by Drs. N.

Summary:
The instill of Roman culture to the 'barbarians' was seen by the Romans themselves as a positive development, but recent archaeological research suggests that the introduction of urban settlements, which were part of it, also had a shadow side. Although the Romans are known for their sanitation and laws to keep their cities clean, they introduced not only urban settlements but also countless diseases into the territories they conquered. Thus, the number of parasites during Roman domination, compared to the late Iron Age, did not decrease but even increased (Mitchell, 2017).
This article will discuss possible causes of disease in Roman urban settlements through literature review and will make a case study of the English city of Dorchester in the Dorset region, where archaeological finds indicate a high mortality rate,.
An attempt will be made to establish a well-founded link between the introduction of urban facilities, such as bathhouses and latrines, and the health of the inhabitants of the region at the time.


Intro
'The impact of cultural, social and environmental change following the Roman conquest of Britain in AD 43 is most frequently known as Romanisation... '(Redfern, Millard & Hamlin, 2012). According to Fabian (in Hingley, 1996), the term “romanization” assumes an incorrect assumption. This assumption means that “primitive” societies develop over time into civilized societies. Rome is seen here as the standard of a civilized society and the end point of such development. For example, historians saw Claudius's conquest of Britain as the end of prehistory and the beginning of civilization (Wacher, in Redfern and DeWitte, 2011).
The term 'romanization', such as Redfern, Millard & Hamlin (2012) that have defined and used in this article, shows that the Romans had an influence on the environment in conquering areas in addition to a cultural influence.. For example, the Romans are known for the introduction of bathhouses and sanitary buildings intended to keep cities and their inhabitants clean and healthy. According to Mitchell (2017), modern research shows that good sanitation improved the health of former populations compared to those who did not have it. Theoretically, the facilities and knowledge to keep the city clean, introduced by the Romans, should have benefited the locals (Hobson, in Mitchell 2017).
Redfern and DeWitte (2011) conclude from their studies on the Romanization of Britain that 'the introduction of new settlements and living environments, and the adoption of 'Roman' cultural practices' had adverse effects on public health. In order to maintain a population (or, in other words, a culture), the health of the population that is part of it is essential. After all, with a high mortality rate, culture dies from. In this way, a society or culture is inextricably linked to the health of its inhabitants.
The conclusion of Redfern and DeWitte (2011) shows, unlike the assumption behind the term romanization assumed, no transition to a 'better' or 'higher' form of society. On the other hand, the definition of romanization included a change of living environment that posed a danger to public health. That is, a major relative deterioration in public health does not seem to me to be a characteristic of a society that is better developed than the previous one.
Following the above thoughts and the fact that in addition to the conclusion of Redfern and DeWitte (2011) there are more studies pointing in the same direction (Lewis, 2010; Mitchell, 2017), the following research question has been formulated:
what urban factors, i.e. specific buildings and facilities, could have contributed to the relative deterioration of public health in Britain after the arrival of the Romans and what does the understanding add to the romance debate?

In this article, the introduction of bathhouses and sanitary buildings will be considered as an aspect of romanization (1) and will look at the impact of their takeover on public health in Britain after the arrival of the Romans.

Method
The theme of “impact on public health of romance” is discussed by outlining, first of all, the facilities that Roman cities generally had. Secondly, a general characteristic of the urban transition from the city of Dorchester will be considered, namely an increasing population density. Thirdly, the specific facilities that were present in Dorchester will be discussed in order to identify possible causes for the relatively poor health of Dorchester residents (Redfern and DeWitte, 2011).

Using secondary sources focusing mainly on bone research, attempts will be made to prove that poor public health in Dorchester was caused by Roman urban facilities.
Because the ability to keep the most vulnerable people, such as children, shows the ability to adapt to the environment of society, a study on children's skeletons is cited (Lewis, 2010).

Hygiene in a Roman city (or lack thereof)
Sewerage
Little is known about the use of sanitation in Roman cities, and also the antique authors often keep silent about this. However, from the few literary and archaeological resources available, a city like Rome was quite unhealthy for its inhabitants. For example, Scobie (1986) believes that the Romans were more concerned with the law of burying the dead outside the city than with the question of what to do with human and animal waste within the city.
Also, according to him, it was not mandatory but an option to connect your house to the public sewerage. Indeed, archaeological research shows that some inhabitants of Roman cities prefer to have a cesspool in the house than to be connected to the city sewer. It even happened that these were situated in kitchens so that contamination of food was a real risk. Also, people were needed to empty the cesspools. This work will have posed a high health risk for both the person who did the job and the people with whom he or she came into contact afterwards (Scobie, 1986).
One possible reason for the fact that some inhabitants of Roman cities would prefer not to be connected to the sewer is that there was no gooseneck in the drain pipes, causing inconvenience of smell and explosion due to the release of methane, among other things (Scobie, 1986). However, it is not possible to determine whether they were aware of this exactly.. Furthermore, the sewage in low-lying areas could flow back if the sewer pipes rise with the rise of the water level of, for example, the Tiber. Also, pests through the pipes could reach the houses (Scobie, 1986).

Streets
In addition to private houses, also on the public street the situation was not particularly healthy. Due to direct or indirect contact with human or animal feces, the risk of contamination of drinking water was high. In addition to problems with sewerage, urine, which was stored in unglazed and porous terracotta pots, landed on the street (Scobie, 1986). This was because due to their porous structure, the jars were not suitable to store the urine in. There is also a lot of evidence that the inhabitants of Pompeii did their need on the streets and doorways (Scobie, 1986). It also turns out that the inhabitants of the insulae, a kind of apartments for the poorer inhabitants, probably found it more convenient to throw their garbage out the window at night than to walk down the many stairs and walk through the unlit streets to the public latrine, if there was any (Scobie, 1986). Not only people but also dogs, which were often kept as pets, could spread diseases by, for example, their feces on the street. Flies came down to this and then sat back on people's food (Scobie, 1986).

Bathhouses
What was further found in almost every Roman city are bathhouses and there is no doubt that the Romans considered them beneficial to health. The gods most depicted were Aesculapius, god of medicine, and his daughter Hygieia (Scobie, 1986). However, while the sick were advised to bathe there, they were not as beneficial as they were supposed to. Perhaps they did not know it then, but we now know that diseases such as cholera and dysentery through direct contact and through. water can be passed on and there is no evidence that the Romans used disinfectants such as chlorine in modern pools (Scobie, 1986).
Even though this doesn't mean they didn't do anything to keep the water clean. It is believed that once in a while the baths were purified of mud and it is established that the sick bathed at a different time than the general public. All in all, it is likely that there were infectious and infectious diseases in bathhouses and could therefore pose a risk to public health.
According to Celsus (Roman writer of an important encyclopedia on medicine), bathing with an open wound could even result in gangrene (Fagan, in Redfern & Roberts 2005), an infection in which healthy tissue is affected. In addition, parents who, for example, worked in a bathhouse and thus came into contact with the water and sick people could infect their children (Redfern & Roberts, 2005).

Water supply
So, even though it seemed so healthy, a bathhouse could transmit diseases through water. The water supply in a Roman city could also pose a health risk due to the use of lead pipes, which were used because the material was cheap and flexible (Scobie, 1986). When lead in drinking water rises above a certain limit, it is toxic to humans. Because according to Scobie (1986) it is not possible to know if there was hard or soft water in Roman cities, soft water dissolves lead, and whether intake exceeded 6 grams per day, however, its harmfulness is difficult to estimate. Whether outside Vitruvius, who warned against it (Scobie, 1986), the Roman population was aware of the potential danger, is unfortunately not to be established either.

Urban Transition
In general, facilities such as sewerage, streets, bathhouses and water facilities such as aqueducts could pose a potential health hazard in Roman cities.
In the specific case of the city of Dorchester in the Dorset region, it is therefore interesting to look for the causes of relatively poor public health in Roman urban facilities.

Continued (next Wednesday)...


1. The Romans spread their ideas about hygiene in conquered areas (Pitts and Versluys, in Mitchell 2017).


Health Effects of Romanization in Britain (1st century AD)