[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)