Why did smallpox not ravage Africa like the Americas?

And I means the Africa under the Sahara. Why did it not cause the staggeringly high percentage of deaths as it did to the Native Americans. They did not appear to have immunity, as epidemics were caused by the arrival of the Europeans, but it still happened to a much smaller degree.
 
The explanation I've heard is that Africans had immune systems to deal with epidemics in general (if not the specific diseases Europeans brought), having had them before, which granted them resistance. Whereas the Amerindians did not have immune systems ready to deal with any epidemics, prior exposure or no.
 
The explanation I've heard is that Africans had immune systems to deal with epidemics in general (if not the specific diseases Europeans brought), having had them before, which granted them resistance. Whereas the Amerindians did not have immune systems ready to deal with any epidemics, prior exposure or no.

Related to this, most Native Americans (except for the Inuit and Na-Dene groups) seem to be descended from less than 100, and possibly as few as 30, ancestors. This means their "immunodiversity" was far lower than nearly any other populations. In contrast, Africa is the most genetically diverse continent, which should lead to a lot of immune system diversity.

Basically, Native Americans were the human version of the Irish potato famine.
 
Last edited:
furthermore Sahara was in no way the impassable barrier that Atlantic and Pacific Oceans were, being impossible to carry diseases over. Although the main lines for diseases to get transported would either be down the east coast (from Yemen following the trade routes south), or via the trans-saharan trade route from Marrakech over Sijilmasa and to Mali.

So after an initial 'rash' (which can't really be dated for certain) they would have consistent enough supply of diseases to make it no worse off than Europe
 
furthermore Sahara was in no way the impassable barrier that Atlantic and Pacific Oceans were, being impossible to carry diseases over. Although the main lines for diseases to get transported would either be down the east coast (from Yemen following the trade routes south), or via the trans-saharan trade route from Marrakech over Sijilmasa and to Mali.

Yeah. Modern genetic studies have found at least a few percent "Caucasian" DNA in groups as varied as the Fulani, the Hausa, basically all non-Bantu East Africans, and even virtually all Khoisan peoples. Admixture which dates to before modern colonialism to boot.

Even though most of Africa was pre-literate until relatively recently, it was firmly part of the greater Eurasian world.
 
There's the other minor point that Smallpox may well have ORIGINATED in Africa.

e.g.
Smallpox History - from News-Medical.Net

www.news-medical.net/health/Smallpox-History.aspx
Smallpox likely diverged from an ancestral African rodent-borne variola-like virus between 16,000 and 68,000 years ago. The precise origins of smallpox are ...

Note that monkeypox, another orthopox virus, is endemic to Africa.

So... 1) It was probably widespread throughout Africa 2) there were other orthopox viruses around that had cross immunity 3) it may well have originated in Africa.
 
Yeah. Modern genetic studies have found at least a few percent "Caucasian" DNA in groups as varied as the Fulani, the Hausa, basically all non-Bantu East Africans, and even virtually all Khoisan peoples. Admixture which dates to before modern colonialism to boot.

Even though most of Africa was pre-literate until relatively recently, it was firmly part of the greater Eurasian world.
True that. Ask Mansa Musa.
 
Scientists really ought to be looking into this miraculous 'genetic immunity' that pops up in these threads every time smallpox is discussed on this site.

Okay, that was a little overly snide-yes, genetic diversity and gene adaption can help in the face of epidemics, and sub-Saharan Africa has the most genetic diversity among humans (being the founding population and all).

But far more important is, as Dathi Thorfinsson said, that smallpox was already widespread in Africa and possibly originated from that continent. Not only that, but some African societies even practiced variolation!

While there may have been some societies that were isolated form the disease and vulnerable to epidemics, malaria and yellow fever could keep them isolated for longer so that they either did not have to face the disease, or at least could face the disease without fear of occupation, enslavement, and genocide by European invaders (up until a point, obviously).
 
Actually while we're on the topic was there any possible "New World" disease or virus that could have had the reverse effect and hit the people of the "Old World" once the early explorers returned home.
 
Actually while we're on the topic was there any possible "New World" disease or virus that could have had the reverse effect and hit the people of the "Old World" once the early explorers returned home.

Maybe a super deadly and infectious species of Treponema Pallidum could evolve that acts as an unholy combination of the treponemal diseases (syphilis, yaws, etc.) They might also be lucky (for a certain value of "lucky") enough to catch something from their domestic animals, but I don't really know what kind of diseases that llamas, Muscovy ducks, dogs or turkeys have that could transfer effectively to humans. Maybe something could be contracted from wild animals, like some kind of monkey or bat disease. I personally think Treponema Pallidum is the best bet barring more domesticated animals, it can produce some pretty nasty and varied effects.
 
The Horn of Africa was the last place on Earth where smallpox was eradicated, with the last naturally occurring case of infection taking place in Somalia in 1977. This was only five years after the last cases of smallpox occurred in Europe, in Yugoslavia in 1972, caused by a pilgrim who'd caught it in Saudi Arabia.

Smallpox was endemic across the whole Old World.
 
Top