Timeline for What is the science behind lead not contributing to the fall of Rome?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
24 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 1, 2019 at 0:31 | comment | added | sempaiscuba | @VaneVoe I suspect that 2 things will happen. First, you'll get grief for cross-posting (generally frowned upon on SE sites). Second, you'll be told essentially the same things I've said here. | |
| Mar 1, 2019 at 0:27 | comment | added | Vane Voe | I don't see that anyone has the chemistry expertise to answer this so I'm just going to ask in the chemistry site. | |
| Feb 28, 2019 at 20:51 | history | edited | sempaiscuba | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
corrected formatting of quoted text
|
| Feb 28, 2019 at 19:28 | history | edited | sempaiscuba | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added links to Dr Killgrove's data on Github
|
| Feb 28, 2019 at 19:19 | comment | added | sempaiscuba | @LangLangC It is rarely possible to identify individuals in archaeological contexts, or even groups (like the Imperial family, for example). However, the Romans had an extensive "civil service" to manage the day-to-day running of the empire, so even if lead poisoning were a factor for the highest levels of Roman society, it would be unlikely to have any major impact on the wider Empire. | |
| Feb 28, 2019 at 19:15 | comment | added | sempaiscuba | @AllInOne Lead continued to be used in cosmetics up to the 18th century, and even into the Victorian period, the latter not noted as a period of decline for Britain! | |
| Feb 28, 2019 at 19:14 | comment | added | LаngLаngС | But lead acetate makes it even sweeter than just the concentration of sugars. It's still all quite 'logical' inference and conjecture, but I still suspect (within our agreed 'overestimated') that leaded defrutum was regarded as higher quality, being able to command a higher price. The dismissal of the hypothesis is easy for "Romans", but IMO not as easy for higher strata. | |
| Feb 28, 2019 at 19:10 | comment | added | sempaiscuba | @LangLangC I'd go further. Certainly overestimated, and presently no evidence to support the hypothesis that it was a significant factor. It seems likely that most defrutum was actually produced using bronze, rather than lead, cauldrons. | |
| Feb 28, 2019 at 19:04 | comment | added | AllInOne | Romans also used lead in cosmetics: "Lead, although known to be poisonous, was still widely used.[7]" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmetics_in_ancient_Rome | |
| Feb 28, 2019 at 19:03 | comment | added | sempaiscuba | @VaneVoe The archaeological evidence presently shows that lead poisoning was not widespread in Ancient Rome. That in itself is an adequate reason to argue that lead poisoning didn't lead to the fall of Rome. | |
| Feb 28, 2019 at 19:00 | history | edited | sempaiscuba | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added further detail on bronze vs lead vessels
|
| Feb 28, 2019 at 18:53 | comment | added | Vane Voe |
We already know that the lead pipes weren't an issue, we already know that some remains showed chronic lead ingestion allowed lead to accumulate bones, but just like the last question, no one is explaining **why** they weren't significant problems. We need a reason to know why lead didn't lead to the fall of Rome, otherwise there is no reason to believe it didn't. The mineral being refereed to is orthophosphate, and the Romans did not use orthophosphate, the issue of regulating lead in pipes in their time it is most likely related to calcium than anything else.
|
|
| Feb 28, 2019 at 18:47 | comment | added | LаngLаngС | Ah, btw: The defrutum is a problem in itself. But the pipes are so fast getting insulated from sediments of limescale and the like that plain water rfom those lead pipes is very probably less to blame. AFAIK 'the Romans' had quite the taste for especially hard water… | |
| Feb 28, 2019 at 18:46 | comment | added | jeffronicus | One aspect of the lead pipe issue that's gotten attention with the Flint, Michigan crisis is that lead pipes can develop a mineral coating that separates the water from the lead surface, reducing or eliminating the lead contamination. (Flint's decades-old system lost this protective layer when it start using more corrosive water and stopped adding a supplemental protectant.) So the use of lead piping doesn't inevitably imply lead poisoning. | |
| Feb 28, 2019 at 18:44 | comment | added | LаngLаngС | One thing Kilgrove admits is that the osteological data are not correlatable to social strata. "The Romans" might well be quite the difference: to most higher ups and esp Caesars whi were crazy, for power, and after sapping too much defrutum. Lead can make you – and your offspring – much faster dumber than other problems associated to actual 'poisoning'. And that may as well be amplified by other factors. I'd read the above as merely: not a monocausality and perhaps overestimated? | |
| Feb 28, 2019 at 18:31 | history | edited | MCW♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| Feb 28, 2019 at 18:30 | history | edited | sempaiscuba | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
typo
|
| Feb 28, 2019 at 18:28 | history | undeleted | sempaiscuba | ||
| Feb 28, 2019 at 18:28 | history | edited | sempaiscuba | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1341 characters in body
|
| Feb 28, 2019 at 18:22 | history | edited | sempaiscuba | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1341 characters in body
|
| Feb 28, 2019 at 18:08 | history | edited | sempaiscuba | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1341 characters in body
|
| Feb 28, 2019 at 17:59 | history | edited | sempaiscuba | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1341 characters in body
|
| Feb 28, 2019 at 17:38 | history | deleted | sempaiscuba | via Vote | |
| Feb 28, 2019 at 17:38 | history | answered | sempaiscuba | CC BY-SA 4.0 |