THEORY THOUGHTS: Initial thoughts on Ross 2013

As archaeologists, we need to study theory. We can’t DO ARCHAEOLOGY without archaeological theory. Yet, I have met so many working archaeologists who despise theory, claiming that they simply don’t need it. And that hurts my soul. Realistically, though, so many folks probably hate theory because 90% of it is dry, cumbersome reading – written by some old white dude who hasn’t used a trowel in his life – that isn’t applicable to current archaeological research anyway since it was written so long ago. I used to feel extremely intimidated by theory; however, taking one of Dr. Brad’s writing-intensive (and equally stress-intensive) theory classes sort of gave me an epiphany. One of the keys to studying theory is also studying the social, historical, and political contexts in which the theory is written. Also, knowing anything about the same contexts of anthropological theory helps, since archaeological thought closely follows anthropological thought. Like all things in archaeology…context is important (Thanks, Bruce Trigger).

I won’t go down the “Where is theory RIGHT NOW!?” rabbit hole in this post, but I do want to talk about a book that I’ve been reading. In 2013, Douglas E. Ross wrote “An Archaeology of Asian Transnationalism”. One of my mentors, Dr. Ken, asked me to review it a while ago, but I’m just now finally getting around to doing that. Please bear in mind that I have not read the whole thing yet; no one else in my circles has read it, though, and there’s a few concepts in the book that are actually really profound, and I just really need to talk to someone about it. Archaeologists typically adhere to one or two theoretical themes or frameworks (sometimes they’re “blended” versions of a couple of different ones), but more responsible archaeologists will explicitly

Ross studied the sites of early 20^th century salmon canneries, in which Chinese and Japanese migrant workers lived and worked. These sites are on the Don and Lion Islands, in Vancouver, Canada. Ross’s goal was to study the experiences of these Asian migrant workers through their material culture from these sites, as well as adding to the volumes of scholarship regarding the Asian transnational experience. The latter is described in the first chapters as being fairly limited, due to the fact that diaspora and transnational studies have not yet matured in the field of archaeology. The first chapters are essentially an extensive (and incredibly useful) review on diaspora and transnational theory, including the theoretical backgrounds and definitions thereof. He includes anthropological theory and historical studies as well, since this is an interdisciplinary study of sorts. And, like a good and responsible archaeologist, Ross stated the historical contexts of the theory he uses in this endeavor.

An extremely important concept to take away from this book is that in order to study migrant populations through their material culture, one needs to also study the contexts from which the migrants came – i.e., their homelands. No culture is static or unchanging; therefore, Chinese and Japanese migrants underwent processes of both change and persistence, which gave them extremely complex experiences. Material culture “played an active role in creating identities and relationships” (Ross 2013: 9), which adds dimensions to their complex experiences. Later on in the book, Ross described the differences between Chinese and Japanese cultures during the early 20^th century, including the foods they preferred, the types of ceramics, tableware, and cooking utilities they likely used, and so on, using historical documents. These differences ultimately influenced the materials that these migrant workers used and consumed during their experiences as migrants in North America.

When I’m finished reading the whole thing, I’ll write about it again. However, I wanted to express how useful this book is, in regarding contemporary theory – namely about transnationalism and diaspora, which are important factors to analyze when studying migrant populations through their material culture.