GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-11 > 1036437988


From: "Gordon Banks" <>
Subject: RE: A question about The Plague
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 11:26:35 -0800
In-Reply-To: <na.bfebc04b8f.a80420pmoynagh@argonet.co.uk>


I don't believe it is very controversial that the microbe has changed or we
have changed(microbes change faster) or both. The reason Pasteurella Pestis
was selected was the similarity of the symptoms. It is clearly not as
virulent as the Plague was. History would have to be rewritten only in the
case that it can be shown that the rat wasn't a factor, in which case the
assumptions that it was and what might have led to rats causing the problem
would be moot.

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Moynagh [mailto:]
Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 5:03 PM
To:
Subject: Re: A question about The Plague


In article <>,
("David R. Teague") wrote:
> Yes, that was the village .I saw the program in question, and that was
> the place name, as well as the story of how the plague arrived. However,
> this was the last great outbreak in the 1660s, not the mid-14th C.
> pandemic.

There has been recent work suggesting that the 14C Black Death may not have
been due to Pasteurella Pestis, the bug which causes bubonic plague. See:
< http://www.psu.edu/ur/2002/blackdeath.html >

If substantiated, history books will need re-writing. However the 17C
epidemics, including the outbreak at Eyam, were almost certainly true
bubonic plague.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Paul Moynagh







This thread: