No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Grateful prey and animal sign
Reflections on food, the Palaeolithic and the nature-culture dichotomy
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 January 2009
Abstract
This paper reflects on the recent flourishing of the interdisciplinary study of food. Central is the notion that food forms a meeting-place for nature and culture, thereby overcoming this cartesian dichotomy. The paper starts from a discussion of the work of the French anthropologist P. Descola.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s) 2000
References
Beaune, S.A. de, 1995: Les hommes au temps de Lascaux (40000-10000 avant J.-C.), Paris.Google Scholar
Bird-David, N., 1999: ‘Animism revisited’: personhood, environment, and relational epistemology, Current anthropology 40 (Supplement), 67–91.Google Scholar
Bradley, R., 1984: The social foundations of prehistoric Britain. Themes and variations in the archaeology of power, London.Google Scholar
Davies, W., 2000: The palaeolithic and post-processualism. A pragmatic approach? Archaeological review from Cambridge 17–1, 5–17.Google Scholar
Descola, P., 1992: Societies of nature and the nature of society, in Kuper, A. (ed.), Conceptualizing society, London and New York, 107–126.Google Scholar
Descola, P., 1996: Constructing natures. Symbolic ecology and social practice, in Descola, P. and Pálsson, G. (eds), Nature and society. Anthropological perspectives, London and New York, 82–102.Google Scholar
Descola, P. and Pálsson, G., 1996: Introduction, in Descola, P. and Pálsson, G. (eds), Nature and society. Anthropological perspectives, London and New York, 1–21.Google Scholar
Gosden, C., 1999: Introduction, in Gosden, C. and Hather, J. (eds) The prehistory of food, appetites for change, London and New York, 1–9.Google Scholar
Ingold, T., 1994: From trust to domination. An alternative history of human-animal relations, in Manning, A. and Serpell, J. (eds), Animals and human society. Changing perspectives, London, 1–22.Google Scholar
Ingold, T., 1995: ‘People like us’: the concept of the anatomically modern human, in Corbey, R. and Theunissen, B. (eds), Ape, man, apeman. Changing views since 1600, Leiden, 241–262.Google Scholar
Kolen, J. and Lemaire, T., 1999: Landschap in meervoud: op weg naar een gespleten landschap?, in Kolen, J. and Lemaire, T. (eds), Landschap in meervoud: perspectieven op het Nederlandse landschap in de 20ste/21ste eeuw, Utrecht, 11–23.Google Scholar
Oudemans, Th.C.W., 1996: Heidegger and archaeology, Archaeological dialogues 3.1, 29–33.Google Scholar
Politis, G.G., 1999: Plant exploitation among the Nukak hunter-gatherers of Amazonia. Between ecology and ideology, in Gosden, C. and Hather, J. (eds), The prehistory of food, appetites for change, London and New York, 99–125.Google Scholar
Roebroeks, W., 2000: Food for thought. Naar aanleiding van het menu van de Neandertaler, Leiden (Inaugural lecture).Google Scholar
Schulting, R., 1999: Food for thought, thoughts for food. Reflections on the roles of food in society. (http://www.cf.ac.uk/hisar/conferences/tag99/food.html).Google Scholar
Tanner, A., 1979: Bringing home animals. Religious ideology and mode of production of the Mistassini Cree hunters, St. John.Google Scholar