The history of Indigenous peoples, the original inhabitants of what is now the United States, has been misrepresented and distorted through colonial narratives. This misrepresentation persists, influencing how these histories are understood today. To believe that the activism from the 1970s has fully rectified past injustices is a naive  notion at best and dismissive at worst.  For a torn tapestry scattered to the winds cannot easily be restored, just as the histories of Indigenous peoples remain fragmented, often told by those who sought their conquest, viewing them with contempt, curiosity, or as an inconvenience. The narratives of Indigenous people are far from complete, indeed they are still being told. Yet, these stories are still tainted by colonel perspectives of the past. Generations of trauma, forced assimilation, and survival under hostile conditions within a society that never accepted them had left lasting scars on many Indigenous communities.

​

          The legacy of colonization does more than alter the political landscape of an area. It psychologically distorts history, the collective memories of those who resign within its borders, both the conqueror and the conquered. It creates myths which are presented as the dominant narrative and legitimized as history while drowning out the alternative accounts that challenge these grand stories as fiction. Like whispers in a thunderstorm these stories are overshadowed not because they are never said but rather because they are not heard. A participial myth persists to this day which popularizes and misrepresents our collective memory of the past. It is an ongoing historical misconception that is told every Thanksgiving across the United States. It is a pervasive narrative that claims the Wampanoags were the Indigenous people in southern New England who greeted a group of settlers from Europe whom history would collectively call the Pilgrims in 1620.

          How do we know that the Wampanoags greeted the Pilgrims in 1620? Should we look towards the government of the United States for an answer? The Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Office of Federal Acknowledgement (OFA) within the Department of the Interior (Department or DOl) recognizes the Wampanoags of southern New England today. Surely this is enough? However, the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) have historically wronged Native American tribes in significant ways, through policies and actions that have caused long-lasting harm. These actions can be broadly categorized into land theft, broken treaties, forced assimilation, and mismanagement of resources, amongst others. The U.S. government and the BIA have wronged Native American tribes through policies that have resulted in loss of land, cultural erasure, systemic inequalities, and economic exploitation. While there have been efforts to rectify some of these wrongs in recent decades, the historical damage continues to affect contemporary indigenous communities. Should we seek legitimacy in such an organization in order to investigate this question?

         Was Wampanoag the historic name used by the Indigenous people in 1620? The short answer is no. Yet, let us examine primary sources and accounts of those who were here and experienced first hand what we now call history.  According to the definition of Bulletin Handbook of the American Indians, Wampanoag is clearly described as one the principal tribes that existed in New England before colonization. (1) Yet, there is no historical evidence that supports the previous statement. There is no documented evidence from primary sources which clearly and distinctly indicate that Wampanoag was a term used for the Indigenous people who “greeted” the Mayflowers settlers in 1620 and inhabited the surrounding area. Nor is Wampanoag the name that Massasoit Ousamequin would have identified himself, his people with, or the confederation he was the grand sachem of in the early 17th century. Furthermore, there is no historical evidence of any pre colonial Indigenous nation that used the term “Wampanoag” in any geo-political sense regarding sovereignty or territory in southern New England. 

          What we do know is that the indigenous people of southern New England identified exclusively with clearly defined and distinct territorial domains. Despite contemporary misconceptions, the people of southern New England by the dawn of the 17th century lived in settled agricultural societies whose people have been carefully cultivating the land that provided their substance for generations. In sum, the people and the land they cultivated were often one and the same. These boundaries were often referred to as sachemships, and took their name for the primary settlement of their leading sachem (chief), though it's important to note that not all tribes, bands and clans had one. Edward Winslow (1595-1655) was one of the original passengers aboard the Mayflower and would establish himself amongst the leading figures of Plymouth colony. Regarding these sachemships, Winslow writes:

​​​

​

There is no recorded mention of the term Wampanoag used in this context prior to the 1670’s from an eyewitness account of colonial New England. 

​

          One name that is mentioned to describe Massasoit Ousamequin and his people within the first fifty years of English colonization are documentations of anglicized variations of the word Pokanoket (alias Sowams), which translates to “the cleared land”. Different variations of the more popular term that is used today are recorded as Pocanet, Pauquunaukit, Pawkanokick, Pawconocket, Pokonokeuck, Pocanaokit and Pokanokick. While today contemporary borders would not align with the exact territorial boundaries of the Pokanokets, it would completely encompass the following municipalities,

​

• Barrington, Bristol & Warren, East Providence,  RI,

• Rehoboth, Seekonk, Somerset, & Swansea, MA​

​​

Some historians have gone on to indicate that parts of modern day Raynham, Norton, Attleboro, Cumberland ,Pawtucket, Providence, Dighton, Taunton would have been part of this territory or at least under Massasoit's direct influence. (3)

​

          In 1619, captain Thomas Dermer was accompanied by the now infamous Squanto, traveled through the sachemship of Namasket of what is now Middleboro, Massachusetts and speaks of Pokanoket in his account of the journey.  Here his guide Squanto, “dispatched a messenger a dayes journey further west to Pocanaokit which bordereth on the sea; whence came to see me two Kings, attended with a guard of fiftie armed men.” (4) Yet, let us entertain that these individuals were wrong about the name of these people. Some have argued that reference to Pokanoket is an error of colonial authors who failed to take into account accurately the true names of the people they encountered. They claim that Wampanoag was the name of the tribe who Massasoit hailed from and whom treated with the Pilgrims in 1621.

​

          In refutation to such allegations, one must remember that while these colonial narratives did clearly have a bias as all authors do to some degree, these early primary sources in the first half of the 17th century offer unique insight of southern New England. This is primarily because Europeans traders, surveyors, and fishermen have been exploring these lands likely a century before, with notable individuals such as Giovanni de Verrazzano in 1524 preceding the “Plymouth Rock” landing. These accounts were created at a time when English colonists were not the hegemon of New England. The need for accurate information was vital for the survival of colonists in the first half of the 17th century when the New England colonies were at their most vulnerable. Furthermore, one would think that governor John Carver and his associates when they signed what history would know as the Treaty of Peace (1621) with the Massasoit, that they would bother to learn the name of the people that they were now in a defensive alliance with. Edward Winslow and William Bradford in Mourt's Relation (1622) would go on to write,

​

This account demonstrates the necessity that names and territorial boundaries had in Plymouth colonies precarious odds of survival in the 1620’s.  

​

          An error caused by causal generalizations could be detrimental if not fatal to the colony, as the Narragansetts under their Sachem Canonicus famously greeted the Pilgrims with a quiver of arrows wrapped in snake skin which all correctly interpreted as a bellicose rather than benevolent gesture. Winslow reinforces this notion by writing, “... Of this sort is Massassowat, our friend, and Conanacus, of Nanohigganset, our supposed enemy…” (6)  How then could the settlers of Plymouth colony correctly identify the names of those hostile to their existence but not their allies?  If Wampanoag is the correct name for Massasoit's people then perhaps we need to only corroborate further primary sources from the period?

​

           However, all of these sources confirm the same thing. Accounts from 17th century explorers, settlers, governors, and historians whether it be Thomas Dermer, Edward Winslow, William Bradford, Roger Williams. John Carver, John Winthrop, Steven Hopkins, Daniel Gookin, John Josselyn or William Hubbard all confirm that Massasoit and his people identified exclusively as Pokanoket rather than Wampanoag. Edward Winslow in Mourt's Relations (1621) writes, “Tisquantum told us we should harley in one day reach Packonokick…From thence we went to Packonokick: but Massasoyt was not home.” (7) While in Hubbard's History of New England it is stated that, “Massassoit — they brought down to the English at Plymith, though his place was at forty miles distance, called Swams, his country called Pokanoket” (8) Edward Winslow  in Good News (1623) writes, “I hired one to go with all expediency to reach Puckanokick…our turn from Sawaams, or Puckanokick” (9)  John Josselyn in his Two Voyages (1663) documents that, “The Pokanokets live to the westward of Plimouth…Massasoit the great Sachem of the Plimouth Indians, his dwelling was at a place called Sowams”. (10) In the Plymouth Colony Records, Vol II, p.23, (1641) Pocanacutt is mentioned as a country while Plymouth Colony Records, Vol IV, (1662), there are at least several reference to “Philip, Sachem of Pockanockett” (11)  Even the Minutes of The Commissioners of the United Colonies in September 1644 mention Poccanokick alias Sowamsett within notes of the meeting. (12) Then we have Daniel Gookin who was the Commissioner of the Praying Indians of Massachusetts Bay Colony and colleague of John Eliot. His comprehensive account of New England's indigenous people are amongst the best of the early colonial period. Regarding the pre colonial sachemships that existed prior to colonization (1620) he writes:“…The principle nations of the Indians, that did, or do, inhabit within the confines of New England are five: 1: Pequots; 2. Narragansitts; 3. Pawkunnawkuts; 4. Massachsetts; and 5. Pawtucketts…”. (13)  No mention is made of the Wampanoag.  Further evidence is visually depicted in "A Map of New England, By John Seller, Hydrographer to the King" (1675) which was a historic map created by John Seller, a prominent English cartographer and hydrographer, around the late 17th century. This map is significant for its portrayal of New England during the early colonial period which clearly depicts “Pokanoket Country” and “King Philip Country” in the land west of Plymouth colony as the images below indicate. (14)

​

​

​

          After cross examining these sources can it still be said with any degree of credibility that all of these colonel authors and cartographers are wrong? That they all made the same mistake? Perhaps the indigenous accounts provide the insight that is needed to clarify the confusion over who the Wampanoags were. Nattawayhunt, sachem of the Quaboag Nipmucs would recognize the Pokanokets, after all one of his daughters was married to Massasoit Ousamequin. The same could be said of Chickatawbut the sachem of the Massachusetts, Uncas of the Mohegan or even Canonicus and Miantonomi of the Narragansetts. Even centuries later, Tecumseh a Shawnee leader who sought to forge a pan-indian alliance across the Ohio River Valley, Great Lakes, and beyond to resist U.S. expansion wrote of the Pokanokets saying,

​​

​

It seems as though indigenous sources from the time period and beyond give strength to the position that Wampanoag may have been the incorrect terminology to use when describing the people who interacted with Plymouth colony in the 1620’s.  These inaccuracies underscore the importance of reexamining early sources to disentangle historical truth from colonial reinterpretation.

​​

          While there are those who continue to deny the existence of the Pokanoket despite the evidence stated above yet, an increasingly more contemporary analogy is being incorporated today claiming that the Pokanoket was a village or location which in turn was part of a greater Wampanoag Confederation. If truth could be measured in mass appeal then this conclusion would be sound, however from an historiographical lens the evidence does not support this thesis despite its general popularity. It too is also incorrect for the same reasons that Wampanoag is not the correct terminology for the time period in question. Both indigenous and early colonial sources indicate numerous examples of evidence that describes Pokanoket not merely as place or village, but as a distinct people and precolonial geopolitical entity.  Even the word Pokanoket today, is an anglicized version of the word whose meaning has been generalized for the convenience of English speaking authors who documented and categorized what they saw fit to record. 

​

          Topographically, the local Algonquin dialects for the names of the people who lived within the borders of a sachemship or region were often recorded using “uck” a plural ending for groups of people. This would mean that in Winslow's Mourt's Relations (1623) , the “Namascheucks” would have translated into the “men of Namaschet”. Massasoit's people would have been designated as “Pokonekuck” or “the men of Pokanoket”. (16)  Meanwhile, the suffix “ick” and “ack” would indicate a place meaning that the recording of “Pokonokick” would indicate a geographic location. (17)  Edward Winslow who sought to understand the language and translate what they heard in their documentations made this distinction. Yet, as the English grew to dominate the region, the linguistic contrast between the people of a place and the place itself became more generalized in the colonial narrative, leading to the term Pokanoket being used today. Just as someone living in France would be French or how Rome came to be synonymous with the Roman people, the city and the empire, so too was Pokanoket, a tribe, country, and people all in one.

​

          Now that we have clarified that Pokanoket was both a place and people, let us now address the next historical misconception. While there is no evidence from early colonial sources that supports or uses the name Wampanoag Confederation, there is evidence that clearly indicates the Pokanokets were not just a tribe but the nucleus of a confederation. In the Treaty of Peace, signed between the Pokanokets and Pilgrims on March 22nd 1621, “...He (Massasoit) should send to his neighboring confederates to certify them of this, that they might not wrong us, but might likewise be comprised in the conditions of peace”. (18) It was this sphere of influence that Massasoit of the Pokanokets held over this confederation that would insulate Plymouth colony during its earlier decades. Again we look to the historical account of Gookin, to scale the territorial boundaries of this confederation built around the Pokanokets. He writes;

​

​

Secondary sources would also indicate similar boundaries saying, 

​

​

Massasoit Ousamequin was the sachem of the Pokanokets and the head of a larger confederation which contained some sixty tribes, bands and clans in southern New England. Despite being greatly weakened political, socially, economically and even spiritually by the devastation brought by the Great Dying (1616-1619) in which between 70-90% of the indigenous people within this confederation perished due to the introduction of smallpox, yellow fever, or leptospirosis from European traders, Massasoit Ousamequin and his heirs Wamsutta  (alias Alexander) and Metacom (alias Philp) retained influence over what remained of this weakened confederation in the decades following 1620. In the Plymouth Colony records and following land deeds they would clearly identify themselves as Pokanoket, never Wampanoag as the example below details. (21)

​

​

          In sum, the evidence, both Indigenous and colonial, challenges the modern narrative that the Pokanoket were merely a location or village. Instead, they were a people with a distinct identity, serving as the epicenter of a once powerful confederation. Misinterpretations of their identity reflect the erasure of Indigenous nuances in colonial records, rather than the reality of 17th-century New England.

​

          So now that we have established that the Pokanokets were the people who historically occupied the area of what would become Plymouth colony, we must address the origins of this term Wampanoag and how it is often conflated with the history of the Pokanokets. Re-examining the historical record, there appears to be no credible evidence from any primary sources in which Wampanoag is given any notion of being a political or social organization until the start of King Philip's War in 1675. However, this is evidence in a linguistic rather than political manner of the term Wampanoag prior to this conflict. Meaning that Wampanoag within the correct historical context in pre colonial southern New England was a simple linguistic term of reference having distinct geographical connotations.

​​

          The eastern Algonquian languages are a branch of the Algonquian language family that share significant similarities due to their common ancestral roots. These languages were historically spoken by Indigenous peoples of what is now the northeastern regions of the United States and parts of eastern Canada. This includes the Massachusett, Narragansett, Mohegan, Pequot, Abenaki, Pennacook and Pokanoket. It was commonly understood that the Indigenous people of southern New England spoke a similar dialect, which would become more distinguished the further one ventured from one tribal land to another. The same could be said for many of the Indigenous nations along the east coast of the United States. Therefore the core linguistic understanding of Wampanoag can be found in the research of academics, anthropologists and scholars.  Blair Rudes’ (1997) “Raising Wampano from the Dead” asserted that the term “Wampanoag” is derived from the proto-Algonquian “wa-panwi” translating into, “it dawns” with the common connotation of “easterner.” (22)  Ives Goddard (1971) comes to a similar conclusion in his research that wampanoag was specifically derived from the proto- Eastern Algonquian: “Wapanoo”, or the Munsee Delaware; “easterner.” Within this context it can be understood that Wampanoag, was a local variation of “easterner" (23)  used amongst the Eastern Algonquian-speaking tribes of eastern New York, Massachusetts, and Connecticut. In the work of Roger Williams who spent a considerable amount of time with the Narragansetts, documenting their history, culture and perhaps most importantly of all their language, we also see reference to the eastern geographic meaning of the term Wampanoag. He writes 

​​

‘”og”=people,  Nuaog=men, They=og, “Wuttammauog”=  “What they drink” “Wompanand”, “the Eastern God”, Wompanog= Eastern they= people (collectively) of the east” (24)

​

Indeed variations of this word can be found from Indigenous people in Delaware all the way to Maine and referenced by European explorers navigating the area in the 17th century. Variations of this term depended upon the dialect and geographic location of those people. Some of the names would include (woban) “daybreak”, (aki) “land”, Wobanaki (ag) , “Easterner” or ” from where the daylight comes" (25)  Other variations include Wobanakkiak, Wabanaki, and Wapanacki with the Natick word for full day light being “wompan” which all share linguistic roots to the term Wampanoag. Furthermore, it is important to note that “Wabanaki” and “Abanki” are direct variations of the same name and there was a Wabanaki Confederation in their historic territory, just not in southern New England.

          The English were not the only European explorers to survey this area as the Dutch from New Amsterdam (New York) navigated through the Hudson and Quinnipiac rivers and made their way into Narragansett Bay eager to gain an advantage in the fur trade. One Dutch explorer Adriaen Block (also spelled Adrian Block) is notable for his explorations of the northeastern coast of North America in the early 17th century. In The Figurate Map of Adrian Block (1614), the name “Wampanoos” is drawn over an area east of the “Pequats” (Narragansett Bay) as if the Dutch explorer was under the impression that all the tribes beyond this point were “easterners". (26)  This is likely due to the fact the Blocks indigenous guides were not native to the region and thus used the term “Wampanoos’ or” easterner” to designate the tribes that inhabited the area around Narragansett Bay. These native interpreters for the Dutch were not incorrect regarding the information they provided as all the Indigenous nations could claim that those Algonquin-speaking peoples east of them were by default “eastern people” or Wampanoag as history had so effortlessly misappropriated the term. Wampanoag was a generalized descriptive term, not a particular people, a geographic rather than political designation. 

​

          The meaning of this term changed during the King Philip's War (1675-1678). While the Great Dying paved the way for English colonization in southern New England, it was this conflict that assured their ascendancy at the expense of all the free and independent Indigenous nations of the region. The war marked an epochal shift: prior to the conflict, the Indigenous people of southern New England were politically independent, but after it, they would become little more than a footnote in the history of the colonizers.

​

          Words, like the peoples and cultures they represent, can change over time, and Wampanoag is a prime example of this shift. Its historical connotation transformed at the onset of King Philip's War, a conflict that determined the fate of both the Indigenous peoples and the New England colonies and, by extension, the future United States.  During this period, the term Wampanoag began to take on new meaning, and this transformation was largely driven by the English colonizers rather than by the Indigenous peoples themselves. While much academic scholarship has focused on the significance of this war, it remains underappreciated in the public narrative, which often reduces it to a simple conflict between Indigenous peoples and settlers.

​

          However, the colonists were not fighting a unified coalition of all the Indigenous nations of New England. Prior to the outbreak of the war in 1675, a number of Indigenous tribes and communities had sought protection from the English and chose not to fight against them in the conflict.  These groups included the Nausett, Poamett, Mannamoiicke, Wequchutt, Ashemiutt, Sakatuckett, Nobscussett, Mattakeesett, Mannomett, Caukochise, and Masphee. (27)  Other tribes made the decision to remain neutral, side with the English, or oppose the conflict for reasons specific to their own interests. It involved separate factions of Indigenous people from Narragansett, Nipmuc, and Mohegan, to the remnants of the Pokanoket Confederation and the Praying Indian communities along eastern Massachusetts.  During the war, acts of inhuman treatment became common, and often the colonists did not distinguish between Indigenous peoples who fought with Metacom (King Philip) and those who remained neutral or fought with the English. The violence of the conflict blurred the lines, leaving lasting scars on both the Indigenous communities and the colonial settlers.

​

          While the history of King Philip's War is well-documented, it is crucial to recognize the deep fear and intense hatred that the colonists harbored toward the Pokanoket people, King Philip’s people. The Pokanokets were blamed by the English for sparking the conflict, and as a result, they were subjected to Damnatio Memoriae, the condemnation of their memory by the victors. Those who escaped the jaws of death were embraced by the cold arms of enslavement and indentured servitude as the Pokanokets were scattered into the four directions.  A geographic term replaced their political identities, not out of choice but out of sheer desperation as the scattered and vulnerable Indigenous communities struggled to endure. This shift was a direct consequence of settler colonialism.

​

          During and after the war, the term Wampanoag became a label used by English colonists and later historians to describe an aggregate of various Indigenous groups—Pokanoket, Massachusetts, Narragansett, Nipmuc, and others—whom Massassoit Metacom (alias King Philip) sought to unite under his leadership. (28)  Coined by the English during the war, Wampanoag evolved into a generalized term that not only referred to those who fought against the English but also, over generations as past and memories blended into stories, became synonymous with the Indigenous peoples of southern New England. As W. F. Gookin aptly noted regarding this transformation, “...It is one of the ironies of history that the most easterly of them , the Christian Indians of the Cape and the Islands, are now also known by the name (Wampanoag) used for the tribes that refused to aid (King Philip) in 1675.” (29)  Not until nearly 300 years later did the Indigenous communities around Cape Cape  reorganize into The Cape Wampanoag Indian Confederation in 1928, and the term would finally have a distinct political connotation in southern New England. It is crucial to distinguish between the term Wampanoag as it was used in 1620, 1675 and its later political meaning in 1928. In the early 17th century, Massasoit Ousamequin, his people, the surrounding Indigenous nations, and the first generation of English settlers all understood who the Pokanokets were. 

​

          In conclusion, the historical evidence indicates that the tribe that “greeted the Pilgrims”  identified as "Pokanoket," not "Wampanoag." While the term "Wampanoag" has become a dominant label in contemporary discourse, it is a colonial construct that has obscured the true names and identities of the Indigenous peoples of southern New England. Understanding and respecting these distinctions is essential to acknowledging the complex and often painful history of colonization. While this information may be new to some, one must understand that in historiography when the evidence changes, so must the thesis.  To ignore the “veto power” of primary sources and accept popular contemporary narratives without question is irresponsible and dangerously ahistorical, almost mythical in its inaccuracies.  For these reasons today, there remains widespread confusion between the histories of the Pokanoket and the Wampanoag.

​​

          We must recognize the necessity of decolonizing our minds and reclaiming the names of our ancestors, rather than accepting the terms imposed upon them by their colonizers. Before we were Wampanoag, we were Pocasset, Sakonnet, Nemasket, Chappaquiddick, Manomet, Saukatucket, Pokanoket, and we still are. We hold on to the name and identity of the people who welcomed strangers to our shores. And when these strangers became conquerors, we continued to hold onto our name for generations in defiance. The Pokanokets are still here, and so long as our people remember who we are, we can never truly be conquered, and our story will never be erased from the pages of history.