{"title":"迁移考古学中解释性二进制的替代方法","authors":"Julia Jong-Haines , Erin P. Riggs","doi":"10.1016/j.jaa.2025.101709","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This issue critically considers the binary assumptions archaeologists typically rely on when examining materials and landscapes of migrant and diaspora communities. These assumptions typically involve the search for either migrant associated material culture versus local/host material culture ALSO the search for change versus continuity within migrant associated material cultures. While these ways of approaching migration contexts have long been critiqued in archaeology as both factually inaccurate and associated with political bigotry, they have remained persistent in practice. Speaking across the seven case studies presented in this issue, we consider why this is the case. Why is it so challenging to ‘see’ migration archaeologically without employing categorical thinking related to identity and identity construction? Each contributor to this issue highlights the contextual challenges different migrant groups faced and provides a different answer and solution to how to interpret coping strategies through the material record. Some seek to de-center identity categories as the theoretical entry-point of all archaeological considerations of migration. Others suggest that identity is central to how communities see themselves, but attempt to highlight the ways in which understandings of these categories are multifaceted, ever-in-flux, contended, and/or situated within complex ecological and material worlds. Ultimately, as a collection, we feel that these case studies illustrate the great irony of migration contexts: migration reveals spacio-cultural associations as malleable, while at the same time foregrounding the political import and impact of spaciocultural associations. As such, archaeologists working in contexts of migration must strive to challenge the perceived fixity of ethnoregional categories and cultural territories, while simultaneously illustrating the extent to which understandings of such categories and territories shape the wellbeing and goals of people-on-the-move.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":47957,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Anthropological Archaeology","volume":"79 ","pages":"Article 101709"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Alternatives to interpretive binaries in archaeologies of migration\",\"authors\":\"Julia Jong-Haines , Erin P. Riggs\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jaa.2025.101709\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>This issue critically considers the binary assumptions archaeologists typically rely on when examining materials and landscapes of migrant and diaspora communities. These assumptions typically involve the search for either migrant associated material culture versus local/host material culture ALSO the search for change versus continuity within migrant associated material cultures. While these ways of approaching migration contexts have long been critiqued in archaeology as both factually inaccurate and associated with political bigotry, they have remained persistent in practice. Speaking across the seven case studies presented in this issue, we consider why this is the case. Why is it so challenging to ‘see’ migration archaeologically without employing categorical thinking related to identity and identity construction? Each contributor to this issue highlights the contextual challenges different migrant groups faced and provides a different answer and solution to how to interpret coping strategies through the material record. Some seek to de-center identity categories as the theoretical entry-point of all archaeological considerations of migration. Others suggest that identity is central to how communities see themselves, but attempt to highlight the ways in which understandings of these categories are multifaceted, ever-in-flux, contended, and/or situated within complex ecological and material worlds. Ultimately, as a collection, we feel that these case studies illustrate the great irony of migration contexts: migration reveals spacio-cultural associations as malleable, while at the same time foregrounding the political import and impact of spaciocultural associations. As such, archaeologists working in contexts of migration must strive to challenge the perceived fixity of ethnoregional categories and cultural territories, while simultaneously illustrating the extent to which understandings of such categories and territories shape the wellbeing and goals of people-on-the-move.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47957,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Anthropological Archaeology\",\"volume\":\"79 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101709\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Anthropological Archaeology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278416525000546\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANTHROPOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Anthropological Archaeology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278416525000546","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Alternatives to interpretive binaries in archaeologies of migration
This issue critically considers the binary assumptions archaeologists typically rely on when examining materials and landscapes of migrant and diaspora communities. These assumptions typically involve the search for either migrant associated material culture versus local/host material culture ALSO the search for change versus continuity within migrant associated material cultures. While these ways of approaching migration contexts have long been critiqued in archaeology as both factually inaccurate and associated with political bigotry, they have remained persistent in practice. Speaking across the seven case studies presented in this issue, we consider why this is the case. Why is it so challenging to ‘see’ migration archaeologically without employing categorical thinking related to identity and identity construction? Each contributor to this issue highlights the contextual challenges different migrant groups faced and provides a different answer and solution to how to interpret coping strategies through the material record. Some seek to de-center identity categories as the theoretical entry-point of all archaeological considerations of migration. Others suggest that identity is central to how communities see themselves, but attempt to highlight the ways in which understandings of these categories are multifaceted, ever-in-flux, contended, and/or situated within complex ecological and material worlds. Ultimately, as a collection, we feel that these case studies illustrate the great irony of migration contexts: migration reveals spacio-cultural associations as malleable, while at the same time foregrounding the political import and impact of spaciocultural associations. As such, archaeologists working in contexts of migration must strive to challenge the perceived fixity of ethnoregional categories and cultural territories, while simultaneously illustrating the extent to which understandings of such categories and territories shape the wellbeing and goals of people-on-the-move.
期刊介绍:
An innovative, international publication, the Journal of Anthropological Archaeology is devoted to the development of theory and, in a broad sense, methodology for the systematic and rigorous understanding of the organization, operation, and evolution of human societies. The discipline served by the journal is characterized by its goals and approach, not by geographical or temporal bounds. The data utilized or treated range from the earliest archaeological evidence for the emergence of human culture to historically documented societies and the contemporary observations of the ethnographer, ethnoarchaeologist, sociologist, or geographer. These subjects appear in the journal as examples of cultural organization, operation, and evolution, not as specific historical phenomena.