The wordy article boils down to: the baths were infested by bacteria and worms due to insufficient water cleaning. Interesting, but could be compressed to 2-3 paragraphs without losing any detail.
Some other interesting things from the article that stuck with me:
- Most toilets weren't connected to the sewers because they didn't want to have the smell of the sewers in their houses
- The public latrines were considered a bad choice because of lack of privacy and shared spunges (based on texts on the walls)
- The sewers were built mainly for the convenience of not having to transport water to and from within the city, not necessarily for hygiene reasons
- Apparently some emperor did realize that it wasn't smart to bathe with sick and healthy people at the same time but decided the sick would bathe before the healthy
Of course, if you only wanted to know if they cleaned the water in bath houses sufficiently, then your summary suffices as well.
> Apparently some emperor did realize that it wasn't smart to bathe with sick and healthy people at the same time but decided the sick would bathe before the healthy
Maybe he thought they were more in need of cleansing.
Even with today's knowledge, without application of today's tech (overnight chlorination say) it wouldn't really make a difference? Today's first bathing session comes after yesterday's second.
Mary Beard, probably the most respect alive scholar on ancient Rome, already explained that in this excelent documentary about daily life on Pompeii: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSw7eoBbM0U
their implementation is badly broken. Usually with google's recaptcha you get to a second screen, but I never even see that second screen on this site.
> A visit to the latrine was probably unpleasant and only for the desperate, according to archaeologist Ann Olga Koloski-Ostrow, author of The Archaeology of Sanitation in Roman Italy . She has looked into more Roman lavatories than most. Aside from the total lack of privacy, she notes, they were almost invariably dark, smelly and potentially dangerous. Noxious gases built up in the trench below and sometimes exploded, sending flames shooting up through the toilets.
It can't be worse than festival toilets on day three, after two days of mud and rain. What we don't know is how often the toilets were cleaned which would have made a big difference or if insense was burnt. The Romans were into perfume in a big way.
I attended Grey Fox Bluegrass Festival several years. It's held in NY state for four or five days in July, with people on-site longer for setup and teardown. While I was there, I marveled at many things, e.g., the music, the friendliness of the people, and the cleanliness of the outhouses.
It's Spanish only AFAIK, but worth watching for the commissioned 3d renders of the different devices and techniques.
TL;DR We need more engineer archeologists to avoid misinterpreting archeological evidence
Isaac is a civil engineer for the Spanish government, and an amateur historian that focuses on Roman technology and civil engineering, particularly roads and hydraulics.
There are a number of tropes and myths about Roman technology that stem from the fact that archeologists are very unlikely to have an engineering background and thus lack the knowledge to correctly interpret some of what they uncover.
As Isaac explains and shows in his videos, Romans supplied their cities with fresh water from springs only, never from rivers, rain or any other still water. They possessed the topographical and geodesic knowledge required to map terrain precisely and route both roads and aqueducts for hundreds of miles with the necessary and adequate slope.
Furthermore, they understood pressure and routinely siphoned water across significant elevation differences and their pipe engineering was able to handle several atmospheres.
They always captured the entire stream and dumped the excess flow directly into the sewers which were kept clean with running water. There is evidence of several of these distribution points in different cities.
With all of this in mind, I'm skeptical of the dating precision of the sites. I find it suspicious that there is absolutely no difference between health in the Imperial heyday and health in late-empire times when maintenance was deficient and water supply irregular and thus no permanent running water in the sewers, thus rats, thus diseases.
I would guess the samples are actually of the same times or at least from places with deficient sanitation for whatever reason.
Some other article tropes he specifically addresses are:
- lack of toilet privacy: they likely built stalls in wood like we do now; they just did not last
- the shared sponges: these were likely for dislodging stuck material and cleaning the toilet, not the body; again, just like we do nowadays
Readit News
Thanks for posting though.
- Most toilets weren't connected to the sewers because they didn't want to have the smell of the sewers in their houses - The public latrines were considered a bad choice because of lack of privacy and shared spunges (based on texts on the walls) - The sewers were built mainly for the convenience of not having to transport water to and from within the city, not necessarily for hygiene reasons - Apparently some emperor did realize that it wasn't smart to bathe with sick and healthy people at the same time but decided the sick would bathe before the healthy
Of course, if you only wanted to know if they cleaned the water in bath houses sufficiently, then your summary suffices as well.
Maybe he thought they were more in need of cleansing.
Even with today's knowledge, without application of today's tech (overnight chlorination say) it wouldn't really make a difference? Today's first bathing session comes after yesterday's second.
She explains it at 20:51.
It can't be worse than festival toilets on day three, after two days of mud and rain. What we don't know is how often the toilets were cleaned which would have made a big difference or if insense was burnt. The Romans were into perfume in a big way.
To understand why, I refer everyone to the amazing Youtube channel of Isaac Moreno Gallo.
https://www.youtube.com/@IsaacMorenoGallo
There are several videos with English audio if you do not understand Spanish.
Here's a representative sample:
"The most ancient engineering told to the most modern engineers" https://youtu.be/pk4xa6Tzwvk
"How the Romans screwed up and how those who interpret them screw up." https://youtu.be/uwZbHPmcO7M
"Roman Engineering 1 of 4" https://youtu.be/SdU6FSjdFag
Isaac also created a TV programme about Roman Engineering for RTVE that you can find on YouTube.
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLX9K6BsUtIfJaMieISPGbsNLs...
It's Spanish only AFAIK, but worth watching for the commissioned 3d renders of the different devices and techniques.
TL;DR We need more engineer archeologists to avoid misinterpreting archeological evidence
Isaac is a civil engineer for the Spanish government, and an amateur historian that focuses on Roman technology and civil engineering, particularly roads and hydraulics.
There are a number of tropes and myths about Roman technology that stem from the fact that archeologists are very unlikely to have an engineering background and thus lack the knowledge to correctly interpret some of what they uncover.
As Isaac explains and shows in his videos, Romans supplied their cities with fresh water from springs only, never from rivers, rain or any other still water. They possessed the topographical and geodesic knowledge required to map terrain precisely and route both roads and aqueducts for hundreds of miles with the necessary and adequate slope.
Furthermore, they understood pressure and routinely siphoned water across significant elevation differences and their pipe engineering was able to handle several atmospheres.
They always captured the entire stream and dumped the excess flow directly into the sewers which were kept clean with running water. There is evidence of several of these distribution points in different cities.
With all of this in mind, I'm skeptical of the dating precision of the sites. I find it suspicious that there is absolutely no difference between health in the Imperial heyday and health in late-empire times when maintenance was deficient and water supply irregular and thus no permanent running water in the sewers, thus rats, thus diseases.
I would guess the samples are actually of the same times or at least from places with deficient sanitation for whatever reason.
Some other article tropes he specifically addresses are:
- lack of toilet privacy: they likely built stalls in wood like we do now; they just did not last
- the shared sponges: these were likely for dislodging stuck material and cleaning the toilet, not the body; again, just like we do nowadays
Isaac also created/maintains two websites:
http://www.traianvs.net/index.php - the scholar version of his channel with articles and papers
https://www.viasromanas.net - a GIS-based site to map, identify and promote Roman roads in the Spanish region of Castilla y León
Dead Comment