The discovery of the New World in the 15th century presented a novel opportunity for exchange of culture, society and biology between two geographically isolated worlds. It did not go particularly well. At the human level, it has been generally accepted that the New Worlders got the short end of the stick as Europeans rained genocide down on the aboriginal cultures of the Americas. This occurred either intentionally (Pizarro’s conquest of the Incas) or unintentionally (the decimation of Mississippian cultures by smallpox). However, it seems as if at least in one case, the American cultures got a little bit of revenge that has lasted for a long time.
The first reports of syphilis in Europe stem from the invasion of Italy by the French army of Charles VIII. The victorious French army brought a little more than they expected home from the south of Italy and subsequently spread syphilis throughout Europe. Most Europeans called it the French disease, the French called it the Italian disease, the Italians called it the African disease. The source of syphilis has been under contention since then, with European scholars tending toward the Columbian hypothesis - that crew of Columbus’ original voyage of discovery brought syphilis home with them. Late last century, a number of criticisms of the Columbian hypothesis were raised - most of them coming from social scientists and lacking any strong scientific evidence.
This week a collaborative effort between scientists at Emory University (USA) and the Universities of Toronto (Canada) and Oxford (UK) presents strong scientific evidence to support the Columbian hypothesis of syphilis’s origin. The groups, led by George Armelagos of Emory, present in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases (yes, a real journal) phylogenetic evidence that the ancestor of the bacteria that causes syphilis is endemic to South America. Because the Americas and the Old World were geographically isolated until the 15th century, their results imply that syphilis arose in the New World and spread to the old with returning European explorers.
Syphilis is caused by the pallidum subspecies of the bacterium Treponema pallidum. Kristin Harper, the student who would have done the bulk of the work, and her collaborators looked at 21 genetic regions from this and other related subspecies of Treponema. Phylogenetic analysis allows researchers to establish evolutionary relationships based on changes that occur in a species genome. The researchers found that the syphilis causing subspecies is most closely related to a strain of Treponema pallidum pertenue, a bug that causes a disease known as yaws and is endemic to Guyana in South America. Interestingly, related strains of the yaws causing subspecies did arise in Africa and a variant of syphilis that infects apes arose from these African strains, but human syphilis does appear to be derived from the South American bacterial strains.
Studies like this one are one of the reasons that phylogenetic analysis can prove quite powerful. It allows scientists to participate in the writing and reanalysis of history. Two other phylogenetic studies published this week shed light on other historical events. A recent paper in Genetics follows the spread of agriculture by analyzing the timing of the establishment of different barley strains across Europe and Asia. A second study, published this week in PLOS Genetics, involves an extensive analysis of Pacific Islanders which allows the researchers to pinpoint the origins of modern Polynesians. I think my friends in the History Department might should watch their backs.
9 responses so far ↓
1 Jamie // Jan 22, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Well, I have been teaching that syphilis originated in the New World for 10 years now, so I think your scientists just added some more confirmation for something already widely accepted by most humanists. The historian will comment that your comparison of Pizarro and Mississippi leads to the misleading inference that the Spanish practiced genocide in Central and South America, but it was just an accident that all the Indians died in English North America. The Spanish, for all their brutality, wanted to maintain the Indians as a labor force and as subject Christians, and thus were horrified when they died of disease. The English, with their Puritan religious zealots, actively wanted to exterminate Native Americans. Cotton Mather applauded the ravages of smallpox among the Indians in New England, noting that the death of those “pernicious creatures” would make way for “better growth.”
2 CDV // Jan 22, 2008 at 5:55 pm
I appear to have riled up a historian…
3 Matthew // Jan 22, 2008 at 6:00 pm
I heard somewhere once that the decimation of Native Americans by small pox wasn’t completely by accident. In an effort of fake good will, frontiersman would exchange blankets for goods with Native Americans, but purposely gave blankets that were previously used by people with small pox (or whatever disease they had), knowing full well of the contagiousness of the disease.
I don’t know how much truth there is in that. I think I saw it on a PBS special.
4 Harlekwin // Jan 22, 2008 at 9:04 pm
I’m neither a scientist or historian, but I can certainly appreciate this research and the findings. The thought that came to mind after reading this is that when it came to disease and suffering, the “conquerers” unwittingly opened a huge Pandora’s box.
5 Jamie // Jan 22, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Chris, I liked your comment you sent via email better: ” So are you trying to say that you shouldn’t all be sacked?” Some of us should be sacked, and the rest would be happy if our remuneration was even 1/2 that of scientists!
Matthew, yes, there are two documented cases of first the English and then the Americans intentionally giving blankets infested with smallpox to Native Americans. Both occur fairly late in the story of conquest, when Europeans had a vague idea about disease and how it is spread.
And Chris, I was probably too mean in my first post. There are some historians (though only a few) who don’t think syphilis came from the Americas, since they think the Indians were perfect people with no war, disease, or greed. In other words, they don’t think the Indians were human beings. Of course, as this group doesn’t look at evidence, your scientists’ finding will not convince them.
6 alice // Jan 23, 2008 at 4:06 am
Fascinating stuff!
7 Not Afraid To Use It // Jan 23, 2008 at 5:34 am
What a great post! As soon as I started reading it I KNEW you were going to be talking about syphilis. That was what I loved about teaching high school in Sweden. I was able to talk about that in the classroom and not worry about getting sued or sacked because of outraged parents. Thanks for the great read–it made me miss teaching my classes.
8 CDV // Jan 23, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Yeah, Jamie, I gotta say we academic scientists are literally rolling in Sterling over here…
9 Science Tuesday: In praise of open access and nosy parents | chrisdellavedova.com // Mar 11, 2008 at 4:15 pm
[…] science, but they often publish thought provoking, beautifully designed or controversial papers. One of my favorite Science Tuesday posts was from a PLoS journal discussing the origins of syphilis - great […]
Leave a Comment