Blog Post | Plague in the Nineteenth century: Epidemiological and Epistemological Connections

Plague in the Nineteenth century: Epidemiological and Epistemological Connections (Report)

by Utsa Bose and Hande Yanizoglu-Altinay

On 6th and 7th July, we organised “Plague in the Nineteenth Century: Epidemiological and Epistemological Connections,” a two-day workshop. Generously supported by Oxford Medical Humanities, The Oxford Research Centre in the Humanities (TORCH), The Oxford Centre for the History of Science, Medicine and Technology (HSMT), the Oxford Uehiro Institute, and The Middle East Centre, St Antony’s College, the workshop brought together historians, anthropologists, epidemiologists, and clinicians working on different aspects of plague: its entangled global history in the nineteenth century, as well as its endemic persistence in parts of the world today. With plague as its focus, presentations spanned different contexts and geographies, including British India, Brazil, the Ottoman Empire, and modern-day Madagascar.

The overarching theme of the workshop was connections: epidemiological, geographic, epistemic, and disciplinary. We were interested in how apparently disparate plague outbreaks through the nineteenth—and, in some cases, the twentieth century were, firstly, viewed by historical actors themselves. Were there attempts to connect them at the time? Secondly, we were also interested in what these connections revealed about contemporary ideas of pandemics, endemics, and epidemics. In other words, what could they tell us now?

The workshop brought together early-career researchers, DPhil students, and senior academics, and was attended by scholars from within the University. International participants included Dr Bornali Das and Dr Carlo Trombino (Synergy-Plague Project/University of Oslo), Dr Ali Al-Tuma and Bryony Harris (Fighting Pandemics from Below/University of Utrecht), Dr Ali Korkmaz (Boğaziçi University), Dr Isacar A. Bolaños (California State University), Dr Matheus Alves Duarte de Silva (King’s College London), Professor Nükhet Varlık (Rutgers University), Dr Emily Webster (Durham University), Professor Christos Lynteris (University of St Andrews), Professor Piero Olliaro (Nuffield Department of Medicine, Oxford), Dr Hande Yalnızoğlu-Altınay, and Utsa Bose (University of Oxford). It ran across four sessions, chaired by Professor Erica Charters (History, Oxford), Professor Ann Kelly (Anthropology, Oxford), Professor Varlık, and Professor Mark Harrison (History, Oxford) respectively.

The participants displayed an astonishing breadth of geographical range, with case studies spanning Egypt, Iran, Istanbul, Brazil, Pali, Vetlyanka, Calcutta, and Bombay, as well as the wider Ottoman world. The first panel began with Professor Olliaro’s presentation which used historical plague data to complement contemporary plague research and vaccine development in Madagascar. His presentation deftly bridged modern scientific research and historical evidence, showing how older plague records—including those created under colonial regimes—can help us understand both changes and continuities in plague treatment and evolution today. The rest of the panel included Harris and Al-Tuma’s presentations which examined sanitary internationalism in the context of plague outbreaks in Alexandria, Egypt, and Morocco. The second panel included presentations by Dr Bornali Das, Dr Carlo Trombino and Utsa Bose. Dr Das and Dr

Trombino offered fresh insights into the use of statistical data from the Vetlyanka outbreak in developing behavioural mathematical models. Bose’s presentation, on the other hand, showed how similar plague medicines were used across the second and third plague pandemics, highlighting therapeutic reuse and continuity across epidemic periods, cultures, and geographies.

The third panel focused on plague in the Ottoman Empire. Dr Korkmaz and Dr Yalnızoğlu-Altınay examined outbreaks in Benghazi, Erzurum, and Baghdad, while Dr Bolaños expanded on the concept of “epidemiological orientalism” through a study of international sanitary conferences and their treatment of the Ottoman world. The day closed with Professor Lynteris’s illuminating lecture on plague between 1770 and 1890. His lecture developed the theme of the “inter-pandemic” as a heuristic for examining simultaneous and connected outbreaks across periods and geographies.

Day two comprised the final panel, with presentations by Dr Webster, Dr Duarte de Silva, and Professor Varlık. Dr Webster’s presentation focused on the extensive rat and flea experiments conducted in Bombay during the third plague pandemic. Dr Duarte de Silva examined how rat-plague in Brazil was increasingly framed, between the early and mid-nineteenth century, as an ecological problem of the hinterland, becoming a “sylvatic,” or wild, phenomenon.

Finally, Professor Varlık’s excellent presentation on the end of the Ottoman plague as a “historical artefact” provided a fitting close to the workshop. It highlighted how discussions of pandemic endings, periodisation, and continuity are shaped as much as by historical events as by epistemic inequalities and historiographical choices. In doing so, it opened new avenues for thinking about continuities between Ottoman plagues and other outbreaks, and brought the discussion back to the workshop’s thematic core: continuity and connection.

Through its focus on plague, the workshop also opened broader conversations about pandemic studies, pandemic ethics, sanitary internationalism, surveillance, public health and governance, connected histories of outbreak, and the “inter-pandemic” as a concept. It also suggested new directions for the study of the Middle East, for rethinking the global health history of the nineteenth century, and for reconsidering relationships between Europe, the Middle East, and South Asia in this period, including relationships within the Middle East itself.

It was also significant that the workshop brought together a strong mix of early-career researchers, senior academics, and leading experts in the field. The result was an expansive discussion that combined exciting new research with broader reflections. By bringing together presenters from different research projects, the workshop also helped put these projects into conversation with one another.

The final discussion raised important questions about interdisciplinarity and multidisciplinarity. What does it mean for a historian of health, an anthropologist, an epidemiologist, and a clinician to collaborate on the study of a single disease? How does one work across disciplines and combine different perspectives? What are the possibilities and complexities of such collaborations?

It was particularly refreshing to hear from the scientists and epidemiologists in the room, who offered critical perspectives on how they approach collaboration. There were also important and generative differences of opinion: on the viability and use of historical data for epidemiological

modelling; on the question of trusting some historical sources over others; and on what counts as “useful” data for different experts.

We thank our funders for their generous support in making this event possible. As a next step, we plan to turn the workshop proceedings into an edited volume and are currently working towards a proposal and Call for Papers.