FOR AROKA

Ethnic cuisine: culture in nature

Pierre L. van den Berghe University of Washington

The association between food and ethnicity, and the resilience of ethnic cuisines to acculturation have long been noted, but little has been made of these facts. The relative neglect of food and cuisine in social science has been part of the more general avoidance of any subject which threatened to expose the natural roots of culture. There have been exceptions to this general neglect, of course, and not uncharacteristically, the French have been prominent among social scientists concerned with food. Foremost among them, L6vi- Strauss (1964, 1968) stressed the importance of cooking, that is, the trans- formation of a natural object into a cultural one, in what he saw as the human passage from nature to culture. His propensity to analyze the social world in terms of binary oppositions is probably wired into the structure of the human brain, but is unfortunately Umiting in understanding the evolution- ary process which is not dualistic. Nevertheless, Levi-Strauss's insight is central: food, and what we do to and with it, is at the very core of sociality.

A number of social scientists with a materialist orientation have also given food a prominent place in their scheme of human existence. This is, of course, true of the Marxist tradition (notably Engels, 1884), which continues today in the work of anthropologists like Meillassoux (1977). The central concern of Marxists, however, has been with the production of food much more than with its transformation and consumption. Social historians, like Braudel (1973), Hooker (1981), Norman (1972), and Tannahill (1973) have related diet and styles of preparation and consumption of food with societal class striicture. In British anthropology, both ofthe 'functionalist' and 'structural- ist' variety, some distinguished figures have Hnlced food to the natural world, while generally stressing the cultural aspects of it (Richards, 1937, 1939; Malinowski, 1935; Douglas, 1971; Farb and Armelagos, 1980). Most recently. Goody (1982), in contrasting Africa and Eurasia, links the development of kaute cuisine with levels of societal organization, essentially the transition from state-level horticultural societies to agrarian societies. Finally, cultural ecologists, notably Harris (1974, 1979) have related food preferences and taboos to ecological conditions and social organization.

The Evolution of Human Sociality and Food Sharing

Here, I propose to add to these perspectives the insights of evolutionary

Ethnic and Racial Studies Volume 7 Number 3 July 1984 © R.K.P. 1984 0141-9870/84/0703-0387 ? 1.50/1

388 Pierre L. van den Berghe

theory, and apply them to the link between ethnicity and cuisine. Overriding differences of detail and of emphasis, there is a broad measure of agreement among students of hominid evolution on the linkage between human food- sharing and sociality. The paleontological evidence unearthed over the last half century clearly shows the coevolution of a number of features during the hominid transition of the last three or four million years. These include the development of: bipedalism with its attendant capability for food carrying; an increasingly omnivorous diet including meat of large mammals; more and more neotenous and dependent infants requiring care, protection, and feeding well beyond weaning; a sexual division of labor in food gathering and prepar- ation, with an attendant food sharing; and family groups with fairly stable mating relationships and biparental investment in offspring (Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1979; Hrdy, 1981; Johanson, 1981; Leakey, 1981;Symons, 1979;Washburn and Moore, 1974).

In short, we evolved into a terrestial, bipedal, diurnal, omnivorous food gatherer and hunter, forming relatively stable, long-lasting pair bonds between adult males and females cooperating in the nurturance of their highly depen- dent offspring through a domestic economy based on a sexual division of labor and food exchange. Only adult and adolescent males could efficiently chase large mammals, especially fleet ungulates, over long distances. As it took several males to form effective hunting parties, the basic band of our hominid ancestors included a handful to a dozen nuclear families, for a total size in the range of 20 to 60 individuals, including the young. Ecological limitations on food production set limits on population density, on the size of bands, and on their ability to stay put for more than a few weeks. With densities of typically less than 0.1 inhabitant per square kilometer, these small, nomadic bands covered fairly wide territories and came into contact with neighboring bands with which they exchanged their maturing offspring for mates. These neighboring bands thus formed breeding populations of a few hundred kinsmen and affines sharing the same genes, the same language, the same technology, the same food, the same environment, in short the same nature-culture bundle of traits which constituted their adaptive baggage to their environmental niche.

As I have suggested elsewhere (van den Berghe, 1981), it was that breeding population of a few hundred individuals with their common genetic and culture baggage which formed the primordial ethny. The original ethny was an extended family bounded by spatial limits, by a network of intermarriage, and by that shared system of symbolic communication we call culture. After the development of agriculture first, and then the state, the size of the ethny increased exponentially, but the basic defining criterion of ethnicity remained common descent (however distant and even putative common descent some- times became). The test of common descent was generally cultural, frequently linguistic, rather than 'racial,' because cultural (especially linguistic) diacritica often did a better job of differentiating neighboring populations than ana- tomical phenotypes.

If ethnicity is simply kinship writ large, then ethnocentrism (and, occasion-

Ethnic cuisine 389

ally, racism) is an extension of nepotism. Ethnicity consists of the outer layers of an onion of nepotism, with ego at the core. The sociobiological argument linking much sociality to a genetic program for maximizing including fitness through 'kin selection' applies to ethnicity (and race).

Now, back to food. Man evolved as a food-sharing animaL He had to share food with his offspring because human infants, unlike young monkeys, are not competent foragers at the age of weaning, and because the prolonged gestation and lactation of a large, energetically costly, and highly dependent infant incapacitated the adult female for hunting large, fast, wide-ranging mammals. Humans are by no means unique as foodsharers, although food sharing (other than lactation) is rare among mammals, and virtually unknown in non-human primates with the partial exception of chimpanzees (Teleki, 1973: van Lawick-Goodall, 1975). Sharing food with offspring characterizes some 90 per cent of bird species (the so-called 'altriciaf birds), and, as with humans, most altricial birds tend to form fairly stable and monogamous pair bonds and to have evolved biparental investment in offspring.

Among mammals, the most extensive food sharers are the social carnivores, especially the canids, (wolves, jackals, African hunting dogs), who regurgitate meat to the pups after a hunt (van Lawick-Goodall, 1970). As with humans, the food sharing of the can.ids is not limited to parents and young. Adults of the pack, other than the parents, regurgitate to the pups, and also to the adult left behind to guard the pups. Humans, being bipedal, have evolved a more convenient and esthetically appealing method of carrying food, but the convergent evolution of two lines of mammalian predators on food sharing, while clearly analogous rather than homologous, is nevertheless interesting.

A better case for homologous evolution caa be made with the chimpanzee. Food sharing is less developed in chimps than in humans, but chimps do beg for food, especially scarce and valuable foods, such as meat (McGrew, 1979, 1981; Galdikas and Teleki, 1981). Furthermore, the ritualized gesture of beg- ging in chimps (extending the arm toward the possessor of food with the slightly cupped hand turned palm upward) is identical to that found in humans (Teleki, 1973; van Lawick-Goodall, 1975). This could indicate a com^mon evolutionary origin of the trait.

Let us briefly summarize the case for the evolution of food sharing. We know from countless animal studies that food is probably the most potent behavioral reinforcer. In those species which evolved food-sharing as an adaptive fitness maximizing behavior, food-sharing becomes an important binding mechanism, especially but not exclusively between close kin. All these arguments apply a fortiori for Homo sapiens, the most complexly social of verteb.rates. As has been repeatedly observed, we are such a highly social animal, that sociality itself is a powerful behavioural reinforcer. One of the characteristics of our species is the juxtaposition of two potent re- inforcers: food and sociality. Little wonder then that food-sharing pervades virtually all aspects of human social life, from religion to reproduction, and does so in similar ways in all cultures.

390 Pierre L. van den Berghe

F«od Sharing, Socidity, Kinship, and Reproduction Across Cultures

The centrality and universality of food sharing in humans is abundantly documented in ethnography. Food is not only shared in all cultures, but i% ceremoniously shared in ways which differ in detail but have the same basic meaning and function: to establish, express, and consolidate social ties. Nearly all religions have communion rituals. The shared ingestion of food, drink, or some other internally taken substance (tobacco, coca leaves, kola nuts) is the universal hallmark of hospitality, and symbolizes a desire to maintain friendly relations. In stratified societies, commensalism is generally a token not only of good relations but also of social equality. Conversely, the refusal to share food or drink is universally interpreted as a mark of mistrust (fear of being poisoned), hostility or contempt (as between castes in India, or racial groups in the United States and South Africa). Food is not only the ultimate gift, but the gift that cannot gracefully be refused.

The obligation to give and to accept, as Mauss (1954) recognized long ago, is the basis of exchange, and exchange is a fundamental mechanism of bond formation in humans (Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1982). The elaborate forms of ritual exchange and gift-giving are most probably cultural elaborations of food- sharing in our hominid ancestors. Indeed, until the advent of agriculture and the production of a storable surplus, there was little for humans to share except food.

If, as seems to be the case, food sharing is the evolutionary root of complex exchange relationships in humans and a major cement of sociality, it is little wonder that it has retained its potency as a token of friendly relationships. The primacy of food sharing over other forms of exchange can be seen, for example, in urban begging behavior. There the propensity to give is slightest because the beggar is unrelated and even unknown to the prospective giver, and because the probability of reciprocation is nil. To maximize success, beggars not only beg for food (rather than for, say, clothes) they also capital- ize on our propensity to feed children by taking children along on begging expeditions; and they know that their 'marks' are most vulnerable while eating, a perennial problem for restaurant owners in poor countries. Even highly bureaucratic charities, like Oxfam and the Black Panthers' Breakfast for Children Program, make use of these basic facts of human ethology.

Since food, in nearly all societies for nearly all of human history, has been a scarce and, therefore, valuable resource directly linked to survival, well-being, and reproduction, it is not shared indiscriminately. In fact, a sociobiological model of human sociality predicts that foodsharing evolved as a mechanism of inclusive fitness maximization, and therefore takes place according to principles of nepotism and reciprocity. That is, food is shared first with the immediate family of mate and off-spring. Mates share food, with each other as part of their more general collaborative exercise in reproduction, and with their dependent children. Indeed, food sharing plays an important role even in courtship, prior to marriage. Frequently, the prospective groom has to demonstrate his ability as a provider by killing a specified species of

Ethnic cuisine 391

large game, by bringing meat to Ms future in-laws, or in the urban context, by purchasing expensive chocolates or restaurant meals for his fiancee. The wedding itself is, of course, very commonly a large communion ritual where vast quantities of food are ingested prior to the consummation ofthe marriage itself.

Many cultures make the linkage between food and sex, and, therefore, indirectly reproduction, quite explicit. The ritualized intimacy of the shared meal is a widely recognized prelude to sexual intimacy in many cultures, and, interestingly, food sharing generally precedes rather than follows sex. Breakfast in bed is an anti-climax after the candlelight dinner! Lovers are expected to share food as well as sex, generally in that order. Indeed food sharing often distinguishes intimate, caring sex, from casual sex where the attending rituals are dispensed with.

Food sharing is universally associated not only with sexual intimacy, but aiso, of course, with the intimacy of parental nurturance. The potency of the mother-infant bond is trivially obvious in all mammals, as is the cen- trality of food as its reinforcer. But, in humans, this bond is especially strong, complex, and long lasting because we have to feed our offspring beyond weaning and because biparental feeding is the normative arrangement in yirtually all cultures. Humans do not simply share food and gobble it down. They transform food through cooking, and ritualize communal food ingestion, usually in family groups of mates and kinsmen. Sometimes, there is segregation by age and sex, often with the men eating separately from the women and children, but the family almost invariably forms the basic unit of domestic economy in which food resources are pooled, and meals cooked and consumed. At a minimum, a woman and her children form an economic sub-unit in a larger polygynous family, and each of the wives takes turns in feeding the common husband. In monogamous units, the nuclear family often forms the smallest food sharing group, but,-not infrequently, the nuclear family only constitutes a semi-autonomous sub-unit in the larger domestic economy of an extended family.

There is considerable cross-cultural variability in the amount of food production contributed by men and women, a variability which correlates closely with technology, ecology, and system of production. For example, among Arctic hunters, men provide nearly all the food, while most tropical hunters and gatherers get the bulk of their caloric intake from the work of women. Nevertheless, there are several cultural uniformities: men provide nearly all the meat of large animals, and do practically all long-distance fishing, and herding of ungulates. Women gather most vegetable foods and do most of the agricultural work in many ofthe simpler horticultural societies. Women also do nearly all of the food preparation and cooking, while men are cooks of the tet resort, 'special-occasion' cooks, (e.g., in outdoor barbecues m the United States), or specialists catering to the elite of a class-stratified society.

Overriding all cultural variations in patterns of food production, trans- formatioB afld consumption, in rules of commensality and table etiquette.

392 Pierre L. van den Berghe

in styles of cooking, in food taboos, and so on, is the fact that nearly all the food consumed by nearly all humans for all but the last few centuries of our evolution has been produced, transformed and consumed by small groups of intimates who were either spouses or kinsmen. Even in more complex societies where there are increasing numbers of exceptions to this pattern, the exceptions are regarded as less than optimal adaptations to undesirable circumstances. Who likes 'institutional' food?

Urban Alienation and the Revival of Ethnic Cuisine

The alienation of food has proceeded furthest in contemporary industrial societies where nearly all food production, and much of its preparation and consumption have moved out of the family home. These circumstances probably have something to do with the increasing popularity and prolifer- ation of ethnic cuisines in industrial societies, as we shall see. The world of supermarkets, TV dinners, and fast-food franchises is, of course, a far cry from the savannahs of pleistocene Africa, or even from the odoriferous markets of the Third World. Much as we appreciate being saved the drudgery of growing or hunting our own food, and the tedium of processing much of it, we still relish communal food consumption with our intimates. We even cling at considerable cost to vestiges of food production: many of us lavish considerable time and expense and derive intense pleasure from growing fruits or vegetables, in fermenting our own wine in our cellar or garage, pursuing salmon, partridge and deer in the backwoods, and then consuming the product of our industry with our family and selected friends. (The latter, whose judgment is not clouded by the same emotions as the producers, often wish they stayed home, but they are consoled by the thought of retaliating.) Imbued with the nostalgia of things past, vestigial food grubbing even becomes ennobling, provided, of course, one does not have to do it. Only Labour Party intellectuals could demean the English fox hunt as the insufferable doing the unspeakable to the inedible.

What does all this have to do with ethnic cuisine? A great deal, I would suggest, for the wag who says that we are what we eat was right in much more than the literal sense. Through the communal and ritualized ingestion of food, we reinforce social bonds and express at the most fundamental level the unity of nature and culture. Our cuisine is the symbolic expression of our sociality, first in the intimate domestic sphere, and by extension with the larger group that shares our specific culinary complex: the inventory of food items, the repertoire of recipes, and the rituals of commensalism. Along with language, the food complex thus becomes a basic badge of ethnicity.

It is scarcely surprising that we get attached to the foods that we link with our most intimate and pleasant childhood associates, and that, conversely, we feel attracted by the people who share our food tastes and manners, that is, by our fellow ethnics. In the same sense as ethnicity is an extension of kin- ship, ethnic food is a widening of home cooking. Consciousness of eating ethnic cuisine, however, can only develop in a context of interethnic contact.

Ethnic cuisine 393

Lisa Moflsieur Jourdain who spoke prose all his life without knowing it, the provincial does not know that his food is ethnic until he comes into contact with other culinary traditions. To paraphrase Marx, it is only through a pro- cess of alienation that ethnic food in itself becomes ethnic food for itself. Ethnic cuisine is most likely to become a fully self-conscious product in the context of the multi-ethnic city.

Obviously, there is more to the appreciation of ethnic cuisine than lingering food tastes acquired in childhood. TMs is especially true in the industrial, urbanized context. If the retention of ethnic foods were merely an aspect of cultural conservatism, then we would expect ethnic cuisines to undergo dilution in the general cultural melting pot of the multi-ethnic city. We would expect both the recipes and the tastes for them to disappear with the death of the older generation, and with the rise of the fish-and-chips or hot-dog generation. In fact, ethnic cuisine no more withers away in the urban cauldron than does ethnicity itself. Nor does it remain static in either physical form or symbolism. It constantly gets recreated, transformed, and reinterpreted. Most strikingly of ail, it even jumps ethnic boundaries, and becomes an item of cross-ethnic consumption.

The vitality and the versatility of ethnic cuisine in the modern, urban, industrial context is but one aspect of the persistence of ethnicity itself. On.ly their fondness for false dichotomies has led social scientists to expect that the universalistic forces of Geselkchaft would win against the particular- istic residues of Gemeinschaft. However belatedly and reluctantly, social scientists are recognizing the irrepressibility of nepotism and ethnocentrism, as extended forms and strategies of individual self-interest. So long as nepotism and ethnocentrism continue to have a pay-off (as a sociobiological model would predict), they are going to persist as strategies of individual and col- lective action. Indeed, '&)& ytty atomization and alienation of the urban, icdustriai environment can be expected to promote a reactive reassertion of kin and ethnic ties.

To a large extent, urban ethnicity is not simply the conservative perpetu- ation of a pristine heritage, but, rather, the adaptive activation of particularistic ties for self interest (Cohen, 1974; Keyes, 1981; van den Berghe, 1981). Ethnicity is both primordial and instrumental. Witliin that context, one can expect ethnic cuisine to be perpetuated or recreated not only in response to pre-existing, conditioned food tastes, but also as a sj/mbol of common descent, as a marker and reinforcer of social bonds. Food is an especially appropriate target of ethnic revival, not only because of its potency as a reinforcer, but because of the relative ease with which food tastes can be acquired and transmitted (compared to, say, language or belief systems).

in the urban context — the most fertile ground for the blossoming of ethnic cidsines - food not only reinforces ethnic ties; it also is the most rewardlBg and easiest bridge across ethnic lines. Ethnic cuisines flourish net only within the confines of the urban ethnic community; it jumps across etimic boundaries and gets marketed as a form of internal tourism. What more accessible and friendlier arena of inter-ethnic contact could be devised

394 Pierre L. van den Berghe

than the ethnic restaurant? What easier way to experience vicariously another culture than to share its food? As an outsider consuming an exotic cuisine, one is literally 'taking in' the foreign culture.

To the extent that ethnic cuisine gets commercialized as a form of internal tourism, the problem of authenticity arises. Ethnic tourism being a search for the culturally exotic, and an attempt to experience the exotic directly, it contains an inescapable dilemma. As any anthropologist knows, a foreign culture is not easily shared; one must learn its language, penetrate its symbols, get the 'feel' for it that only comes from protracted interaction and a sustained effort at understanding. The tourist — by definition a transient - seeks instant gratification of his cultural voyeurism. Any attempt to cater commercially for that demand necessarily produces the cultural equivalent of fast food, a 'staged authenticity' that adulterates that which the tourist seeks.

The ethnic restaurant faces the same dilemma. It can choose to remain 'authentic,' that is, to cater to the tastes of an ethnic clientele, or it can become 'touristy.' To be sure, the restaurant is at somewhat of an advantage in that it is easier to develop a taste for an exotic cuisine than to learn a language or understand a religion. Still, depth appreciation of a cuisine takes not only an educated palate, but a palate educated according to the taste criteria of the culture in question. Inevitably the ethnic restaurant loses authenticity to the extent that it endeavors to cater to the taste of outsiders. Conversely, it can only retain its authenticity to the extent that it draws an ethnic clientele to keep it honest.

Indeed, the most common test of authenticity applied by outsiders to ethnic restaurants is the proportion of ethnic clientele. Every good tourist resents the presence of his own kind. Even when a glance around the dining room has reassured the outsider that he is in the validating company of genuine ethnics, he still often entertains the lingering doubt that he may not be served the same food or treated equally. In the United States, for instance, only low-class Chinese restaurants automatically provide their Western customers with forks; classy ones have learned that self-proclaimed connois- seurs resent anything but chop-sticks. There is a wide range of intermediate treatments, such as providing Western customers with both forks and chop- sticks, or with chop-sticks accompanied by a verbal inquiry whether anyone wants forks.

Inevitably, ethnic food can fall victim to its success. Once its popularity earns it a place in the mass market, it loses all value as an ethnic marker, and thus becomes 'deethnicised.' Hardly anyone suffers under the delusion of going to an Italian or Mexican restaurant when taking his family to the Pizza Hut or Taco Heaven drive-in. The pizza and the hot dog are two notorious examples of European ethnic foods transformed out of culinary recognition in North America, and then reexported world-wide in their American form, including into their countriesof origin. However, the two foods had a divergent career. The hot dog in its secondary European diaspora has now acquired an American ethnic label (albeit a very plebeian one), and co-exists in Germany with its ancestral Wurst mit Brotchen, but as a clearly differentiated item.

Ethnic cuisine 395

The American neo-pizza, however, has, on reimportation in Europe, acquired a secondary stamp of Italian authenticity. In Germany, for instance, pizzerias are often owned and operated by Italian immigrants who for the most part were not cooks nor probably ever ate a pizza prior to immigration, but who nevertheless cultivate for their German customers a credible illusion of creating Italian ethnic cuisine.

Conclusion; Food as a Paradigm of Ethnicity

Let us briefly retrace our steps. We have evolved to share food, as a basic feature of our sociality, because doing so helps our survival and reproduction, i.e., because it is fitness maximizing. Food sharing is reciprocated. Since we are a cultural animal, we do to food what we do to other natural objects: we transform it into a cultural object by cooking, and we consume it ritual].y and communally. Commensalism is our central social ritual. Thus, we combine our two most powerful behavioral reinforcers: food and sociality. We like to share food with our kin and our friends, and We leam to like the food con- sumed in pleasant company.

This applies, in the first instance, to our immediate kin, as nearly all of us have been nurtured in small family groups. But it also applies to ethnicity, for ethnicity is kinship writ large. Like ethnicity itself, ethnic cuisine only becomes a self-conscious, subjective reality when ethnic boundaries are crossed. Much as the college student only starts to miss home cooking when he leaves home, the consciousness that one has an ethnic cuisine can only come from alien contact. Ethnic cuisine is thus an excellent paradigm for ethnicity itself. It is only fully realized through alienation. The boundaries of the familiar only become known through contact with the unknown. It takes a 'them' to defir.e an 'us.'

The seeming paradox between the primordial and the situationally variable aspects of ethnicity can clearly be seen as the two sides of the same coin. Similarly, both the resilience and the adaptability of ethnicity to the 'modem' milieu cease to the problematic. Ethnicity does not vanish in the urban, industrial maelstrom any more than kinship or the other forms of ascription supposedly incompatible with 'modernization.' But neither does it remain static; it gets reinterpreted and reshaped to serve new ends. It can even rise to higJier levels of salience as other bases of solidarity recede in importan.ce.

As with ethnicity, so with ethnic cuisine: it exists because we evolved as a food-sharing, culture-creating animal. Like all the rest of our culture, it grows oat of nature, quite literally, and it returns to nature. Cuisine is not so much a passage from nature to culture a la Levi-Strauss, but a transient transform- ation from one form of nature to another. So is all culture, for what is culture but tlie human way of marking other humans? like the result of culture, cuisine can only exist in the sharing, but, as with nearly all sharing, the sharing is not equal. Reciprocity and exchange create both bonds and boundaries. Ethnicity is one of these types of bonds and boundaries, and one of the most resilient because it is rooted in the biology of nepotism.

396 Pierre L. van den Berghe

In one respect, however, ethnic cuisine represents ethnicity at its best, because at its most sharable. It does not take much effort to learn to like foods, even exotic ones. Ethnic cuisine is the easiest and most pleasant way to cross ethnic boundaries. As eating together is perhaps the most basic expression of human sociality, ethnic cuisine could well be the ultimate reconciliation between a diversity we cherish and a common humanity we must recognize if we are to live amicably together.

References

BRAUDEL, FERNAND 1973 Capitalism and Material Life, 1400-1800., New York, Harper and Row. COHEN, ABNER, ed. 1974 Urban Ethnicity, London, Tavistock. DOUGLAS, MARY 1971 'Deciphering a Meai:. In C. Geertz, ed.,Myth, Symbol and Culture, New York. EIBL-EIBESFELDT, IRENAUS 1979 'Human Ethology: Concepts and Implications for the Sciences of Man'. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2: 1-57. EIBL-EIBESFELDT, IRENAUS 1982 'Warfare, Man's Indoctrinability and Group Selection', Zeitschrift fUr Tierpsychologie, 60: 177-98. ENGELS, FREDERICK 1884 The Origin ofthe Family, Private Property and the State, New York: International Publishers (reprinted 1942). FARB, PETER and ARMELAGOS, GEORGE 1980 Consuming Passions, the Anthro- pology of Eating, New York: Washington Square Press. GALDIKAS, B.M.F. and TELEKI, G. 1981 'Variations in Subsistence Activities of Female and Male Pongids'. Current Anthropology, 22: 241-56. GOODY, JACK 1982 Cooking, Cuisine, and Class, New York: Cambridge University Press. HOOKER, RICHARD J. 1981 Food and Drink in America, A History, Indianapolis: Bobbs Merrill. HARRIS, MARVIN 1974 Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches, New York: Random House. HARRIS, MARVIN 1979 Cultural Materialism, New York: Random House. HRDY, SARAH ,1981 The Woman That Never Evolved, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. JOHANSON, DONALD C. 1981 Lucy, The Beginnings of Humankind, New York: Simon and Schuster. KEYES, CHARLES F. ed. 1981 Ethnic Change, Seattle, University of Washington Press. LEAKEY, RICHARD E. 1981 The Making of Mankind, New York: Dutton. LEVI-STRAUSS, CLAUDE 1964 Le cm et le cuit, Paris: Plon. LEVI-STRAUSS, CLAUDE 1968 L'origine des manieresde table, Paris: Plon. MALINOWSKI, BRONISLAW 1935 Coral Gardens and Their Magic, London: Allen and Unwin. MAUSS, MARCEL 1954 The Gift, London: Cohen and West. McGREW, W.C. 1979 'Evolutionary Implications of Sex Differences in Chimpanzee Predation and Tool Use'.In D.A. Hamburg and E.R. McCown, eds.. The Great Apes, Menlo Park, California: Bergamin Cummings, pp. 441-63. McGREW, W.C. 1981 'The Female Chimpanzee as a Human Evolutionary Prototype'. In F. Dahlberg, ed.. Woman the Gatherer, New Haven: Yale University Press, pp. 35-73. MEILLASSOUX, CLAUDE 1977 Femmes, greniers et capitaux, Paris: Maspero. NORMAN, BARBARA 1972 Tales ofthe Table, A History of Western Cuisine, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. RICHARDS, AUDREY I. 1937 The Food and Nutrition of African Natives, Memorandum 13, International Institute of African Languages and Cultures.

Ethnic cuisine 397

RICHARDS, AUDREY 1.1939 Utid, Labour, and. Diet in Northern Rhodesia, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul SYMONS, DONALD 1979 The Evolution of Human Sexuality, New York: Oxford University Press. TANNAHILL, REAY 1973 Food in History, New York: Stein and Day. TELEKI, G. 1973 The Predatory Behavior of the Chimpanzee, Lewisburg: Bucknell. University Press. VAN DEN BERGHE, PIERRE h. 1981 The Ethnic Phenomenon, New York: Elsevier. VAN LAWICK-GOODALL, HUGO and JANE 191Q Innocent Killers, New York: Ballantine Books. VAN LAWICK-GOODALL, HUGO and JANE 1975 ' The Behavior ofthe Chimpanzee'. In Hominimtion und Verhalten, by G. Kurth and L Eibl-Eibesfeldt, ed., Stuttgart: Fisher. WASHBURN, S.L. and MOORE, RUTH 1974^pe into Man, Boston: Little, Brown.