Graciela S. Cabana - Rethinking Anthropological Perspectives on Migration

UNIVERSITY PRESS OF FLORIDA

Florida A&M University, Tallahassee
Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton
Florida Gulf Coast University, Ft. Myers
Florida International University, Miami
Florida State University, Tallahassee
New College of Florida, Sarasota
University of Central Florida, Orlando
University of Florida, Gainesville
University of North Florida, Jacksonville
University of South Florida, Tampa
University of West Florida, Pensacola

EDITED BY
GRACIELA S. CABANA
AND JEFFERY J. CLARK

University Press of Florida

Gainesville Tallahassee Tampa Boca Raton
Pensacola Orlando Miami Jacksonville Ft. Myers Sarasota

Copyright 2011 by Graciela S. Cabana and Jeffery J. Clark
All rights reserved
Published in the United States of America

First cloth printing, 2011
First paperback printing, 2020

25 24 23 22 21 20 6 5 4 3 2 1

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA
Rethinking anthropological perspectives on migration / Graciela S. Cabana and Jeffery J. Clark, [editors].
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-0-8130-3607-6 (cloth : alk. paper)
ISBN 978-0-8130-6819-0 (pbk.)

1. Pueblo IndiansMigrations. 2. Uto-Aztecan IndiansMigrations.

3. Human remains (Archaeology) 4. Emigration and immigration. I. Clark, Jeffery J.
II. Cabana, Graciela S.
E99.P9R36 2011
304.80979dc22 2010054047

The University Press of Florida is the scholarly publishing agency for the State University System of Florida, comprising Florida A&M University, Florida Atlantic University, Florida Gulf Coast University, Florida International University, Florida State University, New College of Florida, University of Central Florida, University of Florida, University of North Florida, University of South Florida, and University of West Florida.

University Press of Florida
2046 NE Waldo Road
Suite 2100
Gainesville, FL 32609
http://upress.ufl.edu

vii

ix

xi

Graciela S. Cabana and Jeffery J. Clark

Graciela S. Cabana

Wesley R. Bernardini

Severin M. Fowles

J. Andrew Darling

Jeffery J. Clark

Scott G. Ortman

Christopher S. Beekman and Alexander F. Christensen

Jane H. Hill

Catherine S. Fowler

Christopher Ehret

Kelly J. Knudson

Alan G. Fix

Deborah A. Bolnick

Susan R. Frankenberg and Lyle W. Konigsberg

Keith L. Hunley

Takeyuki (Gaku) Tsuda

The primary goal of this volume is to break down subdisciplinary boundaries within anthropology in migration research. This aspiration extends well beyond migration research. We would not be the first to voice concern that anthropology has fallen into a fragmentation trap where the exploration of new theories is restricted by subdisciplinary boundaries at the expense of the traditional four-field, or holistic, approach (c.f., Knudsen 2003). Anthropology departments throughout the United States have taken different paths in dealing with the disciplines fragmentation, ranging from physical and intellectual segregation of subdisciplines to half-hearted calls for an integrated anthropology that more often than not fall on deaf ears.

This volume is the culmination of a symposium held at the December 2005 American Anthropological Association meetings in Washington, D.C. This was followed by a two-day workshop held at Arizona State University in November 2006. Since then numerous e-mail exchanges and phone conversations between the editors and participants have greatly enriched the contributions herein. Before you is the outcome of this long and fruitful dialogue. However, this volume is not intended to be the final word on this subject. Rather, our intention is to open up a new dialogue within anthropology about migration that crosscuts the various subdisciplines. And maybe, just maybe, this dialogue will result in a holistic model for studying migration in anthropology.

The contributors to this volume are a diverse lot. Although most of us can be placed into one of the four anthropological subfields, we also provide unique perspectives on migration within our respective subfields. We came together with the common understanding that the discipline of anthropology allows for multiple voices on what migration means and why it is important while at the same time concurring that migration is an extremely important research topic.

Beyond that, we agreed to disagree about exact definitions of migration, and the best methods for assessing its scale and impact. Instead we laid a foundation for a fresh approach to migration studies by presenting work by current researchers. We also willingly engaged in some creative destruction of previous time-honored assumptions and vested interests. We make no claims in succeeding to have built a consensus in studying migration across and even within anthropological subdisciplines. However, we hope that with time the diverse chapters in this volume will inspire others both withinand outside ofthe discipline to continue moving toward this worthy goal.

We have several people and entities to thank for helping us along the way. Our workshop took place at Arizona State University, with the help of Sander E. van der Leeuw and the School of Human Evolution & Social Change (SHESC), Arleyn W. Simon and the Archaeological Research Institute (ARI), Charles L. Redman and the Global Institute of Sustainability (GIOS), and the College of Arts & Sciences Deans Office. The University of Tennessees Department of Anthropology in Knoxville and William Doelle, CEO of the Center for Desert Archaeology in Tuscon, generously provided additional funding to help defray publication costs. We are grateful to Dean R. Snow and John H. Relethford for their thoughtful reviews, and to Brannon I. Hulsey, Frankie L. Pack, and Linda Gregonis for their detailed proofreading and indexing.

Knudsen, C.

2003 The Essential Tension in the Social Sciences: Between the Unification and Fragmentation Trap. In The Evolution of Scientific Knowledge, edited by H. S. Jensen, L. M. Richter, and M. T. Vendel, pp. 1336. Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton, Mass.

I

GRACIELA S. CABANA AND JEFFERY J. CLARK

As anthropologists we pride ourselves on our holistic approach to studying culture and society, past and present; we explore the human condition from multiple perspectives using a variety of data sources. Unfortunately this strength is also a weakness, as this multivariate approach can also lead to fragmentation, dispute, and reductionism. What keeps us together, then? We know that being human involves biology, culture, language, and so forth. Is it possible to consider all these human facets within one methodology, theory, or paradigm? To stitch our fragmented subdisciplines together and realize our holistic aspirations in the context of migration studies we start with two basic questions: What is migration and why is it important?