Walking a Fine Line: Early Modern European Writings as a Source for the History of Disease in Tropical Africa
Early modern travellersâ accounts of their visits to Atlantic Africa are replete with horrendous stories about the deadly or debilitating illnesses that awaited European crewmen. Authors noted three main origins of such diseases: sexual intercourse with African women, miasmas generated by abundant rains and heat, and freshwater. The latter usually only appeared in connection with the parasitic infection caused by the Guinea worm, from far the most discussed condition.
Like Louis de GĂ©mozac, Johann von LĂŒbelfing and Samuel Brun noted that spending the night with local women in SĂŁo TomĂ© and Cape Lopez, respectively, could cost men their lives (Jones 1983, 16, 72).3 A barber-surgeon, Brun explained that âthe menâs sperm or genitals decayed, till blood and finally death itself followedâ (Jones 1983, 72). All three men described similar signs leading to death but provided no detailed clinical descriptions and did not attempt to identify a particular disease.4 Instead, the connections they established between âthe Black wenchesâ and the visible lesions on the menâs bodies rested primarily on Christian moral and racial/gendered prejudices, not on what we would call medical evidence today. As such, they foreshadowed eighteenth-century discourses that linked tropical women and venereal diseases (Siena 1998). Of course, the mention of casual intercourse in West African port cities suggests that the men could have already suffered from a range of sexually transmitted conditions and might have contracted new ones. None of these diseases on its own would have offered a short-term death sentence. Reading between the lines of these sources, though, we see that intercourse also meant that the men spent time ashore in local settlements, by day and night, drinking, eating, flirting, bathing, and, as a result, exposing themselves to tropical pathogens and parasites.
Notwithstanding Andrew Cunninghamâs (2002) now-classic warning against interpreting past diseases in modern terms, we should examine the symptoms reported by the three traveller-writers. De GĂ©mozacâs brief description of the menâs illness suggests that they suffered from gross haematuria (blood in urine visible to the naked eye). Red-coloured urine and Brunâs mention of blood in the menâs semen â âa condition known as haematospermia â âare symptoms consistent with a parasitic, mostly non-lethal infection known in modern medical terms as schistosomiasis, and more specifically its urogenital variant.5 People become infected with the parasite while bathing, swimming, or wading in waters infested with larvae of trematode worms (Schistosoma haematobium or S. guineensis in the case of urogenital infection) released by freshwater snails. What we know of its evolutionary history as a human parasite suggests that it was already present in Africa in the pre-modern period and transmitted to tropical America by the slave trade (Noya et al. 2015; Webster et al. 2006).
Without engaging in further retrospective diagnoses, it is enough to note that a contextual assessment points towards a much more complex picture than that offered by a superficial reading of the socially and culturally constructed seventeenth-century travel narratives. Not only did the illness likely have nothing to do with the sexual behaviour of the victims, but the infection of their urogenital systems â âdramatic as it might have looked â âwould not have caused their deaths.
Most certainly, those men who died after leaving the African shores suffered from several diseases, in the modern sense of this term. The suggestive location of their physical symptoms created a smokescreen behind which less visible life-threatening conditions lurked â âmalaria, yellow fever, or typhoid (again in modern medical terms) â âthat were not yet conceptually constructed in the seventeenth century. More than being the result of any single disease, the high mortality rates more likely indicated co-infection by multiple pathogens in short-term travellers who were habituated to radically different epidemiological environments. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, many men serving on the ships that sailed across the southern Atlantic Ocean, or who were posted to fortified European trading posts, suffered from relatively poor health: they were mal- and under-nourished, probably dehydrated, and exposed to numerous wounds and infections (Fury 2012; Watt et al. 1981). In these conditions, it is not all that surprising that their immune systems could not cope when they encountered several new pathogens in unfamiliar tropical environments.
The cases discussed above illustrate the complexity and limitations of using early modern European sources to discuss the pre-modern African epidemiological landscape and to diagnose its diseases. In most cases, the writers of these accounts used concepts they had learned in Europe, not in Africa, and they usually focused on the health of European travellers, not on Africans. Cunningham has already argued that historians should stop trying to make retrospective diagnoses and should focus instead on âhow diagnosis happensâ (2002, 16). Nevertheless, although our cognitive experiences and interpretations of disease might be radically different from those of past societies, the biological fundamentals that connect us to our environments evolve at a much slower, almost imperceptible pace. For instance, we can justifiably assume that the parasitic blood flukes (flatworms) of Schistosoma spp. were present in seventeenth-century western Africa and that the biological processes leading to the infection of human hosts in a variety of freshwater habitats were no different than those of today. From there, we can anticipate that they contributed to the morbidity aboard European ships plying the southern Atlantic. We likewise can expect some signs of their presence in European sources.
Can I know that the men who died on De GĂ©mozacâs ship were infected by schistosomiasis? No, I cannot; but I can establish a dialogical relationship between a seventeenth-century written source and a corpus of contemporary medical evidence, which allows me to interpret that source and reconstruct fragments of Africaâs past epidemiological state. Despite the inherent risks of over- or...