5
$\begingroup$

In the real world, the germ theory of disease was only discovered in the 1800s, preceded by the theory of miasma and the four humors. Is there any way a civilization could have stumbled on this knowledge earlier, and what kind of environment/society is necessary for that discovery to take place?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The way people conducted science pretty much until the 1800s would've made this impossible, however: What the ancient Greeks (I'm sure amongst others) were good at was random guessing and sometimes not being completely wrong about it. Could've happened the same way $\endgroup$ – Raditz_35 May 19 '17 at 8:02
12
$\begingroup$

Depends on the definition of germ theory. Does it need a concept of single-celled bacteria and non-self-replicating viruses?

  • Start with a concept that dirt brings disease. They don't really ask why, it seems obvious.
  • Add the concepts that animals bring dirt if they are not cleanly/cleansed. Dogs are OK if they are washed regularly, rats are not OK. This includes insects. Bees are OK, they live in orderly hives. Fruit flies are not OK.
  • They note that there are big and small insects, from butterflies to lice. Lice range in size from 5 mm to 0.5 mm. Their eggs are smaller.

If a society concludes that there is no minimum size to disease-bearing insects, does that mean they have a germ theory?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ This is a good point - is it "discovered" if they guess the right answer? $\endgroup$ – colmde May 19 '17 at 7:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'd say guessing right counts for my purposes. This line of thinking might even lead scientifically-minded members of that culture to test the theory and discover microbes once the right tools are available. $\endgroup$ – Nascence May 19 '17 at 8:51
  • $\begingroup$ This is a delightfully clever way to have something like germ theory without any real vigorous science to back up the notion. Definitely the sort of thing a very primitive culture would come up with and innately understand. $\endgroup$ – Draco18s May 19 '17 at 17:23
  • $\begingroup$ That is basically how germ theory formed anyway. Germ literally referred to tiny eggs or spores. What germs are was only discovered much later. $\endgroup$ – John May 19 '17 at 20:39
3
$\begingroup$

They'd need:

  1. A culture of curiosity. (Islamic Golden Age or Europe starting with the Renaissance.)
  2. Knowledge sharing (aka "science") instead of researchers who horde their knowledge (aka "alchemy").
  3. A concentrated-enough energy source to have:
  4. Sophisticated metallurgy and metal-working, and
  5. sufficiently developed glass-making, which leads to
  6. Optics, which leads to:
  7. Microscopes.

EDIT: good ideas from user535733:

  1. Mathematics developed enough to have created statistical analysis.
  2. Enough wood/bamboo to make lots of cheap, durable paper.
  3. The industrial chemistry to whiten that paper, and
  4. make lots of ink, for
  5. Printing the results of epidemiological studies in Journals. (Another need for "knowledge sharing").

Bottom line is that the ancient culture won't be very "ancient".

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Consider adding statistics and data management to the list - epidemiology provides clues where to start looking. That also means cheap-enough paper (and perheps printing) to store the data and transmit the knowledge. $\endgroup$ – user535733 May 19 '17 at 0:22
  • $\begingroup$ 9. isn't necessary I reckon but the rest of that seems right (although not quite as modern as you think) $\endgroup$ – Shalvenay May 19 '17 at 1:18
  • $\begingroup$ Microscopy enabled scientists to observe microbes. That enabled the idea to be formed that microbes could be the source of disease. Good answer because you established the steps necessary for the development of microscopes. Plus one, and deservedly so. $\endgroup$ – a4android May 19 '17 at 2:01
  • $\begingroup$ @a4android thank James Burke's 1978 TV series Connections for the idea. We could drill this down for a week, expanding the list of dependencies upon dependencies. $\endgroup$ – RonJohn May 19 '17 at 4:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @RonJohn Hold it right there... the Germ Theory of Disease does not require us actually seeing bacteria or fungus or anything like that. Seeing the pathogens only makes us understand the mechanics of the theory in an intuitive way, but the theory that there is something communicable that transmits disease do not require seeing them. In other words: you do not need Microbiology to work out The Germ Theory of Disease, that only makes it easier. Compare for instance Maxwell's Equations and the Theory of Electromagnetism... you do not need to physically see a photon to work that one out. $\endgroup$ – MichaelK May 19 '17 at 7:16
1
$\begingroup$

I'm not sure whether it counts as theory, but there seem to be some psychological mechanism in religion development that mixes up goodness, religious purity and cleanliness.

I mean Baptism in Christianity... Ritual washing in Islam before prayer... Or Hindus that pilgrimage to wash in Ganges...

Yeah, there really seems to be some kind of automatic association.

If you want to have an ancient society that get such theory roughly right:

  • they have to have some vague commandment concerning cleanliness and purity

  • they should suffer from some parasitic disease and think in this direction

(But it would be like Democritus atom hypothesis - guess in good direction, but not based on any hard data https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democritus#Atomic_hypothesis)

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

I've read a number of medieval medical treatises (for fun!). These writings tend to combine classical information, some practical experience, and random bits of info. I always get the feeling that they were so close to getting it. Cleaning hands before procedures is mentioned more than you'd think. The effectiveness of wine for cleaning wounds is remarked on in a medieval military medicine treatise. Of course there is crap (literal and figurative) mixed in with the useful stuff and a new practitioner coming upon the treatise has no way to judge.

In reference to @RonJon'a list Optics as a science did fairly well in the Middle Ages. Spectacles receive their first mention in the mid 13th century. Clockworks with gears start appearing in tows around that time as well. Paper as well though you could use wax tablets for note taking. (I just spent an hour collecting oak galls from fallen branches to experiment with medieval ink recipes.)

The sharing of good information is of course a limiting factor. Medieval Europe knew how to hold a conference, they did that all the time for Church Councils, but there was little will for a natural science conference.

A plausible way for this germ theory information to spread in a 13th century environment would be through a military campaign. A secular ruler would have a very good reason for useful information to be shared and used on his (elite) soldiers. As the physicians return home they'd spread this knowledge.

I'm not sure if the Middle Ages is ancient enough for your question for it is my lens of information.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

People and their livestock have pests including those that make them (and their animals and crops) “sick”. People discover poisons to deal with them.

Some pests are tiny. In particular, some mites or aphids or other important pest for agriculture has two properties: it makes the crops wither rather than just looking chewed, and it’s so small that it’s near the limit of human vision: some people can see them, some can just barely notice dots if they are moving, others cannot see at all. And clearly the juviniles are too small to see.

So, people are aware of the idea that animals can be too small to see, with no known limit to how small they may become. And they are known to be some diseases.

Since the same idea of hygene and steralization seems to work to prevent disease, and that's how cleaning and killing tiny pests works. So it would be a hypothesis that many more (if not all) diseases are caused by pests too small to see.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.