Cited by 61

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

THEORY IN COLLABORATIVE INDIGENOUS ARCHAEOLOGY: INSIGHTS FROM MOHEGAN

Cipolla, Craig N., Quinn, James, Levy, Jay·2019·American Antiquity

Abstract

There is little doubt that Indigenous, collaborative, and community-based archaeologies offer productive means of reshaping the ways in which archaeologists conduct research in North America. Scholarly reporting, however, typically places less emphasis on the ways in which Indigenous and collaborative versions of archaeology influence our interpretations of the past and penetrate archaeology at the level of theory. In this article, we begin to fill this void, critically considering archaeological research and teaching at Mohegan in terms of the deeper impacts that Indigenous knowledge, interests, and sensitivities make via collaborative projects. We frame the collaboration as greater than the sum of its heterogeneous components, including its diverse human participants. From this perspective, the project produces new and valuable orientations toward current theoretical debates in archaeology. We address these themes as they relate to ongoing research and teaching at several eighteenth- and nineteenth-century sites on the Mohegan Reservation in Uncasville, Connecticut.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/aaq.2018.69

Cites

2 of 2 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.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A growing body of scholarship has demonstrated how research based in community values and knowledge can drive and enrich the production of both community and academic knowledge.

    “Contrary to critiques about the rigor of Indigenous archaeologies as social projects that do not contribute to academic knowledge production (e.g., McGhee 2008McGhee , 2010)), a growing body of scholarship has demonstrated how research based in community values and knowledge can drive and enrich the production of both community and academic knowledge (e.g., Cipolla et al. 2019;Croes 2010;Gonzalez”

    From Archaeology and Social Justice in Native America (2022) · cites this paper as Cipolla et al. 2019

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 65

  1. Johnson, 2010, Archaeological Theory: An Introduction
  2. Deloria, 1995, Red Earth, White Lies: Native Americans and the Myth of Scientific Fact
  3. 10.1080/20518196.2016.1154734 · DOI
  4. 10.1017/S1380203817000150 · DOI
  5. Silliman, 2006, Collaborating at the Trowel's Edge: Teaching and Learning in Indigenous Archaeology, 67
  6. Descola, 2013, Beyond Nature and Culture, 10.7208/chicago/9780226145006.001.0001 · DOI
  7. Woodward, 1932, The Value of Indian Trade Goods in the Study of Archaeology, Pennsylvania Archaeologist, 3, 8
  8. 10.1017/S0959774309000596 · DOI
  9. 10.1080/00438240701679411 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Zedeño, 2013, Relational Archaeologies: Humans, Animals, Things, 117
  11. Watts, 2013, Relational Archaeologies: Humans, Animals, Things
  12. Olsen, 2012, After Interpretation: Remembering Archaeology, Current Swedish Archaeology, 20, 11, 10.37718/CSA.2012.01 · DOI
  13. Alberti, 2014, Making and Growing: Anthropological Studies of Organisms and Artefacts, 107
  14. Vizenor, 1999, Manifest Manners: Narratives of Postindian Survivance
  15. DeLanda, 1997, A Thousand Years of Nonlinear History
  16. 10.1007/BF03373477 · DOI
  17. 10.1017/S0959774309000535 · DOI
  18. Silliman, 2006, Collaboration at the Trowel's Edge: Teaching and Learning in Indigenous Archaeology
  19. Fawcett, 2000, Medicine Trail: The Life and Lessons of Gladys Tantaquidgeon
  20. Atalay, 2012, Community-Based Archaeology: Research with, by, and for Indigenous and Local Communities, 10.1525/9780520953468 · DOI
  21. Lowenthal, 1985, The Past Is a Foreign Country
  22. Cipolla, 2017, Foreign Objects: Rethinking Indigenous Consumption in American Archaeology
  23. 10.1111/j.1548-1433.2012.01513.x · DOI
  24. 10.14318/hau3.1.014 · DOI
  25. DeLanda, 2016, Assemblage Theory, 10.1515/9781474413640 · DOI
  26. Said, 1978, Orientalism
  27. Olsen, 2010, In Defense of Things: Archaeology and the Ontology of Objects
  28. 10.7183/0002-7316.81.1.27 · DOI
  29. Colwell-Chanthaphohn, 2008, Collaboration in Archaeological Practice: Engaging Descendant Communities
  30. Levy, 2017, Áhki Wuyitupôhtam (The Land Is Sacred): A Career in the Sacred, SAA Archaeological Record, 17, 23
  31. Bendremer, 2006, Collaborating at the Trowel's Edge: Teaching and Learning in Indigenous Archaeology, 50
  32. 10.1007/BF03376905 · DOI
  33. 10.1080/00293650310000650 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Bradley, 1983, Proceedings of the 1982 Glass Trade Bead Conference, 29
  35. Hayes, 1983, Proceedings of the 1982 Glass Trade Bead Conference
  36. 10.1111/johs.12124 · DOI · Paper page
  37. 10.2307/1908224 · DOI
  38. 10.1080/19492901.2014.11728458 · DOI
  39. Cipolla, 2017b, Foreign Objects: Rethinking Indigenous Consumption in American Archaeology, 222
  40. Nicholas, 2010, Being and Becoming Indigenous Archaeologists
  41. 10.1017/S0002731600047314 · DOI
  42. Vizenor, 2008, Survivance: Narratives of Native Presence
  43. McMullen, 1987, A Key Into the Language of Woodsplint Baskets
  44. 10.1007/s10761-009-0088-8 · DOI
  45. Bruchac, 2005, Indigenous Archaeologies: Decolonizing Theory and Practice, 56
  46. Colwell-Chanthaphohn, 2012, Archaeological Theory Today, 267
  47. Karklins, 1985, Glass Beads: The 19th Century Levin Catalogue and Venetian Bead Book and Guide to Description of Glass Beads
  48. Deloria, 2003, God Is Red: A Native View of Religion
  49. Nicholas, 1997, At a Crossroads: Archaeology and First Peoples in Canada
  50. 10.1007/978-0-387-71825-5_3 · DOI
  51. 10.1017/S1380203814000130 · DOI
  52. 10.1525/california/9780520276109.001.0001 · DOI
  53. 10.1017/S0002731600048575 · DOI
  54. 10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199696697.003.0023 · DOI
  55. Vizenor, 2008, Survivance: Narratives of Native Presence, 1
  56. 10.5744/florida/9780813060705.003.0007 · DOI
  57. Watkins, 2000, Indigenous Archaeology: American Indian Values and Scientific Practice
  58. Edgeworth, 2011, Fluid Pasts: Archaeologies of Flow
  59. Glaza Tobias 2003 A Historical Ethnobotany of the Pequot Indians of Southeastern Connecticut 1800–1950: New Insights Using a Multi-disciplinary Approach. Master's thesis, Department of Botany, Connecticut College, New London, Connecticut.
  60. Alberti, 2012, Archaeology After Interpretation: Returning Materials to Archaeological Theory
  61. Fawcett, 1995, The Lasting of the Mohegans: The Story of the Wolf People
  62. Bennett, 2010, Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things, 10.1215/9780822391623 · DOI
  63. Kidd, 1970, Canadian Historic Sites: Occasional Papers in Archaeology and History, 45
  64. 10.1017/S1380203818000077 · DOI
  65. Viveiros de Castro, 2015, Who Is Afraid of the Ontological Wolf? Some Comments on an Ongoing Anthropological Debate, Cambridge Journal of Anthropology, 33, 2

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Cipolla, C. N., Quinn, J., & Levy, J.
Venue
American Antiquity
Published
2018-11-21
Volume
84
Issue
1
Pages
127-142
ISSN
  • 0002-7316
  • 2325-5064
Cited by
61
References
2
Language
en

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