Re: Pre-contact diseases anyone???

Fri, 16 Jun 95 15:25:20 EDT


>In article <3rqrei$>
> (Mary Beth Williams) writes:
>>In <3rptir$>
>>(Ethan Vishniac) writes:
>>>John D. Brennan IV <> wrote:
>>>> pictured a new bone find exhibiting the effects of
>>>>smallpox dated several hundred years before Columbus. If you can
>>>>that there's more references in the back of the magazine.
>>>Smallpox causes bone lesions? Are you sure you aren't thinking
>>>of tuberculosis? I remember some news about that, but nothing
>>>about smallpox.
>>I was thinking the same thing, but was going to refrain until I had a
>>chance to find the _Discover_ article. My paleopathology books are all
>>in the lab, so checking out the visible differences, if any, between
>>smallpox and tuberculosis skeletal lesions will have to wait until
>>tomorrow. However, after spending the past eighteen months looking for
>>evidence of skeletal tuberculosis in a 17th-century West
>>Nehantic/Pequot population, I would argue that the article have better
>>have some pretty good evidence to assert such a specific disease from
>>purely skeletal evidence (Kelley et al. ran into the same critique
>>regarding assertions of high skeletal TB rates at RI1000 in the 1980's,
>>as this form of TB typically effects only 3% of all TB cases.)
>>MB Williams
>Actually there is data on small-pox induced bone damage as well as
>tuberculosis. I can post references if you wish, or just email me
>and I'll send them to you.
Here's the reference I found:
Jackes MK.
Osteological evidence for smallpox: a possible case from
seventeenth century Ontario.
American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 60(1):75-81,
1983 Jan.
Hope this sheds some light on this discussion.