Aztecs: New Theories & Discoveries

Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
48,266
Likes
19,863
Points
284
Location
Eblana
#1
Aztecs butchered, ate Spanish invaders

Wednesday, August 23, 2006;
Posted: 10:45 p.m. EDT (02:45 GMT)

The Aztec Empire left a legacy of art and violence that is still being discovered by scientists.

What Is This? CALPULALPAN, Mexico (Reuters) -- Skeletons found at an unearthed site in Mexico show Aztecs captured, ritually sacrificed and partially ate several hundred people traveling with invading Spanish forces in 1520.

Skulls and bones from the Tecuaque archeological site near Mexico City show about 550 victims had their hearts ripped out by Aztec priests in ritual offerings, and were dismembered or had their bones boiled or scraped clean, experts say.

The findings support accounts of Aztecs capturing and killing a caravan of Spanish conquistadors and local men, women and children traveling with them in revenge for the murder of Cacamatzin, king of the Aztec empire's No. 2 city of Texcoco.

Experts say the discovery proves some Aztecs did resist the conquistadors led by explorer Hernan Cortes, even though history books say most welcomed the white-skinned horsemen in the belief they were returning Aztec gods.

"This is the first place that has so much evidence there was resistance to the conquest," said archeologist Enrique Martinez, director of the dig at Calpulalpan in Tlaxcala state, near Texcoco.

"It shows it wasn't all submission. There was a fight."

The caravan was apparently captured because it was made up mostly of the mulatto, mestizo, Maya Indian and Caribbean men and women given to the Spanish as carriers and cooks when they landed in Mexico in 1519, and so was moving slowly.

The prisoners were kept in cages for months while Aztec priests from what is now Mexico City selected a few each day at dawn, held them down on a sacrificial slab, cut out their hearts and offered them up to various Aztec gods.

Some may have been given hallucinogenic mushrooms or pulque -- an alcoholic milky drink made from fermented cactus juice -- to numb them to what was about to happen.

Teeth marks
"It was a continuous sacrifice over six months. While the prisoners were listening to their companions being sacrificed, the next ones were being selected," Martinez said, standing in his lab amid boxes of bones, some of young children.

"You can only imagine what it was like for the last ones, who were left six months before being chosen, their anguish."

The priests and town elders, who performed the rituals on the steps of temples cut off by a perimeter wall, sometimes ate their victims' raw and bloody hearts or cooked flesh from their arms and legs once it dropped off the boiling bones.

Knife cuts and even teeth marks on the bones show which ones had meat stripped off to be eaten, Martinez said.

Some pregnant women in the group had their unborn babies stabbed inside their bellies as part of the ritual.

In Aztec times the site was called Zultepec, a town of white-stucco temples and homes where some 5,000 people grew maize and beans and produced pulque to sell to traders.

Priests had to be brought in for the ritual killings because human sacrifices had never before taken place there, Martinez said.

On hearing of the months-long massacre, Cortes renamed the town Tecuaque -- meaning "where people were eaten" in the indigenous Nahuatl language -- and sent an army to wipe out its people.

When they heard the Spanish were coming, the Zultepec Aztecs threw their victims' possessions down wells, unwittingly preserving buttons and jewelry for the archeologists.

The team, which began work here in 1990, also found remains of domestic animals brought from Spain, like goats and pigs.

"They hid all the evidence," said Martinez. "Thanks to that act, we have been allowed to discover a chapter we were unaware of in the conquest of Mexico."

www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/08/23/azt ... index.html
 

Ulalume

tart of darkness
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
3,213
Likes
6,083
Points
219
Location
Tejas
#2
Note to the moderators: A search turned up nothing on the subject. Please move this if it's already been done. Thanks.

For anyone interested in Aztec civilization, here is an excellent video of the Aztec "whistles of death" Quite possibly the most bone-chilling sound I've ever heard....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9Nk6FnNxDU
 

eyepod

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Jan 4, 2004
Messages
209
Likes
0
Points
32
#3
Sounds like the noise the foxes make when they're shagging in the bushes down the end of my garden.
 

escargot

Disciple of Marduk
Joined
Aug 24, 2001
Messages
25,324
Likes
20,799
Points
309
Location
HM The Tower of London
#4
I was upstairs playing it and Techy was in the kitchen. He came up and said, what the flippin'eck was that? :shock:
Scared him half to death! :lol:
 

Dingo667

I'm strange but true.
Joined
Aug 27, 2004
Messages
1,813
Likes
57
Points
64
#5
I was expecting something bone chilling after reading all the posts but really the noises were just from some very badly made whistles... :?
 

Ulalume

tart of darkness
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
3,213
Likes
6,083
Points
219
Location
Tejas
#6
hmmm...I dunno about shagging, but that screaming sound that foxes make is pretty alarming, IMO !

The whistles definitely scared the bejeebers out of everyone in my house. I thought the animal sounds they were able to produce were pretty clever.
It led to a discussion about if whether or not what's frightening to someone is influenced by culture, etc. (frightening in a more psychological sense, I mean). Since we don't live far from what was Mezo-America, maybe it's something deeply ingrained in the place, somehow...

Well, it's just a theory we whipped up. :p
 
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
48,266
Likes
19,863
Points
284
Location
Eblana
#7
Maybe they got salmonella from eating the Spaniards.

Two studies offer evidence suggesting salmonella may have killed off the Aztecs
February 22, 2017 by Bob Yirka in Other Sciences / Archaeology & Fossils

(Phys.org)—Two separate studies conducted by two teams of researchers has led to evidence suggesting that salmonella infections may have been one of the factors that led to the deaths of the vast majority of the Aztecs living in Mexico after the arrival of the Spaniards. Both studies were conducted by teams with members from around the globe and both resulted in papers that have been uploaded to the bioRxiv preprint server as they await review prior to formal publication.

Spanish explorers arrived in the New World in what is now Mexico in 1519—it is believed that the native population of Aztecs at that time was approximately 25 million. A hundred years later, that number had dropped to just 1 million. Prior research has suggested that the population decline came about mostly due to diseases carried by explorers from Europe, but to date, no disease has been fingered as the culprit. In this new effort, both teams of researchers suggest it might have been a unique strain of salmonella called Salmonella enterica, also known as Paratyphi C. It has been likened to typhus, and in modern times, kills approximately 10 to 15 percent of those infected.

In the first study, the team sequenced DNA from the teeth of Aztecs people that had died during a time called the cocoliztli—a great pestilence that ran from 1545 to 1576, killing off approximately 80 percent of the population. Of the 29 samples collected, 24 were linked to the cocoliztli. The researchers report that they found S. enterica in several of the samples. More details are forthcoming, the team notes, when their paper is published. ...

"Two studies offer evidence suggesting salmonella may have killed off the Aztecs" February 22, 2017 https://phys.org/news/2017-02-evidence-salmonella-aztecs.html
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
12,512
Likes
14,113
Points
309
Location
Out of Bounds
#8
Aztec human sacrifice has long been described as a matter of killing men (e.g., captured warriors). New findings indicate men weren't the only sacrificial victims.

Tower of human skulls in Mexico casts new light on Aztecs

A tower of human skulls unearthed beneath the heart of Mexico City has raised new questions about the culture of sacrifice in the Aztec Empire after crania of women and children surfaced among the hundreds embedded in the forbidding structure. ...

Historians relate how the severed heads of captured warriors adorned tzompantli, or skull racks, found in a number of Mesoamerican cultures before the Spanish conquest.

But the archaeological dig in the bowels of old Mexico City that began in 2015 suggests that picture was not complete.

"We were expecting just men, obviously young men, as warriors would be, and the thing about the women and children is that you'd think they wouldn't be going to war," said Rodrigo Bolanos, a biological anthropologist investigating the find.

"Something is happening that we have no record of, and this is really new, a first in the Huey Tzompantli," he added. ...
FULL STORY (With Photos): http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mexico-archaeology-skulls-idUSKBN19M3Q6
 
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
48,266
Likes
19,863
Points
284
Location
Eblana
#9
Maybe they got salmonella from eating the Spaniards.

Two studies offer evidence suggesting salmonella may have killed off the Aztecs
February 22, 2017 by Bob Yirka in Other Sciences / Archaeology & Fossils

(Phys.org)—Two separate studies conducted by two teams of researchers has led to evidence suggesting that salmonella infections may have been one of the factors that led to the deaths of the vast majority of the Aztecs living in Mexico after the arrival of the Spaniards. Both studies were conducted by teams with members from around the globe and both resulted in papers that have been uploaded to the bioRxiv preprint server as they await review prior to formal publication.

Spanish explorers arrived in the New World in what is now Mexico in 1519—it is believed that the native population of Aztecs at that time was approximately 25 million. A hundred years later, that number had dropped to just 1 million. Prior research has suggested that the population decline came about mostly due to diseases carried by explorers from Europe, but to date, no disease has been fingered as the culprit. In this new effort, both teams of researchers suggest it might have been a unique strain of salmonella called Salmonella enterica, also known as Paratyphi C. It has been likened to typhus, and in modern times, kills approximately 10 to 15 percent of those infected.

In the first study, the team sequenced DNA from the teeth of Aztecs people that had died during a time called the cocoliztli—a great pestilence that ran from 1545 to 1576, killing off approximately 80 percent of the population. Of the 29 samples collected, 24 were linked to the cocoliztli. The researchers report that they found S. enterica in several of the samples. More details are forthcoming, the team notes, when their paper is published. ...

"Two studies offer evidence suggesting salmonella may have killed off the Aztecs" February 22, 2017 https://phys.org/news/2017-02-evidence-salmonella-aztecs.html
More on the salmonella.

What Wiped Out the Aztecs? Scientists Find New Clues.

Salmonella could be partially to blame for a 16th century epidemic that killed millions.
From 1545 to 1550, Aztecs in what is today southern Mexico experienced a deadly outbreak. Anywhere from five to 15 million people died. Locally, it was known as cocoliztli, but the exact cause or causes has been a mystery for the past 500 years.

Now, a new study published in the journal Nature Ecology and Evolutionsuggests the outbreak could have been caused by a deadly form of salmonella.

Salmonella enterica—subset Paratyphi C to be exact—was present in the DNA of ten different individuals buried at the only known burial site, Teposcolula-Yucundaa, associated with cocoliztli.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com...ellamexico&utm_campaign=Content&sf179400809=1
 

chicorea

Devoted Cultist
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
232
Likes
294
Points
69
Location
Paris
#12
There are some things that have me thinking about the whole scénario of a viral (or bacteriological) holocaust that swept the native American population, caused by the arrival of Europeans during the early XVIth century.

First of all, we had a strong stream of virus and bacteria crossing the Atlantic inside (or around) European hosts. What about the inverse stream? Why we don't have exemples of America exporting lethal diseases to Europe? Well, ok, there were more Europeans arriving in America than Americans arriving in Europe. But what about the Europeans that lived for a while in America or visited their ports, and then came back to Europe? Apart from the infamous syphilis, no other American disease hit the XVIth century Europe?

Interestingly, Europe had been impacted by a huge bacteriological event, the Plague, some 150 years before the Europeans started to arrive in America. It was caused by migrations of entire populations on Central Asia and Eastern Europe. The Plague was mostly an impact wave of the Central Asian demographic shifts, instead of a wave of "conquest" and colonisqtion.

Roughly, 50% of the European population died during the worst period of the Plague (that kept coming back in smaller waves). But if we pick just one case, the impact of Cortez arrival in Mexico, the depopulation is estimated by 90%. And Native American could have had the territorial extension on their side, but it hasn’t helped.

Dozens of different diseases hit the American population in waves. After the “discoverers” and the “explorers”, came the settlers, of course. Who, among these two groups, had the hardest impact on the native population, in terms of diseases?

What made Europeans so resistant to American diseases? Why weren’t Conquistadores hit by waves of American diseases? Why haven’t American diseases hit the European mainland, carried by Europeans or Americans?


I believe that there are many other questions transversal to these ones, but I guess the main question mark is on the ones I’m asking here.
 

Min Bannister

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Sep 5, 2003
Messages
3,587
Likes
3,232
Points
184
#13
What made Europeans so resistant to American diseases? Why weren’t Conquistadores hit by waves of American diseases? Why haven’t American diseases hit the European mainland, carried by Europeans or Americans?
I don't think they were resistant as such, more that horrible overcrowding and disgusting hygiene in European cities was great at incubating and propagating nasty diseases. You can probably add in domestic animals like pigs which I don't think they had there and which are similar enough to humans to share diseases.
 

chicorea

Devoted Cultist
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
232
Likes
294
Points
69
Location
Paris
#14
I don't think they were resistant as such, more that horrible overcrowding and disgusting hygiene in European cities was great at incubating and propagating nasty diseases. You can probably add in domestic animals like pigs which I don't think they had there and which are similar enough to humans to share diseases.
Good point, I thought about hygiene issues, but I confess that overlooked the domestic animals vectors. But, then again, the first wave of Europeans was a small contingent. Nevertheless, the impact of this reduced contingent was huge. I don't remember to have read or heard about a similar impact caused by the arrival of Europeans in India, China or Japan, around the same timeframe.

Anyway, the lack of familiarity with hygiene would suggest that, even in contact with American diseases (apart from syphilis), Europeans could have served as hosts to carry them back to Europe.
 

Min Bannister

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Sep 5, 2003
Messages
3,587
Likes
3,232
Points
184
#16
Anyway, the lack of familiarity with hygiene would suggest that, even in contact with American diseases (apart from syphilis), Europeans could have served as hosts to carry them back to Europe.
What I was trying to suggest (and might be wrong) is that the reason Europeans didn't catch a bunch of deadly New World diseases is because those diseases simply didn't exist. They just didn't develop there in the same way they developed in the foul disease factory that was Europe at the time. Contact with China etc had already been occurring for hundreds (probably thousands) of years whereas the New World was, er new!
Remember the incubation times. Anyone infected by an american disease might be dead before they reached Europe again.
Sounds plausible but I am just not sure that there was ever record of many people getting struck down dead in the America's in the first place.
 

chicorea

Devoted Cultist
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
232
Likes
294
Points
69
Location
Paris
#18
What I was trying to suggest (and might be wrong) is that the reason Europeans didn't catch a bunch of deadly New World diseases is because those diseases simply didn't exist. They just didn't develop there in the same way they developed in the foul disease factory that was Europe at the time.
And I agree with you there. I believe that the way Europe developped created, at the same time, an array of diseases but also the defenses that come with them. Europeans would carry diseases to which they would be immune.

Another tricky question would be : have any European (or group of), at any time, become conscious that they were "cleaning" the New World from its former inhabitants? Is this related to the unacceptable excuse that Natives were "lazy", so the settlers needed the slave work to colonize the continent?
 

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
35,832
Likes
21,908
Points
309
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
#19
Another tricky question would be : have any European (or group of), at any time, become conscious that they were "cleaning" the New World from its former inhabitants? Is this related to the unacceptable excuse that Natives were "lazy", so the settlers needed the slave work to colonize the continent?
Early settlers traded blankets (that had been in contact with smallpox sufferers) with the natives. There is some possibility that it was deliberate.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
12,512
Likes
14,113
Points
309
Location
Out of Bounds
#22
Early settlers traded blankets (that had been in contact with smallpox sufferers) with the natives. There is some possibility that it was deliberate.
The British officers in charge during the siege of Fort Pitt (now Pittsburgh) in 1763 documented giving smallpox-exposed blankets and other articles to native emissaries with the expressed intent of fomenting disease.

It's not known whether this specific transfer infected anyone, but the fact remains that during that particular war and during the following few years smallpox ravaged the tribes living to the west and southwest (from whose populations the combatants were primarily drawn).
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
12,512
Likes
14,113
Points
309
Location
Out of Bounds
#23
Remember the incubation times. Anyone infected by an american disease might be dead before they reached Europe again.
That's an important point. The European explorers were, in effect, operating as far removed from their homeland as the Apollo astronauts on the moon. The transportation 'channel' back toward Europe was narrow, took considerable time, and was used by a small specialized subset of the population (e.g., sailors and adventurers).

Similarly, the early European settlers were on a one-way trip with little opportunity or demand for return passage.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
12,512
Likes
14,113
Points
309
Location
Out of Bounds
#24
What I was trying to suggest (and might be wrong) is that the reason Europeans didn't catch a bunch of deadly New World diseases is because those diseases simply didn't exist. They just didn't develop there in the same way they developed in the foul disease factory that was Europe at the time. Contact with China etc had already been occurring for hundreds (probably thousands) of years whereas the New World was, er new! ...
To the extent there are records to provide data, it is the case that the flow of fatal infections from the Old World to the New World was considerably greater than the reverse flow from New World to Old. In other words, there does seem to have been a remarkably one-sided effect.

This summary article on epidemiological issues relating to the New World expansion:

ORIGINS OF MAJOR HUMAN INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Nathan D. Wolfe, Claire Panosian Dunavan, and Jared Diamond.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK114494/

... describes some angles researchers have taken in analyzing what happened.

These researchers point to the higher population densities in the Old World as providing good breeding grounds for plagues.

More interestingly, the authors draw a distinction between temperate and tropical zone diseases, noting the primary human epidemic diseases (e.g., smallpox) are of temperate origin.

They also note that a majority of the temperate diseases that evolved into human epidemic-causing bugs originated with domesticated mammalian species or species strongly associated with dense settlement patterns (e.g., rats).

Out of all the varied New World native cultures operating at the time of the Euro-incursion, there was only one example of mammal domestication - the llama in the Incas' region.
 

Xanatic*

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Mar 10, 2015
Messages
3,107
Likes
2,457
Points
154
#26
I only just read the initial post. I knew about the sacrifices but must say I am surprised to hear of cannibalism in such a technologically advanced society.
 

chicorea

Devoted Cultist
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
232
Likes
294
Points
69
Location
Paris
#27
I only just read the initial post. I knew about the sacrifices but must say I am surprised to hear of cannibalism in such a technologically advanced society.
This balance between “highly technologically advanced” and violent, even brutal, behavior should not be taken under our own points of view. What if for the Aztecs anthropophagy was a proof of respect, reverence and even of jealousy of the qualities of the, well, food ?

Back in XVIth Century, Brazil was populated by different tribes, some clustering many smaller ones in a single “nation”. It was the case of the Tupinamba. Present between the south of Bahia until de coastline of São Paulo, they were famous for eating their own war prisoners (among other natives) and later the europeans that arrived to their shores as castaways, as a ritualized way of “eating” their courage, their skill, their wisdom.

This kind of philosophy appealed to Europeans like Michel de Montaigne that dedicated one of his “Essays” to the examination of the culture of the Tupinambas. Members of this nation arrived in a great number in France, to be the main attraction of the festival that marked the sacré of the King. Montaigne underlined the courage and the openness of the Tupinambas, relativizing their food habits inside this system of ideas that made them “noble”.

Out of the sphere of philosophy, a traveler that became a castaway in Brazilian shores, Hans Staden was saved by the Tupinambas and lived among them for a while. I don’t remember if he mentions having actually eaten human flesh, but he felt so integrated that he had a hard time dissociating himself of the image of “savage” because of his adventures.

There are many other examples of Portuguese, French, Dutch having portrayed the cannibals of Brazil with affectionate tones. I believe that the Aztecs had their culture, gravitating around the power of the bloodshed as a representation of mystic fluids, not far removed from many of the Native South American. And I believe that it shoudn’t make of them “evil” characters in History.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
12,512
Likes
14,113
Points
309
Location
Out of Bounds
#28
This study's results refute presumptions about Aztec / Mesoamerican trade routes extending northward to the American Southwest region and suggest archaeologists should resume searching for Mesoamerican turquoise mines.

Aztec Turquoise Tiles May Solve a Mesoamerican Mystery

A recent geochemical analysis calls into question the idea of extensive contact between Mesoamerican and Southwest American cultures before the Spanish invaded.

With its brilliant hues of blue and green, turquoise was a highly prized gemstone to the ancient Aztecs and Mixtec in the region that stretches from central Mexico to Central America known as Mesoamerica. They used the mineral to create armbands and nose plugs, for handles on sacrificial knives and also to design elaborate mosaics of warriors that adorned their ceremonial shields and fearsome statues of double-headed serpents.

For more than a century, archaeologists have questioned the origins of the turquoise used in these beautiful pieces of artwork and jewelry. Because scientists have found little evidence of turquoise mining in Mesoamerica, some researchers have used the presence of turquoise artifacts in the area as evidence of a long-distance trade exchange with ancient civilizations thousands of miles away in the American Southwest, where turquoise mines have been found.

But a recent geochemical analysis of Aztec and Mixtec turquoise suggests that the mineral did not originate in the American Southwest, but rather in Mesoamerica. The finding, published Wednesday in the journal Science Advances, also calls into question the idea that there was extensive contact between Mesoamerican and Southwest American cultures before the Spanish invasion in the 1500s. ...

Alyson Thibodeau, a geochemist at Dickinson College in Pennsylvania and lead author on the paper, was given a jar filled with turquoise tiles that were associated with Mesoamerican mosaics. Many had been excavated from offerings in the Templo Mayor, which was the main temple in the ancient Aztec city of Tenochtitlan, present day Mexico City. The pieces date mostly to the late 15th century. Some of the samples came from loose tiles associated with Mixteca-style turquoise mosaics held by the Smithsonian Institution in the collections of the National Museum of the American Indian. ...

After shaving off the tiles’ edges to remove adhesives, Dr. Thibodeau ground them up individually and dissolved them in acid. She then analyzed the samples for their isotopic fingerprints, which provided insight into their origins.

Late in the lab one night, she got back her first results.

“I saw the number pop up and I’m pretty sure I did a dance around the lab,” Dr. Thibodeau said.

“Not only do they have isotopic signatures that are absolutely consistent with the geology of Mesoamerica,” she said, “but they are completely different from the isotopic signatures of the Southwestern turquoise deposits and artifacts that we have seen so far.”

Dr. Thibodeau said that even though archaeologists have not found remnants of turquoise mines in Mesoamerica, that does not mean they were never there.
SOURCE: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/13/science/turquoise-aztecs-mexico.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
 

AlchoPwn

Public Service is my Motto.
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
1,604
Likes
2,193
Points
154
#29
I remember reading somewhere that the Anasazi tribe disappear pretty much about the time the Mechica (Aztecs) migrate through the area looking for their omen of the eagle on a cactus? I believe there is an extant theory that while the Anasazi have been accused of cannibalism, it is far more likely that the remains discovered relate to when the Anasazi were wiped out and eaten by the tribe who would form the future Aztec Empire. Sadly I seem to have misplaced the article in question. Has any other student of the Aztecs bumped into this information?
 

AlchoPwn

Public Service is my Motto.
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
1,604
Likes
2,193
Points
154
#30
What made Europeans so resistant to American diseases? Why weren’t Conquistadores hit by waves of American diseases? Why haven’t American diseases hit the European mainland, carried by Europeans or Americans?
Here is an article that goes some way towards explaining the question for you I hope:
https://www.infectiveperspective.com/blog/-infectious-diseases-in-america-before-european-contact

There is a strong suspicion that syphilis existed in Europe before Westerners encountered it in the Americas.
I had heard that too Maximus Otter. According to wikipedia (and other sources therefore), the people who have suggested this strong suspicion didn't follow proper peer review and their conclusions are dubious as a result. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_syphilis
Compare this to the plethora of pre-Columbian skeletons that show symptoms of syphilis, and what seems more likely? Europeans certainly introduced a lot of diseases to the Americas, but syphilis wasn't one of them; that was extremely likely to be traffic going the other way.
 
Last edited:
Top