INDIANS AND COLONIZING

ROBERT R GRADIE University of Connecticut

Introduction

The history of the Algonquian-speaking Indians of North Amer­ ica in the 17th century is one of rapid change. Some of thb change can be attributed to deliberate attempts by Europeans to alter Indian cultures. Much of it was the result of attempts by Indians to incorporate selected elements of European culture. However, at least some of thb change was not deliberate in the sense that it was desired by Indians or forced on them by Euro­ peans, but rather, was an unintentional result of environmental modifications caused by the introduction of European agricul­ ture, domesticated animab and diseases (Cronon 1983; Thomas 1976; Schlesier 1976:129-45). Cultural change induced by environmental modification has long been recognized as a major result of contact between two alien cultures (Barnett et al 1954; Dobyns 1983; Thomas 1976). The range of possible initiators of environmental change is large. In New England the introduction of new agricultural techniques and European dbease have been recognized as major environ­ mental modifiers. But European domesticated have rarely been considered as such agents. However, a growing but as yet Umited body of evidence suggests that early in the 17th century, one of these domesticated animals, the , became an increasingly important element in the Algonquian environment. For the Indian, the pig was an with both useful and 148 ROBERT GRADE destructive potential. Useful as a source of food and trade in­ come, it was potentially destructive as a source of European diseases and a potential source of inter-cultural mbunderstand- ing and conflict. As a European domesticate, the pig, in the context of European culture, came bound with a set of human and animal relationships which to the Indian were foreign and sometimes dbruptive. Further, when Europeans were present in settled communities they often demanded that Indians observe European customs of . Thus the response of the Algonquian to the pig presents a problem in culture change which ranges the spectrum of acculturative processes including elements of both directed and nondirected cultural change.

Pigs

The animal under consideration b Sus scrofa scrofa, a small cloven hoofed of the famUy . Native to the Old World, it is a heavy long-legged lop-eared animal with a long mobile snout, thick bristly brown or black hide, and a short tail. This b not the modern European pig, which is an 18th century cross between S.a. Scrofa and S.s. vittatus or the Chinese pig. The traditional range of S.s. scrofa was the broadleafed decidu­ ous forests of northern and central Europe and its most common habitats were river valleys and marshy bottom land. It b omniv­ orous and will east most foods consumed by humans plus acorns, hazelnuts, chestnuts, juniper berries, slugs, insects, worms, fern roots, fungi, mice, voles, eggs, reptUes, clams and oysters, in ad­ dition to scavenging any carcasses that might be found (Clutton- Brock 1981:77; Zumer 1963:267; Cronon 1983:136). Of aU the major domestic animals S.s. scrofa b the most pro­ lific breeder and most long Uved. A boar can mate with up to 45 sows per year and the average sow can produce two Utters of between 7 and 13 piglets annually. Pigs are social animals with the basic social unit consbting of several sows and accompany­ ing young, making up a troop of 10 to 30 individuals; boars are solitary. Domesticated pigs aUowed to roam unattended in the woods sometimes travel in herds consbting of up to one hundred COLONIZING PIGS 149 animab including sows and young plus several boars. Boars are aggressive and wUl fight over sows but are not territorial and are easUy manipulated by man. This, plus the fact that the ani­ mal is intelligent and easUy trained, has often been exploited by farmers. The pigs are allowed to roam freely and a signal such as a call or loud noise b used to attract the animal periodically for feeding and, ultimately, slaughter. Such practices were common in 17th century New England and were stUl in use in parts of eastern Connecticut as late as the 1960s (McBride et al, 1981; Clutton-Brock 1981:74).

Pigs in the New World

There are two sources of information to document the intro­ duction of the pig into the New World: hbtorical records and archaeology. Both sources are at present few in number, limited in information, and often vague. But taken together it is pos­ sible to construct an outline of porcine adaptation and Indian response. As no suids are native to the western hemisphere, any pigs found in the New World are by definition immigrant, brought by Europeans for use as Uvestock. First brought to the western hemisphere by Columbus in 1493, they were put ashore on Hispaniola and within a year were roaming the bland unat­ tended. Brought to Cuba in 1510, they were by 1524 roaming in feral herds which were hunted for food. They were introduced into Mexico in 1524 in the wake of Cortez' conquest and into the southeastern United States by De Soto in 1539 (Towne and Wentworth 1950:70-76). De Soto began with 600 Europeans, an equal number of native bearers and 13 pigs. After wintering on the Atlantic coast of Florida the herd had increased by AprU 1540 to 300 pigs which were then driven inland with the expedition (Lewb 1907:171). In the three years that the expedition was travelling, the size of this herd seems to have fluctuated around a mean of 400; but it suffered several depletions due to Indian hostilities. De Soto had the habit of serving to various Indian leaders or caciques that he encountered. Some of these Indians sought to obtain

j 150 ROBERT GRADE more animab and on several occasions there were attempts to steal pigs. At least one such attempt in 1541 resulted in the loss of approximately 300 animals when an assault scattered the herd. The result of these depredations was the addition of the pig to the local fauna but not any long-term reduction of the expedition's pork supply, for at De Soto's death in Arkansas in May, 1542, 700 pigs were listed among hb possessions. According to an account of one of the participants, by the time the expedition left the Mississippi VaUey in the summer of 1543 local Indians were selling pork to the Spanish "which were the breeding of some sows lost the year before" (Lewb 1907:199).

Twenty years later, in 1565, Pedro Menendez de AvUes landed 400 swine in Florida to support local settlers. Many of these an­ imals were allowed to roam unattended and came into the hands of Indians who did not capture them but allowed them to re­ main feral and periodically hunted them. Jonathan Dickson on his trek from St. Augustine to Charleston in 1696 described thb practice near St. Simon Sound at the mouth of the Turtle River, in Georgia: "Some of our Indians went out a- for deer and hogs of both which the Spaniards said there was plenty.... The Indians brought in several hogs and deer of which we had part" (Dickson 1944:91). A Portuguese settlement attempted in 1568 by Manoel de Barcelos on Sable bland off Nova Sco­ tia included herds of cattle, sheep, goats, and pigs. Although the settlement itself was shortly abandoned, the anima-b were recorded as present in 1583 by Sir Humphry GUbert and were utilized by French explorers regularly between 1598 and 1603 (Quinn 1975:359).

Pigs were brought to Virginia with the first settlement at Roanoke in 1585.They were purchased from the Spanbh on His- paniola where the Englbh expedition traded for horses, cattle, goats, swine and sheep. It b not clear what became of these ani­ mals. Ralph Lane the governor of the colony writing to Richard Hakluyt on September 3, 1585 implied that at least some were with the settlement at that date. Whether they were stUl extant when its residents were taken off by Sir Francis Drake in June COLONIZING PIGS 151 1586 and were allowed to become feral or had been lolled and consumed b not known (White 1967:136, 143). At least three sows and a boar were brought with the first settlers to Jamestown in 1607. In 18 months they had increased to more than 60 pigs (Smith 1910:471). Their numbers rapidly grew out of control and by 1617 swine were reported by Ralph Harmon to be roaming in herds in the woods, the property of anyone who could capture them (Bruce 1895:216). By 1627 pigs were either so numerous or so dbpersed as to be Usted as un­ countable in official reports and sufficiently feral to have become a serious nuisance to agriculture as weU as a source of food for the Indians (Smith 1910:885). In New Jersey pigs seem to have been equally uncontrollable. A 1684 letter from Gaiven Lowrie to a group of Scottbh proprietors discussing agriculture in the colony states; "Swine they have in great flocksi n the woods". Peter Watson writing to his cousin in Selkirk in 1683 says of the Indians "they come and trade among the Christians with skins of Venison, or Corn, or Pork" (Scot 1874:426, 438). There may in fact have been a standard colonization kit which may have included certain easily maintained animals, such as pigs. Such a strategy b suggested by Richard Hakluyts' 1584 lbt of items to be included in new settlements (Hakluyt 1935:321). A possible example of such a strategy can be seen in Bradford's account of the establishment of the trading post at Aptucxet on Cape Cod in 1626: "Abo for the safety of their vessel and goods they built a house and there kept some servants, who planted corn and raised some swine and were always ready to go out with the bark when there was occasion" (Bradford 1952:193). Certainly the presence of pigs in Spanbh settlements as early as 1493 and Portuguese settlements off Nova Scotia by 1568 sug­ gests that the animal was considered an important element of any colonization effort in virgin territory. Thb, plus a habit of allowing the animal to forage, quickly insured that it would become widely dbtributed. The use of forests as grazing land or for pigs has a long hbtory in EngUsh agriculture. The earliest evidence for 152 ROBERT GRADE such practices b found in late Bslgic period farmsteads of the first century A.D. in southeastern England. Evidence of thb practice is also found in Roman period Celtic farmsteads as well as Roman viUas. The earUest hbtorical evidence for pannage b found in the eighth century with a number of Anglo-Saxon char­ ters, grants and court cases referring to woodland used as swine pasture. Such practices according to H.P. Finburg "a vitally im­ portant part in the rural economy" (Finberg 1972:11, 12, 153, 403). Joan Thirsk, in her study of Englbh peasant farming notes that the number of pigs a farmer possessed in the 16th and 17th century was directly related to the availability of wood­ land. Thus on fenland farms where little or no forest existed, pigs were of small numerical importance, while in the marsh­ lands, where some woodland remained, pigs were rather more common. Marshlands were by far the preferred pastoral lands but Thirsk noted that the upland or clayland peasant, because he had more woodland at hb dbposal, surpassed the marsh­ land peasant in the number of pigs he possessed. To an En­ glish farmer, North America with its vast mast forests must have seemed ideal pig raising country. The quality of Englbh pigs Thirsk notes, "prompted no comment from contemporary writers except that they were a mongrel sort to which almost no farmer devoted any care in breeding" (Thirsk 1957:32, 72, 103, 235).

Pigs in New England

Documents suggest that pigs were present in New England with the first settlements. The eariiest recorded northern Englbh settlement that contained pigs is Newfoundland. Captain John Mason, governor of the bland from 1615 to 1620 reported: "And the Plantations have prettie store of swine and goats" (Mason 1967:150). It b possible that there were pigs in the French set­ tlements founded in Maine and Nova Scotia in 1603-4. Pigs were at Plimouth Plantation by 1623. In a letter written to Sir Ed­ ward Altham, Emmanuel Altham reported fiftyswine , six goats COLONIZING PIGS 153 and a number of hens at the settlement (James 1963:24). How they arrived b not known, for neither the Mayflower nor the Fortune b known to have carried Uvestock among their cargo. That same year David Thomas founded a settlement in New Hampshire of ten persons at a place called Pannaway on the mouth of the Piscataqua river. Hornbeek (1980:2), states that domestic animals including pigs were present. In 1626, Thomp­ son moved hb residence to an bland in Massachusetts Bay. He died shortly thereafter although hb widow was apparently stiU in residence on the bland in 1628. When the title of the is­ land was contested in 1650 William Blaxton (Blackstone) who in the 1620s was the sole resident of Shawmut () testified "that he heard old Mr. Thompson affirm that he had a patent for said bland and those who put hogs on it did it by bis con­ sent" (Bachellor 1895:728). Further Samuel Mavericks stated in 1660 that: "In the year 1626 or there abouts there was not a neat beast, horse or sheep in the country and a very few goats or hogs" (Maverick 1884:247). Neil Salbbury notes that by the middle of the 1620s there were approximately 100 Europeans scattered along the coast from Massachusetts Bay to the Saco river. At least some of these settlers appear to have possessed pigs, and were, according to Blaxton, pasturing them on coastal islands (Salisbury 1982:152). The documented pig population expanded dramatically with the settlement of Massachusetts Bay. In 1634 William Wood stated that the number of pigs in Massachusetts was "innumer­ able" and in 1636 the General Court of that colony complained of "divers strange swine" and required all pigs to be marked (Trum­ bull 1850:1; Wood 1635:69). In 1644 a Connecticut statute made similar complaints and also required marking. Apparently, thb had little effect, for the next year Connecticut distinguished be­ tween swine "keept att home" and swine "keept by herd in the woods" requiring that the former be ringed or yoked (TrumbuU 1850:131). It seems possible that pigs, once establbhed in the eastern woodland, multipUed beyond any expectation or control. Lack-

V 154 ROBERT GRADE

ing natural pradators except man and wolves, there was Uttle impediment to the pigs' colonization. At times 17th century legislatures acted as if their colonies were besieged. Contin­ ued exhortations for control of Uvestock were apparently inef­ fective, for in 1650, citing the damage done by hogs rooting up common lands, Connecticut distinguished between hogs found within three miles of a house and those without; and again re­ quired that the former be ringed or yoked. In 1656 the boundary was narrowed to within four mUes of the meeting house (Trum­ bull 1850:215, 293). In 1658, the Massachusetts General Court complained that "many children are exposed to great danger of loss of life or limb through the ravenousness of swine" (ShurtUff 1854). Attempts to control these animab presented the colonies with a dilemma, for, as Maverick noted in 1660, pigs were of considerable economic importance to New England: "And with- all to consider how many thousand neat beasts and hogs are yearly killed and so have been for many years past for provi­ sion in the country and sent abroad to supply Newfoundland, Barbados, Jamaica and other places" (Maverick 1884:247). The solution arrived at was to place the responsibility of enforcing these statutes with the towns. Thb was in effect no solution for it simply moved to the local level a conflict which was rooted in the social and economic inequalities of Puritan New England.

Europeans held dual attitudes toward the responsibilities of individuals possessing pigs or other grazing animab. On the one hand the owner of an animal assumed the right to allow it to graze at will, yet he was held responsible for its misdeeds. On the other hand the owner of a fieldwa s responsible for fencing it against free-ranging domestic , yet he could seize unruly animab and demand compensation for damages. The result was a system guaranteed to produce conflict. Thb ambivalence seems to have been rooted in contraditions within the class structure of European communities. As Cronon has noted, the pig became the poor man's meat (Cronon 1983:201). Thus the poor owners of highly productive but low status and potentially destructive pigs demanded the same rights to unrestricted grazing as enjoyed COLONIZING PIGS 155 by the wealthier owners of high status and less destructive cattle. For the European inhabitants of New England, thb contradiction provided a steady topic for town meetings and lawsuits until the bsue was resolved in favour of enclosing all anirn^b in the early 19th century.

Documentary evidence suggests that the Indians' response was mixed. Dickson and others noted that Indians hunted pigs for food (Dickson 1944:91). Roger WUUams, however, reported that pigs destroyed cornfields, clam beds, and other food sources used by Indians and thus were a competitor for food sources as well as a source of food. According to Williams, pigs were "most hateful to all natives and they call them filthycu t throats" (Williams 1964:182). Probably women, who carried most of the agricultural responsibilities in Algonquian societies, were less tol­ erant of the animal and its destructiveness than men who hunted pigs. Or Indians who expressed hostility may have been respond­ ing in part to the unique position the pig occupied as a European domestic animal. Unlike hunting cultures where ownership of an animal was acquired only after it had been killed, in European cultures the pig was always potentially someone's property. As early as 1634, problems caused by the kilUng of Englbh pigs by Indians and the destruction of Indian fields by EngUsh pigs had developed. As a result statutes were enacted to protect pigs from what the Englbh saw as Indian predation and to require Indians to fence their fieldsagains t thb ambulatory English property. Attempts to estabUsh the status of pigs by law imply that some pigs were recognized as belonging to Indians. For example, a 1672 Massachusetts statute, after complaining that some Indi­ ans might be seUing stolen pigs, required that all pigs belonging to the English have earmarks or their ownership rights would be forfeit, while: "no Indian within thb jurisdiction shall mark any swine upon the eares and all Indians who bring pork unto the English are required to bring with them the swine ears whole" (Shurtleff 1854:513). Evidence from Virginia is more specific, for in that colony Indians were required to mark pigs so that their tribal ownership could be recognized in the woods and identified

J 156 ROBERT GRADE when they were sold to Englishmen (Hening 1809:317). In European law an owner was responsible for hb pig's mis­ deeds, and others v/ere bound to respect an owner's property rights. Ownership also presented certain obUgations, such as the provision of sufficient feed, protecting the animal from predators, and maintaining a certain degree of control over its behavior. Such practices caused the European to demand changes of New England Indians. For example, Indians were required to protect their fieldsagains t destructive pigs. In Massachusetts, they were not allowed to mark the ears of pigs to demonstrate ownership, but were required to demonstrate ownership when seUing a pig. An Indian could not kill a pig when found destroying a cornfield, herb patch, or clam bed, but rather was required to seek a ju­ dicial settlement in an Englbh court. There are multiple logical contradictions present here, some of which may be intentional, others which were the result of European ambivalence toward the responsibilities of animal ownership and class privilege. It was obviously impossible for an Indian to prove ownership of a pig if he was not allowed to mark it. Thb suggests that either the Massachusetts magbtrates were setting up Indians for charges of thievery, or that Indians could mark their pigs by other means than ear cropping, such as branding. For the Indian, recourse to the courts may have been the least desirable solution. For as colonial adminstration left the settlement of local conflicts over pigs to local courts, they were forced into a situation where they could be less than likely to receive a sympathetic hearing. Euro­ pean attitudes toward animal ownership and the social role of the pig in European communities were less obvious to the Indian and more removed from hb abUity to confront and deal with them. But thb role initiated a process of directed cultural change in In­ dian communities that was not Ukely to endear either the animal or its owner to the Indian.

In the absence of further evidence it b impossible to determine whether Indians were claiming ownership of specific animals or having ownership forced upon them. But the wiUingness of In­ dians to sell pork as weU as game meats suggests that they had COLONIZING PIGS 157 learned to conceive of the pig as a resource and a commodity. Several hbtorians have noted that these attempts to redefine the Indians' concept of ownership were part of the larger process of acculturation in which the Indian was introduced to the Euro­ pean concept of commodity (Cronon 1983, SaUsbury 1982). In thb sense, a commodity b defined as an object which might be exchanged for another of equal or relative value. Thb process has several immediate results. First it reduced the Indians' concept of exchange as a facet of diplomacy or ceremonial reciprocity used to maintain a relationship between individuals unrelated by kinship. Secondly it introduced social distinction on the ba­ sb of the ability to purchase material possessions. Lastly, it provided the conceptual underpinnings for a system in which so­ cially prestigious items could be purchased from outsiders rather than obtained by traditional means within the Indian commu­ nity.

The pig contributed to thb process because of the wUUngness of English settlers to purchase meat from Indian suppliers. Thb created the specialized Indian occupation of professional hunter. In the 1630s, there was a market in game meat in New Eng­ land. White tail deer was the major commodity in thb market, which included turkey and other game birds. However, toward the middle of the century the deer population began to decline, forcing hunters to seek alternative species. The pig, as various colonial laws and court complaints suggest, made a reasonable substitute.

Although historical and archaeological evidence suggest that Indians were both consuming pork and selling it to European settlers, evidence of possible nondirected processes to account for thb acculturation b difficult to find. However, if viewed in the context of eastern North America, a pattern with three sig­ nificant features emerges. The first of these features b the ease with which the pig adapted to and became establbhed in its new environment. The second b the rapidity with which pork seems to have become an Indian dietary item and trade com­ modity. The third b the length to which various colonies went 158 ROBERT GRADE to distinguish European owned pigs from those which seemed to Europeans to be pigs owned by Indians. In the context of this pattern it seems possible to see the steps that the Indians may have taken to insure the availability of pigs for their own use. Selectively maintaining sows for breeding b one possibility, al­ though, there is no evidence that Indians practiced pig raising in their villages or homesteads. Manipulation of the environment to ensure the success of pigs and manipulating the behavior of pigs to ensure their local presence b another. Such practices would be well within the traditional behavior patterns of a culture al­ ready accustomed to burning the underbrush to encourage the growth of the deer population and conducting yearly deer drives. Similar practices would have integrated the pig into the Indians' food ways system while demanding a minimum of adjustment to a new and useful cultural element. The degree to which the Indian became dependent on thb resource b suggested by the behavior of the English in King PhiUp's War. In June 1676 Major John Talcot was ordered to march north from Norwich, Connecticut to clear the Quinebaug Valley of hostile Nipmucks. Hb orders included instructions to destroy all the corn and pigs he could find (Larned 1874:10).

Archaeology

Archaeological evidence which would corroborate documents suggesting that Indians were utilizing pigs b scarce. However, this is due mostly to the lack of research by archaeologbts on con­ tact period Indian sites. UntU recently there was a general lack of interest among archaeologbts in investigating contact Indian sites other than those with a high degree of hbtorical vbibU- ity such as Iroquob villages. Further, investigations that were done focussed on problems of technological adaptation. Thb attitude coupled with a general lack of expertbe in faunal iden­ tification and a conviction that New England's acidic soUs did not preserve such remains resulted, with a few recent excep­ tions, in a lack of research in the problem of change in Indian subsistence systems in the contact period. There are at least COLONIZING PIGS 159 four New England contact period sites which have produced pig remains. The most thoroughly investigated is Fort Shantok, a 17th century Mohegan settlement in MontviUe, Connecticut (Salwen 1970, Williams 1972). The Shantok faunal material was divided into three periods: early—c. 1620-1680; middle—c.1680- 1710; and late—c.1710-1750. WhUe the remains of domestic animals were found in all three periods, all of the pig remains were found in the middle and late period depositions. It was con­ cluded that domestic animab were an insignificant part of the early 17th century Mohegan diet (Salwen 1970:5-6). However at the Nahanada site, a coastal Abenaki site in Bristol, Maine, near Pemaquid, pig remains were recovered in a context which sug­ gests a pre-1620 deposition date (Sanger et al 1983). Thb b a very early date for the introduction of pigs into the northeast and moreover the excavators are not confident of the data (Sanger, personal communication). In two coastal New Hampshire sites, Seabrook Station and Hunts Island, pig teeth were found in a late woodland context dated c.1615 (Hoornbeck 1980:1). Given that Bartholomew Gosnold found Indians on the New England coast in 1602 wearing European clothing and sailing European boats, Hoornbeck feels it b possible that pigs could have been present at thb date. The presence of three Late Woodland coastal sites with pig remains suggest that further research may produce more such sites.

Disease

One of the less explored ramifications of the introduction of European animab into North America concerns the pathogens these animals might carry and their impact on native popula­ tions. Thb process, called zoonosis, involves dbeases which at­ tack both animab and man and which can pass in either direc­ tion from one to the other (Fiennes 1978:xi). Zoonosis may be relevant to the epidemics which decimated native populations in New England in the 17th century, especially the epidemic of 1616-1619, for which no satisfactory etiology or vector has been presented. BUlee Hoornbeck, in an analysb of the causes 160 ROBERT GRADE of this epidemic that struck Indian groups from Massachusetts Bay to Penobscot Bay, noted that three aspects must be consid­ ered when examining the impact of a new disease on a popula­ tion. These aspects include the native disease profile, the vector of the new pathogen and the lifeways of the native population, particularly their settlement patterns and living arrangements. At present, there b no evidence which would suggest that the disease profile of New World populations included epidemic dis­ eases. William McNeil attributes the lack of infectious epidemic diseases in the western hemisphere to the lack of diversity in New World fauna and the relative absence of domestic animab. The result was few pathogens and little pathogenic diversity available for human infection. The diversity of European and Asian ani­ mals, particularly herd animals, creates an environment in which multiple pathogens could evolve. Further, these herds served as reservoirs from which pathogens might be transferred to human populations. This transfer occurs when human populations have gained sufficient size to support the pathogens and have become sedentary (McNeU 1976:200-201).

The permanent European population on the coast of New England before 1620 was minimal, probably less that ten indi­ viduals, most likely aU castaways. Likewise the native popula­ tions in New England were dispersed for much of the year. Their settlement system consisted of a residential viUage and various outliers near specific resources. ViUage members would move to these outlying camps at appropriate times together and process these resources, thus spending a large part of the year in small family groups rather than congregated into larger vUlages (Sal­ wen 1975:160-165). Thus there would not seem to have been a sufficient disease-carrying population, either human or animal, to support the introduction of an epidemic. Yet, New England experienced its firstmajo r epidemic in advance of any large in­ flux of Europeans. As George Armelagos and Alan McArdile have noted there have been few attempts to define the role of dbease in smaU populations. Although social systems frequently contribute to disease patterns, epidemiological modeb based on COLONIZING PIGS 161 populations of half a mUlion people or larger are not applicable to populations of a few hundred. In these cases zoonotic dis­ eases may become a critical source of human infection (Arme- lagos and McArdle 1975:3-5). A number of candidate diseases have been offered for the New England epidemic of 1616-1619, in­ cluding plague, Yerinia pestis (WUliams 1909:340-349), Chicken pox (Cronon 1983:87), trichinosb (Hoornbeck 1981:4), and in­ fectious hepatitb (Spiess 1983). The most Ukely cause of thb epidemic was Y. pestis, the dbease to which it has been tra­ ditionally attributed. In 1619 Capt. Thomas Dermer who was exploring the coast of Massachusetts stated expUcitly: "their db­ ease; the plague, for we might perceive the source of some that had escaped, who described the spots of such as usually die" (Williams 1909:344). Thomas Morton was abo of the opinion that the epidemic was the plague, stating: "by aU likeUhood the sickness that these Indians died of was the plague, as by confer­ ence with them since my arrival and habitation in these parts I have learned" (Morton 1883:132). Whatever the source of the epidemic of 1616, it struck with considerable ferocity, for Morton recounts: "the hand of God fell heavily upon the natives with such a mortal stroke that they died in heaps" (Morton 1883:132).

The problem in identifying Y. pestis as the cause of the 1616 epidemic b that its pathogenic profile does not fit the known con­ ditions of New England at that time. As Hoornbeck notes, Y. pestis needs three populations in order to become epidemic: large congregations of people, rats, and fleas (Hoornbeck 1976:4). New England Indians spent at least part of the year dispersed, and Thomas Morton states emphatically: "But for rats the country is by nature troubled with none" (Morton 1883:214). Fleas, how­ ever seem to have been a common nubance for lists an infestation as one reason to move a wigwam (WUliams 1973:128). While the Indians between Massachusetts Bay and Penobscot Bay spent the spring and summer months dbpersed, they spent the winter congregated in large viUages. Thus for at least part of the year they would meet the density requirements necessary to maintain the plague, however this does not provide

y 162 ROBERT GRADE a mechanbm for introduction and transfer of the dbease. The pig and a subspecies of flea, Pulex irritans provide such a mechanbm. Often a human parasite, P. irritans is not normally considered a primary mechanbm for the transfer of plague, but it is fully capable of transmitting plague in its bubonic form (Pol- Utzer 1954:378-381; Fiennes 1978:38). In order to do so however it needs a nonhuman host to serve as a reservoir. This reser­ voir can be the pig (Hubbert, McCuUoch and Schnurrenberger 1975:157). Pigs share with humans 42 different diseases and thus present a reasonable vector for many human epidemics. The pro­ cess involves fleastransferrin g the dbease from pig to man and back to pigs. Thb results in a slow cycle of bubonic plague but apparently of an unusually potent type which may explain the three-year duration of the epidemic and its severity (PolUtzer 1954:379). While there are, at present, no known documented instances of pigs spreading Y. pestis among Indians, there are documented cases of pigs spreading dbease to Europeans. For example, in May 1635 a farmer named Clough and three children died of an unknown epidemic in Kingston, New Hampshire after coming into contact with a dead pig with sweUing on its throat (Russell 1976:154).

Conclusions

The available evidence offers an outUne model of porcine colo- nbation and Indian adaptation. First, there was a policy among early English settlers of including pigs among their baggage to insure the establbhment of the settlement. That there were pigs at Roanoke in 1585, Jamestown in 1607, Newfoundland in 1615, and Portsmouth in 1623 suggests that pigs regularly accompa­ nied the first contingent of colonists. Pigs were probably chosen for this role because they adapted quickly and required Uttle care. Secondly, the pig was introduced into an environment similar to the environments which it had occupied in Europe. Within thb new environment there was no similar species, and pigs had little competition with which to contend. This plus its prolific COLONIZING PIGS 163 breeding capabUity aUowed the animal to establbh itself inde­ pendently of man with little difficulty. Thirdly the free-ranging habits of the pig allowed the Indian to gain firsthan d knowl­ edge of the animal without the constraining social bonds that the proximity to European settlement would add. Thus the first contact many Indians may have had with the pig might have been as a new and peculiar addition to the forest fauna. By the second decade of the 17th century the pig was weU establbhed in the eastern United States. Pigs were so well established in the Southeast that feral pigs could be found from St. Augus­ tine to Charleston and the first settlers of South Carolina were purchasing pork from local Indians (Towne and Wentworth 1950- 87). The data for New England b less clear but pigs were present by the early 1620s and probably earlier. Lastly the Indians may have adapted to the pig with greater ease than the documentary record might suggest. It b difficult at present to determine how much of the bickering between Indians and Europeans over the destructiveness of pigs was not simply a surface manifestation of the larger problem of inter-cultural relations. Although the pig could and did destroy agricultural fields; deer, raccoons, woodchucks, black birds and other native predators also had dbruptive potential with which the Indians had to contend. It was necessary to protect cornfields before the arrival of Europeans, thus the pig may have been an unfamiliar animal but it did not present a new problem. The only difference was that in this case there was someone to blame. It remains to be shown that pigs were present in numbers suffi­ cient to maintain a host reservoir capable of causing the epidemic of 1616-1619. At present, thb cannot be done, but the avaUable evidence both documentary and archaeological, suggests that the early 17th century population of pigs in New England may have been larger than previously thought. Archaeological data are rarely precbe enough to detect events of a random and unusual nature. Further preservation of faunal remains in the northeast b generally poor. Thus it may be assumed that Late Woodland Algonquian ait.es containin£_Dig bones do not represent a unique 164 ROBERT GRADE phenomenon. In thb case a population sufficient to serve as a vector for both plague and other infectious dbeases may have been present by the second decade of the 17th century. Ultimately, the pig was a losing proposition for the Indian. European methods of agriculture would not permit the Indian to establish the type of relationship with the animal with which he was most familiar. The pig was equally disruptive to European and Indian fields,s o the long term solution from the European point of view was to control the animal's freedom of movement. To be effective, thb required that all pigs be controUed, not just those owned by Europeans. By the middle of the 17th century, many towns in New England began to enact ordinances requir­ ing the ringing or yoking of pigs as a means of controlUng the animal's behavior and reducing the communal bickering its de- structiveness generated. If the Indian was being held responsible for some pigs, he was ultimately going to be forced to adopt Eu­ ropean methods of animal husbandry which would ultimately include enclosing the animal. Any other accommodation the In­ dian devised with the pig would be only a temporary solution. But to adopt European methods of pig raising would have de­ manded the acceptance of a wide range of European attitudes toward agriculture, land ownership, and personal mobility which in the end would have resulted in a degree of acculturation most Indians seem to have been unwilling to accept.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Thb paper has benefited greatly from the comments and ed­ itorial assistance of Dr. Karen Kupperman of the University of Connecticut and the comments and suggestions offered by Dr. Robert Bee and Dr. Robert Dewar of the Department of Anthropology. They can not however be held responsible for unwarranted speculations. COLONIZING PIGS 165 REFERENCES

Armelagos, George J. and Alan McArdle 1975 Population, Disease, and Evolution. American Antiquity, Memoir SO 40, no.2, part 2.

Barrnett, G.H., Leonard Broom, Bernard Siegel, Evon Z. Vogt, and James Watson 1954 Acculturation: An Exploratory Formulation. American Anthropologist 56:1000.

Batchellor, Albert S. 1895 Provincial and State Papers: Documents and Records Relating to the Province and State of New Hampshire. Nathaniel Bouton et al, eds. Concord, New Hampshire: B.W. Sanborn.

Bradford, William 1952 Of Plymouth Plantation 1620-1647. S.E. Morison, ed. New York: Knopf.

Bruce, Philip A. 1895 Economic History of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century. [Reprinted: Peter Smith, New York, 1935].

Clutton-Brock, Juliet 1981 Domesticated Animals from Early Times. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Cronon, William 1983 Changes in the Land: Indian, Colonist, and the Ecology of New England. New York: Hill and Wang.

Dickinson, Jonathan 1944 God's Protecting Providence: Being the Narrative of a Journey from Port Royal in Jamaica to Philadelphia between August 23 1606 and April 1 1607. Evangeline and Charles Andrews, eds. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press.

Dobyns, Henry F. 1983 Their Number Become Thinned: Native American Population Dynamics in Eastern North America. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.

Fiennes, Richard N. 1978 Zoonoses and the Origins and Ecology of Human Disease. London: Aca­ demic Press. 166 ROBERT GRADE

Finberg, H.RP. 1972 The Agrarian History of England and Wales. VoL IL London: Cambridge University Press.

Hakluyt, Richard 1935 Discourse of Western Planting. Pp.211-326 in The Original Writings and Correspondence of the Two Richard HakluyU. Vol. IL E.G.R. Taylor, ed. London: Hakluyt Society. [Original 1584].

Hening, William Waller 1809 The Statues at Large, being a Collection of all the Laws of Virginia from the First Session of the Legislature in the Year 1619. Vol. II. Richmond, Virginia: Samuel Pleasants. [Reprinted Michael Glazier Inc. Wilming­ ton, Delaware 1978].

Hoornbeck, Billee 1978 An Investigation into the Cause or Causes of the Epidemic which Dec­ imated the Indian Population of New England 1616-1619. New Hamp­ shire Archaeologist 19:35-46.

1980 Don't Forget the Pig. Paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Historical Archaeology. Albuquerque, New Mexico. January.

Hubert, William T., William F. McCullock, Paul R. Schnurrenberger 1975 Diseases Transmitted from Animal to Man. 6th ed. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas.

James, Sidney V. Jr., ed. 1963 Three Visitors to Early Plymouth. Plymouth, Mass.: Plimouth Planta­ tion.

Lamed, Ellen D. 1874 History of Windham County Connecticut Vol. I. [Reprinted: Pequot Press, Chester, Connecticut, 1976].

Lee, Richard B. 1972 The IKung Bushmen of Botswana. Pp.326-368 in Hunters and Gatherers Today: A Socioeconomic Study of Eleven such Cultures in the Twentieth Century. MG. Bicchiere, ed. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.

Lew'i3, Theodore H, ed. 1907 The Narative of the Expedition of Hernando de Sota By the Gentlemen of Elvas. In the series Original Narratives of Early American History. New York: Charles Scribner Sons. COLONIZING PIGS 167

Mason, Capt. John 1620 Captain John Mason The Founder of New Hampshire together with a Memoir by Charels Tuttle. John Ward Dean, ed. VoL XVIL Boston: The Prince Society. (1881). [Reprinted: Burt Franklin, New York, 1967].

Mavrick, Samual 1884 A Brief Discription of New England. Massachusetts Historical Society Proceedings, Second series, L

Morton, Thomas 1632 New England Canaan. Charles F. Adams, ed. Vol. XIV. Boston: The Prince Society (1881). [Reprinted: Bert Franklin, New York, 1967].

McBride, Kevin 1981 Unpublished research notes from excavations on the United States Naval Base, Groton, Connecticut, Public Archaeology Survey Team, University of Connecticut.

McNeil, William 1976 Plagues and People. New York Anchor Press/Doubleday.

Pollitzer, R. 1954 Plague. Geneva: World Health Organization.

Quinn, David B. 1975 North America From Earliest Discovery to First Settlement. The Norse Voyages to 1612. New York: Harper and Row.

Russell, Howard S. 1976 A Long, Deep Furrow: Three Centuries of Farming in New England. Hanover, New Hampshire: University Press of New England.

Sanger, David, Robert Bradley, and Arthur Spiess 1983 Nahanada, A 17th Century Site on the Coast of Maine. Paper presented to the Eastern States Archaeological Federation Meeting. Salem, Mass.

Salisbury, Neal 1982 Manitou and Providence: Indians, Europeans and the Making of New Eng­ land, 1500-1643. New York: Oxford University Press.

Salwen, Bert 1980 Cultural Inferences from Faunal Remains: Examples from Three North­ east Coastal Sites. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 40:1-8. 168 ROBERT GRADE

1975 Indians of Southern New England and Long Island: Early Period. Pp. 160-176 in Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. 15. Washington: Smithsonian Institution.

Schlesier, Karl H. 1976 Epidemics and Indian Middlement: Rethinking the Wars of the Iroquois, 1609-1653. Ethnohistory 23:129-45.

Scot, George 1684 The Model of Government of the Province of East Jersey in America. Pp. 426, 439 in Collections of the New Jersy Historical Society Vol. I, second series. 1874.

Shurtleff, Nathaniel B. 1854 The Records of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay in New England. Boston. W. White.

Smith, John 1910 The Travels and Works of Captain John Smith, President of Virginia and Admiral of New England, 1580-16SL A.G. Bradley, ed. Edinburgh: John Grant.

Spiess, Arthur E. and Bruce D. Spiess 1983 New England Indian Pandemic of 1616-1619: Cause and Archaeological Implications. Paper delivered at the Eastern States Archaeological Feder­ ation. Salem, Mass.

Thirsk, Joan 1957 English Peasant Farming: The Agrarian History of Lincolnshire from Tu­ dor to Recent Times. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Thomas, Peter 1976 Contrastive Subsistence Strategies and Land Use Factors for Under­ standing Indian-White Relations in New England. Ethnohistory 23:1-7.

Towne, Charles W. and Edward N. Wentworth 1950 Pigs: From Cave to Corn Belt Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Trumbull, J. Hammond, ed. 1850 The Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut Vol. I, 1634, Hartford.

White, John

1884 The Fourth Voyage to America. Pp.245-273 in Sir Walter Raliegh and his Colony in America. Vol. XV. Boston: The Prince Society. [Reprinted- Burt Franklin, New York, 1967]. COLONIZING PIGS 169

William, Herburt U. 1909 The Epidemic of the Indians of New England, 1616-1620, with Remarks on Native American Infection. John Hopkins Hospital Bulletin 224:340- 349.

Williams, Lorraine E. 1972 Fort Shantok and Fort Corchaug: A Comparative Study of Seventeenth Century Cultural Contact in the Long Island Sound Area. Ph.D. thesis, New York University.

Williams, Roger 1643 Key into the Language of America. John J. Teunissen and Evelyn J. Hinz, eds. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1979.

Wood, William 1635 New Englands Prospects. Alden T. Vaughn, ed. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1977.

Zumer, Fredrick E. 1963 77>e History of Domesticated Animals. London: Hutchinson.