535AD Catastrophe Theory

[Arrian]

I read this book recently. It was interesting, but not as convincing as GG&S. The author is far too loose with words like "clearly" and "undoubtedly" for my taste.

-Arrian

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Long distance trade in that era was generally for luxuries, grain was traded over relatively short distances, if at all.

Grain to Byzantium in Justinian's time came from modern day North Africa, Sicily, Egypt, and southern Russia through the Crimea.

Foodstuffs traded over longer distances were things like cinnamon and pepper, either from India or from East Africa.

Long distance trade routes (like the silk road) definitely did spread disease, but trade on them would likely have been lessened by a catastrophe.

Depends on the kind of disease, and whether there were local immunities. Trade does indeed seem to have fallen off during the plague and the subsequent epidemics.

The plague of Justinian's time has been identified by many scholars as bubonic plague, and it's theorized that what may have happened is that rodents native to northern India on shipping plying the routes to East Africa and Arabia (and thus to Egypt) came into contact with plague in Africa- a disease which they had not been exposed to before and which they rapidly became a zoonotic reservoir for.

Both Procopius and Evagrius say the disease originated in Africa, either in Egypt or Axum.

"All the inhabitants, like beautiful grapes, were trampled and squeezed dry without mercy,"

Bishop John of Ephesus on the disease's effects in Palestine.


Procopius gave us a good idea of the symptoms:

And they were taken in the following manner. They had a sudden fever, some when just roused from sleep, others while walking about, and others while otherwise engaged, without any regard to what they were doing. And the body showed no change from its previous color, nor was it hot as might be expected when attacked by a fever, nor indeed did any inflammation set in, but the fever was of such a languid sort from its commencement and up till evening that neither to the sick themselves nor to a physician who touched them would it afford any suspicion of danger.

But on the same day in some cases, in others on the following day, and in the rest not many days later, a bubonic swelling developed; and this took place not only in the particular part of the body which is called boubon, that is, "below the abdomen," but also inside the armpit, and in some cases also beside the ears, and at different points on the thighs.

[..] ... and I am unable to say whether the cause of this diversity of symptoms was to be found in the difference in bodies, or in the fact that it followed the wish of Him who brought the disease into the world. For there ensued with some a deep coma, with others a violent delirium, and in either case they suffered the characteristic symptoms of the disease.

For those who were under the spell of the coma forgot all those who were familiar to them and seemed to lie sleeping constantly. And if anyone cared for them, they would eat without waking, but some also were neglected, and these would die directly through lack of sustenance. But those who were seized with delirium suffered from insomnia and were victims of a distorted imagination; for they suspected that men were coming upon them to destroy them, and they would become excited and rush off in flight, crying out at the top of their voices.

[...] And when water chanced to be near, they wished to fall into it, not so much because of a desire for drink (for the most of them rushed into the sea), but the cause was to be found chiefly in the diseased state of their minds. They had also great difficulty in the matter of eating, for they could not easily take food.

And in those cases where neither coma nor delirium came on, the bubonic swelling became mortified and the sufferer, no longer able to endure the pain, died. And one would suppose that in all cases the same thing would have been true, but since they were not at all in their senses, some were quite unable to feel the pain; for owing to the troubled condition of their minds they lost all sense of feeling.

Now some of the physicians who were at a loss because the symptoms were not understood, supposing that the disease centred in the bubonic swellings, decided to investigate the bodies of the dead. And upon opening some of the swellings, they found a strange sort of carbuncle that had grown inside them. Death came in some cases immediately, in others after many days; and with some the body broke out with black pustules about as large as a lentil and these did not survive even one day, but all succumbed immediately. With many also a vomiting of blood ensued without visible cause and straightway brought death.

And in the case of women who were pregnant death could be certainly foreseen if they were taken with the disease. For some died through miscarriage, but others perished immediately at the time of birth with the infants they bore. However, they say that three women in confinement survived though their children perished, and that one woman died at the very time of childbirth but that the child was born and survived.

Now in those cases where the swelling rose to an unusual size and a discharge of pus had set in, it came about that they escaped from the disease and survived, for clearly the acute condition of the carbuncle had found relief in this direction, and this proved to be in general an indication of returning health; but in cases where the swelling preserved its former appearance there ensued those troubles which I have just mentioned. And with some of them it came about that the thigh was withered, in which case, though the swelling was there, it did not develop the least suppuration. With others who survived the tongue did not remain unaffected, and they lived on either lisping or speaking incoherently and with difficulty.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/542procopius-plague.html

The Roman world had been in trade contact with Egypt since practically the dawn of civilization

A slight exaggeration since Egyptian civilization precedes Roman by quite a few centuries....


Direct Byzantine trade with Eastern/Central Africa was for slaves, ivory, gold, ostrich feathers, spices, and tortoiseshell. Also traded through Egypt came alum, cotton and linen, papyrus, glass, myrrh, balsam and frankincense, silk and tropical hardwoods.

1. Why is it that in some places there was notable change in weather, famine, etc ONLY in 535-536, while in other areas changes lasted for several years, and in others a 30 year drought

I think it may depend on the degree of cloud cover caused by volcanic ash/plumes.

Krakatoa gave Western Europe some spectacular sunsets captured by the Impressionists. And a lot of rain...

A considerable amount of Krakatoa ended up high in the stratosphere, producing some dazzling effects. For several years this high altitude ash and dust resulted in spectacular haloes forming around the sun and moon as the particles scattered the incoming light. At sunset, the sky turned an incredible fiery red and orange colour as far away as London, as depicted in the paintings of William Ascroft. It's estimated that over 70% of Earth's atmosphere was impregnated with the remains of Krakatoa, so much so that the average global temperature cooled by half a degree Celsius.

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/S/science/nature/krakatoa_3.html

2. The worst hit seems to have been Byz/Rome, while Merovingian Franks did just fine.

Much greater population, bigger cities and direct and indirect seaborne trade with Africa and India.

Even AIDS, as bad as it is, hasnt killed as many as the Spanish flu, which seems to have originated in Kansas, USA.

It's somewhat harder to spread and doesn't live well outside a host body, unlike airborne influenza.

Interestingly enough, the period immediately before the devastation of the Black Death in 14th Century Europe saw crop failure after crop failure and a worsening of the weather:

Between 1315 and 1319 came a crescendo of calamity. Almost every country in Europe lost virtually the whole of one harvest, often of two or three.

The lack of sun hindered the production of salt by evaporation and thus made still more difficult the conservation of what meat there was.

In England wheat more than doubled in price.

10% of the population of Ypres died of starvation.

1332 was another disastrous year for the crops.

The State of Europe, from ' The Black Death' by Philip Ziegler

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom


A slight exaggeration since Egyptian civilization precedes Roman by quite a few centuries....

Not an exaggeration but perhaps sloppy wording. By Roman world, I meant the areas of the Med world that were importing grain in from Egypt in the Roman and Byz periods - IE Italy, Greece, Asia Minor.

In any case my point stands, the grain trade with Egypt didnt start in 535 CE.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom


It's somewhat harder to spread and doesn't live well outside a host body, unlike airborne influenza.

Yes, I know. My point was that calling equatorial africa a "hot zone for plagues" and thus a logical candidate for the source of the plague of Justinian seems unjustified based on the actual disease history of that area.

[Odin]

The problem I see with this hypothesis is that it may be biting off more then it can chew. Such over-arching and broad hypotheses can lead thier creators seeing "verification" that doesn't exist if one is not skeptical and self-critical enough.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

In any case my point stands, the grain trade with Egypt didnt start in 535 CE.

No it didn't.

However, trade routes change, as do diseases and the availability or proximity of animal hosts can change too.

Both Sudan and Ethiopia saw the growth of Christian states which traded directly or indirectly with Byzantium.

Those African Christian states had also been trading with Central and Southern Africa and India- for luxury items such as animals, animal skins, wood, foodstuffs, slaves, cloth, spices, incense and even things such as pumice stones and obsidian from volcanic areas in Sudan, Uganda and Central Africa.

My point was that calling equatorial africa a "hot zone for plagues" and thus a logical candidate for the source of the plague of Justinian seems unjustified based on the actual disease history of that area.

But Central Africa has been classified as a 'hot zone'- not simply because of diseases transmitted from person to person, but also because of diseases that have as yet unknown animal hosts or reservoirs, such as Ebola Zaire, Ebola Sudan, Ebola Reston, Ebola Gabon, Ebola Ivory Coast, Marburg et cetera.

There are also other charming bugs such as Rift Valley Fever, Chikungunya Virus, O'nyong-nyong Virus, Igbo Ora Fever Virus, Lassa Fever, H.I.V. I & II, Hepatitis E, Human Monkeypox Virus...

Given that written records from the area itself are scarce, and that the lethality of diseases such as Ebola Zaire and Sudan is quite pronounced, it's highly likely that there have been localized outbreaks of the diseases in the past, but either the extended trade routes weren't there, or the population was smaller, or the right zoonotic reservoirs weren't in place.

al Razi was able to distinguish smallpox from measles in the early part of the 10th Century. Before that we have descriptions of sores and fissures and fistulas, so unless we (happily) find mummified Egyptians with smallpox lesions such as Ramesses V, it's frequently difficult to know for sure what diseases chroniclers are talking about and where they may have originated.

Diseases can of course change in lethality.

Syphilis now does not resemble the effects of the syphilis seen when the Spanish returned from the Americas in the 16th Century- the bodies of those infected are described as literally falling apart in a relatively short time, whereas end stage syphilis can nowadays cause destruction of facial tissue when it has been left untreated.

The syphilis of the 16th Century also appears different in its effects from the syphilis present in Mediaeval Europe, so obviously something happened to change the effects of syphilis on human hosts.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by molly bloom

No it didn't.

However, trade routes change, as do diseases and the availability or proximity of animal hosts can change too.

Both Sudan and Ethiopia saw the growth of Christian states which traded directly or indirectly with Byzantium.

But Nubia had long been in contact with Egypt. And their was trade down the Red Sea for some time.

But Central Africa has been classified as a 'hot zone'-

Classified by whom? What citation? AFAIK the word hot zone means a high level confinement are in a biohazard facility. Thats what it meant in the book of that name. Because that book dwelt heavily on central africa, folks seem to think "hot zone" refers to a geographic area. Perhaps now it does, but Im curious as to the first such use.

not simply because of diseases transmitted from person to person, but also because of diseases that have as yet unknown animal hosts or reservoirs, such as Ebola Zaire, Ebola Sudan, Ebola Reston, Ebola Gabon, Ebola Ivory Coast, Marburg et cetera.

wow 5 variets of Ebola, most named for a single outbreak, including Ebola Reston which broke out a few miles from where I live, and killed a few dozen monkeys, and when it infected a human, did no significant damage.

there are also other charming bugs such as Rift Valley Fever, Chikungunya Virus, O'nyong-nyong Virus, Igbo Ora Fever Virus, Lassa Fever, H.I.V. I & II, Hepatitis E, Human Monkeypox Virus...

There are charming bugs from all around the world, incluiding Hanta Virus and Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever from the good old USA. And of course in all likelihood the Spanish Flu, which should have been called the Kansas Flu. Which killed tens of millions in little over a year. Yet no one calls the good ole USA a "hot zone" Perhaps cause we arent exotic and scary enough (well not scary in THAT way)


"Given that written records from the area itself are scarce, and that the lethality of diseases such as Ebola Zaire and Sudan is quite pronounced, "

The lethality as a percentage of cases, which in fact is a pronounced disadvantage in spreading through a human population, and a sign that the bugs are recent infections from an animal host.

it's highly likely that there have been localized outbreaks of the diseases in the past, but either the extended trade routes weren't there, or the population was smaller, or the right zoonotic reservoirs weren't in place.

Indeed, which is why I dont quite get the eagerness to assign the Plague of Justinian there.

al Razi was able to distinguish smallpox from measles in the early part of the 10th Century. Before that we have descriptions of sores and fissures and fistulas, so unless we (happily) find mummified Egyptians with smallpox lesions such as Ramesses V, it's frequently difficult to know for sure what diseases chroniclers are talking about and where they may have originated.

Diseases can of course change in lethality.

Syphilis now does not resemble the effects of the syphilis seen when the Spanish returned from the Americas in the 16th Century- the bodies of those infected are described as literally falling apart in a relatively short time, whereas end stage syphilis can nowadays cause destruction of facial tissue when it has been left untreated.

The syphilis of the 16th Century also appears different in its effects from the syphilis present in Mediaeval Europe, so obviously something happened to change the effects of syphilis on human hosts.

Yes, very interesting.

[molly bloom]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by lord of the mark

Originally posted by molly bloom

No it didn't.

However, trade routes change, as do diseases and the availability or proximity of animal hosts can change too.

Both Sudan and Ethiopia saw the growth of Christian states which traded directly or indirectly with Byzantium.

But Nubia had long been in contact with Egypt. And their was trade down the Red Sea for some time.

Do you mean Nubia's trade ? If so that wasn't the case, as Nubia didn't (unlike Egypt) have direct access to the sea at ports such as Berenice.

Circumstances change- peoples (and animals) migrate for a number of reasons, such as rivers diverting or drying up, food supplies dwindling, crop failure, pasture being subjected to drought.

The Bantu and Zande peoples of West Africa had started to migrate across and down through Africa from about 200 a.d. and by the end of the 5th and the beginning of the 6th Century, they had reached the area of the beginning of the Nile and Lake Victoria- two modern day 'hot zones' as Ebola and H.I.V. indicate.

The demand for ivory increases with large scale church building and a growth in the merchant and aristocratic classes- ivory is in demand for mosaics, inlaying in wood, icons, ferrules, jewellery and trade- much African ivory was going to India and ultimately China.

This growth in ivory trade means more traders coming into contact with peoples living near the rainforest and on the savannahs...

wow 5 variets of Ebola, most named for a single outbreak, including Ebola Reston which broke out a few miles from where I live, and killed a few dozen monkeys, and when it infected a human, did no significant damage.

You're grossly underestimating the problem of Ebola- just because it is now of extreme lethality does not mean it will always be. Diseases evolve- and the fact that researchers were confounded by the outbreak of Ebola in Reston when it shouldn't have even been present there (according to orthodox thinking) should give you pause for thought.

This is the problem in Africa:

The continent most ravaged by colonialism, resource exploitation, slavery and cultural destruction was, as a result, now starving and dying of so many different infectious diseases that even sophisticated physicians often found it impossible to assign specific causes of death to their patients.

'N'zara' from 'The Coming Plague' by Laurie Garrett.

There's little comfort in the thought that Ebola could appear in Reston and leave one of the world's most medically advanced countries stumped as to its origin, and yet Ebola is there in Central and West Africa, amidst nothing like the highly developed resources and public health infrastructure of the United States and has broken out in states with ongoing civil war, illegal trade in wild animals and international travel links to the Americas and Europe and Asia.

Four of the five staff regularly in contact with the monkeys developed antibodies to the monkey virus- proof that Ebola Reston could cross the species barrier.

Frank Ryan in 'Virus X' reports that only one of the four staff had suffered a cut, so perhaps allowing for transmission that way. None of the remaining three had been exposed in such a way leaving the means of exposure a disturbing conundrum.

There are charming bugs from all around the world, incluiding Hanta Virus and Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever from the good old USA. And of course in all likelihood the Spanish Flu, which should have been called the Kansas Flu. Which killed tens of millions in little over a year. Yet no one calls the good ole USA a "hot zone" Perhaps cause we arent exotic and scary enough (well not scary in THAT way)

There are differences between tick borne diseases and Ebola, aren't there ?

People live with Lyme Disease, but most people die from Ebola. Researchers still don't know where Ebola comes from or how its transmitted from its animal host(s).

Big differences between Ebola and Hanta Virus.

As for calling Spanish influenza Kansas flu- well, very uh, patriotic, but even if it did originate in Kansas (cite, please) influenza is again a different kind of disease from Ebola or Marburg.

[Arrian]

I read that the "Spanish flu" was most likely actually American in origin too. I can't remember where I read that, though.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

1. Nubia trade - no, "There was trade" meant to reference trade in general, esp from Egypt. Im thinking of the "Peryplus" in particular.

2. Im not disputing that its wise to have scientists continue to closely monitor Ebola and other related viruses. Nor am I denying that Ebola has charecteristics different from other diseases. Im merely suggesting that the attribution of the term "hot zone" to that particular part of Africa is unwarranted, and, by extension, that the implication that such status is important in understanding the events of 535 CE and beyond is important, is equally unwarranted.

3. The statement that the flu originated in Kansas was in a book I read recently on the Spanish flu. I will soon find you the title.


There we go - I read it in John Barry's book.

http://www.amazon.com/Great-Influenza-deadliest-pandemic-history/dp/0143036491/ref=pd_sim_b_1/105-6875284-9239621?ie=UTF8&qid=1188223051&sr=8-10

Wiki -

"The disease was first observed at Fort Riley, Kansas, U.S. on March 11, 1918. One researcher argues that the disease was found in Haskell County, Kansas as early as January of 1918.[6] "


And their source:

http://www.translational-medicine.com/content/2/1/3

Again Barry, but this time commenting in what appears to be a peer reviewed journal.

(yup, it is peer reviewed, and judging by its editorial board, a large part of whom are affiliated with the NIH, it seems to be pretty "establishment"

[lord of the mark]

BTW, heres what the phrase hot zone actually means, outside the world of pop epidemiology, of which Laurie Garrett is a prime practitioner, IIUC:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_zone_%28hazard%29

[lord of the mark]

"The continent most ravaged by colonialism, resource exploitation, slavery and cultural destruction was, as a result, now starving and dying of so many different infectious diseases that even sophisticated physicians often found it impossible to assign specific causes of death to their patients. "

The problem of public health in africa is a huge one, and I wouldnt minimize it. But IIUC the most widespread afflictions, AIDS apart, are ones that have existed for centuries, like malaria. Malaria was endemic in many areas of the world a few centuries ago, inclucing mediterranean europe. It survives in Africa not because Africa (or any part of Africa) is uniquely a "hot zone" (sic) but because of social and economic conditions in Africa. Again, those conditions are bad, and I support efforts to change them. But I dont see how the continued injuctice of African poverty tells us anything about the likely source of the plague of Justinian.

Again, most of the infectious diseases that troubled the world the most originated in places with dense populations and extensive livestock raising - IE in the belt from east Asia to south Asia to the ME to Europe. I dont see why one wouldnt expect the Plague of Justinian to have originated there as well.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


2. Im not disputing that its wise to have scientists continue to closely monitor Ebola and other related viruses. Nor am I denying that Ebola has charecteristics different from other diseases. Im merely suggesting that the attribution of the term "hot zone" to that particular part of Africa is unwarranted, and, by extension, that the implication that such status is important in understanding the events of 535 CE and beyond is important, is equally unwarranted.

I wanted to deal with this part of your reply first. I've been doing a fair bit of research into what diseases one might expect in Central/Equatorial Africa and how lethal they might be.


The diseases I listed in my earlier post were in fact only the emergent diseases in Africa since 1930, and didn't include many of the notable older killers, the new antibiotic resistant strains of older killers, nor did it include the epidemics of diseases routinely vaccinated against in the developed world.

You also seem to have downplayed the outbreaks of Ebola somewhat here:

wow 5 variets of Ebola, most named for a single outbreak,

New or emergent diseases are frequently named for the places where an epidemic or outbreak is first identified.

There have been three outbreaks of Ebola in Gabon, for instance.

Ebola Sudan reappeared at the same place it had broken out before, too. It has a 50% fatality rate.

Ebola Zaire (also multiple outbreaks) has a 90% fatality rate.

But let's put this in context: diseases found in Uganda between 1975-1980 include

Hansen's Disease (leprosy)

epidemic malaria

epidemic cholera

tuberculosis and multi-drug resistant tuberculosis

visceral leishmaniasis/kala-azar

and

virtually every vector-borne ailment known to the continent.

'A Comparison of Community Health in Uganda with its Two East African Neighbours in the Period 1970-1979' by F. J. Bennett from 'Crisis In Uganda' edited by C. P. Dodge & P. D. Wiebe

If that doesn't satisfy you, try:

A French team found evidence of more exotic diseases as well, when they took blood surveys of villages in western Uganda.

Ebola, Marburg, Lassa, West Nile Fever, Crimean-Congo Haemorrhagic Fever and Chikungunya were among the viruses found in the blood of the region's populace.

'Arbovirus Infections & Viral Haemorrhagic Fevers In Uganda: A Serological Survey In Karamoja District, 1984'

by F Rodhain, J. P. Gonzalez, E Mercier et al, from 'Transactions Of The Royal Society Of Tropical Medicine & Hygiene', 83 (publ. 1989)

Between 1971-1977 Uganda experienced its worst measles epidemic with countless lives lost, huge rates of gonorrhoea, pertussis and tetanus.

Dr. Joseph McCormick, who pioneered Lassa Fever treatment and education campaigns, had concluded that by 1979 that Lassa was an entrenched endemic disease in West/Central Africa, causing thousands of cases of illness of varying severity every year, including adult death and spontaneous abortions in pregnant mothers.

As for the use of 'hot zone'- here's Doctor Robert Desowitz:

New immigrants from hot-strain endemic areas have flooded into the United States.

from 'Paradise Lost 1945-1996' in 'Tropical Diseases' . He's referring to Chagas and other diseases from south of the Rio Grande, in case you're unduly worried.


Now given the lethality and numer of the organisms involved, given the unknown vectors, the civil war conditions, the lack of a health service infrastructure, the ease of transmission of some of the diseases and the lack of vaccines or treatments, I'd say that calling Equatorial Africa a 'hot zone' was no great exaggeration.

This is after all where Marburg, Lassa, H.I.V., Ebola et al. appear to have originated.

Given the choice I'd take Rocky Mountain Fever any day.

One other 'coincidence' that I found quite interesting-

...the red blood cells of West Africans and, of course, their descendants lack the essential molecular receptor on their outer surface to allow Plasmodium vivax to 'dock' and invade, and thus are totally immune to this parasite.

Africans are also partially immune to Plasmodium falciparum because many carry the sickle cell trait haemoglobin that inhibits the malaria parasite's growth.

Unfortunately the double dose of the sickle cell gene leads to early death- an evolutionary trade off between this fatal condition and the even more fatal falciparum malaria.

The noted malariologist Dr. Louis Miller has hypothesized that the tendency to high blood pressure and iron overload present in African Americans are also genetic herilooms of malaria-resiting traits.

'Coming To America 1638 to 1895' from 'Tropical Diseases' by Robert Desowitz

Bubonic plague appears to do well amongst people with iron rich diets and blood...

Y. Pestis is native to particular parts of the world. These permanent reservoirs, called 'inveterate foci', include Central Asia, Siberia, the Yunan region of China, parts of Iran and Libya, the Arabian Peninsula, and East Africa.

'A Natural History of Plague' from 'The Black Death' by Robert S. Gottfried.


What is interesting though, is that China has no records of bubonic plague outbreaks before the 8th Century, and that the natural reservoirs in other areas (California) only became so relatively recently.

Neither in the Yemen nor India in the 6th Century could I find instances of plague spontaneously breaking out and yet both were part of the Indian Ocean trade which led ultimately to Berenice, Pelusium and Alexandria in Egypt in the Byzantine Empire.


More importantly, one might have expected a disease originating in India or Asia to have affected the Sassanid Empire first- and yet the first mention of bubonic plague I can find is in connection with an aborted conflict in 542, after plague had already broken out in Egypt, when the Byzantine forces appear to have spread the infection to the Sassanid army.

That the Sassanids were not as affected by the disease is clear- they were able to mount attacks on Yemen and the Hepthalite Huns in Central Asia as well as the Byzantine empire, yet the Byzantines lost ground and recruits for their armed forces, relying on mercenaries instead.

The disease appears to have spread by shipping- this seems to be confirmed by its appearance in the major ports of the Mediterranean and by its epidemic reoccurence in them until the 8th Century- when the beginning of the 'Little Optimum' appears to have improved matters.


I suspect that the development of three new organised Christian Nubian states in the Sudan, the growth of Adulis in Axum and the increased demand for ivory and other African exports (such as iron) in the Gupta Empire may have created the ideal conditions (along with climatic variation) for the emergence of a 'new' disease outside of its normal, temporary focus, with the Indian black rat taking something from Central/East Africa to the Mediterranean on board ships.

BTW, heres what the phrase hot zone actually means,

You can take it I'm familiar enough with the clinical definition not to need a reference....

...outside the world of pop epidemiology, of which Laurie Garrett is a prime practitioner

So much for her being a fellow at the Harvard School for Public Health. I can't recall quoting her using 'hot zone' to refer to Equatorial or Central Africa though.

in the belt from east Asia to south Asia to the ME to Europe. I dont see why one wouldnt expect the Plague of Justinian to have originated there as well.

Because there's no evidence for outbreaks there before 'Justinian's Plague'. No widespread dying off of Turks or Huns or Mongols at the same time.

No huge epidemics in India or China at the same time (or even slightly later).

And, more importantly, no evidence of epidemics in the Sassanid Empire away from the border with the Byzantine Empire.

Again, most of the infectious diseases that troubled the world the most originated in places with dense populations and extensive livestock raising

Like malaria ? Try Africa. Also home to the tsetse fly, sleeping sickness, bilharzia and cattle- extensive livestock raising from the Sahel to South and East Africa.

Egypt is in Africa and had early dense populations...

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by molly bloom

[q]

I wanted to deal with this part of your reply first. I've been doing a fair bit of research into what diseases one might expect in Central/Equatorial Africa and how lethal they might be.


The diseases I listed in my earlier post were in fact only the emergent diseases in Africa since 1930, and didn't include many of the notable older killers, the new antibiotic resistant strains of older killers, nor did it include the epidemics of diseases routinely vaccinated against in the developed world.

You also seem to have downplayed the outbreaks of Ebola somewhat here:



New or emergent diseases are frequently named for the places where an epidemic or outbreak is first identified.

There have been three outbreaks of Ebola in Gabon, for instance.

Ebola Sudan reappeared at the same place it had broken out before, too. It has a 50% fatality rate.

Ebola Zaire (also multiple outbreaks) has a 90% fatality rate.

But let's put this in context: diseases found in Uganda between 1975-1980 include

Hansen's Disease (leprosy)

epidemic malaria

epidemic cholera

tuberculosis and multi-drug resistant tuberculosis

visceral leishmaniasis/kala-azar

and



'A Comparison of Community Health in Uganda with its Two East African Neighbours in the Period 1970-1979' by F. J. Bennett from 'Crisis In Uganda' edited by C. P. Dodge & P. D. Wiebe

If that doesn't satisfy you, try:



'Arbovirus Infections & Viral Haemorrhagic Fevers In Uganda: A Serological Survey In Karamoja District, 1984'

by F Rodhain, J. P. Gonzalez, E Mercier et al, from 'Transactions Of The Royal Society Of Tropical Medicine & Hygiene', 83 (publ. 1989)

Between 1971-1977 Uganda experienced its worst measles epidemic with countless lives lost, huge rates of gonorrhoea, pertussis and tetanus.

Dr. Joseph McCormick, who pioneered Lassa Fever treatment and education campaigns, had concluded that by 1979 that Lassa was an entrenched endemic disease in West/Central Africa, causing thousands of cases of illness of varying severity every year, including adult death and spontaneous abortions in pregnant mothers.

As for the use of 'hot zone'- here's Doctor Robert Desowitz:



from 'Paradise Lost 1945-1996' in 'Tropical Diseases' . He's referring to Chagas and other diseases from south of the Rio Grande, in case you're unduly worried.


Now given the lethality and numer of the organisms involved, given the unknown vectors, the civil war conditions, the lack of a health service infrastructure, the ease of transmission of some of the diseases and the lack of vaccines or treatments, I'd say that calling Equatorial Africa a 'hot zone' was no great exaggeration.

This is after all where Marburg, Lassa, H.I.V., Ebola et al. appear to have originated.

Given the choice I'd take Rocky Mountain Fever any day.

One other 'coincidence' that I found quite interesting-



'Coming To America 1638 to 1895' from 'Tropical Diseases' by Robert Desowitz

Bubonic plague appears to do well amongst people with iron rich diets and blood...

thank you for confirming that central africa has abundant problems with diseases, many of which originated elsewhere, all aggravated by bad social conditions. I think we established that I dont disagree with that.

I need to read more on Laurie Garrett, yes, she has academic credentials, ISTR reading some professionals in the field consider her alarmist, but I have no cites handy.

And thanks for the reference to "hot strain endemic areas" which still arent "hot zones", of course.

'A Natural History of Plague' from 'The Black Death' by Robert S. Gottfried.


What is interesting though, is that China has no records of bubonic plague outbreaks before the 8th Century, and that the natural reservoirs in other areas (California) only became so relatively recently.

Neither in the Yemen nor India in the 6th Century could I find instances of plague spontaneously breaking out and yet both were part of the Indian Ocean trade which led ultimately to Berenice, Pelusium and Alexandria in Egypt in the Byzantine Empire.


More importantly, one might have expected a disease originating in India or Asia to have affected the Sassanid Empire first- and yet the first mention of bubonic plague I can find is in connection with an aborted conflict in 542, after plague had already broken out in Egypt, when the Byzantine forces appear to have spread the infection to the Sassanid army.

That the Sassanids were not as affected by the disease is clear- they were able to mount attacks on Yemen and the Hepthalite Huns in Central Asia as well as the Byzantine empire, yet the Byzantines lost ground and recruits for their armed forces, relying on mercenaries instead.

The disease appears to have spread by shipping- this seems to be confirmed by its appearance in the major ports of the Mediterranean and by its epidemic reoccurence in them until the 8th Century- when the beginning of the 'Little Optimum' appears to have improved matters.


I suspect that the development of three new organised Christian Nubian states in the Sudan, the growth of Adulis in Axum and the increased demand for ivory and other African exports (such as iron) in the Gupta Empire may have created the ideal conditions (along with climatic variation) for the emergence of a 'new' disease outside of its normal, temporary focus, with the Indian black rat taking something from Central/East Africa to the Mediterranean on board ships.

this is close to the OP's theory, but at least its not based on a surge in grain imports.

Because there's no evidence for outbreaks there before 'Justinian's Plague'. No widespread dying off of Turks or Huns or Mongols at the same time.

No huge epidemics in India or China at the same time (or even slightly later).

And, more importantly, no evidence of epidemics in the Sassanid Empire away from the border with the Byzantine Empire.

"There" could of course include the Byzantine empire itself, which was also part of the densely populated belt.

Like malaria ? Try Africa. Also home to the tsetse fly, sleeping sickness, bilharzia and cattle- extensive livestock raising from the Sahel to South and East Africa.

malaria and sleeping sickness are borne by flying insects that move distances between mammals, the charecteristic of subsaharan african diseases.

Bilharzia I thought was native to Egypt. Its in Africa, but a different environment, much closer to eurasian conditions, than central africa.


Cattle, well yes the cattle raising plains could have originated a disease that jumped from cattle to humans.

Of course thats NOT the area that Ebola originates from.

Egypt is in Africa and had early dense populations...

Indeed. Are you suggesting that the plague could have originated in Egypt? Makes sense to me. I was disputing the assertion that it originated in much less densely populated central africa, not that originated somewhere on the continent.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

thank you for confirming that central africa has abundant problems with diseases, many of which originated elsewhere,

Not malaria, not river blindness, not sleeping sickness, not any of the emergent illnesses I've already named, and certainly not the most lethal ones- Lassa fever, the Ebola strains and Marburg and H.I.V. .

We still don't know where polio, measles or smallpox originated- although the first smallpox lesion found still appears to be that on the Egyptian mummy from 1600 B.C. and some Egyptian hieroglyphs also depict the characteristic limb-wasting associated with polio-myelitis.

And thanks for the reference to "hot strain endemic areas" which still arent "hot zones", of course.

No, they aren't.

Given my time constraints, 'hot zones' is both apt and takes less time to write than 'hot strain endemic areas'.

this is close to the OP's theory, but at least its not based on a surge in grain imports.

But Byzantium did also acquire 'new' grain imports when Carthage/Tunisia was retaken from the Vandals and Justinian had to build a new granary on the island of Tenedos to accommodate the necessary grain for Byzantium's growing population. Grain which came from Egypt too... ...where Procopius says the plague originated.

"There" could of course include the Byzantine empire itself, which was also part of the densely populated belt.

Had there been an 'original' outbreak of plague in Central Asia it's highly unlikely that the migration of the Turkish tribes would have posed any problems for either the Hindu kingdoms, the Chinese, the Byzantines or the Sassanids. They would have been too few in number.

We should also have expected to see plague erupt in China or northern Persia given the closer links to Central Asia.

Also the outbreak would not have occurred first in Egypt/Africa...

malaria and sleeping sickness are borne by flying insects that move distances between mammals, the charecteristic of subsaharan african diseases.

Malaria can occur anywhere humans make depressions for water to fill.

It used to be thought that only fresh water would suffice, but even muddy filled tyre tracks will do.

As the Bantu and Zande cut down forest for gardens and grazing for their cattle in their migration across Central and Equatorial Africa, they not only displaced the Pygmies and Khoi and San, but also created lovely little breeding grounds for mosquitoes. Malaria and sleeping sickness occur across a vast area of Africa, with malaria as far north as Mauretania and as far south as South Africa.

Sleeping sickness occurs from Mali to Mozambique...

Of course thats NOT the area that Ebola originates from.

We don't actually know precisely where Ebola originates from, nor what its primary animal host is, nor which creature spreads it to humans.

We do know that human interaction (trapping bushmeat, capturing primates, cutting down rainforest) with wildlife in jungle/rainforest and savannah areas has led to the spread of lethal diseases such as Ebola and Marburg and H.I.V. from animals to humans- not surprising given the diseases we share with animals.

Are you suggesting that the plague could have originated in Egypt?

Bubonic plague does not require dense populations to spread. Pneumonic plague does spread quite well in dense urban areas under the right climatic conditions.

It also could have spread easily on ships plying the Red Sea, with an otherwise healthy looking crew member or passenger spreading the disease to the other travellers.

Bubonic plague simply requires rodents and fleas- and fleas can live in uninhabited rodent burrows for up to 6 months. Fleas can also be carried long distances in bales of cloth, the furs ofanimals such as cheetahs or monkeys and some rodents do fare quite well on ships.


One of the after-effects of a volcanic eruption such as Krakatoa was a band of ash/particles which travelled around the world, firstly over the Equatorial belt of Africa:

...there had been a worldwide drop in temperature. It had amounted on average to about one degree Fahrenheit...

'The Paroxysm, the Flood and the Crack of Doom' in 'Krakatoa' by Simon Winchester.

Benjamin Franklin noted similar effects from the eruption of Lakagigar/Hekla in 1783, which gave disatrously bad weather to Europe.

In 1815 when Tambora erupted, the following year's weather was appalling- New Wengland had a year without a summer, and theer was enhanced emigration from to the western States because of widespread crop failure in the East. The German wheat crop failed, and Newfoundlanders returned to Europe because of lack of food.

Peter Francis says this of the Krakatoa cloud in 'Some Side Effects' in 'Volcanoes':

Whereas on its first trip it had been confined to a narrow belt, more or less restricted to the tropics, it subsequently became more and more dispersed...

We can see that there's a conjunction of various factors which might favour a transmission of an otherwise restricted disease (such as Ebola or Lassa) here.

A precipitous drop in daytime and night-time temperatures across the Equatorial belt of Africa, which would favour the spread of pneumonic plague, which unlike bubonic plague can be contracted through aerosolized droplets.

Human interaction with previously uninhabited or sparsely inhabited areas and the displacement of the original inhabitants into dense rainforest or marginal lands. The presence of African animal hosts of the fleas which spread bubonic plague in those areas (gerbils, mice)

New inland states arising south of Egypt and increased demand for African trade goods from Byzantium and the Indian Gupta Empire.

The expansion of the state and city of Axum and its main port, Adulis, to handle the increased internal trade with Africa and the external trade with Egypt, Byzantium and India.