The myth of lead and the Roman Empire
One of the challenges with aging is keeping up with, and adapting to, change. Stuff you believed is true at one time can be falsified by additional experiments. That’s how science works, and how science is different from religious dogma. And thanks to the intertubes, checking for updates is fast and easy.
I posted here about the lead-crime hypothesis. It concerns the link between leaded gasoline and crime, and enjoys a lot of support from epidemiological data. It turns out to be a better explanation for the rise in crime than permissive liberal culture and decline in crime than broken windows policing and mass incarceration.
There are other sources of environmental lead besides leaded gas. Lead paint and lead in the water supply (plumbing) come to mind, but they don’t explain the timing of the rise and fall of violent crime the way that leaded gasoline does.
One of the old fables about lead is that it caused the fall of the Roman Empire. While it is true that the Romans used lead in plumbing (hence the etymology) and the evidence supports the hypothesis that lead in the Roman water was greatly elevated over natural levels, people who have studied this conclude that the levels of lead at the time were insufficient to explain the decline and fall of the Roman Empire.
“This work has shown that the labile fraction of sediments from Portus and the Tiber bedload attests to pervasive Pb contamination of river water by the Pb plumbing controlling water distribution in Rome. Lead pollution of “tap water” in Roman times is clearly measurable, but unlikely to have been truly harmful.”
Lead doesn’t explain the fall of the Roman Empire
From my readings on this topic, I recall it was the lead-based make-up that became fashionable in the mid-to-late Imperial Roman period, that was thought to have caused severe lead poisoning in Roman women. They applied lead-oxide based make-up to their faces to have fair, white skin, which was considered a mark of wealth and status. This caused low birth-rate, and heavy-metal poisoning, so that if children were produced, they had brain damage (along the lines of the “Mad Hatter”, or folks in Japan who got mercury poisoning. Lead poisoning causes similar damage to what was called “Minimata Syndrome” (my spelling might be wrong…). There was massive drop in birth rate and population of educated Roman elites, as the Empire fell apart. It was not lead in the drinking water – it was that lead-based make-up the women wore to make themselves look like high-status persons. At the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto, there is an amazing lovely picture of a rich Roman woman. She could be out of an advert, from the 1950’s – earings, hair done up, eyes made up with colour accents, and so on. The Romans were very fashion focused. And apparently, the make-up was some lead-oxide variant, which would have been crazy toxic.
Hmm. While it’s true that Roman makeup used lead, it was used in other times and countries, too (e.g., 16th century England).
Then there’s this from Tim O’Neill, who claims twenty plus years of study various aspects of Roman history, particularly the Roman Army, Roman interaction with the Germanic tribes, the later Roman Empire and the fall of the Western Empire in the Fifth Century. FWIW.
Firstly, any theory about causes of the fall the Roman Empire needs to take into account it was the Western Roman Empire that fell, while the Eastern Roman Empire continued for another 1000 years. So clearly whatever causes brought about the fall of the former have to be less significant or substantially absent in the latter, otherwise the Eastern Empire would have collapsed at the same time or soon after. The use of lead drinking vessels (and lead water pipes and lead pots for garum/fish sauce and lead use generally) was every bit as common in the east as it was in the west, so clearly this was not the problem.
Secondly, the idea that the Romans’ use of lead in various capacities caused widespread heavy metals poisoning has been debunked via archaeology. Analysis of Roman era skeletons shows that lead levels in the population did increase – not surprisingly, given that the smelting and use of lead also increased with urbanisation in this period. But lead levels in Romans were well below modern levels, let alone the levels needed for significant lead poisoning. The main meta-study of archaeology on this issue notes:
In occupied areas during the late Roman era, lead levels were at 41-47% of present-day European levels. After AD 500 the levels dropped to 13% of modern levels, but during the Middle Ages they increased again to approximately the same levels as those of ancient Rome.
It also points out that:
If lead pollution was indeed a serious problem in ancient Rome, the question arises as to why the typical clinical picture of chronic lead poisoning was not described, while the toxicity of lead compounds was apparently realised.
Both these quotes are from “Lead Poisoning in Ancient Rome” by Francois Retief and Louise P. Cilliers, Acta Theologica, Vol.26:2 (2006), (http://www.ajol.info/index.php/actat/article/viewFile/52570/41176) which also refers to Drasch, G.A. 1982. “Lead burden in prehistorical, historical and modern human bodies”, Science of the Total Environment 24:199-231 and Aufderheide, A C, Neiman, F D & Wittmers L E 1981.“Lead in bone II: skeletal lead content as an indicator of lifetime lead ingestion and the social correlates in an archaeological population”, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 55:285-91.
The theory that lead poisoning caused or was even a relevant factor in the fall of Rome fails on every level and is a baseless pseudo historical myth.
@Russel,
Here’s another link that is skeptical about the role of lead (all sources) in the fall of the Roman Empire. The nut graf:
“In conclusion, it could be argued that the increased lead production which began in the 2 nd millennium BC reached its zenith in ancient Rome. The accompanying lead pollution led to a drastic increase in the lead burden of the population, and in well-to-do communities in particular. Although clinical lead poisoning may well have occurred from time to time in certain areas and certain population groups, archaeological findings indicate that the average lead burden in the population was less than half that of a modern European living in the same area. The typical picture of chronic lead poisoning was not described until the 7 th century AD. It is thus unlikely that lead poisoning could have had enough impact to have played any significant role in the decline of the Roman Empire in the West or its eventual fall towards the end of the 5 th century AD.”
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/14593/did-lead-poisoning-contribute-to-the-fall-of-the-roman-empire
I wonder who will debunk the myths about the fall of the American Empire.
American Empire is the myth …
Ten Bears
what do you mean?
but as to the decline myth… it seems to me that there is no evidence that the average Roman was either demented or insane. A couple of Emperors seem to have been insane, but it may only have been the insanity that overcomes absolute rulers. There was, i am told, a lotof behavior among the “elite” that offended the morals sensibilities of at least the Jews and Christians…and probably the average Roman..but that is no different from what we have today in America and seem to have had among the “elite” in pre revolution France and pre-war germany, and god knows what elite Russians and Chinese do in private.
So the lead theory may have always been a “myth,” or maybe just a hypothesis that needed testing, or just a wry joke that “went viral.”
On the other hand, lead in gasoline was poisoning….mostly poor people?…while “scientists” were publishing papers that proved lead was good for us. I saw the papers myself on a large shelf in the University of Florida library.
Remember who was writing about those insane emperors and who their audience was. I think Nero got a lot of bad press because he gave slaves standing in court.
kaleberg
touché I guess. I have no idea who was writing about Nero,
what is a man to believe in this post truth era?
Exploring the historical context of lead use in the Roman Empire provides a fascinating insight into ancient civilizations’ technological advancements and their unintended consequences. Understanding how the Romans utilized lead, despite its health risks, sheds light on the complexities of balancing progress with public health. It’s crucial to reflect on these historical lessons as we navigate contemporary challenges related to environmental and health impacts of materials. Looking forward to reading more insightful discussions on the intersections of history and modern concerns!