Human-Animal Interactions and Infectious Disease

Abstract

Zoonoses are significant in human histories, and in histories of other species and the environment. Diseases have been an important evolutionary force, not just the major epidemics but the quieter endemic diseases. These infectious diseases comprise complex events and cycles involving multiple actors (humans, animals, and microorganisms). Despite difficulties of preservation, identification, and interpretation, bioarchaeologists have often analyzed zoonotic diseases. However, these studies have tended to focus on an individual disease and its emergence as opposed to the human-animal interactions and complex environmental cycles that underlie zoonotic disease more broadly. In this paper, after a brief review of zoonotic disease and bioarchaeological studies of it, we provide three contemporary case studies that point to the complexity of human-animal interaction and the socioecological circumstances involved in disease. We argue that adopting a One Health framework, which is based on Rudolf Virchow’s insight as well as approaches that emphasize time depth, multiple analytical scales, evolutionary understandings, and a consideration of human ideas and not just practices, would contribute to making bioarchaeology relevant to contemporary and future issues beyond the epidemiological transition model as modified by Barrett and Armelagos (Barrett et al. 1998; Barrett and Armelagos 2013).
 
 Les zoonoses sont importantes dans l’histoire humaine, et en gros dans l’histoire d’autres espèces et de l’environnement. Les maladies ont été une force évolutive importante, non seulement les épidémies majeures, mais aussi les maladies endémiques les plus calmes. Ces maladies infectieuses comprennent des événements et des cycles complexes impliquant de multiples acteurs (humains, animaux et micro-organismes). Malgré les difficultés de préservation, d’identification et d’interprétation, les bioarchéologues ont souvent analysé les zoonoses. Cependant, ces études ont eu tendance à se concentrer sur la maladie individuelle et son émergence par opposition aux interactions homme-animal et aux cycles environnementaux complexes qui sous-tendent la maladie zoonotique de manière plus générale. Dans cet article, après un bref examen de la maladie zoonotique et des études bioarchéologiques de celle-ci, nous fournissons trois études de cas contemporaines qui soulignent la complexité de l’interaction homme-animal et les circonstances socio-écologiques impliquées dans la maladie. Nous soutenons que l’adoption d’un cadre One Health basé sur la vision de Rudolf Virchow ainsi que sur des approches mettant l’accent sur la profondeur temps, les échelles analytiques multiples, les compréhensions évolutives et la prise en compte des idées humaines et non seulement des pratiques, contribuera à rendre la bioarchéologie pertinente pour les problèmes contemporains et futurs au-delà le modèle de transition épidémiologique tel que modifié par Barrett et Armelagos (Barrett et al. 1998; Barrett et Armelagos 2013).

Evidence for the transmission of antimicrobial resistant bacteria between humans and companion animals: A scoping review

“…It is estimated that about 60% of all infectious diseases are zoonoses [ 30 ]. Pets might be blamed as potential reservoirs and sources of some dangerous zoonotic pathogens, which may even lead to abandonment or lack of responsible ownership [ 31 ].…”

“…However, the risk of anthropozoonosis (human to pet transmission) may be overlooked and additional studies are needed to understand the risk to pets from AMR bacteria originating in humans. In particular, pets living with people who work in human healthcare or who have been recently hospitalized could be at higher risk for becoming infected or colonized with AMR or MDR pathogens [ 30 ].…”

Twenty‐first century bioarchaeology: Taking stock and moving forward

“…Y. pestis was only identified in a single individual from a burial of four that, combined with the observation that most Bronze Age Y. pestis genomes have been recovered from single burials, led the authors to suggest that these early Neolithic and Bronze Age strains caused terminal or low transmissibility zoonotic infections in humans (Susat et al, 2021). Identifying archaeological sites with early zoonotic spillovers is instrumental for bioarchaeology to integrate the One Health concept, which views human health as directly linked to animal health and the environment writ large (Littleton et al, 2022; Mackenzie & Jeggo, 2019; Zinsstag et al, 2011). Zooarchaeology (archaeological animal remains) also has an important role in informing about the impact of animals on human health in the past (e.g., Thomas et al, 2019).…”

Uncovering the Holocene roots of contemporary disease-scapes: bringing archaeology into One Health

“…Archaeologists can help address this problem by documenting the deeper history of humans in shaping diseases. However, archaeological methods, tools and data have not fully been leveraged in One Health approaches, with a few notable exceptions such as the One Health Archaeology Research Group at the University of Edinburgh and a handful of initiatives and researchers elsewhere [7][8][9][10][11].…”