While the popular myth of Indian people claims that there was no history before the European invasion, this is not true. Indian people have always had an interest in their history and recorded their history in a variety of ways. In some instances Indian people recorded their history in the form of rock art: pictographs (pictures and concepts painted on rock), effigy mounds (massive earth works depicting animals),  petroglyphs (pictures and concepts carved into rock), and geoglyphs (images made by arranging rocks or carving the desert floor). Among some tribes historical events were recorded on wooden sticks known as calendar sticks. Sometimes strings with special knots were used to help remember history; sometimes history was written on birchbark scrolls. The tribes of the Northeast used wampum belts to record agreements and treatiees. Images painted on tipis and on clothing, as well as the designs which were tattooed into the flesh served as a form of history. Anne Vitart (1993: 44) writes: “Far from being simple decorations, though, the paintings on the coats and clothes, like tattoos and body paintings, were actually a nonalphabetical form of writing that served as a social record and situated an individual within the group and society.”

         Among many of the Indian nations of the Plains Culture Area (particularly the Blackfoot, Sioux, Mandan, Hidatsa, and Kiowa), tribal historians would make a pictographic record of the events of the previous year. Candace Greene (2001: 1043) reports: “A tribal historian gave each year a name based on a memorable occurrence of the season, and other events could be placed in time by reference to that year name.” This record, usually recorded on a hide, is called a Winter Count.

                  Candace Greene (2001: 1043) also notes: “Like other pictorial art, calendars were transferred from hide to paper and muslin when these materials became commonly available.”  

                  The Winter Count chapters are intended to be a modern Winter Count. As a Winter Count, there are several points that should be kept in mind while consulting the entries:

• While the traditional Winter Count uses pictures to convey events, in this Winter Count the events are told in words.

• In a traditional Winter Count, years were named. In this Winter Count the European system of numbering the years is used. In this way it forms a type of chronology of Indian events.

• Like the traditional Winter Count, the recording of events in this Winter Count is brief. The purpose is to simply record that the event happened.

• In the traditional Winter Count, events are recorded within a year or so after they happen. In the present Winter Count, the events are recorded many years after they happened, but are described in the Winter Count entries in the present tense to give a more traditional feeling to them.

• Because many of the events in this Winter Count have been recorded long after they happened, in a few of the entries we are able to include the comments and observations by historians, anthropologists, tribal elders, and others about the importance of the event and its meaning to the people.

• In the traditional Winter Count, events are recorded because they happened and therefore should be remembered. In some instances, events may not have great historic significance. In this Winter Count, some of the events fall into this category. Some of the nations have disappeared or the individuals may be forgotten, so we record these things lest they be forgotten by our children and our grandchildren’s grandchildren.

• In the traditional Winter Count, events are recorded by Indian people. While this Winter Count is recorded from a traditional Indian perspective and bias, events are most frequently taken from the writings of non-Indians.

All Winter Counts, including this one, are recorded for two reasons:

• The Winter Count records historic events. These are events which happened and which were important to Indian people – not necessarily the European invaders – at the time they happened.

• The Winter Count is used as a way of teaching people about tribal culture and tribal history. Once again, the Winter Count events are not necessarily those events which are important to the Europeans.

There are some special features about the Winter Counts in our books which should be kept in mind:

• The first mention of a tribe in a Winter Count entry has been put in bold.

• The spelling and designation of tribal names will vary. Many tribes are spelled different ways in different sources and the spellings used in the Winter Count entry reflect the source of the information.

• When the Winter Count entry deals with the activities of an identifiable Indian person, the Indian name for the person is used and the English version of the name is also shown. Spelling of the Indian name may vary.

• With regard to geography, the Winter Count entry uses modern state names. Often, these names were not in use at the time of the event.

• This Winter Count is laid out in a traditional European linear time line or chronology. While traditionally Indian people have acknowledged different ways of dealing with time, this form allows for comparisons with non-Indian events. While it is common to use the abbreviations BC and AD to indicate the placement of years, these are Christian designations and thus using them overlays the Indian story with a Christian framework. There are many authors, particularly archaeologists and Indian historians, who prefer to use the designations BCE (Before Current Era) instead of BC and CE (Current Era) instead of AD. The years remain numbered in the same way, just the designation changes.  

Indians of the Northeast

Culture & History

Geographic Region: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey

The Wnter Count begins with 16,000 BCE.

The book also includes a description of the Indian cultures of the Northeastern Culture Area.

Price: $27.00 (216 pages with comb binding) ISBN 0-936238-29-1

                  While a Winter Count tells of the past, it is important to understand that there are many ways of knowing about the past. Europeans have traditionally stressed history as the primary way in which the past is described and revealed. History is based on writing and therefore written accounts of the past are somehow more believable, more real, more accurate. Thus, when oral traditions—stories told from one generation to the next—get written down, they become history and thus more believable. While many feel that the Christian Bible, or at least some versions of it, are a true history, there are others that point out that this is simply a collection of oral traditions which have been written down.

                  History is only one way of knowing about the past. For many people, oral traditions (sometimes called oral history) is very important in understanding what happened. There are also other academic disciplines which can describe the past: archaeology, physical anthropology, and linguistics.

                       There are a number of problems which we encounter when we talk about Indian history. The first of these is the barrier of false information and misconceptions which have been perpetuated in history textbooks, history classes, movies, and popular books. In his review of high school history books entitled Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong, James Loewen (1995: 91) writes: “Historically, American Indians have been the most lied-about subset of our population.”  Historian Virgil Vogel (1972: 285) puts it this way: “To some historians, the American Indian is an unperson, or nearly so. Incredible as it may seem, there are American history books in which the aborigines are nearly or even totally consigned to oblivion.”

                     With regard to the Indian people of the Northeast, anthropologist Kathleen Bragdon (2001: 64) writes: “The history of the native people who remained in Atlantic coastal regions, especially in New England, has been neglected by scholars, and the people themselves too often became invisible in the land that had once been theirs.”

                  Archaeologist David Hurst Thomas (1994: xviii) writes: “Echoing Hollywood’s stereotypes, today’s textbook historian misreads Native American culture through a curious blend of racism, sexual imagery, and Victorian sentimentality.” Micmac poet Rita Joe (1996: 36) writes: “The non-Natives recorded things as if they saw the truth, but they did not always see the truth.”

                  The purpose of the lies is often quite simple: it is important for non-Indians to justify their conquest of Indians, their claims to the land, and their treatment of Indian people. Thus, it is easier to talk about American history if it is seen as a wilderness inhabited by wild animals and wild people. According to Indian writer Vine Deloria (1991: 430): “American history is usually cast in the light of progress—how a wilderness was tamed and brought to production by a hardy people who created a society in which the benefits of the earth were distributed to the largest percentage of people.” With regard to the non-Indian literature written about Indians, historian John Alley (1986: 601) puts it this way: “much of that literature was written from an ethnocentric point of view that glorified the achievements of European culture at the expense of American Indians.” Lynne Goldstein and Keith Kintigh (2000: 186) put it this way: “Americans tend to divide the country’s history into two parts—Indian history and European history, and Indian history is often not considered the good or interesting part of the past.”

                  Historian Timothy Braatz (2003: 16) describes the imperialist history of American Indians this way: “The logic is clear: U.S. forces represented peace and order, Americans were the rightful possessors of foreign lands, and victims of American conquest were responsible for their own demise.” This type of imperialistic history can be seen in the words used by the historians in describing Indian actions:

• Indians on reservations are described as “pacified” or as “friendly” while those who are not on reservations are described as “hostiles,” “outlaws,” “renegades,” and “rebels.”

• Indian men are described as “warriors” who go on the “warpath” but they are seldom described as husbands, fathers, care-givers, and workers.

• When American soldiers kill Indians, the incidents are called “punishment” or “justice;” but when Indians kill the soldiers who invade their lands, the incidents are called “outrages,” “depredations,” “hostile acts,” and “massacres.”

• Indians “steal” horses, while non-Indian soldiers “capture” them.

                  Some writers have stressed that Indians, like Europeans, are immigrants to this continent and some feel that Indians are recent immigrants. Joseph Stauss (2002: xiv) writes: “It has always been a great legal and political advantage to believe a history that relegates indigenous peoples to the category of recent newcomers to the Americas.” Some Indian oral traditions say that their people have always been here. Anthropology, on the other hand, indicates a great time depth for the indigenous population of the Americas. It is presently estimated that Indian people have lived in North America for at least 20,000 years and there are some who feel that the Indian presence on the continent is much longer.

                  As an alternative to lies, some histories simply ignore Indians. Again, James Loewen (1995: 266) writes: “Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., found himself able to write an entire book on the presidency of Andrew Jackson without ever mentioning perhaps the foremost issue Jackson dealt with as president: the removal of Indians from the Southeast. What’s more, Schlesinger’s book won the Pulitzer prize.”

                  In their work on the original inhabitants of Vermont, archaeologists Haviland and Power comment about the tenacity of the myth that Vermont was uninhabited when “discovered” by the Europeans. They say: “Today, an awareness that Vermont was once inhabited by Indians is largely confined to their descendants, anthropologists, and collectors of prehistoric artifacts” (1981: 1).

                  Writing about the amnesia regarding Indians in the Old South, anthropologist Charles Hudson (1971: 2) say: “The whites in the South have had a well-known monopoly on power and wealth, and the history they have written is so white it has become embarrassing.”

                  In discussing why there is a lack of Indian history and of Indian historical records similar to that of the Lenni Lenape’s Wallam Olum, David McCutchen (1993: 179) says: “The colonists had to see the land as empty, so they erased the people and history that were already there.”

                  Another factor in the distortion of the European-based histories is fear – fear of Indian cultures. It was not uncommon during the early years of contact for some Europeans “to go native” and to become Indian. In prisoner exchanges, it was not uncommon for European captives to refuse repatriation. “The Pilgrims so feared Indianization that they made it a crime for men to wear long hair” writes historian Loewen (1995: 101).

                  When Indian histories are told from European, Anglo, and American viewpoints, the stories can be distorted by ethnocentrism and by racism. Lakota writer Charles Eastman (1918: 180) writes: “Racial prejudice naturally enters into the account of a man’s life by enemy writers, while one is likely to favor his own race.”

                  In his work on the Osage, historian Willard H. Rollings (1992: 3) criticizes the inaccuracy of other Osage histories: “This inaccurate portrayal is a result of examining Osage history solely in terms of white society and culture.” In his work on the Crow, historian Frederick Hoxie (1995: 127) asks: “How might one hear a Crow voice when the mountain of records that contained it was constructed by outsiders?” 

                  The result of this distorted history is that Americans – both Indians and non-Indians – are denied their heritage. When history begins in 1492, it denies that the great civilizations of the Mississippean people at Cahokia, the Anasazi at Chaco Canyon, and the Hohokam at Snaketown are a part of the American heritage. In a guest column in the newspaper Indian Country Today, Ivan F. Starr (1996: A5) writes: “the Native side of history has either been minimized, dehumanized or eliminated completely from the public realm. This has produced a nation of people who know only half of the story.” Knowing only half the story, or even less, means that people are more likely to minimize, deny, and distort the meaning of ancient features in places like New England.

                  Historian Howard Zinn (2006: 24) puts it bluntly: ‘We must face our long history of ethnic cleansing, in which millions of Indians were driven off their land by means of massacres and forced evacuations.”

                  The need to correct the distorted historical record that is commonly told in history books, on television, and in the movies is continually expressed by Indian educators, historians, and tribal leaders. Steven Newcomb, the Indigenous Law Research Coordinator at Kumeyaay Community College on the Sycuan Indian Reservation puts it this way (2004: A3): “we need to sort through the misinformation that the dominant society has devised and perpetuated, and to set the record straight by telling our indigenous side of the story. It’s essential that we work hard to continually develop and refine our own explanations and interpretations, something that takes a lot of time, energy, discipline and financial backing.” One solution is for Indian people to record, write, and publish their own histories. The problem of doing this, however, is described by historian John Alley (1986: 601): “Without resources, largely nonliterate, without access to print media, and often punished for expressing traditional cultural values or even speaking their languages, Indians had little opportunity to speak out about their history, let alone do research and publish accounts.”

                  Indian people today throughout North America are in the process of reclaiming their history. They are in the process of putting their past into a written form so that non-Indians can understand that Indians have not vanished and that their cultures continue. Suzanne Crawford (2000: 228) writes: “History has ever and always been a narrative, written and rewritten to suit the needs of the day; history is constructed, not discovered.”

           Indian people today know that their tribes have histories which have been recorded not in books, but in their oral tradition. Writing in 1817, Christian missionary John Heckewelder (1971: xxvi) says: “We know that all Indians have the custom of transmitting to posterity, by a regular chain of tradition, the remarkable events which have taken place with them at any time, even often events of a trivial nature, of which I could mention a number.”

            There are many scholars who feel that oral tradition is not really history. Historian James Axtell (1992: 79) writes: “a source with which traditionally bookish historians are distinctly uneasy is the recollection of native peoples who pass down through the generations of oral accounts of ‘events’ long in the past.” The tradition of oral history is, however, far more rigorous than the academic study of history at most American and Canadian universities.

              Oral tradition requires that the person telling the histories learn them exactly and be able to recite them in the same way each time and in the same way as those who told the histories before. According to anthropologist Fred Eggan (1995: 22): “To my way of thinking, there’s no fundamental distinction between history written down and history spoken. Each can be wrong or right.” Andrew Fisher (1999: 2) puts it this way: “Present-day literates generally assume that written records have more value as evidence than spoken words, especially in the courtroom. Members of oral cultures, by contrast, often believe quite the opposite.” According to archaeologist Charles Redman (1993: 10): “Oral histories are especially valuable for our study of the past in places where there has been a long continuity of settlement.”

                  Oral history includes more than just stories: it includes ceremonies and traditions which reinforce the ties to the past. Writing about the Hupa before European contact, Byron Nelson (1978: 3) says: “They kept no written records of that time. Instead, each generation passed the stories, tradition, and ceremonies on to the next.”

                  The difficulties that many modern non-Indian historians have in dealing with oral traditions, including those which have been written down, is that they are often based on symbolism—symbolism which requires intimate knowledge of the indigenous culture to understand—and they are often expressed as poetry, as poetry is easier to commit to memory. Klara Kelley and Harris Francis (1994: 189) write: “Information in stories that generations have passed down by word of mouth is often given poetically through symbolism, and figures of speech like metaphor and metonymy. If people are to remember and pass down by word of mouth the accumulated knowledge of generations, they must compress it.” Noting that all evidence about the past is interpreted within a contemporary frame of reference, Klara Kelley and Harris Francis (1994: 191) also write: “We see stories passed down orally as highly compressed interpretations of evidence of people’s past in a way relevant to their present lives.”

                  For many generations, the Native peoples of the Northwest Coast have told stories about great earthquakes, but non-Indian academics have often dismissed these stories as just stories, not reflecting any true history. Anthropologist Jon McVey Erlandson (2005: 5) writes: “But history is also written in the sediments of Oregon Coast estuaries, in tsunami sands discovered by geologists who questioned conventional wisdom and dared to believe what many Indian people had long known: that the ‘legends’ of coastal tribes sometimes recorded historical events.”

                  In their work on the history of Santa Ana Pueblo in New Mexico, Laura Bayer with Floyd Montoya and the Pueblo of Santa Ana (1994: 248) write: “Together the stories of the oral tradition record not just what the people did, but how they saw—and see—their own origins and history. The tradition records a part of the people’s past that no other source can, for it alone reveals their beliefs and values, their hopes, interests, concerns, and fears.”

                  In using the oral traditions of the clans of the Northern Northwest Coast tribes in conjunction with archaeology, Philip Drucker (1943: 33) writes: “So matter-of-fact and internally consistent are those of one family line with the traditions of their neighbors, that no ethnographer who has worked in the area has denied their historic value.”  In his work on the Northwest Coast Heiltsuk, anthropologist Michael Harkin (1997: 37) writes: “We must recognize that native historical accounts express fundamental truths about historical processes and therefore constitute an important expression of culture.” 

                  In discussing the use of oral history by archaeologists, Leora Boydo Vestel notes that Indian oral tradition often presents the past in a high metaphorical way. She goes on to report (2003: 40): “In the same way archaeologists and historians find historical content embedded in the Bible, oral tradition, it’s argued, may contain historical references that elucidate how tribes evolved, lived, and, in some cases, disappeared.”

Sociologist Russell Thornton writes (1987: 5): “Biblical and tribal creation stories constitute a nonscientific paradigm of the creation of the world and human beings and their existence. They do not necessarily compete with science, rather they are apart from it. To compare them with science, and science with them, is simply to confuse both and give neither its due.”

                 One of the key problems that many scientifically trained academics have with oral tradition involves time. The Euroamerican cultural tradition is based on lineal time which is marked off in discrete increments. Indian cultures, on the other hand, often view time in a very different way: time is seen as cyclical rather than lineal. There is less emphasis in Indian culture and in Indian oral tradition in creating a “time-line” which is marked in off in years, decades, or centuries. Archaeologists Mark Varien, Tito Naranjo, Marjorie Connelly, and William Lipe (1999: 388) write: “Oral tradition differs from the accounts that archaeologists write in its treatment of time and space: archaeology seeks to order knowledge in terms of strict temporal and spatial referents, but those are seldom as important in oral tradition.”

                 Archaeology is the study of the past through the analysis of material culture. By looking at the things people made—artifacts—as well as how they used their space—housing, architecture, village layout, etc—archaeologists can begin to recreate life in the past. Since culture is integrated, an understanding of a culture’s material culture provides some insights into ancient ways of life.

             Timothy Kohler, George Gummerman, and Robert Reynolds (2005: 77) write: “By examining ruins, artifacts, and remains, archaeologists have painstakingly constructed a series of pictures showing human societies as they existed thousands and even millions of years ago.” Archaeologists Mark Varien, Tito Naranjo, Marjorie Connelly, and William Lipe (1999: 388) write that “the primary goal of the archaeologist is to construct an account that relies on empirical evidence to identify past events or patterns, and that arranges these events or patterns in spatial and temporal order, usually with some kind of accompanying interpretive narrative that connects the elements.”

                  Settlement patterns show how people interacted with their environment. Sites—places used and/or occupied by people—may show that they used an area on a seasonal basis, such as a hunting camp or a gathering area, or that it was used throughout the year.

                  The remains of plants and animals at a site—called ecofacts by archaeologists—show us the kinds of things that people ate: the kinds of animals they hunted and the kinds of plant foods that they collected or raised.  

                  One of  the characteristics of American archaeology is a focus on dating. With a variety of scientific methods, including stratigraphy, radiocarbon dating, dendrochronology, and obsidian hydration, archaeologists attempt to find out how old things are.

                 Contrasting archaeology’s concern for an accurate time frame and geographic areas with oral tradition, archaeologists Mark Varien, Tito Naranjo, Marjorie Connelly, and William Lipe (1999: 388) write: “Oral tradition differs from the accounts that archaeologists write in its treatment of time and space: archaeology seeks to order knowledge in terms of strict temporal and spatial referents, but those are seldom as important in oral tradition.”

                  In contrast to the academic discipline of history—that is, understanding the past through written documents—Timothy Kohler, George Gummerman, and Robert Reynolds (2005: 77) write: “Only a small fraction of human history is known through texts. For the rest, archaeology is the main source.” Archaeologists Philip Duke and Gary Matlock (1999: 17) point out that archaeology is also used to fill in some of the gaps left by history. They write “…history tends to study the rich and famous whereas historical archaeology looks at everybody else.” 

                 Physical anthropology studies the human body. By studying the remains of our ancestors, physical anthropologists can allow our ancestors to speak to us, to tell us about their lives. Archaeologist Kent Lightfoot (2006: 22) writes: “Human burials provide important lines of evidence for understanding disease, diet, working conditions, and population demograhics.”

                  Bones are the most common item that physical anthropologists study. Archaeologist James Chatters (2001: 19) talks about what the bones can tell us: “Old or recent, intact or deteriorated nearly beyond recognition, bones always have a story to tell. They chronicle early growth, life experience, death, and even what has happened to the body after death. Muscle ridges, wear and tear—arthritis, bone growth along ligaments and tendons, and fractures—record patterns of physical activity. Diseases and injury leave their mark in patterns of bone dissolution, atrophy, regrowth, and overgrowth.”

                  Bones can tell us about life experiences. According to Chatters (2001: 127): “As bones and teeth grow, their development can be temporarily interrupted or slowed by ill health and poor diet, both of which retard the flow of nutrients to growing hard tissues. In the teeth these interruptions show up as narrow horizontal grooves across the enamel called hypoplasias. Because tooth development is closely correlated with a child’s age, it is possible to measure a hypoplasia’s position on the tooth crown and use this to estimate the age at which a nutritional insult occurred.”

                  Bones can tell us about the kinds of diets that our ancestors had. The tissues of all living things contain stable isotopes of elements such as carbon and nitrogen, and by measuring the amounts of these elements in bone, the physical anthropologists can reconstruct ancient diets.

                  Bones can also tell us about the kinds of physical activity that people engaged in and about the kinds of illness that they had. These things help us understand the lives of our ancestors.

                  In addition to bones, physical anthropologists also study DNA. At one time, some people thought that all Indian people were genetically similar, that perhaps they were descended from a single band of hunters. The DNA evidence shows that this is wrong: there is a great deal of genetic diversity among Indian people, and furthermore, this diversity indicates that they have lived on this continent for a very long time.

                  Language can also provide us with some insights into the past. First of all, linguists—people who scientifically study languages—group languages into families. Language families are groups of languages which are historically related to each other and which share a common language ancestry. This similarity is seen not only is the similarity in words, but also in the grammatical structure of the language.

                By looking at the geographic distribution of the languages in a language family, we can gain some insights into migration patterns. Thus, for example, we see that the Algonquian languages are dominate the Northeast, but are found from the Rocky Mountains to the Atlantic Ocean. This shows an association of these people and such possibilities for migrations.

               The study of Native American vocabulary can also suggest some migrations. This includes words for physical features, for geography, and for artifacts which may be associated with other areas.

ALLEY, JOHN R., JR.

1986          “Tribal Historical Projects,” in Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 11: Great Basin (Warren L. D’Azevedo, editor), pp. 601-607. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.

BAYER, LAURA, with FLOYD MONTOY AND THE PUEBLO OF SANTA ANA

1994          Santa Ana: The People, the Pueblo, and the History of Tamaya. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

BRAATZ, TIMOTHY

2003          Surviving Conquest: A History of the Yavapai Peoples. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

BRAGDON, KATHLEEN J.

2001          The Columbia Guide to American Indians of the Northeast. New York: Columbia University Press.

CHATTERS, JAMES C.

2001          Ancient Encounters: Kennewick Man and the First Americans. New York: Simon and Schuster.

CRAWFORD, JESSICA

2004          “Preserving Evidence of Cultural Transition,” American Archaeology, Fall, pp. 48-49.

DELORIA, VINE, JR.

1991          “Afterword,” in America in 1492: The World of Indian Peoples Before the Arrival of Columbus (edited by Alvin M. Josephy, Jr.), pp. 429-443. New York: Vintage Books.

DRUCKER, PHILIP

1943          Archeological Survey on the Northern Northwest Coast. Washington: Bureau of American Ethnology, Anthropological Papers, No. 20.

DUKE, PHILIP, and GARY MATLOCK

1999          Points, Pithouses, and Pioneers: Tracing Durango’s Archaeological Past. Niwot: University Press of Colorado.

EASTMAN, CHARLES A.

1918          Indian Heroes and Great Chieftains. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

EGGAN, FRED

1995          “Zuni History and Anthropology,”  in Zuni and the Courts: A Struggle for Sovereign Land Rights (E. Richard Hart, editor), pp. 21-26. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

ERLANDSON, JON MCVEY

2005          “History Matters: Connecting the Past, Present and Future,” Anthropology News, January, pp. 5-6.

FISHER, ANDREW H.

1999          “This I Know From the Old People: Yakama Indian Treaty Rights as Oral Tradition,” Montana The Magazine of Western History, Spring, pp. 2-17.

GOLDSTEIN, LYNNE, and KEITH KINTIGH

2000          “Ethics and the Reburial Controversy,” in Repatriation Reader: Who Owns American Indian Remains? (edited by Devon A. Mihesuah), pp. 180-189. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

GREENE, CANDACE S.

2001          “Art Until 1900,” in Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 13, Part 2: Plains (edited by Raymond J. DeMaillie), pp. 1039-1054. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.

HARKIN, MICHAEL E.

1997          The Heiltsuks: Dialogues of Culture and History on the Northwest Coast. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

HAVILAND, WILLIAM A., and MARJORY W. POWER

1981          The Original Vermonters: Native Inhabitants Past and Present. Hanover: University Press of New England.

HOXIE, FREDERICK E.

1995         Parading Through History: The Making of the Crow Nation in America 1805-1935. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

HUDSON, CHARLES

1971          “Introduction,” in Red, White, and Black: Symposium on Indians in the Old South (Charles Hudson, editor), pp. 1-10. Southern Anthropological Society Proceedings, Number 5.

JOE, RITA

1996          Song of Rita Joe: Autobiography of a Mi’kmaq Poet. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

KELLEY, KLARA BONSACK, and HARRIS FRANCIS

1994          Navajo Sacred Places. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

KOHLER, TIMOTHY A., GEORGE J. GUMERMAN, and ROBERT G. REYNOLDS

2005          “Simulating Ancient Societies,” Scientific American, July, pp. 77-84.

LIGHTFOOT, KENT G.

2006          “Rethinking Archaeological Field Methods,” News from Native California, Spring, pp. 21-24.

LOEWEN, JAMES W.

1995          Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong. New York: The New York Press.

MCCUTCHEN, DAVID

1993          The Red Record, the Wallam Olum of the Lenni Lenape. Garden City Park: Avery Publishing Group.

NELSON, BYRON, JR.

1978          Our Home Forever: A Hupa Tribal History. Hoopa: Hupa Tribe.

NEWCOMB, STEVEN T.

2004          “American Indian Nations Wrongfully Defined by Non-Indian Concepts,” Indian Country Today, December 15, p. A3.

ROLLINGS, WILLARD H.

1992          The Osage: An Ethnohistorical Study of Hegemony on the Prairie-Plains. Columbia: University of Missouri Press.

STARR, IVAN F.

1996          “Racial Hatred Fades in the Sunlight of Understanding,” Indian Country Today, May 28-June 4, p. A5

STAUSS, JOSEPH H.

2002          The Jamestown S’Klallam Story: Rebuilding a Northwest Coast Indian Tribe. Sequim: Jamestown S’Klallam.

THOMAS, DAVID HURST

1994          Exploring Ancient Native America: An Archaeological Guide. New York: MacMillan.

THORNTON, RUSSELL

1987          American Indian Holocaust and Survival: A Population History Since 1492. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

VARIEN, MARK D., TITO NARANJO, MARJORIE R. CONNOLLY, and WILLIAM D. LIPE

1999          “Native American Issues and Perspectives,” in Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the Southern Colorado River Basin (edited by William D. Lipe, Mark D. Varien, and Richard H. Wilshusen), pp. 370-404. Cortez: Crow Canyon Archaeological Center.

VESTEL, LEORA BOYDO

2003          “A New Archaeological Tradition,” American Archaeology, spring, pp. 39-43.

VITART, ANNE

1993          “From Royal Cabinets to Museums: A Composite History,” in Robes of Splendor: Native North American Painted Buffalo Hides (by George P. Horse Capture, Anne Vitart, Michel Waldberg, and W. Richard West, Jr.), pp. 27-60. New York: New Press.

VOGEL, VIRGIL J.

1972          This Country Was Ours: A Documentary History of the American Indian. New York: Harper Torchbooks.

ZINN, HOWARD

2006          “America’s Blinders,” The Progressive, April, pp. 22-24.