Treponemal Disease in the Middle East

The Origin of Treponemal diseases, such as pinta, yaws, endemic and venereal syphilis, is a very controversial issue (Mitchell 2003:117). The issue itself can be broken down into several debates, which even now the archaeological community is arguing over. The biggest question of these debates is, of course, were treponemal diseases present in the Old World pre-contact or do we have Columbus to thank for bringing these diseases to Europe (Hunnius et.al. 2006: 559)? Answers to other smaller issues that are directly involved in this central issue are also being researched, though. For example, an article by Piers Mitchell called “Pre-Columbian Treponemal Disease From 14th Century AD Safed, Israel, and Implications for the Medieval Eastern Mediterranean” seeks to answer the question: when did these diseases enter the Middle East (Mitchell 2003:117)? In this article, he is attempting to show that treponemal diseases were present before the 17th and 18th centuries because these dates are the earliest dates archaeologists have for these disease’s presence in the Middle East, and if these dates are earlier than those of Columbus’ return, 1492, then this paper also lends credence to the belief that treponemal diseases were present pre-contact (Mitchell 2003: 117 and Hunnius et.al. 2006: 559 and 565). The importance of this issue demands that the public and archaeological community take a critical view of any articles that present evidence on one side or the other of this debate and as such, this paper will present Mitchell’s findings, methods, and whether these methods were carried out in a careful enough manner to really provide trustworthy evidence towards the larger issue of these debates.
Mitchell’s sample for this study is believed to have been excavated from a cave in Israel near a town called Safed (2003: 118). These remains, “68 skulls”, are now located at the University of Cambridge and there is very little documentation to support when or where these remains were unearthed (Mitchell 2003: 118). The only thing known for sure is that they ended up in Cambridge in 1912 (Mitchell 2003: 118). Only the skulls of these remains are present at Cambridge and very few of the skulls themselves are complete (Mitchell 2003: 118). Mitchell conducted both an macroscopic analysis of just the skulls and then he conducted a radiological analysis to see within the bone (2003: 118). He found that only one of the skulls showed lesions suggestive of treponemal disease, skull 5111 (Mitchell 2003: 118). This skull is incomplete, with only the parietals or the bones on the sides of the skull and only some of the occipital or the bone at the back of the skull present (Mitchell 2003: 118). This particular skull was dated using AMS or “accelerator mass spectrometry radiocarbon dating” (Mitchell 2003: 118).
The analysis of skull 5111 found that there are two star-shaped lesions on the parietals of the skull that can be seen trough macroscopic analysis and the radiograph showed several star-shaped lighter areas (Mitchell 2003: 119). They also found that some of the bone was healing by being covered over with an outer layer of bone and a tiny area of caries sicca was present (Mitchell 2003: 119 and 121). Though destruction of the skull bones can be caused by several diseases, these star- shaped lesions, the presence of caries sicca, and the healing processes present are characteristic of treponematosis (Mitchell 2003: 121). The date of this skull is between 1290 and 1420 AD (Mitchell 2003: 117).
His argument seems very convincing at first, but there are several problems with this study, most of which are not the author’s fault. First, there is the fact that the only evidence that these remains were found near Safed is a “hand-drawn map” and a note made when these remains came to the university (Mitchell 2003: 118). This is not documentation, these remains could have come from anywhere, which does not lend credence to his argument that treponematosis was present in the Middle East before the 17th century (Mitchell 2003: 117). Second, Mitchell does not have the rest of the remains of this skeleton to support his conclusion, which. while not his fault, leaves him with very little evidence to support his conclusions (Mitchell 2003: 119). Finally, radiographic analysis is a fine way to study diseased bone, but for suspected cases of treponemal disease more evidence can be found by using “ polarized light microscopy” on thin ground sections of bone because there are some features characteristic of treponemal disease that can only be seen microscopically (Schultz 2001:110,112, and 126).
Keeping all of these problems in mind, Mitchell did a pretty good job with what he had to work with. Unfortunately, the lack of verification of where these remains came from kills his argument (Mitchell 2003: 118). This same problem also makes it hard to support the argument that treponemal diseases were present in Europe pre-contact (Mitchell 2003: 118 and Hunnius et.al. 2006: 559). Perhaps if the site could be found where these skulls came from and was re-excavated, there may be further evidence of treponemal disease found on these bones, but until that happens all Mitchell has really shown is that there are remains at the University of Cambridge with lesions indicative of treponemal disease (Mitchell 2003: 118).




Works Cited
Hunnius, Tanya E. von, Charlotte A. Roberts, Anthea Boylston, and Shelley R. Saunders
2005 Histological Identification of Syphilis in Pre-Columbian England. American Journal of Physical Anthropology129: 559-566.
Mitchell, Piers D.
2003 Pre-Columbian Treponemal Disease From 14th Century AD Safed, Israel, and Implications for the Medieval Eastern Mediterranean. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 121: 117-124.
Schultz, Michael
2001 Paleohistopathology of Bone: A New Approach to the Study of Ancient Diseases. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 44: 106-147.