|
|
Re: Pre-contact diseases anyone???
Mary Beth Williams (mbwillia@ix.netcom.com)
24 Jun 1995 17:29:26 GMT
In <DAn7AB.6Jy@ssbunews.ih.att.com> zonker@csggp1.ih.att.com
(-Harris,T.M.) writes:
>
>>> 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.
>Why would smallpox in 17th Century Ontario be contraversial? There
had
>been Europeans running around there since the late 1500s.
> Tom Harris
Hmmm... Always thought that the late 1500's and early seventeenth
century were only separated by a couple of years. And seeing that
there was osteological evidence, e.g., pathological evidence as shown
by lesions on bone, the individual most likely survived the disease,
only to die later. So, hypothetically, if he/she contracted it from
the first French visitors in 1595, and died in 1605, e.g., the
seventeenth-century, then that would make it a disease of *Contact*,
would it not, and thus controversial in the case of Whittet?
MB Williams
Wesleyan
|