Animals between Nature and Culture: The Story of Archaeozoology

The paper aims to tell the story of archaeozoology and utilize it to point out changes in the perception of nature and culture, the perception of animals as organisms that belong entirely to the domain of nature (unlike people who ‘build’ culture onto their nature), as well as display how these perc...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal:	Ivana Živaljević
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN FR SR
Publicado:	University of Belgrade 2016
Materias:	archaeozoology dichotomy nature culture animals animal remains Anthropology GN1-890
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/efce5959637d4439b59acc65e20ba929
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:efce5959637d4439b59acc65e20ba929
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:efce5959637d4439b59acc65e20ba9292021-12-02T01:59:23ZAnimals between Nature and Culture: The Story of Archaeozoology10.21301/eap.v8i4.120353-15892334-8801https://doaj.org/article/efce5959637d4439b59acc65e20ba9292016-02-01T00:00:00Zhttps://eap-iea.org/index.php/eap/article/view/220https://doaj.org/toc/0353-1589https://doaj.org/toc/2334-8801The paper aims to tell the story of archaeozoology and utilize it to point out changes in the perception of nature and culture, the perception of animals as organisms that belong entirely to the domain of nature (unlike people who ‘build’ culture onto their nature), as well as display how these perceptions shaped the discipline of archaeozoology and influenced its position within archaeology. Animal remains, almost as a rule, represent some of the most common findings at archaeological sites; however, the attention which has been given to them in archaeological analysis and interpretation was largely dependent on the dominant paradigms in science. With the appearance of the ‘new’ or processual paradigm in archaeology and the concurrent development of archaeozoology, findings like these became the object of study and an important ‘key’ for understanding questions of sustenance, economy and strategies of survival in the past. The strict divide between the natural sciences and humanities (which is a consequence of the wider modernist narrative about the dichotomy of nature and culture), meant that only specialized experts could study animal remains, and that animal remains should be viewed, studied and published on separately from studies on architecture, sculptures and figurines, tools and other artifacts. Thus, archaeozoological reports long represented merely a kind of ‘addition’ to archaeological publications and rarely figured significantly in interpretations. With the paradigm shift brought on by post-processual archaeology, the research focus shifted from economic and functionalist explanations of social phenomena to the study of the influence of culture on shaping human behavior and values. Social theories of cultural constructivism indicate that concepts of ‘humanity’ and ‘animality’ are culturally shaped and a product of discourse, but they often ignore osteological analyses of human and animal remains in the process. Even though at first glance it may seem that constructivist studies and the positivist scientific method on which osteology is based are mutually exclusive in contemporary archaeology, their integration can provide a more detailed picture of how animals shape the way in which humans experience the world, of meanings ascribed to animals, as well as of the very nature of boundaries between people and animals in different cultural contexts.Ivana ŽivaljevićUniversity of Belgradearticlearchaeozoologydichotomynaturecultureanimalsanimal remainsAnthropologyGN1-890ENFRSREtnoantropološki Problemi, Vol 8, Iss 4 (2016)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN FR SR
topic	archaeozoology dichotomy nature culture animals animal remains Anthropology GN1-890
spellingShingle	archaeozoology dichotomy nature culture animals animal remains Anthropology GN1-890 Ivana Živaljević Animals between Nature and Culture: The Story of Archaeozoology
description	The paper aims to tell the story of archaeozoology and utilize it to point out changes in the perception of nature and culture, the perception of animals as organisms that belong entirely to the domain of nature (unlike people who ‘build’ culture onto their nature), as well as display how these perceptions shaped the discipline of archaeozoology and influenced its position within archaeology. Animal remains, almost as a rule, represent some of the most common findings at archaeological sites; however, the attention which has been given to them in archaeological analysis and interpretation was largely dependent on the dominant paradigms in science. With the appearance of the ‘new’ or processual paradigm in archaeology and the concurrent development of archaeozoology, findings like these became the object of study and an important ‘key’ for understanding questions of sustenance, economy and strategies of survival in the past. The strict divide between the natural sciences and humanities (which is a consequence of the wider modernist narrative about the dichotomy of nature and culture), meant that only specialized experts could study animal remains, and that animal remains should be viewed, studied and published on separately from studies on architecture, sculptures and figurines, tools and other artifacts. Thus, archaeozoological reports long represented merely a kind of ‘addition’ to archaeological publications and rarely figured significantly in interpretations. With the paradigm shift brought on by post-processual archaeology, the research focus shifted from economic and functionalist explanations of social phenomena to the study of the influence of culture on shaping human behavior and values. Social theories of cultural constructivism indicate that concepts of ‘humanity’ and ‘animality’ are culturally shaped and a product of discourse, but they often ignore osteological analyses of human and animal remains in the process. Even though at first glance it may seem that constructivist studies and the positivist scientific method on which osteology is based are mutually exclusive in contemporary archaeology, their integration can provide a more detailed picture of how animals shape the way in which humans experience the world, of meanings ascribed to animals, as well as of the very nature of boundaries between people and animals in different cultural contexts.
format	article
author	Ivana Živaljević
author_facet	Ivana Živaljević
author_sort	Ivana Živaljević
title	Animals between Nature and Culture: The Story of Archaeozoology
title_short	Animals between Nature and Culture: The Story of Archaeozoology
title_full	Animals between Nature and Culture: The Story of Archaeozoology
title_fullStr	Animals between Nature and Culture: The Story of Archaeozoology
title_full_unstemmed	Animals between Nature and Culture: The Story of Archaeozoology
title_sort	animals between nature and culture: the story of archaeozoology
publisher	University of Belgrade
publishDate	2016
url	https://doaj.org/article/efce5959637d4439b59acc65e20ba929
work_keys_str_mv	AT ivanazivaljevic animalsbetweennatureandculturethestoryofarchaeozoology
_version_	1718402809076908032

Animals between Nature and Culture: The Story of Archaeozoology

Ejemplares similares