Couldn't find what you looking for?

TRY OUR SEARCH!

Table of Contents

Can bathing too much make you dirtier? Even if you come out squeaky clean, inattention to what else goes into your tub can leave you exposed to parasites.

As New Scientist writer Stephanie Pain points out, if there's anything most people know about the Roman Empire, it's that Romans took a lot of baths.

Almost every Roman city had one or more thermae, bathhouses for taking hot baths, and one or more balnae, bathhouses for taking cold baths. Most Roman cities had multiple bathhouses. Everywhere Rome expanded its empire it made provisions for public baths, not just in what is now Italy, but in north Africa, in the Middle East, and throughout Europe as far north as the city of Bath in what is now England.

Bathhouses were something like hot tubs are now, only on a much grander scale. They came with restaurants, libraries, and stages for poetry performances. Taking a bath took hours, so many Romans made the baths the center of their social lives and the go-to place for professional advancement. Rome itself had 200 bathhouses, with hundreds of modern latrines and strict laws that sewage was to be removed from the city. In the public latrines, which could seat as many as 50 people at the same time, running water under the seats flushed waste into the sewer.

The Roman sewer system was far from perfect. There weren't any traps, so sewer gases could easily back up into the family's latrine (typically located in the kitchen). During floods, sewers could back up into houses and bathhouses. Moreover, raw sewage was used as fertilizer for the vegetables sold in the city market. Still, this system was a major improvement over the usual practice of the era, throwing human waste out the window into the street.

With all that bathing and even flush toilets, you would think that the Romans wouldn't have had as many parasites as the non-bathing barbarians, but that wasn't the case.

Piers Mitchell, a physician and a paleopathologist on the faculty at the University of Cambridge, developed a theory that Roman habits of cleanliness would have led to better health throughout its empire. Infectious diseases don't leave an archeological record, but parasites do. Intestinal worms have tough walls that can survive for thousands of years in fossilized feces. Fleas, ticks, and lice dry out and stay intact in fragments of cloth and combs. Chemicals produced by the amoebae that cause giardiasis and dysentery can persist in the dirt covering bodies long after the bodies themselves decay. If Imperial Rome's insistence on public cleanliness reduced the frequency of parasitic infection, then Roman archeological sites should show fewer remains of parasites.

But that isn't what Dr. Mitchell found.

Ancient remains in England showed that before the Roman invasion, people on the island suffered hookworms, roundworms, and dysentery. Mitchell expected there would be fewer of those parasites in remains of people after the Roman Empire came to Britain. There weren't. 

Mitchell also found that fleas and lice were just as common in people who took regular baths as in those who didn't.

What could have gone wrong with the Roman efforts at personal hygiene?

For one thing, there aren't any records of how often the Romans changed the water in their baths. Roman historians record that the bath water was scummy from excrement and oils that Romans used to moisturize the skin after their baths that stayed on the skin until the next day. In lieu of a cleansing stream of water or toilet paper, Romans wipes themselves with a sponge, which was almost certainly shared with everyone else who used the toilet. By the second century CE Romans recognized that it wasn't a good idea for sick people and healthy people to bathe at the same time, so the Emperor Hadrian decreed that sick people should use the water first.

We don't do anything like that today, do we? Unfortunately we do.

Continue reading after recommendations

Your thoughts on this

User avatar Guest
Captcha