Re: New world populations
Wed, 28 Dec 94 06:29:40 GMT

In Article <3dqffb$47j@cmcl2.NYU.EDU> (Paul J. Gans) writes:
>: Whether or not bubonic was a significant factor is still up to
>: debate... However, in very early "pre-European settlement" epidemics, it
>: was a more likely candidate than childhood diseases such as small- and
>: chickpox. As epidemic ravages indigenous groups for nearly 300 years, the
>: likelyhood of a single disease as the culprit is dubious.
>: MB Williams
>: Wesleyan

I would like a more specific reference on the role of plague in the
early "pre-European settlements". It is my understanding that epidemic plague
is associated with urban settlements with a large population of susceptible
individuals. This would seem contrary to the "pre-European" context mentioned.
What is the evidence that "childhood diseases" were not a major player in the
early contact period. Intuitively, these seem to fit the epidemiological
picture than something like plague which is dependent on an infected rodent
population and an abundant flea population. Just a thought.

* Charles T. Faulkner * When you don't know where you're
* Univ of Tennessee, Knoxville * going any road will take you there.
* ( * Alice