Michael Kuettner wrote:
<snip>
Hardly. If one looks at the effects of European diseases on Native
Americans, the idea of the plague affecting just 10 people is
patently ridiculous.
There are only two possible scenarios in that case (the plague) :
(a) All except 10 were immune to that sort of plague (snort)
and all of the 10 were at the same time at the same place
He points out that there is no mention of the total number of
folks at the camp; could have been more than 10.
As to the immunity issue, he does say that perhaps some were, as
the plague had gotten to Scandinavia in the late 1340's.
(b) They caught an American version of the plague (snort)
Where's the American Ebola - virus ?
He talks about three types of plague; bubonic, pneumonic and
septicemic. He cites references to say that the last two result
in massive bleeding at the end.
He cites references about the length of time infected fleas can
live, and that fleas in furs shipped long distances were
implicated in some European plague outbreaks. He suggests that
one possible reason for the trip might have been an outbreak of
plague at one of the Norse Vinland settlements in the Quebec area.
He suggests that the infected fleas were kept alive in furs. He
says southern Canada and Minnesota are perfect for this as they
have a cool climate, which would help the fleas survive. He does
not mention, that I recall, a time of year for the trip; but it'd
have to be a season other than road construction :-).) He cites
Dr. L. Fabian Hirst's 1953 book, _The Conquest of Plague_
Clarendon Press, Oxford, England (p. 330) for the issue of flea
longevity.
While the nature of the Black Death(s) might not be known fully,
I've never come across a description "red with blood" in the
context with plague victims, but only in the context of slaughter or
murder.
Reiersgord does not appear to provide a direct citation for the
bloody end of pneumonic and septicemic plague. He presents it as
a known fact.
Judging by your description of his citations (are they like
"McNaughton, 1980, p.224 "?)
His references are irritatingly inconsistent. Some, as the Hirst
citation above, are good and presented in normal modern form, and
can be found in the bibliography. Other times he mentions the
name of a person, but doesn't specify where the supporting
documentation can be found; these appear to be represented in the
bibliography, but without any clue as to where in the referred
document to look. In still other places, he asserts things that
may or may not be supported, but does not provide any way to
follow up.
Reiersgord sounds suspiciously like a German kook (Illig).
Could you give an example which could be traced ? Just to look at the
quality
of his citations.
Try the Hirst ref., op cit.
