sign in sign up
<<
Home , Roanoke Colony

PETER B. MIRES The earlier group, part of whom were members of the ill-fated first attempt at British colonization in the , did not stay (Quinn 1955; Contact and Contagion: The Meinig 1986; Mitchell 1990). They were merely Roanoke Colony and Influenza on a reconnaissance of the territory to the north of their proposed colony on , which was located in the protected waters between Pam­ ABSTRACT lico and Albemarle sounds along the coast of what is now the state of (Figure 1). The colony did not survive, and, as all students of A comparison of the writings of Thomas Hariot, leader of the ill-fated Roanoke colony, and , founder of American history know, permanent British settle­ the first successful British settlement in , ment on these shores did not become a reality until reveals that the Roanoke colonists were the vectors of epi­ 1607 (Arber 1884; Barbour 1969). In the late sum­ demic disease. The disease was probably influenza, and it mer of that year, the Jamestown colony, led by the was especially lethal to the American Indians whom the energetic John Smith, achieved a tenuous foothold Roanoke colonists contacted. Thomas Hariot recorded di­ rect observations of the progress of the epidemic, including in among a chiefdom of Amer­ symptoms, mode of transmission, and virulence. John ican Indians known collectively as the Smith, upon his arrival in the region, heard (Mooney 1907a; Garrow 1974; Feest 1978a). stories of a devastating epidemic that had ravaged the Ac­ Two groups belonging to the Powhatan chief­ comac, one of the groups visited by the Roanoke colonists dom, the Accomac and Accohanock (Mooney during the winter of 1585/86. This article critically assesses the historical evidence surrounding this epidemic and pro­ 1907b), lived across the Chesapeake Bay at the tip poses influenza as the probable pathogen. Depopulation of of what is today the Delmarva Peninsula (Figure 1). American Indians in the vicinity of the Roanoke colony, John Smith, eager to know his new neighbors in the specifically the Accomac, is placed within the wider context Chesapeake Bay region, sought out the " Werow­ of European epidemic disease in the New World. One im­ ance," or tribal leader, of the Accomac in June of plication of this historical record is the identification of Virginia's Eastern Shore as an area likely to contain archae­ 1608. During this initial contact, Smith was told of ological resources relevant to the research problem of " a strange mortalitie" which affected ' 'a great part American Indian demographic change during the Contact of his people ... and but few escaped" (Arber period. 1884:413). The Werowance of Accomac had de­ scribed an epidemic disease which was " strange" and new, and therefore, one which the population Introduction had never experienced. And, the disease apparently had an extremely high case fatality rate. The horror Something happened to the American Indian of epidemic disease, in all probability of Old World population of Virginia's Eastern Shore between the origin, had clearly visited the Accomac. For reasons visits of the English Roanoke settlers during the described below, that visit seems likely to have winter of 1585/86 and John Smith' s exploration of occurred during the winter of 1585/86. the Chesapeake Bay in the summer of 1608. A comparison of observations made by these two European Epidemic Disease in the groups, separated in time by 22 years, indicates New World that the American Indians who inhabited what is now Virginia' s Eastern Shore succumbed to a Eu­ Although scholars continue to debate the tem­ ropean epidemic disease and experienced devastat­ poral and spatial parameters, it appears that Amer­ ing depopulation. Heretofore, at least one re­ ican Indian populations declined drastically after searcher has implicated (McCary 1957: even cursory contact with Europeans, not to men­ 84), but a closer examination of the evidence tion during initial colonization and subsequent set­ suggests that influenza was the probable pathogen. tlement (Quaife 1930; Dobyns 1966; Crosby 1972,

Historical Archaeology, 1994, 28(3):30-38. Permission to reprint required. CONTACT AND CONTAGION 31 New World populations by Old World pathogens constituted one of the world's greatest biological cataclysms.' , Diseases such as influenza, smallpox, measles, typhus fever, yellow fever, malaria, and plague have all been identified as contributing to dramatic reduction s of New World populations in the wake of European contact. A number of studies in the historical demography of American Indians have reached the conclusion that populations frequently declined from 50 to 90 percent following a century of European contact (Dobyns 1976). Certainly war­ fare and the collapse of a way of life were important considerations in the near extinction ofmany Amer­ ican Indian groups, but on a hemispheric scale dis­ ease was the primary causal factor in depopulation. 1i1!-:--ACCOMAC Many researchers (e.g., Crosby 1972, 1986; Jen­ nings 1975; Dobyns 1976, 1983) implicate small­ pox as the " single most lethal disease Europeans ATLANTIC carried to the New World" (Dobyns 1976:1-2). Its OCEAN devastating impact upon American Indians, espe­ cially in Spanish America, is well documented (Lovell 1992). As Francis Jenning s (1975:22) has so aptly put it, " Not even the most brutally de­ praved of the conquistadors was able purposely to slaughter Indians on the scale that the gentle priest unwittingl y accomplished by going from his sick­ bed ministrations to lay his hands in blessing on his Indian converts." The social implications of swift and massive de­ population due to American Indian contact with pathogens for which they had no natural immunity are several. There can be no doubt that disease 9 6,Okm o 60ml facilitated European colonization. For example, PBM Cortez took Tenochtitlan only after disease had

FIGURE 1, Locat ion of the land of the Accomac, James­ severely debilitated its resident population (Borah town, and the Roanoke Colon y, and Cook 1969), and the Bay col­ ony survived by cultivating fields vacated by vic­ tims of the documented 1616-1619 epidemic 1986; Jacob s 1974; Jennings 1975; Thomas 1989; (Cook 1973). Depopulation also gave rise to Amer­ Lovell 1992; Ramenofsky 1992; Verano and ican "Manifest Destiny" based on a perception Ubelaker 1992). Chronicles from the conquest and that North America was a virgin land. North Amer­ colonization of the New World are replete with ica, however, was actually more of a " widowed accounts of catastrophic depopul ation. The major land" (Jennings 1975:15). Among other social cause of such rapid depopulation was the Ameri­ consequences of hemispheric depopulation is the can Indian ' s susceptibility to Old World diseases. institution of the African slave trade to supply la­ In Dobyns' s (1976:21-22) words, " the invasion of bor for tropical and subtropical colonial planta- 32 HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOG Y, VOLUME 28 Within a few dayes after our departure from everies such townes, that people began to die very fast, and many in short space; in some townes about twentie, in some fourtie, in some sixtie, & in one sixe score, which in trueth was very manie in respect to their numbers. .. . The disease also was so strange that they neither knew what it was, nor how to cure it; the like by report of the oldest men in the countrey never happened before, time out of mind (Quinn 1955:378). The similarities which exist between Hariot' s account and what had been told to John Smith by the Werowance of Accomac are striking. A " strange," extremely contagious epidemic disease with a high case fatality rate was experienced by Carolina Algonquians and Eastern Shore Virginia inhabitants alike. Furthermore, the Roanoke settlers must have only been mildly affected by the disease. Their individual immunity permitted them to walk freely among the American Indians who were dropping like flies around them. This characteristic puzzled both the English and the American Indian, a curious fact that did not go unrecorded in Hariot' s journal: This maruelous accident in all the countrie wrought so strange opinions of vs, that some people could not tel whether to thinke vs gods or men, and the rather because that all the space of their sicknesse, there was no man of ours knowne to die, or that was specially sicke (Quinn 1955: FIGURE 2. Portrait of Thomas Harlot, (Courtesy of the 379). President and Fellows of Trinity College , Oxford , En­ gland.) It is significant that the Roanoke settlers failed to identify the disease. Such intelligent and obser­ vant men as Thomas Hariot, , and es­ tions. In the , for example, the demog­ pecially the talented artist John White (see Lorant raphy of the whole region can be explained, in 1946) must surely have had some familiarity with large measure, by the substitution of one popula­ European epidemics and their symptoms. But, in tion for another. Historical archaeologists, like this case, they were apparently as puzzled as the other social scientists, are wary of simple cause­ American Indian victims. Hariot revealed his be­ and-effect relationships, but the role of nonindig­ wilderment by his choice of words; he referred to enous disease in the history of European coloniza­ the epidemic as " rare and strange." One may as­ tion and settlement of the Western Hemisphere sume that although he recognized high morbidity cannot be ignored. and mortality among the American Indians, he was unable to identify the specific contagion. The Roanoke Colony

Thomas Hariot (Figure 2), Sir ' s The Symptoms and Possible hand-picked leader of the Roanoke colony, noticed Disease Suspects that there was a direct correlation between their visits to neighboring American Indian villages and To assist in the identification of symptoms and the outbreak of epidemic disease: the determination of disease suspects one must rely CONTACT AND CONTAGION 33 on the observations made by Thomas Hariot and they had regained their vital spirits" (Arber 1884: John Smith. One man observed firsthand the epi­ 413). demic in progress; the other, 22 years later, re­ An important clue that assists one in eliminating corded a chilling tale as told to him by a tribal some of the possible disease suspects is the timing leader. By piecing this information together it is of both outbreaks with respect to season. The ep­ possible to eliminate some disease suspects and idemic outbreak among the coastal Carolina Al­ assess the probability of others. gonquians took place in the fall of the year (Quinn One question that immediately presents itself is, 1955), and the Accomac outbreak probably oc­ What diseases would have been recognized by En­ curred sometime during the winter as the Roanoke glish people of the late 16th or early 17th centu­ colony reconnaissance party wintered in the lower ries? They would have undoubtedly identified Chesapeake Bay region (Quinn 1955). The obvious smallpox. This notoriously virulent disease could, significance of this fact is that it eliminates yellow in Crosby's (1972:56) words, "transform a healthy fever and malaria as suspects because the vector of man into a pustuled, oozing horror, whom his clos­ both diseases-the mosquito-begins to die off est relatives can barely recognize." And, accord­ with the onset of cool weather. Its tolerance to cool ing to Cook (1973:488), " English colonists were temperatures, in fact, seems to be around 16°C thoroughly familiar with the symptoms and ap­ (Carter 1931). By the same token, a disease such as pearance of small pox, and could diagnose the influenza becomes more virulent during the winter disease without hesitation." In fact, with the ex­ because of the additional complications of viral ception of influenza, the diseases of smallpox, and bacterial pneumonia (Kilbome 1975). measles, typhus fever, yellow fever, malaria, and Two lines of evidence make the serious consid­ plague, mentioned above, all have outward and eration of malaria or yellow fever a moot point. visible symptoms such as pox (typical of eruptive First, it seemed clear to Hariot and others that the fevers), jaundice, hemorrhages, persistent vomit­ Europeans themselves were transmitting the dis­ ing, and black vomit that would not have escaped ease, not a swarm of mosquitos. Second, historians the attention of Hariot and others. No doubt these of disease in the New World are in apparent con­ symptoms would have been commented on even if sensus that the first positively identified outbreak an incorrect diagnosis were made. of yellow fever''did not occur until well into the If the Roanoke colonists were unclear as to the seventeenth century" (Duffy 1953:140). Malaria, actual cause of the epidemic, they were certain of on the other hand, seems to have a longer history in the mechanism by which it was transmitted. Hariot the New World and cannot be so easily dismissed wrote, "This happened in no place that wee coulde on the grounds of probable date of import ation leame but where we had bene . . . a thing specially (Rutman and Rutman 1976). observed by vs, as also by the naturall inhabitants Measles seems unlikely because of its lower themselues" (Quinn 1955:378). It appears that the case fatality rate among non-resistant populations Roanoke colonists themselves were the vectors of as reported by Burnet and White (1972), Panum death. (1939), Carter (1931), and Dobyns (1966). Also, The disease in question was also typified by a Europeans have known about measles and small­ short duration of illness in which mortality oc­ pox since at least 1347 (Winslow and Duran-Rey­ curred quickly. To quote Hariot again, " The peo­ nals 1948). Although measles would have been ple began to die very fast, and many in short less diagnostic, it seems certain that its symptoms space" (Quinn 1955:378). The Werowance of Ac­ would have been noted. comac was also particularly emphatic on this point. Typhus fever should not be considered a suspect He also added that there were no obvious signs of because this body-louse-borne disease would have outward or disfiguring symptoms. The first victims claimed European victims as well as American In­ to die in the Accomac epidemic were described as dian (Duffy 1953). The symptoms of typhus fe­ having "such delightful countenances, as though ver-jaundice, black vomit, prostration, and a 34 HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 28 characteristic skin eruption-stood a good chance epidemics have demonstrated a case fatality rate as of being commented on by European and Ameri­ great as 75-100 percent (Carter 1931; McBryde can Indian alike. The high mortality figures with 1940). The characteristic of a short duration of which researchers are dealing would also have illness with mortality occurring quickly is typical been less likely with typhus fever. of other influenza epidemics among non-resistant Lastly, plague can be ruled out on the grounds populations: " In overt community epidemics, the that Europeans would have recognized it, would disease is easily recognized by its explosive na­ not have had such an apparent immunity to it, and ture" (Kilbome 1975:495). the bubonic form of plague is not transmitted hu­ That the Roanoke colonists would have had a man to human, but via the flea vector. An outbreak "herd immunity" to the disease and would have of bubonic plague with high mortality occurring been only mildly affected, yet capable of transmis­ "within a few dayes" after the initial introduction sion, is highly probable. The disease was transmit­ of the vector seems incredulous. Pneumonic ted via human vector, and, as Thomas Hariot plague, in which a human is the carrier, seems (Quinn 1955) noted, outbreaks did not occur in impossible given the evidence because that would villages where the English had not visited. Accord­ mean that the Roanoke colonists had the plague. ing to Kilbome (1975:495), "dependent as influ­ Besides, the epidemiologist Henry R. Carter (1931: enza is upon direct dissemination from man to 57) felt confident that "quite certainly there was man, the rapidity of its spread cannot exceed the never plague in America before 1898." And even speed of human travel and communication ." Al­ though Cook (1973:489) implicated plague as the though some of the other diseases discussed above contagion responsible for the 1616-1619 epidemic could conceivably fit this description of probable among New Indians, he admits that transmission, it seems especially suited to the "there is little solid evidence . . . that the epidemic spread of influenza. of 1616-1619 was some type of bubonic or pneu­ As mentioned earlier, influenza is probably the monic plague." only epidemic disease among the possible suspects There are various reasons for suspecting influ­ that could have killed so quickly and violently enza as the contagion in question. They all fit without any diagnostic symptoms. In fact, accord­ neatly with the information given by Thomas Har­ ing to Dobyns (1983: 18), "the historic role of in­ iot and John Smith regarding circumstances and fluenza is probably significantly underestimated in characteristics associated with the outbreak. Re­ records of its extent because its symptoms do not searchers know that the disease was not endemic to include readily perceived red rash or similar the American Indian population which, according marker." Even the sensitive artist John White, who to all reports, had never seen anything like it in the was meticulous in detail and acutely observant past. The illness was of short duration in which when recording on canvas the land and life of the death occurred quickly-a high case fatality rate is North Carolina Algonquians (Figure 3), would suggested. The disease seems to have been trans­ have been quick to make note of unusual physical mitted by the English Roanoke colonists, yet they symptoms typical of all the other contagions, but were unable to recognize it by outward or disfig­ with influenza there would have been none to uring symptoms, and they did not report any illness record. among themselves. They were apparently carriers The timing of the disease is important. The En­ and not victims. Finally, the outbreaks took place glish colonists made extensive contacts with both in the fall and winter of the year. the French and Spanish while in the Caribbean The virulence of influenza and its associated prior to sailing up the coast to Sound. It is complication, pneumonia, among an immunologi­ postulated here that the influenza virus was picked cally deficient population could have been ex­ up at this time. That influenza was endemic to the tremely high. Modem medical historians examin­ Caribbean in the has been documented (Me­ ing case histories from identifiable influenza Bryde 1940). Furthermore, modem research has CONTACT AND CONTAGION 35 and according to Quinn (1955:384), the colonists complained of "some slowness in organizing In­ dian supplies to the settlers at the beginning of the settlement in August and September." The out­ break among the coastal Algonquians occurred in the first week of October!

Archaeolog ical Implications

This article has focused on the historical and epidemiological evidence suggesting severe de­ population among the Accomac of the 17th century without benefit of corroborating archaeological ev­ idence. Unfortunately, the paucity of known Con­ tact-period sites on the lower Delmarva Peninsula, a situation resulting from limited archaeological reconnaissance, forces one to employ analogy in lieu of firm archaeological data (Feest 1973; Turner 1973; Custer 1989:337). Several recent studies, however, have attempted to define eastern North American Indian depopulation through the examination of the archaeological record (Ra­ menofsky 1987; Smith 1987; Blakely and Det­ weiler-Blakely 1989; Ward and Davis 1991). Al­ FIGURE 3. De Bry engraving of a Roanoke chief (ca. though there is general agreement that earlier 1586). (Courtesy of the William L. Clements Library, Uni­ estimates of American Indian population at the eth­ versity of Michiga n, Ann Arbor.) nographic present (e. g., Kroeber 1939) failed to appreciate the magnitude of depopulation due to epidemic disease, the cultural and biological mech­ anisms, as well as hypothesized archaeological established that influenza infections are present in manifestations, are topics of considerable profes­ the general population on a continuous basis, and sional debate (Ward and Davis 1991:171). that "epidemics" are simply statistically signifi­ Whether protohistoric demographic change oc­ cant peaks in the number of reported cases. It curred swiftly over large regions, or can be char­ seems entirely plausible that the English colonists acterized by more temporal and spatial complexity, came into contact with the disease while in the is a question whose resolution requires additional Caribbean in May and June of 1585. The month of hard evidence. Archaeological evidence for a July occupied the colonists in regrouping lost known example of protohistoric depopulation may ships- four of the original nine had been lost (one well exist on what is now Virginia' s Eastern had possibly taken a layover in Jamaica). These Shore. others did not rejoin the group at One potentially productive avenue of inquiry until the 27th of that month. Although initial con­ suggested by extant documents would be the im­ tact was made with the native inhabitants some­ plementation of systematic archaeological survey time during the middle of July, regular interaction of selected drainages along the Chesapeake Bay did not occur until August and September. Indeed, side of Northampton County. Cartographic evi­ the American Indians seemed standoffish at first, dence suggests that the Roanoke settlers visited 36 HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 28 three villages on the Eastern Shore, two of which devastating effects of epidemic disease, the death are identified as Combee (Accomac) and Masha­ rate of which could easily have been in the neigh­ watoe (Quinn 1955, l:map 7; Feest 1973:74, borhood of 70-90 percent. 1978b:248). The third village was probably Acco­ Although potentially informative archaeological hanock. John Smith's famous map of the Chesa­ evidence is currently unavailable, the documentary peake Bay and its environs (Paullin and Wright record suggests that the Roanoke colonists visited 1932), however, only identifies two villages, Ae­ three villages on the Eastern Shore, one of which, eawmaek (Accomac) and Aeohanoek (Barbour Mashawatoe, may have been abandoned as a result 1969:344-359; Feest 1978b:248); it appears that of depopulation. Archaeologists whose research in­ the village of Mashawatoe had disappeared in the terests include American Indian demographic intervening 22 years. Smith obviously charted Nas­ change during the Contact period have lamented sawadox Creek, where the village of Mashawatoe the difficulty of locating and identifying archaeo­ should have been, but found nothing. In fact, ac­ logical evidence that can shed light on this fasci­ cording to Smith's journal, after leaving Accomac nating but elusive topic. As outlined in this article, he sailed north, "Passing along the coast, search­ Virginia's Eastern Shore is a likely candidate for ing every inlet, and Bay, fit for harbours and hab­ the productive combination of necessary historical itations" (Arber 1884:413). One has to conclude, and archaeological data. therefore, that only the villages of Accomac and A careful reading of the writings of Thomas Accohanock were in existence by 1608. Hariot and John Smith has yielded a plethora of Of course, a variety of equally plausible expla­ " clues" to what amounts to a colonial murder nations could be offered to account for the disap­ mystery. The suspected killer is identified as in­ pearance of Mashawatoe. Regional adjustments in fluenza. The identity of the Accomac victims, settlement pattern, however, are not an uncommon however, will remain shrouded in anonymity. cultural response to demographically devastating Despite the human misery that accompanies a mas­ events such as an epidemic with a high case fatality sive death toll during an especially virulent epi­ rate. It is suggested that the archaeological record demic, the Accomac survivors and their descen­ of any of the three villages mentioned above should dants were described by the newly arrived contain direct or indirect evidence supportive of Jamestown colonists in glowing terms. John Smith sudden depopulation. referred to the Accomac as "very kind," John Pory called them "the most ciuill and tractable people we have met with," and their tribal leaders Conclusions were known to all as "the laughing kings of Ac­ comac" (Arber 1884). It is evident that the Roanoke colonists were transmitting influenza to neighboring Indian groups during the fall and winter of 1585/86. Hariot knew ACKNOWLEDGMENTS that the English settlers were the vectors of some­ thing extremely lethal to most American Indians with whom they had contact. He had no idea as to I would like to thank Darrett B. Rutman for stimulat­ ing my interest in the Contact period of the Eastern the contagion . John Smith recorded the aftermath of Seaboard. Others who were influential in molding this epidemic among the Accomac of Virginia' s the views expressed in this article include : Stanley Eastern Shore according to the testimony of a tribal E. Aschenbrenner, Arthur Aufderheide, Michael P. leader. Smith estimated that their tribal area, which Hoffman, Ann Marie Wagner Mires, the late Milton later became known as Northampton County, Vir­ B. Newton, Jr., Ann F. Ramenofsky, and Jerome C. Rose. I would also like to thank the three anony­ ginia, contained some 400 individuals at the time of mous reviewers for their cogent remarks. The au­ his 1608 visit (Arber 1884). But, these were people thor, however, is solely responsib le for any inaccu­ struggling to rebound from the demographically racies contained herein. CONTACT AND CONTAGION 37 REFERENCES FEEST, CHRISTIAN F . 1973 Seventeenth-Century Virgin ia Algonquian Popula­ ARBER,E DWARD (EDITOR) tion Estimates. Quarterly Bulletin ofthe Archeolog­ 1884 Captain John Smith 's Works. English Scholars Li­ ical Society of Virginia 28(2):66-79. brary , Birmingham, Engl and. 1978a Virginia Algonquians. In Handbook ofNonh Amer­ ican Indians, edited by William Sturtevant. Vol. 15, BARBOUR, PHILIP L. 1969 The Jamestown Voyages under the First Charter, Northeast, edited by Bruce G. Trigger, pp. 253-270. 1606-1609: Documents Relating to the Foundation Smithsonian Inst itution, U.S. Government Printin g of Jamestown. Published for the Hakluyt Society. Office, Washington, D.C. Cambridge Univ ersity Press, Lond on. 1978b Nanticoke and Neighboring Tribes. In Handbook of North American Indians, edited by William Sturte­ BLAKELY, ROBERT L., AND BETTtNA D ETWEILER-BLAKELY vant. Vol. 15, Northeast, edited by Bruce G. Trigger, 1989 The Impa ct of European Diseases in the Sixteenth­ pp. 240-252. Smithsonian Institution, U.S. Govern­ Century Southeast: A Case Study. Midcontinental ment Printing Office, Washington, D.C . Journal ofArchaeology 14:62-89. GARROW, PATRICK H. BORAH, WOODROW W., AND SHERBURNE F. COOK 1974 An Ethnohistorical Study of the Powhatan Tribes. 1969 Conquest and Population: A Demographic Approach The Chesopiean 12(1-2). The Chesopiean Archaeo­ to Mexican History. Proceedings of the American logic al Association, Norfolk, Virginia. Philosophical Society 113:117-1 83. JACOBS, WILBUR R. B URNET, SIR M ACFARLANE, ANDD AVID O. WHITE 1974 The Tip of an Iceberg: Pre-Columbian Indian De­ 1972 Natural History of Infectious Disease. Cambridge mography and Some Implications for Revi sionism. University Press, London. William and Mary Quarterly, third series , 31: 123­ 132. C ARTER, HENRY R. 1931 The Early History of Yellow Fever. Will iams and JENNINGS, FRANCIS Wilkins, Baltimore, . 1975 The Invasion ofAmerica: Indians, Colonialism, and the Cant of Conquest. University of North Carolin a COOK, SHERBURNE F. Press, Chapel Hill . 1973 The Significance of Disease in the Extinction of the New England Indians. Human Biology 45:485-508. Krr.BORNE, EDWIN D. 1975 The Influenza Virus and Influenza. Academic Press, CROSB Y, A LFRED W. . 1972 The Columbian Exchange: Biological and Cultural Consequences of 1492. Greenwood , Westport, Con­ KROEBER, ALFRED L. necti cut. 1939 Cultural and Natural Areas of Native North America. 1986 Ecological Imperialism: The Biological Expansion University of California Publications in American of Europe, 900-1900. Cambridge University Press, Archaeology and Ethnology 38. Berkeley. New York. LORANT, STEFAN(EDITOR) C USTER, JAY F. 1946 The New World: The First Pictures ofAmerica. Du­ 1989 Prehistoric Cultures ofthe Delmarva Peninsula: An ell, Sloan and Pearce, New York. Archaeological Study. University of Press, LOVELL, W. GEORGE Newark. 1992 "Heavy Shadows and Black Night": Disease and D OB YNS, H ENRY F. Depopulation in Colonial Spani sh America. Annals 1966 Estimating Aboriginal American Popul ation: An Ap­ of the Association ofAmerican Geographers 82(3): praisal of Techniques with a New Hem ispheric Es­ 426-443. timate. Current Anthropology 7:395--416. McBRYDE, W EBSTER F. 1976 Native American Historical Demography: A Critical 1940 Influenza in America During the Sixteenth Century. Bibliography. Indiana University Press, Blooming­ Bulletin ofthe History ofMedicine 8:296-302. ton . 1983 Their Numbers Become Thinned: Native American M CCARY, BEN C. Population Dynamics in Eastern Nortb America. 1957 Indians in Seventeenth-Century Virginia. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. Jamestown 350th Anniversary Historical Booklets No. 18. Garrett and Massie, Richmond, Virginia. DUFFY, JOHN 1953 Epidemics in Colonial America. State M EINIG, DONALD W. University Press, Baton Rouge. 1986 The Shaping of America: A Geographical Perspec- 38 HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 28

tive on 500 Years ofHistory. Vol. I, Atlantic Amer­ R UTMAN, D ARRETT B., AND A NITA H . R UTMAN ica. 1492-1800. Yale University Press, New Haven, 1976 Of Agues and Fevers: Malaria in the Early Chesa­ . peake. William and Mary Quarterly. third series, 33(1):31-60. M ITCHELL, ROBERT D . 1990 The Colonial Origins of Anglo-America. In North SM ITH, M ARVIN T . America: The Historical Geography of a Changing 1987 Archaeology of Aboriginal Culture Change in the Continent. edited by R. D. Mitchell and P. A. Groves, Interior Southeast: Depopulation During the Early pp. 93-120. Rowman and Littlefield, Savage, Mary­ Historic Period. University of Florida Press and the land. Florida State Museum, Gainesville. MOONEY, J AMES 1907a The Powhatan Confederacy, Past and Present. Amer­ THOM AS, D AVID H URST ican Anthropologist9(l):129-152. 1989 Columbian Consequences. Three volumes. Smithso­ 1907b Accomac. In Handbook of American Indians North nian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. of Mexico, Vol. I, edited by F. W. Hodge. Bureau of T URNER, RANDOLPH American Ethnology Bulletin 30:3. Washington, 1973 A New Population Estimate for the Powhatan Chief­ D.C. dom of the Coastal Plain of Virginia. Quarterly Bul­ P ANUM, PET ER L. letin ofthe Archeological Society of Virginia 28(2): 1939 Observations Made During the Epidemic of Measles 57-65. on the Faroe Islands in the Year 1856. Medical Clas­ sics 3(9). Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, Mary­ V ERANO, JO HN W ., AND D OUGLAS H . U BELAKER (EDITORS) 1992 Disease and Demography in the Americas. Smithso­ land. nian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. PA ULLIN, CHAR LES 0., AND JOH N K. W RIGHT 1932 Atlas of the Historical Geography of the United W ARD, H . T RAWICK, AND R. P . S TEPHEN DAVIS, JR . States. Carnegie Institution, Washington, D.C. 1991 The Impact of Old World Diseases on the Native Inhabitants of the North Carolina Piedmont. Archae­ Q UAIFE, MILO M. ( EDITOR) 1930 The Smallpox Epidemic on the Upper Missouri. Mis­ ology of Eastern North America 19:171-181. sissippi Valley Historical Review 17:278-279. WINSLOW, C.-E. A ., AND M . R. D URAN-REYNALS Q UINN, D AVID B. ( EDITOR) 1948 Jacme d' Agramont and the First of the Plague Trac­ 1955 The Roanoke Voyages, 1584-1590. Two vols. Pub­ tates. Bulletin of the History ofMedicine 22:747. lished for the Hakluyt Society. Cambridge University Press, London.

RAMENOFSKY, A NN F. 1987 Vectors of Death: The Archaeology of European P ETER B. MIRES Contact. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquer­ D EPARTMENT OF G EOGRAPHY que. U NIVERSITY OF MINl' ESOTA 1992 Death by Disease. Archaeology 45(2):47--49. D ULUTH, MINNESOTA 55812