Sharyn Jones. Food and gender in Fiji: ethnoarchaeological explorations.

Sharyn Jones. Food and gender in Fiji: ethnoarchaeological explorations. SHARYN JONES. Food and gender in Fiji: ethnoarchaeologicalexplorations. xvi+204 pages, 25 illustrations. 2009. Lanham (MD):Lexington Books; 978-0-7391-3480-1 hardback 39.95 [pounds sterling]. Food and Gender in Fiji combines an ethnographic study of food--itsprocurement, preparation, consumption and meaning--with archaeologicalresearch on midden middendungheap. deposits and the cooking features used to preparefood. The setting is Nayau, a small island in eastern Fiji where theauthor and her colleagues conducted seven months of fieldwork over twoand a half years. The aim, a standard one in ethnoarchaeologicalresearch, is to identify processes that may explain observed behavioursand material culture patterning in the present and, by extension,material culture patterning wit hin the archaeological record The archaeological record is a term used in archaeology to denote all archaeological evidence, including the physical remains of past human activities which archaeologists seek out and record in an attempt to analyze and reconstruct the past. . Jones isquite frank when introducing her research questions, stating that she isnot successful in generating any answers (if we could all be so honest),but rather explores the social processes involving gender, hierarchy andideology. In particular, she is interested in the use of these conceptsto explain the distribution of archaeofaunal remains and contemporarybehaviour. [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] The text consists of six chapters and two appendices covering theidiosyncrasies of Fijian fieldwork (chapter one), the environmental,prehistoric and social background of the region (two),ethnoarchaeological theory and the anthropology of food (three),contemporary food consumption, food disposal patterns and archa eologicaldata (four), contemporary fishing methods (five), and the(ethno)archaeological implications of the research (six). The twoappendices include ethnographic interview data and the archaeologicalmethods employed. The book's strength is the well-structuredpresentation of archaeological and ethnographic data; in particularthorough data on distributions of faunal elements are juxtaposed jux¡¤ta¡¤pose?tr.v. jux¡¤ta¡¤posed, jux¡¤ta¡¤pos¡¤ing, jux¡¤ta¡¤pos¡¤esTo place side by side, especially for comparison or contrast. toethnographic observations including cooking customs, eating and the useof space, and skeletal analyses of food remains. Two issues raised bythe book are of more general interest. Archaeological variation, such as that captured in a distributionof skeletal elements, can be analysed using, for example, an optimalitymodel, like netcaloric return, or culture-specific preferences. Jonesopts to investigate explanatory processes developed from contemporaryFijian c ultural preferences regarding status using different partsoffish off¡¤ish?adj.Inclined to be distant and reserved; aloof.offish¡¤ly adv.off . The head of a fish is considered appropriate fare forhigh-status people in Fiji and Jones found disproportionately highcounts of cranial cranial/cra¡¤ni¡¤al/ (-al)1. pertaining to the cranium.2. toward the head end of the body; a synonym of superior in humans and other bipeds.cra¡¤ni¡¤aladj. elements in one of her 13 site-assemblages. This leadsher to suggest that 'heads may have been preferred, or at leastfrequently eaten, by the occupants of these archaeologicalhouseholds' (p. 85). In several passages Jones notes thatculturally-specific social frameworks such as that used in this examplemay provide a more appropriate and deeper understanding ofarchaeological data. It is true, that most simple optimality modelswould not predict an abundance offish heads in archaeofaunal assemblageshowever, this reviewer would point out that neither cu lture-specificmodels nor optimality models are more appropriate. All models areartificial, and in archaeology they should be derived, in part at least,from the kind of empirical observations to which they are applied: canwe measure what the model demands us to measure? Can we unambiguouslysay archaeological bones that are 2000 to 1000 years old measure statusthe same way that bones deposited yesterday seem to? This of course isthe fatal flaw for much ethnoarchaeology Ethnoarchaeology is the ethnographic study of peoples for archaeological reasons, usually focusing on the material remains of a society, rather than its culture. Ethnoarchaeology aids archaeologists in reconstructing ancient lifeways by studying the material and non-material . A second general issue arising from Jones' research concernsthe nature of the archaeological record. Jones notes that not all foodconsumed by individuals ends up in archaeological middens. Herobservations of individuals' frequent 'snackin g' when inthe cookhouse cook¡¤house?n.A building used for cooking, as at a camp.Noun 1. cookhouse - the area for food preparation on a shipcaboose, ship's galley, galleycuddy - the galley or pantry of a small ship , when fishing, when preparing earth-ovens and at othertimes, suggests that archaeological middens do not representPompeii-like snapshots of eating habits. Or as Jones states:'zooarchaeologcial remains are the result of many meals over thecourse of a family's occupation of a site or use-life of a cookingfeature' (p. 114). For students of archaeological theory Archaeological theory covers the debates over the practice of archaeology and the interpretation of archaeological results. There is no single theory of archaeology, and even definitions are disputed. thisrecalls the Binford-Schiffer debates and the necessity of creatingexplicit links between observational units used to describe thearchaeological record and the explanatory processes used to interpretthose desc riptions. This second general issue is relevant to the whole work. Theexplanatory processes related to status, space and food consumptionJones presents are generated in an ethnographic setting and primarilyamong a group of immediate family members. However, despite statementsto the contrary, the archaeological record here is not divided into'archaeological households'. Midden deposits do not representa knowable number of families. Cooking features may be the product ofone meal or 30. The ethnoarchaeological framework here is built toexplain observations of families, villages, men and women, chiefs andcommoners, but the archaeological record does not consist of thesethings. Ethnoarchaeology, Jones' work included, helps us refine ourobservations of the archaeological record, helps us keep track of thepossibilities of human behaviour, but to explain the archaeologicalrecord we need to build theory with that record in mind. ETHAN E. COCHRANE International Archaeological Resea rch Institute Inc., Honolulu,Hawaii For the city and county of Honolulu, see City & County of Honolulu.“Honolulu” redirects here. For other uses, see Honolulu (disambiguation).Honolulu is the capital as well as the most populous community of the State of Hawaii, United States. , USA (Email: ecochrane@iarii.org)