Galen, a physician and philosopher born in AD 129 in the ancient city of Pergamon (present-day Bergama, Turkey), is often cited as one of the earliest contributors to the fields of occupational health and safety and toxicology. Son of a wealthy Greek architect, Aelius Nicon, Galen received a comprehensive education, which led to his illustrious career as a physician in Rome, where he served several Roman emperors.
Influenced by the theory of the four humors, Galen’s medical understanding was shaped by animal dissections (human dissections were prohibited), and his beliefs blended rationalist and empiricist viewpoints. His work had a lasting impact, and his theories dominated Western medicine for centuries.
However, some modern references to Galen’s contributions to occupational health and toxicology merit closer scrutiny. Was Galen really the first to recognize the harmful effects of lead and toxic fumes from copper mines, or is this an overstatement?
The Truth Behind Galen’s Observations: Separating Myth from Fact
When it comes to historical figures and their contributions to science, it’s important to separate myth from fact. The popular narrative surrounding the ancient Greek physician Galen is no exception. While some credit Galen with outlining the pathological aspects of lead toxicity, the evidence tells a different story.
The Curious Case of Misrepresentation
As I picked up the book “Occupational Health and Safety for the 21st Century,” my curiosity was piqued by mentions of historical figures such as Hippocrates, Pliny, and Galen. However, as I delved deeper, I discovered inaccuracies in the first few pages. I couldn’t help but wonder: why not do a little look-see, as I did, to verify the information?
The biggest culprit seemed to be the work of Jerome Nriagu, whose 1983 essay, “Lead and Lead Poisoning in Antiquity,” made sensational claims about lead poisoning causing the decline of the Roman Empire. Despite heavy criticism and sloppy scholarship, Nriagu’s work was repeated often enough to become assumed truth.
For example, the Friis textbook states: “Galen, a renowned Greek physician, outlined the pathological aspects of lead toxicity, and suggested that mists from acids could endanger the health.” But is this true?
Galen, Lead, and Diarrhea
Galen did write about water with lead sediment causing diarrhea. However, this falls short of “outlining the pathological aspects of lead toxicity.” So, where did this misrepresentation come from?
It seems to trace back to Nriagu’s essay, where he claimed Galen wrote: “water flowing through leaden pipes is to be avoided for a certain slime from the lead is present in it. And for this reason those who drink the sediment of such water are subject to disorders in the intestines.” But this isn’t what Galen wrote.
John Scarborough clears things up: “Such a passage, however, does exist in Galen’s writings… and Galen writes that his preparation of the drug made from poppy capsules is to be compounded using only pure rainwater… ‘one must avoid the water piped through lead mallow-flower outlets, since some sediments of the lead are contained in it. And those who drink the sediment of this sort of water develop diarrhea.'”
The Real Hero: Sir George Baker
Ironically, the true hero of lead toxicity research was Sir George Baker, an 18th-century British physician. Baker identified lead as the cause of “Devonshire colic” from drinking cider. When lead was removed from cider manufacturing, the problem vanished. George Clayton’s text, “The Industrial Environment – Its Evaluation and Control – Chapter 1 – Introduction,” acknowledges Baker’s contributions.
Nriagu’s essay references Sir George Baker but did not cite him in this context. Baker himself mentioned Galen’s observation that lead sediment may render drinkers subject to intestinal disorders. Perhaps Baker, a gentleman, avoided the word “diarrhea.” And perhaps this is the source of Nriagu’s confusion?
The Takeaway
While Galen’s writings provide valuable insights into ancient medical practices, it’s crucial to accurately represent his contributions. His observations about lead sediment causing diarrhea are notable, but they don’t equate to a scientific understanding of toxicology.
As we celebrate historical figures like Galen and Sir George Baker, let’s do so with accuracy and truth, appreciating their work while recognizing its context and limitations.
Copper Mines in Cyprus: Observations or Discoveries?
Galen’s visit to the copper mines in Cyprus is often cited as evidence of his recognition of the dangers of acid mists to copper miners. However, a closer look at his writings reveals that his observations may not equate to a scientific understanding of toxicology or occupational health and safety.
In a detailed account found in an issue of the Geographical Society of Philadelphia, written by Joseph Walsh, Galen describes (XII, 238) the collection of copperas water and the making of chalcanthos (iron sulphate) in a mine with challenging conditions. The mine, dug into a hill like a cave, had a large low house sheltering the entrance. It was wide enough for three men to touch side by side and tall enough for the tallest to walk upright. At the bottom of the mine, about six hundred feet from the entrance, lay a lake of tepid, thick, green, greasy water. The temperature throughout the descent remained similar to that of the promalacterion—the first room of a Roman bath.
Galen notes that water dripping from the porous hill was collected drop by drop in Roman amphorae over a 24-hour period. Nude slaves hurriedly carried the jars out of the mine and poured the collected water into square earthenware troughs at the entrance of the house. After a few days, the water thickened, and chalcanthos was produced.
Vividly painting the conditions of the mine, Galen mentions the suffocating brassy odor at the bottom, which was difficult to tolerate, with the water having a similar taste. The slaves carried the jars with great haste to minimize their time spent in the mine. Despite the presence of lights at moderate intervals, they frequently extinguished. The mine was excavated gradually over many years by the slaves, and when the dripping water began to lessen, the slaves dug further into the hill. Galen also remarks on the risks: “It sometimes happens a cave-in occurs killing all to the last man, and blocking up the passage” (XII, 239).
While Galen’s account provides a valuable glimpse into ancient mining practices, it doesn’t necessarily imply an understanding of toxicology. His observations capture the harsh conditions faced by the miners, such as the suffocating odor, the haste of nude slaves to carry jars of water, and the risk of cave-ins; but they fall short of outlining the pathological aspects of exposure to toxic substances—a key component of modern toxicology.
Galen’s Legacy: Observations
While Galen’s contributions to medical science are undeniable, it’s important to accurately represent his work. He made observations, not scientific discoveries, in the fields of toxicology and occupational health and safety.
In the end, Galen’s legacy lies in his medical practice and his approach as a physician-philosopher. As we reflect on the origins of occupational health and safety, let’s appreciate the first glimmers of rational thought and logic but also recognize the limitations of the ancient world.
Exploring the Motivations: Why Introductory Texts Link Modern Fields to Ancient Writings
There are several reasons why an author of an introductory text to a field of study might attempt to tie the material to ancient writings, even when the connection is weak:
- Historical Context: Providing historical context helps readers understand the origins and evolution of the field. By referencing ancient writings, authors can demonstrate that certain ideas or observations have a long history, even if they were not fully developed or understood in antiquity.
- Engaging Narrative: Connecting the material to ancient writings can make the subject matter more engaging and relatable for readers. Stories about ancient scholars and their observations can add depth and interest to the material, making it more memorable.
- Legitimacy: Citing ancient sources can lend a sense of legitimacy to the field by showing that it has roots in classical scholarship. This can create an impression of intellectual continuity and reinforce the importance of the field.
- Highlighting Progress: By drawing a connection to ancient writings, authors can highlight the progress made in the field over time. It allows them to contrast ancient observations with modern scientific understanding and show how the field has advanced.
- Purpose: Introducing ancient writings in the context of the field can serve an educational purpose by exposing readers to important historical figures and their contributions, even if they were not fully accurate or scientifically rigorous by modern standards. This can help readers appreciate the intellectual curiosity and critical thinking of ancient scholars.
- Broadening Perspectives: Incorporating ancient writings into an introductory text can also help readers appreciate the diverse cultural and historical perspectives that have contributed to the development of the field. It highlights that the pursuit of knowledge is a shared human endeavor that transcends time and culture.
- Appreciating Limitations: By discussing the limitations and inaccuracies of ancient writings, authors can emphasize the importance of evidence-based research and scientific rigor. It can serve as a reminder of how far the field has come and the importance of critical evaluation of sources.
- Tradition: In some fields, referencing ancient writings is part of a long-standing tradition. By honoring this tradition, authors acknowledge the historical significance of these texts and their influence on the field.
It’s important to note, however, that while these reasons may motivate authors to include references to ancient writings, it’s crucial to be accurate and transparent about the strength of the connections being drawn. Misrepresenting or exaggerating the contributions of ancient scholars can be misleading and may detract from the overall credibility of the text.
References:
- Scarborough, John. “Review: The Myth of Lead Poisoning among the Romans: An Essay Review.” Review of Lead and Lead Poisoning in Antiquity by Jerome O. Nriagu. Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, vol. 39, no. 4, Oct. 1984, pp. 469-475. Oxford University Press.
- Baker, George, Sir, and Frederick Francis Baker, Sir. Medical Tracts, Read at the College of Physicians between the Years 1767 and 1785. London: W. Bulmer and Co., Repdocued in 1818. King’s College London, Foyle Special Collections Library. European Libraries, Medical Heritage Library, Jisc and Wellcome Library.
- Walsh, Joseph. Galen Visits the Dead Sea in Cyprus. The Bulletin of the Geographical Society of Philadelphia. Vol. 24, Jan.-Oct. 1926. Geographical Society of Philadelphia.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_George_Baker,_1st_Baronet
- https://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/wine/leadpoisoning.html
- Clayton, George D. The Industrial Environment – Its Evaluation and Control. Chapter 1. Introduction. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 1973.
- https://www.fergusmurraysculpture.com/cyprus/history-notes-12-pages/iv-kupros-copper/
- History of copper cementation and bioleaching, Iron Mountain Mines, Inc.
- Friis, Robert H. Occupational Health and Safety for the 21st Century. Jones & Bartlett Publishers, 2015.
- Nriagu, Jerome O. Lead and Lead Poisoning in Antiquity. Environmental Science and Technology. New York: Wiley, 1983
