How the ancient Romans managed their toilets(smithsonianmag.com)
smithsonianmag.com
How the ancient Romans managed their toilets
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-the-ancient-romans-went-to-the-bathroom-180979056/
99 comments
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...
> “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...
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.
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.
Roman soldiers wore sponges imbibed with vinegar on a string around their neck, for drinking. The vinegar was added to keep the moist sponge from rotting. So most probably the correct interpretation is that the Roman soldier passed his own personal drinking bottle to Jesus.
[deleted]
Yes, I realized the same thing the last time I read about roman toilets. Wonder why they never taught this in sunday school?
Yeah, because there was a convenient public toilet right there and the soldier reached over its wall. Or, maybe, the "vinegar" was the ration of sour wine the soldiers carried.
The point is relevant whether that actual sponge on a stick came from a toilet or not. The contempt implicit in the giving is not at all clear if you don't know what a sponge on a stick was usually for.
It's not like Jesus was going anywhere if the soldier didn't come back immediately.
Anyway, the text implies that the sponge was soaked first, and then put on a stick (maybe because the cross was too tall). If it had been an actual xylospongium it would have been already on a stick.
Anyway, the text implies that the sponge was soaked first, and then put on a stick (maybe because the cross was too tall). If it had been an actual xylospongium it would have been already on a stick.
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.
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...
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...
> 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' ...."
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' ...."
My "Standard English" brain correctly interpreted GP's comment with no ambiguity, so yours seems rather unnecessary
It was clearly incorrect in the article.
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.
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.
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)
> 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)
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?
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
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.
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.
Do you also drive the store to the car? Hey, it's not a contract, so why not?
It's not a question of "Legalese English". People should used words in the proper order to convey an idea, instead of using them in a backwards or random order.
It's not a question of "Legalese English". People should used words in the proper order to convey an idea, instead of using them in a backwards or random order.
> 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. Maybe they want to make themselves look important. Or justify the hours they bill. Maybe they're terrified of deviating from what's been done before. But good lawyers aren't that way.
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. Maybe they want to make themselves look important. Or justify the hours they bill. Maybe they're terrified of deviating from what's been done before. But good lawyers aren't that way.
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!".
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!".
The author is probably a sed or vim user:
s/Thales/Einstein/"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.
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.
What about the increased risk of hitting the side walls hence needing to use the brush? The opportunity cost is too high.
Personally, if I'm at the point where I'm considering my technique at all, I'm probably also going to be using that brush after regardless.
Haha, fair enough.
[deleted]
“A shake for the ass viscosity, improves the mass velocity.”
— Einstein, probably
— Einstein, probably
Where would one learn Latin short of going back to uni? I’m fascinated by the language and there doesn’t seem to be many non-lawyerly resources available
There are a number of textbooks available, if you were interested in serious self-study. I don’t know of specific names off-hand. A dictionary would be important as well to have as a reference.
You could start with a beginning textbook to get basic grammar and vocabulary, then eventually move up to advanced grammar and then actual ancient texts. These would probably be transcribed to a familiar font with hints to help through things like common abbreviations.
There are some conventions to learn before being able to read actual artifacts - when you’re paying to have stone carved by the letter, abbreviations are going to be frequent.
You could start with a beginning textbook to get basic grammar and vocabulary, then eventually move up to advanced grammar and then actual ancient texts. These would probably be transcribed to a familiar font with hints to help through things like common abbreviations.
There are some conventions to learn before being able to read actual artifacts - when you’re paying to have stone carved by the letter, abbreviations are going to be frequent.
I don’t think Italian is too far off. The word endings changed, but roots are mostly (all?) the same. If you can read one I think you can pick up the other usually…?
Or I guess seminary school will teach you if law isn’t your thing…..
Or I guess seminary school will teach you if law isn’t your thing…..
Said by an Italian (old enough to have studied Latin) it is not that easy.
Sure most roots are the same (so you can recognize most words, if taken singularly) but the construction and use of cases and the various declinations makes it tough to read a whole sentence and translate it correctly, also because there may be "false friends".
On the other hand, with some (possibly better than the ones I did) Latin studies, a whole number of Latin derived languages (Italian, Spanish, French, Portuguese and Romanian) become more accessible, at least in written form, because they all use the same (but somnetimes different) Latin roots, i.e. two different Latin words (meaning the same thing or even the same word in a different case/declination) may have become used in different languages, so knowing the "common ancestor" helps.
Sure most roots are the same (so you can recognize most words, if taken singularly) but the construction and use of cases and the various declinations makes it tough to read a whole sentence and translate it correctly, also because there may be "false friends".
On the other hand, with some (possibly better than the ones I did) Latin studies, a whole number of Latin derived languages (Italian, Spanish, French, Portuguese and Romanian) become more accessible, at least in written form, because they all use the same (but somnetimes different) Latin roots, i.e. two different Latin words (meaning the same thing or even the same word in a different case/declination) may have become used in different languages, so knowing the "common ancestor" helps.
what does "register" mean as you use it?
>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...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Register_%28sociolinguistics%2...
thank you
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.
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.
cool; thanks
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...
"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...
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...
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...
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.
Sounds reasonable ... I've been to some pre-WW2 city houses where the toilet and shower were directly next to the kitchen. Just running one set of pipes sounds like a good explanation for that.
probably water was near.
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
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chillon_Castle
1: https://www.flickr.com/photos/tomislavmedak/3812153036
This is a pretty common thing in castles. Moats were disgusting because they were basically open latrines.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You missed the point of the previous comment. The gist was that the author of the article has no clue about the Roman way of life and cannot be taken seriously.
Yeah, but they still managed to get some things wrong. Or maybe just imply something other than they meant.
I'm no expert in Rome, but I found tons of things that screamed this can't be right (in the article).
I'm no expert in Rome, but I found tons of things that screamed this can't be right (in the article).
And yet they often had sumptuary laws forbidding the wearing of silk, which was on account of it left very little to the imagination.
Even if I grant you are completely correct about your assertions about togas (I contest it), it seems whatever was said of the toga could apply to a tunic/chiton, himation, or whatever else people were wearing.
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?...
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?...
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.
<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.
> 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.
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.
So they cut through stone in order to accommodate the sh*t-stick? :D
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.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
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.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> The toga thing has been addressed by others as our cultural mores being projected on people with different values...
It's not about projecting cultural values. It's about a supposedly trustworthy publication that published rubbish. The author of the article doesn't know basic things about the life of the people they are discussing.
It's not about projecting cultural values. It's about a supposedly trustworthy publication that published rubbish. The author of the article doesn't know basic things about the life of the people they are discussing.
I guess that implies that esoteric aspects of toga wearing in ancient Rome is a "basic thing" that one should know before writing anything about Roman toilets.
I'm sorry that it seems to be so problematic.
This piece seems interesting and illuminating regarding a specific aspect of a culture that we are thousands of years removed from. It's a pop-piece, meant to be approachable and to stir the curiosity of the reader.
I can't imagine how many different ways it probably gets things wrong... and I guess that in itself is interesting to think about... but because it's impure does it mean that it has no value?
Is anything with a hint of inaccuracy (according to our own perspective and understanding) deigned unworthy of inclusion and distribution?
Does one need to be perfect in order to be published?
I'm sorry that it seems to be so problematic.
This piece seems interesting and illuminating regarding a specific aspect of a culture that we are thousands of years removed from. It's a pop-piece, meant to be approachable and to stir the curiosity of the reader.
I can't imagine how many different ways it probably gets things wrong... and I guess that in itself is interesting to think about... but because it's impure does it mean that it has no value?
Is anything with a hint of inaccuracy (according to our own perspective and understanding) deigned unworthy of inclusion and distribution?
Does one need to be perfect in order to be published?
> I guess that implies that esoteric aspects of toga wearing in ancient Rome is a "basic thing" that one should know before writing anything about Roman toilets.
Yes. Because there is nothing esoteric about knowing how people dressed if you are going to talk about their lives.
> Does one need to be perfect in order to be published?
No. Just honest and at least slightly competent.
Yes. Because there is nothing esoteric about knowing how people dressed if you are going to talk about their lives.
> Does one need to be perfect in order to be published?
No. Just honest and at least slightly competent.
Well, it seems revealing that we're discussing togas and not sponges on sticks. I'd wager that's because earlier statements made in this thread regarding the universal, unequivocal truth that no one used shared sponges on sticks may not necessarily be so easy to defend.
Judgements of competence and honesty are subjective; we can all fail to distribute them fairly (especially when it comes to ourselves).
Rarely, when it comes to a history of an entire culture that spans hundreds of years and thousands of miles, can we find one perspective that describes a universal "truth."
All we have are shades of approximation.
That doesn't mean that there's no value in that approximation, it just means that we have to be a little patient with each other while each of our generalizations don't necessarily conform to the ineffable complexity of such a large group of people over such a large area over such a large timespan.
"Perfect is the enemy of good."
Judgements of competence and honesty are subjective; we can all fail to distribute them fairly (especially when it comes to ourselves).
Rarely, when it comes to a history of an entire culture that spans hundreds of years and thousands of miles, can we find one perspective that describes a universal "truth."
All we have are shades of approximation.
That doesn't mean that there's no value in that approximation, it just means that we have to be a little patient with each other while each of our generalizations don't necessarily conform to the ineffable complexity of such a large group of people over such a large area over such a large timespan.
"Perfect is the enemy of good."
s/recon/reckon/g
The claim that they wiped with a sponge on a stick is probably wrong: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24coYKPga9o
That would be a good thing. The sharing thing they're supposed to have had with them is quite unacceptable.
Toilet rather than bathroom, since their baths were amazing.
As the Cambridge dictionary says, 'Bathroom' is US English for toilet. Hence the confusion.
I do find the use of euphemisms in the USA such has 'bathroom' (mate, where is the bath?) or 'restroom' (I don't need a rest, I need a shit) a little odd. Here in Blighty, it is perfectly fine to ask the butler in Buckingham Palace where the toilet is. Or the bog for that matter :-)
I do find the use of euphemisms in the USA such has 'bathroom' (mate, where is the bath?) or 'restroom' (I don't need a rest, I need a shit) a little odd. Here in Blighty, it is perfectly fine to ask the butler in Buckingham Palace where the toilet is. Or the bog for that matter :-)
The British euphemism "going to the toilet" for pissing/shitting is also a little odd: https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/760afb9b-6723-4206-bfdb-d832a18...
And toilet itself is a washing-related euphemism like bath or lavatory. It comes from the French word toilette (little piece of cloth).
And toilet itself is a washing-related euphemism like bath or lavatory. It comes from the French word toilette (little piece of cloth).
Oh certainly.
A more well spoken person in Britain will always say 'lavatory' instead of 'toilet'.
https://theconversation.com/toilet-or-lavatory-how-words-bri...
A more well spoken person in Britain will always say 'lavatory' instead of 'toilet'.
https://theconversation.com/toilet-or-lavatory-how-words-bri...
I agree with this. The original title is ``What toilets and sewers tell us about ancient Roman sanitation''.
One wonders if you could apply some of this technology to make passive toilet facilities for cities.
I have a toilet related startup; https://Loodio.com - an automatic music player for bathrooms that gives the user privacy while using a toilet.
People find the idea awkward to talk about but I find it funny and necessary - Apparently one of the Seven Sages agrees with me according to the article.
People find the idea awkward to talk about but I find it funny and necessary - Apparently one of the Seven Sages agrees with me according to the article.
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.
[deleted]
They mention togas a lot, most Romans didn’t wear togas day to day, they were ceremonial like suits.
[deleted]
This was a great toilet read, not too long, not too short, although I’m somewhat of a speed reader. Now where did that sea sponge on the end of a stick go? No wait, that’s the toilet brush.
"11 asses may have been paid for the removal of manure" - the roman coin "As" makes for a funny wordplay here
You can actually see similar systems being used today in underdeveloped/developing countries, from toilet to sewage.
What a fascinating read. The first article here I’ve read to completion.
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."