Re: Pre-contact diseases anyone???

Fri, 16 Jun 95 15:27:19 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
Here's what 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.