The Roman Empire received goods from eastern lands through a variety of overland routes crossing the Arabian Peninsula and Mesopotamia, and through seaborne trade via the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean.Footnote 1 In particular, the sea routes that utilized the monsoon winds of the Indian Ocean enabled a significant volume of goods to be imported from the East on ships that may often have been of several hundred tons' capacity.Footnote 2 The scale of the trade was significant enough for Pliny to claim that 100 million sesterces were being sent annually to India, China, and Arabia.Footnote 3 The veracity of these figures has come in for some debate, especially with the publication of a document known as the Muziris Papyrus, which reveals that a shipment of nard, ivory, and textiles received at one of the Egyptian Red Sea ports in the second century ad was valued at the equivalent of roughly 7 million sesterces.Footnote 4 It is nevertheless clear, particularly from the archaeological and numismatic evidence, that Roman trade with the East peaked in the first and second centuries ad, followed by subsequent decline and a limited revival in the Late Roman period.Footnote 5
Traditionally, scholars have regarded goods that were brought to the Roman Empire from lands such as India, China, East Africa, and the southern Arabian Peninsula as luxuries, which were consumed by the wealthy and those of high social status.Footnote 6 This is understandable given the significant costs that are cited in the literature for items such as pearls, gems, and silks. Pliny mentions a rock-crystal ladle worth 150,000 sesterces and an opal ring that cost 2 million sesterces.Footnote 7 Such expenditure might represent more than the annual profits made on the landed property of many of the senatorial elite.Footnote 8 However, more recently, Sidebotham set a trend by arguing that some of these eastern imports, especially spices and aromatics, held medicinal, funerary, religious, and culinary importance in Roman society, and were therefore considered by the elite as necessities and not luxuries. Nevertheless, he still regards goods such as precious gems, ivory, and pearls as luxuries.Footnote 9 This notion has gained a fair degree of acceptance and has appeared in some recent scholarship on trade with the East.Footnote 10
This article argues that the notion of these goods being either luxuries or necessities is problematic and misleading, and imbues them with particular static qualities. It is not possible to categorize any of these goods as luxury items or necessities, since such terms can only be applied when they are being used in a certain context; they are not qualities that are inherent in the goods themselves nor can they be seen as permanent or mutually exclusive. As shown below, many eastern goods could form part of a religious or funerary ceremony, in which they simultaneously fulfil a (necessary) moral obligation and act as a means of (luxurious) social display and even excess. The distinction between luxury and necessity also masks the subjective interpretations of Roman contemporaries, and the multiple meanings and variety of perspectives in which these goods were held.
The argument that the concepts of luxury and necessity are not mutually exclusive is not as counter-intuitive as might first appear. Anthropological and sociological scholarship of the last few decades has argued that goods can convey both social and rhetorical meanings within a culture.Footnote 11 These goods do not hold inherent values but are judged in their relation to other goods and how they are used ‘in motion’, that is to say in what contexts.Footnote 12 In particular, Appadurai notes that ‘demand’ is the result of social practices and classifications ‘rather than a mysterious emanation of human needs’, that consumption is a social and relational process, and, most importantly, that a contrast between luxury goods and necessities is problematic, especially because the former respond to political necessity as ‘incarnated signs’. The labels applied to these goods are not fixed but shift over time.Footnote 13
Another inherent problem in the use of the term ‘luxury’ is that it is often traditionally felt to imbue some form of ‘moral slur’ and it is only with the industrial period and the collapse of sumptuary laws that ‘luxuries’ have been left to the ‘free play of the marketplace and of fashion’.Footnote 14 In contrast, earlier social discourse of the pre-industrial world tended to view ‘luxury’ goods in a moral and societal sense, as often seen in the imposition of sumptuary laws.Footnote 15 Much of the philosophical discourse in the Roman period condemned luxury in ethical terms, arguing that it was emasculating and engendered weakness, both moral and physical.Footnote 16 However, as Valerius Maximus notes, luxury is easier to denounce than to avoid.Footnote 17 One of the fundamental problems in interpreting the ancient literature is that the authors assumed that their audiences knew what luxury meant and therefore offered little in the way of definition but rather conventional polemic.Footnote 18 Furthermore, even the understanding of what was luxurious, tasteful, or vulgar was, and still is, a subjective matter. Nevertheless, it will be shown that in the eyes of many of the Roman elite the concept of luxury and necessity could be held simultaneously.
The best manner in which to convey this argument is to examine the various social functions and contexts in which eastern goods featured, namely the religious, funerary, medicinal, and culinary (the latter will be examined in the broader context of public eating or banquets). By discussing these goods in the categories cited by Sidebotham as involving the necessary use of certain eastern goods, it will be possible to show how this labelling can distort the more complex social realities.
The luxury of necessity
Banquets
The term banquet is used here as an overarching category for communal dining that involved guests and thus elements of display and judgement by those present. Many of the important elements of a banquet involved products derived from trade with the East. The most obvious component comprised the spices used to flavour food and drink such as spiced wines, peppered rissoles, and cinnamon-flavoured olive oil.Footnote 19 A variety of spices appears in recipes recorded by Apicius, including malabathrum in oyster sauce, malabathrum and spikenard in a silphium sauce, and ginger in stews.Footnote 20 However, it was not simply the spices in the dishes that were important features of the banquet. The furniture on which guests reclined and on which food was served could include items decorated with tortoiseshell veneer, ivory legs, and onyx feet.Footnote 21 The drinking cups might be of fine crystal or precious metals encrusted with gems from India.Footnote 22 Dress and personal adornment were also important elements at a banquet, as indicated by Petronius' sardonic statement that ladies might be decked out in pearls in order to spread their legs on a stranger's couch.Footnote 23 Connected to this was the use of perfumes by those attending a convivium (evening party), which might use plant products from the East, such as cinnamon, cassia, and nard;Footnote 24 these were not just worn by women but also by men.Footnote 25
One might ask to what extent such elements at a banquet were necessary or, to put it another way, expected by guests. Pliny was surprised at, and dismissive of, the popularity of pepper, arguing that its only attraction was its bitter flavour, and ‘to think we travel to India for it’.Footnote 26 This popularity is seen in the cookery book of Apicius, where pepper is included in almost all his recipes, but the extent to which it was added to food for its flavour as opposed to its exotic appeal is difficult to discern. Persius satirizes the miserly man who reserves pepper for his birthday and then only sprinkles on a little.Footnote 27 The passage suggests that this (fictional) individual, although his social status is not made clear, considered pepper a rare treat rather than an obligatory element in his meals, the inference being that for someone of high social status and sophistication large quantities of pepper might have been seen as important. This has parallels with the medieval period, when in many European societies the use of astonishing quantities of spices in food reflected style and splendour.Footnote 28
The widespread consumption of such spices as pepper raises the question of whether its popularity undermines the notion that it was a luxury, and strengthens the notion that it was a necessity. Attacks on luxury often focused on lavish food, because of its ephemeral nature, the combination of different foodstuffs and spices within single dishes, and because it used up a large part of an individual's income.Footnote 29 As we have seen from Pliny's comment, pepper did not escape this censure. Thus it can be seen that pepper was a necessary (or at least important) element of luxury cuisine, in the context of an extravagant banquet. Whether pepper was eaten every day as part of more ordinary cuisine is difficult to say, but, as Plutarch noted, fine cuisine and furnishings were reserved for banquets, whereas when one ate alone or with close intimates the food tended to be much plainer, with simpler furnishings.Footnote 30
The use of extravagance to entice guests was a strategy commented upon by contemporaries. Indeed, Martial mocks Pomponius by stating that his apparent popularity comes not from his eloquence but from his cuisine,Footnote 31 and sometimes the failure to provide lavish banquets was condemned.Footnote 32 In these contexts, spices were necessary precisely because extravagance use of them was a means to attract guests, and to advertise and hopefully raise one's social status. They were part of the excess at banquets, which could culminate in some indulgent individuals vomiting up what they had consumed.Footnote 33 As for some of the more expensive items at the banquet, including veneered furniture and jewelled cups, it seems that even among the elite only the wealthiest could afford such items. Martial comments on how Eros would weep in the market for he could not afford the items displayed and, while people mocked him for it, they too wept inside.Footnote 34 Indeed banquets could cost millions of sesterces.Footnote 35 Display or consumption of the items discussed would certainly mark the host out as a prosperous and wealthy individual and could generate prestige as a result. It seems that, for those of the elite who could afford such items, the very costly furniture, serving dishes, and cups were as necessary a part of the luxurious extravagance on display as the spices used in the dishes served.
Medicines
The term ‘necessity’ might seem particularly appropriate in the context of medicine, since few people would consider their health to be a frivolous issue. Nevertheless, as shown below, the use of eastern goods in medicine did not escape the charge of being superfluous. It is in medicinal contexts that eastern spices and aromatics are mentioned most frequently, a reflection of the fact that there is a much larger surviving corpus of works that record pharmacological information, as seen with Dioscorides, Celsus, Pliny, and Galen. It is notable that the predominance of pepper in the recipes of Apicius contrasts with a much broader range of spices that are mentioned as ingredients in medications. Cuisine and medicine, however, were often considered to be interrelated in the ancient world, as they were in the medieval.Footnote 36 Furthermore, many of these plant products also appeared in cosmetics and perfume.Footnote 37 Theophrastus stated that it should be expected that perfumes would have medicinal properties in view of the virtue of the spices from which they were composed.Footnote 38 The greater variety of spices and aromatics used in medicines may relate to the fact that some of these products had a bitterness or pungency that was felt to be effective in medicine but perhaps unappealing to taste. This, however, was not always a bar to consumption, for Pliny notes that some people went as far as to put bitter unguents in their drinks in order that, through such lavishness, both taste and smell were indulged at the same time.Footnote 39
It is worth noting that the effectiveness of these medicines is not the issue here, but rather the belief that they were. Pliny argued that nature provided medicine for the Romans in the form of traditional recipes of herbs and vegetables still used by the poor. In contrast, the rich were spending substantial sums on remedies from India and Arabia because of deceitful and ingenious men who concocted complicated mixtures that defied explanation but appeared to be effective.Footnote 40 Despite this tone of disapproval, Pliny, without apparent scepticism, proceeds to describe general opinions of their efficacy. For example, he states that one medicine is called enhaemon, ‘because of its remarkable effect in closing the scars of wounds’.Footnote 41 Other sources such as Celsus and Dioscorides also speak of the effectiveness of these plant products. It seems that, while objections were raised to the extravagant expense of these medicines, their potency was widely accepted.
There was an enormous range of medicines for the treatment of various ailments. The literary sources mention a variety of treatments that employed eastern goods. Celsus states that frankincense, myrrh, Arabic gum, and cardamom were used to agglutinate wounds (cause them to adhere).Footnote 42 Dioscorides mentions the use of cassia for skin lesions and cardamom for back and belly pain.Footnote 43 However, while some plant products or compounds were for serious ailments, others could be perceived as more trivial: for example, malabathrum was sometimes used to freshen the breath, perhaps to cover up the previous night's drinking.Footnote 44 Other uses might seem elective (depending upon the circumstance), such as using cardamom as a fumigant to abort a foetus.Footnote 45 Some of the ancient sources claim this was done simply to ensure a firm and beautiful body; notably, Ovid proclaims that a woman will harm her womb in order to appear beautiful.Footnote 46
The degree to which one chooses to deem these medical issues, and the medicines used to treat them, as serious, trivial, or elective is subjective and personal, and what was considered necessary or optional was probably influenced by the circumstances of those who could afford them. It is likely that contemporary fashions in medical thought and the ability of medical men to play on the wealthy individuals' sense of mortality influenced choices.Footnote 47 Consequently the use of spices, aromatics, and other eastern goods in medicines would not have been seen as necessary in all contexts, and would have been a matter of debate and conflicting opinion.
Religious rituals
The use of rituals and offerings to appease the gods was common religious practice, although some individuals such as Lucretius occasionally censured these activities for being pointless.Footnote 48 Eastern goods sometimes formed part of these ritual offerings. Pliny gives the impression that many of these goods were a recent addition to ritual practice, stating that Pompey Magnus was the first person in Rome to dedicate a bowl of myrrh to the gods, doing so at the temple of Jupiter.Footnote 49 He also states that Vespasian was the first person to offer up processed cinnamon in embossed gold, doing so in the temple of Concordia, although even before this Livia dedicated a large root of cinnamon to her late husband, Augustus.Footnote 50 On the face of it, Pliny's statements indicate that such goods were part of innovations in religious rituals. Both Ovid and Pliny state that in earlier times, before scents such as myrrh and nard were offered up, what were used to conciliate the gods were spelt and salt, the latter being more favourable to the gods in Pliny's opinion.Footnote 51 However, historical evidence suggests that frankincense and myrrh were being used by the population of Rome as early as the third century bc, if not earlier.Footnote 52
These comments can be connected to a wider moralizing discourse that praised simpler and more traditional customs.Footnote 53 Nevertheless it is also possible to discern from Pliny's comments that the actions of Pompey, Livia, and Vespasian were a means of advertising status and wealth through the value and novelty of their offerings, advertisements to their contemporaries of their munificence and status.Footnote 54 This is also seen in accounts of other rulers such as Caligula, who in establishing a shrine to himself had many of the elite competing to be part of his priesthood, with exotic offerings such as peacocks.Footnote 55 It seems that a process developed whereby there was a constant need to find something more original or lavish by which the elite could make their mark. Plutarch characterizes this process when he states that what was necessary and useful in religious rituals had been smothered by what was useless and superfluous.Footnote 56 Yet, for some, offering high-value eastern goods such as precious gems was a perfectly acceptable way to honour the gods.Footnote 57
Attempts to use extravagant religious offerings as a form of social display need not be viewed cynically, and there was nothing contradictory in Roman society between honouring the gods and simultaneously enhancing one's own prestige. In these contexts it was precisely the ‘luxurious’ and exotic associations of these eastern goods that were sought. Not all offerings were undertaken with the aim of gaining social prestige. For example, Martial states that he offered up heaps of incense to expiate the misfortune that was affecting his farm and killing his animals, although without success.Footnote 58 The point is that these goods had many different uses and were perceived in many different ways. For some, incense was an unnecessary intrusion into religious ritual; for others, it may have been necessary if not always effective; still others may have selected certain goods not only to honour the gods but also as a means of novel social display designed to impress their contemporaries. Thus any attempt to apply a universal label to these goods conceals the range of views and uses to which they were put in Roman society.
Funerary rites
Honouring the dead was another aspect of Roman society that came with strong moral obligations. Funerals were very much public acts, all the more so for members of the elite, where there were associated expectations of social and political display.Footnote 59 Eastern goods were employed in rituals, most notably incense, which had the practical function of covering up the smell of the decomposing body (which could be on display for several days), keeping away insects and flies, and disguising the smell of burning flesh on the pyre.Footnote 60 Pliny complained that incense was burned in heaps all across the empire for funerals, but that only a few grains were being given to the gods.Footnote 61 The extent to which this represented widespread use of incense or intensive use by the elite is unclear.
In any case, it was not just for practical reasons that such goods formed part of funerary rituals. These rituals were sometimes used as a means of promoting the honour and prestige of the family line. Appian even compared funeral processions to triumphs.Footnote 62 It was precisely through conspicuous consumption that elite self-promotion could be achieved, and in this context eastern goods had a valuable role to play. At the funeral of Sulla, masses of spices and aromatics were contributed by the wealthy women of Italy, so much that they filled 210 litters, and with the surplus a huge figure of Sulla was made from frankincense and cinnamon, as well as a similar image of a lictor.Footnote 63 This went well beyond what was practically necessary. Later, Pliny censured the excess of Nero when, at the funeral of Poppaea, he purportedly burned more scent than Arabia produced in a year, something Pliny clearly felt was beyond what was socially necessary.Footnote 64 Those among the elite often used eastern goods as part of lavish funeral processions, which Statius notes were designed to draw attention.Footnote 65
There were clearly benefits for a family in holding an extravagant funeral. Horace comments that the entire neighbourhood praises a funeral done in style.Footnote 66 The freedman C. Caecilius certainly felt that it was worthwhile to leave instructions that a million sesterces be spent on his funeral (8 bc) and it might be that he (posthumously) used such extravagance to gain the prestige that may have eluded him in life.Footnote 67 In some cases, the notion of a luxurious funeral could be taken to bizarre extremes, as in the case of Pacuvius, governor of Syria, who held mock funerals each day both to honour himself and for his own personal pleasure.Footnote 68 Propertius also mentions the funeral of a courtesan who was cremated still wearing her garnet and beryl rings.Footnote 69 However, there could be equally negative consequences of appearing too miserly. Excessive frugality could do as much harm as a reputation for extravagance.Footnote 70 Persius derides a miserly heir for failing to provide a lavish funerary banquet or a perfumed urn, and for not checking whether the cinnamon was still fresh or the cassia free from adulteration.Footnote 71
It is clear that funerary rites were both morally necessary as well as socially and politically important. Thus, while incense was a practical component of funerary rituals, the need to make an important social statement by providing a suitably lavish or extravagant display meant that many eastern goods were incorporated precisely for their luxurious and exotic associations. As in the case of Sulla and Nero, incense could be used to extravagant excess, and not merely as a necessity. In many of the contexts that have been discussed it seems that eastern goods were in fact the luxuries of necessity.
The necessity of luxury
In many instances, eastern goods were sought for their exotic associations and as a form of extravagance that was felt to be useful for social or public spectacles. Yet it is also clear from literary sources that luxury and extravagance themselves were seen by some elites as a necessary part of their social and political image. This is because luxury was felt to play an important role in creating distinctions between those of different social status, and it is admitted as such by some ancient authors.Footnote 72 There were certainly many, Stoics in particular, who condemned luxury for its perceived immoral and effeminate associations, even if some, such as Seneca and Sallust, were themselves condemned for their hypocrisy.Footnote 73 Indeed, Horace mocked the Stoics who complained about women proudly walking about weighed down with pearls, while they sat on their cushions of Seric (Chinese) silk writing moralizing volumes.Footnote 74 Nevertheless, many, such as Pliny, complained that luxury was unnatural and a threat to the traditional hierarchy of the Roman elite.Footnote 75 Seneca mocked self-display and the desire to gain a reputation through wealth, for it did not bring one closer to God, but, even in its condemnation, there was acknowledgement that extravagant display did attract attention and indeed awe among some.Footnote 76 Ironically, the same language used to condemn luxury was often employed by those who wished to praise it and for some there was a pleasure to be derived from subverting these moral ‘rules’.Footnote 77 It is in such contexts that eastern goods were felt to be useful.
There was social pressure for an individual to live according to his wealth and not to appear to be miserly. Nero is purported to have claimed that anyone who accounted for every penny was a stingy miser, while the true gentlemen always threw his money about.Footnote 78 He was, of course, seen as an archetypal bad emperor; nonetheless, this does not mean that this sentiment was not shared. In several of Martial's epigrams he heaps contempt on those who he feels have failed to live up to their wealth and status. One such epigram mentions Calenus who, when he was worth two million sesterces, used to spend lavishly on banquets, but when he became worth ten million was more miserly in his spending. Martial wishes he would become worth a hundred million so he would starve to death.Footnote 79 There could also be political pressure to spend lavishly. Some of the rich friends and confidants of Nero were literally forced to express extravagance, including one who was compelled to host a cena mitellita costing 4,000,000 sesterces, at which the guests were provided with silk turbans instead of the traditional flowers in the hair.Footnote 80
On the other hand, it was not solely through a sense of compulsion that many spent money on luxuries. Some actively sought to use them to their advantage, such as Geminius, who allegedly gained Sejanus' friendship through his extravagance (and effeminacy).Footnote 81 Many felt that it was their right to spend their wealth in a luxurious manner, as expressed by the faction of the Senate that objected to Tiberius' planed introduction of sumptuary laws. These Senators' arguments, which Tiberius chose to accept, were that such laws would criminalize the elite and end all distinction.Footnote 82
Women, too, enjoyed the distinction that extravagant displays could bring. Pliny noted how women of equestrian rank would wear pearls suspended from their necks, in this way distinguishing themselves from the lower orders.Footnote 83 It was also felt that such fashionable displays of jewels and pearls could enhance social influence, visibility, and wealth, and hopefully attract a suitor.Footnote 84 Indeed, such was the importance and symbolism of these goods that Olson connects a late Roman law code banning actresses from wearing real gems and silks to a desire that such items were not devalued in prestige for the elite.Footnote 85
The literary sources make it clear that Roman notions about luxury were not merely connected with pleasure but also saw it as a means of gaining attention and hopefully prestige. It is noted above that Plutarch felt that it was unusual to dine extravagantly in private. He further expresses this sentiment in the statement that ‘wealth loses all its radiance without an audience’, when there is ‘no one to see or to look on’.Footnote 86 Seneca also noted that luxury was not so much possessed as displayed.Footnote 87 It was this desire for public presentation that transcended the notion of simple pleasure. Connected to this was the sense that the prodigal individual used extravagance as a means to gain notoriety.Footnote 88 Juvenal says as much when he notes that the things that bring most pleasure to the prodigal are those that are priced the highest.Footnote 89 An extreme expression of this sentiment comes in the wearing of emeralds and pearls worth 40 million sesterces by Lollia Paulina at her betrothal party to the Emperor Caligula. Her main concern was to show people proof of their cost and her ownership of such fabulous wealth, even to the extent where she would display receipts to anyone who asked.Footnote 90 Many prestige items were highly priced simply because Romans used price to express the social worth of commodities. High prices were useful in the competition of extravagance.Footnote 91
It is important to remember, however, that it was not the goods themselves that were inherently luxurious but how they were understood in a particular context. This is apparent from the well-known (if fictional) example of Trimalchio. How the (fictional) guests of the banquet were intended to perceive his displays of wealth, and how it was perceived by readers of the Satyricon was, no doubt, different.Footnote 92 This was clearly also the case with an anonymous freedman, who sat in the senators’ seating dressed up in finery and sardonyx. Martial mocks him for using make-up to hide the mark that indicated his servile origin.Footnote 93 Many tried to appear as connoisseurs, as Petronius himself was said to have been.Footnote 94 One method was to display wealth in a manner that appeared to show a disregard for it, something that Martial condemns Quintus for failing to do.Footnote 95 It is in these contexts that some highly valuable objects were made to appear as if they were ordinary, as seen with tortoiseshell that was cut up and painted to imitate wood.Footnote 96
It seems, however, that the attempt at emulating the elite by those of lower social status (and possibly, though not necessarily, of lesser wealth) acted as a spur for the elite to maintain a sense of distinction, ensuring their ‘rightful’ place at the top of the social order. Wallace-Hadrill has noticed this phenomenon in the imitations of higher-value goods, in less expensive materials, that were diffused among the households in Pompeii. The result was a drive for further innovation (and hence expenditure) for the rich to maintain a distance from those of lower social status, though the use of wealth also made the elite susceptible to penetration.Footnote 97 Such emulation was similarly found in fashion, whereby some less wealthy and lower-status women would wear imitation gemstones made of glass.Footnote 98 The logical consequence of such emulation and innovation can be seen in Seneca's claim that previously many extravagant dishes were brought to the banquet table for display and notoriety, but that by his day it had become a matter of duty.Footnote 99 A similar sentiment was expressed by Athenaeus, who recorded that by his time (the third century ad) such habits had spread, with even those of moderate prosperity spending more on banquets than used to be spent at festival and sacrificial rites.Footnote 100 The sentiment expressed by Athenaeus, although clearly moralizing in nature, implies the continuing pressure to use such goods in social display even in the context of the greater concentration of wealth at the highest echelons of society that was taking place in the late Roman period.Footnote 101
To summarize, luxurious display was an important element in creating and maintaining status and a public image for many of the elite. It was at events open to the scrutiny of others, such as banquets, religious dedications, and funerary rites, that such luxurious displays were made, often, though not exclusively, through the use of eastern goods. This was, in part, because of their novelty, origin, and in many cases, expense. It is in such contexts that for many members of the elite luxury had become a necessity.
Conclusion
It has been argued here that the use of static labels and exclusive definitions fails to capture the nuances of perspective and the multitude of uses to which eastern goods were put. Pepper may have been used in many dishes at banquets, but often in the context of these dishes being presented for their luxurious ostentation. Aromatics may have had an important part to play in religious rituals, but even here deliberate excess and the desire to distinguish oneself by making novel offerings could be part of an act of deliberate public ostentation. Furthermore these same aromatics were used in perfumes, make-up, and even drinks. It is precisely because these goods were open to subjective interpretation and held different meanings in different contexts, and even dual functions and meanings in the same context, that they defy the consistent and universal application of the titles ‘luxury’ or ‘necessity’. This much can be seen in the continual one-upmanship of religious dedications given by emperors and members of the imperial family. The products of the East should not be seen as possessing an inherent nature or function that comes with the label of ‘luxury’ or ‘necessity’. Instead, it should be acknowledged that these goods only achieved a social meaning through the individual contexts in which they were used and through the perceptions of those who observed those uses.
