This is from the article: > Masic wondered: “Was it possible that the Romans might have actually directly used lime in its more reactive form, known as quickli

This is from the article: > Masic wondered: “Was it possible that the Romans might have actually directly used lime in its more reactive form, known as quicklime?” And this is from Wikipedia, with the source dated 2011: > Gypsum and quicklime were used as binders. Volcanic dusts, called pozzolana or "pit sand", were favored where they could be obtained Is it just me or are popular science articles really so simplified that they often completely misrepresent the point of the research?