeantson
2002)
and at the
causewayed
enclosure
of
Windmill Hill
(Fairbairn
1999),
both in
Neolithic
Britain,
and at the Mesolithic site of
Pupicina
Cave,
Croatia
(Miracle
2002).
Here
the
quantity
of
the
remains,
their
special
location,
the butch-
ery and cooking methods of the faunal remains and the absence of marrow extraction all
helped
identify
the
remains as
feasting
left-overs.
In
other cases the size of the
pots
may
be
diagnostic (e.g.
Blitz
1993;
see
Hayden
2001 for a full list of
potential
archaeological
signatures
of
feasting).
The
archaeological visibility
of labour-intensive
preparations,
diversity
of
preparation
and the
presence
of
a
superior
variety
of a
staple crop
(in
terms
of
taste,
texture,
colour or
size;
cf.
Leach this
volume)
is
much
more
problematic,
but
could the
unusual
number,
type
and size of
preparation
and
serving
vessels,
the
presence
of unusual combinations
of
hearths
and
stoves,
as well as
display
facilities
(scaffolds,
etc.)
be
possible
indicators?
This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Mon, 5 Aug 2013 17:09:53 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/20/2019 When is Food a Luxury
15/24
418
Marijke
van
der
Veen
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 unsuccess-
ful
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 differ-
entiator (e.g. Mandelbaum 1965). Archaeological and ethno-archaeological examples
include
Iron
Age
France
(Dietler 1990), prehistoric
Europe
and the
Mediterranean
(Sher-
ratt
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,
cinna-
mon,
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-eighteenth-
century
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).
This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Mon, 5 Aug 2013 17:09:53 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/20/2019 When is Food a Luxury
16/24
When is
food
a
luxury?
419
The
presence
of Mediterranean
imports
in
Central
Europe
during
the Roman
period
(Bakels
and
Jacomet
this
volume)
raises
several
interesting
questions.
First,
who was
consuming
the
imports,
such as
olives,
pomegranates, pine
kernels,
almonds,
etc.? Were
they
individuals
of
Mediterranean
origin
or
local elites?
The former
may
have
regarded
such foods
as social
necessities,
in
contrast
to the
latter,
who would have used such foods
as a means of
acquiring
social
identity.
This touches on the
process
of Romanization of
the native
population
in
the
regions occupied by
Rome,
and
a
study
of food
in
relation
to this
phenomenon
would be
insightful.
In
this
particular
case
study
those
imports
that
could be
successfully
grown
in
northern
Europe
(such
as
walnut,
garlic,
dill,
celery,
apples,
pears,
cherries)
did become
part
of
the local cuisine and continued to be used
after the withdrawal of
the Roman
army
from
the
region,
while those
imports
that could
not
(such
as
olive,
pine
nut,
almond,
pomegranate)
disappeared.
This
suggests
that the
elite
that desired and could
afford these
imports
ceased to
exist with the
end
of
Roman
occupation,
while
foods that
were
desirable but
no
longer
exotic
(they
were
now
grown
locally,
and thus
no
longer
very
expensive)
did
become
accepted
and
ultimately
widely
used.
Finally,
the shift to
quality
and
style:
much of
this
is
expressed
in
table
manners,
cookery
books and who
is
invited
to the dinner
party,
and
for this
we
rely
much on historical
research. Excellent
and illuminative
examples
are Braudel
(1981),
Elias
(1978),
Flandrin
and Montanari
(1999),
Jameson
(1987),
Montanari
(1996)
and Mennell
(1985)
for
Europe,
Andr6
(1981)
and Giacosa
(1992)
for ancient
Rome,
Chang
(1977)
and Anderson
(1988)
for
China,
Lewicki
(1974)
for West
Africa
and
Ahsan
(1979),
Rodinson
(1949)
and
Zubaida
and
Tapper
(1994)
for the Middle East. Invaluable case studies that
profitably
combine historical and
archaeological
evidence include
Goodwin
(1999)
and Wall
(1994),
while
Baart
(1990),
Bulliett
(1992),
Courtney
(1997),
Emmerson
(1992),
Spencer-Wood
(1987)
and
Vickers and Gill
(1994) highlight
the contribution
of
ceramic studies. Last of
all,
the
long-distant
transport
of
fine
wares can be used
as
an indicator of their elite status
and
expense (e.g.
Recommended