Histological Identification of Syphilis in Pre-Columbian England

The article, “Histological Identification of Syphilis in Pre-Columbian England”, sets out to show that syphilis was present in the old world before contact with the new world (Hunnius et.al. 2006: 559). Now this may leave one to wonder, why would you want to know this and how you would go about investigating it. In this review, these questions, as well as whether or not this article has accomplished what it set out to do, will be answered.
First of all, this question is so important because it is part of a larger debate as to where this disease arose in general (Hunnius et.al. 2006: 559). There are three theories as to where this happened (Hunnius et.al. 2006: 559). Theory number one argues that syphilis spread to the old world from the new world after contact with Europe began, about 1492 (Hunnius et.al. 2006: 559 and 565). Theory number two says that syphilis arose in the old world long before this date (Hunnius et.al. 2006: 559). While theory number three states that this disease was present in both the new and old world before contact was established between the two and syphilis evolved on different paths due to different environments (Hunnius et.al. 2006: 559). Thus, if they can show that syphilis or its precursor, treponemal disease, was present in the old world pre-contact, then the first theory about where syphilis arose can be disproved and some of this mystery solved (Hunnius et.al. 2006: 559 and 565).
To accomplish this task, Hunnius et.al. looked at four skeletons from a cemetery “in Humberside, England” that date to AD 1300-1400 (2006: 559). They were attempting to diagnose the disease that racked the bodies of these four individuals by looking at the abnormal markings lesions on the bones (Hunnius et.al. 2006: 559). They began by looking at the bones without the help of any instruments and then cut thin sections of some of the bones and looked at them underneath a microscope to get a closer view (Hunnius et.al. 2006: 559-560). It was necessary to look at the bones microscopically because it is difficult to diagnose syphilis in ancient remains because the lesions left on the bone by this disease are similar to those left on bones by other diseases (Hunnius et.al. 2006: 560-561). By looking at these bones under the microscope slight differences can be seen that differentiate these diseases from one another (Hunnius et.al. 2006: 560-561). They used a guide developed by a scientist named Schultz to differentiate syphilis from diseases like leprosy (Hunnius et.al. 2006: 560-561).
The authors only had to do the microscopic analysis on two of the skeletons because on the HMC94-SK0932 and HMC94-SK1219 skeletons showed a definite indicator of syphilis called Caries Sicca (Hunnius et.al. 2006: 564). This symptom leaves abnormal lesions and pitting on the skull, which along with multiple bones showing abnormal growth and destruction of bone, is indicative of venereal syphilis (Hunnius et.al. 2006: 564). Another of the remains, HMC94-SK1121, shows signs of anemia which could be caused by infection or “a nutritional deficiency” (Hunnius et.al. 2006: 564). In this case, anemia was most likely caused by infection, because the skeleton shows signs of infection, signs like inflammation of both the bone and the thin layer of tissue covering the bone (Hunnius et.al. 2006: 564). These signs of infection were also most likely caused by syphilis as they are present on more than one bone and are less destructive than those that would be found with a disease like tuberculosis (Hunnius et.al. 2006: 564). HMC94-SK1121’s diagnosis is also supported by the microscopic analysis which shows the slight differences reported by Schultz (Hunnius et.al. 2006: 565). One example of these differences is the “pillow-like structures” in newly formed bone that is common to the slow advancement of syphilis, which are present on HMC94-SK1121 (Hunnius et.al. 2006: 564). Other microscopic evidence of this kind has been found on the last skeleton, HMC94-SK0805, which also suggests a diagnosis of syphilis (Hunnius et.al. 2006: 565).
The authors feel that this goes a long way to prove the presence of treponemal disease, the precursor of syphilis, and perhaps they are right for the first two skeletons, HMC94-SK0932 and HMC94-SK1216, but this is less certain for the final two (Hunnius et.al. 2006: 565). The authors themselves admit that Schultz’s guide is just a rough assessment of the microstructures found with syphilis because these structures’ shape and size are variable (Hunnius et.al. 2006: 564). Thus, while they have shown that syphilis was probably present before 1492 in the old world, they have not verified its presence in all four skeletons (Hunnius et.al. 2006: 565).
This article has shown syphilis’ presence in the old world before contact was established with the new world, even though they did not successfully show its presence in all the skeletons they studied (Hunnius et.al. 2006: 565). Thus, this article has accomplished the task the authors set out to do. The importance of a syphilis debate in everyday life may not seem all that important, but understanding where it arose goes a long way to solving a mystery that has troubled the anthropological community for centuries (Hunnius et.al. 2006: 559 and 565).

By: Laura Bailey




Work 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.