540 likes | 717 Views
ANTH 495A-001 Advanced Studies in Anthropology - ADV STUDIES Nutritional Archaeology. Mike Richards. Outline of lecture. Why study diet in archaeology and anthropology? Theoretical approaches to understanding diet and subsistence (materialism, structuralism, cultural) Food taboos
E N D
ANTH 495A-001 Advanced Studies in Anthropology - ADV STUDIESNutritional Archaeology Mike Richards
Outline of lecture • Why study diet in archaeology and anthropology? • Theoretical approaches to understanding diet and subsistence (materialism, structuralism, cultural) • Food taboos • What can we determine about diet from the archaeological record? • Concepts to keep in mind throughout the course
Why study past diets? • Diet and subsistence are key concepts underlying Archaeology and Anthropology • The need to for food is a universal, but the way we obtain food, process food and consume food varies throughout the world and between cultures. • There is a deep time depth to our food traditions
Diet in Archaeology • The way that people obtained food is the main factor in classifying that society in archaeology • We have early hunter-gatherer societies • Wild plants and animals were obtained through active hunting, or scavenging, as well as collecting
Diet in Archaeology • The way that people obtained food is the main factor in classifying that society in archaeology • We then have intensification of the use of certain foods • Repeat use of a resource in a specific area, such as seasonal dependence on fish, or wild plants
Diet in Archaeology • The way that people obtained food is the main factor in classifying that society in archaeology • We then have the first steps of the adoption of agriculture and animal husbandry • Humans control the access to these resources, as well as the means of reproduction for these organisms
Diet in Archaeology • The way that people obtained food is the main factor in classifying that society in archaeology • Intensification of the use of resources leads to state societies • Social differentiation in access to these foods • Separation between production and consumption.
Diet in Archaeology • The way that people obtained food is the main factor in classifying that society in archaeology • These time periods are generally referred to as the Palaeolithic (hunter-gatherers) • The Epi-Palaeolithic/Mesolithic(specialisation of wild resources)
Diet in Archaeology • The way that people obtained food is the main factor in classifying that society in archaeology • The Neolithic (adoption of agriculture and animal husbandry) • The Bronze/Iron ages, as well as ‘civilisation’ (social differentiation, separation between production and consumption)
Diet in Archaeology • The way that people obtained food is the main factor in classifying that society in archaeology • The reason for the focus on diet and subsistence is that these are the ‘means of production’ • The underlying concepts for archaeology are essentially marxist
Diet in Anthropology • In the study of living peoples food and the means of food production is also a key way of initially classifying cultures and societies (and sub-cultures) • Much more information about social concepts of the importance of food • Who can eat the food, and what foods can’t be eaten?
How to explain food choices? • There are essentially two theoretical approaches used in archaeology/anthropology to understand the food choices and subsistence strategies that modern and past peoples made and used. • Materialist, Structuralistand Cultural
Materialist approaches • Usually uses the baseline dietary needs for humans as a starting point • Then tries to explain human adaptations and even social rules about food using this as a starting point – looking for a ‘practical’ explanation.
Materialist approaches • Seeks to explain the reason behind food choices, and even food taboos through practical, ‘scientific’ means. • Often borrows from biology, and also includes evolutionary theory.
Materialist approaches • A key concept used in materialist approaches is Optimal Foraging Theory • First proposed in 1966 (MacArthur, R. H. and Pianka, E. R. (1966). On the optimal use of a patchy environment. American Naturalist, 100) • Models predator behaviour • E/h (energy/handling time) • Predators choose prey with maximum E/h (most calories per handling unit) which is therefore the most profitable.
Materialist approaches • Optimal Foraging Theory is one of the main concepts used in archaeology, especially in hunter-gatherer studies. • Determine the calories that an average person needs in a day • Determine the food resources available • Calculate the minimum effort needed to obtain the maximum amount of calories (min-max)
Materialist approaches • Evolutionary theory • Explains human behaviour, and dietary adaptations, using Darwinian concepts of natural selection. • Especially predominant in prehistory and palaeoanthropology (hunter-gatherers) • Less successful in explaining dietary choices and behaviour in living peoples
Materialist approaches • An extreme example of the use of materialism is to explain Aztec human sacrifice.
Materialist approaches • Aztec human sacrifice: • Cannibalism widely practiced. Some estimates put this at 1% of the population, which could be 1000 to 3000 people a year at the largest temples (Harner 1977). • Michael Harner (1977) and others (Arens 1979) have applied a materialist approach to understand this phenomenon
Materialist approaches • Aztec human sacrifice and cannibalism • Aztecs nutritionally stressed, especially for protein • This is because maize is deficient in some essential amino acids • Therefore, human flesh could satisfy this nutritional deficiency
Materialist approaches • Aztec human sacrifice and cannibalism • Counter-arguments: • Other sources of protein! • Was cannibalism exaggerated by European chroniclers?
Materialist approaches • Aztec human sacrifice and cannibalism • Alternative explanations: • Ecological argument – need to limit population size so did not exhaust resources (also an argument for why there is widespread warfare at this time) • Or, was it a form of social control, showing how the state had the ultimate power over the masses?
Structuralism • Claude Levi-Strauss a key proponent • Levi-Strauss (1966) The culinary triangle. Partisan Review 33: 586-595 • A structuralist, borrowing ideas from linguistics, looking for a universal underlying structure in all human behaviour
Structuralism • Applied structuralism to diet and subsistence. • Foods and food choices are social codes • Identified three underlying, and universal, concepts that all humans use to describe food. • These are ‘Raw’, ‘Cooked’, and ‘Rotted’
Lévi-Strauss' CulinaryTriangle (1966) Raw Claude Lévi-Strauss Natural Transformation Cultural Transformation Natural Transformation Cooked Rotten Beardsworth & Keil, 1997
Structuralist Approach looking at "deep structures": universal principles underlying human behaviour Structuralism Raw roasted Unprepared Prepared Cooked smoked Rotten boiled/steamed
Structuralism • With this ‘culinary triangle’ one can then explore how different societies subsistence practices fit within this model • This can then be linked with other underlying structures, such as culture/nature, male/female to explain the nature of each society • Food is not good to eat, but good to think
Cultural approaches • Seeks to explain food choices and dietary adaptations in terms of social constructs • Explores the role of ideology on food choices • Symbolism is key to understanding the social roles and constructs • People choose food not for practical reasons, but cultural reasons following elaborate social codes
Food Taboos • Food taboos are universal, and a number of theoretical approaches have been used to try and explain them
Food Taboos • Example of the avoidance of the consumption of beef by Hindus in India. • Cattle are sacred in Hinduism and slaughter and consumption of cattle is outlawed in many parts of India. • Why?
Food Taboos • Historical background • Earlier texts (The Vedas, from 2000 BC) describe the slaughter of cattle, but mainly for religious purposes, but it is not outlawed. • The Brahmins, the elite priestly class, specifically avoid killing cattle, and this practice becomes widespread in the population ca. 200 AD. • By 1000 AD eating beef is forbidden for all Hindus.
Food Taboos • However, foreigners and Muslims can eat beef • The untouchables must remove dead cattle carcasses, as higher castes cannot touch the dead animal, or else they need to go through a purification rite
Food Taboos • Marvin Harris is a key proponent of materialism and addressed this specific issue in a 1978 article in Human Nature. • He rejects religious or even historical arguments in favour of an ecological approach.
Food Taboos • The specific cattle in India are zebu (Bosindicus) which are much better at surviving drought and subsisting on poor quality plants than European cattle. • Therefore, they survive the dry periods in India well
Food Taboos • Cattle provide milk and milk products that are widely used in Hindu cooking • However, this is not the main reason for the taboo on eating cattle. • Instead, Harris considers their use as traction animals as their main importance, as they can survive on poor food and in the dry periods • Additionally their dung is a source of fuel and the manure helps to fertilise the fields • Therefore, they provide more in terms of calories and production as traction animals, sources of manure and milk than their meat can provide
Food Taboos • In the 8th century AD there was an Islamic invasion of India. • Muslims also consume beef, while Hindus eat pork, so there is likely a form of differentiation between these two groups manifested in food choices (the ban on beef consumption by Hindus occurred in 1000 AD).
Food Taboos • Is this an example of social differentiation to separate out different sections of society? Does this help to reinforce the caste system? • Was it originally instituted to show and reinforce the power and control that the Brahmin caste had? • Muslims also consume beef, while Hindus (sometimes) eat pork, so there is likely a form of differentiation between these two groups manifested in food choices.
Understanding diet in archaeology • The study of living peoples allows us to see the rich social rules and constructs around food • This is mainly invisible to archaeology, but these two main concepts are still applied regularly to try and explain and understand diet in the archaeological record
Understanding diet in archaeology • Indirect measures of diet • Zooarchaeology (archaeozoology) • Palaeoethnobotany (archaeobotany)
Understanding diet in archaeology • Indirect measures of diet • Textual evidence • Artifact studies • Chemical analysis
Understanding diet in archaeology • Direct measures of diet • Human osteology
Stable Isotope analysis • Bone protein carbon and nitrogen stable isotope analysis. • Long-term record of dietary protein. • Carbon – marine vs. terrestrial foods. • Nitrogen – source of protein, animal vs. plant.
Concepts to keep in mind • Humans generally need the same amount and type of calories and nutrients, so why are some foods considered to be worth more than others?
Concepts to keep in mind • Foiegras • Is this expensive and highly prized because it is very fatty and calorie dense? • Have we evolved to want foods like this, as they are so rare naturally?
Concepts to keep in mind • Foiegras • Or is it expensive and highly prized because it is rare and difficult to produce? • Does it show your wealth and social position if you can afford to eat it?
Concepts to keep in mind • McDonald’s french fries • Why are they so popular with children?
Concepts to keep in mind • McDonald’s french fries • Is it because they are very high in fat and calories and growing children need both? (materialist and evolutionary model) • Or is it because of advertising and peer group pressure? (needing to fit in, cultural model)
Concepts to keep in mind • Fugu (Pufferfish)
Concepts to keep in mind • Food is an essential, so unlike other aspects of social behaviour there must be underlying biological constraints on the food choices we make • This must have evolved • So optimal foraging theory and evolutionary theories are good starting points…
Concepts to keep in mind • …however there are many examples where these theories cannot explain food choices and subsistence strategies • So, think about both of these approaches through the course