|
|
Re: Pre-contact diseases anyone???
SHICKLEY@VM.TEMPLE.EDU
Fri, 16 Jun 95 15:27:19 EDT
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
Here's what 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.
Tim
|