Demographic and Genetic Impact of the 1742–1743 Plague Epidemic in Córdoba, Argentina: A Bioanthropological Perspective
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The article presents a solid bioanthropological study in the context of history. The author managed both the challenges of historical methods as well as methods for analyzing the impact of the plague epidemic on the genetic picture of marriages in Córdoba during the 1700-1749 period. Statistical analysis of marriages both before and after the epidemic captured demographic and genetic changes during the epidemic in Córdoba (1742-1743). I have only two technical comments: in the “Discussion” one reference to the cited literature was unnecessarily doubled “Guio et al. (2018)” and the other even tripled “(Colantonio et al., 2013)”. The second comment concerns the entry in References of the item: [Ghirardi, M. M. (2004). MATRIMONIOS Y FAMILIAS EN CÌRDOBA 1700 oe 1850 PRÊCTICAS Y REPRESENTACIONES] - what is it ? If it is a book, please specify the publisher. After making these two technical corrections - in my opinion - the article is suitable for publication.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The article presents a solid bioanthropological study in the context of history. The author managed both the challenges of historical methods as well as methods for analyzing the impact of the plague epidemic on the genetic picture of marriages in Córdoba during the 1700-1749 period. Statistical analysis of marriages both before and after the epidemic captured demographic and genetic changes during the epidemic in Córdoba (1742-1743). I have only two technical comments: in the “Discussion” one reference to the cited literature was unnecessarily doubled “Guio et al. (2018)” and the other even tripled “(Colantonio et al., 2013)”.
The second comment concerns the entry in References of the item: [Ghirardi, M. M. (2004). MATRIMONIOS Y FAMILIAS EN CÌRDOBA 1700 oe 1850 PRÊCTICAS Y REPRESENTACIONES] - what is it ? If it is a book, please specify the publisher. After making these two technical corrections - in my opinion - the article is suitable for publication.
Response: Thank you for your insightful comments and suggestions. We appreciate your detailed review and the opportunity to enhance the manuscript. Below are our responses:
- Duplicate and triplicate references in the “Discussion” section:
We have revised the “Discussion” section to remove the duplication of Guio et al. (2018) and the triplication of Colantonio et al. (2014). These references now appear only once where relevant. - Clarification of the entry in References for Ghirardi (2004):
The reference Ghirardi, M. M. (2004). Matrimonios y familias en Córdoba 1700–1850: Prácticas y representaciones refers to a book. We have updated the citation to include the publisher as follows:
Ghirardi, M. M. (2004). Matrimonios y familias en Córdoba 1700–1850: Prácticas y representaciones. Editorial de la Universidad Nacional de Córdoba (EDUNC), Córdoba, Argentina.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This paper investigated the demographic, genetic, and socioeconomic impact of the plague on Córdoba, a region of the Viceroyalty of Peru. Records of deaths, baptisms, and marriages were analyzed. Endogamy, exogamy, average marital distance (AMD), and consanguinity coefficients were evaluated. The findings revealed a significant increase in endogamy, exogamy, and average marital distance. The conclusion was that the plague epidemic intensified genetic isolation and consanguinity.
The author should address the issues below:
The introduction needs more general information about the plague and this particul;ar location at tat time. What was the population of Cordova? How many people died. due to the plague? Was the plague occurring elsewhere at the time? Wasit occurring allalong the Royal Road (if so, this would affect marital distance) Did people flee the area? Did it affect all strata of society equally? What was the mortality of males versus females?
Line 44: without giving actual numbers for the mortality in Lujan, Santa Fe, etc., it is hard to put this study into perspective.
Line130: line in Spanish not translated
Table 1: Wrong abbreviation in Table DGDM instead of MGDM)
LINE 204: the Palatnik exogamy index should be explained
LINE 213: 3.3. Consanguinity Analysis
The author states: "In Table 3, the results of the consanguinity analysis through marital isonymy reveal that the total consanguinity coefficient (Ft) was lowest in the first cohort (0.00043) and progressively increased in subsequent cohorts, reaching its peak in the 1740-1744 cohort (0.00056)." However, the Tables read 0.0043 and 0.0056
The author should explain the total consanguinity coefficient, i.e., what would it be for brother-sister,first cousins, etc.
Were there obvious consequences from an increase in consanguineous marriages? Were there any records of lower birth rates, higher infant mortality, or birth defects in the post-plague population?
Author Response
This paper investigated the demographic, genetic, and socioeconomic impact of the plague on Córdoba, a region of the Viceroyalty of Peru. Records of deaths, baptisms, and marriages were analyzed. Endogamy, exogamy, average marital distance (AMD), and consanguinity coefficients were evaluated. The findings revealed a significant increase in endogamy, exogamy, and average marital distance. The conclusion was that the plague epidemic intensified genetic isolation and consanguinity.
The author should address the issues below:
The introduction needs more general information about the plague and this particul;ar location at tat time. What was the population of Cordova? How many people died. due to the plague? Was the plague occurring elsewhere at the time? Wasit occurring allalong the Royal Road (if so, this would affect marital distance) Did people flee the area? Did it affect all strata of society equally? What was the mortality of males versus females?
Response: Thank you for your constructive comments. Below, we address the points raised:
- The population of Córdoba in 1742 was approximately 20,000 inhabitants (Celton, 1993). Mortality rates doubled during the epidemic, with a significant increase in burials recorded in Cathedral registers.
- The epidemic spread along the Royal Road, impacting locations such as Santa Fe, Luján, and Jesuit missions in Bolivia (Frías & Montserrat, 2017; Santamaría, 1986). This widespread effect, driven by the movement of people and goods, likely influenced marital distance and patterns.
- While mass migration is sparsely documented, anecdotal evidence suggests some individuals fled to less affected rural areas.
- Marginalized groups, such as enslaved and Indigenous populations, faced disproportionate mortality due to preexisting vulnerabilities (Arrizabalaga, 1999).
- Gender-specific mortality data is unavailable, but records indicate broad population impacts without significant gender disparities.
- Over 160 deaths were recorded in June 1742 at Purísima Concepción de los Pampas.
- Burial records from Luján document a significant rise in mortality beginning in late 1741 (Celton, 1993; Santamaría, 1986).
Line 44: without giving actual numbers for the mortality in Lujan, Santa Fe, etc., it is hard to put this study into perspective.
Response: Updated to include mortality figures for Luján, Santa Fe, and other areas.
Line130: line in Spanish not translated
Response: Translated the Spanish text to English.
Table 1: Wrong abbreviation in Table DGDM instead of MGDM)
Response: Corrected abbreviation from DGDM to MGDM.
LINE 204: the Palatnik exogamy index should be explained
Response: Added an explanation for the Palatnik exogamy index.
LINE 213: 3.3. Consanguinity Analysis
The author states: "In Table 3, the results of the consanguinity analysis through marital isonymy reveal that the total consanguinity coefficient (Ft) was lowest in the first cohort (0.00043) and progressively increased in subsequent cohorts, reaching its peak in the 1740-1744 cohort (0.00056)." However, the Tables read 0.0043 and 0.0056
Response: Corrected the Ft values in the consanguinity analysis to match the tables (0.0043 and 0.0056).
The author should explain the total consanguinity coefficient, i.e., what would it be for brother-sister,first cousins, etc.
Response: The total consanguinity coefficient (Ft) measures the frequency of consanguineous marriages, with values for sibling unions (~0.25) and first-cousin unions (~0.0625) providing benchmarks. Our observed values (0.0043–0.0056) align with unions among distant relatives.
Were there obvious consequences from an increase in consanguineous marriages? Were there any records of lower birth rates, higher infant mortality, or birth defects in the post-plague population?
Response: While historical records lack explicit evidence of increased birth defects or higher infant mortality, the demographic pressures during the epidemic may have contributed to long-term genetic implications.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear Editor of Histories and Authors,
The article “Demographic and Genetic Impact of the 1742-1743 Plague Epidemic in Córdoba: A Bioanthropological Perspective” is very interesting, depicting a relevant insight regarding the potential influence of a plague epidemic on marriages in the region of Cordoba, Argentina, during the 18th century. There are some issues that need to be addressed.
Firstly, in the title add “(Argentina)” after “Cordoba” (in general, people will think about the more famous Spanish “Cordoba” when reading the title).
One of the posed hypotheses is really not addressed in the paper, namely the evaluation of the increasing prevalence of recessive genetic conditions; thus, it should be eliminated from the hypotheses.
Endogamy is calculated from the number of marriages between people born in the same region. What is the definition of “same region”, is it based on distance or political/religious divisions?
Please define “local”, “mixed” and “foreign” marriages.
e = % de progenitores de otro lugar / % progenitores del lugar; change the text in Spanish to English.
Does MGDM stand for AMD? Please homogenize the different terminology used along the text.
In order to fully understand what are the consequences of the plague regarding marriage patterns/ exogamy / endogamy we need to know what happens in the immediate period AFTER the epidemic. As they are, results suggest that most of the trends can be of short duration, and can change after the limitations (the plague) subside. Also, the marriage patterns among the “elite” were probably endogamous even before the plague. This potential difference is not addressed empirically.
Best regards.
Author Response
The article “Demographic and Genetic Impact of the 1742-1743 Plague Epidemic in Córdoba: A Bioanthropological Perspective” is very interesting, depicting a relevant insight regarding the potential influence of a plague epidemic on marriages in the region of Cordoba, Argentina, during the 18th century. There are some issues that need to be addressed.
Firstly, in the title add “(Argentina)” after “Cordoba” (in general, people will think about the more famous Spanish “Cordoba” when reading the title).
Response: We have modified the title to include “(Argentina)” after “Córdoba” to avoid confusion with Córdoba in Spain.
One of the posed hypotheses is really not addressed in the paper, namely the evaluation of the increasing prevalence of recessive genetic conditions; thus, it should be eliminated from the hypotheses.
Response: We acknowledge that the paper does not empirically address the prevalence of recessive genetic conditions. This hypothesis has been removed to align the scope of the study with the presented analyses.
Endogamy is calculated from the number of marriages between people born in the same region. What is the definition of “same region”, is it based on distance or political/religious divisions?
Please define “local”, “mixed” and “foreign” marriages.
Response:
- “Same region” is defined by the territorial boundaries of the Córdoba Archbishopric’s parishes, reflecting 18th-century political and religious divisions.
- Local marriages: Both spouses were born and resided in the same region.
- Mixed marriages: One spouse was from the region, the other from outside.
- Foreign marriages: Both spouses originated outside the region.
- Terms such as MGDM and AMD have been standardized throughout the text.
e = % de progenitores de otro lugar / % progenitores del lugar; change the text in Spanish to English.
Response: done, thanks.
Does MGDM stand for AMD? Please homogenize the different terminology used along the text.
Response: done, thanks.
In order to fully understand what are the consequences of the plague regarding marriage patterns/ exogamy / endogamy we need to know what happens in the immediate period AFTER the epidemic. As they are, results suggest that most of the trends can be of short duration, and can change after the limitations (the plague) subside. Also, the marriage patterns among the “elite” were probably endogamous even before the plague. This potential difference is not addressed empirically.
Response: The observed trends in exogamy and elite endogamy can be understood through the lens of resilience, as societies adapted their marital strategies to demographic challenges while maintaining social hierarchies. This highlights differential resilience among social strata and warrants further investigation into post-epidemic transitions.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The author has answered my queries and the paper is now suitable for publication.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear Editor of Histories and Authors, I am fully satisfied with the answers given to my questions.
Best regards.
