Animals as Reflexive Thinkers
Domestication and Predation:
Nadasdy, Paul. 2007. The Gift in the Animal: The Ontology of Hunting and Human-Animal Sociality. American Ethnologist 34(1): 25-43.
Willerslev, Rane. 2004. Not Animal, Not Not-Animal: Hunting, Imitation and Empathetic Knowledge among the Siberian Yukaghirs. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 10(3): 629-652.
Viveiros de Castro, Eduardo. 2004. Exchanging Perspectives: The Transformation of Objects into Subjects in Amerindian Ontologies. Common Knowledge 10(3): 463-484.
Animals as Symbols and Companions
Animals in Science, Education and Therapy:
Taussig, Karen-Sue. 2004. Bovine Abominations: Genetic Culture and Politics in the Netherlands. Cultural Anthropology 19(3): 305-336.
We still working on it?
Eduardo Kohn 2007. “How dogs dream: Amazonian natures and the politics of transpecies engagement”. American Ethnologist, vol. 34, nº 1. P. 3-24." http://www.mcgill.ca/files/anthropology/Kohn_2007_How_Dogs_Dream.pdf
Amazonia is a special ethnographic region to think about human-animal relations.
thanks! very important! I will get the book!
If we work on an evolutionary theory of culture, we must get rid of many fictions, particularly those that used the neolithic village 'kosmos' (see Bollnow's anthropology of human space perception) to adapt the highly evolved "settlement core complex" of the Neolithic village territoriality adapting it to their new and much larger state territories by projecting the harmonious aesthetic polarity of the neolithic villages into macrocosmic dimensions: monumental temple below, mobile deity above, a fiction that controlled humanity until today! And might lead to the end of humans on earth!
Remember the discussion between Anaxagoras, the presocratic thinker and Aristoteles, the great star of greek philosophy: Anaxagoras maintained that the human being is the most clever of all living beings because he has hands. Aristotle attacked him saying that: it is rather probable that he has gained hands because he is the most intelligent of all beings.
Aristoteles the great philosopher was wrong. Today we know that all the great apes very likely for about 20 million years - since they got their larger and heavier body - had to build a sleeping nest to lay down and sleep in horizontal position every night. They are still doing this at the beginning of every night, because for finding enough food they have to migrate about 10 km every day!.
Initially nests were built in trees, using side branches as support for the nest. Very likely about 8 million years ago a second type was developed,the ground nest, a kind of bamboo tower with rooted materials and a platform on the top. The hand forms knots, binds triangles for stability, uses leaves for the nest on top. And finally the animal climbs up and sleeps for the whole night. Note that all the nests of a group spatially form some sort of a spatial representation of a social unit, having a mother and her child protected in the centre of all nests.
The origins of architecture? The origins of the organisation of "dwelling" in space?
Primatologists do not care. They study ant fishing and nut cracking with stones. Evidently they are indoctrinated by archeological "pre-history"!
Note: this may change if we manage to understand the human condition in the framework of an evolutionary theory. "Anthropology of habitat and architecture" is on the way to this!
Piers Locke said:
A fantastic recent discovery for me has been Raymond Corbey's 'The Metaphysics of Apes: Negotiating The Human-Animal Boundary' (Cambridge University Press 2005)
"The Metaphysics of Apes traces the discovery and interpretation of the human-like great apes and the ape-like earliest ancestors of present-day humans. It shows how, from the days of Linnaeus to recent research, the sacred and taboo-ridden animal-human boundary was time and again challenged and adjusted. The unique dignity of humans, a central idea and value in the West, was, and to some extent still is, centrally on the minds of taxonomists, ethnologists, primatologists, and archaeologists. It has guided their research to a considerable extent. The basic presupposition was that humans are not entirely part of nature but, as symbolizing minds and as moral persons, transcend nature. This book thus is the first to offer an anthropological analysis of the burgeoning anthropological disciplines in terms of their own cultural taboos and philosophical preconceptions."