Talk:Plague of Justinian

tag

 * Removed the "disputed" tag, added, apparently as a joke, by anon. User:217.225.130.152 a non-entity otherwise unheard from. --Wetman 11:31, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

bubonic plague?
It's not proven, whether this was the bubonic plague or not. see Black Death for this matter. and it is not proven either, if the death toll was as high as it is claimed here. -musschrott

Please see bubonic plague - for information on the disease and historic epidemics/pandemics. As with most historic events, we can't "prove" anything, but we can evaluate and discuss. It is true current scientists hold differing opinions (see bubonic plague alternatives as well as the written references). A general scholarly consensus says the Plague of Justinian was bubonic plague while the Black Death spread more rapidly due to the shifting of the disease from the bubonic to the pneumonic variety, with some septicemic plague as well. The Third Pandemic is considered to be a combination of the three plague varieties. Numbers are always an estimate (at best) from a historic source. I think the original author was quite clear about that and I left the concept in when I did my recent edit. WBardwin 06:22, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Tell us more about this concensus. Is it a concensus among historians, or epidemiologists?? After all, historians are not scientists. Why not cite this and allow for controversy on this point. Unless there's been a serious study done on the cause of the plague (has there?) which turned up some concrete physical evidence (ie the pressence of plague bacteria found in the bodies of people known to have died in the Plague of Justinian... has there??) then I don't think this is a verifiable fact. Certainly not enough to be stated so concretely in the article. If the concensus is merely based on written records of the symptoms, then this is merely a theory--and a fairly weak one. So I think it's fair to ask for explaination as to just why it is believed to have been plague as opposed to something else. We must be careful when taking an authoritative tone in an article to state theory rather than fact. Also, I'm fairly sure I remember traditional theories regarding the evolution of Bubonic Plague tracing it to Central Asia at a later time period. Thus, if the Plague of Justinian was in fact Bubonic Plague, then wouldn't that contradict conventional theories of the origins of the disease?? It's these kinds of questions that demand further detail on the basis of the claim that it's bubonic plague. Anyone else know more? Links? Thelastemperor 01:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

At least some of the deaths from Justinian's Plague may have been from typhoid fever as well as Yellow Plague (Yellow Fever noticably different from bubonic from its jaundice tinge). Granted that bubonic sufferers, if they had time, would have been sufficiently weakened to catch typhoid fever in addition to their other woes. How this would abet Yellow Fever is not known to me, but some victims were definitely Jaundiced. The Yellow Fever spread north to Wales, Ireland, etc. Apparently they suffered no Black Plague there at that time.67.8.201.227 02:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

My admittedly partial understanding: The evidence that this particular "plague" (pandemic) was caused by "plague" (Yersinia pestis) comes not only from reported symptoms but also from zoology, specifically the especially effective transport by, and transfer to humans from, Chinese black rats. These were the standard stowaway of the day (but have been displaced by Norwegian rats, who are not quite as "friendly" to the bugs). Jmacwiki (talk) 22:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks like there is new evidence from DNA testing that this plague was indeed caused by the bacteria Yersinia pestis: Yersinia pestis DNA from Skeletal Remains from the 6th Century AD Reveals Insights into Justinianic Plague However, I am hesitant to alter the page since I don't fully understand the science behind it. In any case, this article should somehow be added to the page but I'm hoping someone with a better understanding will do so. --Robin McNally (talk) 11:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

deaths?
10,000 people a day? Really? Wasn't the city's population only about 500,000 at this point? -Dmz5 19:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh I missed the note about this later in the article. I'm going to rearrange it a little bit so it's clearer.--Dmz5 19:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

BE *and* ERE, and two questions
I have modified the empire's name in the opening line: "ERE or BE". This is not related to the controversy about the proper name for Justinian's empire (there is plenty of that at the Byzantine_Empire page). Rather, this is one of the few articles in which both names have appropriate uses. (a) Justinian's reconquest had the (very temporary) effect of reuniting the Eastern & Western parts of the RE, and a strategic project of this breadth only makes sense from the perspective that the two regions were "supposed" to be united. (b) However, the adjective "Byzantine" is used in several places, and "Eastern Roman" would be a stylistically poor replacement. (Arguably, "Roman" might be the right replacement, but that gets back to the whole BE naming controversy. ;-) Jmacwiki (talk) 03:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Fraction of population?
100 million deaths worldwide is a LOT (even now!). Does anyone know what fraction of the global population this represented? My guess: At least 20%, which might make it the largest catastrophe in the history of our species. Jmacwiki (talk) 03:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's world population page, it would be much more even than that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.115.193 (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Insert or point to map?
It would be really nice to insert, or at least link to, a map of Justinian's holdings as of 540. Can anyone find one, and do this? Or at least the usual map of 565? (That one is present at Byzantine_Empire.) Jmacwiki (talk) 03:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Impact on reconstructing the WRE (renovatio imperii)
The wording on this point is challenged with a note on "dubious - discuss". Specifically, the wording is, "could have credibly reformed the Western Roman Empire".

I believe the intended point of the text is not that conquering all of the former WRE - especially including Britain - was credible; only that conquering western North Africa, Italy, and either Iberia or Gaul (or both) might constitute a reasonable definition of a re-formed WRE (albeit as part of the reunited Roman empire).

Achieving that much, in the absence of this plague, seems entirely credible to me. (Justinian reconquered western NA and Italy, despite this plague.) Is there a strong contrary argument?

If not, any thoughts on improving the wording? Jmacwiki (talk) 02:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Arrogance of some Wikipedians
Having stumbled on this page, I notice a couple dozen comments like "citation needed" and "dubious - discuss". I don't know who put them there, but this seems to me to be the work of yet another Wikipedian who doesn't actually write articles, but just criticises them. If you don't like what's written in the article, then do the work yourself and improve it. I'm not going to say what I really think of contributors like this, but please don't just drop these heavy handed comments everywhere in someone else's work. Roll up your sleeves and rewrite the damn thing -- or STFU. Schildewaert (talk) 13:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So you just drop an attack on other editors here without doing anything yourself? Without even knowing if any of them were placed there by editors who searched for but didn't find sources, but decided not to delete first without giving other editors a chance to find some? What kind of example are you setting? Dougweller (talk) 14:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It was indeed just one editor, and they put most of them before the punctuation, which is incorrect. This was in April, and someone tagged the article in July so I've removed almost all the tags. Dougweller (talk) 15:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't do that, unless you have reasons they're inappropriate (which you don't give here, apart from not liking their placement). People need to know if and where the article is questionable. —  Llywelyn II   22:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

In my edit summary I did point out that some were already sourced. Eg:

"Procopius recorded that, at its peak, the plague was killing 10,000 people in Constantinople every day, but the accuracy of this figure is in question and the true number will probably never be known; what is known is that there was no room to bury the dead, and bodies were left stacked in the open."

Isn't that sourced? Then there's:

"The long-term effects on European and Christian history were enormous. Justinian's imperial gambit was ultimately unsuccessful. The troops, overextended, could not hold on. When the plague subsided, they retook Italy, but could not move further north. The eastern empire held Italy for the remainder of Justinian's life, but the empire quickly lost all territory except the southern part after he died. Italy was ravaged by war and fragmented for centuries as the Lombard tribes invaded the north."

Is that an appropriate use of citation tags? I'd say no. Here:

"Nevertheless it is possible that there has been a tendency to exaggerate the differential effects. British sources are more likely to report natural disasters than Saxon ones in this era."

I removed the first two and left the last, the important one.

Could I ask about this: " A genetic study of the bacterium causing bubonic plague based on samples taken from the remains of 14th-century plague victims in London and a survey of other samples[clarification needed] suggests[how?] that the Plague of Justinian and others from antiquity arose from either now-extinct strains of Yersinia pestis genetically distinct from the 14th-century strain or came from pathogens entirely unrelated to bubonic plague." I'm not clear what we need to know, and why we need to know it, about the samples or how the study suggests ... - isn't that all in the sources? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Aw, you're sweet. I was just speaking generally against Schild's attitude ("shaddup and lemme alone, y'#!$@ editors") and not against your particular edits, which – as you noted – I didn't bother leafing through the history to check one-by-one. And, as you now note here, you had excellent reasons for each one and (more importantly) left the important fact tags alone. Good show.


 * As for my particular edit, sorry if I was unclear. It may very well be included in the source, but (mho) the article's gloss should be clarified – how can a study of 14th-century victims "and others" (from where? 3rd-dynasty Egypt? 20th-century India?) possibly identify the 6th-century disease that we're talking about? They don't seem to have actually studied the actual victims from the actual disease under discussion; by rights, the whole thing should be removed as off-topic.


 * That said, I'm sure (since it's here) that the authors had some rationale for extrapolating their results. It may even be a valid one, but it's not currently on display. Hence, the need for clarification on those two points. (Yeah, Schild would tell me to go do it myself, but I've got a dozen other windows open so... Inline cleanup tags) —  Llywelyn II   09:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Only a dozen? lol (I've about 250 but only maybe half are Wikipedia related). Life's too short - we try our best but we can't fix it all! Dougweller (talk) 12:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

British vs. English
The final paragraph of the Origins and spread section implies that the British were separate from the English. These days the English are a subset of the British. Are the English in this paragraph the Angles of the Anglo-Saxons? If so, referring to them as Angles throughout, instead changing the term to English without explanation would make it clearer to the reader. Or including an explanation of what the term English meant during the period would be another way to make it clearer. (Obviously I don't know too much about it myself.)--Wikimedes (talk) 00:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice that, but presumably any distinction being made between Brits and English at this point is talking about Britons (Celtic people) – basically, the Welsh – not the members of the remains of the empire named for a pope's affection for some slaves of the Angles (tribe). —  Llywelyn II   22:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this section is bad. I think I should just delete it. It is not helping anything to talk about British versus English. Not only was "English" not much of a language yet, the "British" speaks of a geography that can't at this point in history be distinguished from "English." There are older names for the people and the location and more descriptive names for the tribes and peoples. This section needs a rewrite. I like to saw logs! (talk) 03:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I had exactly the same reaction to reading this section as User talk:LlywelynII. I haven't checked if the content has changed within this five-year period, but I think there is room for improvement, one way or another. However I'm not competent to do that myself.--Nø (talk) 10:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Whittow's article and other doubters
The article looks OK to me ... however, other than in half a footnote (a citation of Mark Whittow, one of the foremost active historians of the early Byzantine periods), no hint is given that the Justinianic Plague's intensity, duration and spread have all been questioned can be found in the article. Only a very few sources from the period even mention it and there's no solid archaeological data ... so ... something might be added about the possibility that it was not nearly as serious as some recent popular histories make out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.149.98 (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

No illness in Europe from 750 to 1300
It should go without saying that this is dubious, especially when given uncited, but just one example – smallpox entered Europe at the beginning of this time frame and broke out repeatedly for the next millennium. If memory serves, some weird leprosy issues were on-going as well. Is there a "new" missing from the sentence? or is this just a matter of defining epidemic up so it no longer applies to repeated massive infections? If so, we should remove the point or clarify that we're using the term in a non-obvious manner. — Llywelyn II   22:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't understand this either. Dougweller (talk) 09:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Well it depends on what is meant by "major epidemic". I think it is true that, until the Black Death, nothing killed anything like as large a proportion of Europe's population as the Justinian plague. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.216.105.201 (talk) 08:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

China as the primary source
I am confused by the sentence at the top of the article that says Genetic studies have pointed to China as the source of the Justinian plague. I read the footnoted quote at the bottom and that seemed to indicate Egypt as the source, so i read the Times article which is cited and that seemed to be discussing plagues that were at a much later time in history. Have I missed something, or is this something which should be re-worded to be clearer. In other words, based on the source cited, I don't see how China can be the source of the Justinian plague.Trucker11 (talk) 12:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It calls the Justinian Plague the first of three waves and says all three originated in China, and quotes another expert who says it is possible. Maybe it needs qualifying, but the article does say China. Dougweller (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Halley's Comet A.D. 536
SAN FRANCISCO — The ancients had ample reason to view comets as harbingers of doom, it would appear.

A piece of the famous Halley's comet likely slammed into Earth in A.D. 536, blasting so much dust into the atmosphere that the planet cooled considerably, a new study suggests. This dramatic climate shift is linked to drought and famine around the world, which may have made humanity more susceptible to "Justinian's plague" in A.D. 541-542 — the first recorded emergence of the Black Death in Europe.

The new results come from an analysis of Greenland ice that was laid down between A.D. 533 and 540. The ice cores record large amounts of atmospheric dust during this seven-year period, not all of it originating on Earth. [‪Photos of Halley's Comet Through History]

"I have all this extraterrestrial stuff in my ice core," study leader Dallas Abbott, of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, told LiveScience here last week at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union.

Certain characteristics, such as high levels of tin, identify a comet as the origin of the alien dust, Abbott said. And the stuff was deposited during the Northern Hemisphere spring, suggesting that it came from the Eta Aquarid meteor shower — material shed by Halley's comet that Earth plows through every April-May.

The Eta Aquarid dust may be responsible for a period of mild cooling in 533, Abbott said, but it alone cannot explain the global dimming event of 536-537, during which the planet may have cooled by as much as 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit (3 degrees Celsius). For that, something more dramatic is required.

Ice core data record evidence of a volcanic eruption in 536, but it almost certainly wasn't big enough to change the climate so dramatically, Abbott said.

"There was, I think, a small volcanic effect," she said. "But I think the major thing is that something hit the ocean."

She and her colleagues have found circumstantial evidence of such an impact. The Greenland ice cores contain fossils of tiny tropical marine organisms — specifically, certain species of diatoms and silicoflagellates.

An extraterrestrial impact in the tropical ocean likely blasted these little low-latitude organisms all the way to chilly Greenland, researchers said. And Abbott believes the object responsible was once a piece of Halley's comet.

Halley zooms by Earth once every 76 years or so. It appeared in Earth's skies in A.D. 530 and was astonishingly bright at the time, Abbott said. (In fact, observations of Halley's comet go way back, with research suggesting the ancient Greeks saw the comet streaking across their skies in 466 B.C.)

"Of the two brightest apparitions of Comet Halley, one of them is in 530," Abbott said. "Comets are normally these dirty snowballs, but when they're breaking up or they're shedding lots of debris, then that outer layer of dark stuff goes away, and so the comet looks brighter."

It's unclear where exactly the putative comet chunk hit Earth or how big it was, she added. However, a 2004 study estimated that a comet fragment just 2,000 feet (600 meters) wide could have caused the 536-537 cooling event if it exploded in the atmosphere and its constituent dust were spread evenly around the globe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.130.70 (talk) 22:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * So what is your suggested edit to this page? Ckruschke (talk) 16:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
 * This paper shows significant climate cooling at the time, possibly affecting people in the region. TGCP (talk) 12:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Total death toll
The article sites a "high estimate" of 25 Million, but US CDC cites 100 million. I realize these estimates are wildly uncertain, but shouldn't the latter high estimate be used instead? Or maybe both should be presented.

61.28.160.70 (talk) 04:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Tom

I know nothing of properly editing and citing Wikipedia articles, however, I found a better link with the entire research article covering the emerging evidence that contradicts many of the positions of the maximalist's view on the Justinian Plague. Please excuse my ignorance, but I wanted to contribute something I felt was valuable for a holistic view on this subject matter.

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/51/25546


 * Thanks but this source is already used. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 03:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Extreme weather events of 535–536
(This post is somewhat related to the one above about Halley's Comet.)

The extreme weather events of 535–536 (despite the title continuing into the 540's) are included in the "See also"-section, but it seems to me that the World-wide famine and shortage of e.g. grain must have been a factor in the spread of the plague and/or in its devastating consequences. E.g., the import of grain on rat-infested ships and the exploitation of farmers to supply cities and armies, must have been intensified.

I have no idea where to look, but there must be valid sources discussing this, so that we can include a bit more than a "See also"-link?--Nø (talk) 10:37, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/11/why-536-was-worst-year-be-alive


 * [...] 536. In Europe, "It was the beginning of one of the worst periods to be alive, if not the worst year," says McCormick, a historian and archaeologist who chairs the Harvard University Initiative for the Science of the Human Past.


 * A mysterious fog plunged Europe, the Middle East, and parts of Asia into darkness, day and night—for 18 months. "For the sun gave forth its light without brightness, like the moon, during the whole year," wrote Byzantine historian Procopius. Temperatures in the summer of 536 fell 1.5°C to 2.5°C, initiating the coldest decade in the past 2300 years. Snow fell that summer in China; crops failed; people starved. The Irish chronicles record "a failure of bread from the years 536–539." Then, in 541, bubonic plague struck the Roman port of Pelusium, in Egypt. What came to be called the Plague of Justinian spread rapidly, wiping out one-third to one-half of the population of the eastern Roman Empire and hastening its collapse, McCormick says. [...]


 * At a workshop at Harvard this week, the team reported that a cataclysmic volcanic eruption in Iceland spewed ash across the Northern Hemisphere early in 536. Two other massive eruptions followed, in 540 and 547. The repeated blows, followed by plague, plunged Europe into economic stagnation that lasted until 640 [...]
 * --tickle me 11:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Recent research
Mention of recent interdisciplinary research questioning the geographic, demographic and economic extent of the plague has been added to the introduction, but the body of the text is written as if this research were either non-existent ornot noteworthy. Kdammers (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

as British settlement patterns being more dispersive than English ones
Can someone with access to the ref after the statement have a look. It looks odd. Should one of the two be Roman? Agathoclea (talk) 08:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not have access to the source, but the statement looks like nonsense as more dispersed settlements should be less vulnerable to plague. Unless someone with access to the book can explain the statement, I think it should be deleted. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * the 2005 edition says:
 * "In entries for 545 and onwards, the Romano-British archives report a succession of epidemics in Ireland and Britain. There is presently a general consensus among the historians that the British did suffer more than the English since they were regularly in contact with Gaul. More reasons might be adduced. A possible tendency for British settlement patterns to be more dispersive than English could have served to facilitate plague transmission by the rat - a rather solitary and strongly territorial animal bearing a few fleas apiece. Moreover, the fact that British population densities were lower overall could have meant, in the judgement of Russell, that more percentagewise would succumb.51 Then again, coldish summers would hit food production hardest beyond the fertile lowlands the English then farmed.

There may have been a disposition, however, to exaggerate the differential effects. A reason for dwelling on them is the absence of any allusion to plague in the earliest surviving literature of the English people. There is nothing until a typically prosaic reference to ‘much pestilence on the island of Britain’ in the entry in the Anjjlo-Saxon Chronicles for 664:32 an outbreak confirmed by Bede and others as the next major visitation of the plague on Britain and Ireland, this time with the English badly affected. But here again one has to remember how arbitrary the said chronicles can be, especially early on, in regard to subjects covered. Human ecology, in all its aspects, gets short shrift/' In fact, the total surviving coverage of the critical 540s is only sixty words.... just minimal interaction would surely have involved a high risk of plague transmission. It is hard to accept the double contention that ‘what trade there was between the rival camps was probably conducted by itinerant pedlars. Such men were unlikely to provide a sufficient channel for widespread epidemics to break out.’34 What can perhaps be allowed is that, in the more solid English enclaves in the more fertile parts of East Anglia and the Hampshire basin, mortality could have been kept comparatively low. Soon, too, Malthusian pressure - that's probably already too much to copy. Doug Weller talk 13:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * These comments are speculation by writers who know very little about Britain in the period. The "Romano-British archives" were written hundreds of years later and are highly disputed as reliable sources. Maelgwyn's death in "a great mortality" is recorded in the Annales Cambriae, a twelfth century copy of a presumed tenth century original, and on this basis is cited as evidence of the severity of the Plague of Justinian in Britain in the 540s. Specialists can find so little evidence that Thomas Charles-Edwards in Wales and the Britons 350-1064, a volume of the Oxford History of Wales, wrote "Gaul suffered severely from this plague, which makes it very unlikely that Britain escaped." Even for Gaul, the evidence cited by Charles-Edwards is not strong. He refers to what may have been bubonic plague in Narbonne in 582 and what appears to be bubonic plague in Marseilles, spreading as far north as Lyons, in 588. p. 216.


 * Historians reasonably assume that the Plague of Justinian must have hit Britain even though there is no evidence, but to claim that there is evidence that the Britons were hit harder than the Anglo-Saxons is nonsense. However, I am not sure how to convey this without SYNTH or OR. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * At least in the context of Britons and Anglo-Saxons the statement is understandable. Agathoclea (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Which statement? Dudley Miles (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "British settlement patterns being more dispersive than English ones" - The English being a subset of the British while Anglo-Saxons are not a subset of the Britons. If that statement disapears from the article all is well. But if it stays the reader should be alerted that not the modern terms are meant. Agathoclea (talk) 06:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * John Wacher's 1974 book The Towns of Roman Britain is cited in the article as suggesting that mid 6C plague may have been important in allowing the Anglo-Saxon advances. He does not say that the Anglo-Saxons would have suffered less from the plague, but rather that they would have been able to get reinforcements from the Continent to replace their losses, unlike the British, and we should not ignore the possibility just because there is no archaeological evidence. I have also checked recent authorative sources by specialists on the period in Britain. James Gerrard's The Ruin of Roman Britain, 2013, says, discussing earlier the fifth century collapse: "Plague was most famously touted as an explanatory mechanism by Wacher, and soundly rebutted by Todd." (p. 79). I have not yet read Martin Carver's Formative Britain: An Archaeology of Britain, Fifth to Eleventh Centuries AD, 2019, but plague is not mentioned in the index. Historians of 5-7C Britain and of ancient disease obviously have very different views on the effects of the Plague of Justinian in Britain, and from the statements cited in the article, the views of historians of disease do not seem well informed about British history. I suggest deleting all the discussion about differences between the Britons and the Anglo-Saxons and just cite Charles-Edwards for the statement that the plague must have been serious in Britain as it was severe in Gaul. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Trying again pinging and   as the previous ones do not seem to have worked. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure if I should really venture an opinion. The argument for not mentioning the supposed differences sounds sound though Agathoclea (talk) 13:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * sorry, busy. That sounds fine with me. I'm also dubious about using historians of disease for this. Doug Weller  talk 17:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Claim of origin in Aksum
An IP added a statement that some scholars think that the Justinian plague originated in Aksum. The source cited makes no such claim. It merely says that Ethiopia is one of the places mentioned as a source by ancient writers. I reverted but the statement has now been added back with two additional references to books. The first citation was not formatted, but the two new ones are fully formatted according to academic standards. It seems clear that the IP has not been suddenly able to consult these books and learn how to format the references. They have obviously been copied from somewhere. If they do support the statement, then I suggest the IP gives the source so that the issue can be discussed on this talk page. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. I have just reverted the addition for a fourth time. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The first reference states the following: "What was the relation between the bubonic plague, which is believed to have originated in Ethiopia to hit the ancient world and the pestilence which ravaged South Arabia? As we cannot distinguish the type of plague, what helps us is the date. The date given in the inscription corresponds with the recurrent Justinian or bubonic plague of 541-542 AD. '''The pestilence, which interrupted the construction of the dam at Ma’arib must be the same Justinian plague (“peste justiniennne”) which is believed to have originated in Ethiopia to ravage the Nile valley, the Mediterranean world and the Byzantine Empire."

'''
 * The second reference states the following: "Moreover, an African origin to the bubonic plague of the sixth century makes sense both chronologically and geopolitically. The revival of warfare between Byzantium and Persia in the year 502–503 led the Byzantines in the early sixth century to establish ever closer military, diplomatic, and economic relations with the Christian Ethiopian rulers of Axum, using them as a counterweight to Persian influence in southern Arabia. At the same time, the Ethiopians are recorded as having maintained close economic contact with the inhabitants of inner Africa, thus providing an effective vector for the disease. This geopolitical context of the early sixth century was arguably the crucial prerequisite for the transmission of the plague from Africa to Byzantium. Although the question can never be settled definitively, that the Justinianic Plague originated in Africa seems most probable, as both Brown and Keys have recently agreed."


 * The third reference states the following: "This political, religious – the Axumites were Monophysites, under the patriarchate of Alexandria – and commercial nexus supplies a context for another statement, from a fragment attributed to John of Ephesus, that the Justinianic infection started “first in the inland peoples of the regions southeast (!) of India, that is, of Kush, the Himyarites, and others.” Kush designates the African territory beyond the boundaries of Egypt, presumably along the Sudanese Nile, and the Himyarites of course refer to Yemen. If the Antiqua biovar has been correctly identified with the first plague pandemic, then the phylogenetic features of the Y. pestis of Kenya might argue in favor of African antiquity, and therefore the African origin of Y. pestis from Y. pseudotuberculosis."


 * Additionally: I believe that it would make sense for the contention around the origin of the disease should be made into a new section altogether, as the origin of the plague is a heavily debated subject more generally.


 * These references indicate that there exists a strong enough bloc of scholarly opinion that more than justifies the mention of this scholarly opinion in the article.152.13.172.219 (talk) 14:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your clarification. However, I would make the following points.
 * I see that the first source does claim an Ethiopian origin, but his arguments seem weak and it does not appear to be a reliable source. He refers to delay to the construction of the dam at Ma’arib, but this was in 547, well after the start of the pandemic. He also quotes ancient writers, but few if any clearly identify Ethiopia. Some mentions several locations and Procopius is quoted as saying that it started in Egypt.
 * The other sources mention Ethiopia but do not say it was the source, which is given as Africa.
 * You do not appear to understand formatting citations. You started by just giving a link to the source, then changed it to give more information but deleting the url. The second and third citations are fully academically formatted and the fourth has no page number. This suggests that you have copied the citations from another web page and it would be helpful if you would give your source. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd say that a peer-reviewed article from the Northeast African Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities is a reliable source. Regardless of your personal opinion on whether you agree with his arguments or not, the argument is a common one among scholars of the period and deserves to be referenced in the article.
 * Within the context of the article, which references that Aksum was essential the sole economic link from Rome into Africa during this period, the author clearly implies that the greater Aksumite region is the epidemiological origin of the epidemic that eventually spread into the Mediterranean.
 * As for the citations, I'm admittedly new to the formatting used on Wikipedia. In order to cite the articles more in line with the standards of the site, I searched for sources I'd previously encountered in my research as being used previously on the site, copied the citation text, and adjusted for page numbers. As for the others, I didn't find them on the site so I just pasted the URL. If you'd like to improve the citation formatting, I'd appreciate it a lot.
 * Regardless of your personal opinion on the matter, it is undeniable that a sizeable bloc of reputable scholarly opinion believes in a Horn-African origin of the Justinianic plague that it is worth mentioning. I personally disagree with the Central-Asian hypothesis, but I won't remove all references to it on the page simply because I disagree with the opinion of the scholars who promote the hypothesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.13.172.219 (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Just as well that you haven't "removed all references"... because you "disagree with the opinion of the scholars who promote the hypothesis", or you might find yourself blocked. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Only your first source gives Aksum specifically as the source. The other ones say Africa, so the sources do not support your statement that Aksum is a widely held view. The claim of an African origin is interesting and goes against what I have read elsewhere, so I will look at the book which provides two of your sources.
 * It would be helpful if you register as an editor. People will then be able to see the history of your contributions and assess how good they are. Edits by unregistered IPs are often of lower quality, so people are less ready to accept them. You do not need to give your real name if you do not want to. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Britain again
User:Dudley MilesUser:Martinevans123 See   Doug Weller talk 17:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Again? A couple of those links don't seem to work. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Martinevans123 they do now, I had to ditch one. Doug Weller  talk 10:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Your post is somewhat cryptic. But I see that the article currently says: "Gaul is known to have suffered severely; by virtue of its proximity it is unlikely that Britain escaped, although historical records of 6th century Britain are extremely poor, so there are no unequivocal attestations of the plague reaching the islands." I see now that there was some disagreement with an anon IP from North Carolina back in 2021? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The article elsewhere contradicts the Gaul... sentence, mentioning the identification of sixth century plague at Edix Hill and citing Sarris at . I suggest amending the Gaul... sentence citing Sarris and . BTW I have already read the review of Roberts' book and added it to my wish list. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Ahhh! You can't beat a good plague, can you! **swoon**... Martinevans123 (talk) 10:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)