When is Food a Luxury

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 [email protected].

.

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


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


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,




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




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




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).




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.




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




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




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




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




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




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




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?




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).




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.

When is Food a Luxury

Documents

Transcript of When is Food a Luxury