© Metheny, Karen Bescherer; Beaudry, Mary C., Aug 07, 2015, Archaeology of Food : An Encyclopedia Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, ISBN: 9780759123663 46 BEER In the Near East, bedrock features irst appear at Natuian sites (ca. 15,000–11,600 cal BP) in caves, rockshelters, and open-air contexts across a variety of ecological, topographical, and geological settings. Natuian bedrock features include tiny shallow cavities, cupmarks, bowls, deep narrow shafts, and wide basins. Similar devices were also made from boulders and slabs at campsites and cemeteries. At some sites, bedrock features are quite numerous; at others, there are few or none. Though Natuian specimens are commonly interpreted as pounding/grinding devices, to date no seeds, grains, or nuts have been found in association. Phytoliths of cereal chaf and other plant parts were found in deep mortar shafts at Raqefet Cave (Israel) and Qarassa 3 (Syria), however. In the ensuing Pre-Pottery Neolithic A period (ca. 11,600–10,500 cal BP), bedrock features were commonly limited to relatively small mortars or cupmarks. At many sites, cup-marked slabs or boulders were set on the loors of dwelling structures; these are often associated with small pestles, grinding stones, and inished limestone bowls. The dramatic shift in types and context of bedrock features during the Natuian–Neolithic transition broadly corresponds to the shift from hunting and gathering of wild foods to agriculture and reliance on cereals and legumes.While it is assumed that many Natuian and Pre-Pottery Neolithic A bedrock features were used for processing a variety of plant resources, the morphological and contextual diferences imply signiicant variation in function. The association between speciic bedrock types and wild or domesticated cereals and legumes has been suggested but never veriied. In later periods the number of bedrock features declined dramatically; examples are known, however, mainly in agricultural contexts. See also Archaeobotany; Broad Spectrum Revolution; Ethnographic Sources; Foraging; Hunter-Gatherer Subsistence; Plant Processing Further Reading Nadel, Dani, and György Lengyel. 2009. Human-Made Bedrock Holes (Mortars and Cupmarks) as a Late Natuian Social Phenomenon. Archaeology, Anthropology and Ethnology of Eurasia 37(2):37–48. Nadel, Dani, and Danny Rosenberg. 2010. New Insights into Late Natuian Bedrock Features (Mortars and Cupmarks). European Prehistory 7(1):65–87. Terradas, Xavier, Juan José Ibáñez, Frank Braemer, et al. 2014. Natuian Bedrock Mortars at Qarassa 3: Preliminary Results from an Interdisciplinary Methodology. In Stone Tools in Transition: From Hunter-Gatherers to Farming Societies in the Near East, edited by Ferran Borrell, Juan José Ibáñez, and Miquel Molist, 449–64. Barcelona: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. ■ DANI NADEL AND DANNY ROSENBERG BEER Beer is a fermented beverage based on cereals or other starchy plants. To date, direct archaeobotanical evidence has been documented for beer brewing using barley, wheat, and maize. Historical and ethnographic sources indicate the use of a broad range of other cultigens (including rice, sorghum, millet, rye, oats, manioc, and quinoa), and the preparation of beers mixed with honey, fruit, or other plants added for taste, as a preservative, or for medicinal or other properties. © Metheny, Karen Bescherer; Beaudry, Mary C., Aug 07, 2015, Archaeology of Food : An Encyclopedia Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, ISBN: 9780759123663 BEER 47 Beer has served as food, intoxicant, and medicine, and as an essential component of social and ritual exchanges from prehistory through modern times. When shared, beer can strengthen ties between equals; it can also emphasize or elevate the status of a generous host (individual or institutional) of a work party or other feasts. In some societies, it was required for ceremonies and oferings. The kind of beer produced and consumed (or the drinking of beer as opposed to other beverages, such as wine) may signal identity and social status. Given these uses and meanings, archaeological studies have examined the possible domestication, adoption, or intensiication of particular crops for beer production; beer ingredients and the brewing process; the organization and scale of brewing and political economy; and contexts of distribution and consumption. These studies rely on a range of evidence. Texts and artwork may include descriptions and depictions of brewing, serving, and drinking practices that complement the archaeological record. Archaeological evidence of brewing includes areas, features, facilities, and artifacts related to the malting, drying, and milling of grain, or to the discard of spent grain. Areas and vessels for cooking, cooling, and fermentation also have been documented. Botanical evidence includes malted grain, though examples are rare since malting makes the grains very fragile. The macro- or microbotanical remains of fruits or other plants added to beer also may be found. Prehistoric or ancient sites with direct evidence for brewing include Hierakonpolis and Abydos (Egypt), Eberdingen-Hochdorf (Germany), Roquepertuse (France), and Cerro Baúl (Peru). Beer, unlike wine, is diicult to store and, in most cases, must be consumed quickly. It was not widely traded, and vessels for storage and transport are rare. At the same time, particular vessel forms or types may have been used for serving and drinking. These (together with vessels used for brewing and fermentation) can be identiied through residue analysis complemented when possible by iconographic or textual evidence. Residues in vessels used to prepare or serve beer may contain grain fragments (possibly mixed with chaf) and starch granules that have been altered by malting or cooking, as well as other beer ingredients or byproducts, such as yeast, lactic acid bacteria, and, in the case of barley beer, calcium oxalate (“beerstone”). Sites where vessels containing beer residues have been identiied include Deir el-Medina and the Workmen’s Village at Amarna (Egypt), Genó (Spain), and Godin Tepe (Iran). Experimental and ethnographic studies of beer have aided archaeological analysis and interpretation, providing insight into brewing ingredients and technology, labor inputs and organization, and feasting and other consumption practices. Experiments also have included collaborations with modern craft brewers to re-create ancient beers. These efforts relect the continuing popularity of beer and a public fascination with its history as preserved in the archaeological record. See also Archaeobotany; Barley; Breweries; Brewing/Malting; CHICHA; Commensality; Conchopata; Ethnoarchaeology; Ethnographic Sources; Experimental Archaeology; Feasting; Fermentation; Food and Identity; Food and Ritual; Maize; Spent Grain as Animal Feed; Wheat 48 B I O A R C H A E O L O G I C A L A N A LY S I S Further Reading Dietler, Michael. 2006. Alcohol: Anthropological/Archaeological Perspectives. Annual Review of Anthropology 35:229–49. Hornsey, Ian S. 2012. Alcohol and Its Role in the Evolution of Human Society. Cambridge: RSC Publishing. McGovern, Patrick E. 2009. Uncorking the Past: The Quest for Wine, Beer, and Other Alcoholic Beverages. Berkeley: University of California Press. Samuel, Delwyn. 2000. Brewing and Baking. In Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, edited by Paul T. Nicholson and Ian Shaw, 537–76. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ■ F R A N C E S M . H AYA S H I D A © Metheny, Karen Bescherer; Beaudry, Mary C., Aug 07, 2015, Archaeology of Food : An Encyclopedia Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, ISBN: 9780759123663 B I O A R C H A E O L O G I C A L A N A LY S I S Although British archaeologist Grahame Clark irst used the term bioarchaeology in reference to the study of archaeological animal bones in 1972, it is now broadly deined as the holistic, multidisciplinary, scientiic study of all organic remains (human, plant, and animal) from archaeological contexts. This entry focuses more narrowly on human remains, particularly skeletal remains, in relation to food as one of the three major evolutionary forces, the others being disease and environment (igure 5). Debate over the value of studying human remains arises from the competing value systems of scientists who believe that bioarchaeological information can beneit the living, and some religious and indigenous groups who believe it is harmful to both the living and/or the dead. Bioarchaeology emerged in the 1970s from processual archaeology, which sought an understanding of the relationships among culture, biology, and environment. This integrated, tripartite approach continues to be fundamental to bioarchaeology and is commonly expressed in the reconstruction of ancient lifeways, predominantly through the study of disease, diet, and demography. The basic biocultural approach to bioarchaeology has, however, been increasingly superimposed with social theory, which has brought the ield more in line with current thought in both contemporary sociocultural anthropology and post-processual archaeology. Increased emphasis on archaeological context is also better integrating bioarchaeology with material culture. Socially based subthemes such as identity, gender, childhood, ethnicity, landscape, work, inequality, disability, violence, and embodiment now claim their own subields of bioarchaeology and relect the increasing specialization of the ield. Diet is a key interpretive factor in all of these areas of study; most of these subthemes are patterned by nondietary pathology, and all are situated in the broader context of cultural and physical environments (igure 5). Although information on diet, disease, and environment can be gleaned from written documents, art, cultural artifacts, and plant and animal remains, interpretations of their efects on human biology and culture can be very inaccurate because they are indirect forms of information and also can be biased. For example, artistic representations of foods and food-related activities and written descriptions/recipes can vary by social class, gender, age, and temporal or locational context. Food preparation and food procurement artifacts and plant and animal remains enable reconstruction of foods available for consumption (menus) rather than foods actually consumed (meals). Only the human body can provide direct and bias-free information on diet (through stomach contents, fecal