Mapping smallpox cases and vaccination efforts in New South Wales, 1830 to 1834: Supporting material for the article, ‘Smallpox on the limits of location: the politics of diagnosis in New South Wales, 1830-34’

This material provides data associated a table and map showing smallpox cases and vaccination sites reported by John Mair, Assistant Surgeon of the 39th Regiment, and by other sources, and included in the article ‘Smallpox on the limits of location: the politics of diagnosis in New South Wales, 1830-34’ accepted for publication in <i>Australian Historical Studies</i> in August 2025.This material consists of two original files in a variety of formats:<b>Table1_References</b> – an extended version of table 1 in the article including two additional tables:<b> </b><b>metadata: </b>metadata (or field descriptions) describing each field in <b>Table1_References; </b><b>sources: </b>a table with full reference details for the references used for each point.<b>Figure1_LargeVersion</b> – a larger version of Figure 1 in the related article.<br><b>Table1_References</b> is supplied in the following formats: csv, xlsx and gpkg (geopackage, a geospatial variant of Sqlite), and kml.<b>Figure1_LargeVersion </b>is supplied as a JPG file. It has as a basemap, the following map:P.L. Bemi, <i>Map of the County of Bathurst and Parts of the Adjacent Counties</i> (Sydney, 1829), Z/M4 812.2gbbd/1829/1, State Library of New South Wales. https://collection.sl.nsw.gov.au/record/74VM0NGRO4DAFigure annotations showing placenames, named pastoral estates and smallpox cases recorded in 1831, as numbered in <b>Table1_References.</b>Responsible use disclaimerPlease note that the locations provided in this dataset are approximate and based on the best information available at the time of preparation. The process of georeferencing archival sources with vague spatial references is always uncertain. These datapoints make sense only at a large, regional scale. Please do not use this material to claim that specific places (such as houses or rivers) were where the events described occurred.Article abstractIn the early 1830s a smallpox epidemic impacted First Nations communities across much of southeastern Australia. Colonial medical officers debated the diagnosis of this outbreak, arguing whether it was smallpox or chickenpox. This article examines this debate in detail, reading archival sources in their broader context. Historical-Geographical Information Systems (H-GIS) is used to map where smallpox was reported, revealing presences and absences in the archival record. The 1830s smallpox/chickenpox debate was highly political, for the outbreak occurred in a contested geography, where martial law had been declared just seven years earlier. Pastoralists were growing rich from sheep and cattle grazing upon recently stolen land. To argue for a smallpox diagnosis, was to also argue for the implementation of state-sponsored vaccination (as seen in other contemporary colonial settings). A chickenpox diagnosis, meanwhile, excused settler inaction, maintained the pastoralists dominance, and enabled many to largely ignore the epidemic while it was happening.

本数据集涵盖由第39步兵团助理军医约翰·梅尔（John Mair）及其他来源上报的天花病例与疫苗接种点位相关的表格与地图数据，相关内容收录于2025年8月被《澳大利亚历史研究》（*Australian Historical Studies*）接收发表的论文《天花的地域边界：1830-1834年新南威尔士州的诊断政治》。

本数据集包含两种格式多样的原始文件：
1. **表1_参考文献（Table1_References）**：为论文中表1的扩展版本，新增两张附表：
- **元数据（metadata）**：用于说明表1_参考文献各字段的元数据（或字段描述）；
- **参考文献源（sources）**：收录各数据点所引用文献完整著录信息的表格。
该文件提供csv、xlsx、gpkg（地理包，Sqlite的地理空间变体）及kml四种格式。
2. **图1高清版（Figure1_LargeVersion）**：对应论文中图1的高清版本，以JPG格式提供。其底图采用P.L.贝米（P.L. Bemi）于1829年在悉尼出版的《巴瑟斯特郡及邻郡部分区域地图》（*Map of the County of Bathurst and Parts of the Adjacent Counties*），馆藏编号为Z/M4 812.2gbbd/1829/1，藏于新南威尔士州立图书馆，访问链接：https://collection.sl.nsw.gov.au/record/74VM0NGRO4DA。图中包含标注：1831年记录的地名、同名畜牧庄园以及天花病例，标注序号与表1_参考文献中的编号一一对应。

### 合规使用提示
请注意，本数据集所提供的点位均为近似值，基于编制时可获取的最优史料。对带有模糊空间参考的档案资料进行地理配准的过程始终存在不确定性，此类数据仅在大区域尺度下具备参考价值。请勿使用本材料断言特定地点（如房屋或河流）即为所述事件的发生地。

### 论文摘要
19世纪30年代初，一场天花疫情席卷澳大利亚东南部大部分地区的第一民族社群（First Nations communities）。殖民军医就此次疫情的诊断展开激烈论争，质疑其究竟为天花还是水痘。本文结合宏观语境解读档案史料，深入剖析这场论争，并采用历史地理信息系统（Historical-Geographical Information Systems, H-GIS）绘制天花上报点位，以此揭示档案记录中的疫情存在与缺失情况。
这场1830年代的天花/水痘论争具有极强的政治属性：此次疫情爆发于七年前刚宣布实施戒严法的争议性地理区域。当时牧场主凭借在新近侵占的土地上放牧牛羊牟取暴利。若将疫情诊断为天花，则意味着主张推行国家资助的疫苗接种计划（正如其他同期殖民地区的通行做法）；而若诊断为水痘，则可作为殖民者不作为的借口，维持牧场主的统治地位，同时使多数人得以在疫情肆虐期间对此置之不理。