Springfield
Silver Member
There must be a report on Roman lead artifacts from the same period somewhere. A similar level of antimony might give the artifacts some legs.
These out-of-place-artifacts, like hundreds of other controversial finds (especially in the midwest), have a history of 'qualified' supporters and, ultimately, equally 'qualified skeptics'. Academia, of course, has the 'final say', which nearly always preserves accepted dogma. A review of the Kensington rune stone unearthed in Minnesota is a well-known example of the tug of war that results.
Your observation - documenting the Romans' use of lead alloys - is the sort of tedious research necessary to gather evidence surrounding just one aspect of this particular set of artifacts. Lots more tedious research would also be required to establish a data base of facts and documentation for other aspects of these finds - such as hinted at by somehiker - from which to proceed. This requires a commitment that seemingly hasn't been made yet, but the Roman Artifacts seem to be in the news lately, so maybe a serious objective effort is coming. Meanwhile, their true place in the world, like Troy before Schliemann, is a matter of opinion. My personal opinion is that the artifacts haven't been proven or disproven.