‘Humans and other animals’ Dr. Samantha Hurn & Dr. Piers Locke, University of Wales Lampeter.

Panel Abstract: Interactions between human and non-human animals have been integral to human history. Non-human animals feature in Neolithic cave paintings, in ritual deposits, in burials and other more mundane contexts within the archaeological record. They also play significant roles in the contemporary or near contemporary human societies documented in the ethnographic record in the form of, for example, pets, livestock, totems, sustenance, adversaries and markers of status. Consequently the study of these interactions is an area of considerable interest to both archaeologists and social anthropologists. Moreover, while the disciplinary identities of archaeology and social anthropology are, in many respects, contingent on the recognition of fundamental and immutable differences between humans and other animals, evolutionary anthropology is predicated on some form of continuity, at least between humans and the other higher primates. Such a position is in many ways reminiscent of the beliefs and practices held by many of the peoples studied by archaeologists and social anthropologists. An open and ongoing dialogue between practitioners of all three disciplines therefore is of fundamental import, especially in the growing sub-field of animal studies or Anthrozoology. The panel brought together practitioners from all branches of anthropology and archaeology who are engaged in research involving human relationships with other animals, and who utilise interdisciplinary methodologies or theoretical perspectives. There were a large number of horse-related papers, details of which follow.

Never look a gift horse in the mouth? The trouble with nonhuman animals in human ceremonial exchanges
Author: Samantha Hurn (University of Wales, Lampeter) 

Abstract: The primacy of gift-giving in human societies past and present is well-documented, with countless examples of nonhuman animals given and received as gifts. However, little attention has been paid to the additional dimensions which the gifting of live ('inedible') animals brings to conventional ceremonial exchanges. When accepting an 'animal gift', the recipient not only becomes indebted to the donor, he/she also becomes liable for the animal's upkeep and engaged in a further reciprocal relationship with a nonhuman individual. Unlike inanimate gifts, animals have minds/personalities of their own which can impact on the relationship between giver and receiver. Therefore animals could be regarded as potentially dangerous gifts, unless the giver is confident 'their' animal will behave as desired. With diplomatic exchanges, the importance of animals displaying certain characteristics cannot be overemphasised, as these 'gifts' become ambassadors for, or symbolic representations of, their former owners. Consequently, one might argue the relationship takes on a form of intersubjectivity. However, can humans and nonhuman animals be involved in intersubjective relationships, if intersubjectivity is based on mutual/shared understanding, in addition to interaction/exchange? Or rather do 'animal gifts' represent convenient symbols for humans to manipulate? In considering the nature of the 'animal gift', this paper problematised intersubjectivity, engaging in a tentative discussion concerning the nature of this frequently used (and misused) term, and reflecting on the ways in which donors and recipients of 'animal gifts' think about themselves and each other through the perceived and actual characteristics of the nonhuman animals involved.

De-objectifying animal others: considering animals 'as such' in past and traditional communities
Author: Gala Argent (University of Leicester) 

Abstract: There is growing recognition that contemporary anthropological and archaeological paradigms for viewing human-nonhuman animal relationships can and should be expanded. This shift is funded in part by growing awareness that some animals seem to share with humans a set of characteristics—such as intelligence, emotions and sociality—it was previously believed that humans alone possessed.
Despite recent calls for de-objectifying animals, archaeological and anthropological studies continue to spotlight animals as either inert objects with properties to be measured, or as cultural abstractions, relevant only through the meanings humans construct about them. Further, when interspecies "relationships" are examined, the prevailing means of viewing such interaction often focuses upon the human domination and exploitation of nonhuman animals. These approaches miss the importance of intersubjectivity, relationality, cooperation and communication in interspecies interactions, and how significant animals interact with humans to co-create communities, identities and social realities. Further, they disavow the agency that animals can and do assert in human-animal relationships, and leave out of the equation the consideration of an essential element—the animals themselves.
In this presentation, I explore applying a Human-Animal Studies (HAS) approach to archaeological material. Stepping away from the embedded Cartesian ontological dualism separating humans from animal others—beliefs most probably unknown to prehistoric and many traditional societies—I interpret material from the Pazyryk Iron Age human-horse burials in South Siberia by first addressing horses, themselves. I conclude that incorporating animals important to particular societies in archaeological and anthropological studies as participants in joint projects allows for fresh interpretations of their roles in human culture.

Horses and their caretakers in east and central Asia
Authors: Rebecca Cassidy (Goldsmiths) and Mim Bower (University of Cambridge) 

Abstract: Our paper explored the possibilities of combining ethnographic with ancient and modern DNA data in order to understand the changing role of the horse in central and east Asia. We will compare findings from recent trips to Kyrgyzstan and Georgia, and reflect on the theoretical and methodological practices that enable and challenge our multidisciplinary perspective. Despite the significance of horse human relationships in central and east Asia, the ethnographic record is scattered and the impact of Collectivization and the collapse of the Soviet Union are largely unexplored. In part, our task is to document the region using photographs, video and interview. However, might these data also enable us to refine our understandings of DNA and fossil evidence? Equally, might DNA and fossil data cast new light on the stories we hear about animals in the field? Working on the borders between archaeology, archaeogenetics and anthropology, collaboration requires imagination and creates possibilities for new kinds of knowledge. These possibilities were the focus of our paper.

Finnish horse culture and the changing human-horse relationship
Author: Riitta-Marja Leinonen (University of Oulu) 

Abstract: Before the 1960s the Finnish horse culture was based on the use of a single native horse breed in agriculture, forestry, transportation, trotting races and military. Today the number of horses is down to one sixth of the top figures of the 1950s, and they have new roles in recreation, tourism, sports, and therapy. In particular, the popularity of riding has increased in the last two decades, giving women and children more visibility in the present horse culture. In this paper I discussed how these changes have affected the human-horse relationship and how the cultural meanings given to horses have changed from the 1930's to present.
The material used for this study consists of fieldwork, interviews and written narratives from the Finnish Literature Society's Folklore Archives. The interviews have been conducted between 1995 and 2005 and the narratives written in 1975 and 2003. The interviews and narratives are analysed by using narrative approach and methods of cognitive anthropology.
The preliminary results show a rich variety of cultural meanings given to a horse. The horse has been important economically, but the relationship has not been entirely utilitarian, for there are a lot of feelings attached to these animals. Narrators of all ages call the horse a friend, and giving up the horses for the army during the World War Two was very hard for the farmers and their families. Especially the meaning of the native horse, the Finnhorse, is represented through patriotic narratives related to agricultural work and war experiences.

A version of Riitta-Marja’s paper will be published in the next issue, (Volume 10) of the NES Journal of Equine Studies.

For more details on the panel and the ASA, please visit http://www.theasa.org/conferences/asa09/