Understanding the significance of migrants’ material culture

Abstract

Archaeologists are increasingly moving past discussions of whether migration events occurred in the past to more nuanced discussions of the meaning surrounding the migrants’ belongings. Migrants used material culture as powerful memory objects, to create meaning and adapt to living in a new place and often with new people. There are relatively few archaeological examples of large-scale migration into the Great Plains in the wake of European invasion of North America. One exception to this is the migration of Puebloan peoples from northern New Mexico to the Central Great Plains during the Puebloan diaspora after 1600 CE. Sites attributed to this migration are discussed in context with recent work on meaning and materiality to reconsider the critical role that objects play in identity expression and cultural survival in new homelands.

Keywords

Migration object meaning materiality memory North America Great Plains

Introduction

Even though contemporary migration events are common and migrants themselves can become the center of social, political, and economic discourse, archaeologists have not always believed it is possible to study past migrations. Critics cite ephemeral material traces of migrants’ passage and the possibility for multiple interpretations of material evidence as objects could arrive to a site via many routes (Adams, 1968; Myhre and Myhre, 1972). To address these critiques, other archaeologists turned to data from skeletal analyses, architecture, and material culture to argue migration events are visible in the archaeological record (Anthony, 1990; Burmeister, 2000; Herr and Clark, 1997; Kulisheck, 2003; Naum, 2015; Stone, 2003) and that the lives of migrants in their new homes can be studied (Faust, 2015; Ryden, 2018; Skiles and Clark, 2010). Emphasis is placed on objects that can be linked with practices associated with maintaining and displaying an individual’s or groups’ identity that are key to the creative adaptability of migrating people (Croucher and Wynne-Jones, 2006; Pavao-Zuckerman and DiPaolo Loren, 2012). Given new data on past migrations, scholars are shifting to examine the meaning and significance of these belongings (Brighton, 2009; Crowell, 2011; De León, 2013, 2015; Faust, 2015; Naum, 2015; Ryden, 2018; Van Oyen and Pitts, 2017). This work is necessary so that we can move past discussions of whether migrations happened to how migrants lived in new spaces. Migrants used material possessions to create meaning in new places and to anchor them as they adjusted leading up to, during, and after their movement. Denying the significance of material culture severs the link between the objects and their role in much larger social and historical narrative, thus undercutting possible archaeological interpretations (Van Oyen and Pitts, 2017).

There are few archaeological examples of large-scale migration into the North American Great Plains in the wake of European invasion of the continent. It is doubtful that migration events simply did not occur, and more likely that gaps in interpretative frameworks led archaeologists to misconstrue evidence. Migrants’ belongings get classified as trade goods, or variation in blended technological forms is masked in typologies meant to group artifacts together rather than set unique objects apart. It is critical to reconsider the role that migrants played at different points in time for both the Great Plains and in so many other regions so that we can try to successfully identify material remnants of their movement and to consider the social lives of their objects. For over a decade, my colleagues and I have worked to understand and contextualize the migration of Puebloan peoples from northern New Mexico to the Central Plains after 1600 CE (Beck and Trabert, 2014; Beck et al., 2016; Hill et al., 2018; Trabert, 2017; Trabert et al., 2016, 2017). The Scott County Pueblo (14SC1) has been the focal point of this analysis as it includes the remains of a seven-room masonry pueblo in present day western Kansas. This site as well as two others in the vicinity (14SC304 and 14SC409) (Figure 1) provide material evidence for the presence of Puebloan migrants and their social practices. Additionally, there are material indicators that these migrants joined Ndee groups (non-Navajo Southern Athapaskan cultures) already living in the area leading to the creation of a new Puebloan–Ndee community that likely lasted several generations (Beck and Trabert, 2014; Beck et al., 2016; Trabert, 2017). Our work has focused on determining whether migrants were in fact responsible for these sites and modeling possible relationships between the migrants and resident Ndee groups. However, the objects carried to western Kansas and those created in their new homes likely meant more to Puebloan migrants than what we have appreciated thus far, and understanding the migrants’ belongings is critical to any discussion of community formation.

Figure 1.

Ndee occupation of Central Plains and location of Lake Scott sites.

Recent research on meaning and materiality provides compelling support for moving past the material culture of migrants as objects, to considering them as representations of what migrants lost, what they gained, and the critical role that objects play in identity expression and cultural survival. After reviewing more recent consideration of migrants’ material culture, I consider the artifacts from these sites from a new angle to understand this migrant community. Those of us working in time periods prior to the 19th century need to draw on the work of archaeologists studying more recent migrations as these provide context for the meaning behind objects that migrants carried with them and the role that replicating significant mementos of home had in their adaptation to new places.

Studying migrants and their material culture

Identifying migrants in the archaeological record can be challenging. This said, Anthony (1990) states that by ignoring migration events, archaeologists have missed identifying patterns in material culture and practices that point to migrations. Burmeister (2000: 539) also suggested archaeologists should spend more time considering migration events in the Americas as they are rarely considered in discussions of cultural change. Research is often hampered by inadequate methodological and theoretical models that cannot distinguish between material evidence for trade, captivity, or migrants (Cameron, 2013; Habicht-Mauche, 2008).

When people move, they bring with them their own sets of beliefs, practices, and technologies that reflect their individual and group identities (Anthony, 1990; Herr and Clark, 1997). Archaeologists have deliberated on whether architectural styles, settlement size, ceramics production, economic networks, mortuary studies, historical documents, oral histories, and biological signatures (isotope and genetics work) can be evidence for past migrations (Alt, 2006; Burmeister, 2000; Croucher and Wynne-Jones, 2006; Naum, 2015; Stone, 2003). Often, artifacts are classified as either non-local or local, and utilitarian or domestic objects are treated as tools and not objects with deeper significance. The manufacture, use, and style of ceramics are often analyzed using a practice theory framework although researchers vary in their opinions on whether these elements were conscious or unconscious decisions made by migrants (Burmeister, 2000; Croucher and Wynne-Jones, 2006; Naum, 2015; Pavao-Zuckerman and DiPaolo Loren, 2012).

Migration studies have since shifted to develop frames for considering the complex role that material culture plays in maintaining and changing migrant social identities. Additionally, migrations are studied at different scales as archaeologists recognize the dual purpose that many everyday items had as migrants used them as tools and for communication within new social contexts (Stone, 2003). Objects allow migrants to integrate themselves into new social networks while still maintaining connections to their previous communities. Social Network Analysis can model the appearance and/or disappearance of certain types of objects from regions as people migrated in or out, especially as migrants worked to carve out their own social and economic niches in their new homes (Habiba et al., 2018; Mills et al., 2016). They could market their skills in pottery manufacture, weaving, farming, and other craft production to elevate their status in new aggregated or blended communities. The descendants of the initial migrants could build on those networks, thus integrating themselves into key positions within the social structure of host communities (Mills et al., 2016).

Migrants’ material culture can also serve as memory objects that allow people to adapt to their new circumstances and evoke their roots in significant traditions. Naum (2015) argues that migration was and is “a transformative experience involving a separation that can be perceived in terms of loss” (72). Everyday life and routines are disrupted and as migrants moved on to new lands they would have felt increasing alienation and estrangement. To cope with profound changes and loss, Naum argues that migrants would reproduce pieces of their previous lives and traditions using objects from their homelands. Even the most mundane domestic objects and practices can therefore take on renewed significance as a reminder of the homes and lives that migrants left behind. Furthermore, “salvaged things brought by immigrants or sent by their families may be perceived as material capsules of the home country, material thus tangible points of connection with sites and landscapes from the past” (Naum, 2015: 73). These objects might also retain a sort of inertia where their meaning persists for generations after the initial migration as they are passed on in remembrance (Fletcher, 2002: 304).

Drawing from contemporary migration studies

Many of our frameworks for understanding migrants and the meaning behind their actions and material belongings draw from studies of contemporary migrations. People might leave their homelands for a variety of reasons, from environmental change, to forced displacement from conflict or poverty, or because of educational and employment opportunities. A range of factors can influence materiality, and ethnographies provide much-needed context on political, social, and individual factors at work (e.g. Al-Ali and Koser, 2002; Azuma, 2005; Grabolle-Celiker, 2015; Mobasher, 2012; Ong, 1999; Pribilsky, 2007; Rabikowska and Burell, 2009; Rosaldo, 1994, 2003).

People forced to leave a place might utilize everyday objects to memorialize their lost homes and use the belongings they carried out of their homeland to maintain strong connections with the memory of that place. Butler and al-Nammari (2016) found that many families who were forced to leave Palestine, for example, mourned their former homes keeping title deeds, house keys, and photographs to promise to return to the homes they lost. Other migrants might be positioned to view their movement as adaptation where they could strategically use mobility, flexibility, and family relocation to their advantage (Brettell, 2008; Ong, 1999).

Depending on where the migration takes place and if it is not connected to stress, coercion, or resistance then the migrants may have very different approaches to using material culture and other concerns may take priority. Rosaldo (1994, 2003) developed the concept of cultural citizenship to articulate the complex rights of migrants—their right to retain their differences while simultaneously belonging in the dominant nation-state’s community. Migrants can belong without giving up their distinct practices and beliefs, shape the nature of their participation in their new nation, and choose how they remain connected to their former homelands (Hamilakis, 2016; Rabikowska and Burell, 2009). Ong (1999) uses the concept of flexible citizenship to describe the practices of some transnational migrants who might relocate their families to one location while they work in another country, allowing them to take advantage of the benefits associated with multiple nations at once. In many ethnographies, anthropologists studying transnational migration found that kinship and friendship networks are especially important to migrants’ adaptation and success (Brettell, 2008: 123).

There are a range of studies that bridge contemporary ethnography with archaeological methods and practice. Migrants crossing the U.S.–Mexico border may do so willingly as they utilize social networks on both sides to identify safe havens for their families and work opportunities, or unwillingly as they seek asylum after fleeing social unrest, poverty, and/or conflict in their homelands. Those that cross the border on foot, boat, or by vehicle leave behind material remnants of their movement. Several researchers have studied the significance of the objects that migrants carry with them, what they leave behind on the crossing, and the links they have with their former homes (De León, 2012, 2013, 2015; De León et al., 2015; Hamilakis, 2016). De León (2013, 2015) found that many migrants leave behind a rich record of their passing in the form of backpacks, discarded food and water containers, clothing, and personal objects like letters, photographs, and jewelry. Similarly, other researchers studying movement and homelessness use ethnography and archaeological perspectives to document the camps and material culture of displaced people (Kiddey and Schofield, 2011; Zimmerman et al., 2010; Zimmerman and Welch, 2011). This important work shows that even people that American or British society deems as “having nothing” retain a great deal of material possessions, carrying them from camp to camp.

Recent shifts in the archaeology of migrants and meaning

Recent migrations demonstrate that there is no straight line by which migrants are or are not integrated into the communities they join (Azuma, 2005; Brighton, 2009; Rabikowska and Burell, 2009; Stearns, 2006). Instead, there are series of complex negotiations as migrants maintain elements of their former lives and adopt practices and material objects from their new host communities (Greenwood and Slawson, 2008; Kivisto, 2004; Rotman, 2012). Furthermore, as Rotman (2010, 2012) and Ross (2012) found, objects can have very different meaning depending on their context—an object or practice within a household carries different weight and significance than actions and objects used outside. The objects that migrants use in public also may be part of a conscious strategy to appear as if they are assimilating into a dominant culture (Orser, 1996: 201) and archaeologists need to be cautious in assuming that the dominant society’s norms and values were accepted alongside their material culture in migrant communities (Camp, 2011).

Migrations change the lives of all involved as daily routines are disrupted, new residences have to be established, and people must quickly learn about new physical and social landscapes. Leading up to and during the move, migrants face many decisions regarding what they can take with them, the basic supplies they will need to survive the trip, and what practices they are willing to change and what cultural elements must be maintained in their new homes (Naum, 2015). Everyday objects can take on new levels of meaning as they stand as representatives of previous practices and routines. Norms and procedures essential to functioning as a social unit become critical and acceptable consumption practices and cooking methods are important to defining group identity and reviving cultural knowledge in homes (Atalay and Hastorf, 2006).

When people move, they must continually adapt to their new space but also adapt that same space to fit their preferred lifeways (Alt, 2006). The objects they bring from their homeland and the ones they reproduce in their new lives, therefore, have different meanings and life histories in the homes of migrants than they might if found elsewhere (Herva and Nurmi, 2009). Artifacts, especially personal objects, can accumulate multiple meanings as people imbue them with memory, emotions, and purpose as markers of their identity and reflections of past decision making (White and Beaudry, 2009). Smith (2007) states that the “handling of familiar or nostalgic objects whose worth is enhanced for the individual through idiosyncratic memory” is incredibly important for the maintenance of personal identity and mental wellbeing (Smith, 2007: 413, 417).

Hodder (1992) and Bauer (2002) have argued that it may not be possible for archaeologists to uncover “meaning” in the past until we have properly teased apart the methodological and theoretical processes of how archaeologists create knowledge that influences interpretation. Archaeologists have been searching for the “meaning” behind the objects they find for decades, beginning in large part in the 1960s with the Semiotics approach to anthropology. David Clarke and others tried to find parallel meanings between languages and what material objects communicate without a great deal of acceptance (Clarke, 1968; Guarinello, 2005). Later researchers argued that all elements of material culture once communicated something, therefore even the most basic tool is not to be viewed as a passive reflection of technological function (Thomas, 1995). Guarinello (2005) suggests archaeologists might understand the meaning behind objects by recreating the specific contexts where the objects took on their meaning, thus providing additional “text” for archaeologists to read and consider. “This may seem a circular argument, but … we do need an interpretation of the society prior to the interpretation of the objects through which we intend to understand that society” (Guarinello, 2005: 26).

Despite the number of publications concerning meaning in archaeology (Bauer, 2002; Gottdeiner, 1995; Guarinello, 2005; Hodder, 1986; Shanks and Tilley, 1987; Tilley, 1991), many archaeologists conclude that uncovering the actual meaning of objects is difficult and in fact risky as it attempts an actual discourse between the present and the past. “[T]o interpret the meaning of something we must give it its meaning” (Guarinello, 2005; 26). However, in many circumstances it might be possible to uncover the significance (rather than meaning per se) of objects to people in the past to provide a richer, more nuanced view of even the simplest elements of material culture. One might argue this becomes a debate over semantics and definitions of “significance” versus “meaning” rather than a useful perspective on the potential of interpretation. However, I argue when archaeologists look at past objects as simple utilitarian tools to consider their greater significance in specific contexts, such as to migrants, then we are better capturing the emotional and very real events of the past. Then in situations where written documents and oral histories are linked with the archaeological record, researchers can identify which objects were meaningful and what that meaning might actually have been for people in the past.

Migrants and the context of their possessions

To understand the significance of objects to migrants, it is necessary to consider the context in which those objects were acquired and used. By considering the lengths to which people sought and/or carried objects with them, we can attempt to understand which objects may have held the most significance to migrants. Migrants may or may not be in a position to take their most treasured objects with them to their new homes. In situations where keepsakes cannot be moved, everyday objects might take on additional layers of meaning. Utilitarian objects necessary for survival often take precedence over other goods when decisions regarding transport capabilities are made. Those simple objects then might be the only connection between migrants and their former lives. In some situations, it might be possible for migrants to maintain connections with their former homelands, later acquiring significant objects via trade or a shipment from loved ones. Or, migrants may choose to produce material culture reminiscent of what they formerly held using locally available materials present near their new homes. Each of these strategies could be used simultaneously by migrants or a group might be restricted based on their individual circumstances. Archaeologists must be careful to consider each route by which objects associated with migrants could have arrived at an archaeological site to ensure they capture this aspect of the migrants’ experience as they traveled to and attempted to settle in their new homes.

What migrants carry and/or discard along the journey

Research on migration from historical and ethnoarchaeological contexts has recently shifted toward considering the objects that migrants carry with them and much of this work has found that utilitarian objects can take on greater significance in new contexts than in previous homelands. In their study of the Second World War Japanese Internment Camps in Colorado, Skiles and Clark (2010) found that a relatively high proportion of Japanese ceramics were either carried by the incarcerees to the prisons or shipped in later. These ceramics were vital to the incarcerees’ mental health and survival in the prisons as they were used to prepare and cook food in traditional ways and also served as a connection with their former, current, and future identities as Japanese Americans. Familiar preparation and serving of foods served to anchor families and reinforce a sense of home as eating is frequently a social event.

Migrants might not always be positioned to retain all the objects they brought with them, possibly leaving a trail of discarded material culture that provides an even more poignant picture of migration—one of loss and discarding of previous identities. De León research on contemporary migrants who cross the United States’ southern border between Sonora, Mexico, and Southern Arizona provides examples of the material trail that tells of the passage of people along their migration. He and his team spent several years documenting sites associated with this movement, noting that for the thousands of people who attempt the crossing, critical decisions are made about what they can carry with them and what they have to leave behind. Many of these objects are discarded in the desert as migrants are forced to lighten their loads as they grew fatigued, leaving behind shoes, clothing, backpacks, food wrappers, water bottles, and a wide range of personal possessions like photos and love letters (De León, 2012, 2015).

These recent examples of the meaning behind objects that migrants and prisoners retain and what they discard illustrate the complex relationships that people have with material reminders of home. Even the simplest of objects can take on layers of meaning and these possessions should not be considered “trash” or “exotic” as those interpretative approaches might lead archaeologists to miss a critical opportunity to consider the migration process from the perspectives of those that made the journeys. Objects that people retained could serve as reminders of the world from which they originated, help forge a sense of belonging, and connect people with their loved ones (Ryden, 2018: 527). Following Appadurai (1986), Hoksins (2006), and Tilley (1991), De León (2012) states that material culture is objects with social lives and even the objects people discarded along their migration still have much to tell of us of the decisions and agency of the migrants themselves. Migrants leave behind a rich material record of those meaningful objects that they wished to take with them but ultimately could not, given the rigors and dangers of the journey. When rediscovered decades or generations later, these lost objects can be used to chronicle the trauma, pain, and survival of those who experienced border crossings, imprisonment, and other forced movements so that those experiences are not forgotten (Pantzou, 2011).

Importing objects

In some situations, individuals may rely on exchange networks to acquire goods from their homes to replace items lost during the journey or to replenish their supply of significant objects to create a “home away from home” (Voss et al., 2018). These critical connections to their former homelands can help alleviate material and/or social deprivation if migrants were unable to carry much with them. In some cases, these material connections may also help migrants maintain continuity with their homeland’s material practices should they hope to return (Voss et al., 2018). For example, Ross (2012) found that Japanese and Chinese migrants to British Columbia in the 19th century consumed both local and imported alcoholic beverages from Asia, showing they did not have to choose between adopting drinks and practices of British Columbia or maintaining their transnational connections to home. They were able to incorporate multiple consumables into their lives without losing touch with their disaffected homeland.

Migrants may wish to continue certain practices and rituals that might require specific objects created in their homelands. Feasting and foodways practices could serve to help migrants maintain their identities as they asserted their autonomy in new lands, and proper (imported) goods might be critical for maintaining the social memory and significance of those acts. Faust (2015) considered Iron Age Philistine migrants to Canaan, arguing that the Philistines desired to retain their previous identities and maintain social distance from those in their new lands, and social practices and corresponding material culture such as feasting table wares and other ceramics signaled their differences to people native to the region. Feasting and other similar practices worked to immortalize former homelands while simultaneously helping migrants reinvent their identities and feasting objects were incredibly important to this process.

While it is often the case that migrants to an area may join resident groups, blending their cultural practices, in some circumstances migrants might wish to remain distinct. This is often the case in colonial settings where colonizers maintain links with their homelands to import significant goods and foods to colonies so as to retain their national identity. In his study of Russian colonization of North America, Crowell (2011) points out the importance of imported goods for maintaining social hierarchies in new lands. Elite Russian Americans in 18th century colonies in Alaska used imported goods to reinforce Russian identity, power, and status systems, purposefully rejecting many elements of local Indigenous technologies and foodways. Creole individuals in these settlements often emulated Russian cultural expectations by importing clothing and foods to express their Russian over Indigenous heritage (Crowell, 2011).

Local production of significant objects

Further complicating archaeological understanding of migrant material culture is the fact that migrants often replicate the material culture of their former homes by using local material available in their new area. The ability to continue production of significant objects reinforces social practices, traditions, and knowledge, and hybrid objects symbolizing old and new homes often occur in mixed social settings (Howey, 2011). In some cases, people may need to use new materials to replicate familiar objects and skeuomorphs, or objects manufactured in one material that represent other forms, are created. For migrants, even if the copies are not perfect replicas of the originals, they nevertheless may invoke the same significance, power, and memory of the original objects (Howey, 2011; Knappett, 2002).

In her discussion of 20th century prison camps on the Channel Islands, Carr (2011) found that the prisoners often made objects in camp to keep themselves calm as the act of creating was therapeutic. Food packaging, barbed wire, and other materials were remade into jewelry, handbags, hats, ash trays, dolls, and furniture often in direct defiance of their captors (Carr, 2011: 129–130). This work shows that while people may manufacture objects necessary for survival, prisoners, migrants, and others also may use locally produced objects to bridge their former homes with current circumstances, imbuing additional meaning even into the simplest of tools or accessories.

Modeling 17th century Puebloan migration to the Great Plains

Much of the literature cited here covers more recent migration events and the material lives of people who are living today or in the last century. It can be difficult, but not impossible, to extend frameworks for understanding the meaning of migrants’ material culture further back in time. The Scott County Pueblo (14SC1) and two other sites (14SC304 and 14SC409) present an opportunity to consider the complex and changing relationship that migrants and their host communities can have (Figure 1). This set of sites also provides an example of how archaeologists might tease apart the remnants of objects migrants brought from home, those they imported, and the ones they made locally all in an attempt to find and make a new home in a different landscape.

Previous studies of the Scott County Pueblo

Investigations at 14SC1 have been led by several professional and avocational archaeologists since the late 1890s, including Samuel W. Williston, Handel T. Martin, Waldo Wedel, James Gunnerson, and Thomas Witty. Although initially thought to be a Spanish or French trading post, the seven-room pueblo structure and associated features and material culture were then interpreted as having a connection with northern Rio Grande pueblos after the 1680 and 1696 Revolts (Martin, 1909; Opler, 1982; Preucel, 2002; Thomas, 1935; Witty, 1983). Spanish historical documents recount a group of refugees from Picuris Pueblo leaving their homes and traveling to “El Cuartelejo” to join Apache groups there after 1680 (Thomas, 1935). Given the presence of the pueblo and nearby Apache (Ndee) material culture, archaeologists linked “El Cuartelejo” with the 14SC1 site even though the Spanish never mention the construction of a pueblo in the migrant community (see Beck and Trabert, 2014 for more detail). However, archaeologists have not always agreed on the identity of the site’s occupants, vacillating between Puebloan migrants living at the site (Gunnerson, 1998; Martin, 1909; Witty, 1983) or local Ndee residents that had been influenced by their connections with the Southwest (Wedel, 1959).

Traditional approaches to studying Puebloan migration to the Plains and this site yielded interpretations that stressed that Puebloan migrants would only leave their homes and migrate after the post-revolt fallout and that their occupation of the site was short-lived (Opler, 1982; Thomas, 1935; Wedel, 1959). Few scholars considered other reasons why Puebloan peoples might migrate to the Plains, what the nature of their relationship was with the Ndee peoples already living there, and where the material culture at the site likely originated. Material culture was largely classified as either utilitarian tools or trade goods with limited context or explanation of their origins (Wedel, 1959; Williston and Martin, 1900; Witty, 1983). More traditional interpretations of the 14SC1 pueblo and explanations for its connection with northern Rio Grande groups are certainly a product of archaeological research and interests in the early to mid-20th century. While migrants were recognized to have had some role in the Scott County Pueblo, researchers lacked the frameworks necessary to consider how the migrants moved, what objects they carried with them, how they maintained connections with their former homes, what objects they produced locally, and the significance that these objects likely held to the migrants themselves and the Ndee community they joined. Researchers at the time also lacked the characterization analyses that are available to us now to better pinpoint the origin for ceramics and other objects.

The material links between the Plains and northern New Mexico

My colleagues and I have reanalyzed the collections from 14SC1, pairing this work with new excavations to determine that the pueblo and two additional sites, 14SC304 and 14SC409, were associated with a larger community of Puebloan migrants and Ndee residents. While most previous researchers had recognized the presence of migrants at 14SC1, other nearby sites had been attributed to Ndee residents alone (Gunnerson 1998). In addition to the Puebloan architecture at 14SC1, our reanalysis of ceramics from these sites identified northern Rio Grande ceramics (Tewa Red and Kapo Black wares) (at 14SC1, 14SC409), locally made copies of Puebloan utilitarian vessel forms, and Ndee ceramics at all three sites (Beck and Trabert, 2014; Beck et al., 2016; Trabert, 2017; Trabert et al., 2016). Given the rather tenuous links between 14SC1 and the Puebloan revolts, Hill and colleagues sent over a dozen samples from the three sites for radiocarbon dating. The new dates indicate that the occupation of the masonry pueblo at 14SC1 was most likely between 1600 and 1660 CE, while nearby sites 14SC304 and 14SC409 were occupied between 1680 and 1740 CE (Hill et al., 2018; Trabert et al., 2017). This work places the occupation of the 14SC1 pueblo before the Pueblo Revolts and 14SC304 and 14SC409 after the pueblo was burned and abandoned. It is more likely the initial migration and construction of the 14SC1 pueblo is associated with a larger Puebloan diaspora as people fled their homes to avoid Spanish persecution, escaping to other pueblos and to the Great Plains for refuge. These data indicate that the Puebloan migrants who settled in western Kansas either remained there for several generations or saw an influx of new migrants who lived with Ndee peoples at later sites 14SC304 and 14SC409.

Given the nearly 600 kilometer distance between the pueblos of northern New Mexico and the sites in western Kansas, it was likely difficult for migrants to maintain a steady influx of objects and foods from their homes. Chemical and mineral compositional analysis of ceramics recovered from these sites indicates they brought with them or exchanged for few ceramics from their northern Rio Grande homelands (less than 1% of the ceramics recovered; Table 1). Instead, Puebloan potters maintained their traditional knowledge and manufacturing skills to locally produce vessels linked to foodways practices associated with northern New Mexico. These practices stand in contrast to those of the Ndee groups they joined (see Trabert, 2015, 2017 for discussion of Ndee ceramics). Locally produced short-upright jars and a higher proportion of bowls led to an assemblage that is distinct from the vessel forms typically found in the region or from other Ndee sites (Beck and Trabert, 2014) (Table 1). Beck and Trabert (2014) cite the importance of bowls for food preparation and serving in many Puebloan communities, while Trabert (2015) contrasts this with Ndee preferences for jar forms instead of bowls for serving food. The bowl-to-jar ratio at the Scott County Pueblo was approximately 2:1 which is similar to other northern Rio Grande assemblages (Beck and Trabert, 2014). This is in contrast to the much lower bowl-to-jar ratios at typical Ndee sites in the region (0.26:1 or lower) (Trabert, 2017). Puebloan migrants sought to continue foodways practices similar to what they were accustomed to in their former homes. The 14SC1 site residents also produced utilitarian ceramics using manufacturing practices that reflected a blend of their former (coiling, slipping, polishing) and new (hand building and burnishing) practices that they adopted after joining the resident Ndee community (Table 1) (Beck and Trabert, 2014; Trabert, 2017).

Table 1.

Evidence for Puebloan-style ceramic manufacturing practices and forms.

Manufacturing practice	Ndee sites outside of Kansas (n = 3133)	14SC1 (n = 36,732)	14SC304 (n = 49)	14SC409 (n = 322)
Coiling	41 (1%)	21 (<1%)	3 (6%)	15 (5%)
Polish	0	151 (<1%)	15 (31%)	68 (21%)
Red slip	0	36 (<1%)	47 (96%)	65 (20%)
Vessel form
Short upright jar	0	6 (<15)	0	0
Bowl	39 (1%)	38 (<1%)	2 (4%)	5 (2%)
Unidentified Rio Grande ceramics	20 (<1%)	15 (<1%)	0	127 (39%)

Source: Table adapted from Trabert (2017: Table 2).

Even after the original pueblo structure was abandoned, people of Puebloan and Ndee ancestry continued producing objects significant to those initial migrants at sites 14SC304 and 14SC409, even in some cases perfecting the replication of objects from their former communities. Compositional and color spectrum analysis was completed on a sample of 10 red slipped sherds recovered from 14SC1 and 14SC4304, and it was determined that they were locally produced and nearly indistinguishable from those manufactured in northern New Mexico (Beck et al., 2016; McGrath et al., 2017). The locally produced red ware ceramics are skeuomorphs as they were produced using locally available materials to copy the form and color of vessels from the migrants’ homelands (McGrath et al., 2017).

The resident Apache communities had their own distinct ceramic manufacturing practices, and in those later sites (14SC304 and 14SC409), we found evidence for the continuation of both Ndee and Puebloan practices. Locally produced, Puebloan-style pottery was recovered from Ndee-style homes (similar to wickiups and distinct from all other house forms in the region) (Table 1). This indicates that the ceramics and how they were used were particularly significant elements of the blended heritage of those living at these sites.

Discussion and final remarks

My own work and my colleague’s research of the Scott County Pueblo and associated sites identified the presence of Puebloan migrants (Beck and Trabert, 2014), contextualized this migration within the larger Puebloan diaspora in the aftermath of Spanish colonization (Beck and Trabert, 2014; Trabert, 2017), and investigated the impacts this migration would have had on the local Ndee community already in the region (Trabert, 2016, 2017). As described, migrants can bring significant objects with them on their journey, can utilize exchange networks to acquire goods from their homes, and/or they can manufacture objects themselves that are copies and often hybrid forms representing their former and new homes. While it is possible that the migrants living at the Scott County Pueblo retained strong connections with family and friends in the northern Rio Grande communities, the distance paired with the unrest from Spanish interference and their construction of a permanent pueblo home makes it unlikely that this was a temporary move. Nor does it appear that the Puebloan migrants were trying to take advantage of connections spreading their family across multiple regions for economic reasons (vis-à-vis flexible citizen). Our detailed reanalysis of material culture recovered from these sites has shown a small quantity of imported objects from northern New Mexico and a larger number of locally produced ceramics created using local raw materials in Puebloan form and style. As discussed, many decisions are made as people prepare to move if they are in a position to prepare at all. We will not know the exact reasons for the Puebloan migration to the Plains; however, since the initial move was not in response to the tumultuous Pueblo Revolts, it could be that these migrants had time to pack and plan this long-distance move. The small quantity of northern Rio Grande manufactured pottery recovered from the 14SC1 pueblo may be objects carried by migrants rather than the product of trade. We also know little of the lands they traversed between northern New Mexico and western Kansas, nor what they discarded along the way, or the emotional toll that may have had on the migrants who later settled at 14SC1.

It appears that Puebloan migrants and their descendants remained in western Kansas even after the pueblo itself was abandoned and continued many pottery traditions. It could be that these traditions persisted so that the ceramic vessels themselves could replace memory objects that were lost on the journey or broken through use. Or, as described in the examples above, migrants often retain foodways practices that help link them to their pasts and to elements of their identity they wish to pass along to the next generation. The potters living at sites 14SC304 and 14SC409 did not have the pueblo structure itself to remind them of their heritage, but could rely on their growing knowledge of local resources to continue perfecting their replication of Tewa Red ware-style ceramics which connected them to northern Rio Grande foodways practices. However, the quantity of local Ndee-style pottery recovered alongside the Tewa skeuomorphs presents evidence for blended cultural practices where local vessels were used in some aspects of daily life while the Tewa red replicas were used for different purposes. As people lived in Ndee-style houses using Ndee-ceramics and Puebloan-style pottery (Puebloan foodways practices), it is very likely that even these utilitarian objects held and conveyed multiple meanings that very likely changed over time as the next generations were more and more removed from their northern Rio Grande ancestors. The objects of these migrants and their descendants, therefore, are best interpreted as objects of memory whose social lives, histories, and significance transcend their classification as simple utilitarian tools.

The narrative suggested here for the creation, occupation, and closing of the Scott County Pueblo is framed using concepts and methods other anthropologists have developed to not only recognize the presence of migrants but to consider the more complex object histories of their material culture. Our field has seen a significant expansion in the methods and theoretical frameworks aimed at more nuanced examination and understanding of migrant material culture. Individuals and groups frequently moved in the distant and more present past as part of voluntary migration events, as refugees, and involuntarily as captives and prisoners. Given the rich body of work explaining how and when migrations occurred, it is important that we continue pushing past the question of whether migrations occurred in the more distant past to considering material culture as a window into experiences of the migrants themselves. By considering material culture as something more than utilitarian tools for physical survival, archaeologists can develop nuanced interpretations and methods of analysis for better understanding the role that material objects played in the migration process, identity maintenance, and cultural survival. Objects can serve as a means of replicating the familiar, linking homes and family, and as reservoirs of memory and emotion for people experiencing anguish and sometimes trauma from their move. Everyday objects can be transformed as migrants invest a great deal of emotion in their belongings, using them as a tangible connection to their past and those they left behind (Carr, 2018; Naum, 2015). While it will always be true that migrants themselves would have understood this process differently, archaeologists can consider the multi-layered significance of objects.

If we persist in applying more economic explanations to the presence of “nonlocal or exotic” objects in regions where migration events are known to occur, we may completely misinterpret the value and significance of those objects and how they arrived at sites. Some of the earlier interpretations of the 14SC1 pueblo did just this, assuming “exotic” objects were the product for exchange, thus missing critical evidence for migrants moving into the region. Furthermore, by not considering how migrants might continue former practices via producing valued objects using local materials, we risk mislabeling artifacts as “local” or “nonlocal” and excluding them from further analysis and interpretation. The locally produced copies of significant objects could be products of cultural preservation and memory as migrants make objects in their new homes to remind them of their past. The decisions that migrants make as they move and then settle in their homes are creative, active responses, and their practices and technologies are not passive remnants of previous lifeways.

While there is extensive research on migrants and the significance of their belongings, we have not identified every migration that has occurred through time. It is still important to consider whether artifacts recovered from sites might be the work of migrants—either what they carried, what they later imported, or what they made locally. This will require a much greater understanding of the historical and social context for their regions and how common migration events occurred in the past. This approach will likely work best in time periods and regions where there are multiple lines of evidence pointing to migration—not only objects, but skeletal analysis, architecture, historical documents, and oral histories, similar to the examples described above. We can no longer turn to only the exotic objects at sites to provide evidence for movement as these are often explained away by critics as evidence of trade instead of migration. More detailed analyses of utilitarian tools and the decisions and social memory preserved in those objects could provide a much more telling story of movement and adaptation.

Today, archaeologists are well-positioned to consider migrants’ lived experiences and the multi-layered significance of the objects used to identify their presence. Migration and migrants that are at the center of global social and political discussions today are part of a much larger history of global human movement and adaptation. Museums around the world are curating materials relating to contemporary migration—their material culture, writings, and photographs (Levin, 2017). Archaeology has an opportunity to draw greater attention to the long-term importance of movement to people articulating with contemporary issues of injustice, inequality, and emotional turmoil and trauma faced by so many people as they move to new homes.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Sarah Trabert is an assistant professor of Anthropology at the University of Oklahoma. Her research centers on understanding how Indigenous communities on the Great Plains responded to the many direct and indirect effects stemming from European colonial activities in adjacent regions.

References

Adams

(1968) Invasion, diffusion, evolution? Antiquity 42: 194–215.

Al-Ali N and Koser K (eds) (2002) New Approaches to Migration? Transnational Communities and the Transformation of Home. London: Routledge.

Alt SM (2006) The power of diversity: The roles of migration and hybridity in culture change. In: Butler BM and Welch PD (eds) Leadership and Polity in Mississippian Society. Occasional Paper No. 33. Carbondale: Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, pp.289–308.

Anthony

(1990) Migration in archaeology: The baby and the bathwater. American Anthropologist 9(4): 859–914.

Appadurai

(1986) Introduction; commodities and the politics of value. In: Appadurai

(ed) The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–63.

Atalay

Hastorf

(2006) Food, meals, and daily activities: Food habits at Neolithic Catalhoyuk. American Antiquity 71(2): 283–319.

Azuma

(2005) Between Two Empires: Race, History, and Transnationalism in Japanese America, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bauer

(2002) Is what you see all you get? Recognizing meaning in archaeology. Journal of Social Archaeology 2(1): 37–52.

Beck

Trabert

(2014) Puebloan occupation of the Scott County Pueblo, Western Kansas. American Antiquity 79(2): 314–336.

10.

Beck

Trabert

Hill

, et al.(2016) Tewa Red and the Puebloan diaspora: The making of Ledbetter Red. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 6: 148–159.

11.

Brettell

(2008) Theorizing migration in anthropology. In: Brettell

Hollifield

(eds) Migration Theory: Talking Across Disciplines, New York: Routledge, pp. 1–29.

12.

Brighton

(2009) Historical Archaeology of the Irish Diaspora: A Transnational Approach, Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.

13.

Burmeister

(2000) Archaeology and migration: Approaches to an archaeological proof of migration. Current Anthropology 41(4): 539–567.

14.

Butler

al-Nammari

(2016) Archaeologies of forced and undocumented migration. Journal of Contemporary Archaeology 3(2): 121–294.

15.

Cameron

(2013) How people moved among ancient societies: Broadening the view. American Anthropologist 115(2): 218–231.

16.

Camp

(2011) Consuming citizenship? The archaeology of Mexican immigrant ambivalence in early twentieth-century Los Angeles. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 15: 305–328.

17.

Carr

(2011) Engraving and embroidering emotions upon the material culture of internment. In: Myers

Moshenska

(eds) Archaeologies of Internment, New York: Springer Press, pp. 129–146.

18.

Carr

(2018) The small things of life and death: An exploration of value and meaning in the material culture of Nazi camps. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 22: 531–552.

19.

Clarke

(1968) Analytical Archaeology, London: Methuen.

20.

Croucher

Wynne-Jones

(2006) People, not pots: Locally produced ceramics and identity on the nineteenth-century East African coast. The International Journal of African Historical Studies 39(1): 107–124.

21.

Crowell

(2011) Ethnicity and periphery: The archaeology of identity in Russian America. In: Croucher

Weiss

(eds) The Archaeology of Capitalism in Colonial Contexts, New York: Springer Publishing, pp. 85–104.

22.

De León

(2012) “Better to be hot than caught”: Excavating the conflicting roles of migrant material culture. American Anthropologist 114(3): 477–495.

23.

De León

(2013) Undocumented migration, use wear, and the materiality of habitual suffering in the Sonoran Desert. Journal of Material Culture 18: 321–345.

24.

De León

(2015) The Land of Open Graves: Living and Dying on the Migrant Trail, Oakland: University of California Press.

25.

De León

Gokee

Schubert

(2015) “By the time I get to Arizona”: Citizenship, materiality, and contested identities along the US-Mexico border. Anthropological Quarterly 88: 445–479.

26.

Faust

(2015) Pottery and society in Iron Age Philistia: Feasting, identity, economy, and gender. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 373: 167–198.

27.

Fletcher

(2002) The hammering of society: Non-correspondence and modernity. In: Schofield

Johnson

Beck

(eds) Materiel Culture: The Archaeology of Twentieth Century Conflict, London: Routledge, pp. 303–311.

28.

Gottdeiner

(1995) Postmodern Semiotics: Material Culture and the Forms of Postmodern Life, Oxford: Blackwell.

29.

Grabolle-Celiker

(2015) Kurdish Life in Contemporary Turkey: Migration, Gender and Ethnic Identity, London: IB Tauris.

30.

Greenwood

Slawson

(2008) Gathering insights on isolation. Historical Archaeology 42(3): 68–79.

31.

Guarinello

(2005) Archaeology and the meanings of material culture. In: Funari

Zarankin

Stovel

(eds) Global Archaeological Theory, Boston: Springer, pp. 19–27.

32.

Gunnerson

(1998) From the Plains and back again. The Kansas Anthropologist 19: 37–61.

33.

Habiba

Athenstadt

Mills

, et al.(2018) Social networks and similarity of site assemblages. Journal of Archaeological Science 92: 63–72.

34.

Habicht-Mauche

(2008) Captive wives? The role and status of nonlocal women on the protohistoric Southern High Plains. In: Cameron

(ed) Invisible Citizens: Captives and Their Consequences, Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press, pp. 181–204.

35.

Hamilakis

(2016) Archaeologies of forced and undocumented migration. Journal of Contemporary Archaeology 3(2): 121–294.

36.

Herr

Clark

(1997) Patterns in the pathways: Early historic migrations in the Rio Grande Pueblos. Kiva 62(4): 365–389.

37.

Herva

Nurmi

(2009) Beyond consumption: Functionality, artifact biography, and early modernity in a European periphery. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 13(2): 158–182.

38.

Hill

Beck

Lengyel

, et al.(2018) A hard time to date: The Scott County Pueblo (14SC1) and Puebloan residents of the High Plains. American Antiquity 83(1): 54–74.

39.

Hodder

(1986) Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

40.

Hodder

(1992) Material practice, symbolism and ideology. In: Hodder

(ed) Theory and Practice in Archaeology, London: Routledge, pp. 201–212.

41.

Hoksins

(2006) Agency, objects and biography. In: Tilley

Keane

Küchler

, et al.(eds) Handbook of Material Culture, London: SAGE, pp. 74–85.

42.

Howey

(2011) Colonial encounters, European kettles, and the magic of mimesis in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century indigenous Northeast and Great Lakes. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 15: 329–357.

43.

Kiddey

Schofield

(2011) Embrace the margins: Adventures in archaeology and homelessness. Public Archaeology 10: 4–22.

44.

Kivisto

(2004) What is the canonical theory of assimilation? Journal of the History of Behavioral Sciences 40(2): 149–163.

45.

Knappett

(2002) Photographs, skeuomorphs and marionettes: Some thoughts on mind, agency and object. Journal of Material Culture 7(1): 97–117.

46.

Kulisheck

(2003) Pueblo population movements, abandonment, and settlement change in sixteenth and seventeenth century New Mexico. Kiva 69(1): 30–54.

47.

Levin

(2017) Conclusion: Tomorrow’s heritage of migration. In: Levin

(ed) Global Nobilities: Refugees, Exiles, and Immigrants in Museums and Archives, New York: Routledge, pp. 471–475.

48.

McGrath

Beck

Hill

(2017) Replicating red: Analysis of ceramic slip color with CIELAB color data. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 14: 432–438.

49.

Martin

(1909) Further notes on the Pueblo Ruin of Scott County. University of Kansas, Science Bulletin 5(2): 11–22.

50.

Mills

Clark

Peeples

(2016) Migration, skill, and the transformation of social networks in the pre-Hispanic Southwest. Economic Anthropology 3: 203–215.

51.

Mobasher

(2012) Iranians in Texas: Migration, Politics, and Ethnic Identities, Austin: University of Texas Press.

52.

Myhre

(1972) The concept “immigration” in archaeological contexts illustrated by examples from West Norwegian and North Norwegian early iron age. Norwegian Archaeological Review 5: 45–70.

53.

Naum

(2015) Material culture and diasporic experiences: A case of medieval Hanse merchants in the Baltic. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 26: 72–86.

54.

Ong

(1999) Flexible Citizenship: The Cultural Logics of Transnationality, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

55.

Opler ME (1982) The Scott County Pueblo Site in historical archaeology and ethnological perspective. In: Wyckoff DG and Hofman JL (eds) Pathways to Plains Prehistory: Anthropological Perspectives of the Plains Natives and Their Past. Papers in honor of Robert E. Bell. Norman: Oklahoma Anthropological Society, pp.135–144.

56.

Orser

(1996) A Historical Archaeology of the Modern World, New York: Plenum Press.

57.

Pantzou

(2011) Materialities and traumatic memories of a twentieth-century Greek exile island. In: Myers

Moshenska

(eds) Archaeologies of Internment, New York: Springer Press, pp. 191–206.

58.

Pavao-Zuckerman

DiPaolo Loren

(2012) Presentation is everything: Foodways, tablewares, and colonial identity at Presidio Los Adaes. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 16: 199–226.

59.

Preucel

(2002) Archaeologies of the Pueblo Revolt: Identity, Meaning, and Renewal in the Pueblo World, Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

60.

Pribilsky

(2007) La Chulla Vida: Gender, Migration, and the Family in Andean Ecuador and New York City, Gender and Globalization. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

61.

Rabikowska

Burell

(2009) The material worlds of recent Polish migrants: Transnationalism, food, shops and home. In: Burrell

(ed) Polish Migration to the UK in the “New” European Union, London: Routledge, pp. 211–232.

62.

Rosaldo

(1994) Cultural citizenship in San Jose, California. PoLAR 17(2): 57–63.

63.

Rosaldo

(2003) The borders of belonging: Nation and citizen in the hinterlands. In: Rosaldo

(ed) Cultural Citizenship in Island Southeast Asia: Nation and Belonging in the Hinterlands, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, pp. 1–15.

64.

Ross

(2012) Comparing the material lives of Asian transmigrants through the lens of alcohol consumption. Journal of Social Archaeology 10(2): 230–254.

65.

Rotman

(2012) Irish-Catholic immigrant life in South Bend, Indiana: Refined earthenwares and the 19th-century social worlds of the Midwest. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 37(1): 25–44.

66.

Ryden

(2018) When bereaved of everything: Objects from the concentration camp of Ravensbruck as expressions of resistance, memory, and identity. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 22: 511–530.

67.

Shanks

Tilley

(1987) Re-constructing Archaeology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

68.

Skiles

Clark

(2010) When the foreign is not exotic: Ceramics at Colorado’s WWII Japanese Internment Camp. In: Dillian

White

(eds) Trade and Exchange: Archaeological Studies from History and Prehistory, New York: Springer Publishing, pp. 179–192.

69.

Smith

(2007) Inconspicuous consumption: Non-display goods and identity formation. Journal of Archaeology Method and Theory 14: 412–438.

70.

Stearns

(2006) Consumerism in World History: The Global Transformation of Desire, New York: Routledge.

71.

Stone

(2003) Social identity and ethnic interaction in the Western Pueblos of the American Southwest. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 10(1): 31–67.

72.

Thomas

(1935) After Coronado: Spanish Exploration Northeast of New Mexico, 1696–1717, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

73.

Thomas

(1995) Reconciling symbolic significance with being-in-the-world. In: Hodder

(ed) Interpreting Archaeology: Finding Meaning in the Past, London: Routledge, pp. 210–211.

74.

Tilley

(1991) Material Culture and Text: The Art of Ambiguity, London: Routledge.

75.

Trabert S (2015) Plural communities on the Plains: Dismal River people and the Puebloan diaspora. PhD Dissertation, University of Iowa, USA.

76.

Trabert

(2017) Considering the indirect effects of colonialism: Example from a Great Plains middle ground. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 48: 17–27.

77.

Trabert

Eiselt

Hill

, et al.(2016) Following a glittering trail: Geo-chemical and petrographic characterization of micaceous sherds recovered from Dismal River sites. American Antiquity 81(2): 364–374.

78.

Trabert

Hill

Cooley

(2017) New excavations in Scott State Park: Preliminary findings from 14SC409. Kansas Anthropologist 35: 27–46.

79.

Van Oyen

Pitts

(2017) What did objects do in the Roman world? Beyond representation. In: Van Oyen

Pitts

(eds) Materialising Roman Histories, Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 3–20.

80.

Voss

Kennedy

Tan

, et al.(2018) The archaeology of home: Qiaoxiang and nonstate actors in the archaeology of the Chinese diaspora. American Antiquity 83(3): 407–426.

81.

Wedel WR (1959) An Introduction to Kansas Archaeology. Bureau of American Bulletin 174. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

82.

White

Beaudry

(2009) Artifacts and personal identity. In: Majewski

Gaimster

(eds) International Handbook of Historical Archaeology, New York: Springer Publishing, pp. 209–225.

83.

Williston

Martin

(1900) Some Pueblo ruins in Scott County, Kansas. Transactions of the Kansas State Historical Society, 1897–1900 6: 124–130.

84.

Witty

(1983) An archaeological review of the Scott County Pueblo. Bulletin of the Oklahoma Anthropological Society 32: 99–106.

85.

Zimmerman

Singleton

Welch

(2010) Activism and creating a translational archaeology of homelessness. World Archaeology 42: 443–454.

86.

Zimmerman

Welch

(2011) Displaced and barely visible: Archaeology and the material culture of homelessness. Historical Archaeology 45: 67–85.