Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T03:22:54.315Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Turns, tropes and terminology. Toward an interspecies ‘(inter)social’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 November 2013

Gala Argent
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

All living creatures exist with others in relationships – networks of ecological, biological, psychological and social interactions – that are ongoing and meaningful, and at some level affect their animate neighbours. This point seems so self-evident that it should not need stating. Yet in many instances both archaeologists and scholars within other disciplines remain mired within an anthropocentric metanarrative which serves the purpose of limiting the study of these relationships either to the human use, or to the (human) cultural construction, of non-human animals. That is changing. In arguing that a ‘shift . . . of emphasis to the live animal as an autonomous being with its own agency and even its known perspective on other species is long overdue’ (p. 116), Nick Overton and Yannis Hamiliakis offer a valuable contribution toward refining the ongoing archaeological re-examination of the potential gestalt of the human–animal social interface.

Type
Discussion
Information
Archaeological Dialogues , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , December 2013 , pp. 137 - 143
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Albarella, U., and Trentacoste, A., 2011: EthnoZooArchaeology. The present and past of human–animal relationships, Oxford.Google Scholar
Argent, G., 2010: Do the clothes make the horse? Relationality, roles and statuses in Iron Age Inner Asia, World archaeology 42 (2), 157–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Argent, G., 2012: Toward a privileging of the nonverbal. Communication, corporeal synchrony and transcendence in humans and horses, in Smith, J.A. and Mitchell, R.W. (eds), Experiencing animal minds. An anthology of animal–human encounters, New York, 111–28.Google Scholar
Argent, G., 2013: Inked. Human–horse apprenticeship, tattoos and time in the Pazyryk world, Society & animals 21, 178–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Argent, G., forthcoming: Killing (constructed) horses. Interspecies elders, empathy and emotion and the Pazyryk horse sacrifices, in Broderick, L.G. (ed.), People with animals. Perspectives and studies in ethnozooarchaeology. Oxford.Google Scholar
Balcombe, J., 2009: Animal pleasure and its moral significance, Applied animal behaviour science 118, 208–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bekoff, M., 2006: Animal passions and beastly virtues. Cognitive ethology as the unifying science for understanding the subjective, emotional, empathic, and moral lives of animals, Zygon 41 (1), 71–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bekoff, M., and Pierce, J., 2009: Wild justice. The moral lives of animals. Chicago.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birke, L. 2009: Naming names. Or, what's in it for the animals? Humanimalia 1 (1), 1–8, available at www.depauw.edu/humanimalia/issueo1/birke.html, accessed 4 January 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broderick, L.G. (ed.), forthcoming: People with animals. Perspectives and studies in ethnozooarchaeology, Oxford.Google Scholar
Clark, N., 2007: Animal interface. The generosity of domestication, in Cassidy, R. and Mullin, M. (eds), Where the wild things are now. Domestication reconsidered. Oxford, 49–70.Google Scholar
Clough, P.T., and Halley, J., 2007: The affective turn. Theorizing the social, Durham.Google Scholar
De Waal, F., 2001: The ape and the sushi master. Cultural reflections by a primatologist. New York.Google Scholar
De Waal, F., 2009. The age of empathy. Nature's lessons for a kinder society, New York.Google Scholar
Decety, J., and Ickes, W. (eds), 2009: The social neuroscience of empathy, Cambridge, MA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gamble, C., and Gittins, E., 2007 (2004): Social archaeology and origins research. A Paleolithic perspective, in Meskell, L. and Preucel, R.W. (eds), A companion to social archaeology, Malden, MA, 23–42.Google Scholar
Griffin, D.R., 1984: Animal thinking, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Haraway, D., 2003: The companion species manifesto. Dogs, people, and significant otherness, Chicago.Google Scholar
Haraway, D., 2008: When species meet, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
Harris, O.J.T., and Sørensen, T.F., 2010: Rethinking emotion and material culture. Archaeological dialogues 17 (2), 145–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, E., 2011: Animals as agents. Hunting ritual and relational ontologies in Prehistoric Alaska and Chukotka, Cambridge archaeological journal 21 (3), 407–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodder, I., 2007 (2004): The ‘social’ in archaeological theory. An historical and contemporary perspective, in Meskell, L. and Preucel, R.W. (eds), A companion to social archaeology, Malden, MA, 23–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, S., 2011: Interpretive archaeologies, violence and evolutionary approaches, in Cochrane, E.E. and Gardner, A. (eds), Evolutionary and interpretive archaeologies, Walnut Creek, 127–49.Google Scholar
Keltner, D., Marsh, J. and Smith, J.A., 2010: The compassionate instinct, New York.Google Scholar
Latour, B., 1993: We have never been modern, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Lestel, D., Brunois, F. and Gaunet, F., 2006: Ethoethnology and ethnoethology. Social science information 45 (2), 155–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marzluffa, J.M., Wallsa, J., Cornella, H.N., Witheya, J.C. and Craig, D.P., 2010: Lasting recognition of threatening people by wild American crows, animal behaviour 79 (3), 699–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noske, B., 1997: Beyond boundaries. Humans and animals, rev. edn, Montreal.Google Scholar
Schutz, W.C., 1966: Interpersonal underworld. A reprint edition of FIRO, a three-dimensional theory of interpersonal behavior, Palo Alto.Google Scholar
Shapiro, K.J., 2008: Human–animal studies. Growing the field, applying the field, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
Singer, P., 2002 (1975): Animal liberation, New York.Google Scholar
Spikins, P.A., Rutherford, H.E. and Needham, A.P., 2010: From hominidity to humanity. Compassion from the earliest archaics to modern humans. Time and mind. The journal of archaeology, consciousness and culture 3 (3), 303–26.Google Scholar
Stone, S. 2010: Human facial discrimination in horses. Can they tell us apart? Animal cognition 13 (1), 51–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sussman, R.W., and Cloninger, C.R. (eds), 2011: The origins of altruism and cooperation, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarlow, S., 2000: Emotion in archaeology, Current anthropology 41 (5), 713–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Von Uexküll, J., 1957 (1934): A stroll through the world of animals and men. A picture book of invisible worlds, in Schiller, C.H. (ed. and tr.), Instinctive behavior. Development of a modern concept, New York, 5–80.Google Scholar
Wolfe, C., 2003: Animal rites. American culture, the discourse of species, and posthumanist theory, Chicago.Google Scholar