Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-kcxw8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-16T20:26:23.813Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Agency ‘in itself’. A discussion of inanimate,animal and human agency

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 November 2015

Torill Christine Lindstrøm
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

‘Agency’, the concept, its connections to ontology and itsuses within archaeological theory, are discussed and criticized. In recentarchaeological theory, the term ‘agency’ has beenattributed to things, plants, animals and humans. In this paper it is arguedthat the term ‘agency’ is logically meaningless if appliedto everything that moves or has effects on its surroundings, and that we need anew, more precise terminology that discriminates between‘agency’, ‘effect’,‘actant’ and ‘effectant’. Thatpeople, of all cultures, perceive and experience things/objects as having agencyis explained as being due to projections of human characteristics, humanpsycho-neurological functioning, and the fact that all individuals and culturesare deeply involved with and dependent on things/objects. Connected to this,questions regarding different ontologies, animism, ethics and sciences arediscussed. The paper presents a critique of symmetrical archaeology andmateriality studies. Broader paradigmatic perspectives, more theoretical andmethodological inclusiveness, and more inter- and trans-disciplinary endeavoursare suggested to increase archaeology's‘agency’.

Keywords

ontologyanimismessentialismsciencearchaeological theoryinter-/trans-disciplinary

Information

Type
Article
Information
Archaeological Dialogues , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , December 2015 , pp. 207 - 238
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Âikäs, T., Puputti, A.-K., Núnez, M., Aspi, J. and Okkonen, J., 2009: Sacred and profane livelihood. Animal bones from sieidi sites in northern Finland, Norwegian archaeological review 42, 109–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alberti, B., and Bray, T.L. (eds), 2009: Animating archaeology. Of subjects, objects and alternative ontologies, Special section of Cambridge archaeological journal 19, 337–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Argent, G., 2010: Do the clothes make the horse? World archaeology 42, 157–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atran, S., and Norenzayan, A., 2004: Religion's evolutionary landscape. Counterintuition, commitment, communion, Behavioral and brain sciences 27, 713–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Auersperg, A.M.I., Kacelnik, A. and von Bayern, A.M.P., 2013: Explorative learning and functional inferences on a five-step means–means–end problem in Goffin's cockatoos (Cacatua goffini), PLoS ONE 01/2013; 8 (7):e68979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bandura, A., 2006: Toward a psychology of human agency, Perspectives on psychological science 1, 164–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, D., 2010: Supernormal stimuli. How primal urges overran their evolutionary purpose, New York.Google Scholar
Bearzi, M., and Stanford, C.B., 2008: Beautiful minds. The parallel lives of great apes and dolphins, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bekoff, M., 2007: The emotional lives of animals, Novato.Google Scholar
Bekoff, M., Allen, C. and Burghardt, G.M. (eds), 2002: The cognitive animal. Empirical and theoretical perspectives on animal cognition, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, J., 1992: On capturing agency in theories about prehistory, in Gardin, J.C. and Pebbles, C. (eds), Representations in archaeology, Bloomington, 30–55.Google Scholar
Bennett, G.G., and Laland, K.N., 2005: Social learning in animals. Empirical studies and theoretical models, BioScience, doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2005)055[0489:SLIAES]2.0.CO;2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, J., 2010: Vibrant matter. A political ecology of things, Durham, NC.Google Scholar
Boast, R., 1997: A small company of actors. A critique of style, Journal of material culture 2, 173–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borghi, A.M., and Cimatti, F., 2010: Embodied cognition and beyond. Acting and sensing the body, Neuropsychologica, 48, 3, 763–73, doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologica.2009.10.029.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Botting, F., 2012: More things. Horror, materialism and speculative weirdism, Horror studies 3, 281–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, P., 1977: Outline of a theory of practice, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, P., 1990: The logic of practice, Stanford, CA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bovet, D., and Vauclair, J., 2000: Picture recognition in animals and humans. A review, Behavioural brain research 109, 143–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowlby, J., 1969: Attachment and loss, Vol. 1, Attachment, New York.Google Scholar
Bowlby, J., 1973: Attachment and loss, Vol. 2, Separation, anxiety and anger, London.Google Scholar
Bradbury, J.W., and Vehrencamp, S.L., 2011: Principles of animal communication, Sunderland.Google Scholar
Brennan, T. 2004: The transmission of affect, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
Bronfenbrenner, U., 1979: The ecology of human development. Experiments by nature and design, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Brown, L.B., and Thouless, R.H., 1965: Animistic thoughts in civilized adults, Journal of genetic psychology 107, 33–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bugnyar, T., and Kotrschal, K., 2002: Observational learning and the raiding of food caches in ravens, Corvus corax. Is it ‘tactical’ deception? Animal behaviour 64, 185–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burr, V., 1995: An introduction to social constructivism, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calder, L., 2011: Cruelty and sentimentality. Greek attitudes to animals, 600–300 BC, Oxford (BAR International Series 2225).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Call, J., and Tomasello, M., 1998: Distinguishing intentional from accidental actions in orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus), chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), and human children (Homo sapiens), Journal of comparative psychology 112 (2), 192–206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness, 2012, written by P. Low and edited by J. Panksepp, D. Reiss, D. Edelman, B. Van Swinderen, P. Low and C. Koch.Google Scholar
Clayton, N.S., Dally, J.M. and Emery, N.J., 2007: Social cognition by food caching corvids. The western scrub-jay as a natural psychologist, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society B 362, 507–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Corballis, M.C., and Lea, S.E.G. (eds), 1999: The descent of mind. Psychological perspectives on human evolution, London.Google Scholar
Coy, J., 1994: Animals’ attitudes to people, in Ingold, T. (ed.), What is an animal?, London, 77–83.Google Scholar
Dalton, R., 2010: Fossil finger points to new human species. DNA analysis reveals lost relative from 40,000 years ago, Nature 464, 7288, 472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deacon, T.W., 1997: The symbolic species. The co-evolution of language and the brain, New York.Google Scholar
DeMarrais, E., Gosden, C. and Renfrew, C. (eds), 2004: Rethinking materiality. The engagement of mind with the material world, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Descartes, R., 1984: The philosophical writings of Descartes, Vol. 2 (tr. Cottingham, J., Stoothoff, R. and Murdoch, D.), Cambridge.Google Scholar
Descola, P., 2005: Beyond nature and culture, Proceedings of the British Academy 139, 137–55.Google Scholar
Dobres, M.-A. and Robb, J., 2000: Agency in archaeology. Paradigm or platitude? in Dobres, M.-A. and Robb, J. (eds), Agency in archaeology, London, 3–17.Google Scholar
Dolinski, D., and Szczucka, K., 2013: Emotional disrupt-then-reframe technique of social influence, Journal of applied social psychology 43, 2013–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dornan, J.L., 2002: Agency and archaeology. Past, present, and future directions, Journal of archaeological method and theory 9 (4), 303–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faarlund, J.T., 2009: Darwin og evolusjonsteorien i lingvistikken, in Hessen, D.O., Lie, T. and Stenseth, N.C. (eds), Verden ble aldri den same, Oslo, 229–50.Google Scholar
Feldman, R.S., 2008: Development across the life span, 6th edn, Englewood Cliffs.Google Scholar
Fijn, N., 2009: Living with herds. Human–animal co-existence in Mongolia, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Fowler, C., 2004: The archaeology of personhood. An anthropological approach, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ganguli, I., 2006: Mice show evidence of empathy, The Scientist, 30 July, available at www.thescientist.com/news/disply/23764/#23829, accessed 30 June 2006.Google Scholar
Gansum, T., and Hansen, H., 2002: Fra jern til stål. Mytologiske og rituelle aspekter i teknologiske prosesser, Borre.Google Scholar
Gardner, A. 2004: Agency uncovered. Archaeological perspectives on social agency, power and being human, London.Google Scholar
Gardner, R.A., and Gardner, B., 1998: The structure of learning. From sign stimuli to sign language, New York.Google Scholar
Gell, A., 1998: Art and agency. An anthropological theory, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giddens, A., 1979: Central problems in social theory. Action, structure, and contradictions in social analysis, Berkeley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giddens, A., 1993 (1976): New rules of sociological method, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
Gilhus, I.S., 2006: Animals, gods and humans. Changing attitudes to animals in Greek, Roman and early Christian ideas, London.Google Scholar
Goettner-Abendroth, H., 2012: Matriarchal societies. Studies on indigenous cultures across the globe, New York.Google Scholar
Goldberg, P., and Macphail, R., 2006: Practical and theoretical geoarchaeology, Oxford.Google Scholar
Gosling, S.D., and John, O.P., 1999: Personality dimensions in nonhuman animals. A cross-species review, Current directions in psychological science 8, 69–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graves, R., 1997: The Larousse encyclopedia of mythology, London.Google Scholar
Griffin, D.R., and Speck, G.B., 2004: New evidence of animal consciousness, Animal cognition 7, 5–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grøn, O., 2010: Evenk shamans. A non-exotic approach. Ethnoarchaeological observations, in Hardy, K. (ed.), Archaeological invisibility and forgotten knowledge. Conference proceedings, Kódʹz, Poland, 5–7 September 2007, Oxford (British Archaeological Reports, International Series 2183), 108–14.Google Scholar
Güzeldere, G., Nahmias, E. and Deaner, R.O., 2002: Darwin's continuum and the building blocks of deception, in Bekoff, M., Allen, C. and Burghardt, G.M. (eds), The cognitive animal. Empirical and theoretical perspectives on animal cognition, Cambridge, 353–62.Google Scholar
Hadjikhani, N., Kveraga, K., Naik, K.P. and Ahlfors, S.P., 2009: Early (M170) activation of facespecific cortex by face-like objects, NeuroReport 20, 403–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hartmann, E. von. 1871: Kantische Studien zur Erkenntnisstheorie und Metaphysik, Berlin.Google Scholar
Harvey, G., 2005: Animism. Respecting the living world, Adelaide.Google Scholar
Hill, E., 2013: Archaeology and animal persons. Toward a prehistory of human–animal relations, Environment and society. Advances in research 4, 117–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodder, I., 1986: Reading the past, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hodder, I., 2000: Agency and individuals in long-term processes, in Dobres, M.-A. and Robb, J. (eds), Agency in archaeology, London, 21–33.Google Scholar
Hodder, I., 2012a: Entangled. An archaeology of the relationships between humans and things, Chichester.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodder, I., 2012b: Introduction. Contemporary theoretical debate, in Hodder, I. (ed.), Archaeological theory today, Cambridge, 1–14.Google Scholar
Hoskins, J., 2006: Agency, biography and objects, in Tilley, C., Keane, W., Küchler, S., Rowlands, M. and Spyer, P. (eds), Handbook of material culture, London, 74–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingold, T. (ed.) 1994: What is an animal? London.Google Scholar
Ingold, T., 2000: The perception of the environment. Essays in livelihood, dwelling and skill, London.Google Scholar
Ingold, T., 2001 (1998): From complementarity to obviation. On dissolving the boundaries between social and biological anthropology, archaeology, and psychology, in Oyama, S., Griffiths, P.E. and Gray, R.D. (eds), Cycles of contingency. Developmental systems and evolution, Cambridge, 255–80; first published in Zeitschrift für Etnologie 123, 21–52.Google Scholar
Ingold, T., 2006: Rethinking the animate, re-animating thought, Ethnos 71, 9–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingold, T., 2007: Materials against materiality, Archaeological dialogues 14 (1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingold, T., 2014: Is there life amidst the ruins? Journal of contemporary archaeology 1 (2), 231–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jennbert, K., 2011: Animals and humans, Lund.Google Scholar
Johannsen, N., 2012: Archaeology and the inanimate agency proposition. A critique and a suggestion, in Johannsen, N., Jenssen, M. and Juel Jensen, H. (eds), Excavating the mind. Cross-sections through culture, cognition and materiality, Aarhus, 305–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johannsen, N., Jenssen, M. and Juel Jensen, H. (eds) 2012: Excavating the mind. Cross-sections through culture, cognition and materiality, Aarhus.Google Scholar
Johnson, M., 1989: Conceptions of agency in archaeological interpretation, Journal of anthropological archaeology 8, 189–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, R.B., and Onwuegbuzie, A.J., 2004: Mixed methods research. A research paradigm whose time has come, Educational researcher 33, 14–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joyce, A.A., 2000: The founding of Monte Albán. Sacred propositions and social practices, in Dobres, M.-A. and Robb, J. (eds), Agency in archaeology, London, 71–91.Google Scholar
Kaminski, J., 2013: Dogs steal in the dark, Animal cognition 16, 385–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knappett, C., 2005: Thinking through material culture. An interdisciplinary perspective, Philadelphia.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knappett, C., 2007: Materials with materiality? Archaeological dialogues 14 (1), 20–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knappett, C., and Malafouris, L., 2008: Material and nonhuman agency. An introduction, in Knappett, C. and Malafouris, L. (eds.), Material agency. Towards a non-anthropocentric approach, New York, ix–xix.Google Scholar
Kohring, S., 2014: Materiality, technology, and constructing social knowledge through bodily representation. A view from prehistoric Guernsey, Channel Islands, European journal of archaeology 17, 248–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kvale, S., 2006: InterViews. An introduction to qualitative research interviewing, London.Google Scholar
Latour, B., 1993: We have never been modern, London.Google Scholar
Latour, B., 1999: Pandora's hope. Essays on the reality of science studies, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Latour, B., 2005: Reassembling the social. An introduction to actor-network theory, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindstrøm, T.C., 2009a: Different classes of entities, interactions, and identities. But have human perception of animals and objects really changed over time?, paper delivered at 31st Annual Meeting of the Theoretical Archaeology Group (UK-TAG), Durham, 17–19 December.Google Scholar
Lindstrøm, T.C., 2009b: Function or fashion? Costume and colour in the Villa dei Misteri fresco cycle, lecture delivered at Accordia Research Centre, Institute of Classical Studies, School of Advanced Studies, University of London, and Institute of Archaeology, University College London, University of London, 10 November 2009.Google Scholar
Lindstrøm, T.C., 2010: The animals of the arena. How and why could their destruction and death be endured and enjoyed?, World archaeology 42, 313–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindstrøm, T.C., 2012: ‘I am the walrus’. Animal identities and merging with animals – exceptional experiences? Norwegian archaeological review 45, 151–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindstrøm, T.C., 2014: Copy or not a copy? That's the question, El retrado privado en AVGVSTA EMERITA. Arqueologica clásica (CIAC 2013), Merida, 47–50.Google Scholar
Lindstrøm, T.C and Zubrow, E., 2014: Fear and amazement, in Eneix, L. (ed.), Archaeoacoustics. The archaeology of sound, Mayakka, 255–64.Google Scholar
Lucas, G., 2012: Understanding the archaeological record, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malafouris, L., 2013: How things shape the mind, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marx, K., 1959 (1932): Economic and philosophic manuscripts of 1844, Moscow.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maslow, A.H., 1966: The psychology of science. A reconnaissance, New York.Google Scholar
Merleau-Ponty, M., 1962: Phenomenology of perception, London.Google Scholar
Midgley, M., 1995: Beast and man. The roots of human nature, London.Google Scholar
Mlot, C., 1997: Stalking the ancient dog, Science news online, 28 June, available at www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc97/6_28_97/bob1.htm, retrieved 23 July 2008.Google Scholar
Moe, D., Fedele, F., Maude, A.E. and Kvamme, M., 2007: Vegetational changes and human presence in the low-alpine and subalpine zone in Val Febbraro, upper Valle di Spuga (Italian Central Alps), from the Neolithic to the Roman period, Vegetation history and archeobotany 16, 431–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molloy, K., and O’Connell, M., 2004: Holocene vegetation and land-use dynamics in the karstic environment of Inis Oírr, Aran Islands, western Ireland. Pollen analytical evidence evaluated in the light of the archaeological record, Quaternary international 113, 41–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mumford, S., and Anjum, R., 2011: What we tend to mean? Norsk filosofisk tidsskrift 46 (1), 20–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myrstad, R., 1996: Bjørnegraver i Nord-Norge. Spor etter den samiske bjørnekulten, Tromsø (Stensilserie B, historie/arkeologi 46).Google Scholar
Myszka, A., Piontek, J. and Miłosz, E., 2012: Traumatic injuries in the late medieval and early modern population from Lekno, Poland, Interdisciplinaria archaeologica 3, 237–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, R.K., 1983: Make prayers to the raven. A Koyukon view of the northern forest, Chicago.Google Scholar
Nilsson Stutz, L., 2010: The way we bury our dead. Reflections on mortuary ritual, community and identity at the time of the Mesolithic–Neolithic transition, Documenta praehistorica 37, 33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohman, A., and Mineka, S., 2001: Fears, phobias, and preparedness. Toward an evolved module of fear and fear learning, Psychological review 108, 483–522.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olsen, B., 2003: Material culture after text. Re-membering things, Norwegian archaeological review 36, 87–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, B., 2007: Keeping things at arm's length. A genealogy of asymmetry, World archaeology 39, 579–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, B., 2010: In the defence of things. Archaeology and the ontology of objects, Lanham, MD.Google Scholar
Olsen, B., Shanks, M., Webmoor, T. and Witmore, C., 2012: Archaeology. The discipline of things, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
Oma, K.A., 2010: Between trust and domination. Social contracts between humans and animals, World archaeology, 42, 175–87.Google Scholar
Ovchinnikov, I., Götherström, A., Romanova, G., Kharitonov, V., Lidén, K. and Goodwin, W., 2000: Molecular analysis of Neanderthal DNA from the northern Caucasus, Nature, 404, 490–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Overmier, J.B. 1986: Reassessing the learned helplessness hypothesis, Social science 71, 27–31.Google Scholar
Panksepp, J., 1998a: Affective neuroscience. The foundations of human and animal emotions, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panksepp, J. 1998b: The periconscious substrates of consciousness. Affective states and the evolutionary origins of the self, Journal of consciousness studies 5, 566–82.Google Scholar
Panksepp, J., 2005a: Affective consciousness. Core emotional feelings in animals and humans, Consciousness and cognition 14, 30–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Panksepp, J., 2005b: Beyond a joke. From animal laughter to human joy? Science 308, 62–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Panksepp, J., and Biven, L., 2010: The archaeology of mind. Neuroevolutionary origins of human emotion, New York.Google Scholar
Pauketat, T. 2001: Practice and history in archaeology, Anthropological theory 1, 73–98.Google Scholar
PBS-Nature, 2007: Dogs that changed the world. The rise of the dog, available at www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/dog/garbage.html, retrieved 8 May 2007.Google Scholar
Pedersen, M., 2001: Totemism, animism and north Asian indigenous ontologies, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 7, 411–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennisi, E., 1999: Did cooked tubers spur the evolution of big brains? Science 283, 2004–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pearce, M., 2011: Have rumours of the ‘death of theory’ been exaggerated?, in Bintliff, J. and Pearce, M. (eds), The death of archaeological theory?, Oxford, 80–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, M., 2013: The spirit of the sword and spear, Cambridge archaeological journal 23, 55–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, A., 1995: The mangle of practice. Time, agency, and science, Chicago.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, A., 2001: Reading the structure, Perspectives on science 9, 499–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S., 1999: How the mind works, New York.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Piontek, J., and Vančata, V., 2012: Transition to agriculture in central Europe. Body size and body shape amongst the first farmers, Interdisciplinaria archaeologica 3, 23–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plotnik, J.M., de Waal, F.B.M. and Reiss, D., 2006: Self-recognition in an Asian elephant, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (abstract) 103(45), 17053–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Povinelli, D.J., Rulf, A.B., Landau, K.R. and Bierschwale, D.T., 1993: Self-recognition in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Distribution, ontogeny, and patterns of emergence, Journal of comparative psychology 107, 347–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prag, J., and Neave, R., 1997: Making faces. Using forensic and archaeological evidence, College Station.Google Scholar
Prior, H., Schwarz, A. and Güntürkün, O., 2008: Mirror-induced behavior in the magpie (Pica pica): Evidence of self-recognition, PLoS Biology 6 (8), e202 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0060202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raby, C.R., Alexis, D.M., Dickinson, A. and Clayton, N.S., 2007: Planning for the future by western scrub jays, Nature 445, 919–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Renfrew, C., 2004: Towards a theory of material engagement, in Demarrais, E., Gosden, C. and Renfrew, C. (eds), Rethinking materiality, Cambridge, 23–32.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C., and Zubrow, E.B.W. (eds), 1994: The ancient mind. Elements of cognitive archaeology, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, E.S., 1988: The affordances of the animate environment. Social science from the ecological point of view, in Ingold, T. (ed.), What is an animal? London, 110–26.Google Scholar
Robb, J., 2010: Beyond agency, World archaeology 42, 493–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothbauer, P., 2008: Triangulation, in Given, L. (ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods, Thousand Oaks.Google Scholar
Ryan, C., and Jethá, C., 2010: Sex at dawn. The prehistoric origins of modern sexuality, New York.Google Scholar
Schiffer, M.B.(with A.R. Miller), 1999: The material life of human beings. Artifacts, behaviour and communication, London.Google Scholar
Schnapp, A., 1994: Are images animated. The psychology of statues in ancient Greece, in Renfrew, C. and Zubrow, E.B.W. (eds), The ancient mind. Elements of cognitive archaeology, Cambridge, 40–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scobie, A., and Taylor, A.J.W, 1975: Perversions ancient and modern. I. Agalmatophilia, the statue syndrome, Journal of the history of the behavioural sciences 11, 49–54.Google ScholarPubMed
Seligman, M.E.P., 1975: Helplessness. On depression, development, and death, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Serpell, J., 1995: The domestic dog. Its evolution, behaviour, and interactions with people, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Shackelford, T.K., Schmitt, D.P. and Buss, D.M., 2005: Universal dimensions of human mate preferences, Personality and individual differences 39, 447–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shanks, M., 2012: The archaeological imagination, Walnut Creek.Google Scholar
Shanks, M. and Tilley, C., 1987: Re-constructing archaeology. Theory and practice, London.Google Scholar
Sigurdsson, H., Cashdollar, S. and Sparks, S.R.J., 1982: The eruption of Vesuvius in AD 79. Reconstruction from historical and volcanological evidence, American journal of archaeology 86, 39–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smuts, B., 2002: Gestural communication in olive baboons and domestic dogs, in Bekoff, M., Allen, C. and Burghardt, G.M. (eds), The cognitive animal. Empirical and theoretical perspectives on animal cognition, Cambridge, 443–50.Google Scholar
Spector, T., 2012: Identically different, London.Google Scholar
Stamps, J.A., 2007: Growth–mortality tradeoffs and ‘personality traits’ in animals, Ecology letters 10, 355–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Teddlie, C., and Tashakkori, A. (eds.), 2003: Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioural research, Thousand Oaks.Google Scholar
Thomas, J., 2008: Phenomenology and material culture, in Tilley, C., Keane, W., Küchler, S., Rowlands, M. and Spyer, P. (eds), Handbook of material culture, Los Angeles, 43–59.Google Scholar
Tilley, C., 2006: Objectification, in Tilley, C., Keane, W., Küchler, S., Rowlands, M. and Spyer, P. (eds.), Handbook of material culture, London, 60–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilley, C., Keane, W., Küchler, S., Rowland, M. and Spyer, P. (eds), 2006: Handbook of material culture, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tinbergen, N., 1951: The study of instinct, Oxford.Google Scholar
Tolman, E. C., 1948: Purposive behaviour in animals and man, Psychological review 55, 189–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsao, D.Y., Freiwald, W.A., Tootell, R.B. and Livingstone, M.S., 2006: A cortical region consisting entirely of face-selective cells, Science 311, 670–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tsao, D.Y., Moeller, S. and Freiwald, W.A., 2008: Comparing face patch systems in macaques and humans, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science in the USA 105, 19514–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948. un.org.Google Scholar
Verbeek, P.-P., 2005: What things do. Philosophical reflections on technology, agency, and design, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Viveiros de Castro, E., 1998: Cosmological deixis and Amerindian perspectivism, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 4, 469–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webmoor, T., 2007: ‘What about one more turn after the social’ in archaeological reasoning? Taking things seriously, World archaeology 39, 563–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, S., and Jackson, R., 2002: Jumping spider tricksters. Deceit, predation, and cognition, in Bekoff, M., Allen, C. and Burghardt, G.M. (eds), The cognitive animal. Empirical and theoretical perspectives on animal cognition, Cambridge, 27–33.Google Scholar
Willerslev, R., 2007: Soul hunters. Hunting, animism and personhood among the Siberian Yukaghirs, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
Willerslev, R., and Ulturgasheva, O., 2012: Revisiting the animism versus totemism debate. Fabricating persons among the Eveny and Chukchi of north-eastern Siberia, in Brightman, M., Grotti, V.E. and Ulturgasheva, O. (eds), Animism in rainforest and tundra. Personhood, animals, plants and things in contemporary Amazonia and Siberia, New York, 48–68.Google Scholar
Witmore, C.L., 2007: Symmetrical archaeology. Excerpts of a manifesto, World archaeology 39, 546–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witmore, C.L., 2014: Archaeology and the new materialisms, Journal of contemporary archaeology 1 (2), 203–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witoszek, N., 1998: Norske naturmytologier. Fra Edda til økofilosofi, Oslo.Google Scholar
Wrangham, R., and Conklin-Brittain, N.L., 2003: Cooking as a biological trait, Comparative biochemistry and physiology, Part A 136, 35–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wynn, T., 2002: Archaeology and cognitive evolution, Behavioral and brain sciences 25, 389–438.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zastawnya, A., Rauba-Bukowskab, A., Trąbskac, J. and Trybalskad, B., 2013: Results of the microscopic analyses of vessels from assemblages of the Modlnica Type (with Furchenstichkeramik) from Site 5 in Modlnica, Kraków District, Poland, Interdisciplinaria archaeologica 3, 257–77.Google Scholar