PETER B. MIRES

Contact and Contagion: TheRoanoke Colony and Influenza

ABSTRACT

A comparison of the writings of Thomas Hariot, leader ofthe ill-fated Roanoke colony, and John Smith, founder ofthe first successful British settlement in North America,reveals that the Roanoke colonists were the vectors of epi­demic disease. The disease was probably influenza, and itwas especially lethal to the American Indians whom theRoanoke colonists contacted. Thomas Hariot recorded di­rect observations of the progress of the epidemic, includingsymptoms, mode of transmission, and virulence. JohnSmith, upon his arrival in the Chesapeake Bay region, heardstories of a devastating epidemic that had ravaged the Ac­comac, one of the groups visited by the Roanoke colonistsduring the winter of 1585/86. This article critically assessesthe historical evidence surrounding this epidemic and pro­poses influenza as the probable pathogen. Depopulation ofAmerican Indians in the vicinity of the Roanoke colony,specifically the Accomac, is placed within the wider contextof European epidemic disease in the New World. One im­plication of this historical record is the identification ofVirginia' s Eastern Shore as an area likely to contain archae­ological resources relevant to the research problem ofAmerican Indian demographic change during the Contactperiod.

Introduction

Something happened to the American Indianpopulation of Virginia's Eastern Shore between thevisits of the English Roanoke settlers during thewinter of 1585/86 and John Smith' s exploration ofthe Chesapeake Bay in the summer of 1608. Acomparison of observations made by these twogroups, separated in time by 22 years, indicatesthat the American Indians who inhabited what isnow Virginia' s Eastern Shore succumbed to a Eu­ropean epidemic disease and experienced devastat­ing depopulation. Heretofore, at least one re­searcher has implicated smallpox (McCary 1957:84), but a closer examination of the evidencesuggests that influenza was the probable pathogen.

Historical Archaeology, 1994, 28(3):30-38.Permission to reprint required.

The earlier group, part of whom were membersof the ill-fated first attempt at British colonizationin the New World, did not stay (Quinn 1955;Meinig 1986; Mitchell 1990). They were merelyon a reconnaissance of the territory to the north oftheir proposed colony on Roanoke Island, whichwas located in the protected waters between Pam­lico and Albemarle sounds along the coast of whatis now the state of North Carolina (Figure 1). Thecolony did not survive, and, as all students ofAmerican history know, permanent British settle­ment on these shores did not become a reality until1607 (Arber 1884; Barbour 1969). In the late sum­mer of that year, the Jamestown colony, led by theenergetic John Smith, achieved a tenuous footholdin Tidewater Virginia among a chiefdom of Amer­ican Indians known collectively as the Powhatan(Mooney 1907a; Garrow 1974; Feest 1978a).

Two groups belonging to the Powhatan chief­dom, the Accomac and Accohanock (Mooney1907b), lived across the Chesapeake Bay at the tipof what is today the Delmarva Peninsula (Figure 1).John Smith, eager to know his new neighbors in theChesapeake Bay region, sought out the " Werow­ance," or tribal leader, of the Accomac in June of1608. During this initial contact , Smith was told of" a strange mortalitie" which affected ' 'a great partof his people ... and but few escaped" (Arber1884:413). The Werowance of Accomac had de­scribed an epidemic disease which was " strange"and new, and therefore, one which the populationhad never experienced. And, the disease apparentlyhad an extremely high case fatality rate. The horrorof epidemic disease, in all probability of Old Worldorigin, had clearly visited the Accomac. For reasonsdescribed below, that visit seems likely to haveoccurred during the winter of 1585/86.

European Epidemic Disease in theNew World

Although scholars continue to debate the tem­poral and spatial parameters, it appears that Amer­ican Indian populations declined drastically aftereven cursory contact with European s, not to men­tion during initial colonization and subsequent set­tlement (Quaife 1930; Dobyns 1966; Crosby 1972,

CONTACT AND CONTAGION

1i1!-:--ACCOMAC

ATLANTICOCEAN

9 6,Okmo 60ml

PBM

FIGURE 1, Locat ion of the land of the Accomac, James­town, and the Roanoke Colon y,

1986; Jacob s 1974; Jennings 1975; Thomas 1989;Lovell 1992; Ramenofsky 1992; Verano andUbelaker 1992). Chronicles from the conquest andcolonization of the New World are replete withaccount s of catastrophic depopul ation. The majorcause of such rapid depopulation was the Ameri­can Indian ' s susceptibility to Old World diseases.In Dobyns' s (1976:21-22) words, " the invasion of

31

New World populations by Old World pathogensconstituted one of the world' s greate st biologicalcataclysms.' ,

Diseases such as influenza, smallpox, measles,typhus fever, yellow fever, malaria , and plaguehave all been identified as contributing to dramaticreduction s of New World populations in the wakeof European contact. A number of studies in thehistorical demography of American Indians havereached the conclu sion that populations frequentlydeclined from 50 to 90 percent following a centuryof European contact (Dobyns 1976). Certainly war­fare and the collapse of a way of life were importantconsiderations in the near extinction of many Amer­ican Indian groups, but on a hemispheric scale dis­ease was the primary causal factor in depopulation.

Many researchers (e.g., Crosby 1972, 1986; Jen­nings 1975; Dobyns 1976, 1983) implicate small­pox as the " single most lethal disease Europeanscarried to the New World " (Dobyns 1976:1-2). Itsdevastating impact upon American Indians, espe­cially in Spanish America, is well documented(Lovell 1992). As Francis Jenning s (1975:22) hasso aptly put it, " Not even the most brutally de­praved of the conqui stadors was able purposely toslaughter Indians on the scale that the gentle priestunwittingl y accomplished by going from his sick­bed ministrations to lay his hands in blessing on hisIndian converts."

The social implications of swift and massive de­population due to American Indian contact withpathogens for which they had no natural immunityare several. There can be no doubt that diseasefacilitated European colonization. For example,Cortez took Tenochtitlan only after disease hadseverely debilitated its resident population (Borahand Cook 1969), and the Massachusetts Bay col­ony survived by cultivating fields vacated by vic­tims of the documented 1616-1619 epidemic(Cook 1973). Depopulation also gave rise to Amer­ican "Manifest Destiny" based on a perceptionthat North America was a virgin land. North Amer­ica, however, was actually more of a " widowedland" (Jennings 1975:15). Among other socialconsequences of hemispheric depopul ation is theinstitution of the African slave trade to supply la­bor for tropical and subtropical colonial planta-

32

FIGURE 2. Portrait of Thomas Harlot, (Courtesy of thePresident and Fellows of Trinity College , Oxford , En­gland.)

tions. In the Caribbean, for example, the demog­raphy of the whole region can be explained, inlarge measure, by the substitution of one popula­tion for another . Historical archaeologists, likeother social scientists, are wary of simple cause­and-effect relationships, but the role of nonindig­enous disease in the history of European coloniza­tion and settlement of the Western Hemispherecannot be ignored.

The Roanoke Colony

Thomas Hariot (Figure 2), Sir Walter Raleigh' shand-picked leader of the Roanoke colony , noticedthat there was a direct correlation between theirvisits to neighboring American Indian villages andthe outbreak of epidemic disease:

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOG Y, VOLUME 28

Within a few dayes after our departure from everies suchtownes, that people began to die very fast, and many in shortspace; in some townes about twentie, in some fourtie, insome sixtie, & in one sixe score, which in trueth was verymanie in respect to their numbers. .. . The disease also wasso strange that they neither knew what it was, nor how tocure it; the like by report of the oldest men in the countreynever happened before, time out of mind (Quinn 1955:378).

The similarities which exist between Hariot' saccount and what had been told to John Smithby the Werowance of Accomac are striking. A" strange," extremely contagious epidemic diseasewith a high case fatality rate was experienced byCarolina Algonquians and Eastern Shore Virginiainhabitants alike.

Furthermore , the Roanoke settlers must haveonly been mildly affected by the disease. Theirindividual immunity permitted them to walk freelyamong the American Indians who were droppinglike flies around them. This characteristic puzzledboth the English and the American Indian, a curiousfact that did not go unrecorded in Hariot' s journal:

This maruelous accident in all the countrie wrought sostrange opinions of vs, that some people could not telwhether to thinke vs gods or men, and the rather becausethat all the space of their sicknesse, there was no man ofours knowne to die, or that was specially sicke (Quinn 1955:379).

It is significant that the Roanoke settlers failedto identify the disease. Such intelligent and obser­vant men as Thomas Hariot, Ralph Lane, and es­pecially the talented artist John White (see Lorant1946) must surely have had some familiarity withEuropean epidemics and their symptoms. But, inthis case, they were apparently as puzzled as theAmerican Indian victims. Hariot revealed his be­wilderment by his choice of words; he referred tothe epidemic as " rare and strange." One may as­sume that although he recognized high morbidityand mortality among the American Indians, he wasunable to identify the specific contagion.

The Symptoms and PossibleDisease Suspects

To assist in the identification of symptoms andthe determination of disease suspects one must rely

CONTACT AND CONTAGION

on the observations made by Thomas Hariot andJohn Smith. One man observed firsthand the epi­demic in progress; the other, 22 years later, re­corded a chilling tale as told to him by a triballeader. By piecing this information together it ispossible to eliminate some disease suspects andassess the probability of others.

One question that immediately presents itself is,What diseases would have been recognized by En­glish people of the late 16th or early 17th centu­ries? They would have undoubtedly identifiedsmallpox. This notoriously virulent disease could,in Crosby's (1972:56) words, "transform a healthyman into a pustuled, oozing horror, whom his clos­est relatives can barely recognize." And, accord­ing to Cook (1973:488), " English colonists werethoroughly familiar with the symptoms and ap­pearance of small pox, and could diagnose thedisease without hesitation." In fact, with the ex­ception of influenza, the diseases of smallpox,measles, typhus fever, yellow fever, malaria, andplague, mentioned above, all have outward andvisible symptoms such as pox (typical of eruptivefevers), jaundice, hemorrhages, persistent vomit­ing, and black vomit that would not have escapedthe attention of Hariot and others. No doubt thesesymptoms would have been commented on even ifan incorrect diagnosis were made.

If the Roanoke colonists were unclear as to theactual cause of the epidemic , they were certain ofthe mechanism by which it was transmitted . Hariotwrote, "This happened in no place that wee couldeleame but where we had bene . . . a thing speciallyobserved by vs, as also by the naturall inhabitantsthemselues" (Quinn 1955:378). It appears that theRoanoke colonists themselves were the vectors ofdeath.

The disease in question was also typified by ashort duration of illness in which mortality oc­curred quickly. To quote Hariot again, " The peo­ple began to die very fast, and many in shortspace" (Quinn 1955:378). The Werowance of Ac­comac was also particularly emphatic on this point.He also added that there were no obvious signs ofoutward or disfiguring symptoms. The first victimsto die in the Accomac epidemic were described ashaving "such delightful countenances, as though

33

they had regained their vital spirits" (Arber 1884:413).

An important clue that assists one in eliminatingsome of the possible disease suspects is the timingof both outbreaks with respect to season. The ep­idemic outbreak among the coastal Carolina Al­gonquians took place in the fall of the year (Quinn1955), and the Accomac outbreak probably oc­curred sometime during the winter as the Roanokecolony reconnaissance party wintered in the lowerChesapeake Bay region (Quinn 1955). The obvioussignificance of this fact is that it eliminates yellowfever and malaria as suspects because the vector ofboth diseases-the mosquito-begins to die offwith the onset of cool weather. Its tolerance to cooltemperatures, in fact, seems to be around 16°C(Carter 1931). By the same token, a disease such asinfluenza becomes more virulent during the winterbecause of the additional complications of viraland bacterial pneumonia (Kilbome 1975).

Two lines of evidence make the serious consid­eration of malaria or yellow fever a moot point.First, it seemed clear to Hariot and others that theEuropeans themselves were transmitting the dis­ease, not a swarm of mosquitos. Second, historiansof disease in the New World are in apparent con­sensus that the first positively identified outbreakof yellow fever' 'did not occur until well into theseventeenth century" (Duffy 1953:140). Malaria,on the other hand, seems to have a longer history inthe New World and cannot be so easily dismissedon the grounds of probable date of import ation(Rutman and Rutman 1976).

Measles seems unlikely because of its lowercase fatality rate among non-resistant populationsas reported by Burnet and White (1972), Panum(1939), Carter (1931), and Dobyns (1966). Also,Europeans have known about measles and small­pox since at least 1347 (Winslow and Duran-Rey­nals 1948). Although measles would have beenless diagnostic, it seems certain that its symptomswould have been noted.

Typhus fever should not be considered a suspectbecause this body-louse-borne disease would haveclaimed European victims as well as American In­dian (Duffy 1953). The symptoms of typhus fe­ver-jaundice, black vomit, prostration, and a

34

characteristic skin eruption-stood a good chanceof being commented on by European and Ameri­can Indian alike. The high mortality figures withwhich researchers are dealing would also havebeen less likely with typhus fever.

Lastly, plague can be ruled out on the groundsthat Europeans would have recognized it, wouldnot have had such an apparent immunity to it, andthe bubonic form of plague is not transmitted hu­man to human, but via the flea vector. An outbreakof bubonic plague with high mortality occurring"within a few dayes" after the initial introductionof the vector seems incredulous. Pneumonicplague, in which a human is the carrier, seemsimpossible given the evidence because that wouldmean that the Roanoke colonists had the plague.Besides, the epidemiologist Henry R. Carter (1931:57) felt confident that "quite certainly there wasnever plague in America before 1898." And eventhough Cook (1973:489) implicated plague as thecontagion responsible for the 1616-1619 epidemicamong New England Indians, he admits that"there is little solid evidence . . . that the epidemicof 1616-1619 was some type of bubonic or pneu­monic plague."

There are various reasons for suspecting influ­enza as the contagion in question. They all fitneatly with the information given by Thomas Har­iot and John Smith regarding circumstances andcharacteristics associated with the outbreak. Re­searchers know that the disease was not endemic tothe American Indian population which, accordingto all reports, had never seen anything like it in thepast. The illness was of short duration in whichdeath occurred quickly-a high case fatality rate issuggested. The disease seems to have been trans­mitted by the English Roanoke colonists, yet theywere unable to recognize it by outward or disfig­uring symptoms, and they did not report any illnessamong themselves. They were apparently carriersand not victims. Finally, the outbreaks took placein the fall and winter of the year.

The virulence of influenza and its associatedcomplication, pneumonia , among an immunologi­cally deficient population could have been ex­tremely high. Modem medical historians examin­ing case histories from identifiable influenza

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 28

epidemics have demonstrated a case fatality rate asgreat as 75-100 percent (Carter 1931; McBryde1940). The characteristic of a short duration ofillness with mortality occurring quickly is typicalof other influenza epidemics among non-resistantpopulations: " In overt community epidemics, thedisease is easily recognized by its explosive na­ture" (Kilbome 1975:495).

That the Roanoke colonist s would have had a"herd immunity" to the disease and would havebeen only mildly affected, yet capable of transmis­sion, is highly probable. The disease was transmit­ted via human vector, and, as Thomas Hariot(Quinn 1955) noted, outbreaks did not occur invillages where the English had not visited. Accord­ing to Kilbome (1975:495), "dependent as influ­enza is upon direct dissemination from man toman, the rapidity of its spread cannot exceed thespeed of human travel and communication ." Al­though some of the other diseases discussed abovecould conceivably fit this description of probabletransmission, it seems especially suited to thespread of influenza.

As mentioned earlier, influenza is probably theonly epidemic disease among the possible suspectsthat could have killed so quickly and violentlywithout any diagnostic symptoms. In fact, accord­ing to Dobyns (1983: 18), "the historic role of in­fluenza is probably significantly underestimated inrecords of its extent because its symptoms do notinclude readily perceived red rash or similarmarker." Even the sensitive artist John White, whowas meticulous in detail and acutely observantwhen recording on canvas the land and life of theNorth Carolina Algonquians (Figure 3), wouldhave been quick to make note of unusual physicalsymptoms typical of all the other contagions, butwith influenza there would have been none torecord.

The timing of the disease is important. The En­glish colonists made extensive contacts with boththe French and Spanish while in the Caribbeanprior to sailing up the coast to Pamlico Sound. It ispostulated here that the influenza virus was pickedup at this time. That influenza was endemic to theCaribbean in the 1580s has been documented (Me­Bryde 1940). Furthermore, modem research has

CONTACT AND CONTAGION

FIGURE 3. De Bry engraving of a Roanoke chief (ca.1586). (Courtesy of the William L. Clements Library, Uni­versity of Michiga n, Ann Arbor.)

established that influenza infections are present inthe general population on a continuous basis, andthat "epidemics" are simply statistically signifi­cant peaks in the number of reported cases. Itseems entirely plausible that the English colonistscame into contact with the disease while in theCaribbean in May and June of 1585. The month ofJuly occupied the colonists in regrouping lostships- four of the original nine had been lost (onehad possibly taken a layover in Jamaica). Theseothers did not rejoin the group at Pamlico Sounduntil the 27th of that month. Although initial con­tact was made with the native inhabitants some­time during the middle of July, regular interactiondid not occur until August and September. Indeed,the American Indians seemed standoffish at first,

35

and according to Quinn (1955:384), the colonistscomplained of "some slowness in organizing In­dian supplies to the settlers at the beginning of thesettlement in August and September." The out­break among the coastal Algonquians occurred inthe first week of October!

Archaeolog ical Implications

This article has focused on the historical andepidemiological evidence suggesting severe de­population among the Accomac of the 17th centurywithout benefit of corroborating archaeological ev­idence. Unfortunately, the paucity of known Con­tact-period sites on the lower Delmarva Peninsula,a situation resulting from limited archaeologicalreconnaissance, forces one to employ analogy inlieu of firm archaeological data (Feest 1973;Turner 1973; Custer 1989:337). Several recentstudies, however, have attempted to define easternNorth American Indian depopulation through theexamination of the archaeological record (Ra­menofsky 1987; Smith 1987; Blakely and Det­weiler-Blakely 1989; Ward and Davis 1991). Al­though there is general agreement that earlierestimates of American Indian population at the eth­nographic present (e. g., Kroeber 1939) failed toappreciate the magnitude of depopulation due toepidemic disease, the cultural and biological mech­anisms, as well as hypothesized archaeologicalmanifestations, are topics of considerable profes­sional debate (Ward and Davis 1991:171).Whether protohistoric demographic change oc­curred swiftly over large regions, or can be char­acterized by more temporal and spatial complexity,is a question whose resolution requires additionalhard evidence. Archaeological evidence for aknown example of protohistoric depopulation maywell exist on what is now Virginia' s EasternShore.

One potentially productive avenue of inquirysuggested by extant documents would be the im­plementation of systematic archaeological surveyof selected drainages along the Chesapeake Bayside of Northampton County. Cartographic evi­dence suggests that the Roanoke settlers visited

36

three villages on the Eastern Shore, two of whichare identified as Combee (Accomac) and Masha­watoe (Quinn 1955, l:map 7; Feest 1973:74,1978b:248). The third village was probably Acco­hanock. John Smith's famous map of the Chesa­peake Bay and its environs (Paullin and Wright1932), however, only identifies two villages, Ae­eawmaek (Accomac) and Aeohanoek (Barbour1969:344-359; Feest 1978b:248); it appears thatthe village of Mashawatoe had disappeared in theintervening 22 years. Smith obviously charted Nas­sawadox Creek, where the village of Mashawatoeshould have been, but found nothing. In fact, ac­cording to Smith's journal, after leaving Accomache sailed north, "Passing along the coast, search­ing every inlet, and Bay, fit for harbours and hab­itations" (Arber 1884:413). One has to conclude ,therefore , that only the villages of Accomac andAccohanock were in existence by 1608.

Of course, a variety of equally plausible expla­nations could be offered to account for the disap­pearance of Mashawatoe. Regional adjustments insettlement pattern, however, are not an uncommoncultural response to demographically devastatingevents such as an epidemic with a high case fatalityrate. It is suggested that the archaeological recordof any of the three villages mentioned above shouldcontain direct or indirect evidence supportive ofsudden depopulation.

Conclusions

It is evident that the Roanoke colonists weretransmitting influenza to neighboring Indian groupsduring the fall and winter of 1585/86. Hariot knewthat the English settlers were the vectors of some­thing extremely lethal to most American Indianswith whom they had contact. He had no idea as tothe contagion . John Smith recorded the aftermath ofthis epidemic among the Accomac of Virginia' sEastern Shore according to the testimony of a triballeader. Smith estimated that their tribal area, whichlater became known as Northampton County, Vir­ginia, contained some 400 individuals at the time ofhis 1608 visit (Arber 1884). But, these were peoplestruggling to rebound from the demographically

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 28

devastating effects of epidemic disease, the deathrate of which could easily have been in the neigh­borhood of 70-90 percent.

Although potentially informative archaeologicalevidence is currently unavailable, the documentaryrecord suggests that the Roanoke colonists visitedthree villages on the Eastern Shore, one of which,Mashawatoe, may have been abandoned as a resultof depopulation. Archaeologists whose research in­terests include American Indian demographicchange during the Contact period have lamentedthe difficulty of locating and identifying archaeo­logical evidence that can shed light on this fasci­nating but elusive topic. As outlined in this article,Virginia's Eastern Shore is a likely candidate forthe productive combination of necessary historicaland archaeological data.

A careful reading of the writings of ThomasHariot and John Smith has yielded a plethora of" clues" to what amounts to a colonial murdermystery. The suspected killer is identified as in­fluenza. The identity of the Accomac victims,however, will remain shrouded in anonymity .Despite the human misery that accompanies a mas­sive death toll during an especially virulent epi­demic, the Accomac survivors and their descen­dants were described by the newly arrivedJamestown colonists in glowing terms. John Smithreferred to the Accomac as "very kind," JohnPory called them "the most ciuill and tractablepeople we have met with," and their tribal leaderswere known to all as "the laughing kings of Ac­comac" (Arber 1884).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank Darrett B. Rutman for stimulat­ing my interest in the Contact period of the EasternSeaboard . Others who were influential in moldingthe views expressed in this article include : StanleyE. Aschenbrenner, Arthur Aufderheide, Michael P.Hoffman, Ann Marie Wagner Mires, the late MiltonB. Newton, Jr., Ann F. Ramenofsky, and Jerome C.Rose. I would also like to thank the three anony­mous reviewers for their cogent remarks. The au­thor, however, is solely responsib le for any inaccu­racies contained herein.

CONTACT AND CONTAGION

REFERENCES

ARBER, E DWARD (EDITOR)1884 Captain John Smith 's Works. English Scholars Li­

brary , Birmingham, Engl and.

BARBOUR, PHILIP L.1969 The Jamestown Voyages under the First Charter,

1606-1609: Documents Relating to the Foundationof Jamestown. Published for the Hakluyt Society.Cambridge Univ ersity Press, Lond on.

BLAKELY, ROBERT L., AND BETTtNA D ETWEILER-BLAKELY1989 The Impa ct of European Diseases in the Sixteenth­

Century Southeast: A Case Study. MidcontinentalJournal ofArchaeology 14:62-89.

BORAH, WOODROW W., AND SHERBURNE F. COOK1969 Conquest and Population: A Demographic Approach

to Mexican History. Proceedings of the AmericanPhilosophical Society 113:117-1 83.

B URNET, SIR M ACFARLANE, AND D AVID O. WHITE1972 Natural History of Infectious Disease. Cambridge

University Press, London.

C ARTER, HENRY R.1931 The Early History of Yellow Fever. Will iams and

Wilkins, Balt imore, Maryland.

C OOK, SHERBURNE F.1973 The Significance of Disease in the Extinction of the

New England Indians. Human Biology 45:485-508.

CROSBY, A LFRED W.1972 The Columbian Exchange: Biological and Cultural

Consequences of 1492. Greenwood , Westport, Con­necti cut.

1986 Ecological Imperialism: The Biological Expansionof Europe, 900-1900. Cambridge University Press,New York.

C USTER, JAY F.1989 Prehistoric Cultures of the Delmarva Peninsula: An

Archaeological Study. University of Delaware Press,Newark.

D OBYNS, H ENRY F.1966 Estimating Aboriginal American Popul ation : An Ap­

prai sal of Techniques with a New Hem ispheric Es­timate. Current Anthropology 7:395--416.

1976 Native American Historical Demography: A CriticalBibliography. Indiana University Press, Blooming­ton .

1983 Their Numbers Become Thinned: Native AmericanPopulation Dynamics in Eastern Nortb America.University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

DUFFY, JOHN1953 Epidemics in Colonial America. Louisiana State

University Press, Baton Rouge.

37

FEEST, CHRISTIAN F .1973 Seventeenth-Century Virgin ia Algonquian Popula­

tion Estimates. Quarterly Bulletin of the Archeolog­ical Society of Virginia 28(2):66-79.

1978a Virginia Algonquians . In Handbook of Nonh Amer­ican Indians, edited by William Sturtevant. Vol. 15,Northeast, ed ited by Bruce G. Trigger, pp . 253-270.Smithsonian Inst itution, U.S. Government Printin gOffice, Wa shington, D.C .

1978b Nanticoke and Neighboring Tribes. In Handbook ofNorth American Indians, edited by William Sturte­vant. Vol. 15, Northeast, edited by Bruce G. Trigger,pp. 240-252. Smithsonian Institution, U.S. Govern­ment Printing Office, Washington, D.C .

GARROW, PATRICK H .1974 An Ethnohistorical Study of the Powhatan Tribes.

The Chesopiean 12(1-2). The Chesopiean Archaeo­logic al Association, Norfolk, Virginia.

JACOBS, WILBUR R.1974 The Tip of an Iceberg: Pre-Columbian Indian De­

mography and Some Implications for Revi sionism.William and Mary Quarterly, third series , 31: 123­132.

JENNINGS, FRANCIS1975 The Invasion ofAmerica: Indians, Colonialism, and

the Cant of Conquest. University of North Carolin aPress, Chapel Hill .

Krr.BORNE, EDWIN D.1975 The Influenza Virus and Influenza. Academic Press,

New York.

KROEBER, ALFRED L.1939 Cultural and Natural Areas of Native North America.

University of California Publications in AmericanArchaeology and Ethnology 38. Berkeley.

LORANT, STEFAN (EDITOR)1946 The New World: The First Pictures ofAmerica. Du­

ell , Sloan and Pearce, New York.

LOVELL, W. GEORGE1992 "Heavy Shadows and Black Night": Disease and

Depopulation in Colonial Spani sh America. Annalsof the Association of American Geographers 82(3):426-443.

McBRYDE, W EBSTER F.1940 Influenza in America During the Sixteenth Century.

Bulletin of the History of Medicine 8:296-302.

M CCARY, BEN C.1957 Indians in Seventeenth-Century Virgini a. The

Jamestown 350th Anniversary Historical BookletsNo. 18. Garrett and Massie, Richmond, Virginia.

M EINIG, DONALD W .1986 The Shaping of America: A Geographical Perspec-

38

tive on 500 Years of History. Vol. I, Atlantic Amer­ica. 1492-1800. Yale University Press, New Haven,Connecticut.

M ITCHELL, ROBERT D .

1990 The Colonial Origins of Anglo-America. In NorthAmerica: The Historical Geography of a ChangingContinent. edited by R. D. Mitchell and P. A. Groves,pp. 93-120. Rowman and Littlefield, Savage, Mary­land.

MOONEY, J AMES

1907a The Powhatan Confederacy, Past and Present. Amer­ican Anthropologist9(l):129-152.

1907b Accomac. In Handbook of American Indians Northof Mexico, Vol. I , edited by F. W. Hodge. Bureau ofAmerican Ethnology Bulletin 30:3. Washington,D.C.

P ANUM, PET ER L.1939 Observations Made During the Epidemic of Measles

on the Faroe Islands in the Year 1856. Medical Clas­sics 3(9). Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, Mary­land.

PA ULLIN, CHAR LES 0., AND JOH N K. W RIGHT

1932 Atlas of the Historical Geography of the UnitedStates. Carnegie Institution, Washington, D.C.

Q UAIFE, MILO M. ( EDITOR)

1930 The Smallpox Epidemic on the Upper Missouri. Mis­sissippi Valley Historical Review 17:278-279.

Q UINN, D AVID B. ( EDITOR)

1955 The Roanoke Voyages, 1584-1590. Two vols. Pub­lished for the Hakluyt Society. Cambridge UniversityPress, London.

RAMENOFSKY, A NN F.1987 Vectors of Death: The Archaeology of European

Contact. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquer­que.

1992 Death by Disease. Archaeology 45(2):47--49.

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, VOLUME 28

R UTMAN, D ARRETT B., AND A NITA H . R UTMAN

1976 Of Agues and Fevers: Malaria in the Early Chesa­peake. William and Mary Quarterly. third series,33(1):31-60.

SM ITH, M ARVIN T .

1987 Archaeology of Aboriginal Culture Change in theInterior Southeast: Depopulation During the EarlyHistoric Period. University of Florida Press and theFlorida State Museum, Gainesville.

THOM AS, D AVID H URST

1989 Columbian Consequences. Three volumes. Smithso­nian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

T URNER, RANDOLPH

1973 A New Population Estimate for the Powhatan Chief­dom of the Coastal Plain of Virginia. Quarterly Bul­letin of the Archeological Society of Virginia 28(2):57-65.

V ERANO, JO HN W ., AND D OUGLAS H . U BELAKER (EDITORS)

1992 Disease and Demography in the Americas. Smithso­nian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

W ARD, H . T RAWICK, AND R. P . S TEPHEN DAVIS, JR .

1991 The Impact of Old World Diseases on the NativeInhabitants of the North Carolina Piedmont. Archae­ology of Eastern North America 19:171-181.

WINSLOW, C.-E. A ., AND M . R. D URAN-REYNALS

1948 Jacme d' Agramont and the First of the Plague Trac­tates. Bulletin of the History of Medicine 22:747.

P ETER B. MIRES

D EPARTMENT OF G EOGRAPHY

U NIVERSITY OF MINl' ESOTA

D ULUTH, MINNESOTA 55812