Archaeology and Human–Animal Relations: Thinking Through Anthropocentrism

Boyd, Brian

doi:10.1146/annurev-anthro-102116-041346

Cited by 80 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 102 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Human-Animal Studiesalso known under labels such as 'Anthrozoology' or simply 'Animal Studies'delimit a burgeoning field of research with a vocal metadisciplinary ambition, a multitude of disciplinary manifestations, distinct publication venues, specific conceptual resources, and varying epistemological concerns (Balcombe 1999;Mullin 1999;Gerbasi et al 2002;Rivto 2007;Kalof and Fitzgerald 2007;Arluke and Sanders 2008;Haraway 2008Haraway , 2016DeMello 2010DeMello , 2012Kirksey and Helmreich 2010;Weil 2010;Chimaira 2011;Ogden 2011;Digard 2012, 565-569;Gross and Vallely 2012;Hurn 2012;Ingold 2013;Taylor 2013;Waldau 2013;Marvin and McHugh 2014a;Krüger, Steinbrecher, and Wischermann 2014;Brucker et al 2015;Spannring et al 2015, 17-21;Borgards 2016;van Dooren, Kirksey, and Münster 2016;Boyd 2017;Kompatscher, Spannring, and Schachinger 2017, 26-28;Breyer and Widlok 2018). The fundamental realisation of scholarship within this emerging academic field is that animals have always been, and continue to be, essential touchstones of human life, and that the examination of human-animal relations, therefore, should tell us much about what it means to be human (cf.…”

Section: Archaeo-ornithology: Interdisciplinary Background and Researmentioning

confidence: 99%

Archaeo-Ornithology: Towards an Archaeology of Human-Bird Interfaces

Kost

Hussain

2019

Environmental Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This editorial introduces Archaeo-Ornithology as a distinct field of inquiry and discusses its multidisciplinary background and potential contribution to a more nuanced characterisation of changing human-animal interfaces through time and space. We propose a new conceptual modelgrounded in the analysis of 'triangles of interaction'to elucidate the interactional dynamics which underpin varying human-animal relationships. The utility of this approach is demonstrated by exploring the example of anthropogenic space as a key context of human-bird figurations. Each contributing paper of the special issue, which will be introduced in more detail below, foregrounds different aspects and emphasises varying dimensions of the triangle, thus contributing in different ways to archaeo-ornithological research. As highlighted throughout the introduction, however, archaeo-ornithological approaches are not only capable of shedding new light on old questions about the past, they also have the potential of addressing some pressing contemporary quandaries, including continuing debates on the Anthropocene.

show abstract

Section: Archaeo-ornithology: Interdisciplinary Background and Researmentioning

confidence: 99%

Archaeo-Ornithology: Towards an Archaeology of Human-Bird Interfaces

Kost

Hussain

2019

Environmental Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The study of human-animal relations currently experiences renewed popularity in the humanities and social sciences (e.g. Mullin 1999;Kalof and Fitzgerald 2007;Serjeantson 2009;Waldau 2013;Boyd 2017). Some have even postulated the need for an 'animal turn' in order to (re-)direct the attention of scholars to the distinct animal contributions to human life and cultural existence (Anderson 1998;Ritvo 2007).…”

Section: Deploying Perspectives From Human-animal Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chasing the Halcyon Light – Human-Kingfisher Relations in Eastern Han-Dynasty China (CE 25–220) and Their Material, Sociocultural and Ecological Articulations

Kost

2019

Environmental Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article takes a fresh look at human-kingfisher relations in Eastern Han-dynasty China (CE 25-220). It argues that the confined appearance of kingfisher figurines in graves excavated in the southwest of the modern-day People's Republic of China reflects the structural differences in human-kingfisher interactions between the centre(s) of the Han empire and its peripheries. By re-visiting the archaeology of the figurines and placing them into the wider cultural and ecological context, it is shown that distinct sociocultural transformations such as urbanisation processes and infrastructural projects profoundly changed the exposure and interactional dynamics between humans and kingfishers in the northern parts of the realm. This situation contrasted sharply with human-kingfisher interfaces in the southwest, where relatively 'untamed' environments harbouring a great number and diversity of kingfishers provided more favourable conditions for encountering them. I propose that this framework, in turn, fostered conceptualizations of kingfishers in which the birds came to encapsulate an experience fundamentally opposed to the type of human preponderance showcased in the core areas. By discussing a set of local practices and beliefs that might have further promoted this view, I suggest that they served as catalysts for the emergence of the kingfisher figurines at a particular time in a specific place. In this wider context, the article finally considers whether the southward expansion of the Eastern Han, with which the appearance of the figurines coincides, contributed to a re-configuration of north-south dynamics, shaping the general logic of human-kingfisher relations at the time.

show abstract

“…Meanwhile, Boyd () considers the history of archaeologists’ research on animals and asks if our approaches have been too anthropocentrically concerned with the value of animals only for elucidating the human condition. Archaeology's engagement with the ontological turn continued to develop in 2017, questioning and rejecting human‐centered and fixed Western ideas of reality, reading more agency into material objects as well as animals (Baires and Baltus ; Busacca ; Fagan ; Jackson ; A. Jones 2017; J. Jones 2017; Stépanoff ).…”

Section: Individuals and Groupsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Finding Archaeology in 2017: What Is Archaeology and Why Are We Doing It? Why Should We Be Doing It?

Lewis

2018

American Anthropologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

These annual review essays focus on what we as archaeologists are doing year by year. Many themes continue on from review to review, waxing and waning, not unlike the bell curves of a traditional pottery seriation.Each year, themes are highlighted and presented in varied ways according to the orientation and aims of the reviewer. All do a masterful job of curating the vast range of what archaeologists were, in each annual period, currently producing. My review follows in the footsteps of its predecessors, summarizing an array of new and exciting research, and describing how agendas presented in 2017 cluster around sets of related questions and aims. It will also look at the growing literature that asks, in one way or another, fundamental questions about what archaeology really is and why we pursue it. In this time when the value of academic pursuits and scientific perspectives are being highly scrutinized in politics and popular culture, archaeologists are faced with the uncomfortable question of "What is it, really, that we should be doing?" [archaeology, current issues, public archaeology, digital archaeology] RESUMEN Estos ensayos de revisión anual se enfocan en lo que como arqueólogos estamos haciendo año tras año. Muchos temas continúan de revisión en revisión, creciendo o menguando, no muy diferente de las curvas en forma de campana de la seriación de la cerámica tradicional. Cada año, temas son enfatizados y presentados de varias maneras de acuerdo a la orientación y metas del crítico. Todos hacen un trabajo magistral de organizar un rango vasto de lo que los arqueólogos estaban, en cada período anual, realmente produciendo. Mi revisión sigue los pasos de sus predecesores, resumiendo una colección de nueva y emocionante investigación, y describiendo cómo las agendas presentadas en el 2017 se agrupan alrededor de juegos de cuestiones y metas relacionadas.También examina la creciente literatura que pregunta, de una manera u otra, cuestiones fundamentales acerca de lo que la arqueología realmente es y por qué nos dedicamos a ella. En este tiempo cuando el valor de los empeños académicos y las perspectivas científicas están siendo altamente escrutados en política y cultura popular, los arqueólogos se enfrentan a la pregunta incomoda de "¿Qué es lo que realmente deberíamos estar haciendo?"[arqueología, cuestiones actuales, arqueología pública, arqueología digital] ARCHAEOLOGICAL FRAGMENTATION?While the theme of what such a diverse discipline should be subtly undergirds much of the literature, a number of 2017 articles, each in a very different way, directly address the very nature of what archaeology is and why we practice it. In the Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, Assaf Nativ (2017, 55) asks us to reconsider our notions of the

show abstract

Archaeology and Human–Animal Relations: Thinking Through Anthropocentrism

Cited by 80 publications

References 102 publications

Archaeo-Ornithology: Towards an Archaeology of Human-Bird Interfaces

Archaeo-Ornithology: Towards an Archaeology of Human-Bird Interfaces

Chasing the Halcyon Light – Human-Kingfisher Relations in Eastern Han-Dynasty China (CE 25–220) and Their Material, Sociocultural and Ecological Articulations

Finding Archaeology in 2017: What Is Archaeology and Why Are We Doing It? Why Should We Be Doing It?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About