Scrubbidy dub dub

[Faustus]

Also imagine how much algae there must have been at the baths that didn't have a huge water supply.

That is a very interesting observation, which I, for one, have never considered. There is a Gallo Roman Bathouse in a place called Samois Sur Seine, 60km south of Paris, which is stillfunctional. It has a shallow plunge bath which is stillintact and supplied by a spring. There is no algae at all, but I wonder if this is because of local maintainance workers with an array of chemicals to hand. Also, the bath has running water going through it at all times. However, I suspect it was probably the Tepidaria and the Calidaria, with their intermittant supplies of tepid and warm water, which probably had the algae. Maybe the Romans finished their baths in the Frigidarium because it was the part of the complex free of algae?

A comparison to our local quarry holes might be considered. Some are quite small and some water infiltrates into the "system" from the porous limestone walls. Those stay pretty much algae free all summer long. Some which are fed only from direct precipitation are warmer and develop more of the algae. A green algae forms on mostly submerged horizontal surfaces. Foot trafic peels it off and it floats away, and can be lifted off the surface if attended to.

 

Klingan mentioned the Stabian baths in Pompeii being fed for a very long time by a paternoster system. It seems I read that the underground drainage systems involved there and other places in Pompeii (and Herculaneum) haven't been investigated in their entirety as they remain buried. At the time more water may have filtered in and out than we now know of. Without infiltration/exfiltraton it seems a build up would have occured and would need to be removed as mentioned above.

 

But all this disallows their having come up with a solution to minimize it like adding something like a mild form of copper sulfates to the water: "Usage of copper compounds [ . . . ] dates back to before 4000 BC. Copper sulphate for example was an especially important compound in early times. Ancient Egyptians used it as a mordant in their dyeing process. The compound was also used to make ointments and other such preparations. . . .Copper sulphate is still extensively used today and no harmful side effects of its prescribed use have been reported"

 

This of course proves nothing; but they would've had good reason to utilize it in some practical ways if they had it in a mild form.

 

Faustus

[M. Porcius Cato]

I was under the impression that most, if not all, of the baths had problems with stale water. I believe I read that no plugs/drains were found in the baths so that there was no continual flow of water. Undoubtedly this would have furthered the algae problem.

 

Even if there were no plugs/drains, it's still possible that they knew to circulate the water. An Archimedes screw could be used as a pump for circulating the water out.

[Northern Neil]

I was under the impression that most, if not all, of the baths had problems with stale water. I believe I read that no plugs/drains were found in the baths so that there was no continual flow of water. Undoubtedly this would have furthered the algae problem.

 

Even if there were no plugs/drains, it's still possible that they knew to circulate the water. An Archimedes screw could be used as a pump for circulating the water out.

I believe the bath houses on Hadrians wall had entry and exit culverts for the water. I cannot imagine bath houses in more developed parts of the Empire did not have these too.

[Fulvia]

I was under the impression that most, if not all, of the baths had problems with stale water. I believe I read that no plugs/drains were found in the baths so that there was no continual flow of water. Undoubtedly this would have furthered the algae problem.

 

Even if there were no plugs/drains, it's still possible that they knew to circulate the water. An Archimedes screw could be used as a pump for circulating the water out.

I believe the bath houses on Hadrians wall had entry and exit culverts for the water. I cannot imagine bath houses in more developed parts of the Empire did not have these too.

 

But even an Achimedes screw would leave an archaeological mark. I find it harder to believe that the Romans wouldn't have circulated water but the lack of archaeological record for this area is frustrating.

[Klingan]

Well from all the bathhouses I have been looking at they tried to keep the water flowing. The baths at Pompeii have exits in all the pools and there were a number of different ways to place those outlets.

 

Archaeologists have also noticed that only one single plug have been found to shut the water flow. It was made of lead and found in the Stabian baths. However that no more have been found is, in my opinion, probably an effect of the material of choice. If I were a roman bath owner I wouldn't get a new lead plug each time on disappeared when I can make on out of wood myself in no time... Then imagine how good the chances of fining such a item would be.

 

Anyway normally when connected to an aqueduct system plugs wouldn't be needed very much. A bath doesn't require as much water as most people imagine, once it's filled once. There are also evidence of re-use of the hot water. Then again, a great deal of cities (London as an example) never had any aqueduct.

 

The problem really starts when you're not connected to an aqueduct system since the value on water now is much higher. We know of a few baths which depended on rainwater only (There are one such bath at Sicily, I cannot find the exact place right now. (I'm quite sure Hodge or Jansen writes abuot it in "Handbook of ancient water technology") since the normal quantity of rain per year is no more the 1000 mm. That means that in real life you need to have as much rain catching area as you ahve one meter deeps pools. That won't give you much room for changing water.

[sullafelix]

Hmm

 

I know that Seneca mentions Scipio Africanus bath in this epistle, actually the whole thing is worth a read but here you go one extract:

 

How some persons nowadays condemn Scipio as a boor because he did not let daylight into his perspiring-room through wide windows, or because he did not roast in the strong sunlight and dawdle about until he could stew in the hot water!

[Klingan]

I don't think we should confuse ancient filtering with modern since our filters. It's really not comparable and I'm almost certain that no ancient filter could stop algae. I would also like to take a look at the Latin version of the text and not a translation, I have had far too much trouble with translations before.

 

Anyway we know that some kind of filters existed, there are marks left of two at Pompeiis castellum. However those are lost today, presumably due to metal hunters.

 

About mud, the main element to lose the mud was settling pools, not filter.

 

It's a very interesting quote though

[M. Porcius Cato]

Sullafelix, can you provide a link to your extract from Seneca?

[ASCLEPIADES]

Sullafelix, can you provide a link to your extract from Seneca?

Salve, MPC

 

Epistolarium moralium ad Lucilium Liber XII, Epistola LXXXVI, cp. XI-XII.

 

Lucius Annaeus Seneca Minor wrote this letter when he was resting at a t the resting at the country-house which once belonged to Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus Maior (In ipsa Scipionis Africani villa iacens haec tibi scribo).

[SPQR]

I was under the impression that Roman Health was very good for the time. For a culture that was so intrested in cleansiness and organization, I would expect their baths to be clean, or at least in someway filtered. Of course, I am sure this is versus Gauls and Britions, who I don't think were as concerned with cleansiness. Also, if people bathed every day, or even twice a day, consider all the shavings, within a few months you would be wading through shavings, not water. This would lead me to believe that those who created concrete and the Arch could filter bath houses at least in Rome. Of course, I may be overlooking something and be totally wrong.

Edited June 19, 2008 by SPQR

[Klingan]

I was under the impression that Roman Health was very good for the time. For a culture that was so intrested in cleansiness and organization, I would expect their baths to be clean, or at least in someway filtered. Of course, I am sure this is versus Gauls and Britions, who I don't think were as concerned with cleansiness. Also, if people bathed every day, or even twice a day, consider all the shavings, within a few months you would be wading through shavings, not water. This would lead me to believe that those who created concrete and the Arch could filter bath houses at least in Rome. Of course, I may be overlooking something and be totally wrong.

 

Remember that sanitation is a very relative word. Compared to what had been before I'm sure the baths were a major change in public sanitation. Also the baths was just one of many things making roman cities cleaner. In my opinion were the overflow water and sewers of a much greater importance.

[SPQR]

Thanks, that makes more sense.