Syphilis was perceived to be a new disease in Europe in the late 15th century, igniting a debate about its origin that continues today in anthropological, historical, and medical circles. We move beyond this age-old debate using an interdisciplinary approach that tackles broader questions to advance the understanding of treponemal infection (syphilis, yaws, bejel, and pinta). How did the causative organism(s) and humans co-evolve? How did the related diseases caused by Treponema pallidum emerge in different parts of the world and affect people across both time and space? How are T. pallidum subspecies related to the treponeme causing pinta? The current state of scholarship in specific areas is reviewed with recommendations made to stimulate future work. Understanding treponemal biology, genetic relationships, epidemiology, and clinical manifestations is crucial for vaccine development today and for investigating the distribution of infection in both modern and past populations. Paleopathologists must improve diagnostic criteria and use a standard approach for recording skeletal lesions on archaeological human remains. Adequate contextualization of cultural and environmental conditions is necessary, including site dating and justification for any corrections made for marine or freshwater reservoir effects. Biogeochemical analyses may assess aquatic contributions to diet, physiological changes arising from treponemal disease and its treatments (e.g., mercury), or residential mobility of those affected. Shifting the focus from point of origin to investigating who is affected (e.g., by age/sex or socioeconomic status) and disease distribution (e.g., coastal/ inland, rural/urban) will advance our understanding of the treponemal disease and its impact on people through time.

Advancing the understanding of treponemal disease in the past and present

On Treponemal Disease in the Western Pacific: Corrections and Critique

useful indigenous knowledge, as is evident from the jan brouwer case of successful homeopathy. The envisaged commuCenter for Advanced Research on Indigenous nication in a new ‘‘partnership’’ would benefit greatly Knowledge Systems, P.O. Box 1, Saraswathipuram, from a more relativistic stance. Mysore 570 009, India. 12 xii 97 It seems to me that Sillitoe wants to have his cake and eat it too. He argues for empowerment of the poor Sillitoe’s arguments (CA 39:223–52) are of interest to with the help of indigenous knowledge and bypassing anthropologists who favour new lines of communicathe local/regional wealthy and powerful, while at the tion with other stakeholders in applied anthropology. same time holding onto Western technological superiHe envisages the emergence of a new applied anthroority, the incontestable right of scientific knowledge to pology in the context of increased recognition of invalidate indigenous knowledge, the Western concept of digenous knowledge in international development. development, and in general the universal validity of However, he deals only with indigenous technical anthropological concepts. He says that ‘‘development knowledge in the field of agriculture. Separating this should be a two-way process,’’ but as long as the Northfrom the broader indigenous knowledge systems surely ern states remain globally powerful it will always be a increases the problems that indigenous-knowledge reone-way one; the Southern poor are perceived as a searchers face. Sillitoe’s view of indigenous knowledge threat to the Northern rich. Here we enter a debate on as having two strands, academic (ethnoscience and huthe macro level of the political dimension, where a conman ecology) and development-focused (farming syssensus may be reached between nation-states on how tems and participatory development), is seriously inand by whom the poor can be empowered. It is at this complete. Isolating technical knowledge and focusing level that communication between anthropologists and on interdisciplinary teams of social and natural scienbureaucrats and scientists aimed at convincing them of tists in development efforts as he suggests will only lead the necessity of full understanding of indigenous the new anthropology he envisages into one more cycle knowledge systems and indigenous technical knowlof hope and adjustment. edge will be useful. This way both the autonomous poIt is surprising that Sillitoe mentions the cultural valsition of anthropology as a university discipline and ues of participants and the ‘‘cultural values that inevitarespect for nation-states’ social and political arrangebly inform our worldview’’ in the context of the notion ments is guaranteed. The danger is not so much that of participation as part of the political dimension of apothers will ‘‘steal our disciplinary clothes’’ as that our plied anthropology. More important than this dimendiscipline will fall victim to its own arrogance. sion is awareness of the epistemology on which the anMuch of what Sillitoe proposes refers to the design thropologist’s science is based and the one which and implementation levels of development projects in informs the participants’ knowledge. Such awareness Southern states. On the implementation level there are has a direct relevance for three issues crucial to indigeindeed political and social-economic problems. With nous-knowledge studies, namely, ethnocentricism, culregard to the indigenous-technical-knowledge compotural domains, and the relationship between indigenous nent—ex post facto indigenous-knowledge-systems reand scientific knowledge. search—our research methodologies need to be refined Sillitoe’s paper contains two hidden axioms. First, the and reformed with attention to axioms, definitions, and modern state’s and Sillitoe’s definition of ‘‘developdiffering perceptions. The various components cannot ment’’ is monolithic, unidirectional, and singularly ecobe viewed in isolation. nomic. Secondly, despite having consulted Agrawal’s critical comments (1995) and despite his desire to im-

On Indigenous Knowledge and Development

To the Editor.— Dr Lopez repeats the old tale that "although the place of origin is still argued, it is accepted by most that [syphilis] came from America and that it was taken to Europe by Columbus's sailors on their return from the first trip." In support, he cites three references, and in the next sentence, by implication, a fourth (De las Casas). Of the first three, Sudhoff1in fact provides important information to the contrary. Sudhoff, Hudson,2,3Holcomb,4and most recently Hackett,5have painstakingly reviewed this question and exculpated the American aborigines, with only ambiguous data on pre-Columbian bones in Lopez's favor, and a mass of evidence to the contrary, circumstantial and inconclusive to be sure, but such that no fair jury could convict. Of course, irrefutable evidence on the point at issue may never be available; even some as yet undiscovered paleoimmunological method might

Columbus' Trip and Syphilis

Dr. Webster's invitation to review the story of Columbus and his relation to the origin of syphilis has given me the impetus to reconsider the subject for the third time. I went over it first nearly forty years ago, in 1934. As a junior instructor in bacteriology at the College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York at that time, I was asked by F.P. Gay, the head of the department, to write the chapter on "Spirochetes and Spirochetal Diseases" in what emerged a year later as the bulky textbook, Agents of Disease and Host Resistance.This article can also be found at the Monthly Review website, where most recent articles are published in full.Click here to purchase a PDF version of this article at the Monthly Review website.

Columbus and the Indians

Dr. Webster's invitation to review the story of Columbus and his relation to the origin of syphilis has given me the impetus to reconsider the subject for the third time. I went over it first nearly forty years ago, in 1934. As a junior instructor in bacteriology at the College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York at that time, I was asked by F.P. Gay, the head of the department, to write the chapter on "Spirochetes and Spirochetal Diseases" in what emerged a year later as the bulky textbook, Agents of Disease and Host Resistance. In the intervening years I included this topic in lectures to medical and dental students; and, like most others with an interest in syphilis, I kept on using pretty much the same story, being generally too busy with things that seemed more urgent to go back and reconsider it again, even though I was aware that doubts were accumulating in the literature. When I wrote a book on VD for the general reader, Microbes and Morals, which appeared in the fall of 1973, I returned to the literature for the second time, reassessed those doubts, and decided that the weight of the evidence was against the Columbian origin of syphilis in Europe. For this third occasion I have gone back to the record once more, or to as much of it as I have in my own collection of books, reprints, and notes.This article can also be found at the Monthly Review website, where most recent articles are published in full.Click here to purchase a PDF version of this article at the Monthly Review website.

Theodor Rosebury

Papers

Columbus and the Indians

Columbus and the Indians: Reprint