Black death was not spread by rat fleas, say researchers

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
83,638
119,674
113
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/mar/29/black-death-not-spread-rat-fleas-london-plague

Archaeologists and forensic scientists who have examined 25 skeletons unearthed in the Clerkenwell area of London a year ago believe they have uncovered the truth about the nature of the Black Death that ravaged Britain and Europe in the mid-14th century.

Analysis of the bodies and of wills registered in London at the time has cast doubt on "facts" that every schoolchild has learned for decades: that the epidemic was caused by a highly contagious strain spread by the fleas on rats.

Now evidence taken from the human remains found in Charterhouse Square, to the north of the City of London, during excavations carried out as part of the construction of the Crossrail train line, have suggested a different cause: only an airborne infection could have spread so fast and killed so quickly.

The Black Death arrived in Britain from central Asia in the autumn of 1348 and by late spring the following year it had killed six out of every 10 people in London. Such a rate of destruction would kill five million now. By extracting the DNA of the disease bacterium, Yersinia pestis, from the largest teeth in some of the skulls retrieved from the square, the scientists were able to compare the strain of bubonic plague preserved there with that which was recently responsible for killing 60 people in Madagascar. To their surprise, the 14th-century strain, the cause of the most lethal catastrophe in recorded history, was no more virulent than today's disease. The DNA codes were an almost perfect match.

According to scientists working at Public Health England in Porton Down, for any plague to spread at such a pace it must have got into the lungs of victims who were malnourished and then been spread by coughs and sneezes. It was therefore a pneumonic plague rather than a bubonic plague. Infection was spread human to human, rather than by rat fleas that bit a sick person and then bit another victim. "As an explanation [rat fleas] for the Black Death in its own right, it simply isn't good enough. It cannot spread fast enough from one household to the next to cause the huge number of cases that we saw during the Black Death epidemics," said Dr Tim Brooks from Porton Down, who will put his theory in a Channel 4 documentary, Secret History: The Return of the Black Death, next Sunday.

To support his argument, Brooks has looked at what happened in Suffolk in 1906 when plague killed a family and then spread to a neighbour who had come to help. The culprit was pneumonic plague, which had settled in the lungs of the victims and was spread through infected breath.

The skeletons at Charterhouse Square reveal that the population of London was also in generally poor health when the disease struck. Crossrail's archaeology contractor, Don Walker, and Jelena Bekvalacs of the Museum of London found evidence of rickets, anaemia, bad teeth and childhood malnutrition.

In support of the case that this was a fast-acting, direct contagion, archaeologist Dr Barney Sloane found that in the medieval City of London all wills had to be registered at the Court of Hustings. These led him to believe that 60% of Londoners were wiped out.

Antibiotics can today prevent the disease from becoming pneumonic. In the spring of 1349, the death rate did not ease until Pentecost on 31 May.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,749
3
0
It certainly confirms that it was Pneumonic Plague, this had been suspected I remember leaning it moons ago, the same with the final stages of the Great Plague (1665–66) in London, but the evidence was heretofore entirely circumstantial.

Another point which the above article does not mention is that they found that many of those whose skeletons they found had not grown up in London (from isotopes in their bones) the articles I'd read "spun it" as wasn't it wonderful that there were people from all over England in Fourteenth Century London, when all it really does is reconfirm that it was well before the Seventeenth Century that London had earned the reputation of the "devourer of souls."
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,474
12
38
I think there's a world of caution that should lie between "…was caused by" and "…was spread by". 'Cause' is a bacterium that must have some other home if it efficiently kills every human it infects, or hasn't evolved to co-exist with us (become endemic in the population). 'Spread' deals with how those microbes travel from one host/victim to the next.

Whatever the specific disease entity, it was a 'plague'—1. A widespread affliction or calamity, especially one seen as divine retribution. 2. A sudden destructive influx or injurious outbreak, that spread at a speed, on a scale and with a mortality unknown before, except in stories, like the Plagues of the Bible.

I'm unaware of serious accounts saying the spread was rat-borne, only that shipborne rats and fleas provided a suitable host, and most probably were the way the disease was imported from places like Madagascar (or New Mexico, Norther Mexico, and there the parasites certainly do have rodent hosts) where it was and is endemic, well-known and another serious disease, but no plague. Rats and fleas might be called the 'cause' i.e the entry mechanism or vector, as it did show up first in port cities. Certainly those medieval ships-crews couldn't have killed each other during the voyage by sneezing . Even back when Hans Zinnser wrote his classic Rats, Lice and History (1935), only children's stories were simplifying everything down to, "…caused by flea-bites". Nothing in life with our parasites is ever that simple.

Bubonic—causing buboes or scabby running sores—and pneumonic varieties of the disease are caused by the same bacterium, the one found by the researcher's DNAv tests and the one we know today, and continue to call bubonic plague. Apart from the DNA stuff—established long ago—all the other advances in understanding are deductions, based on contemporary accounts of the diseases rapid spread.

Since a great many accounts of various of the plague outbreaks do describe buboes, I think it's a great leap without a solid basis to say this local archeological effort has proven what that Europe-wide plague was, what caused it, or how it spread. But a fun read.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,749
3
0
Bubonic—causing buboes or scabby running sores—and pneumonic varieties of the disease are caused by the same bacterium, the one found by the researcher's DNAv tests and the one we know today, and continue to call bubonic plague. Apart from the DNA stuff—established long ago—all the other advances in understanding are deductions, based on contemporary accounts of the diseases rapid spread. . . .

Since a great many accounts of various of the plague outbreaks do describe buboes, I think it's a great leap without a solid basis to say this local archeological effort has proven what that Europe-wide plague was, what caused it, or how it spread. But a fun read.
Yersinia pestis.

What this discovery shows, however, is that the Black Death Y. pestis is for all intents identical to modern Y. pestis. Hence for the the Black Death to have spread as rapidly as it did it must have moved over into the pneumonic form of the disease quite rapidly, as it was not some particularly virulent form of an already nasty disease.

By the way in England and Wales there were two outbreaks of the Black Death the first in 1348, which killed about half the population and then again in 1361- 1362 killing about 20 percent of the remaining population. This huge decrease in the population and the resultant shortage of labour directly lead to the early demise of serfdom and is also thought to have lead to the increasing use of English. It is also interesting that despite loosing such a huge proportion of the population England and Wales did not descend into the sort of chaos that the portion of France controlled by the King of France did.
 

peteeey

Well-known member
Aug 18, 2001
1,764
189
63
There were many plagues, and many forms of plagues, during that time. Some plagues came from flea-infested rats, some from droplets transmitted when someone coughed. Some say it was transmitted through polluted water. Saint Arnold of Metz, one of many "beer saints" in Belgium, told the masses "Don't drink the water, drink beer," and ended a plague when he submerged his crucifix into a brew kettle and persuaded people to drink only beer from that "blessed" kettle. Until then, monks drank beer instead of water. And soon after Saint Arnie, beer became the daily drink for everyone.

Now you know why beer is so popular in Belgium.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,749
3
0
There were many plagues, and many forms of plagues, during that time. Some plagues came from flea-infested rats, some from droplets transmitted when someone coughed. Some say it was transmitted through polluted water. Saint Arnold of Metz, one of many "beer saints" in Belgium, told the masses "Don't drink the water, drink beer," and ended a plague when he submerged his crucifix into a brew kettle and persuaded people to drink only beer from that "blessed" kettle. Until then, monks drank beer instead of water. And soon after Saint Arnie, beer became the daily drink for everyone.

Now you know why beer is so popular in Belgium.
During that period beer was indeed safer than water.

However, that doesn't change the fact that they have proved that these people died in London in the mid-fourteenth century due to infection by Yersinia pestis not some unknown disease but Yersinia pestis.

As OldJones already said Bubonic Plague and Pneumonic Plague are merely terms given to infection with the same bacterium (Yersinia pestis) through different modes of transmission and which due to that show different symptoms (transmission via flea bite implicates the lymphatic system causing the buboes - scabby running sores).
 
Toronto Escorts