Animal Identities and Merging with Animals
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
This article was downloaded by: [Universitetsbiblioteket i Bergen] On: 15 August 2012, At: 05:24 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Norwegian Archaeological Review Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/sarc20 ‘I am the Walrus’: Animal Identities and Merging with Animals – Exceptional Experiences? Torill Christine Lindstrøm a a Department of Psychosocial Science, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway Version of record first published: 08 Aug 2012 To cite this article: Torill Christine Lindstrøm (2012): ‘I am the Walrus’: Animal Identities and Merging with Animals – Exceptional Experiences?, Norwegian Archaeological Review, DOI:10.1080/00293652.2012.703687 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00293652.2012.703687 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and- conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. ARTICLE Norwegian Archaeological Review, iFirst, 2012 ‘I am the Walrus’: Animal Identities and Merging with Animals – Exceptional Experiences? TORILL CHRISTINE LINDSTRØM Archaeological materials from various times and places give us many examples of identity attributed to animals and of merging of identities between humans and animals. We tend to regard these phenomena as different from our modern understanding of ourselves, animals, plants and objects as discrete ontological classes. Accordingly, archaeology explains and explores these phenomena in relation to what they implied and meant in their particular cultural contexts. However, these phenomena also share certain cross-cultural and trans-temporal similarities, pointing beyond cultural ‘uses’ (processual) and ‘meanings’ (post-processual) of animals. This observation demands the employment of a wider, more inclusive, theoretical stance (multi-theoretical, multi-methodological, eclectic) to be explained. I illustrate with examples from various periods (Palaeolithic, Bronze Age, Iron Age, pre-classical and classical Greece, Roman Empire, Migration Period and Viking Period). I claim that characteristics of both human and animal nature (‘things in themselves’) can contribute to explaining the experiences of animal identities and of merging phenomena. Both phenomena connect to perceptions of, interaction with and relationships withanimals.Myargumentsarebasedonresearchonhumanandanimal psycho-endocrinology, brain and behaviours (cognitive, emotional and social) and ethology. Keywords: Animal identity, merging phenomena, hybrids, human-animal interaction, human-animal relations, psychology, ethology, theoretical issues THE ‘OTHERNESS’ OF THE ANCIENT from our understanding of ourselves, and OTHER from our categorization of humans, animals, Downloaded by [Universitetsbiblioteket i Bergen] at 05:24 15 August 2012 plants and material objects as relatively dis- Archaeological and anthropological reports, crete classes of ontological entity (MacIntyre from various periods and places, are rich in 1999, pp. 11–13, Ingold 2000, p. 48). Such examples of how humans seem to have distinctions are fundamental to our ontology attributed identity to animals, and have experi- and ‘order of things’, our nomenclatures and enced various kinds of merging of identities taxa.2 between humans and animals.1 We tend to In this article, I will first present examples of see these phenomena as something different attribution of identity to animals. Second, I Torill Christine Lindstrøm, Department of Psychosocial Science, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway. Email: [email protected] http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00293652.2012.703687 © Norwegian Archaeological Review (2012) 2 Torill Christine Lindstrøm will present examples of merging of human too unifying positions have been proposed, and animal identities. The examples are delib- such as the developmental systems theory of erately chosen from grossly divergent epochs biology (Oyama et al. 2001) and the inter- and cultures in order to accentuate similarities disciplinary biosocial obviation perspective across times and places. The examples are in (Ingold 2001). The methodological parallels chronological order. Third, I will discuss are in methodological triangulation and mixed- the identity and merging phenomena with method research (Teddlie and Tashakkori 2003, reference to modern behaviours, ethological Johnson and Onwuegbuzie 2004). It has been and psychological research on human and argued that multi-methodical multi-theoretical animal psycho-endocrinology, brains and positions, described as being pragmatic, ‘brico- behaviours. Throughout the article, my aim lage’ and eclectic, have already long been is not to refute earlier archaeological interpre- employed in archaeology (Bintliff 2004, p. xix, tations which focus on functional aspects (pro- 2011, pp. 18–21, Trigger 2006, Pearce 2011, pp. cessualism) or on symbolic meanings (post- 84–87, Pluciennik 2011, pp. 33, 44,). Pearce processualism) of animals. These focuses and (2011, pp. 84–87) even claims that this is the interpretations are not ‘wrong’, but perhaps new theoretical paradigm in archaeology: to not inclusive or conclusive enough. I will employ mixed methods and multiple models suggest that additional explanations may be fitting the particular problem investigated and relevant, such as: certain perceptions of and combine various theories and theoretical ele- experiences with animals that are surprisingly ments (Pearce 2011, p. 85). This position is my stable trans-temporally and characteristic theoretical perspective for this article. properties of humans and animals which can make their interaction relational. TRANSCENDING ONTOLOGICAL BOUNDARIES THEORETICAL THEMES Attributions of ‘identity’ to animals may be The conflict between processualism and post- found in archaeological materials in that ani- processualism in archaeology has its parallel in mals have been treated (almost) as humans. psychology: the conflict between mainstream Merging of animal and human identities may psychology (also called positivist psychology) show up as representations of composite and social constructionist psychology (also creatures with human-animal parts and char- called critical psychology or cultural psychol- acteristics. Such merging has been described ogy). However, Wittgenstein’sidealof‘com- under names such as: ‘monstrous creatures’, plementary discourses’, implying using the ‘monsters’, ‘hybrid creatures’, ‘hybrids’, relevant tools for each particular problem, is ‘liminal beings’, ‘theriomorphes’, ‘therianthro- winning ground in the social sciences and med- pics’, zooantropomorphs (Greene 2000, Guiley ‘ Downloaded by [Universitetsbiblioteket i Bergen] at 05:24 15 August 2012 icine and, finally, in archaeology. In archaeol- 2005). A related, but different, term is power ogy, there are several terms for the animal’. This implies only a mental merging complementary meta-theoretical and metho- where the animal protects and psychologically dological developments which combine proces- empowers individuals or groups (Meadows sualist and post-processualist perspectives, 2004). Terms used for merging processes are subjectivity and objectivity, quantitative and ‘metamorphosis’ and ‘transformation’.Inthe qualitative data: the middle-ground position following, the term ‘merging(s)’ will be used for (Hodder 1999, pp. 52, 200), the synergy beings that unite elements of humans and ani- approach (VanPool and VanPool 1999, p. 48) mals, and the terms ‘to merge’/‘to transform’/ and symmetrical archaeology (Witmore 2007, ’to blend’ for the processes of changing into a Olsen 2010). Within biology and anthropology total or partial, bodily or mental, animal state. ‘I am the Walrus’ 3 ANIMALS WITH IDENTITY treatment of most other domesticated ani- mals, dogs world-wide have been given burials ‘THOU ART’ that resemble human burials (Morey 2006, p. ‘Attribution’, according to attribution theory 159). Dogs have been eaten or ritually sacri- (Heider 1958), means that particular qualities ficed,3 but also nicely buried, sometimes with are ascribed to objects or individuals (without ochre, grave-goods and other tokens of any judgement about ‘the correctness’ of the respect, as in middle Holocene Cis-Baikal, attributions). Attribution of personal identity Siberia (Losey et al. 2011, p. 13), Mesolithic implies ascribing to somebody/something per- Skateholm, Sweden (Larsson 1993, Zvelebil sonhood, individual characteristics, agency 1996, pp. 48–49, 57), Archaic Period North and interactive capacities. When the attribu- America (Morey 2006, pp. 161–64) and Viking tion is to an animal, it implies that the animal Period Norway, Scotland and Sweden is