CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 7Indigenous Cultures and HistoryHistorical and Cultural Archaeology StudiesAmazonian Archaeology and Ethnohistory

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Materiality and Autonomy in the Pocumtuck Homeland

Bruchac, Margaret M., Hart, Siobhan M.·2012·Archaeologies
DOI 10.1007/s11759-012-9206-z
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The Indigenous people of New England’s middle Connecticut River Valley are often imagined as having been subservient to powerful tribal nations elsewhere. Yet, archaeological and ethnohistorical evidence suggests Pocumtuck independence and autonomy in relations with neighboring Native groups and with Dutch, English, and French colonizers during the seventeenth century. We employ a decolonizing framework, drawing on H.M. Wobst’s critique of the preoccupation with dominance and geopolitical “centers” to analyze this evidence. By framing artifacts, colonial texts, and cultural interactions as both past and present “material interventions,” we can generate better understandings of Pocumtuck political autonomy, agency and identity.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11759-012-9206-z

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 14

  1. Bruchac, Margaret M., and Peter Thomas 2006. Locating “Wissatinnewag”: John Pynchon’s Influence on Pocumtuck Diplomacy. The Historical Journal of Massachusetts XXXIV(1):56–82.
  2. Johnson, Eric S., Bradley, James W. 1987. The Bark Wigwams Site: An Early Seventeenth-Century Component in Central Massachusetts. Man in the Northeast 33:1–26.
  3. National NAGPRA Program, National Park Service 1999. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act Regulations. Code of Federal Regulations, Vol. 43 CFR Part 10, pp. 194–217.
  4. Salisbury, Neal (1987) Toward the Covenant Chain: Iroquois and Southern New England Algonquians, 1637–1684. In Beyond the Covenant Chain: The Iroquois and Their Indian Neighbors in Indian North America, 1600–1800pp. 61–73, edited by Daniel K Richterand James H Merrell, Syracuse University PressSyracuse.,
  5. Sheldon, George (1895) A History of Deerfield, Massachusetts1,, Pocumtuck Valley Memorial AssociationDeerfield, Massachusetts.,
  6. Sheldon, George 1889. The Pocumtuck Confederacy. In History and Proceedings of the Pocumtuck Valley Memorial Association 1880-1889, Vol. II. Pocumtuck Valley Memorial Association, Deerfield, MA, pp. 390–408.
  7. Speck, Frank G. 1919. The Functions of Wampum Among the Eastern Algonkian. Memoirs of the American Anthropological Association 6:3–71.
  8. Temple, Josiah H. (1887) History of North Brookfield, Massachusetts, Town of North BrookfieldBoston.,
  9. Thomas, Peter A. (1985) Cultural Change on the Southern New England Frontier, 1639–1665. In Cultures in Contact: The Impact of European Colonization on Native American Cultural Institutions A.D. 1000–1800pp. 131–161, edited by WW Fitzhugh, Smithsonian Institution PressWashington D.C.,
  10. Thomas, Peter A. (1984) Bridging the Cultural Gap: Indian/White Relations. In Early Settlement in the Connecticut Valleypp. 4–21, edited by Stephen C Innes, Richard I Melvoinand Peter A Thomas, Historic Deerfield, Inc., Institute for Massachusetts Studies, and Westfield State College, WestfieldMassachusetts.,
  11. Thomas, Peter A. (1980) The Riverside District, the WMECO Site, and Suggestions for Archaeological Modeling. In Early and Middle Archaic Cultures in the Northeast, Occasional Publications in Northeastern Anthropology, No. 7pp. 73–95, edited by David Starbuckand Charles E Bolian, Franklin Pierce CollegeRindge, New Hampshire.,
  12. Wobst, H. Martin (2005) Power to the (Indigenous) Past and Present! Or: The Theory and Method Behind Archaeological Theory and Method. In Indigenous Archaeologies: Decolonizing Theory and Practicepp. 17–32, edited by Claire Smithand H Martin Wobst, RoutledgeLondon.,
  13. Wobst, H. Martin 2004. Indigenous Archaeologies in World-wide Perspectives: Who Is in Charge and Who Benefits? Paper presented for the 11th Deerfield-Wellesley Symposium, Deerfield, November 4.
  14. Wobst, H. Martin (2000) Agency in (Spite of) Material Culture. In Agency in Archaeologypp. 40–50, edited by M Dobresand J Robb, RoutledgeLondon.,

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Bruchac, M. M., & Hart, S. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • Binghamton University (US)
Corresponding author
Bruchac, Margaret M.
Venue
Archaeologies
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2012-11-21
Volume
8
Issue
3
Pages
293-312
ISSN
  • 1555-8622 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-3987
DOI
10.1007/s11759-012-9206-z
OpenAlex
W2009206641
Cited by
7
References
39
Citations by year
2019: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1
FWCI
0.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
Archaeologies (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Indigenous Cultures and History
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Historical and Cultural Archaeology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › Amazonian Archaeology and Ethnohistory
Keywords
indigenous autonomy, decolonization, materiality, indigenous agency, indigenous identity, colonialism, Dutch colonialism, English colonialism, French colonialism, indigenous-colonial relations, material interventions, Connecticut Valley, 17th century

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review