, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 400–421 | Cite as

Building Histories That Have Futures: The Benefits of Collaborative Research

  • Stephen A. MrozowskiEmail author
  • D. Rae Gould


This paper outlines the benefits of collaborative research involving the Fiske Center for Archaeological Research at the University of Massachusetts Boston and the Nipmuc Nation of southern New England, centred in Massachusetts. Over the past 15 years, work carried out by both authors has resulted in the production of a more detailed history of the Nipmuc community of Hassanamisco in what is today Grafton, Massachusetts. Having survived the ravages of King Philip’s War (1675–1676), Hassanamisco has remained a culturally and politically viable community. This paper discusses the nature of the collaboration that has resulted in a renewed understanding of Hassanamisco Nipmuc history.

Key Words

Indigenous archaeology Collaboration Hassanamisco Hassnamesit Nipmuc 


Cet article met l’accent sur les bénéfices d’une recherche collaborative impliquant le Centre Fiske pour la recherche archéologique de l’Université du Massachusetts à Boston et la Nation Nipmuc de la Nouvelle Angleterre du sud, centrée au Massachusetts. Au cours des 15 dernières années, les travaux entrepris par les deux auteurs ont résulté en la production d’une histoire plus détaillée de la communauté Nipmuc de Hassanamisco dans ce qui est de nos jours Grafton dans le Massachusetts. Ayant survécu aux ravages de la guerre du Roi Philipe (1675–1676), Hassanamisco est demeurée une communauté culturellement et politiquement viable. Cet article discute de la nature de la collaboration ayant conduit à une compréhension renouvelée de l’histoire des Nipmuc de Hassanamisco.


Este artículo describe los beneficios de la investigación colaborativa con la participación del Centro Fiske de Investigación Arqueológica de la Universidad de Massachusetts Boston y la Nación Nipmuc del sur de Nueva Inglaterra, centrada en Massachusetts. En los últimos 15 años, el trabajo realizado por ambos autores ha resultado en la producción de una historia más detallada de la comunidad nipmuc de Hassanamisco en lo que hoy es Grafton, Massachusetts. Habiendo sobrevivido a los estragos de la Guerra del Rey Felipe (1675–1676), Hassanamisco ha seguido siendo una comunidad cultural y políticamente viable. Este artículo aborda la naturaleza de la colaboración que ha resultado en una comprensión renovada de la historia de los nipmuc de Hassanamisco.



  1. Adams, J. (2004). Nipmuc say BIA got the facts wrong. Indian Country Today. Accessed October 6, 2008.
  2. Allard, A. (2010). Foodways, commensality and Nipmuc Identity: An analysis of faunal remains from Sarah Boston’s Farmstead, Grafton, MA, 1790-1840. M.A. Thesis. University of Massachusetts Boston, Department of Anthropology.Google Scholar
  3. Allard, A. (2015). Foodways, animal husbandry and Nipmuc identity: Faunal analysis from Sarah Boston’s Farmstead, Grafton, MA, 1790-1840. International Journal of Historical Archaeology,19(1), 208–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Atalay, S. (2006). Indigenous archaeology as decolonizing practice. American Indian Quarterly,30(3 & 4), 280–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Atalay, S. (2012). Community-based archaeology: Research with, by, and for indigenous and local communities. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bagley, J. M., Mrozowski, S. A., Law Pezzarossi, H., & Steinberg, J. (2015). Continuity of lithic practice at the eighteenth-through nineteenth century Nipmuc homestead of Sarah Boston, Grafton, Massachusetts. Northeast Historical Archaeololgy,43(1), 121–142.Google Scholar
  7. Bonner, J. L., & Kiniry, E. (2003). Archaeological reconnaissance survey: The Robinson property, Grafton, Massachusetts. Cultural Resources Management Study No. 10, Center for Cultural and Environmental History, University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston.Google Scholar
  8. Colwell-Chanthaphonh, C., & Ferguson, T. J. (Eds.). (2008). Collaboration in archaeological practice: Engaging descendant communities. Plymouth: Alta Mira Press.Google Scholar
  9. Connerton, P. (2008). Seven types of forgetting. Memory Studies,1(1), 59–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Earle, J. M. (1861). Report to the governor and Council, concerning the Indians of the Commonwealth, under the act of April 6, 1859 (No. 96). White, Printer to the State, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  11. Fiske, E. M. (nd). Early History of Keith Hill (Hassanamisco) and its part of the Old Connecticut roadway. The Grafton History Club, Records of Grafton, MA 1735-1943. American Antiquarian Society, Worcester, MA.Google Scholar
  12. Gary, J. (2005). Phase 1 archaeological intensive survey of Hassanamesitt Woods, Grafton, Massachusetts. Cultural Resources Management Study No. 14. Center for Cultural and Environmental History, University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston.Google Scholar
  13. Gould, D. R. (2010). Contested places: The history and meaning of hassanamisco. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
  14. Gould, D. R. (2013a). The Nipmuc Nation, Federal acknowledgment, and a case of mistaken identity. In J. O’Brien & A. E. Den Ouden (Eds.), Recognition, sovereignty struggles, and indigenous rights in the United States: A sourcebook (pp. 213–233). Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  15. Gould, D. R. (2013b). Cultural practice and authenticity: The search for real Indians in New England in the “Historical” period. In P. Schmidt & S. A. Mrozowski (Eds.), The death of “Prehistory”. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Gould, D. R., Herbster, H., Law Pezzarossi, H., & Mrozowski, S. A. (in press). Historical archaeology and indigenous collaboration: Discovering histories that have futures. Gainesville: University of Florida Press.Google Scholar
  17. Gunn, S. (2006). From hegemony to governmentality: Changing conceptions of power. Journal of Social History,39(3), 706–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Handsman, R. G. (2018). Survivance strategies and the materialities of Mashantucket Pequot labor in the later eighteenth century. Historical Archaeology,52, 51–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Inda, J. X. (Ed.). (2005). Anthropologies of modernity: Foucault, governmentality, and life politics. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  20. Law, H. (2008). Daily negotiations and the creation of an alternative discourse: The legacy of a colonial Nipmuc Farmstead. MA Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston.Google Scholar
  21. Law Pezzarossi, H. (2014a). Traces of residence: indigenous mobility and materiality in 19th c. New England. Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  22. Law Pezzarossi, H. (2014b). Assembling indigeneity: Rethinking innovation, tradition and indigenous materiality in a 19th-century native toolkit. Journal of Social Archaeology,14(3), 340–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Law Pezzarossi, H. (2015). Hassanamesit history, In S.A. Mrozowski & H. Law Pezzarossi (Eds.), The archaeology of Hassanamesit Woods: The Sarah Burnee/Sarah Boston Farmstead. Andrew Fiske Memorial Center for Archaeological Research Cultural Resource Management Study (Vol. 69, pp. 11–34). University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston.Google Scholar
  24. Lee, H. (2006). Governmentality and the aesthetic state: A Chinese Fantasia. Positions,14(1), 99–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lightfoot, K. G., Panich, L. M., Schneider, T. D., Gonzalez, S. L., Russell, M. A., Modzelewski, D., et al. (2013). The study of indigenous political economies and colonialism in native California: Implications for contemporary tribal groups and federal recognition. Ameri-can Antiquity,78(1), 89–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mrozowski, S. A. (2014). Imagining an archaeology of the future: Capitalism and colonialism past and present. International Journal of Historical Archaeology,18, 340–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mrozowski, S. A. (2019a). The violence and dispossession at the intersection of colonialism and capitalist accumulation. Historical Archaeology.
  28. Mrozowski, S. A. (2019b). Listening and learning: The benefits of collaboration. In P. R. Schmidt & A. Kehoe (Eds.), The archaeology of listening (pp. 65–93). Gainesville: University of Florida Press.Google Scholar
  29. Mrozowski, S. A., Gould, D. R., & Law-Pezzarossi, H. (2015). Rethinking colonialism: Indigenous innovation and colonial inevitability. In C. Cipolla & K. Hayes (Eds.), Rethinking colonialism: Comparative archaeological approaches (pp. 121–142). Gainesville: University of Florida Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mrozowski, S. A. & Law-Pezzarossi, H. (2015). The archaeology of Hassanamesit Woods: The Sarah Burnee/Sarah Boston Farmstead. Cultural Resource Management Study No. 69, Andrew Fiske Memorial Center for Archaeological Research, University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  31. O’Brien, J. M. (1997). Dispossession by degrees: Indian land and identity in Natick, Massachusetts, 1650-1790. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. O’Brien, J. M. (2010). Firsting and lasting: Writing Indians out of existence in New England. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pezzarossi, G. (2008). Consumption as social camouflage: “Mimicry” and Nipmuc survival strategies in the colonial world. MA Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts, Boston, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  34. Pezzarossi, G. (2014). Camouflaging consumption and colonial mimicry: The materiality of a colonial Nipmuc household. International Journal of Historical Archaeology,18(1), 146–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pierce, F. C. (1879). History of Grafton, Worcester County, Massachusetts: From its early settlement by the Indians in 1647 to the present time, 1879. Worcester: Press of Charles Hamilton.Google Scholar
  36. Schmidt, P. R., & Kehoe, A. (Eds.) (2019). The archaeology of listening. Gainesville: University of Florida Press.Google Scholar
  37. Scott, J. C. (1990). Dominations and the arts of resistance: Hidden transcripts. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Silliman, S. (2008). Collaborating at the trowel’s edge: Teaching and learning in indigenous archaeology. Tuscon: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
  39. Smith, C. E., & Wobst, H. M. (Eds.). (2005). Decolonizing archaeological theory and practice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Trouillot, M.-R. (1995). Silencing the past: Powers and the production of history. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© World Archaeological Congress 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Anthropology, Andrew Fiske Center for Archaeological ResearchUniversity of Massachusetts BostonBostonUSA
  2. 2.Native American and Indigenous StudiesBrown UniversityProvidenceUSA

Personalised recommendations