Migrationism and diffusionism
The term migrationism, in the history of archaeological theory, was opposed to the term diffusionism (or "immobilism") as a means of distinguishing two approaches to explaining the spread of prehistoric archaeological cultures and innovations in artefact. Migrationism explains cultural change in terms of human migration, while diffusionism relies on explanations based on trans-cultural diffusion of ideas rather than populations (pots, not people).
 |
This theme article is a stub. You can help out with Wikiquote by expanding it! |
A
[edit]- [T]he rise, fall and recovery of migration models is partly embedded in paradigm shifts in archaeological theory, with all the socio-political factors of academic competition that are entailed. ... The insistent clamour of the homeless, the migrant and the refugee is rarely still and we cannot but face its consequences on an academic as well as a human level.
- David W. Anthony, commenting on the resurgence of migrationism in the late 1980s, in "Prehistoric Migration as Social Process", Migrations and Invasions in Archaeological Explanation (21-31), ed. John Chapman and Helena Hamerow (Oxford: Archaeopress, 1997), p. 21, as quoted by E. F. Bryant, The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate (Oxford University Press, 2001), Ch. 10
C
[edit]- Migrationists consider that movement of people is responsible for the movement of pottery assemblages, and they think that it suffices to demonstrate that potteries have moved to demonstrate the migrations.
- Cleuziou, Serge. 1986. "Tureng Tepe and Burnished Grey Ware: A Question of 'Frontier'?" Oriens Antiquus 25:221 -256. page 244, quoted in Bryant, E. F. (2001). The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture : the Indo-Aryan migration debate. Oxford University Press. chapter 10
