Cited by 124

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The Proof Is in the Pudding: Feasting and the Origins of Domestication

Hayden, Brian·2009·Current Anthropology

Abstract

Feasting has been proposed as the major context and impetus behind the intensification of production leading to the domestication of plants and animals. This article examines the way feasting contributes to fitness in traditional societies through the reduction of risks involving subsistence, reproduction, and violent confrontations. As other authors have noted, the risk-reduction strategies used by simple foragers differ significantly from risk-reduction strategies used by transegalitarian hunter-gatherers and horticulturalists. These differences are examined in more detail and are related to the emergence of feasting in transegalitarian societies. Surplus-based feasting is proposed as an entirely new element in community dynamics, probably first developed during the Upper Paleolithic in Europe, but becoming much more widespread in the world with the development of Mesolithic technology. Because feasting entails survival and risk-reduction benefits, it creates inherently inflationary food-production forces. These elements first appear among complex hunter-gatherers and logically lead to the intensification of food production, ultimately resulting in the domestication of plants and animals.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1086/605110

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 22

  1. 10.1016/j.jaa.2003.10.001 · DOI
  2. 10.1086/427115 · DOI
  3. Clarke Michael, Feasts: archaeological and ethnographic perspectives on food, politics, and power
  4. Condominas Georges, We have eaten the forest
  5. Earle Timothy, How chiefs come to power: the political economy in prehistory
  6. Falvey L., Ruminants in the highlands of northern Thailand. Thai‐Australian Highland Agronomy Project
  7. Hayden Brian, 1982, Plains Anthropologist, 27, 109, 10.1080/2052546.1982.11909100 · DOI
  8. 10.2307/1385842 · DOI
  9. 10.1016/0278-4165(90)90005-X · DOI
  10. Hayden Brian, A complex culture of the British Columbia Plateau: traditional Stl’atl’imx resource use, 10.59962/9780774854139 · DOI
  11. Hayden Brian, Archaeology: the science of once and future things
  12. Hayden Brian, Feasts: archaeological and ethnographic perspectives on food, politics, and power
  13. Hayden Brian, The last hunter‐gatherer societies in the Near East
  14. Jones Rhys, 1969, Australian Natural History, 16, 224
  15. Meillassoux Claude, On the mode of production of the hunting band, 10.4324/9781351050234-12 · DOI
  16. Peacock Sandra, Hunter‐gatherer archaeobotany
  17. Smith Bruce, Archaeology at the Millennium
  18. 10.1086/202894 · DOI
  19. 10.2307/280065 · DOI
  20. Williams Judith, Clam gardens
  21. Winterhalder Bruce, Behavioral ecology and the transition to agriculture
  22. 10.1086/605355 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 124

Metadata

Authors
Hayden, B.
Venue
Current Anthropology
Published
2009-10
Volume
50
Issue
5
Pages
597-601
ISSN
  • 0011-3204
  • 1537-5382
Cited by
124
References
0
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review