Notes

Note 1

Until further archaeological research is carried out, the claims put forth in this paragraph remain speculative. It should be noted that the linguistic and cultural patterns in the Piedmont are matters of considerable dispute. Earlier scholars placed a large number of groups under the Siouan umbrella; more recently, many have demanded firmer evidence. While agreeing that the first students of the problem may have been too eager to label a people "Siouan" and that nonlinguistic considerations cannot prove linguistic relationships, I am persuaded by William Sturtevant's argument (Sturtevant 1958:741) that where we lack linguistic evidence, we must make do with whatever sources are available. Here geographical proximity, cultural parallels, aboriginal or historic political relationships, and contemporary statements by colonists about linguistic similarities all suggest that most if not all of the Indians in the Piedmont at the time of English contact spoke some form of Siouan. Included among these are Catawbas, Saras, Saponis, Tutelos, Occaneechis, Monacans, Mannahoacs for certain, and Waterees, Enos, Keyauwees, Sugarees, Esaws, Shuterees, and Shakoris most probably. The linguistic debate may be followed in Mooney (1894), Siebert (1945), Miller (1957), Sturtevant (1958), Binford (1959), and Hudson (1970:5-9, 27-28). For the archaeological work done see Griffin (1945), Coe (1952), Wilson (1977:12), Mouer (1983:21-24), Dickens et al. (1987), and Ward and Davis (1988, 1993).

Note 2

It is possible that Occaneechi developed as a trade language only in historic times.

Note 3

The following analysis of native response to disease and trade has been adapted from work I have already published on the Catawba Nation and its neighbors. See Merrell 1984b:542-555.