Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T14:23:00.433Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A multi-species archaeology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 November 2013

Yannis Hamilakis  and
Nick J. Overton
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

These are interesting times for the exploration of the relationships between humans and other animals. The ‘animal turn’ is in full swing in a number of disciplines; anthropologists have started talking of the emergence of a multi-species ethnography (Kirksey and Helmreich 2010); and even archaeologists have, somehow hesitantly, started contributing to wider discussions within animal studies (e.g. see the recent – 2013 – special issue of the journal Society and animals devoted to archaeology; and Harris and Hamilakis, in press). Another indication that things are changing is the overwhelmingly positive response to our ‘manifesto’ by most commentators, who have offered many valuable thoughts which expand our reflections in many and interesting directions: we are grateful. Rather than trying to comment on every single point raised in this discussion, which in any case would have been impossible in the space provided, we have selected instead a couple of issues that, we hope, readers will find engaging and fruitful.

Type
Discussion
Information
Archaeological Dialogues , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , December 2013 , pp. 159 - 173
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

Agamben, G., 1998: Homo sacer. Sovereign power and bare life, Palo Alto.Google Scholar
Brazil, M., 2003: The whooper swan, London.Google Scholar
Brittain, M., and Overton, N., 2013: The significance of others. A prehistory of rhythm and interspecies participation, Society and animals 21, 134–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calarco, M., 2008: Zoographies. The question of the animal from Heidegger to Derrida, New York.Google Scholar
Esposito, R., 2008: Bios. Biopolitics and philosophy, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
Hamilakis, Y., 2014: Archaeology and the senses. Human experience, memory and affect, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, K., and Hamilakis, Y., in press: Beyond the wild, the feral, and the domestic. Lessons from prehistoric Crete, in Marvin, G. and McHugh, S. (eds), Routledge handbook of human–animal studies, London.Google Scholar
Kirksey, E.S., and Helmreich, S., 2010: The emergence of multi-species ethnography, Cultural anthropology 25 (4), 545–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nibert, D.A., 2013: Animal oppression and human violence. Domesecration, capitalism, and global conflict, New York.Google Scholar
Wolfe, C., 2013: Before the law. Humans and other animals in a biopolitical frame, Chicago.Google Scholar