拉帕汉诺克口述传统,约翰·史密斯的弗吉尼亚地图,以及阿尔冈琴切萨皮克的政治权威

IF 1.1 2区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY WILLIAM AND MARY QUARTERLY Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1353/wmq.2023.0012
J. King, Scott M. Strickland, G. A. Richardson
{"title":"拉帕汉诺克口述传统,约翰·史密斯的弗吉尼亚地图,以及阿尔冈琴切萨皮克的政治权威","authors":"J. King, Scott M. Strickland, G. A. Richardson","doi":"10.1353/wmq.2023.0012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:For more than a century, researchers have used the distribution of Indigenous Rappahannock River settlements shown on John Smith’s 1608 map of Virginia to frame the river valley’s Native communities as unwilling subjects of the Powhatan chiefdom to their south. The map depicts the majority of Native settlements on the river’s north bank, a pattern interpreted as evidence that the Rappahannock communities physically distanced themselves as much as possible from Powhatan political control. Rappahannock tribal oral history, however, holds that the Rappahannock polities and the Powhatans enjoyed a political relationship as equals and neighbors, not as subjects or adversaries. Tribal historical and ecological knowledge, publicly available environmental information, and the distribution of known archaeological sites indicate that desirable factors for settlement—including level sandy loam soils, access to marshes, proximity to navigable waterways, and wide viewsheds—occur more frequently and in closer association with one another on the river’s north bank. This analysis’s mixed-methods and materials approach reveals the unevenly distributed and often highly contingent nature of Indigenous political authority at the time of European invasion.","PeriodicalId":51566,"journal":{"name":"WILLIAM AND MARY QUARTERLY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rappahannock Oral Tradition, John Smith’s Map of Virginia, and Political Authority in the Algonquian Chesapeake\",\"authors\":\"J. King, Scott M. Strickland, G. A. Richardson\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/wmq.2023.0012\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract:For more than a century, researchers have used the distribution of Indigenous Rappahannock River settlements shown on John Smith’s 1608 map of Virginia to frame the river valley’s Native communities as unwilling subjects of the Powhatan chiefdom to their south. The map depicts the majority of Native settlements on the river’s north bank, a pattern interpreted as evidence that the Rappahannock communities physically distanced themselves as much as possible from Powhatan political control. Rappahannock tribal oral history, however, holds that the Rappahannock polities and the Powhatans enjoyed a political relationship as equals and neighbors, not as subjects or adversaries. Tribal historical and ecological knowledge, publicly available environmental information, and the distribution of known archaeological sites indicate that desirable factors for settlement—including level sandy loam soils, access to marshes, proximity to navigable waterways, and wide viewsheds—occur more frequently and in closer association with one another on the river’s north bank. This analysis’s mixed-methods and materials approach reveals the unevenly distributed and often highly contingent nature of Indigenous political authority at the time of European invasion.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51566,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"WILLIAM AND MARY QUARTERLY\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"WILLIAM AND MARY QUARTERLY\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/wmq.2023.0012\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"WILLIAM AND MARY QUARTERLY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/wmq.2023.0012","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要:一个多世纪以来,研究人员一直利用约翰·史密斯1608年绘制的弗吉尼亚州地图上显示的拉帕汉诺克河原住民定居点的分布,将河谷的原住民社区界定为其南部波瓦坦酋长领地的不情愿主体。该地图描绘了河北岸的大多数原住民定居点,这一模式被解释为Rappahannock社区在物理上尽可能远离波瓦坦政治控制的证据。然而,拉帕汉诺克部落口述历史认为,拉帕汉诺克政体和波瓦坦人享有平等和邻居的政治关系,而不是作为臣民或对手。部落历史和生态知识、公开的环境信息以及已知考古遗址的分布表明,定居的理想因素——包括平坦的沙壤土、沼泽地、靠近通航水道和开阔的视野——在河流北岸出现的频率更高,而且彼此之间的联系更紧密。这一分析的混合方法和材料方法揭示了欧洲入侵时土著政治权威的分布不均且往往具有高度偶然性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Rappahannock Oral Tradition, John Smith’s Map of Virginia, and Political Authority in the Algonquian Chesapeake
Abstract:For more than a century, researchers have used the distribution of Indigenous Rappahannock River settlements shown on John Smith’s 1608 map of Virginia to frame the river valley’s Native communities as unwilling subjects of the Powhatan chiefdom to their south. The map depicts the majority of Native settlements on the river’s north bank, a pattern interpreted as evidence that the Rappahannock communities physically distanced themselves as much as possible from Powhatan political control. Rappahannock tribal oral history, however, holds that the Rappahannock polities and the Powhatans enjoyed a political relationship as equals and neighbors, not as subjects or adversaries. Tribal historical and ecological knowledge, publicly available environmental information, and the distribution of known archaeological sites indicate that desirable factors for settlement—including level sandy loam soils, access to marshes, proximity to navigable waterways, and wide viewsheds—occur more frequently and in closer association with one another on the river’s north bank. This analysis’s mixed-methods and materials approach reveals the unevenly distributed and often highly contingent nature of Indigenous political authority at the time of European invasion.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
12.50%
发文量
52
期刊最新文献
Cultivating Empire: Capitalism, Philanthropy, and the Negotiation of American Imperialism in Indian Country by Lori J. Daggar (review) The Great Power of Native Women Editor's Note: "Methods and Practices" Historical Care and the (Re)Writing of Sexual Violence in the Colonial Americas To Her Credit: Women, Finance, and the Law in Eighteenth-Century New England Cities by Sara T. Damiano (review)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1