Category Archives: blogging

Disease and Discrimination in Colonial Atlantic America

pdfimage

Reviewed by Michelle Ziegler

Dale Hutchinson. Disease and Discrimination: Poverty and Pestilence in Colonial Atlantic America. University of Florida Press, 2016. $85

Dale Hutchinson’s latest book fits into a recent trend of a more critical analysis of the role disease played in the demographic collapse of Native Americans in the Colonial period. After spending most of his career working on the Spanish Colonial system in Florida,  in Disease and Discrimination, he discusses the English and French colonies along the Atlantic seaboard.

By his own description, “this book is a series of narratives about changing landscapes of America — not only the natural landscapes, but the social, political and economic landscapes — and how they all contributed to the nutrition and health of natives and newcomers in the Atlantic coastal colonies” (p. 10) He goes on to warn the reader that landscapes he intends to paint are “neither exhaustive nor completely factual representations”; he has “chosen what to accentuate” (p.11).   In painting his landscapes he chose to use an informal, conversational tone that should make it the science easier to understand but also leads to a somewhat rambling style that sometimes lacks structure and yields uneven coverage. Disease and Discrimination is divided into four sections: ‘Of Apples and Edens’,  ‘Natives and Newcomers’, and Planters and Pestilence, and ‘Measuring the Lands’.

In the first section, he discusses landscapes and disease processes.  He opens the second chapter with a nice introduction to disease ecology and terminology but then moves on build off of McNeill’s “civilized disease pools”, which is now quite outdated. This would have been an ideal place to discuss syndemics, but he does not apply syndemic theory anywhere in the book. From here he moves into a rather free flowing discussion of plague pandemics. To be honest, I felt this discussion was out of place in a book that does not otherwise discuss bubonic plague. If he wanted to discuss the Old World origins of New World epidemics, then wouldn’t it have been better to discuss the disease ecology of an organism that made the ‘Columbian exchange’?

Opening with a discussion of syphilis, the next chapter discusses historical epidemiology and then the virgin soil epidemic hypothesis. As he notes, attenuation (weakening over time) is a core principle of the virgin soil hypothesis that lacks pervasive scientific evidence. It is not always in the best interest of a pathogen to become less virulent. Indeed, some times it’s quite the opposite.  Hutchison correctly points out that many of the examples of virgin soil epidemics were more likely to be caused by environmental contingencies like over crowding and poor sanitation on Indian reservations. Consulting David Jones (2003) work on refuting the virgin soil hypothesis would have been helpful here.

In the second section, Hutchinson reviews the European settlement, resource extraction and interactions with the Native tribes. He pays particular attention to the interactions between the French, Dutch and English colonists with the tribes, providing a handy table of seventeenth-century epidemics (table 4.1). It is interesting that all but one of these epidemics are credited to viruses (smallpox, measles, and influenza). Just over half of these epidemics were recorded by the Jesuits working in the French colonies. The 1630s were a particularly bad time for the colonies with measles, smallpox and other poorly recognized diseases impacted both the colonists and the Native American tribes in the Northeast. Hutchinson spends some valuable time discussing the differential impacts of the French and English interests in resource extraction, how that affected the landscape, and how the tribes moved, mixed and formed new entities due to attrition. Despite the reputation of epidemics among native tribes, the Europeans and Africans were ravaged by smallpox and measles as well.  Children born to both Europeans and Africans would have been as immunologically naive as the Native Americans (although variolation would have protected the few who received it from smallpox). Malnutrition affected all three groups but in different circumstances and to different degrees, as did the effects of war. A key difference between natives and newcomers is that more Europeans and Africans could immigrate to bolster their numbers, while Native Americans were still being enslaved or facing hostile encounters.

As the English began to attempt to transform the landscape, to ‘improve’ it, they began to build plantations, essentially recreating English manors in the New World. The New World landscapes did not yield easily and it dragged out long enough to spawn its own pestilence, known by contemporaries as ‘the seasoning’.  Hutchinson discusses the ecological causes including rice farming, deforestation, and diseases clusters (primarily typhoid and malaria).  The ‘seasoning’ is discussed in terms of immunology but it would have been helpful to consider the seasoning as a type of syndemic. In addition to gaining some immunological protection, the mortality rate was often very high in the first few years after arriving on the frontier.  In the Carolinas, rice farming learned from West African slaves quickly went from sustenance to export along with indigo and timber, taken for lumber and pine tar. The radical changes to the Carolina landscape primed it for its own blend of ‘seasoning’ microbes led by malaria.  The production environment of the Carolinas stimulated the import of African slaves who brought more malaria and were vulnerable to infections primed by enslavement conditions.

As the plantation landscape developed beyond the coast the stratification of society became extreme enough to be detected in osteological assessments of their health. Indentured servants and slaves both show evidence of a very hard life with overdeveloped muscle attachments on their bone indicating hard labor and evidence of malnutrition including signs of rickets, scurvy, and protein malnutrition. Corn (maize) replaced European grains, especially for servants and slaves. The caloric intake may be similar but the nutritional value is not. The typical diet of cornmeal, fatback, molasses, and an assortment of vegetables given to slaves is not a balanced diet. Fatback is a slice of pork under the back skin with hard fat with little or no muscle. It was often left to slaves and indentured servants to hunt or fish for most of their protein. Protein malnutrition is particularly evident in the remains of children who got the proportionally worst diet.  Through at least the early seventeenth century Native Americans continued to be a significant percentage of slaves, 20% in one Carolina census, and when census are compared, proportionally more Native American slaves were added than African. It was not until the end of the seventeenth century that the birth rate exceeded the death rate in Chesapeake, and even then, parents “were about as likely to die before their children reached their teens as their children were to reach maturity” (p. 137). Many children would be forced into early hard labor to survive. Although Hutchison does not discuss infection and nutrition as a syndemic, he does recognize the “synergistic relationship between nutrition and infectious disease” (p. 139). He notes that slave owners treated infectious disease but tended to ignore chronic or nutritional disorders that made the slaves more prone to serious infectious disease. I do wonder if this was not the attitude of most people except the richest families. It is unclear if they understood the nature of their malnutrition.

In the last section, Hutchinson turns more toward the first cities and urban life. In the last full chapter, he discusses the rapid development of New York City from the original Dutch colony to New York City on the verge of the Civil War. Early New York did not have a sanitary infrastructure so that it quickly became an extremely contaminated environment that was unhealthy for all of its inhabitants. Poverty was an issue for the inhabitants of New York from its earliest days. A constant stream of new poor immigrants meant that the labor market always had access to laborers for less than a living wage. Crowd diseases like smallpox and measles and filth diseases like dysentery always had a constant supply of vulnerable people to prey upon. The city streets were a zoo of animals that contributed to its disease ecology: hogs roamed the street eating refuse, mice and rats multiplied along with stray dogs and constant horse traffic. The city buzzed with urban mosquitoes and New York fell victim to Yellow fever 19 times between 1702 and 1822, but it still did not suffer as much or as often as Philadelphia or Charlestown (p. 166). By 1760 Beloe Island in New York Bay hosted a pesthouse for smallpox and yellow fever; fifty years later the island was ceded to the federal government for the construction of Fort Wood, now the foundation for the base of the Statue of Liberty. A sewage and water system was not installed in New York City until 1850.  As with other large cities in the more distant past, New York’s high mortality rate was offset by an even higher immigration rate into the city.

Hutchinson accomplished his goal of painting a very complex landscape of disease in Colonial America. To gain a more complete picture of the causes and effects of malnutrition and disease, social, cultural and economic factors have to be brought into play along with biological and ecological conditions.

It seems that this book overlapped in the publication process with the collected study Beyond Germs: Native Depopulation in North America, published in 2015. These two books complement each other even though there does not seem to be any contact between the authors. It seems we are on the verge of a new era of Native American studies that will be very welcome.


References

Jones, D. S. (2003). Virgin soils revisited. The William and Mary Quarterly, 60(4), 703–742. http://doi.org/10.2307/3491697

Catherine Cameron, Paul Kelton, Alan Swedlund, Eds. Beyond Germs: Native Depopulation in North America. University of Arizona Press, 2015.

 

CFP: Contagions sessions at the International Congress for Medieval Studies 2018

by Michelle Ziegler

Contagions: The Society for Historic Infectious Disease Studies has been given the opportunity of organizing three sessions at next year’s International Congress for Medieval Studies. This is the equivalent of a full day at the congress. The Congress will be held from May 10 to May 13, 2018, at Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo Michigan.  Our sessions next year will be:

Interdisciplinary Approaches to Historic Disease I and II

These two sessions are open to any aspect of study on infectious diseases and nutritional disorders in people and animals from the Late Antique to Late Medieval periods (400-1600 CE). These sessions are intended to be interdisciplinary as sessions, not necessarily as individual papers. Presentations on infectious diseases in literature, history, archaeology, and anthropology are all welcome.

Signs of Resilience in Medieval Populations

Major epidemics and natural disasters are ideal situations to study community resilience. No community is resistant to natural disasters; resilience is the best we can expect. Epidemics like the Black Death hit multiple communities in rapid succession but not all communities were equally affected in the short or long term. There are so many questions that can be asked.

  •  What allows some communities to quickly rebound while others dwindle away?
  • How do people mentally cope with a famine and/or massive epidemic?
  • What changes did communities make to better prepare or prevent a similar disaster in the future? Examples would include rebuilding flood walls or rerouting a river, increasing communal food stores, or building a surveillance system to detect the plague.
  • How did past experiences alter the community response to the next epidemic or another disaster?
  • How did responses differ between types of disaster (epidemic, flood, earthquake)? Flooding, at least, would be expected on a regular basis.
  • How did they prioritize their response? For example, did community leaders prioritize the economy (import/export) over public health?
  • What role did religious institutions play in disaster response?

 

Presentations are limited to 20 minutes. PowerPoint-like presentations are encouraged.  Participant Information Forms and an abstract are due to Michelle Ziegler by September 15th, contact prior to that date would be appreciated. Initial contact can be made through the form below.

 

Roundtable on Campbell’s Climate, Disease, and Society in the Late Medieval World

by Michelle Ziegler

Bruce Campbell. The Great Transition: Climate, Disease, and Society in the Late Medieval World. Cambridge University Press, 2016.

61SDU9NlNVL._SX348_BO1,204,203,200_

When I first learned that Bruce Campbell was working on this book, I wondered if it would be the first grand synthesis of the new paradigm. Although there have been some very good regional books in the last couple of years, Campbell has indeed brought forward the first analysis of the Black Death and 14th-century crisis using global evidence. Although not entirely clear from the publisher’s description, this is an economic history that draws on interdisciplinary evidence.

I proposed this session and recruited participants without ever seeing the book (though I had seen his Ellen McArthur Lectures). I got very lucky that the panel matched up so well with the book. The five panelists who were able to attend were (from left to right below) Mongolian historian Christopher Atwood, Historian of Medicine Wendy Turner, Evolutionary Biologist Boris Schmid, Archaeologist Carenza Lewis, and Economic/Environmental Historian Philip Slavin.

roundtable 2017
Great Transition Roundtable: Christopher Atwood, Wendy Turner, Boris Schmid, Carenza Lewis, and Phillip Slavin. (Photo by Nükhet Varlik, used with permission)

Everyone agreed that Campbell’s book will become the foundation upon which the new synthesis of plague history will be built. Campbell synthesized a vast amount of data with a particular appreciation for the integration of climate and disease data. Most agreed that this was a very high-level view of the crisis, an aerial view if you will, that leaves many details to be filled in. Some missed an analysis of the relationship with cascading levels of analysis down to the level of individuals. On the other hand, Atwood remarked that this is far more detailed than would be possible in Asian studies today. Perhaps not surprisingly, this interdisciplinary panel would have liked to see more evidence from other fields such as archaeology and social history used.  As Lewis noted, archaeology, in particular, could have given more support to the economic and environmental arguments without pulling away from the flow of the book.

The global evidence is primarily limited to climate data. Several panelists remarked that it is still very Eurocentric view, and Anglo-centric on top of that. There is more data that could have been gathered particularly from the Mediterranean. War as a syndemic factor and as a result of climate or disease weakened societies was not given much space in Campbell’s analysis. One effect of such a high-level regional treatment is that causes of local mortality from war (including the environmental destruction of war) can be overlooked because it doesn’t effect a large enough piece of territory. Slavin has also pointed out that Campbell’s interpretation tends to come across as somewhat deterministic, here and there. Thus, in discussing the Great European Famine of the early 14th century, Campbell provided an engaging analysis of the environmental context of the famine as its causation, without considering various intermediate links, demographic and institutional. As a result, Slavin noted that Campbell’s interpretation of the Great Famine as an exogenous disaster stands out as unilateral; famines, across space and time, are incredibly complex phenomena.

Developing a historical paradigm based heavily on scientific data is like building a house on shifting sand. Eventually, the sand will swallow the house. The best you can hope for is to be precariously perched on the ridge of a dune.  Most biological data is out of date by the time it is printed in a book. While there were a few misunderstandings, most of the discrepancies between Campbell’s portrait of the plague and other diseases is simply out of date even though he incorporates information up to about 2015. For example, ancient DNA studies have found evidence for at least one, and probably several, (still unlocated) local reservoirs of plague in or near Europe, so the idea that plague was frequently imported from the East no longer holds (but Boris disagrees on this view).

Some other hypotheses on plague transmission, though proposed several years ago, have failed to gain much traction. While evidence continues to mount that the soil plays a role in Yersinia pestis’ survival and that human ectoparasites could be the primary vector at the pandemic level, these hypotheses are not proven yet. This doesn’t mean that they won’t eventually be accepted, just that we are not yet there.

Figure 4.05 REV 6
Stages in the plague cycle (Figure 3.27, Campbell 2016)

I am reproducing figure 3.27 here because I think this will prove to be popular with teachers. With that being said there are a few comments that need to be made about it. The role of the soil in the enzootic environment of the rodent’s burrow is poorly understood at the moment. However, teachers could just explain that level 1 simply represents the environment of the rodent burrow.  Level 5 is where the real debates are going on now among those who study transmission. Campbell does leave open which ectoparasites are involved, human fleas or lice, but there is not yet general acceptance of human ectoparasites as major vectors. It may yet come, but we aren’t there yet. While local cases of pneumonic plague will occur any time there is bubonic plague, it is unlikely to be a major driver in a pandemic. The red box that I have added to the figure is where the really critical events are happening for human epidemics and pandemics. While I do believe that humans should be considered hosts in pandemic level transition, a variety of other hosts, always including rodents, will continue to be instrumental in the amplification and must be involved for the endurance of an outbreak in a locality.

While working with scientific detail is challenging for historians, after Campbell’s book I think it will be necessary to address scientific information at least to the level where there is a consensus. As long as historians stay with information that has been confirmed by a second study or that has obviously gained scientific consensus, the risks of using scientific information really are manageable. Finding a scientist who has your trust to comment on drafts is a good practice (and the reverse for scientists writing history!).

There were some concerns. There was a feeling that correlation does not necessarily equal causation. Schmid and Slavin would have liked to see more evidence of statistical analysis to support the conclusions drawn. They had a sense that the patterns that Campbell noted in a number of his overlapping time series might prove to be coincidental, rather than significant when tested with robust statistics.

Wendy Turner addressed pedological uses of the book. She found that, at least for a history of medicine course, it could not be used alone as a textbook. It does not have enough social history to address the complete impact of the Black Death. I don’t think that was its purpose, as much as some of us hoped it would be.  “The” Black Death book has yet to be written. When it is it will have to address all the social, medical, scientific, economic, and political impacts — a tall order. It is likely that aDNA studies will have more to contribute to shore up the transmission routes of such a project. Campbell’s book could be a major text (if not the only one) for an economic or environmental history course if it is supplemented by other texts. Archaeology as done by Carenza Lewis or Per Lagerås would support Campbell’s overall argument.  Turner and others agreed that it is not written for introductory students and they wondered how even upper-level students would respond to the density of the material. It should be required reading for graduate students who focus on the 14th century or any of the infectious/famine crises.

Atwood observed that historians tend to recognize a “crisis” about every couple of centuries and wondered if these mostly European events/crises over millennia were not tied to changes that had swept across all of Eurasia. In effect, Campbell’s book lays the supportive groundwork for arguing that the Eurasian land mass should be considered as a whole rather than European only or Asian only.  I think we could make an argument that the Afro-Eurasian landmass is one historic unit. The Indian Ocean is still an underappreciated communication avenue.

The most lively discussion with the audience concerned the terminology for the 14th-century events — transformation, crisis, collapse, etc. Positions seemed to be based at least partially on training, with some rejecting the term collapse under any circumstances, while others were more open to its use in areas like “population collapse”.  For me, this is an internal matter for historians to resolve. Terminology can be a fickle thing, but data is always preeminent. And that is a good place to leave this post. Campbell has done us all a service by compiling a huge amount of data that will be the foundation of a new era of analysis of the 14th century and the Black Death. For this above all else, we must be grateful.