Abram, S., and Lien, M. E. 2011. ‘Performing nature at world’s ends’, Ethnos 76: 3–18.Google Scholar

Abu-Lughod, L. 1991. ‘Writing against culture’, in Fox, R. (ed.), Recapturing anthropology: Working in the present. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press, pp. 466–479.Google Scholar

Agamben, G. 2004. The open: Man and animal. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Alexander, R. D. 1974. ‘The evolution of social behaviour’, Annual Review of Ecological Systematics 5: 325–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Andaya, B. W., and Andaya, L. Y. 1982. A history of Malaysia. London: Macmillan Education Ltd.Google Scholar

Andaya, L. Y. 2002. ‘Orang Asli and the Melayu in the history of the Malay Peninsula’, Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 75: 23–48.Google Scholar

Appadurai, A. 1990 [1986]. ‘Introduction: Commodities and the politics of value’, in Appadurai, A. (ed.), The social life of things: Commodities in cultural perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–63.Google Scholar

Århem, K. 2016. ‘Southeast Asian animism in context’, in Århem, K. and Sprenger, G. (eds.), Animism in Southeast Asia. London: Routledge, pp. 3–30.Google Scholar

Århem, K., and Sprenger, G. 2016. Animism in Southeast Asia. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Asch, M. 1989. ‘To negotiate into confederation: Canadian aboriginal views on their political rights’, in Wilmsen, E. W. (ed.), We are here: Politics of aboriginal land tenure. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 118–137.Google Scholar

Astuti, R. 2001. ‘Are we all natural dualists? A cognitive developmental approach’, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 7: 429–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Astuti, R., and Bloch, M. 2015. ‘The causal cognition of wrong doing: Incest, intentionality and morality’, Frontiers in Psychology 6: 136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Bamford, S. 1998. ‘Humanized landscapes, embodied worlds: Land and the construction of intergenerational continuity among the Kamea of Papua New Guinea’, Social Analysis 42: 28–54.Google Scholar

Barad, K. 2003. ‘Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter’, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 28: 801–831.Google Scholar

Barad, K. 2007. Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barnard, A. 1978. ‘Universal systems of kin categorization’, African Studies 37: 69–81.Google Scholar

Barnard, A. 1980. ‘Sex roles among the Nharo bushmen of Botswana’, Africa 50: 115–124.Google Scholar

Barnard, A. 1993. ‘Primitive communism and mutual aid: Kropotkin visits the Bushmen’, in Hann, C. M. (ed.), Socialism: Ideals, ideologies, and local practice. London: Routledge, pp. 27–42.Google Scholar

Barnard, A. 2001. The hunter-gatherer mode of thought (El sistema de pensamiento de los cazadores recolectores). Buenos Aires: Anales de la Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Buenos Aires.Google Scholar

Barnard, A. 2002. ‘The foraging mode of thought’, in Stewart, H., Barnard, A. and Omura, K. (eds.), Self- and other images of hunter-gatherers. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology, pp. 5–24.Google Scholar

Barnard, A. 2004. ‘Hunting-and-gathering society: An eighteenth-century Scottish invention’, in Barnard, A. (ed.), Hunter-gatherers in history, archaeology and anthropology. Oxford: Berg Publishers, pp. 31–43.Google Scholar

Barnard, A. 2011. Social anthropology and human origins. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Barnard, A. 2012. Genesis of symbolic thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Barton, R. F. 1946. ‘The religion of the Ifugaos’, American Anthropologist 48: 1–211.Google Scholar

Bateson, G. 1973. Steps to an ecology of mind: Collected essays in anthropology, psychiatry, evolution and epistemology. St Albans: Paladin.Google Scholar

Bauman, Z. 1993. Postmodern ethics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Béguet, V. 2012. ‘Iban petara as transformed ancestors’, in Couderc, P. and Sillander, K. (eds.), Ancestors in Borneo societies: Death, transformation, and social immortality. Copenhagen: NIAS Press, pp. 243–277.Google Scholar

Belshaw, C. S. 1964. Under the Ivi tree: Society and economic growth in rural Fiji. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Benjamin, G. 1966. ‘Temiar social groupings’, Federation Museums Journal 11: 1–43.Google Scholar

Bird-David, N. 1994. ‘Sociality and immediacy: Or, past and present conversations on bands’, Man 29: 583–603.Google Scholar

Bloch, M. 2008. ‘Why religion is nothing special but is central’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 363: 2055–2061CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Bloch, M. 2012. Anthropology and the cognitive challenge. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Blumenberg, H. 2007. Theorie der Unbegrifflichkeit. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.Google Scholar

Boon, J. A. 1977. The anthropological romance of Bali 1597–1972: Dynamic perspectives in marriage and caste, politics and religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Boon, J. A. 1982. Other tribes, other scribes: Symbolic anthropology in the comparative study of cultures, histories, religions, and texts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Boon, J. A., and Schneider, D. M. 1974. ‘Kinship vis-à-vis myth: Contrasts in Lévi-Strauss’ approaches to cross-cultural comparison’, American Anthropologist 76: 799–817.Google Scholar

Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Braidotti, R. 1991. Metamorphoses: Towards a materialist theory of becoming. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Brown, B. 2001. ‘Thing theory’, Critical Inquiry, 28: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bubandt, N. 1998. ‘The odour of things: Smell and the cultural elaboration of disgust in Eastern Indonesia’, Ethnos 63: 48–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Butler, J. 1990. Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Cabezón, J. 2010. Tibetan ritual. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Cadena, M. de la 2010. ‘Indigenous cosmopolitics in the Andes: Conceptual reflections beyond “politics”’, Cultural Anthropology 25: 334–370.Google Scholar

Candea, M. 2011. ‘Comment to can a species be a person (Carrithers, Bracken and Emery)’, Current Anthropology, 52: 675.Google Scholar

Capell, A. 1973 (orig. 1941). A new Fijian dictionary. Suva: Government Printer.Google Scholar

Carey, I. 1976. Orang Asli: The aboriginal tribes of Peninsular Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Carrithers, M. 1983. The forest monks of Sri Lanka: An anthropological and historical study. Delhi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Carrithers, M. 1989. ‘Sociality, not aggression is the key human trait’, in Howell, S. and Willis, R. (eds.), Societies at peace: Anthropological perspectives. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 187–209.Google Scholar

Carrithers, M. 1990. ‘Why humans have cultures’, Man 25: 189–206.Google Scholar

Carrithers, M. 1992. Why humans have cultures: Explaining anthropology and social diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Carrithers, M. 2001. ‘Sociality, anthropological aspects’, International Encyclopaedia of Social and Behavioural Sciences. Leyden: Elsevier, 14500–14504.Google Scholar

Carrithers, M. 2009. ‘Introduction’, in Carrithers, M. (ed.), Culture, rhetoric, and the vicissitudes of life. New York: Berghahn Books, pp. 1–17.Google Scholar

Carsten, J. 1997. The heat of the hearth: The process of kinship in a Malay fishing community. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Cederroth, S. 2016. ‘Gods and spirits in the Wetu Telu religion of Lombok’, in Århem, K. and Sprenger, G. (eds.), Animism in Southeast Asia. London: Routledge, pp. 236–256.Google Scholar

Cerruti, G. B. 1908. My friends the savages. Como, Italy: Tipografia Cooperative Commense.Google Scholar

Chemero, A. 2009. Radical embodied cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Clastres, P. 1977 [1974]. Society against the state: The leader as servant and the humane uses of power among the Indians of the Americas (transl. Hurley, Robert). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

Clifford, H. 1897. In court and kampong. London: The Richards Press.Google Scholar

Clifford, H. 1961. ‘Report of an Expedition into Trengganu and Kelantan in 1895’, Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 34: 1–162.Google Scholar

Clunie, F. 1986. Yalo I Viti Suva: Fiji Museum.Google Scholar

Comaroff, J. L. 1987. ‘Sui genderis: Feminism, kinship theory and structural “domains.”’, in Collier, J. F. and Yanagisako, S. J. (eds.), Gender and kinship: Essays toward a unified analysis. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 53–85.Google Scholar

Corsín Jiménez, A. 2008. ‘Well-being in anthropological balance: Remarks on proportionality as political imagination’, in Corsín Jiménez, A. (ed.) Culture and well-being: Anthropological approaches to freedom and political ethics. London: Pluto Press, pp. 180–197.Google Scholar

Corsín Jiménez, A., and Willerslev, R. 2007. ‘An anthropological concept of the concept: Reversibility among the Siberian Yukaghirs’, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 13: 527–544.Google Scholar

Couderc, P. and Sillander, K. 2012. ‘Introduction’, in Couderc, P. and Sillander, K. (eds.), Ancestors in Borneo societies: Death, transformation, and social immortality. Copenhagen: NIAS Press, pp. 1–61.Google Scholar

Crapanzano, V. 2010. ‘At the heart of the discipline: Critical reflections on fieldwork’, in Davies, J. and Spencer, D. (eds.), Emotions in the field: The psychology and anthropology of fieldwork experience. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 55–78.Google Scholar

da Col, G. 2012a. ‘Introduction: Natural philosophies of fortune – luck, vitality and uncontrolled relatedness’, Social Analysis 56: 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

da Col, G. 2012b. ‘The Elementary economies of Dechenwa life: Fortune, vitality, and the mountain in Sino-Tibetan borderlands’, Social Analysis 56: 74–98.Google Scholar

da Col, G. 2012c. ‘The poisoner and the parasite: Cosmoeconomics, fear, and hospitality among Dechen Tibetans’, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 18: 175–195.Google Scholar

da Col, G. and Humphrey, C. 2012. ‘Introduction: Subjects of luck – contingency, morality, and the anticipation of everyday life’, Social Analysis 56: 1–18.Google Scholar

Dallos, C. 2016. ‘Beyond economic gain: Strategic use of trade in boundary maintenance by Semang collectors of Peninsular Malaysia’, in Endicott, K. (ed.), Malaysia’s “original people”: Past, present and future of the Orang Asli. Singapore: National University of Singapore Press, pp. 403–422.Google Scholar

Dalton, J. P. 2011. The taming of the demons: Violence and liberation in Tibetan Buddhism. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Davaa-Ochir, G. 2008. Oboo worship: The worship of earth and water divinities in Mongolia. Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Oslo.Google Scholar

Delaney, C. 1990. The seed and the soil: Gender and cosmology in Turkish village society. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Delaney, C. 2001. Tohum ve toprak. Istanbul: Iletisim Yayınları.Google Scholar

Delaney, C. 2013. ‘At the boundaries of the body, the house, the village, and the nation’, paper presented at the British Institute of Archeology, Ankara.Google Scholar

Deleuze, G., and Guattari, F. 1994. What is philosophy? London: Verso.Google Scholar

Deleuze, G., and Guattari, F. 2010. A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Dentan, R. K. 1968. The Semai: A nonviolent people of Malaya. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar

Dentan, R. K. 1978. ‘Notes on childhood in a nonviolent context: The Semai case’, in Montagu, A. (ed.), Learning nonaggression. London: Oxford University Press, pp. 94–143.Google Scholar

Dentan, R. K. 1992. ‘The rise, maintenance and destruction of peaceable polity: A preliminary essay in political ecology’, in Silverberg, J. and Gray, J. P. (eds.), Aggression and peacefulness in humans and other primates. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 214–270.Google Scholar

Dentan, R. K. 1999. ‘Spotted doves at war: The Praak Sangkiil’, Asian Folklore Studies 63: 397–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dentan, R. K. 2007. ‘Arifin in the iron cap: Confessions of a young man, drowning’, in Waterson, R. H. (ed.), Southeast Asian lives: Personal narratives and historical experience. Singapore and Athens: Singapore University Press and Ohio University Press, pp. 181–220.Google Scholar

Dentan, R. K. 2008. Overwhelming terror: Love, fear, peace, and violence among Semai of Malaysia. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar

Dentan, R. K. 2010. ‘Nonkilling social arrangements’, in Sponsel, L. and Pim, J. E. (eds.), Nonkilling societies. Honolulu: Center for Global Nonkilling, pp. 131–182.Google Scholar

Dentan, R. K. 2011. ‘Childhood, familiarity and social life among East Semai’, in Gibson, T. and Sillander, K. (eds.), Anarchic solidarity: Autonomy, equality, and fellowship in Southeast Asia. New Haven: Yale Southeast Asia Studies Program, pp. 88–118.Google Scholar

Dentan, R. K., Endicott, K., Gomes, A. G., and Hooker, M. B. 1997. Malaysian and the “Original People”: A case study of the impact of development on indigenous peoples. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar

Descola, P. 2005. Par-delà nature et culture. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar

Descola, P. 2013. Beyond nature and culture. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Descombes, V. 2014 [1996]. The institutions of meaning: A defense of anthropological holism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Desjarlais, R. R. 1992. Body and emotion: The aesthetics of illness and healing in the Nepal Himalayas. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar

Dodge, N. N. 1981. ‘The Malay-Aborigine nexus under Malay rule’, Bijdragen Tot de Taal—, Land—en Volkenkunde van Nederlandsch-Indie 137: 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dumont, L. 1966. Homo hierarchicus: Essai sur le système des castes. Paris: Galimard.Google Scholar

Dunn, F. L. 1975. Rain-forest collectors and traders: A study of resource utilization in modern and ancient Malaya. Monographs of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, No. 5. Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society.Google Scholar

Empson, R. 2011. Harnessing fortune. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Empson, R. 2012. ‘The dangers of excess: Accumulating and dispersing fortune in Mongolia’, Social Analysis 56: 117–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Endicott, K. L., and Endicott, K. M. 2014. ‘Batek childrearing and morality’, in Narvaez, D., Fuentes, A., and Gray, P. (eds.), Ancestral landscapes in human evolution: Culture, childrearing and social wellbeing. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 108–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Endicott, K. M. 1970. An analysis of Malay magic. Singapore: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Endicott, K. M 1979a. ‘The Batek Negrito thunder God: The personification of a natural force’ in Becker, A. L. and Yengoyan, A. A. (eds.), The imagination of reality: Essays in Southeast Asian coherence systems. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp, pp. 29–42.Google Scholar

Endicott, K. M. 1979b. Batek Negrito religion: The world-view and rituals of a hunting and gathering people of Peninsular Malaysia. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Endicott, K. M. 1983. ‘The effects of slave raiding on the aborigines of the Malay Peninsula’, in Reid, A. (ed.), Slavery, bondage and dependency in Southeast Asia. St. Lucia, Queensland: University of Queensland Press, pp. 216–245.Google Scholar

Endicott, K. M 1997. ‘Batek history, interethnic relations, and subgroup dynamics’, in Winzeler, R. L. (ed.), Indigenous peoples and the state: Politics, land, and ethnicity in the Malayan Peninsula and Borneo. New Haven: Yale University Southeast Asia Studies, pp. 30–50.Google Scholar

Endicott, K. M. 2011. ‘Cooperative autonomy: Social solidarity among the Batek of Malaysia’, in Gibson, T. and Sillander, K. (eds.), Anarchic solidarity: Autonomy, equality, and fellowship in Southeast Asia. New Haven: Yale Southeast Asia Studies, pp. 62–87.Google Scholar

Endicott, K. M. 2013. ‘Peaceful foragers: The significance of the Batek and Moriori for the question of innate human violence’, in Fry, D. P. (ed.), War, peace, and human nature: The convergence of evolutionary and cultural views. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 243–261.Google Scholar

Endicott, K. M., and Endicott, K. L. 2008. The headman was a woman: The gender egalitarian Batek of Malaysia. Long Grove: Waveland Press.Google Scholar

Endres, K. 2011. Performing the divine: Mediums, markets and modernity in urban Vietnam. Copenhagen: NIAS Press.Google Scholar

Enfield, N., and Levinson, S. 2006. Roots of human sociality: Culture, cognition and interaction. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar

Evans, I. H. N. 1915. ‘Notes on the aboriginal inhabitants of Ijok in the district of Selama, Perak’, Journal of the Federated Malay States Museum 5(4): 176–186.Google Scholar

Evans, I. H. N. 1937. The Negritos of Malaya. London: Frank Cass.Google Scholar

Evans-Pritchard, E. E. 1965 [1963]. ‘The comparative method in social anthropology’, in The position of women in primitive societies and other essays in social anthropology. London: Faber and Faber, pp. 13–36.Google Scholar

Fajans, Jane. 1997. They make themselves: Work and play among the Baining of Papua New Guinea. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Farmer, P. 2004. ‘An anthropology of structural violence’, Current Anthropology 45(3): 305–325.Google Scholar

Feinberg, R. 2001. ‘Introduction: Schneider’s cultural analysis of kinship and its implications for anthropological relativism’, in Feinberg, R. and Ottenheimer, M. (eds.), The cultural analysis of kinship: The legacy of David M. Schneider. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, pp. 1–32.Google Scholar

Fjeld, H. 2007. The rise of the polyandrous house: Marriage, kinship and social mobility in rural Tsang. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Oslo.Google Scholar

Fjelstad, K., and Nguyen, T. H. 2006. Possessed by the spirits: Spirit mediumship in contemporary Vietnamese communities. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Fjelstad, K., and Nguyen, T. H. 2011. Spirits without borders: Vietnamese spirit mediums in a transnational age. New York: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fogelson, R. 2001. ‘Schneider confronts componential analyses’, in Feinberg, R. and Ottenheimer, M. (eds.), The cultural analysis of kinship: The legacy of David M. Schneider. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, pp. 33–45.Google Scholar

Fortes, M., and Evans-Pritchard, E. E. 1940. ‘Introduction’, in African Political Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–24.Google Scholar

Foucault, M. 2008. The birth of biopolitics: Lectures at the College De France 1978–1979. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Franzen, J. 2011. ‘Technology provides an alternative to love’, The New York Times, 29 May.Google Scholar

Gardner, A. 2006. ‘The sa chog: Violence and veneration in a Tibetan soil ritual’, Études mongoles et sibériennes, centralasiatiques et tibétaines 36: 283–323.Google Scholar

Geertz, C. 1973. The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Gell, A. 1998. Art and agency: An anthropological theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Gibson, J. J. 1977. ‘The theory of affordances’, in Shaw, R. and Bransford, J. (eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing: Toward an ecological psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 67–82.Google Scholar

Gibson, J. J. 1979. The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar

Gibson, T. and Sillander, K. (eds.) 2011. Anarchic solidarity: Autonomy, equality, and fellowship in Southeast Asia. New Haven: Yale Southeast Asia Studies.Google Scholar

Gilbert, M. 2000. Sociality and responsibility: New essays in plural subject theory. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar

Gomes, A. 2010. ‘Menraq and the violence of modernity’, in Pim, J. E. (eds.), Nonkilling societies. Honolulu: Center for Global Nonkilling, pp. 243–268.Google Scholar

Gray, P. 2009. ‘Play as a foundation for hunter-gatherer social existence’, American Journal of Play 1: 476–522.Google Scholar

Gullick, J. M. 1958. Indigenous political systems of western Malaya. London School of Economics Monographs on Social Anthropology, No. 17. London: The Athlone Press.Google Scholar

Gyatso, J. 1989. ‘Down with the demonness: Reflections on a feminine ground in Tibet’, in Willis, J. D. (ed.), Feminine ground: Essays on women and Tibet. Ithaca: Snow, pp. 33–51.Google Scholar

Gyatso, J. 1998. Apparitions of the self: The secret biography of a Tibetan visionary. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Haraway, D. 2008. When species meet. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar

Harvey, D. 1990. The condition of post modernity. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Harvey, P., Casella, E. C., Evans, G., Knox, H., McLean, C., et al. 2013. Objects and materials: A Routledge companion. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Heikkilä, K. 2016. ‘In situ testimonies: The witness of whetstones and Semai Orang Asli toponyms to the Rawa Malay slave raids’, Erdkunde 70: 341–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Henare, A., Holbraad, M., and Wastell, S. (eds.). (2010). Thinking through things: Theorising artefacts ethnographically. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Hicks, D. 2010. ‘The material-cultural turn: Event and effect’, in Hicks, D. and Beaudry, M. C. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of material culture studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 25–98.Google Scholar

Hobbes, T. 1996 [1651]. Leviathan (revised student edition, edited by Tuck, R.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hocart, A. M. n.d. The heart of Fiji. Turnbull Library, National Library, Wellington, New Zealand.Google Scholar

Holbraad, M. 2011. ‘Can the thing speak?’ Working Papers Series #7: Open Anthropology Cooperative Press.Google Scholar

Hooper, S. 1982. A study of valuables in the chiefdom of Lau, Fiji. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar

Hooper, S. 2013. ‘“Supreme among our valuables”: Whale teeth, tabua, chiefship and power in Eastern Fiji’, Journal of the Polynesian Society 122: 103–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hoskins, J. 1998. Biographical objects: How things tell the stories of people’s lives. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Hoskins, J. 2013. ‘Trance dancers or interlocutors of the immortals? Gender and Vietnamese spirit mediums in contrasting traditions’. Reassessing ritual: Conference proceedings, Kyoto University Center for Southeast Asian Studies, in collaboration with the Asia Research Institute, National University of Singapore.Google Scholar

Hoskins, J. 2014a. ‘Folklore as a sacred heritage: Vietnamese indigenous religions in California, in Lee, J. (ed.), Asian American identities and practices: Folkloric expressions in everyday life. New York: Lexington Books, pp. 185–198.Google Scholar

Hoskins, J. 2014b. ‘The spirits you see in the mirror: Spirit possession in the Vietnamese American diaspora’, in Lee, J. (ed.), The Southeast Asian diaspora in the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Press, pp. 74–101.Google Scholar

Hoskins, J. 2015. The divine eye and the diaspora: Vietnamese syncretism becomes transpacific Caodaism. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar

Howell, S. 1984. Society and cosmos: Chewong of Peninsular Malaysia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Howell, S. 1987. ‘From child to human: Chewong concepts of self’, in Jahoda, G. and Lewis, I. M. (eds.), Acquiring culture: Cross-cultural studies in child development. London: Croom Helm, pp. 147–168.Google Scholar

Howell, S. 1989a. ‘Of persons and things: Exchange and valuables among the Lio of eastern Indonesia’, Man 24: 419–438.Google Scholar

Howell, S. 1989b. Society and cosmos: Chewong of Peninsular Malaysia. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Howell, S. 1989c. ‘“To be angry is not human, but to be fearful is”: Chewong concepts of human nature’ in Howell, S. and Willis, R. (eds.), Societies at peace: Anthropological perspectives. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 45–59.Google Scholar

Howell, S. 1990. ‘Husband/wife or brother/sister as the key relationship in Lio kinship and sociosymbolic relations’, Ethnos 55: 248–259.Google Scholar

Howell, S. 1995a. ‘Rethinking the mother’s brother: Gendered aspects of kinship and marriage among the Northern Lio, Indonesia’, Indonesia Circle 23: 293–317.Google Scholar

Howell, S. 1995b. ‘The Lio house: Building, category, idea, value’, in Carsten, J. and Hugh-Jones, S. (eds.), About the house: Lévi-Strauss and beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 149–169.Google Scholar

Howell, S. 1996. ‘Many contexts, many meanings? Gendered values among the Lio of Indonesia’, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute (n.s.) 2: 253–269.Google Scholar

Howell, S. 2001. ‘Self-conscious kinship: Some contested values in Norwegian transnational adoption’, in Franklin, S. and McKinnon, S. (eds.), Relative values: Reconfiguring kinship studies. Durham: Duke University Press, pp. 203–233.Google Scholar

Howell, S. 2003. ‘Kinning: Creating life-trajectories in adoptive families’, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute (n.s.) 9: 465–484.Google Scholar

Howell, S. 2006. The kinning of foreigners: Transnational adoption in a global perspective. New York: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar

Howell, S. 2011a. ‘Sources of sociality in a cosmological frame: Chewong, Peninsular Malaysia’, in Gibson, T. and Sillander, K. (eds.), Anarchic solidarity: Autonomy, equality, and fellowship in Southeast Asia. New Haven: Yale Southeast Asia Studies, pp. 40–61.Google Scholar

Howell, S. 2011b. ‘Whatever happened to the spirit of adventure’, in Jebens, H. and Kohl, K.-H. (eds.), The end of anthropology? Wantage: Sean Kingston Publishing, pp. 139–154.Google Scholar

Howell, S. 2012a. ‘Knowledge, morality, and causality in a ‘luckless’ society: The case of the Chewong in the Malaysian rain forest’, Social Analysis 56: 133–147.Google Scholar

Howell, S. 2012b. ‘Cumulative understandings: Experiences from the study of two Southeast Asian societies’, in Howell, S. and Talle, A. (eds.), Returns to the field: Multitemporal fieldwork and contemporary anthropology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 153–180.Google Scholar

Howell, S. 2013. ‘Metamorphosis and identity: Chewong animistic ontology’, in Harvey, G. (ed.), The handbook of contemporary animism. New York: Routledge, pp. 101–112.Google Scholar

Howell, S. 2016. ‘Seeing and knowing: Metamorphosis and the fragility of species in Chewong animistic ontology’, in Århem, K. and Sprenger, G. (eds.), Animism in Southeast Asia. London: Routledge, pp. 55–72.Google Scholar

Howell, S., and Talle, A. (eds.) 2012. Returns to the field: Multitemporal research and contemporary anthropology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

Howell, S., and Willis, R. 1989a. ‘Introduction’, in Howell, S. and Willis, R. (eds.), Societies at peace: Anthropological perspectives. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 1–28.Google Scholar

Howell, S., and Willis, R. (eds.) 1989b. Societies at peace: Anthropological perspectives. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Huber, T. 1999. The cult of pure crystal mountain: Popular pilgrimage and visionary landscape in southeast Tibet. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Humphrey, C. 1995. ‘Chiefly and shamanist landscapes in Mongolia’, in Hirsch, E. and O’Hanlon, M. (eds.), The anthropology of landscape: Perspectives on place and space. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 135–162.Google Scholar

Humphrey, C. 2006. ‘The president and the seer: A case study of prophesy and scientific attitudes in modern political life’, in Empson, R. (ed.), Time, causality and prophecy in the Mongolian cultural region: Visions of the future. Folkstone: Global Oriental, pp. 98–115.Google Scholar

Humphrey, C. 2007. ‘Inside and outside the mirror: Mongolian shamans’ mirrors as instruments of perspectivism’, Inner Asia 9: 173–195.Google Scholar

Ingold, T. 1990. ‘Comment on “Foragers, genuine or spurious? Situating the Kalahari San in history”’ (Solway, Jacqueline S. and Lee, Richard B.), Current Anthropology 31: 130–131.Google Scholar

Ingold, T. 1991. ‘Becoming persons: Consciousness and sociality in human evolution’, Cultural Dynamics 4: 355–378.Google Scholar

Ingold, T. 1996. ‘The concept of society is theoretically obsolete’, in Ingold, T. (ed.), Key debates in anthropology. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 55–98.Google Scholar

Ingold, T. 1999. ‘On the social relations of the hunter-gatherer band’, in Lee, R. B. and Daly, R. (eds.), The Cambridge encyclopedia of hunters and gatherers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 399–410.Google Scholar

Ingold, T. 2000. ‘The temporality of landscape’, in Ingold, T. (eds.), The perception of the environment: Essays in livelihood, dwelling and skill. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 189–208.Google Scholar

Ingold, T. 2007. ‘Materials against materiality’, Archeological Dialogues 14: 1–16.Google Scholar

Ingold, T. 2010. ‘Bringing things to life: Creative entanglements in a world of materials’, Realities: Part of the EASC national centre for research methods. Working paper #15, University of Aberdeen.Google Scholar

Ingold, T. 2013. ‘Prospect’, in Ingold, T. and Palsson, G. (eds.), Biosocial becomings: Integrating social and biological anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–21.Google Scholar

Janowski, M. 2016. ‘The dynamics of the cosmic conversation: Beliefs about spirits among the Kelabit and Penan of upper Baram river, Sarawak’, in Århem, K. and Sprenger, G. (eds.), Animism in Southeast Asia. London: Routledge, pp. 181–204.Google Scholar

Jest, C. 1991. ‘Settlements in Dolpo’, in Toffin, G. (ed.), Man and his house in the Himalaya. New Dehli: Sterling, pp. 193-208.Google Scholar

Joas, H. 1985. G. H. Mead: A contemporary re-examination of his thought. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Jones, A. 1968. ‘The Orang Asli: An outline of their progress in modern Malaya’, Journal of Southeast Asian History 9: 286–305.Google Scholar

Kaartinen, T. 2016. ‘Boundaries of humanity: Non-human others and animist ontology in Eastern Indonesia’, in Århem, K. and Sprenger, G. (eds.), Animism in Southeast Asia. London: Routledge, pp. 219–235.Google Scholar

Keane, W. 2005. ‘Signs are not the garb of meaning: On the social analysis of material things’, in Miller, D. (ed.), Materiality. Durham: Duke University Press, pp. 182-205.Google Scholar

Kemple, T. M. 2007. ‘Introduction: Allosociality bridges and doors to Simmel’s social theory’, Theory, Culture & Society 24: 1–19.Google Scholar

Kingery, D. (ed.) 1995. Learning from things: Method and theory of material culture studies. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar

Kirksey, S. E., and Helmreich, S. 2010. ‘The emergence of multispecies ethnography’, Cultural Anthropology 25: 545–576.Google Scholar

Kirksey, E., Scheutze, C., and Helmreich, S. 2014. ‘Introduction’, in Kirksey, E. (ed.), The multispecies salon. Durham: Duke University Press, pp. 1–24.Google Scholar

Knappet, K. 2005. Thinking through material culture: An interdisciplinary perspective. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar

Knorr-Cetina, K. 1997. ‘Sociality with object: Social relations in post-social knowledge societies’, Theory, Culture & Society 14: 1–30.Google Scholar

Kohn, E. 2013. How forests think: Toward an anthropology beyond the human. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Kolen, J. 2009. ‘The ‘anthropologization’ of archaeological heritage’, Archaeological Dialogues 16: 209–225.Google Scholar

Kopytoff, I. 1990. ‘The cultural biography of things: Commoditization as process’, in Appadurai, A. (ed.), The social life of things: Commodities in cultural perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 64–91.Google Scholar

Kratoska, P. H. 1997. The Japanese occupation of Malaya: A social and economic history. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar

Kropotkin, P. 1987 [1902]. Mutual aid: A factor of evolution. London: Freedom Press.Google Scholar

Kuper, A. 2005 [1988]. The reinvention of primitive society: Transformations of a myth. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar

Kværne, P. 1987. ‘Dualism in Tibetan cosmogonic myths and the question of Iranian influence’, in Beckwith, C. (ed.), Silver on lapis: Tibetan literary culture and history. Bloomington: The Tibet Society, pp. 163–174.Google Scholar

Laidlaw, J. 2008. ‘The intension and extension of well-being: Transformation in diaspora Jain understandings of non-violence’, in Jiménez, A. C. (ed.), Culture and well-being: Anthropological approaches to freedom and political ethics. London: Pluto Press, pp. 156–179.Google Scholar

Latour, B. 1993. We have never been modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Latour, B. 2005. Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Law, J. 2007. After method: Mess in social science research. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Law, J. 2009. ‘Actor network theory and material semiotics’, in Turner, B. S. (ed.), The new Blackwell companion to social theory. Oxford: Blackwell-Wiley, pp. 141–158.Google Scholar

Law, J., and Lien, M. E. 2012. ‘Slippery: Field notes on empirical ontology’, Social Studies of Science 43: 363–378.Google Scholar

Law, J. and Mol, A. 1995. ‘Notes on materiality and sociality’, The Sociological Review 43: 274–294.Google Scholar

Lazar, S. 2013. ‘Group belonging in trade unions: Idioms of sociality in Bolivia and Argentina’, in Long, N., and Moore, H. (eds.), Sociality: New directions. Oxford: Berghahn Books, pp. 83–100.Google Scholar

Leach, E. 1964. Political systems of Highland Burma: A study of Kachin social structure. London: London School of Economics and Political Science.Google Scholar

Leary, J. D. 1995. Violence and the dream people: The Orang Asli in the Malayan emergency 1948–1960. Monographs in International Studies, Southeast Asia Series Number 95. Athens: Ohio University Center for International Studies.Google Scholar

Lee, R. B. 1979. The !Kung San: Men, women, and work in a foraging society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Leenhardt, M. 1947. Do Kamo: La personne et le mythe dans le monde mélanésien. Paris: Galimard.Google Scholar

Leenhardt, M. 1979. Do Kamo: Person and myth in the Melanesian world. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Lévi-Strauss, C. 1969 [1949]. The elementary structures of kinship. Revised and translated from the French by Bell, J. H., von Sturmer, J. R., and Needham, R.. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar

Lewis, G. 1980. Day of shining red: An essay on understanding ritual. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lien, M. E. 2015. Becoming salmon: Aquaculture and the domestication of a fish. Oakland: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Lien, M. E., and Law, J. 2013. ‘Animal architextures’, in Harvey, P., Casella, E., Evans, G., Knox, H., McLean, C., et al. (eds.), Objects and materials. Oxon: Routledge, pp. 329–337.Google Scholar

Lindahl, J. 2010. ‘The ritual veneration of Mongolia’s mountains’, in Cabezón, J. (ed.), Tibetan ritual. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 225–248.Google Scholar

Lindskog, B. V. 2011. Collectivity in the making: Homeland, belonging and ritual worship among Halh herders in Central Mongolia. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Oslo.Google Scholar

Lindstrom, M. 2011. ‘You love your iPhone. Literally’, The New York Times, 30 September.Google Scholar

Locke, J. 1988 [1690]. Two treatises of government (student edition, edited by Peter Laslett). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Long, N. J. 2013. ‘Utopian sociality: Online’, in Long, N. and Moore, H. (eds.), Sociality: New directions. New York: Berghahn Books, pp. 101–116.Google Scholar

Long, N. J., and Moore, H. L. 2013. ‘Introduction: Sociality’s new directions’, in Long, N. J. and Moore, H. (eds.), Sociality: New directions. New York: Berghahn Books, pp. 1–24.Google Scholar

Lye, Tuck-Po. 2004. Changing pathways: Forest degradation and the Batek of Pahang, Malaysia. Lanham: Lexington Books.Google Scholar

Macdonald, C. 2011. ‘A theoretical overview of anarchic solidarity’, in Gibson, T. and Sillander, K. (eds.), Anarchic solidarity: Autonomy, equality, and fellowship in Southeast Asia. New Haven: Yale Southeast Asia Studies, pp. 17–39.Google Scholar

Maffesoli, M. 1996. The time of the tribes: The decline of individualism in mass society. London: Sage.Google Scholar

Maloni, V. A. 2004. Na Noda Bula Na I Taukei. Suva: Centerbay Publishers.Google Scholar

Marcus, G., and Fischer, M. 1986. Anthropology as cultural critique: An experimental moment in the human sciences. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Maréchaux, P. 1991. ‘Two houses in the Tibetan cultural tradition’, in Toffin, G. (ed.), Man and his house in the Himalayas. New Delhi: Sterling Publishers, pp. 209–224.Google Scholar

Marshall, L. 1976. The !Kung of Nyae Nyae. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Marwick, B. 2003. ‘Pleistocene exchange networks as evidence for the evolution of language’, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 13: 67–81.Google Scholar

Maryanski, A., and Turner, J. H. 1992. The social cage: Human nature and the evolution of society. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Massumi, B. 2002. Parables for the virtual: Movement, affect, sensation. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar

Maturana, H. R., and Varela, F. J. 1980 (orig. 1972). Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar

Maturana, H. R., and Varela, F. J. 1988. The tree of knowledge: The biological roots of human understanding. Boston: Shambhala Publications.Google Scholar

Mauss, M. 1938. ‘Une catégorie de l’esprit humain: La notion de personne celle de “moi”’, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 68 : 263–281.Google Scholar

Mauss, M. 2000. The gift: The form and reason for exchange in archaic societies. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar

Maxwell, W. E. 1880. ‘The aboriginal tribes of Perak’, Journal of the Straits Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 4: 46–50.Google Scholar

McBrearty, S., and Brooks, A. S. 2000. ‘The revolution that wasn’t: A new interpretation of the origins of modern humans’, Journal of Human Evolution 39: 453–563.Google Scholar

McCallum, C. 2001. Gender and sociality in Amazonia: How real people are made. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar

McKinnon, S. 1991. From a shattered sun: Hierarchy, gender, and alliance in the Tanimbar Islands. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar

McKinnon, S. 2000. ‘Domestic exceptions: Evans-Pritchard and the creation of Nuer patrilineality and equality’, Cultural Anthropology 15: 35–84.Google Scholar

Mead, G. H. 1932. The philosophy of the present. La Salle: Open Court.Google Scholar

Mead, G. H. 1934. Mind, self, and society from the standpoint of a social behaviorist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Mead, G. H. 1938. The philosophy of the act. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Meeker, M. 1970. The Black Sea Turks: A study of honor, descent and marriage. PhD dissertation. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar

Merleau-Ponty, M. Phenomenology of perception. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Miklucho-Maclay, N. 1878. ‘Ethnological excursions in the Malay Peninsula – November 1874 to October 1875 (Preliminary Communication)’, Journal of the Straits Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 2: 205–221.Google Scholar

Miller, D. (ed.) 1998. Material cultures: Why some things matter. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Miller, D. 2005a. ‘Introduction’, in Miller, Daniel (ed.), Materiality. Durham: Duke University Press, pp. 1–50.Google Scholar

Miller, D. (ed.) 2005b. Materiality. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar

Miller, D. 2007. ‘Stone age or plastic age?’, Archaeological Dialogues 14: 23–27.Google Scholar

Miller, D. 2010. Stuff. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Miller, D. 2011. Tales from Facebook. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Mills, M. 2003. Identity, ritual and state in Tibetan Buddhism: The foundations of authority in Gelukpa monasticism. London: Routledge Curzon.Google Scholar

Mimica, J. 1988. Intimations of infinity: The cultural meanings of Iqwaye counting system and number. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar

Mol, A. 2002. The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar

Moore, H. 2013 ‘Avatars and robots: The imaginary present and the socialities of the inorganic’, in Long, N. and Moore, H. (eds.), Sociality: New directions. Oxford: Berghahn Books, pp. 25–42.Google Scholar

Munn, N. 1986. The fame of Gawa: A symbolic study of value transformation in a Massim (Papua New Guinea) society. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Nabobo-Baba, U. 2006. Knowing and learning: An indigenous Fijian approach. Suva: Institute of Pacific Studies, University of the South Pacific.Google Scholar

Needham, R. 1971. ‘Remarks on the analysis of kinship and marriage’, in Needham, R. (ed.), Rethinking kinship and marriage. London: Tavistock Publications, pp. 1–34.Google Scholar

Newell, L. E. 1993. Batad Ifugao dictionary with ethnographic notes. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.Google Scholar

Ngô Đức, Thịnh. 2006. ‘The mother goddess religion: Its history, pantheon and practices’, in Fjelstad, K. and Nguyen, T. H. (eds.), Possessed by the spirits: Spirit mediumship in contemporary Vietnamese communities. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, pp. 19–30.Google Scholar

Nicholas, C. 2000. The Orang Asli and the contest for resources. Copenhagen: International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs.Google Scholar

Noone, H. D. 1936. ‘Report on the settlements and welfare of the Ple-Temiar Senoi of the Perak-Kelantan watershed’, Journal of the Federated Malay States Museum 19(1): 1–85.Google Scholar

Noone, R. O. D. 1954–1955. ‘Notes on the trade in blowpipes and blowpipe bamboo in North Malaya’, Federation Museums Journal 1–2: 1–18.Google Scholar

Norton, B. 2008. Songs for the spirits. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

Ortner, S. B. 1978. Sherpas through their rituals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ottenheimer, M. 2001. ‘Relativism in kinship analysis’, in Feinberg, R. and Ottenheimer, M. (eds.), The cultural analysis of kinship: The legacy of David M. Schneider. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, pp. 118–130.Google Scholar

Overing, J. and Passes, A. (eds.) 2000. The anthropology of love and anger: The aesthetics of conviviality in native Amazonia. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Paxson, H. 2014. ‘Microbiopolitics’, in Kirksey, E. (ed.), The multispecies salon. Durham: Duke University Press, pp. 115–121.Google Scholar

Pedersen, M. A. 2001. ‘Totemism, animism and North Asian indigenous ontologies’, The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 7: 411–427.Google Scholar

Pedersen, M. A., and Humphrey, C. 2007. ‘Inner Asian perspectivism’, Inner Asia 9: 141–152.Google Scholar

Pham, Quynh Phuong. 2006. ‘Tran Hung Dao and the mother goddess religion’, in Fjelstad, K. and Nguyen, N. T. (eds.), Possessed by the spirits: Mediumship in contemporary Vietnamese communities. Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press, pp. 31–54.Google Scholar

Pham, Quynh Phuong. 2009. Hero and deity: Tran Hung Dao and the resurgence of popular religion in Vietnam. Chiang Mai: Mekong Press.Google Scholar

Phylactou, M. 1989. Household organization and marriage in Ladakh-Indian Himalaya. PhD dissertation. Department of Anthropology, London School of Economics and Political Science.Google Scholar

Pina-Cabral, J. d. 2014a. ‘World: An anthropological examination (part 1)’, HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 4: 49–73.Google Scholar

Pina-Cabral, J. d. 2014b. ‘World: An anthropological examination (part 2)’, HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 4: 149–184.Google Scholar

Pink, S. 2008. ‘Re-thinking community activism: From community to emplaced sociality’, Ethnos 73: 163–188.Google Scholar

Praet, I. 2013. ‘Humanity and life as the perpetual maintenance of specific efforts: A reappraisal of animism’, in Ingold, T. and Pálsson, G. (eds.), Biosocial becomings: Integrating social and biological anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 191–210.Google Scholar

Pufendorf, S. 1991 [1673]. On the duty of man and citizen (edited by Tully, J. and translated by Silverthorne, M. ). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Pyyhtinen, O., and Tamminen, S. 2011. ‘We have never been only human: Foucault and Latour on the question of the anthropos’, Anthropological Theory 11: 135–152.Google Scholar

Rabinow, P., Marcus, G. E., Faubion, J. D., and Rees, T. 2008. Designs for an anthropology of the contemporary. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar

Ramble, C. 1996. ‘Patterns of places’, in Blondeau, A.-M. and Steinkellner, E. (eds.), Reflections of the mountain. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, pp. 141–153.Google Scholar

Ramble, C. 1999. ‘The politics of sacred space in Bon and Tibetan popular tradition’, in Huber, T. (ed.), Sacred spaces and powerful places in Tibetan culture. Dharamsala: Library of Tibetan Works and Archives (LTWA), pp. 3–33.Google Scholar

Rees, T. 2010. ‘To open up new spaces of thought: Anthropology BSC (beyond society and culture)’, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 16: 158–163.Google Scholar

Reid, A. 1983. ‘Introduction: Slavery and bondage in Southeast Asian History’, in Reid, A. (ed.), Slavery, bondage and dependency in Southeast Asia. St. Lucia, Queensland: University of Queensland Press, pp. 1–43.Google Scholar

Remme, J. H. Z. 2012. Manifesting potentials: Animism and Pentecostalism in Ifugao, the Philippines. PhD dissertation. Department of Social Anthropology, Oslo: University of Oslo.Google Scholar

Remme, J. H. Z. 2014. Pigs and persons in the Philippines: Human-animal entanglements in Ifugao rituals. Lanham: Lexington Books.Google Scholar

Rio, K. 2007. The power of perspective: Social ontology and agency on Ambrym Island, Vanuatu. Oxford: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar

Robarchek, C. 1977. Semai nonviolence: A systems approach to understanding. PhD dissertation. University of California, Riverside.Google Scholar

Robarchek, C. 1979a. ‘Learning to fear: A case study of emotional conditioning’. American Ethnologist 6: 555–567.Google Scholar

Robarchek, C. 1979b. ‘Conflict, emotion and abreaction: Resolution of conflict among Semai Senoi’, Ethnos 7: 104–123.Google Scholar

Robarchek, C. 1986. ‘Helplessness, fearfulness, and peacefulness: The emotional and motivational contexts of Semai social relations’, Anthropological Quarterly 59: 177–183.Google Scholar

Robarchek, C. 1989. ‘Hobbesian and Rousseauan images of man: Autonomy and individualism in a peaceful society’, in Howell, S. and Willis, R. (eds.), Societies at peace: Anthropological perspectives. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 31–44.Google Scholar

Robarchek, C. 1994. ‘Ghosts and witches: The psychocultural dynamics of Semai peacefulness’, in Sponsel, L. E. and Gregor, T. (eds.), The Anthropology of peace and nonviolence, Boulder: Lynn Rienner, pp. 183–196.Google Scholar

Robbins, J. 2013. ‘Monism, pluralism, and the structure of value relations: A Dumontian contribution to the contemporary study of value’, HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 3: 99–115.Google Scholar

Rosman, A., and Rubel, P. G. 1971. Feasting with mine enemy: Rank and exchange among Northwest Coast societies. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar

Rumsey, A., and Robbins, J. 2008. ‘Social thought and commentary section: Anthropology and the opacity of other minds’, Anthropological Quarterly 81: 407–494.Google Scholar

Sa mtsho, skyid and Roche, C. 2011. ‘Purity and fortune in Phug sde village rituals’, Asian Highland Perspectives 10: 231–284.Google Scholar

Sahlins, M. 2005. ‘On the anthropology of modernity, or, some triumphs of culture over despondency theory’, in Hooper, A. (ed.), Culture and sustainable development in the Pacific. Canberra, Australia: Asia Pacific Press and the Australian National University, pp. 44–61.Google Scholar

Salemink, O. 2015. ‘Spirit worship and possession in Vietnam and beyond’, in Turner, B. S. and Salemink, O. (eds.), Routledge Handbook of Religions in Asia. New York and London: Routledge, pp. 231–246.Google Scholar

Samuel, G. 1993. Civilized shamans: Buddhism in Tibetan society. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.Google Scholar

Santos-Granero, F. 2007. ‘Of fear and friendship: Amazonian sociality beyond kinship and affinity’, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 13: 1–18.Google Scholar

Schebesta, P. 1928. Among the forest dwarfs of Malaya. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar

Schneider, D. M. 1972. ‘What is kinship all about?’, in Reining, P. (ed.), Kinship studies in the Morgan centennial year. Washington, DC: The Anthropological Society of Washington, pp. 32–63.Google Scholar

Schneider, D. M. 1984. A critique of the study of kinship. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar

Schneider, K. 2012. Saltwater sociality: A Melanesian island ethnography. New York: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar

Schrempf, M. 1999. ‘Taming the earth, controlling the cosmos: Transformation of space in Tibetan Buddhist and Bon-po ritual dance’ in Huber, T. (ed.), Sacred spaces and powerful places in Tibetan culture. Dharamsala: Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, pp. 198–224.Google Scholar

Schutz, A. 1967. The phenomenology of the social world. New York: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar

Scott, J. C. 2009. The art of not being governed: An anarchist history of upland Southeast Asia. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Searle, J. 1990. ‘Collective intentions and actions’, in Cohen, P., Morgan, J., and Pollack, M. E. (eds.), Intentions in communication. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books, MIT Press, pp. 401–415.Google Scholar

Sedgwick, E. K. 2003. Touching feeling: Affect, pedagogy, performativity. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar

Seigworth, G., and Gregg, M. 2010. ‘An inventory of shimmers’, in Gress, M. and Seigworth, G. (eds.), The affect theory reader. Durham: Duke University Press, pp. 1–25.Google Scholar

Severi, C. 2013. ‘Philosophies without ontology’, HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 3: 192–196.Google Scholar

Sillander, K. 2016. ‘Relatedness and alterity in Bentian human-spirit relations’, in Århem, K. and Sprenger, G. (eds.), Animism in Southeast Asia. London: Routledge, pp. 157–180.Google Scholar

Simmel, Georg. 1949. ‘The sociology of sociability’, American Journal of Sociology 55: 254–261.Google Scholar

Skeat, W. W., and Blagden, C. O. 1906. Pagan races of the Malay Peninsula, vol. 1. London: Frank Cass.Google Scholar

Sneath, D. 2007. ‘Ritual idioms and spatial orders: Comparing the rites for Mongolian and Tibetan “local deities”’, in Diemberger, H. and Bulag, U. (eds.), The Mongolia-Tibet interface. Leiden: Brill, pp. 135–158.Google Scholar

Sofaer, J. R. 2006. The body as material culture: A theoretical osteoarchaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Solomon, O. 2013. ‘Doing, being and becoming: The sociality of children with autism’, in Long, N. and Moore, H. (eds.), Sociality: New directions. Oxford: Berghahn Books, pp. 157–176.Google Scholar

Sperber, D. 1985. ‘Anthropology and psychology: Towards an epidemiology of representations’, Man 20: 73–89.Google Scholar

Spikins, P. A., Rutherford, H. E., and Needham, A. P. 2010. ‘From homininity to humanity: Compassion from the earliest archaics to modern humans’, Time and Mind 3: 303–326.Google Scholar

Sprenger, G. 2016. ‘Graded personhood: Human and non-human actors in the Southeast Asian uplands’, in Århem, K. and Sprenger, G. (eds.), Animism in Southeast Asia. London: Routledge, pp. 73–90.Google Scholar

Stasch, R. 2009. Society of others: Kinship and mourning in a West Papuan place. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

States, B. 1996. ‘Performance as metaphor’, Theatre Journal 48: 1–26.Google Scholar

Stewart, K. 1954. ‘Mental hygiene and world peace’, Mental Hygiene 38: 387–403.Google Scholar

Strathern, M. 1980. ‘No nature, no culture: The Hagen case’, in MacCormack, C. P. and Strathern, M. (eds.), Nature, culture and gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 174–222.Google Scholar

Strathern, M. 1988. The gender of the gift: Problems with women and problems with society in Melanesia. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Strathern, M. 1990. The gender of the gift: Problems with women and problems with society in Melanesia. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Strathern, M. 1996. ‘The concept of society is theoretically obsolete: for the motion’, in Ingold, T. (ed.), Key debates in anthropology. London: Routledge, pp. 50–55.Google Scholar

Strathern, M. 1999. Property, substance and effect: Anthropological essays on persons and things. London: The Athlone Press.Google Scholar

Strathern, M. 2005. Kinship, law and the unexpected: Relatives are always a surprise. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Strum, S., and Latour, B. 1987. ‘Redefining the social link: From baboons to humans’, Social Science Information 26: 783–802.Google Scholar

Tacey, I., and Riboli, D. 2014. ‘Violence, fear and anti-violence: The Batek of Peninsular Malaysia’, Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research 6: 203–215.Google Scholar

Taylor, P. (ed.). 2007. Modernity and re-enchantment: Religion in post-revolutionary Vietnam. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.Google Scholar

Telle, K. 2003, ‘The smell of death: Theft, disgust and ritual practices in Central Lombok’, in Kapferer, B. (ed.), Beyond rationalism: Rethinking magic, witchcraft and sorcery. New York: Berghahn Books, pp. 75–104.Google Scholar

Thomas, N. 1989. Out of time: History and evolution in anthropological discourse. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar

Thomas, N. 1991. Entangled objects: Exchange, material culture, and colonialism in the Pacific. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Thompson, E. 2007. Mind in life: Biology, phenomenology and the sciences of mind. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University.Google Scholar

Thrift, N. 2007. Non-representational theory: Space, politics, affect. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Throop, J. C., and Laughlin, C. 2007. ‘Anthropology of consciousness’, in Zelzao, P. D., Moscovitch, M., and Thompson, E. (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 631–672.Google Scholar

Toffin, G. 1991. Man and his house in the Himalayas: Ecology in Nepal. New Delhi: Sterling Publishers.Google Scholar

Toganivalu, R. D. 1911, ‘The customs of Bau before the advent of Christianity’. Transactions of the Fijian Society for the year 1911.Google Scholar

Toganivalu, R. D. 1912, ‘Ai tovo mai Bau ni sa bera ni yaco mai na lotu’, Na Mata, January, pp. 9–17.Google Scholar

Tomasello, M. 2014. A natural history of human thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Tomlinson, M. 2012. ‘Passport to eternity: Whales’ teeth and transcendence in Fijian Methodism’, in Manderson, L., Smith, W., and Tomlinson, M. (eds.), Flows of faith: Religious reach and community in Asia and the Pacific, London: Springer, pp. 215–232.Google Scholar

Toren, C. 1990. Making sense of hierarchy: Cognition as social process in Fiji. London School of Economics, Monographs in Social Anthropology, 61. London: The Athlone Press.Google Scholar

Toren, C. 1998. ‘Cannibalism and compassion: Transformations in Fijian notions of the person’, in Keck, V. (ed.), Common worlds and single lives: Constituting knowledge in Pacific societies. London: Berg, pp. 95–115.Google Scholar

Toren, C. 1999. Mind, materiality and history: Explorations in Fijian ethnography. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Toren, C. 2005. ‘Laughter and truth in Fiji: What we may learn from a joke’, Oceania 75: 268–283.Google Scholar

Toren, C. 2009. ‘Intersubjectivity as epistemology’, Social Analysis 53: 130–146.Google Scholar

Toren, C. 2011. ‘The stuff of imagination: What we can learn from Fijian children’s ideas about their lives as adults’, Social Analysis 55: 23–47.Google Scholar

Toren, C. 2012a. ‘Anthropology and psychology’, in Fardon, R., Harris, O., Marchand, T. H. J., Shore, C., Strang, V., et al. (eds.), Sage handbook of Social Anthropology. New York: Sage, pp. 27–41.Google Scholar

Toren, C. 2012b. ‘Imagining the world that warrants our imagination: The revelation of ontogeny’, Cambridge Anthropology 30: 64–79.Google Scholar

Toren, C. 2013. ‘Imagining the world that warrants our imagination: The revelation of ontogeny’, in Long, N. and Moore, H. (eds.), Sociality: New directions. Oxford: Berghahn Books, pp. 43–60.Google Scholar

Toren, C. and Pauwels, S. (eds.) 2015. Living kinship in the Pacific. Oxford and New York: Berghahn.Google Scholar

Tsing, A. 2013. ‘More-than-human-sociality: A call for critical description’, in Hastrup, K. (ed.), Anthropology and nature. New York: Routledge, pp. 27–42.Google Scholar

Tuomela, R. 2007. The philosophy of sociality: The shared point of view. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Van der Sluys, C. M. I. 1999. ‘Jahai’, in Lee, R. B. and Daly, R. (eds.), The Cambridge encylopedia of hunters and gatherers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 307–311.Google Scholar

Van der Sluys, C. M. I. 2006. ‘Are the Jahai a non-violent people?’, in Baer, A., Endicott, K., Gianno, R., Howell, S., Nowak, B. S., and van der Sluys, C. (eds.), Orang Asli women of Malaysia: Perceptions, situations and aspirations. Subang Jaya, Malaysia: Center for Orang Asli Concerns, pp. 43–50.Google Scholar

Venkatesan, S. (ed.) 2010. ‘Ontology is just another word for culture’, Critique of Anthropology 30: 152–200.Google Scholar

Venn, C. 2010. ‘Individuation, relationality, affect: Rethinking the human in relation to the living’, Body and Society 16: 129–161.Google Scholar

Vergunst, J., and Vermeiren, A. 2013. ‘The art of slow sociality: Movement, aesthetics, and shared understanding’, in Long, N. J. and Moore, H. L. (eds.), Sociality: New directions. Oxford: Berghahn Books, pp. 191–208.Google Scholar

Viveiros de Castro, E. 1998. ‘Cosmological deixis and Amerindian perspectivism’, The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 4: 469–488.Google Scholar

Viveiros de Castro, E. 2001. ‘GUT feelings about Amazonia: Potential affinity and the construction of sociality’, in Rival, L. M. and Whitehead, N. L. (eds.), Beyond the visible and the material: The Amerindianization of society in the work of Peter Rivière. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 19–43.Google Scholar

Viveiros de Castro, E. 2004. ‘Exchanging perspectives: The transformation of objects into subjects in Amerindian ontologies’, Common Knowledge 10: 463–484.Google Scholar

Viveiros de Castro, E. 2005. ‘From multiculturalism to multi-naturalism’, in Chanian, M. and Royoux, J. C. (eds.), Cosmograms. New York: Lucas and Sternberg, pp. 137–156.Google Scholar

Viveiros de Castro, E. 2007. The crystal forest: Notes on the ontology of Amazonian spirits. Inner Asia 9: 153–172.Google Scholar

Viveiros de Castro, E. 2012. ‘Cosmological perspectivism in Amazonia and elsewhere’, HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 1: 45–168.Google Scholar

Wagner, R. 1967. The curse of Souw: Principles of Daribi clan definition and alliance in New Guinea. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Wagner, R. 1974. ‘Are there social groups in the New Guinea Highlands?’, in Leaf, M. J. (ed.), Frontiers of anthropology. New York: D. Van Nostrand, pp. 95–122.Google Scholar

Wagner, R. 1975. The invention of culture. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Wagner, R. 1977. ‘Analogic kinship: A Daribi example’, American Ethnologist 4: 623–642.Google Scholar

Wagner, R. 1981. The invention of culture. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Wagner, R. 1986. Symbols that stand for themselves. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Wagner, R. 1991. ‘The fractal person’, in Godelier, M. and Strathern, A. (eds.), Big men and great men: Personifications of power in Melanesia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 159–173.Google Scholar

Weiner, A. 1992. Inalienable possessions: The paradox of keeping-while-giving. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Wheatley, P. 1961. The golden Khersonese: Studies in the historical geography of the Malay Peninsula before A.D. 1500. Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press.Google Scholar

Wiessner, P. W. 1977. Hxaro: A regional system of reducing risk among the !Kung San, volume I. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International.Google Scholar

Wilkinson, R. J. 1910. Papers on Malay subjects: Supplement: The aboriginal tribes. Kuala Lumpur: The Government Press.Google Scholar

Willerslev, R. 2007. Soul hunters: Hunting, animism, and personhood among the Siberian Yukaghirs. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Willerslev, R., and Pedersen, M. A. 2010. ‘Proportional holism: Joking the cosmos into the right shape in North Asia’, in Otto, T. and Bubandt, N. (eds.), Experiments in holism: Theory and practice in contemporary anthropology. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 251–261.Google Scholar

Willis, R., and Howell, S. 1989. ‘Introduction’, in Howell, S. and Willis, R. (eds.), Societies at peace: Anthropological perspectives. London: Routledge, pp. 1–38.Google Scholar

Wilson, E. 1975. Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Woodburn, J. 1982. ‘Egalitarian societies’, Man 17: 431–451.Google Scholar

Wray, L. 1890. ‘Journal of a collecting expedition to the mountain of Batang Padang, Perak’, Journal of the Straits Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 21: 123–165.Google Scholar

Yanagisako, S. J. 1987. ‘Mixed metaphors: Native and anthropological models of gender and kinship domains’, in Collier, J. F. and Yanagisako, S. J. (eds.), Gender and kinship: Essays toward a unified analysis. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 86–118.Google Scholar

Yanagisako, S. J., and Collier, J. F. 1987. ‘Toward a unified analysis of gender and kinship’, in Collier, J. F. and Yanagisako, S. J. (eds.), Gender and kinship: Essays toward a unified analysis. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 14–50.Google Scholar

Yanagisako, S. J., and Delaney, C. 1995. ‘Naturalizing power’, in Yanagisako, S. J. and Delaney, C. (eds.), Naturalizing power: Essays in feminist cultural analysis. New York: Routledge, pp. 1–22.Google Scholar