“We Should Sowe and Reape in Peace”: Algonquian Foundations of Colonial Insecurity in the Correspondence of the Virginia Company
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores a case study in the history of writing about violence and destruction by examining early seventeenth century English reports concerning colonization in the Algonquian territories of the Chesapeake Bay region. An analysis of archival and printed documents from the Virginia Company of London shows that moral insecurity plagued the company members as they tried to use natural law and Roman law to justify colonization. These documents also reveal that the actions of the Powhatans and other Algonquian nations shaped this atmosphere of insecurity, doubt, and ambiguity. This article argues that from the first Anglo-Powhatan meetings in 1607 to the dissolution of the company in 1624, the company approached colonial governance and its relations with Algonquian-speaking peoples in the context of Roman law and natural law based on the principles of conquest, commerce, and occupation. These three concepts both reinforced and caused profound uncertainty for English expansionism in Algonquian territories, contributing to a tradition of scepticism toward imperial violence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".