|
|
Re: Pre-contact diseases anyone???
Mary Beth Williams (mbwillia@ix.netcom.com)
17 Jun 1995 13:23:24 GMT
In <173BFD8E3S86.SHICKLEY@VM.TEMPLE.EDU> SHICKLEY@VM.TEMPLE.EDU writes:
>>>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
Actually, I am very familiar with this article, as this is one of the
cases which has sparked a great deal of controversy over discerning
smallpox from other osteological paleopathologies.
MB Williams
Wesleyan
|