Archaeological And Ethnohistorical Investigation Of Cultural Diversity And Progressive Development Among Aboriginal Cultures Of Coastal Virginiaand North Carolina.
Open accessAbstract
PhD
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Chiefdom studies in the Chesapeake have had at best mixed success in identifying archaeological patterning that balances colonial accounts.
“yet chiefdom studies in the Chesapeake have had, at best, mixed success at identifying archaeological patterning to balance colonial accounts”
From The Archaeology of Native Societies in the Chesapeake: New Investigations and Interpretations (2011) · cites this paper as Binford 1964
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Archaeology of Native Societies in the Chesapeake: New Investigations and Interpretations
Gallivan, M. (2011) · Journal of Archaeological Research · doi:10.1007/s10814-010-9048-4 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
- Authors
- Binford, L. R.
- Corresponding author
- Binford, Lewis Roberts
- Venue
- University of Michigan
- Publisher
- University of Michigan
- Published
- 1964
- OpenAlex
- W623264041
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 2
- Type
- dissertation
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
- University of Michigan Library
- University of Michigan eBooks
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Anthropology › Indigenous Cultures and History
- Social Sciences › Anthropology › Historical and Cultural Archaeology Studies
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Archaeology and ancient environmental studies
- Keywords
- Aboriginal culture, cultural diversity, progressive development, Virginia coast, North Carolina, ethnohistory
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
