|
|
Re: Pre-contact diseases anyone???
SHICKLEY@VM.TEMPLE.EDU
Fri, 16 Jun 95 15:25:20 EDT
In article <173BFC42CS86.SHICKLEY@VM.TEMPLE.EDU>
SHICKLEY@VM.TEMPLE.EDU writes:
>
>In article <3rqrei$og8@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
>mbwillia@ix.netcom.com (Mary Beth Williams) writes:
>
>>
>>In <3rptir$lbl@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> ethan@grendel.as.utexas.edu
>>(Ethan Vishniac) writes:
>>>
>>>John D. Brennan IV <John.D.Brennan.IV@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>...it pictured a new bone find exhibiting the effects of
>>>>smallpox dated several hundred years before Columbus. If you can
>>find
>>>>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
>>Wesleyan
>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.
>Tim
Here's the reference I found:
Authors
Jackes MK.
Title
Osteological evidence for smallpox: a possible case from
seventeenth century Ontario.
Source
American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 60(1):75-81,
1983 Jan.
Hope this sheds some light on this discussion.
Tim
|