Creating a Diasporic Archaeology of Chinese Migration: Tentative Steps Across Four Continents

Abstract

This article calls for a specific form of comparative inquiry within historical archaeology as drawn from diaspora studies. Such a project encourages archaeologists to compare research from emigrant areas alongside work at overseas sites. This diasporic approach provides new potentials for engaging with the modern world by intersecting with both traditional and new aspects of archaeological practice. In order to showcase these aspects of a diasporic approach, the author explores three case studies from Montana, Peru, and New Zealand -connecting each to its related home area. The case studies explore how data drawn from a group's homeland can support established heritage practices, engage with modern social problems, and illuminate complexities arising within sites based on ethnolinguistic differences within populations.

THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF HOME:QIAOXIANGAND NONSTATE ACTORS IN THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE CHINESE DIASPORA

“…These interpretations often rely on generalized and at times stereotyped notions of “Chineseness” that are used as a reference point for interpreting recovered materials. Transnational approaches that build on historic and ethnohistoric research have provided alternatives to conventional studies of change and continuity (e.g., Byrne 2016; Chung and Wegars 2005; Fong 2013; González-Tennant 2011; Heffner 2015; Kennedy 2015; Kraus-Friedberg 2008; Lydon 1999; Molenda 2015a, 2015b; Ross 2011a, 2013a; Voss 2016), but the absence of comparable archaeological data from qiaoxiang continues to hamper development of the field. Interpreting Chinese diaspora sites requires both the development of a comparable body of evidence from qiaoxiang and an understanding of the ways in which China-produced goods were distributed to diaspora communities.…”

Historical Archaeologies of the American West

“…Related archaeological resources represent a bridge to better understanding the impact of the world's most recent mass colonization by providing a foundation for considering ''contemporary human activities, as well as the historic sweep of past environmental change'' in the archaeologies of a region where it is possible to still observe and document the phases of such changes (Fisher et al 2009b, p. 3), and where it is still feasible to include the memories of descendant communities in archaeological inquiry (González-Tennant 2011;King 2011;Orser 2010, p. 134;Voss 2005, pp. 434-435;Voss and Allen 2008;Yang and Hellman 1998;but see McGhee 2008;Silliman 2010).…”

Race and Racism in Archaeologies of Chinese American Communities

“…Lee 2017). As such, we locate our work in dialogue with archaeological research across the diaspora in Australia (e.g., Boileau 2017, Byrne 2016, Canada (Ross 2013), Peru (e.g., González-Tennant 2011), and New Zealand (Ritchie 2003), as well as Chinese diaspora archaeologies in the United States (for overviews, see Rose & Kennedy 2020; Ross 2013Ross , 2020Staski 2009;Voss 2015;Voss & Allen 2008).…”