Medieval DNA suggests Columbus didn’t trigger syphilis epidemic in Europe
sciencemag.org
sciencemag.org
> Molly Zuckerman, a bioarchaeologist at Mississippi State University who studies ancient Treponemal disease, praises the researchers’ feat of extracting Treponemal DNA, but notes that the sample date ranges are wide and can’t fully disprove the Columbus hypothesis. “This paper does not provide that kind of golden prize of evidence of syphilis in the pre-Columbian period in the Old World.”
Why is this about Columbus, the skeletons are dated mid 1400's - 1600's.
This is quite ridiculous. This is like that one star that is like 80 million years older than the Big Bang, in the estimated age range.
The other strains could have come from the other, more numerous voyages after Columbus.
The question is when were the first skeletons in America first shown to have had syphilis, if it's earlier than the 1400's and in Europe there were none, the question is settled.
> Until that time, as Fracastoro notes, syphilis had been called the "French disease" (Italian: mal francese) in Italy, Malta, Poland and Germany, and the "Italian disease" in France. In addition, the Dutch called it the "Spanish disease", the Russians called it the "Polish disease", and the Turks called it the "Christian disease" or "Frank (Western European) disease" (frengi).
Could you explain how?
Also I hadn't realized until recently that the "syphilis spread via Columbus" theory was current in the 18th century. There's a section in Voltaire's Candide where it's discussed.
The fact that Spain still has monuments dedicated to murderers, human traffickers, slave owners, serial child abusers says a lot about a country.
Also, once they've reached the shore, they wouldn't want to bath after such a long voyage?
You are saying if sailors didn't bath out of habit not because of necessity.