Trade routes and plague transmission in pre-industrial Europe

Abstract

Numerous historical works have mentioned that trade routes were to blame for the spread of plague in European history, yet this relationship has never been tested by quantitative evidence. Here, we resolve the hypothetical role of trade routes through statistical analysis on the geo-referenced major trade routes in the early modern period and the 6,656 geo-referenced plague outbreak records in AD1347–1760. Ordinary Least Square (OLS) estimation results show that major trade routes played a dominant role in spreading plague in pre-industrial Europe. Furthermore, the negative correlation between plague outbreaks and their distance from major trade ports indicates the absence of a permanent plague focus in the inland areas of Europe. Major trade routes decided the major plague outbreak hotspots, while navigable rivers determined the geographic pattern of sporadic plague cases. A case study in Germany indicates that plague penetrated further into Europe through the local trade route network. Based on our findings, we propose the mechanism of plague transmission in historical Europe, which is imperative in demonstrating how pandemics were spread in recent human history.

Examining the Direct and Indirect Effects of Climatic Variables on Plague Dynamics

“…Third, the indirect effect of climate change on plague dynamics might not only bypass social response. For example, Yue, et al [43] explored the influence of trade routes on plague spreading patterns. Despite the fact that they assumed the transportation route as static over their study period, one can easily forecast the evolution of transportation could also contribute to plague dynamics in time.…”

Bioarchaeology of Past Epidemic- and Famine-Related Mass Burials with Respect to Recent Findings from the Czech Republic

“…Much palaeomicrobiological data, while confirming that some burial sites in medieval Europe were plague burial pits, do not help resolve the remaining questions concerning the epidemiology of the Black Death. Vast amounts of the plague literature are therefore focused on the issues of primary reservoirs, disease vectors, and epidemiologic spread, in which there remain significant areas of debate (Gage, Kosoy, 2005;Tran et al, 2011;Yue et al, 2017).…”

Dangers of Noncritical Use of Historical Plague Data

“…Ultimately, by confusing mentions of plague in available sources as a representation of individual incidences or outbreaks of the disease, Biraben’s data set has led to a gross overestimation of plague in big cities and a gross underestimation of plague in smaller towns and villages. This confusion is problematic, considering some scholars have linked plague spread to commerce ( 9 ), trade routes ( 7 ), or distance to navigable rivers ( 6 ), all factors highly conducive to the development of cities ( 24 ). Misinterpretation of Biraben’s data set also feeds into a narrative describing plague as a fundamentally urban phenomenon when research is beginning to reveal this perception to be a fallacy ( 14 , 19 ).…”

“…This information was originally compiled >40 years ago by Jean-Noël Biraben as part of his 2-volume work, Les hommes et la peste en France et dans les pays méditerranéens, which documents plague outbreaks from the Black Death (1347–1352) to the 19th century ( 2 , 3 ). Using a digitized version of this data set (https://zenodo.org/record/14973), which includes a limited number of outbreaks in northern Africa, authors have boasted impressive collections of documented European plague outbreaks: 6,929 plague outbreaks across Europe during 1347–1900 ( 4 ), 7,711 outbreaks across Europe and Asia during 1347–1900 ( 5 ), 5,559 outbreaks across Europe and northern Africa during 1347–1760 ( 6 ), and 6,656 outbreaks across Europe during 1347–1760 ( 7 ). In one of these studies, the Biraben data set was supplemented with additional outbreaks from Russia and Turkey gleaned from secondary literature ( 5 ).…”

“…Scholars who have used this data set have not applied adequate source critique expected within the field of history, failing to pose basic questions concerning how the data were collected and what they represent. The 4 aforementioned studies ( 4 – 7 ) are not the only instances in which the Biraben data set were not used critically; in fact, there are many examples ( 8 – 13 ). However, Büntgen et al, Schmid et al, and Yue et al are the first to use a digitized version of the data set, which not only causes specific problems but also sets a dangerous precedent for future research ( 4 – 7 ).…”