How People Moved among Ancient Societies: Broadening the View

Abstract

Archaeologists have made great strides in understanding prehistoric migration, yet they have tended to focus on only part of the continuum of human movement. In nonstate societies, individuals and groups moved frequently across social and environmental boundaries for a range of reasons. Although archaeologists are well aware of the fluid nature of social boundaries, we are only beginning to use this knowledge to understand human movement.

The Trafficking in Persons Report: a game of risk

“…Next, we assert that some risks are non-actionable because they are acceptable elements of living in a globalized world. For instance, historically migration was often crucial for the survival of populations (Cameron, 2013) and this is often still the case and migrants can positively influence host countries (Jennissen, 2007). We do not suggest that legal migration should be curbed through strict immigration policies.…”

“…These models usually assume that migrants make deliberative decisions about where and when to migrate. Without that element of rational choice, they are usually classified as refugees, rather than migrants voluntarily subjected to push and pull factors (Cameron, 2013). Other critics, such as Chibnik (2011), point to other difficulties applying rational-choice models to various types of migration.…”

Mobility and African archaeology: an introduction

“…The thorny issue of definition is one that continues to divide and confuse (e.g. Cameron 2013) and no clear resolution seems likely.…”

“…In a recent issue of World Archaeology on 'Migration and Mobility', van Dommelen makes similar points; mobility is 'still defined by a default, if often implicit, conceptualization of migration as "invasion" and "large-scale population movement" ' (van Dommelen 2014: 479). In a recent review of migration in the American Southwest, Cameron (2013) takes up some of these issues in more detail. As well as the limitations brought about by the conceptual divide between the economic mobility of hunter-gatherers/pastoralists and deliberate migration events, migration itself is constrained by scalar perceptions that typically only recognise mobility as large-scale, elective events, associated with state-level societies.…”

“…While Cameron (2013) and van Dommelen (2014) offer trenchant critiques of traditional mobility research, they continue to regard human movement as the primary purview of any archaeology of mobility. Van Dommelen (2014: 480) hints at a broader ontology (and see also van Dommelen and Knapp 2010), but, as the research papers in the issue of World Archaeology concerned demonstrate, human movement remains the driving focus of mobility research.…”