The Scopes of Anthrozoology, the Study of Human-Animal Relationships in Turkey

Year 2018, Volume: 7 Issue: 2, 805 - 826, 30.06.2018

Abu Bakar Sıddıq , Çağdaş Erdem , Süleyman Şanlı

https://doi.org/10.15869/itobiad.392083

Cited By: 2

Abstract

Humans have been having a variety of interactions and relationships with
animals since the  beginning of life.
Anthrozoology focuses its researches on these interactions and relationships.
Bridging the continents of Asia, Europe and Africa, Turkey has been home to
miscellaneous animal species since the Pleistocene epoch. The Inhabitants of
the Anatolian Peninsula particularly had significant contributions in the
initial domestication of animals and distribution of the animal herding
throughout the Old World. The abundant faunal remnants in the Neolithic and
Early Bronze Age settlements in Anatolia also support these arguments. In
addition to the fact that Turkey is still one of the countries having more
widespread livestock farming in the world, large number of pets kept in the
urban life there also indicates the presence of strong relationships between
human beings and animals in the region. Therefore, this conceptual paper aims
to show how important anthrozoology researches are for Turkey.

Keywords

Anthrozology, Human-Animal relationship, Anatolia, Sociology, Anthropology

Türkiye’de İnsan-Hayvan İlişki Bilimi Antrozooloji’nin Faaliyet Alanları

Abstract

Dünya hayatının başlangıcından bu yana
insanlar, insandışı diğer hayvanlar ile farklı iletişim ve etkileşim
içerisindedir. Antrozooloji bu iletişim ve etkileşimler üzerinde çalışmalar
yapmaktadır. Türkiye’nin, Asya, Avrupa ve Afrika üzerinde bir köprü konumunda
olması, birçok hayvan türlerine de ev sahipliği yapmasına ve hala yapıyor
olmasına imkân sağlamıştır. Özellikle, ilk hayvan evcilleştirmesinin
başlamasının yanı sıra evcil hayvan yönetim sisteminin dağıtımında,
Anadolulular önemli katkılarda bulunmuştur. Anadolu’daki Erken Neolitik ve ilk
medeniyetlere ait yerleşimlerdeki zengin hayvan kalıntıları, bu yorumlara ışık
tutmaktadır. Ayrıca Türkiye’de halen dünyanın diğer ülkelerine göre nispeten
daha yaygın hayvancılığın olmasının yanında, toplumdaki sosyo-kültürel yapının
çok geniş bir parçası olarak hayvanlar rol oynamakta ve şehir kültüründe de çok
sayıda ev hayvanlarının olması, bu bölgede güçlü insan-hayvan ilişkileri
varlığına işaret etmektedir. Bu nedenle bu kavramsal çalışma, Türkiye için
Antrozoolojik çalışmaların ne kadar gerekli olduğunu göstermeyi amaçlamaktadır.

Keywords

Antrozooloji, İnsan-hayvan ilişkisi, Anadolu, Sosyoloji, Antropoloji

References

• Abanoz, N. (2008). Çağdaş Toplumlarda Hayvan Hakları ve Refahı. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Atılım Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara.
• Adams, G. J. & Johnson, K. G. (1994). Sleep, work, and the effects of shift work in drug detector dogs (Canis familiaris). Applied Animal Behaviour Science 41: 115-126.
• Aksulu, M. (2013). Yeni Toplumsal Hareketler: Türkiye’de Hayvan Hakları Savunuculuğu ve Sosyal Medya. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Maltepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İstanbul.
• Alger, J. M. & Alger, S. F. (1997). Beyond Mead: symbolic interaction between humans and Felines. Society & Animals 5 (1): 65-81.
• Alger, J. M. & Alger, S. F. (1999). Cat culture, human culture: an ethnographic study of a cat shelter. Society & Animals 7 (3): 199-218.
• Alger, J. M. & Alger, S. F. (2003). Drawing the line between humans and animals: an examination of introductory sociology textbooks. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 23: 69-93.
• Baird, D. (2012). Pınarbaşı: from Epi-Palaeolithic camp-site to sedentarising village in Central Anatolia. In: Özdoğan, M. et al., (eds.) The Neolithic in Turkey: New excavation & new research (Central Turkey). Istanbul: Archaeology & Art Publications: 181-218.
• Baird, D. (2014). Origins of caprine herding. PNAS 111 (24): 8702-8703.
• Bertenshaw, C. & Rowlinson, P. (2009). Exploring stock managers’ perceptions of the human-animal relationship on dairy farms and an association with milk production. Anthrozoos 22 (1): 59-69.
• Brochier, J. E. (1993). Çayönü Tepesi: domestication, rythmes and environment of PPNB. Paléorient 19 (2): 39-49.
• Bryant, C. D. (1979). The zoological connection: animal-related human behavior. Social Forces 58: 399-421.
• Cebe, R. & Soydan, E. (2012). Batman Yezidileri ve Yezidi sözlü kültürü. Batman Üniversitesi Yaşam Bilimleri Dergisi 1 (1): 1143-1152.
• Crutzen, P. J. & Stoermer, E. F. (2000). The “Anthropocene”. Global Change Newsletter 41: 17.
• Çiblak, Y. (2013). Tarsus kültürünün tanitiminda Şahmeran efsanelerinin önemi. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 16 (1): 185-196.
• Çiftci, E. (2017). Yeni assur kralliği’nda iki tekerlekli yük taşitlari. Uluslararası Bilimsel Araştırmalar Dergisi (IBAD) 2 (2): 210-223.
• Clutton-Brock, J. (1994). ‘The unnatural world: Behavioural aspects of humans and animals in the process of domestication’, In: Manning, A. & Serpell, J. A. (eds.) Animals and Human Society: Changing Perspectives. Routledge: 23-35.
• Ducos, P. (1978). “Domestication” defined and methodological approaches to its recognition in faunal assemblages’, In: Meadow, R. H. & Zeder, M. A. (eds.) Approaches to Faunal Analysis in the Middle East. Peabody Museum Bulletin 2, Harvard University Press: 49-52.
• Durgun, P. (2017). Human-animal interactions in Anatolian mortuary practices. Chronika 7: 11-27.
• Ersoy, E. (2009). Cinsiyet kültürü içerisinde kadin ve erkek kimliği (Malatya Örneği). Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 19 (2): 209-230.
• Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Friedmann, E., Thomas, S. A., Cook, L. K., Tsai, C. C., & Picot, S. J. (2007). A friendly dog as potential moderator of cardiovascular response to speech in older hypertensives. Anthrozoos 20 (1): 51-63.
• Gallup, G. (1970). Chimpanzees: self-recognition. Science 167 (3914): 86-87.
• Gray, P. B., Volsche, S. L., Garcia, J. R. & Fisher, H. E. (2015). The roles of pet dogs and cats in human courtship and dating. Anthrozoös 28 (4): 673-683.
• Griffin, D. R. & Speck, G. B. (2004). New evidence of animal consciousness. Animal Cognition 7 (1): 5-18. doi: 0.1007/s10071-003-0203-x.
• Gürler, A. M. & Osmanağaoğlu, Ş. (2009). Türkiye’de hayvanlari koruma kanununun tarihsel gelişimi. Kafkas Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi 15 (3): 325-330. doi: 10.9775/kvfd.2008.62-A.
• Hill, E. (2013). Archaeology and animal persons: toward a prehistory of human-animal relations. Environment and Society: Advances in Research 4: 117-136. doi:10.3167/ares.2013.040108.
• Hurn, S. (2012). Humans and Other Animals: Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Human-Animal Interactions. Pluto Books: 165-175.
• Irvine, L. (2007). The question of animal selves: implications for sociological knowledge and practice. Qualitative Sociology Review 3: 5-21.
• Irvine, L. (2012). Sociology and anthrozoology: symbolic interactionist contributions. Anthrozoös 25 (s1): s123-137.
• Knolle, F., Goncalves, R. P. & Morton, A. J. (2017). Sheep recognize familiar and unfamiliar human faces from two-dimensional images. Royal Society Open Science 4: 171228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.171228.
• Losch, S., Grupe, G. & Peters, J. (2006). Stable isotopes and dietary adaptations in humans and animals at pre-pottery Neolithic Nevali Çori, Southeast Turkey. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 131: 181-93.
• Mills, D. S. & Marchant-Forde, J. N. (eds.) (2010). ‘Anthrozoology’, In: Mills & Marchant-Forde, (eds.) The Encyclopedia of Applied Animal Behaviour and Welfare. CABI, Pp. 28-31.
• Morey, D. F. (1994). The early evolution of the domestic dog. American Scientist 82: 336-47.
• O’Connor, T. P. (1997). Working at relationships: another look at animal domestication. Antiquity 71: 149-56.
• Oğuz, M. Ö. (2006). Türkiye’nin Doğu Karadeniz kıyısında mayıs yedisi bayramı. Millî Folklor 69: 5-14.
• Onar, V. (2005). Estimating the body weight of dogs unearthed from the Van-Yoncatepe necropolis in eastern Anatolia. Tur. J. Veterinary and Animal Sciences 29: 495-498.
• Onar, V., Alpak, H., Pazvant, G., Armutak, A., Gezer, İ. N. & Kızıltan, Z. (2013). Animal skeletal remains of the Theodosius harbor: general overview. Tur. J. of Veterinary & Animal Sciences 37: 81-85.
• Özbaşaran, M. (2011). ‘The Neolithic on the plateau’, In: Steadmann, S. & McMahon, G. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia: (10.000-323 B.C.E.). Oxford: Oxford University Press: 99-124.
• Özbudun, S. & Uysal, G. (2016). 50 Soruda Antropoloji. İstanbul: Bilim ve Gelecek Kitaplığı. 4. Baskı.
• Peters, J. & Schmidt, K. (2004). Animals in the symbolic world of Pre-Pottery Neolithic Göbekli Tepe, South-eastern Turkey: a preliminary assessment. Anthropozoologica 39 (1): 179-218.
• Regan, T. (1983). The Case for Animal Rights. University of California Press. ISBN: 978-0520243866.
• Russell, N. (2016). Neolithic human-animal relations. Groniek 206/207: 21-32.
• Russell, N. & Martin, L. (2005). ‘The Çatalhöyük mammal remains’, In: Hodder, I. (ed.) Inhabiting Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 1995–1999 Seasons. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research: 33-98.
• Russell, N. & McGowan, K. J. (2003). Dance of the cranes: Crane symbolism at Çatalhöyük and beyond. Antiquity 77 (297): 445-455.
• Sanders, C. R. (1999). Understanding Dogs: Living and Working with Canine Companions. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
• Sanders, C. R. (2000). The impact of guide dogs on the identity of people with visual impairments. Anthrozoös 13: 131-139.
• Sanders, C. R. (2003). Actions speak louder than words: close relationships between humans and nonhuman animals. Symbolic Interaction 26: 405-426.
• Siddiq, A. B. (2016). ‘Anatolian farmers in Europe: migrations and cultural transformation in Early Neolithic period’, In: Kahraman, et al. (eds.) Proceeding book of 1st International Symposium on Migration and Culture (Vol. 2): 519-532; Amasya University, ISBN: 978-605-4598-22-9.
• Siddiq, A. B. (2017). Pastoral societies of Mardin province in southeastern Turkey -some anthrozoological aspects. Mukaddime, 8(2), 253-265.
• Siddiq, A. B. & Habib, A. (2016). Anthrozoology –an emerging robust multidisciplinary subfield of anthropological science. Green University Review of Social Sciences 3 (1): 45-67.
• Siddiq, A. B. & Habib, A. (2017). Antropoloji’de ortaya çıkan çok-disiplinli güçlü bir alt bilim: Antrozooloji. Artuklu İnsan ve Toplum Bilim Dergisi 2 (1): 22-35.
• Singer, P. (1975). Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals. Harper Collins, USA, ISBN: 978-0-06-171130-5.
• Stibbe, A. (2001). Language, power and the social construction of animals. Society & Animals 9 (2): 145-161.
• Stiner, M. C., Buitenhuis, H. & Duru. G. et al., (2014). A forager–herder trade-off, from broad-spectrum hunting to sheep management at Aşıklı Höyük, Turkey. PNAS 111 (23): 8404-8409. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1322723111.
• Yılmaz, O., Ertürk, Y., & Ertugrul, M. (2014). 4.000 years history of camel wrestling from middle Asia to Anatolia in Turks. Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi 2 (1): 37-44.
• Yüksek, T., Cengiz, T. & Yüksek, F. (2008). Doğal alanlarda festival etkinliklerinin koruma-kullanma açisindan değerlendirilmesi: kafkasör kültür, sanat ve turizm festivali örneği. Ekoloji 67: 37-45.
• Zeder, M. A. (2008). Domestication and early agriculture in the Mediterranean basin: origins, diffusion, and impact. PNAS 105: 11597-11604.
• Zeder, M. A. (2012). ‘Pathways to animal domestication’, In: Gept, P. et al., (eds.) Biodiversity in Agriculture: Domestication, Evolution, and Sustainability. Cambridge University Press: 228-259.