The Use of Migration as an Explanatory Concept in Archaeology
David J. Willers
Migration Studies
Migration Studies
David J. Willers, Southern Methodist University E-Mail: dwillers@smu.edu
Migration Studies in Archaeology
In 1990 David Anthony observed that “archaeologists…treat migration as chaotic and poorly understood (895).” Since his comment migration studies have proliferated once again after being unrespectable during the heyday of processualist archaeology (Kristiansen, 2005). Despite this proliferation of studies (or because of it) whether or not archaeologists still treat it in the same manner is unclear. Undoubtedly great strides have been made, but as a discipline a coherent migration theory has yet to be developed. Unlike the claim of Anthony that the other disciplines have migration figured out (1990:895), they still seem to be struggling with it as well (Brettell and Hollifield, 2008).
A unified theory of migration is unlikely as there is not even a coherent and agreed upon definition of migration! However definitions usually do fall into one of two broad categories: ‘inclusive’ and ‘exclusive.’ Inclusive could be defined broadly as ‘mobility’ (Chapman and Hamerow, 1997:1) while an example of an exclusive definition would be “a long-term residential relocation by one or more social units (typically households) across community boundaries as the result of a perceived decrease in the benefits of remaining residentially stable and/or a perceived increase in the benefits of relocating to prospective destinations (Clark, as quoted in Woodson, 1999:63).” A myriad of other definitions could be collected but a more inclusive approach is followed here.
By following an inclusive approach multiple types of migration can be, well, included. While there are also many ways of classifying types, distinguishing between local and long-distance migration is a useful starting point (Anthony, 1997:26). These can be broken down even further into multiple types such as chain, circular, colonizing, career, and forced migrations (Chapman and Hamerow, 1997:1). All of these migrations would leave a material record but some would be more visible archaeologically. What Rouse describes as a population movement-instances in which one areas population moves into another’s territory and absorbs or displaces the existing population-would likely be the most visible (Rouse, 1986:9, 13).
Finding and identifying these visible and not so visible traces of past migrations has a long and sometimes unflattering history in archaeology. Many early archaeologists, professional and amateur alike, no longer content with simple artifact descriptions, were wont to use migrations to explain a wide variety of evidence. Unfortunately many of these inferences of migration were not well documented or critically assessed. A migration once proposed was difficult to remove from the public conscious, no matter how unsupported. Thompson observes that “there does not seem to be a migration hypothesis too preposterous not to have been suggested by someone (1958: vi).”
To ensure that the claim being made for a migration is not “too preposterous” archaeologists typically use a methodological approach (Rouse, 1986). More recently, and largely dependent on other disciplines theoretical formulations, a principle based approach is also used (Anthony, 1990). Generally the methodological approach focuses on how to identify migrations in the archeological record often using chronology and typology while the principle based approach focuses on the structural conditions and processes which affect migration.
THE METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH
The basis of the methodological approach can be found in the early work of scholars such as Gustaf Kossina and Oscar Montelius. Kossina directly correlated material culture to individual people groups. This meant that wherever a specific style of artifact or suite of artifacts was found it was presumed to be the remains of the same culture. That culture could then be traced across space and time. Interestingly he also argued that the material record was more accurate in doing this than written sources (Klein 1999). Montelius, along with Hans Hildebrand, was very active in typology and typological dating. Much of his research focused on the spread of traits across space. He took a differing view from Kossina and argued that traits spread through cultural diffusion instead of migration.
A unified theory of migration is unlikely as there is not even a coherent and agreed upon definition of migration! However definitions usually do fall into one of two broad categories: ‘inclusive’ and ‘exclusive.’ Inclusive could be defined broadly as ‘mobility’ (Chapman and Hamerow, 1997:1) while an example of an exclusive definition would be “a long-term residential relocation by one or more social units (typically households) across community boundaries as the result of a perceived decrease in the benefits of remaining residentially stable and/or a perceived increase in the benefits of relocating to prospective destinations (Clark, as quoted in Woodson, 1999:63).” A myriad of other definitions could be collected but a more inclusive approach is followed here.
By following an inclusive approach multiple types of migration can be, well, included. While there are also many ways of classifying types, distinguishing between local and long-distance migration is a useful starting point (Anthony, 1997:26). These can be broken down even further into multiple types such as chain, circular, colonizing, career, and forced migrations (Chapman and Hamerow, 1997:1). All of these migrations would leave a material record but some would be more visible archaeologically. What Rouse describes as a population movement-instances in which one areas population moves into another’s territory and absorbs or displaces the existing population-would likely be the most visible (Rouse, 1986:9, 13).
Finding and identifying these visible and not so visible traces of past migrations has a long and sometimes unflattering history in archaeology. Many early archaeologists, professional and amateur alike, no longer content with simple artifact descriptions, were wont to use migrations to explain a wide variety of evidence. Unfortunately many of these inferences of migration were not well documented or critically assessed. A migration once proposed was difficult to remove from the public conscious, no matter how unsupported. Thompson observes that “there does not seem to be a migration hypothesis too preposterous not to have been suggested by someone (1958: vi).”
To ensure that the claim being made for a migration is not “too preposterous” archaeologists typically use a methodological approach (Rouse, 1986). More recently, and largely dependent on other disciplines theoretical formulations, a principle based approach is also used (Anthony, 1990). Generally the methodological approach focuses on how to identify migrations in the archeological record often using chronology and typology while the principle based approach focuses on the structural conditions and processes which affect migration.
THE METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH
The basis of the methodological approach can be found in the early work of scholars such as Gustaf Kossina and Oscar Montelius. Kossina directly correlated material culture to individual people groups. This meant that wherever a specific style of artifact or suite of artifacts was found it was presumed to be the remains of the same culture. That culture could then be traced across space and time. Interestingly he also argued that the material record was more accurate in doing this than written sources (Klein 1999). Montelius, along with Hans Hildebrand, was very active in typology and typological dating. Much of his research focused on the spread of traits across space. He took a differing view from Kossina and argued that traits spread through cultural diffusion instead of migration.
Gustaf Kossina. source
Oscar Montelius. source
V. Gordon Childe would combine the diffusion of Montelius and the archaeological culture concept of Kossina to explain the spread of Neolithic farming from the Middle East into Europe using a combination of diffusion and migration (Trigger, 1999). Migration has often been used as a mechanism to explain observed changes in the material record such as the spread of agriculture. Though fairly self-evident, an important point to make is that a change in the archaeological material must first be identified before any mechanism for that change can be tested. To identify this change, classification and chronology are absolutely necessary (Willey et al 1956).
Although a detailed discussion of classification and chronology are beyond the scope of this essay, the concept of “culture areas” as used by Childe, Kossina, and others is central to the methodological approach (Bernardini, 2005a). Certain geographical areas are associated with traits and characteristics which are preserved in the material record. These geographic areas then correspond to people. Thus when a similar material record is observed in another locality it is presumed that part of the people in the original location have migrated. The artifacts used to establish these culture areas and affinities are varied but some of the most widely used are architecture and ceramics.
Emil Haury’s famous Point of Pines case for migration in the American Southwest incorporated both of these elements to infer migration (1958). He identified the presence of a large rectangular room form which appeared and was different in shape than both the earlier and later room forms. A D-shaped kiva was also found, this shape is known from areas to the far north. When the ceramic analysis was done he identified local type culinary and storage vessels and divided the painted pottery into three types. One he called local, another was foreign design with foreign clay which he could source to the same area as the D-shaped kiva. The third type was composed of local clay but consisted of foreign designs. In addition to the ceramics and architecture Haury identified intrusive wood and corn specimens. He also was able to show that the age of the Point of Pines settlement in question matched the depopulation of the Kayenta-Hopi region. This case of migration has been studied in depth and so far the evidence points to a migration (Lekson et. al; Woodson, 1999). This case study of the methodological approach to migration met all of Rouse’s criteria to document a prehistoric migration.
The methods used to establish chronology and classifications have continued to improve. There are now multiple radiometric dating methods that can be used to establish a chronology. The sourcing of raw materials used in the manufacture of ceramics and lithics has improved as well with the refinement of old techniques and the development of new ones. But so far these methods can only trace materials and it is problematic to associate cultural remains with individual peoples (Anthony, 1990).
In the rare instances when skeletal evidence is preserved archaeologists have the opportunity to trace the wanderings of the actual people. One way to accomplish this is through the use of morphological traits. This is often used in studies of initial colonizing populations such as the peopling of the New World and Australonesia. But morphological characteristics are both plastic (Boas, 1910) and based on statistical means not absolute differences. Even so there the value of skeletal data in migrations should be recognized (Neves et al., 2004).
Perhaps more useful to migration studies is the use of isotopes to determine whether skeletal remains are local or non-local. Strontium isotopes have proved especially useful for these studies as the Strontium ration varies with the age and composition of the bedrock. The strontium is then into the isotopic composition of the animals and humans in the area. The ratio of the human remains can then be tested to see if it matches the local signature and if it doesn’t they are presumed migrants (Price et al., 2002).
Although this has not been an exhaustive review of the methodological approach, hopefully it has been shown to be data driven, and focused on identifying migrations in the archaeological record. In many cases the evidence doesn’t only come from archaeology but a migration is presupposed based on linguistic evidence or as in the case of initial colonization must have occurred. It is not all chronology and classification however, as evidenced by Rouse’s point 4 above there is an understanding that some processes and conditions influence migration.
THE PRINCIPLE BASED APPROACH
Early migration studies in geography sought to identify persistent characteristics and conditions involving migration. Ravenstein’s work with his laws of migration is a prime example(1885,1889). Archaeologists were aware of these underlying conditions but often sought to identify cause (Thompson, 1958; Anthony, 1990). The push-pull model of forces was developed and applied to migration studies to identify factors which may affect the decision to migrate. Pull forces are the ‘grass is greener on the other side of the fence’ factors while push forces are the ‘don’t let the door hit you on the way out’ factors. Examples of push forces include a decline in resources, environmental or climatic stress, exile, overpopulation, and strife and warfare. Possible pull forces include curiosity and sense of adventure, wanderlust, a follow the herd mentality, joy of discovery, search for prestige and/or resources, trade and opportunities (Meltzer, 2008 pers. comm.). Most of these factors are identified from modern migrations and presume uniformitarian approaches which have caused some to question their validity (Chapman and Dolukhanov 1992).
However, Anthony argues that uniformitarian principles can be applied to the structures and processes which affect migration (Anthony, 1992). This means that we can observe populations today and identify these factors and use them to help understand the past. This is the reasoning behind the incorporating the work of demographers and geographers, sociocultural anthropologists and sociologists.
Other archaeologists have placed more effort in attempting to quantify the processes affecting migration. The Bettinger-Baumhoff model of the Numic Spread incorporated Optimum Foraging Theory and the Darwinian concept of competitive advantage to explain population replacement (Bettinger and Baumhoff, 1982). Another approach was taken by Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza with their wave of advance model concerned with quantifying short-distance migration. Their model was essentially a “push” driven model. The push came from population growth which lead to resource scarcity so the population would extend out further, the process would repeat, and then another wave of short-distance migration would occur ( Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza, 1973).
This brief discussion barely scratches the surface of the principle based approach. For a review of current migration theory in other disciplines the reader is referred to Brettrell and Hollifield, 2008. For a case study which incorporates both approaches see Anthony, 2007.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
The process of identifying and documenting migrations archaeologically is an extremely complex and complicated situation. There are many various approaches to the issue incorporating strategies and ideas from multiple disciplines. Perhaps the most problematic issue is the determination of identity. Does a similar material culture really relate to a specific people? This issue has been increasingly investigated in recent times. Bernardini has proposed that identity should not be constructed by culture areas (2005a).
Despite the problems inherent in identifying migrations, to ignore the role they play in population dynamics (Anthony, 1990) and cultural change (Rouse, 1986) is even more problematic. With continued focus and effort directed towards understanding migrations, perhaps twenty years from now it won’t still be chaotic and poorly understood
Although a detailed discussion of classification and chronology are beyond the scope of this essay, the concept of “culture areas” as used by Childe, Kossina, and others is central to the methodological approach (Bernardini, 2005a). Certain geographical areas are associated with traits and characteristics which are preserved in the material record. These geographic areas then correspond to people. Thus when a similar material record is observed in another locality it is presumed that part of the people in the original location have migrated. The artifacts used to establish these culture areas and affinities are varied but some of the most widely used are architecture and ceramics.
Emil Haury’s famous Point of Pines case for migration in the American Southwest incorporated both of these elements to infer migration (1958). He identified the presence of a large rectangular room form which appeared and was different in shape than both the earlier and later room forms. A D-shaped kiva was also found, this shape is known from areas to the far north. When the ceramic analysis was done he identified local type culinary and storage vessels and divided the painted pottery into three types. One he called local, another was foreign design with foreign clay which he could source to the same area as the D-shaped kiva. The third type was composed of local clay but consisted of foreign designs. In addition to the ceramics and architecture Haury identified intrusive wood and corn specimens. He also was able to show that the age of the Point of Pines settlement in question matched the depopulation of the Kayenta-Hopi region. This case of migration has been studied in depth and so far the evidence points to a migration (Lekson et. al; Woodson, 1999). This case study of the methodological approach to migration met all of Rouse’s criteria to document a prehistoric migration.
The methods used to establish chronology and classifications have continued to improve. There are now multiple radiometric dating methods that can be used to establish a chronology. The sourcing of raw materials used in the manufacture of ceramics and lithics has improved as well with the refinement of old techniques and the development of new ones. But so far these methods can only trace materials and it is problematic to associate cultural remains with individual peoples (Anthony, 1990).
In the rare instances when skeletal evidence is preserved archaeologists have the opportunity to trace the wanderings of the actual people. One way to accomplish this is through the use of morphological traits. This is often used in studies of initial colonizing populations such as the peopling of the New World and Australonesia. But morphological characteristics are both plastic (Boas, 1910) and based on statistical means not absolute differences. Even so there the value of skeletal data in migrations should be recognized (Neves et al., 2004).
Perhaps more useful to migration studies is the use of isotopes to determine whether skeletal remains are local or non-local. Strontium isotopes have proved especially useful for these studies as the Strontium ration varies with the age and composition of the bedrock. The strontium is then into the isotopic composition of the animals and humans in the area. The ratio of the human remains can then be tested to see if it matches the local signature and if it doesn’t they are presumed migrants (Price et al., 2002).
Although this has not been an exhaustive review of the methodological approach, hopefully it has been shown to be data driven, and focused on identifying migrations in the archaeological record. In many cases the evidence doesn’t only come from archaeology but a migration is presupposed based on linguistic evidence or as in the case of initial colonization must have occurred. It is not all chronology and classification however, as evidenced by Rouse’s point 4 above there is an understanding that some processes and conditions influence migration.
THE PRINCIPLE BASED APPROACH
Early migration studies in geography sought to identify persistent characteristics and conditions involving migration. Ravenstein’s work with his laws of migration is a prime example(1885,1889). Archaeologists were aware of these underlying conditions but often sought to identify cause (Thompson, 1958; Anthony, 1990). The push-pull model of forces was developed and applied to migration studies to identify factors which may affect the decision to migrate. Pull forces are the ‘grass is greener on the other side of the fence’ factors while push forces are the ‘don’t let the door hit you on the way out’ factors. Examples of push forces include a decline in resources, environmental or climatic stress, exile, overpopulation, and strife and warfare. Possible pull forces include curiosity and sense of adventure, wanderlust, a follow the herd mentality, joy of discovery, search for prestige and/or resources, trade and opportunities (Meltzer, 2008 pers. comm.). Most of these factors are identified from modern migrations and presume uniformitarian approaches which have caused some to question their validity (Chapman and Dolukhanov 1992).
However, Anthony argues that uniformitarian principles can be applied to the structures and processes which affect migration (Anthony, 1992). This means that we can observe populations today and identify these factors and use them to help understand the past. This is the reasoning behind the incorporating the work of demographers and geographers, sociocultural anthropologists and sociologists.
Other archaeologists have placed more effort in attempting to quantify the processes affecting migration. The Bettinger-Baumhoff model of the Numic Spread incorporated Optimum Foraging Theory and the Darwinian concept of competitive advantage to explain population replacement (Bettinger and Baumhoff, 1982). Another approach was taken by Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza with their wave of advance model concerned with quantifying short-distance migration. Their model was essentially a “push” driven model. The push came from population growth which lead to resource scarcity so the population would extend out further, the process would repeat, and then another wave of short-distance migration would occur ( Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza, 1973).
This brief discussion barely scratches the surface of the principle based approach. For a review of current migration theory in other disciplines the reader is referred to Brettrell and Hollifield, 2008. For a case study which incorporates both approaches see Anthony, 2007.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
The process of identifying and documenting migrations archaeologically is an extremely complex and complicated situation. There are many various approaches to the issue incorporating strategies and ideas from multiple disciplines. Perhaps the most problematic issue is the determination of identity. Does a similar material culture really relate to a specific people? This issue has been increasingly investigated in recent times. Bernardini has proposed that identity should not be constructed by culture areas (2005a).
Despite the problems inherent in identifying migrations, to ignore the role they play in population dynamics (Anthony, 1990) and cultural change (Rouse, 1986) is even more problematic. With continued focus and effort directed towards understanding migrations, perhaps twenty years from now it won’t still be chaotic and poorly understood
1) identify the migrating people as an intrusive unit in the region it has penetrated; 2) trace this unit back to its homeland; 3) determine that all occurrences are contemporaneous; 4) establish the existence of favorable conditions for migration; and 5) demonstrate that some other hypothesis, such as independent invention or diffusion of traits, does not better fit the facts of the situation. (Rouse 1958:64).
REFERENCES:
AMMERMAN, A. J. AND L. L. CAVALLI-SFORZA. 1973. “A population model for the
diffusion of early farming in Europe. In The explanation of culture change: Models in
prehistory, Edited by C. Renfrew. Pittsburgh: The University of Pittsburgh Press.
ANTHONY, DAVID W. 1990. Migration in archaeology: The baby and the
bathwater. American Anthropologist 92: 895-914
ANTHONY, DAVID W. 1992. The Bath refilled: Migration in archeology again.
American Anthropologist, 94: 174-176
ANTHONY, DAVID W. 1997. “Prehistoric migration as social process,” In Migrations
and invasions in archaeological explanation. Edited by J. Chapman and H. Hamerow.
BAR International Series 664, Oxford: Archaeopress.
ANTHONY, DAVID W. 2007. The horse, the wheel, and language:How bronze
age riders from the Eurasian steppes shaped the modern world. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
BERNARDINI, WESLEY. 2005. Reconsidering spatial and temporal aspects of
prehistoric cultural identity: A case study from the american southwest.
American Antiquity 70(1):31-54
BRETTELL, CAROLINE B., AND JAMES F. HOLLIFIELD. 2008. “Introduction,” In
Migration theory: Talking across disciplines. Edited by C. B. Brettell and J. F. Hollifield.
New York: Routledge
R. L. BETTINGER, AND M. A. BAUMHOFF. 1982. The Numic Spread: Great Basin
cultures in competition. American Antiquity, 47(3): 485-503
BOAS, FRANZ. 1912. Changes in the bodily form of descendants of immigrants.
American Anthropologist 14: 530-562.
CHAPMAN, J., AND P. M. DOLUKHANOV. 1992. The baby and the bathwater: Pulling
the plug on migrations. American Anthropologist 94:169-174.
CHAPMAN J., AND H. HAMEROW. 1997. “On the move again: Migrations and
invasions in archaeological explanation,” In Migrations and invasions in
archaeological explanation. Edited by J. Chapman and H. Hamerow.
BAR International Series 664, Oxford: Archaeopress.
GLASCOCK, M. D., H. NEFF AND K. J. VAUGHN. 2004. Instrumental Neutron
Activation Analysis and Multivariate Statistics for Pottery Provenance. Hyperfine
Interactions 154: 95-105.
GRÄSLUND, BO. 1999. ”Gustaf Oscar Augustin Montelius,” In Encyclopedia of
archaeology: The great archaeologists, vol. 1. Edited by Tim Murray, pp.155-164.
Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO
HAURY, EMIL W. 1958. “Evidence at Point of Pines for a prehistoric migration from
Northern Arizona,” In Migrations in New World Culture History. Edited by R. H.
Thompson. University of Arizona Social Science Bulletin No. 27, Tucson: University of
Arizona Press.
KLEJN, LEO. 1999. “Gustaf Kossina,” In Encyclopedia of Archaeology: The great
archaeologists, vol. 1. Edited by Tim Murray, pp.233-246. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.
KRISTIANSEN, KRISTIAN. 2005. “Theorising diffusion and population movements,” In
Archaeology: The key concepts. Edited by Colin Renfrew, pp. 75-79. New York:
Routledge.
LEKSON, S. H., C. P. NEPSTAD-THORNBERRY, B. E. YUNKER, T. S. LAUMBACH, D. P. CAIN, AND K. W. LAUMBACH. 2002. Migrations in the Southwest: Pinnacle Ruin, Southwestern New Mexico. Kiva 68: 73-101.
NEVES, W. A., R. GONZÁALEZ-JOSÉ, M. HUBBE, R. KIPNIS, A. G. M. ARAUJO, AND O. BLASI. 2004. Early Holocene human skeletal remains from Cerca Grande, Lagoa
Santa, Central Brazil, and the origins of the first Americans. World Archaeology 36:
479-501.
PRICE, T. D., J. H. BURTON, AND R. A. BENTLEY. 2002. The characterization of biologically available Strontium isotope ratios for the study of prehistoric migration. Archaeometry 44: 117-135.
RAVENSTEIN, E. G. 1885. The Laws of Migration. Journal of the Royal Statistical
Society, 48: 167-235.
RAVENSTEIN, E. G. 1889. The Laws of Migration. Journal of the Royal Statistical
Society, 52: 241-305.
ROUSE, B. I. 1958. “The inference of migrations from anthropological evidence,” In
Migrations in New World Culture History. Edited by R. H. Thompson, pp. 63-68.
University of Arizona Social Science Bulletin No. 27, Tucson: University of Arizona
Press.
ROUSE, B. I., 1986. Migrations in prehistory: Inferring population movement from
cultural remains. New Haven: Yale University Press.
THOMPSON, R. H. 1958. “Introduction,” In Migrations in New World Culture History.
Edited by R. H. Thompson, pp. v-vii. University of Arizona Social Science Bulletin No.
27, Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
TRIGGER, B. 1999. “Vere Gordon Childe,” In Encyclopedia of Archaeology: The great
archaeologists, vol. 1. Edited by Tim Murray, pp.385-400. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.
WILLEY, GORDON R., CHARLES C. DIPESO, WILLIAM A. RITCHIE, IRVING ROUSE, JOHN H. ROWE, AND DONALD W. LATHRAP. 1956. "An archaeological classification
of culture contact situations," in Seminars in archaeology:1955. Edited by Robert
Wauchope, pp. 1-30. Salt Lake City: The Society for American Archaeology.
WOODSON, M. K. 1999. Migrations in Late Anasazi prehistory: The evidence from the Goat Hill Site. Kiva 65: 63-84.
AMMERMAN, A. J. AND L. L. CAVALLI-SFORZA. 1973. “A population model for the
diffusion of early farming in Europe. In The explanation of culture change: Models in
prehistory, Edited by C. Renfrew. Pittsburgh: The University of Pittsburgh Press.
ANTHONY, DAVID W. 1990. Migration in archaeology: The baby and the
bathwater. American Anthropologist 92: 895-914
ANTHONY, DAVID W. 1992. The Bath refilled: Migration in archeology again.
American Anthropologist, 94: 174-176
ANTHONY, DAVID W. 1997. “Prehistoric migration as social process,” In Migrations
and invasions in archaeological explanation. Edited by J. Chapman and H. Hamerow.
BAR International Series 664, Oxford: Archaeopress.
ANTHONY, DAVID W. 2007. The horse, the wheel, and language:How bronze
age riders from the Eurasian steppes shaped the modern world. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
BERNARDINI, WESLEY. 2005. Reconsidering spatial and temporal aspects of
prehistoric cultural identity: A case study from the american southwest.
American Antiquity 70(1):31-54
BRETTELL, CAROLINE B., AND JAMES F. HOLLIFIELD. 2008. “Introduction,” In
Migration theory: Talking across disciplines. Edited by C. B. Brettell and J. F. Hollifield.
New York: Routledge
R. L. BETTINGER, AND M. A. BAUMHOFF. 1982. The Numic Spread: Great Basin
cultures in competition. American Antiquity, 47(3): 485-503
BOAS, FRANZ. 1912. Changes in the bodily form of descendants of immigrants.
American Anthropologist 14: 530-562.
CHAPMAN, J., AND P. M. DOLUKHANOV. 1992. The baby and the bathwater: Pulling
the plug on migrations. American Anthropologist 94:169-174.
CHAPMAN J., AND H. HAMEROW. 1997. “On the move again: Migrations and
invasions in archaeological explanation,” In Migrations and invasions in
archaeological explanation. Edited by J. Chapman and H. Hamerow.
BAR International Series 664, Oxford: Archaeopress.
GLASCOCK, M. D., H. NEFF AND K. J. VAUGHN. 2004. Instrumental Neutron
Activation Analysis and Multivariate Statistics for Pottery Provenance. Hyperfine
Interactions 154: 95-105.
GRÄSLUND, BO. 1999. ”Gustaf Oscar Augustin Montelius,” In Encyclopedia of
archaeology: The great archaeologists, vol. 1. Edited by Tim Murray, pp.155-164.
Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO
HAURY, EMIL W. 1958. “Evidence at Point of Pines for a prehistoric migration from
Northern Arizona,” In Migrations in New World Culture History. Edited by R. H.
Thompson. University of Arizona Social Science Bulletin No. 27, Tucson: University of
Arizona Press.
KLEJN, LEO. 1999. “Gustaf Kossina,” In Encyclopedia of Archaeology: The great
archaeologists, vol. 1. Edited by Tim Murray, pp.233-246. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.
KRISTIANSEN, KRISTIAN. 2005. “Theorising diffusion and population movements,” In
Archaeology: The key concepts. Edited by Colin Renfrew, pp. 75-79. New York:
Routledge.
LEKSON, S. H., C. P. NEPSTAD-THORNBERRY, B. E. YUNKER, T. S. LAUMBACH, D. P. CAIN, AND K. W. LAUMBACH. 2002. Migrations in the Southwest: Pinnacle Ruin, Southwestern New Mexico. Kiva 68: 73-101.
NEVES, W. A., R. GONZÁALEZ-JOSÉ, M. HUBBE, R. KIPNIS, A. G. M. ARAUJO, AND O. BLASI. 2004. Early Holocene human skeletal remains from Cerca Grande, Lagoa
Santa, Central Brazil, and the origins of the first Americans. World Archaeology 36:
479-501.
PRICE, T. D., J. H. BURTON, AND R. A. BENTLEY. 2002. The characterization of biologically available Strontium isotope ratios for the study of prehistoric migration. Archaeometry 44: 117-135.
RAVENSTEIN, E. G. 1885. The Laws of Migration. Journal of the Royal Statistical
Society, 48: 167-235.
RAVENSTEIN, E. G. 1889. The Laws of Migration. Journal of the Royal Statistical
Society, 52: 241-305.
ROUSE, B. I. 1958. “The inference of migrations from anthropological evidence,” In
Migrations in New World Culture History. Edited by R. H. Thompson, pp. 63-68.
University of Arizona Social Science Bulletin No. 27, Tucson: University of Arizona
Press.
ROUSE, B. I., 1986. Migrations in prehistory: Inferring population movement from
cultural remains. New Haven: Yale University Press.
THOMPSON, R. H. 1958. “Introduction,” In Migrations in New World Culture History.
Edited by R. H. Thompson, pp. v-vii. University of Arizona Social Science Bulletin No.
27, Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
TRIGGER, B. 1999. “Vere Gordon Childe,” In Encyclopedia of Archaeology: The great
archaeologists, vol. 1. Edited by Tim Murray, pp.385-400. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.
WILLEY, GORDON R., CHARLES C. DIPESO, WILLIAM A. RITCHIE, IRVING ROUSE, JOHN H. ROWE, AND DONALD W. LATHRAP. 1956. "An archaeological classification
of culture contact situations," in Seminars in archaeology:1955. Edited by Robert
Wauchope, pp. 1-30. Salt Lake City: The Society for American Archaeology.
WOODSON, M. K. 1999. Migrations in Late Anasazi prehistory: The evidence from the Goat Hill Site. Kiva 65: 63-84.