[HN Gopher] How the ancient Romans managed their toilets
___________________________________________________________________
How the ancient Romans managed their toilets
Author : sharjeelsayed
Score : 80 points
Date : 2021-11-28 12:37 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.smithsonianmag.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.smithsonianmag.com)
| binthere wrote:
| You can actually see similar systems being used today in
| underdeveloped/developing countries, from toilet to sewage.
| kerev989 wrote:
| Some of the things said in this article are ridiculous.
| Especially the wiping your butt with a communal sponge-on-a-
| stick. Even if we are to believe that the same people who went to
| such great lengths to rid their cities of waste would then share
| sponges with faeces on them, why would you reach around with a
| long stick to clean yourself? How would that even work? This
| looks exactly like modern shower sponges made for reaching your
| back. Try wiping with one.
|
| Also the claim that these toilets were for the unwashed masses,
| yet those same people supposedly wore togas on a day-to-day
| basis.
|
| Who even writes this crap?...
| mellavora wrote:
| Ok, joke time.
|
| <principle software engineer> comes out of the bathroom. Wife
| says "Don't you know how to use the toilet brush?" "Yes", he
| says, "but I prefer the paper"
|
| feel free to substitute a different minority group if you don't
| like poking fun at principle software engineers.
| retrac wrote:
| > why would you reach around with a long stick to clean
| yourself? How would that even work?
|
| Roman toilets usually had a slot cut into them allowing access
| from the front underneath:
| https://i0.wp.com/followinghadrian.com/wp-content/uploads/20...
| sometimes right down to the floor.
|
| You can see how someone might get the idea. Though honestly it
| could have been just to make it easier to clean them.
| tres wrote:
| I recon that the cutout in front of the toilet has a purpose...
| the existence of that cutout seems to align well with the idea
| that one might put a sponge on a stick through it in order to
| clean their back orifice.
|
| The toga thing has been addressed by others as our cultural
| mores being projected on people with different values...
|
| Otherwise, I found the article interesting and entertaining.
|
| -\\_(tsu)_/-
| cblconfederate wrote:
| Toilet rather than bathroom, since their baths were amazing.
| kgwgk wrote:
| https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/go-to-th...
| azalemeth wrote:
| I agree with this. The original title is ``What toilets and
| sewers tell us about ancient Roman sanitation''.
| antognini wrote:
| There is some humorous graffiti in the latrine at Ostia Antica
| (pictured in the article). The Seven Sages of Greece had
| permeated the collective consciousness to such an extent in Rome
| that some unknown individual inscribed some graffiti referencing
| some of them.
|
| For example, one graffito reads: "Ut bene cacaret, ventrum
| palpavit Solon," which translates to "To shit well, Solon rubbed
| his belly."
|
| Another says, "Durum cacantes monuit ut nitant Thales," which
| translates to, "Thales admonished those shitting to strain hard."
|
| Another: "Vissire tacite Chilon docuit subdolus", or "Sly Chilon
| taught to fart silently."
|
| To get the modern cultural connotation, substitute "Thales" or
| "Solon" for "Einstein" or "Abraham Lincoln".
|
| Some of the other graffiti do not reference the Seven Sages. The
| Seven Sages graffiti use a higher register --- past tense and a
| meter associated with comedies. But the other graffiti are in a
| lower register --- present tense and no meter. One of these
| others recommends "shake yourself about so you'll go faster."
|
| One of these also references the tersorium, or sponge on a stick,
| that the article discusses. (Also called a xylospongium.) The
| graffito reads "No one talks to you much, Priscianus, until you
| use the sponge on a stick."
| dctoedt wrote:
| > _To get the modern cultural connotation, substitute "Thales"
| or "Solon" for "Einstein" or "Abraham Lincoln"._
|
| In standard English, the verb "substitute" would have to have
| the names reversed: "substitute ' _Einstein_ ' ... for '
| _Thales_ '" as opposed to the other way around.
|
| Or change the verb and preposition: " _replace_ 'Thales' ...
| _with_ 'Einstein' ...."
| dymk wrote:
| My "Standard English" brain correctly interpreted GP's
| comment with no ambiguity, so yours seems rather unnecessary
| dctoedt wrote:
| Just because you were able to _resolve_ the ambiguity doesn
| 't mean there wasn't a problem.
|
| Precision matters: Ambiguity is perhaps _the_ leading
| reason that parties to contracts find themselves embroiled
| in costly, dragged-out lawsuits: When a term in a contract
| could plausibly be interpreted in multiple ways, and there
| 's money riding on the outcome, the lawyers for both sides
| will come up with all kinds of arguments why _their_ client
| 's interpretation should win.
|
| Here, the GGP's misuse of the language doesn't really
| matter. But it's still better to stick to the standard, so
| that when it _does_ matter, the meaning will be clear.
| xeromal wrote:
| But dude, are we signing contracts right now? lol.
| dctoedt wrote:
| > _But dude, are we signing contracts right now? lol._
|
| You play like you practice.
| silicon2401 wrote:
| I agree with you
|
| > Substitute X for Y
|
| I would read this as saying "use X instead of Y". In
| contrast, I would use this wording for the opposite
| intention:
|
| > Substitute Y with X
|
| This discussion also adds support to the side that
| "substitute X for Y" is the correct terminology: https://
| english.stackexchange.com/questions/23360/substitute...
|
| > This is probably the source of the confusion you
| noticed: > "Substitute...for..."--first replaces second.
| > "Substitute...with..."--second replaces first.
|
| > The preposition controls the meaning. "Substitute X for
| Y" means what you think it does: the X will replace Y. >
| "Substitute X with Y", however, reverses the meaning: Y
| will replace X.
|
| > The traditional construction is like this: > The
| mechanic had to substitute a generic steering wheel for
| the original Bentley wheel. > The substitute is the thing
| you substitute; the original is what you substitute it
| for. It is perhaps easier to remember if you know the
| origin of the construction. The word substituo means "to
| place under, to substitute" in classical Latin. From
| statuo, "to place, to cause to stand", and sub-, "under".
| The prefix sub- is used in a way similar to supplant,
| suppose, the latter meaning "to take a theory in place of
| a fact" (we suppose something because we don't have the
| facts). > It is also possible to mention only the
| substitute: > The recipe said she needed "bacon". She
| hated bacon. She decided to substitute parma ham. >
| Because some people have forgotten how to use the
| construction, probably caused in part by contamination
| with replace, you will sometimes see it used in various
| other ways; however, because confusion is quick to ensue,
| style guides recommend that you use it like this.
|
| I would agree that there is debate, and that your
| suggestion is the standard (edited as I misread your and
| the original commenter's sides of the debate)
| ummonk wrote:
| Isn't "substitute Y with X" the same as "substitute X for
| Y"? Not really the opposite intention. Did you mean to
| say "substitute X with Y" for opposite intention?
| silicon2401 wrote:
| I meant to say something like opposite direction but
| bungled it lol, wasn't sure how to describe it in the
| couple minutes break from working I took to comment
| dymk wrote:
| I put "Standard" in quotes because there is no such thing
| as "Standard" English. There is English as it is used
| (that is to say, as many dialects as there are people who
| speak it).
|
| What matters is that the meaning was conveyed correctly,
| and it was. Your prescriptivism may be welcome when
| drafting contracts meant for other lawyers who speak
| "Legalese English", but not here.
| yesenadam wrote:
| Maybe speak for yourself on whether meaning was conveyed
| correctly and whether the GP's comments were welcome? It
| seems a bit ironic rebuking someone loftily about their
| "prescriptivism" while talking like that.
|
| I found the initial use of "substitute" very jarring,
| started wondering how common this backwards use of
| "substitute" might be nowadays, and when I saw GP's
| remarks on it thought "Ah, it's not just me then!".
| dctoedt wrote:
| > _contracts meant for other lawyers who speak "Legalese
| English"_
|
| That's a misconception. Contracts are _supposed_ to be
| drafted so that _non-lawyers_ can readily understand and
| follow them (and so that, when necessary, ordinary-
| citizen jurors can understand and enforce them).
|
| It's certainly true that some lawyers like to use
| legalese mumbo-jumbo to try make themselves look
| important, or to justify the hours they bill, or because
| they're terrified of deviating from what's been done
| before. _Good_ lawyers aren 't that way.
| koheripbal wrote:
| "shake yourself about so you'll go faster."
|
| This is interesting as I learned this from Reddit a few years
| ago.
|
| A slight wiggle of the butt while pooping really does improve
| the movement.
| jointpdf wrote:
| Hmmm, a damp sea-sponge-on-a-stick doesn't sound so bad...
|
| > " _Worse, the tersoria were probably reused and shared by all
| fellow butt-wipers who came and went throughout the day._ "
|
| Ok, I'm logging out for the day.
|
| Before I go, here's a list of sane alternatives in case any of
| you find yourselves in ancient Rome by accident (snow and
| lamb's ears are the Rolls Royce of natural TP, but pinecones
| and rocks work quite well in a pinch):
| http://ultralightbackpackintips.blogspot.com/2012/09/liberat...
| AS37 wrote:
| IIRC they eventually figured out to soak the sponges in
| soured wine (a.k.a. vinegar) as an antiseptic.
|
| Which may add some depth to this passage:
|
| > About three in the afternoon [while being crucified] Jesus
| cried out in a loud voice, "Eli, Eli,[c] lema sabachthani?"
| ... Immediately one of [those standing near] ran and got a
| sponge. He filled it with wine vinegar, put it on a staff,
| and offered it to Jesus to drink.
| mellavora wrote:
| Yes, I realized the same thing the last time I read about
| roman toilets. Wonder why they never taught this in sunday
| school?
| deltarholamda wrote:
| Yep, I was given the full explanation of a Roman toilet on a
| tour of Pompeii twenty-odd years ago. As soon as I saw this
| posted, I knew I would not be clicking through.
| thamer wrote:
| I also went to Pompeii ~25 years ago and still remember
| being fascinated by the latrines.
|
| This article has a few more photos from Pompeii and Rome
| including the Cloaca Maxima, as well as a map of public and
| private latrines discovered in the ruins:
| https://theconversation.com/talking-heads-what-toilets-
| and-s...
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| what does "register" mean as you use it?
| AutumnCurtain wrote:
| >In sociolinguistics, a register is a variety of language
| used for a particular purpose or in a particular
| communicative situation.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Register_%28sociolinguistics%2.
| ..
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| thank you
| kroltan wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Register_(sociolinguistics)
|
| Basically, a manner of speaking depending on to whom you're
| talking to or who you're addressing or how you mean it to be
| interpreted.
|
| In English a similar concept is formality, but register is a
| generalized concept.
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| cool; thanks
| ChuckMcM wrote:
| One wonders if you could apply some of this technology to make
| passive toilet facilities for cities.
| Incerto wrote:
| I had to stop reading when the author started talking about how
| togas gave them more privacy. 99% of Romans never wore a toga,
| and of those that did, they were only used for senate hearing and
| other special / public business.
| bluGill wrote:
| The Romans were not afraid of nudity. The public baths that
| this were next too would have been taken nude with other men.
|
| Most people learn about Romans from the Christians as the story
| of Jesus is with the backdrop of Roman rule. However the
| Christians inherited their nudity views from the Jews. Thus in
| the biblical areas there would be less nudity because of the
| Jews, and then the biblical writers would have censored the
| nudity parts even more to keep it christian friendly. Thus our
| cultural attitudes around nudity despite coming from a Roman
| area have nothing to do with what Romans would have felt.
| holoduke wrote:
| The French, the Italians and the Spanish are generally very
| open minded towards nudity. This is quite compatible with the
| old Roman way of looking at it. The US together with most
| Germanic and Anglosaxic countries are much more strict.
| shoto_io wrote:
| Germanic are strict? What about Sauna and FKK culture then?
|
| I think its just the Anglosaxons :)
| Maursault wrote:
| Do the images of the toilets appear a little tall to anyone? If
| average height of a Roman male was 5'5", then I expect most of
| them could not sit with their feet flat on the floor, but could
| only reach it with their toes, or dangled their feet, or braced
| against the side.
| mjmahone17 wrote:
| Completely unfounded speculation, but it looks almost like a
| combination squat toilet and urinal.
| beloch wrote:
| From another article[1] on the topic by an archaeologist:
|
| "Even worse, these public latrines were notorious for terrifying
| customers when flames exploded from their seat openings. These
| were caused by gas explosions of hydrogen sulphide (H2S) and
| methane (CH4) that were rank as well as frightening. Customers
| also had to worry about rats and other small vermin threatening
| to bite their bottoms. And then there was the perceived threat of
| demons that the Romans believed inhabited these black holes
| leading to the mysterious underbelly of the city."
|
| Sounds like it was far better if you could hold it until you got
| home to your own private toilet, which was probably in the
| kitchen right next to where your slaves were preparing your next
| meal[2].
|
| [1] https://phys.org/news/2015-11-toilets-sewers-ancient-
| roman-s...
|
| [2]
| https://scx2.b-cdn.net/gfx/news/hires/2015/564dcb76b9497.jpe...
| saganus wrote:
| Any idea why would they put the latrines next to, or apparently
| even _inside_ the kitchen?
|
| I get that they might not haven been aware of germs or
| correlated bathrooms with disease or whatever, but just based
| on the odors alone, it seems a strange decision...
| cblconfederate wrote:
| probably water was near.
| voidfunc wrote:
| Your slaves worked in the kitchen. Nobody cared too much
| whether it smelled.
| Koshkin wrote:
| It kind of does matter what the kitchen smells of.
| Pasorrijer wrote:
| This is entirely guessing. But if you were drilling a hole to
| the sewers, both the toilet and the kitchen needed a hole so
| that could greatly simplify plumbing and construction.
| kraftman wrote:
| it says in the article above that most werent connected to
| the sewers
| coldacid wrote:
| It's still cheaper to dig one cesspit for your villla
| than two.
| jihadjihad wrote:
| As a kid, I distinctly and fondly remember visiting a castle [0]
| built on the edge of Lake Geneva. The two most prominent memories
| of the visit I have are the dungeon, which was awesome and
| horrifying, and the fact that the "toilets" were just holes in a
| long plank of wood [1] built alongside the rear castle wall,
| which hung over the water--no flushing necessary.
|
| 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chillon_Castle
|
| 1: https://www.flickr.com/photos/tomislavmedak/3812153036
| dexwiz wrote:
| This is a pretty common thing in castles. Moats were disgusting
| because they were basically open latrines.
| jihadjihad wrote:
| Seems like an added deterrent for any would-be assailants.
| Along with the usual issues moats present, raw sewage
| floating around would certainly make me think twice about a
| night swim across the moat.
| mseepgood wrote:
| The claim that they wiped with a sponge on a stick is probably
| wrong: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24coYKPga9o
| hardlianotion wrote:
| That would be a good thing. The sharing thing they're supposed
| to have had with them is quite unacceptable.
| gigatexal wrote:
| What a fascinating read. The first article here I've read to
| completion.
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-11-29 23:00 UTC)