GENDER AND AGE IDENTITIES IN RITUALS OF ... and historic examples showing multiples relation between food and sex or sexual practices (Counihan 1999:9), our interest here is focused

Abstract: Analysis of meat offerings included in the grave goods of Argaric burialshas shown the importance of commensality practices for these societiesnot only as a part of the funerary ritual but also as a way to manifestsocial inequalities. Our main interest in this paper will be to understandhow gender and age identities are incorporated in this social negotiation.Resumen: El análisis de ofrendas cárnicas que se incluyen en los ajuares funerariosargáricos de la Edad del Bronce del sudeste de la Península Ibérica hanmostrado la importancia de las prácticas de comensalidad para estassociedades, no sólo como parte del ritual funerario sino también comouna forma de manifestar las desigualdades sociales. Nuestro interés prin-cipal en este artículo consiste en entender cómo se incorporan en estanegociación social las identidades de género y de edad. Resum: L’anàlisi de les ofrenes de carn que s’inclouen als aixovars funerarisargàrics de l’Edat del Bronze del sudest de la península Ibèrica, hanmostrat la importància de les pràctiques de comensalitat per a aquestessocietats no només com a part del ritual funerari sinó també com unaforma de manifestar les desigualtat socials. En aquest article, el nostreprincipal interès consisteix en entendre com s’incorporen les identitatsde gènere i d’edat en aquesta negociació social.

Interpreting household practicesBarcelona, 21-24 november 2007Treballs d’Arqueologia 13 (2007): 69-89

GENDER AND AGE IDENTITIES INRITUALS OF COMENSALITY. THE

ARGARIC SOCIETIES

Margarita Sánchez RomeroGonzalo Aranda Jiménez

Eva Alarcón García

69

Introduction

We understand that the study offood and eating is important notonly due to food is utterly essentialto human existence, but alsobecause the subfield has provedvaluable for debating and advanc-ing anthropological and archaeo-logical theory and research meth-ods (2002).

Food studies have illuminatedbroad societal processes such aspolitical-economic value-creation,symbolic value-creation, and thesocial construction of memory inanthropology; habits associatedwith food and eating carry a multi-tude of meanings and play a crucialrole in the construction and per-formance of identities (Mauss 1967;Goody 1982; Weismantel 1988;Mintz & Dubois 2002; Corr 2002).Although we can observe impor-tant differences in the knowledgegathered between anthropologyand archaeology, this situation ischanging during the last years inwhich the context of preparationand consumption of food haveacquired a remarkable relevance inarchaeology (Wiessener & Schie-fenhövel 1996; Gosden & Hather

1999; Wood 2000; Dietler &Hayden 2001; Parker 2003).

Key elements for the analysis ofthese communal practices of foodconsumption, from an ethno-graphic and archaeological per-spective, are the categories of gen-der and age. The relationshipamong consumption practicesand gender identity is quite com-plex but meaningful in any socie-ty. They are implied not only inthe representation, reproductionand transformation of genderidentities but also in the way inwhich relations of production andpower between women and menare manifested. This mean, in oneside that the analysis of thesepractices could be a crucial ele-ment for the study of gender rela-tionships, and in the other sidethat gender must be an essentialcategory in any analysis we makeon consumption practices.

In this paper our interest isfocused firstly on how gender andage categories are manifested inthe archaeological record linked toconsumption practices related tofunerary ritual, and secondly howgender and age categories areimplied in the articulation of this

Gender and age identities in rituals of comensality

70

ritual regarding the food prepara-tion and consumption.

Symbolic aspects of food con-sumption: body, identity and

memory

Food consumption is full of sym-bolic and ideological meaning notonly in its ritual use but also inmultiple aspect of quotidian life.The foods we eat become organi-cally and socially embodied, andthe assumption that ‘we are whatwe eat’ refers to both our culturaland biological beings. Food meanspower is its more basic and tangi-ble sense because as Lappé, Collinsand Roset (1998) stayed: “hunger isthe ultimate symbol of powerless-ness” and can be use as a politicalstrategy. In addition, food we eateveryday can be directly related toour status, gender, religion or ide-ology and this symbolic value couldbe clearly manifested in the cultur-al materialization on our bodies(Sobolik 1994; Wing & Brown1979; Danforth 1999; White 2005);this embodiment is not because thesocial is inscribed in the body butbecause, the body itself is a field forculture, taking into account thepotential, intentional, subjective,active and relational dimensions of

the body we can identify discours-es related to negotiation and main-tenance of identities (Esteban2004).

Hence there are multiple meaningsfor food: fears and taboos on cer-tain foods, technologies created topurify them before eating, experi-ences for the senses through sight,taste, touch, and smell, and howthese feeling are linked to memory(Battaglia 1990; Connerton 1989;Eves 1996; Hamilakis 1998, 1999).For all these reasons, food con-sumption has been used constantlyin order to generate, maintenanceand legitimate authority andpower; through it we built socialrelationship and transmit techno-logical, ideological and socialknowledge (Hamilakis 1999; Mintz& Dubois 2002).

Embodiment must work in twolevels, as an individual and as agroup, food that sustain the bio-logical and individual body, act atthe same time, in the social or col-lective body. Communal food anddrink consumption is a usefulstrategy in the construction ofsocial order not only because theirbiological and physiologicaleffects but also due to the psycho-

Margarita Sánchez Romero et alii

71

logical and emotional ones(Dietler 2001, 2005). Throughindividual and social food con-sumption we create memory andthis memory have to do with thesubjective ways in which the pastis memorialized, observed andused in the construction of thepresent (Holtzman 2006). In thecourse of food consumption his-torical, ethnical or nationalisticidentities are reinforced; through“nostalgic” food we remember ourpast; and finally we use it to createnew identities, for example, relat-ed to initiation rituals (Counihan1999; Holtzman 2006).

The construction of memory helpsin the foundation of expressions ofsocial and power inequality; in thecontext of commensality practicesrelated to the funerary ritualworldwide documented (Clarke2001; Adams 2004), the main aim isnot the connection with the pastbut the recreation of memories inorder to be used in the future. Andthis is how work the collectivememory because only in the frame-work of these ideas, discourses andnarratives about the food is howthese practices become somethinguseful, shared and acknowledgedby the whole society (Eves 1996).

In some occasions, food is a uniquemethod to observe particular femi-nine forms of memory taking intoaccount the special relationshipbetween women and food produc-tion; through women´ stories andmemories we are able to thinkabout the transmission of knowl-edge and the custody of a precioussocial and cultural heritage(Counihan 2002, 2004; Meyers2001; Blend 2001).

For all these reason, we considerfood consumption as a culturalconstruction that define materialculture for the creation and main-tenance of social relationships(Holtzman 2006; Mintz & Dubois2002) and obviously, it must leavetraces in the archaeological recordof past societies.

Social meaning of commensalitypractices

Although exist differences amongthe definitions of commensality, ina general way we can highlightbasic characteristics for this socialpractice. Commensality has beendefined as a form of public activityfocused in the communal con-sumption of food and drink with apurpose or special occasion


72

(Dietler 1996, 2001; Wiessener2001; Clarke 2001; Bray 2003).Among the main criteria thatdefine the ritual we can considerthat it is an activity symbolicallydifferentiated from those devel-oped in daily life in terms of actionand purpose. Commensality is aparticular type of ritual in whichfood and drink are the mode ofexpression and the communal con-sumption, the symbolic language(Sorensen 2000; Dietler 2001)

In this context, commensality mustbe understood as a domain of polit-ical action and an important sce-nario for the representation andmanipulation of social relation-ships (Dietler 2001; Aranda &Esquivel 2006, 2007). The efficien-cy of the ritual, regarding thepower structure, can be related toseveral characteristic, for example,the most convincing and effectivesymbols or rituals are those thatare not clearly politics but relative-ly ambiguous and combine person-al experiences, senses and memo-ries, and power relations. For thisreason, traumatic episodes such asdeath are used for the recreation ofthese social practices (Cohen 1979;Morris 1992; Dietler 1999). In thiscontext, commensality is a particu-

larly powerful procedure of ritualactivity and potentially visible inthe archaeological record.

Commensality practices andgender and age identities

Although we can find ethnograph-ic and historic examples showingmultiples relation between foodand sex or sexual practices(Counihan 1999:9), our interesthere is focused on the existent rela-tionship between food and gender.Gender and age are cultural con-struction and they are negotiatedand defined in different ways fordifferent societies. These identitiesare configured not only throughthe practice, ideological discoursesor symbolic representation but alsothrough physical and materialexperiences. Links between foodand gender have two basic direc-tions, the first explore the powerthat each society allow or deny tomen and women regarding theaccess and control of food and, thesecond describe how men andwomen are valued by their relationto food. As a result, gender rela-tionship can characterise commen-sality ritual in different ways: spa-tial differentiation for men andwomen; temporal distinctions in


73

the moment of serving or consum-ing food; qualitative distinction,related to the kind of containers,food or drink served; quantitativedistinction, connected to theamount of food and, finally behav-ioural distinctions, for examplewho serve to whom. All this per-formance can be modified also bystatus (Dietler 2001).

Some of the ethnohistoric andarchaeological evidences illustrateunequal form of access by men andwomen to determinate types offood used in ritual practices. Forexample, and although food prepa-ration and consumption for ritualwas a source of power for Mayawomen, isotopic measures in dif-ferent sites with diverse environ-ment and chronological character-istic evidence that women con-sumed less food ideologically val-ued that men. On the other hand,women from non-elites contextseem that consumed the same kindof food that their masculine classequivalent. This suggests thatwomen were not participating inthe same way, or al least with thesame intensity, in ritual that men;or that the consumption of deter-minate food were linked to genderidentity (White 2005). Other simi-

lar example can be found if we lookat the alcohol consumption, genderplays probably the most obviousrole in this consumption. In factsometimes masculinity is measuredfrequently by the faculty of drink-ing with other men; in some soci-eties is expected that women drinkless than men or even nothing; orthat they have different preferencesin the type of alcoholic beverage ordifferent spaces for drinking(Dietler 2005). However, even inthese two examples, althoughwomen are excluding for the con-sumption, they are not leaved outfor the preparation and produc-tion, as it is, for instances, the caseof beer production in Africa(Arthur 2003).

Hence, we can observe how com-mensality practices frequently aresustained by a gender asymmetryin terms of work and benefit;women’s work in the productionand processing of food, essentialfor the feasting, is usually the sup-port of a communal system inwhich men are the major users andbeneficiaries (Dietler 2001:91).

Regarding the analysis of prehis-toric societies, it is quite difficult toknow whether men or women


74

developed the previous work forthe ritual of commensality, but it isclear that production and prepara-tion of food would be basic andthese work are included in themaintenance activities (Picazo1997; González Marcén et al. 2005,2007; Sánchez & Aranda 2005).These works have not been valuedfor the historical analysis, althoughfood production and consume havebeen often considered that have adirect impact over the economicand political systems; for examplehave been considered that statesemerged in environments able toproduce surplus and subsequentlyto control them, or in other exam-ple advances in human evolutionhave been explain through thecapacity of taking determinateresources, for example hunting(Aiello & Wheeler 1995; Rose &Marshall 1996; Milton 1999; Finch& Stanford 2004).

Hence, food can explain socialchange but only when is far fromthe domestic context and it isimportant again when is incorpo-rated to the ritual as symbolic ele-ment, although the contrary havebeen demonstrated (Mintz &Dubois 2002; Sánchez & Aranda2005).

We must consider aspects relatedto the every day life of preparationand consume not only regardingtechnology (Colomer 1996;Colomer et al. 1998; Crown 2000;Hendon 1996; Montón 2005) butalso taking into account ideologyand memory. Consume of food gen-erate the reinforcement of linksand the construction of networksof physical and psychological sur-vival in the social group. We mustbear in mind that the reason for themost of the politic and economicdecisions is precisely the mainte-nance of daily life conditions(González & Picazo 2005:147).

We also must take into account ageas an important factor for the com-mensality practices; for example,these are excellent contexts ofsocialisation due to boys and girlsmust be socialised not only in a pro-ductive sphere, but also in psycho-logical and ideological aspectsreflected in the access and use ofnormalised ritual (Sánchez Romero2004, 2007, forthcoming a). We canfind an actual example of this in theIsraeli-jewish kindergarten wherechildren find out how to elaborateunleavened bread, remembering theexodus from Egypt, or learn aboutoranges, fruit associated to the early


75

Zionist settlements in Palestine(Golden 2005).

Commensality practices in thefunerary record of argaric

societies

Argaric culture, corresponding toBronze Age in South-east Spainand spanning from c.2250-1450 calB.C., is one of the better-knownperiods in the prehistory of theIberian Peninsula (Mathers 1994;Lull 2000; Gilman 2001; Aranda2004; Sánchez Romero 2004;Chapman 2005; Aranda & Molina2006; Montón 2007). Researchabout Argaric societies has a verylong tradition. At the end of thenineteenth century, the existenceof this archaeological culture wasproposed by two Belgian miningengineers, Louis and Henri Siret,after excavating many sites in thearea (Siret & Siret, 1886). Eversince, continuous research hasimproved considerably theknowedge of Argaric culture. Itsclassical archaeological definitionhas centred on a combination ofelements that include a specificsettlement pattern, the presence ofcertain kinds of metal tools andceramic vessels and a characteristicburial rite.

Argaric settlements were usuallybuilt on the terraced slopes ofsteep mountains and hills, usuallybesides rivers. They frequentlyhad diverse and complex defencesystems: stone walls, towers, bas-tions and stone enclosures pro-tecting the highest points of thesettlements. In addition, thesesettlements presented differencesbetween them in size, location,strategic position and productiveactivities. These differences havebeen used to suggest that therewas a hierarchical and territorial-ly structured settlement pattern,in which different sites had spe-cialized strategic and economicfunctions.

One of the most significant featuresof the Argaric world is the locationof burials within the settlementarea, usually under the floors of thehouses. The tombs consisted of sin-gle, double or, more rarely, tripleand quadruple inhumations incists, pits, urns and covachas (artifi-cial caves cut into the rock), withbodies always in a flexed position.Although with exceptions, doubleinhumations normally belong totwo adults -a man and a woman- orto an adult and a child. Tripletombs use to contain two adults


76

and a child. Argaric communitygenerally buried their dead with aseries of objects that representedthe funerary offering. Grave goodsuncovered in tombs are dramatical-ly different in number, variety andquality, ranging from sepulchreswith no grave goods to burials withan important accumulation ofwealth and items such as orna-ments made in stone, bone andmetal -including gold and silver-,different types of pottery -in somecases made only for funerary ritu-als- and metallic daggers, swords,halberds, axes, awls and pins.

Argaric funerary grave goods havebeen considered as offerings thatbelong to a universe of believesscantily accessible through archae-ology. Analyses have been madebasically from a social perspectiveinterpreting the existent variabilityin the grave good as a sign of a clearsocial inequality (Molina 1983; Lull1983, 2000; Lull & Estévez 1986;Arteaga 1993; Cámara 2001; Aranda& Molina 2006). Hence, recentlywe have analysed the archaeologi-cal evidences that can be related tothe performance of commensalpractices as a part of the funeraryritual (Aranda & Esquivel 2006,2007). We consider that, at least

part of the offerings could mean themanifestation of ritual practices inwhich was included the entiresocial group. The characteristic ofpart of the grave goods, mainlysome potteries and meat offerings,jointly to other archaeological dataallow us to hypothesize about afunerary practice associated withto commensality ritual.

The archaeological evidences ofcommensal rituals imply the manu-facture of specific vessels for theritual associated to the presenta-tion and consume of food anddrinks, with new types such ascopas (chalices) (Aranda 2004). Inthese ritual vessels several aspectslike slenderness and stylizationhave been emphasized in front ofother characteristic as stability ordurability that defines domesticproduction. Some decorative pat-terns, especially the treatment ofthe surface in order to obtain ametallic shine, could accentuatethe visual effects. Funerary vessels,especially those found in burialsbelonging to the elite, would bemanufacture ex profeso for its inclu-sion in ritual as an element ofwealthy and prestige. Moreover,inside these vessels have been do-cumented traces of drinks, narcotic


77

substances and food. All theseproperties allow us to connectthese potteries to social practicesof exhibition and performanceowning to the commensality ritual(Aranda & Esquivel 2006).

In addition, in argaric grave goodshave been documented faunalremains as a part of the funeraryritual. They are usually unnoticed;even they are not count in thedescription of the grave good asthey were irrelevant or not pres-ent. However we consider them asa crucial part of the commensalityritual developed by these soci-eties. Our methodology have con-sist in the revision of the availabledocumentation from argaricnecropolis in order to elaborate adatabase including burial withfaunal remains, with the aim ofsetting up potential patternsamong type and characteristic ofthese animal bones, rest of thegrave goods, age and sex of theinhumations, geographical distri-bution and chronological situa-tion. We are excluded those buri-als that, although containing meatoffering, it is not possible to iden-tify the specie. As a result we arecounted 57 burials from 9 necrop-olis with enough data that allow

us not only confirm that this is apretty widespread phenomenon inargaric world but also to establishhypothesis on this ritual practice(Aranda & Esquivel 2007).

Species preferred for the ritual arebasically bovids and ovicaprids.Bovids appear in the 40.3% of theburial and ovicaprids in the 59.6%.Exceptionally other species such asdeer (in two burial, 3.5%), pigs(one burial, 1.7%) or horses (oneburial, 1.7%) have been document-ed. For the 89.6% of the cases, thefaunal remains belong to singlespecie and to one animal and thereis a clear preponderance of younganimal slaughtered (74.4% of theanalysed sample). Regarding theanatomical parts included in gravegoods, we find a rigorous normali-sation. In all cases, independentlythe specie, meat offerings belong tothe legs of slaughtered animals(Fig. 1) (Aranda & Esquivel 2007).

The analysis of the meat offeringshas allowed us to suggest differentpatterns in the ritual consume.First of all, these types of offeringsare a transversal phenomenon inthe entire argaric territory; theyare a recurring element in the dif-ferent necropolis with a quantita-


78

tive relevance, approximatelybetween 35% and 40% of the bur-ial included this component. Thetype of meat offering is coherentwith the ritual consume present inthe rest of the grave goods1. Bovidsare associated to grave good thatinclude the high number of quan-tity and quality element, oppositethe ovicaprids, with a reduced rit-ual consume. Hence, bovids wouldbe associated with the high sociallevel, and ovicaprids are related tomembers of other social classeswith less power of amortization,they have a recognizable socialposition but are clearly dependingon those form the first class(Aranda & Esquivel 2007).

The occurrence of meat offeringssolidly standardised would implythat, as a part of the funerary ritual,

some animals were slaughtered andconsumed during commensalityritual. One piece of meat from theseanimals, always belonging to thelegs, would be introduced in theburial as a part of the grave good,meaning the symbolic inclusion ofthe deceased in the commensalityritual. Argaric commensal ritualpractices present specific featuresdepending on the social adscrip-tion of individuals. Hence, uppersocial class enjoyed a funerary ban-quet characterized by bovid con-sumption together with other ele-ments that reinforced wealthy andpower exhibition such as the man-ufacture of pottery vessel purpose-ly for ritual use. On the contrary,commensal ritual for individualsbelonging to a lower social classinvolved slaughter and consump-tion of ovicaprids.


79

Fig. 1. Anatomical parts of bovids and ovicaprids selected for meat offerings.

Gender and age identities in thecommensality ritual of argaric

societies

Our next enquiry is how genderand age identity affect the com-mensality ritual and on the con-verse how these practices revealgender and age relationship inargaric societies. For the analysis ofthe association between meat offer-ings and sex of the inhumations we

have considered only individualburials, due to in double or tripleinhumation we can not assure thelink between the animal bones andparticular individual. Our sample isintegrated by 28 burials and theapplication of ?2 test (?2=0.030, gl=1 y?=0.863) indicates that there are notstatistically significant differencesbetween men and women regard-ing the use of bovid or ovicaprid inthe grave goods (Fig. 2).


80

Fig. 2. Relation between meat offerings and sex of the inhumations.

This situation change when weanalyse the distribution of meatoffering by age. In this case theanalysed sample includes both,individual burial with age identi-fied and those double inhumationswhere both individuals belong tothe same category of age. The totalamount is 41 burials with the fol-lowing age categories: Infant I (0-6

years old), Infant II (7-12 years old);Juvenile (13-20 years old), Adult(21-40 years old), Mature (41-60years old) and Senile (from 60years old), both infant categorieshave been grouped in a single clus-ter. The analysis of distributionpattern of meat offering by agereveals that infants are associatedexclusively with ovicaprid (Fig. 3).


81

Fig. 3. Relation between meat offerings and the categories of age.

Discussion

The study of commensality prac-tices developed as a part of thefunerary ritual brings to light sev-eral significant conclusions. Firstof all we must highlight that thereis not any specific pattern regard-ing the sex of the deceased and thetype of meat offering, men andwomen’s burial contain bovid andovicaprid remains in similar quan-tity. This show that the access tothe slaughter, consume and deposi-tion of food is equal between sexesand the scale of the differentiationdevolve upon the rank of the indi-vidual and not upon the genderidentity.

This attribute in the argaric soci-eties have been manifested in theevaluation of other data fromfunerary record such as the numberof buried individuals by sex, thestudy of nutritional differencesthrough the examination of bonesand dental remains in men andwomen, the consideration of tracesof physical violence or the analysisof the rest of the grave goods that,although reveal differences in theirassociation to women or men (forexample in the upper social class,halberds for men and diadems for

women) does not mean inequalitybetween them (Sánchez Romero2007a).

Other evident distinction betweenmen and women belonging to thesame social rank is the differencesin the pattern of physical activity.We have examined three types ofmarkers: degenerative diseasessuch as arthrosis, musculoskeletalstress and frequency and types oftraumatisms. Analyses reveal simi-lar physical conditions for bothsexes caused by the location of set-tlement on the top of the hill andstep slopes; and very different onesregarding the practice of a mixedeconomy in which men probablydeveloped works related to herd-ing, mining and transport thatimplies walking, falls and a greaterphysical effort and subsequentlymarkers in the lower part of thebody; meanwhile, anthropologicalanalysis link women with thedomestic space in which they car-ried out work such as transport,food preparation or milling withlesions pattern in the upper part ofthe body (Sánchez Romero forth-coming b).

The second evidence from thestudy of meat offering in funerary


82

ritual from the argaric culture isthe exclusion of bovid from thechildren burial. Age, in this case,denote a ritual norm for whichinfants up to 12 years old are asso-ciated only to ovicaprids, contraryto the rest of age categories inwhich bovid and ovicaprid appearindistinctly.

As we mention above, we considerthat commensality practices are acrucial elements in the develop-ment of modes of socialization forgirls and boys, through these prac-tices they are included in the worldthat surrounding them. The use ofovicaprids in their grave goodsregardless the social rank must beinterpreted as a element of adscrip-tion to a social group that have notyet acquired certain rights, and it isa similar mechanism to the docu-mented for the rest of the children’sgrave goods in these societies. Inour opinion, during the Bronze Agein southeast Spain, the identity ofchildren was defined through theornamental objects that appear inthe grave goods in burials; an iden-tity that changed as these individu-als progressed through their lifecourses. The differential statusamong these children is marked bythe use of certain metals like silver

and especially gold in ornamentalobjects. The profusion of ornamen-tal elements suggests a classifica-tion more tied to age than to gen-der, a trend that probably began tochange as the reproductive cyclesof both women and men changed,and tied to the type of work thateach individual undertook with theprogressive introduction of metalimplements as age increases, withthe acquisition of daggers and awlsin the oldest age group. (SánchezRomero 2007b, forthcoming a).

Therefore, commensality must beunderstood as one of the maindomain of the political action andis an important scenario for therepresentation and manipulationof social relationship. In the case ofargaric societies, commensality isone mechanism of social behaviourin which the majority of the socialgroup participates. These practicesare reflected in the use of certainpottery vessels and the slaughter ofparticular animals, through theserituals is pretended the manifesta-tion of the existence of social class-es clearly defined not only throughthe adscription of individuals tospecific social rank but also as amechanism of socialization for thefuture.


83

References Cited

ADAMS, R.L. 2004. An ethnoar-chaeological study of feasting inSulawesi, Indonesia. Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology 23:56–78.

AIELLO, L.C.; WHEELER, P. 1995.The Expensive-TissueHypothesis: The Brain and theDigestive System in Human andPrimate Evolution. CurrentAnthropology 36(2):199-221.

ARANDA, G. 2004. Craft speciali-zation in pottery productionduring the Bronze Age in south-eastern Iberia. Journal of IberianArchaeology 6:157-79.

ARANDA, G.; ESQUIVEL, J.A.2006. Ritual funerario y comen-salidad en las sociedades de laEdad del Bronce del SurestePeninsular: la Cultura de ElArgar. Trabajos de Prehistoria63(2):117-33.

ARANDA, G.; ESQUIVEL, J.A.2007. Poder y prestigio en lassociedades de la cultura de ElArgar. El consumo comunal debóvidos y ovicápridos en los rit-uales de enterramiento. Trabajosde Prehistoria 64(2):95-118.

ARANDA, G., MOLINA, F. 2006.Wealth and power in theBronze Age of the south-east of

the Iberian Peninsula. Thefunerary record of Cerro de laEncina. Oxford Journal ofArchaeology 25(1):47-59.

ARTEAGA, O. 1993. Tribalización,jerarquización y Estado en elterritorio de El Argar. Spal 1:197-208.

ARTHUR, J.W. 2003. Brewingbeer: status, wealth and ceramicuse alteration among the Gamoof south-western Ethiopia.World Archaeology 34(3):516-28.

BATTAGLIA, D. 1990. On the Bonesof the Serpent: Person, Memory, andMortality in Sabarl Island Society.Chicago: The University ofChicago Press

BLEND, B. 2001. “I am an act ofkneading”: food and the makingof Chicana identity. In INNES,S. (ed.) Cooking Lessons. Lanham,MD: Rowman and Littlefield:41-62.

BRAY, T.L. 2003. The CornmensalPolitics of Early States andEmpires. In BRAY, T.L. (ed.) TheArchaeology and Politics of Food andFeasting States and Empires: 1-16.New York: Plenum.

CÁMARA, J.A. 2001. El ritual funer-ario en la Prehistoria Reciente en elSur de la Península Ibérica. Oxford:BAR International Series 913.

CHAPMAN, R. 2005. Mortary


84

analysis. A Matter of Time?Interacting with the death. InRakita, F.M., Buikstra, J.E.,Beck, L.A., Sloan, R.W. (eds.)Perspectives on MortuaryArchaeology for the New Millenium,Gainesville: University Press ofFlorida.

CLARKE, M.J. 2001. AknaFeasting: An Ethnoarchaeologi-cal Perspective. In Dietler, M. &Hayden, B. (eds.) Feasts.Archaeological and EthnograpkicPerspectives on Food, Politics, andPower: 147-67. Washington &London: SmithsonianInstitution Press.

COHEN, A. 1979. Political symbol-ism. Annual Review of Anthropology8:87-113.

COLOMER, L. 1996. Contenidorsceràmics i processament d´ali-ments a la prehistòria. Cota Zero12:47-60.

COLOMER, E., GONZÁLEZMARCÉN, P., MONTÓN, S.1998. Maintenance activities,Technological Knowledge andConsumption Patterns: A Viewof Northeast Iberia (2000-500Cal BC). Journal of MediterraneanArchaeology 11(1):53-80.

CONNERTON, P. 1989. How soci-eties remember. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

CORR, R. 2002. Reciprocity, com-munion, and sacrifice: food inandean ritual and social life.Food & Foodways 10:1–25.

COUNIHAN, C. M. 1999. Theanthropology of food and body.Gender, meaning and power. NewYork: Routledge.

COUNIHAN, C. M. 2002. Food aswoman’s voice in the San LuisValley of Colorado. InCounihan, C.M. (ed.) Food in theUSA: 295–304. New York:Routledge.

COUNIHAN, C.M. 2004. Aroundthe Tuscan Table: Food, Family andGender in Twentieth CenturyFlorence. London: Routledge.

CROWN, P. L. 2000. Women’sRole in Changing Cuisine. InCROWN, P. L. (ed.) Women andMen in the Prehispanic Southwest:221-266. Santa Fe: School ofAmerican Research Press.

DANFORTH, M. E. 1999.Nutrition and politics inPrehistory. Annual Review ofAnthropology 28:1-5.

DIETLER, M. 1996. Feast andCommensal Politics in thePolitical Economic: Food,Power and Status in PrehistoryEurope. In Wiessner, P.,Schiefenhovel, W. (eds.) Foodand the Status Quest: 87-125.


85

Oxford: Berghahn Books.DIETLER, M. 1999. Rituals of com-

mensality and the politics ofstate formation in the “princely”societies of early Iron AgeEurope. In Ruby, P. (ed.) Lesprinces de la protohistoire et l’émer-gence de l’état: 135-152. Naples-Roma: Centre Jean Bérard.

DIETLER, M. 2001. Theorizing theFeast: Ritual of Consumption,Commensal Politics, and Powerin African Contexts. In Dietler,M., Hayden, B. (eds.) Feasts.Archaeological and EthnograpkicPerspectives on Food, Politics, andPower:65-114. Washington andLondon: SmithsonianInstitution Press.

DIETLER, M. 2005. Alcohol:Anthropological/ArchaeologicalPerspectives. Annual Review ofAnthropology 35:229–49.

DIETLER, M. & HAYDEN, B.(eds.) 2001. Feasts. Archaeologicaland Ethnographic Perspectives onFood, Politics, and Power.Washington and London:Smithsonian Institution Press.

ESTEBAN, M.L. 2004. Antropologíadel cuerpo. Género, itinerarios corpo-rales, identidad y cambio.Barcelona: Bellaterra.

EVES, R. 1996. Remembrance ofThings Passed: Memory, Body

and the Politics of Feasting inNew Ireland, Papua NewGuinea. Oceania 66(4):266-77.

FINCH, C. & STANFORD, G.B.2004. Meat-adaptive genes andthe evolution of slower aging inhumans. The Quarterly Review ofBiology 79(1):4-50.

GILMAN, A. 2001. Assessing polit-ical development in Copper andBronze Age Southeast Spain. InHass, J. (ed.) From leaders torulers: 59-84. New York: KluwerAcademic/Plenum Publishers.

GOODY, J. 1982. Cooking, cuisine andclass: a study in comparative sociolo-gy, New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

GONZÁLEZ MARCÉN, P. &PICAZO, M. 2005. Arqueologíade la vida cotidiana. InSÁNCHEZ ROMERO, M. (ed)Arqueología y género: 141-158.Granada: Universidad deGranada.

GONZÁLEZ MARCÉN, P.,MONTÓN, S., PICAZO, M.2005. (eds) Dones i activitats demanteniment en temps de canvi,Barcelona: Treballsd’Arqueologia 11.

GONZÁLEZ MARCÉN, P.,MONTÓN, S., PICAZO, M.2005. Movilidad y vida cotidia-na: la construcción del espacio


86

doméstico en las comunidadesde la Prehistoria Reciente delnordeste de Iberia. In GonzálezMarcén, P., Montéon, S., Picazo,M. (eds) Dones i activitats de man-teniment en temps de canvi, Treballsd’Arqueologia. 11:135-161.

GOLDEN, D. 2005. Nourishing thenation: the uses of food in anIsraeli kindergarten, Food &Foodways 13:181–199.

GOSDEN, C., HATHER, J. 1999.The Prehistory of food: appetites forchange. London: Routledge

HAMILAKIS, Y. 1998. Eating theDead: Mortuary Feasting andthe Politics of Memory in theAegean Bronze Age Societies. InBranigan, K. (ed.) Cemetery andSociety in the Aegean Bronze Age:115-132. Sheffield: SheffieldStudies in Aegean Archaeology.

HAMILAKIS, Y. 1999. FoodTechnologies/Technologies ofthe Body: The Social Context ofWine and Oil Production andConsumption in Bronze AgeCrete. World Archaeology 31:38-54.

HENDON, J. 1996. Archaeologicalapproaches to the organizationof domestic labour: Householdpractice and domestic relations.Annual Review of Anthropology25:45-61.

HERNANDO, A. 2005. ¿Por qué lahistoria no ha valorado las acti-vidades de mantenimiento? InGonzález Marcén, P., Montón,S., Picazo, M. (eds) Dones i activi-tats de manteniment en temps decanvi. Treballs d’Arqueologia.11:115-133.

HOLTZMAN, J. 2006. Food andMemory. Annual Review ofAnthropology 35: 361-78.

LAPPE, F. M., COLLINS, J., ROS-SET, P. 1998) World Hunger: 12Myths. New York: Grove Press.

LULL, V. 1983. La cultura de El Argar:un modelo económico para el estudiode las formaciones económico-sociales prehistóricas. Madrid:Akal.

LULL, V. 2000. Argaric Society:death at home. Antiquity 74: 581-590.

LULL, V. & ESTÉVEZ, J. 1986.Propuesta metodológica para elestudio de las necrópolis argári-cas. In AA.VV. (eds.) Homenaje aLuis Siret (1934-1984):441-452.Sevilla: Consejería de Cultura dela Junta de Andalucía.

MATHERS, C. 1994. Goodbye toAll That?: Contrasting Patternsof Change in the South-EastIberian Bronze Age c. 24/2200-600 BC. In Mathers, C. &Stoddart, S. (eds.) Development


87

and Decline in the MediterraneanBronze Age: 21-72. New York:Kluwer Academic/PlenumPublishers.

MAUSS, M. 1967. The Gift: Forms andfunctions of Exchange in archaic soci-eties. New York: Norton.

MEYERS, M. 2001) A Bite off Mama’sPlate: Mothers’ and Daughters’Connections Through Food. NewYork: Bergin and Garvey.

MILTON, K. 1999. A Hypothesis toExplain the Role of Meat-Eatingin Human Evolution.Evolutionary Anthropology 8:11-21.

MINTZ, S. & DU BOIS, C. 2002)The anthropology of food andeating, Annual Review ofAnthropology 31:99-119.

MOLINA, F. 1983. La Prehistoria.In Historia de Granada I. De lasprimeras culturas al Islam: 11-131. Granada: Quijote.

MONTÓN, S. 2005. Las prácticasde alimentación: cocina y arque-ología. In Sánchez Romero, M.(ed.) Arqueología y género:159-175.Granada: Universidad deGranada.

MONTÓN, S. 2007. Interpretingarchaeological continuities: anapproach to transversal equalityin the Argaric Bronze Age ofsouth-east Iberia. WorldArchaeology 39(2):246-262.

MORRIS, I. 1992. Death-Ritual andSocial Structure in ClassicalAntiquity. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

PARKER, M. 2000. Eating money.A study in the Ethnoarchaeolo-gy of food, ArchaeologicalDialogues 7(2):217-232.

PICAZO, M. 1997. Hearth andhome: the timing of mainte-nance activities. In Moore, J. &Scott, E. Invisible people andprocesses. Writing Gender andChildhood into EuropeanArchaeology: 59-67. London:Leicester University Press.

ROSE, L. & MARSHALL, F. 1996.Meat eating, hominid sociality,and home bases revisited.Current Anthropology 37(2):307-338.

SÁNCHEZ ROMERO, M. 2004.Children in south east of IberianPeninsula during Bronze Age.Ethnographisch-ArchäologischeZeitschrift 45:377-387.

SÁNCHEZ ROMERO, M. 2007ª.Mujeres y estrategias pacíficasde resolución de conflictos: elanálisis de las sociedadesprehistóricas. In Molas, Mª. D.Violencia deliberada. Las raíces de laviolencia patriarcal: 39-55.Barcelona: Icaria.

SÁNCHEZ ROMERO, M. 2007b.


88

Actividades de mantenimientoen la edad del bronce del surpeninsular: el cuidado y lasocialización de individuosinfantiles. In Sánchez Romero,M. (ed.) Arqueología de las mujeresy de las relaciones de género.Madrid; Complutum 18:185-194.

SÁNCHEZ ROMERO, M. forthco-ming a. An approach to learningand socialisation in childrenduring the Spanish Bronze Age.In Dommasnes, L.H.,Wrigglesworth, M. (ed)Children, identity and the past.Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

SÁNCHEZ ROMERO, M. forthco-ming b. Actividades de manteni-miento, espacios domésticos yrelaciones de género en lassociedades de la prehistoriareciente. In PRADOS, L. IJornadas Internacionales deArqueología del Género, Madrid:Universidad Autónoma deMadrid.

SÁNCHEZ ROMERO, M. &ARANDA, G. 2005. El cambioen las actividades de manteni-miento durante la Edad delBronce: nuevas formas de prepa-ración, presentación y consumode alimentos. In GonzálezMarcén, P., Montón, S., Picazo,M. (eds) Dones i activitats de man-

teniment en temps de canvi. Treballsd’Arqueologia 11:73-90.

SIRET, H. & L. SIRET 1890. Lasprimeras edades del metal en el sud-este de España. Barcelona.

SOBOLIK, K. (ed.) 1994.Paleonutrition: The Diet and Healthof Prehistoric Americans, Centerfor ArchaeologicalInvestigations Occasional PaperSeries 22, Carbondale: SouthernIllinois University.

SØRENSEN, M. L. 2000. GenderArchaeology, Cambridge: PolityPress.

WEISMANTEL, M.J. 1988. Food,gender, and poverty in theEcuadorian Andes, Illinois:Waveland Press.

WHITE, C. 2005. Gendered foodbehaviour among the Maya.Journal of Social Archaeology 5(3):356-382.

WIESSENER, P. 2001. Of Feastingand Value: Enga Feasts inHistorical Perspective (PapuaNew Guinea). In Dietler, M.,Hayden, B. (eds.) Feasts.Archaeological and EthnograpkicPerspectives on Food, Politics, andPower: 115-43. Washington andLondon: SmithsonianInstitution Press.

WIESSNER, P. & SCHIEFEN-HOVEL, W. (eds.) 1996. Food


89

Documents

GENDER AND AGE IDENTITIES IN RITUALS OF ... and historic examples showing multiples relation between food and sex or sexual practices (Counihan 1999:9), our interest here is focused