Dispelling Some Myths: Romans brushed their teeth with Urine

While teaching primary school children about the Romans, and specifically hygiene, we have encountered the belief that they cleaned their teeth with urine. We mention this only because on May 9th, 2022, a link to an article by ancient-origins.net on this very fact was highlighted on Twitter by Roman historian and author, Dr. Mike Bishop (@perlineamvalli). In the linked article, ‘Ancient Romans Brushed Their Teeth with Urine’, Bryan Hill states: ‘The Romans believed that urine - both human and animal - would make their teeth whiter and keep them from decaying, so they used it as a mouthwash and mixed it with pummis to make toothpaste. In fact, urine was so effective that it was used in toothpastes and mouthwashes up until the 1700s’ (Hill, 2022). Dr Bishop, however, challenges the misleading implications writing that ‘not all Romans [followed this practice] as a matter of course’ and that the poet ‘Catullus (Poem 39) actually mocks someone for doing it’. Dr Bishop also notes Catullus’ implication that it was ‘a Celtiberian, not a Roman, trait.’ In other words, cleaning ones teeth with a urine-based mouthwash or paste was an un-Roman act, and any Roman doing so should be publicly ridiculed.

So, did the Romans brush their teeth with urine? Probably not. Be honest - would you? Yet why does this ‘factoid’ have such a hold on popular imagination? We suspect it is simply a case that it appeals to our notions of disgust.

Urine’s cleaning properties  Yet, in ancient times urine was a valuable commodity. It contains a wide array of important minerals and chemicals such as phosphorus and potassium. Urine was a rich source of urea, a nitrogen-based organic compound. When stored for long periods of time, the urea in stale urine decays to produce ammonia, a chemical used in many household cleaners today. Ammonia is highly effective at neutralising any acidity in dirt and grease, and is therefore very useful in breaking down fat molecules and removing stains from clothing. In ancient Rome, vessels for collecting urine were commonplace on streets. Passers-by would be encouraged to relieve themselves into them and when full the contents were taken to a fullonica (a laundry). The stale urine would be diluted with water in a large vat into which dirty clothes would be added. A laundry worker would then stand in the tub of urine and agitate the clothes with their feet in a similar way that a modern washing machine works (Kumar, 2013).

Vectigal urinae  In the 1st-century AD, Emperor Nero levied the vectigal urinae meaning ‘urine tax’ on the buyers of urine collected from public urinals. After Nero’s death in AD 68 the Roman world was plunged into a civil war known to us as ‘the year of the four Emperors’. Imperial power was eventually seized by Titus Flavius Vespasianus who became emperor in AD 69 and ruled for the next ten years until his death in AD 79. On his succession Vespasian began levying a series of taxes aimed at raising funds to restore the treasury’s finances and deliver the Empire from debt. One measure, re-introduced around AD 70, was charging for the collection of urine from the public urinals feeding Rome's Cloaca Maxima, its great sewer system.

Pecunia non olet  Known for his love of money and hardnosed taxation, Vespasian is also credited with introducing the first public toilets, nicknamed locally as ‘Vespasians’, in AD 74. However, his eldest son and future emperor, Titus, thought the urine tax a disgusting policy and complained to his father about it. According to the Roman historians Dio Cassius and Suetonius, Vespasian reputedly replied by picking up a gold coin and remarking ‘Pecunia non olet’ (‘money does not stink’) meaning that money is not tainted regardless of its origins.

A colourful past  Urine not only got clothes cleaner, but made colours brighter. Today cloth is coloured using chemical dyes but in the past natural dyes from seeds, leaves, flowers, lichens, roots, bark, and berries were used. These colours can leach out of cloth if it or the dyebath are not treated with mordant to bind the dye to the cloth’s fibres. The process works by wrapping dye molecules called chromophores inside a more complex molecule or a group of molecules to form a shell around the chromophores. The molecules forming this shell ensure the dye’s colour remains visible while enabling the dye to bind to the cloth and protecting it from bleeding away. Textile manufacturers quickly discovered that stale urine, or more precisely the ammonia in it, is a good mordant (Kumar, 2013).

Urine’s ammonia content was also important in the textile industry for bleaching wool or linen, and in tanning leather to soften it. Diluted in water ammonia acts as a caustic but weak base. Its high pH breaks down organic material making urine the perfect substance to soften and prepare animal hides for tanning. Soaking animal skins in urine also made it easier for leather workers to remove unwanted hair (‘unhairing’) and bits of flesh (‘fleshing’) from the hide.

References:

Hill, B., (2022), ‘Ancient Romans Brushed Their Teeth with Urine’, Ancient Origins, available online (accessed May 12th, 2022).

Kumar, M., (2013), ‘From Gunpowder to Teeth Whitener: The Science Behind Historic Uses of Urine’, Smithsonian Magazine, available online (accessed May 12th, 2022). 

Kitchenalia: Roman Soldier's Cookware

In an earlier article, we challenged the idea that Roman soldiers cooked farinata, a type of unleavened bread made from chickpea flour, on their shields (link here). Given that Roman shields (Latin scutae; sing. scuta) were typically made of wood this is highly unlikely and at best a myth. So, if not using their shields, then what utensils might the average Roman soldier carry to cook with?

Roman army mess tin

Trajan's column in Rome depicts soldiers carrying objects similar to the one pictured (right). They are thought to be ‘mess tins’ (a much more modern military term) or saucepans used both for cooking and for eating from. Today they are frequently referred to as patera [1], but this is possible a misnomer.

In his account of The Jewish War, Flavius Josephus [2] records that, in addition to three days rations, each Roman soldier carried ‘a saw, a basket, a pick and an axe, as well as a strap, a bill-hook and a chain’ (Goldsworthy, 2003, 135). The ‘bill-hook’ may well have been a sickle for reaping crops. Regardless, Josephus’ statement is supported by a scene on Trajan's Column, pictured right, that depicts legionaries carrying their kit over their shoulders on a pole (Latin: furca). This consisted in part of a string-bag for forage, a metal cooking-pot (situla) and a ‘mess-tin’.

Examples of the latter have been discovered in most parts of the Empire (Davies, 2011). Now housed in museums, most paterae are made of cast bronze, often tin-lined, and sometimes with their handles and/or bowls highly decorated. The maker frequently stamped their name on it, as did the object's owner. The analogy with modern military mess tins seems obvious, but these pans were used in far wider contexts, such as in kitchens and in religious observances for making libations.

Libation  In the material culture of classical antiquity, to the ancient Greeks a phiale is a shallow ceramic or metal libation bowl. In Latin the same object is named patera (pl. paterae) The most numerous were small plates of the common red earthenware onto which an ornamental pattern was drawn. Numerous specimens may be seen in the British Museum, and in other collections of ancient ceramic vases. The more valuable paterae were metallic, being chiefly of bronze, although wealthier families may have had one of silver. Libation bowls often have a bulbous indentation (omphalos, ‘bellybutton’) centrally underneath to facilitate holding them, and typically have no handles or feet. Although the two terms may be used interchangeably, particularly in the context of Etruscan culture, phiale is more common in reference to Greek forms, and patera in Roman settings (which should not be confused with the Greek (Πατέρας) patéras meaning ‘father’ and the Latin equivalent pater). In Roman art, the libation is shown performed at an altar, mensa (sacrificial meal table), or at a tripod. It was the simplest form of sacrifice, and could be a sufficient offering by itself.

Cooking pot

Also mentioned in Josephus’ description is a situla (pl. situlae). From the Latin word for bucket or pail, the term is used in both archaeology and art history to describe a variety of elaborate bucket-shaped vessels dating from the Iron Age to the Middle Ages. Usually fitted with a handle, all types of situlae may be highly decorated, most characteristically with reliefs in bands or friezes running round the vessel. A more utilitarian, undecorated, tin-lined version (pictured right) was more likely carried by Roman soldiers as a cooking pot.

 

Folding Frying Pan

While Josephus specifically mentions soldiers carrying paterae and situlae, archaeological evidence also suggest they used other items of cookware. Pictured right is our splendid replica of a late Roman frying pan or skillet made by Len Morgan. Earlier dated pans tend to have a fixed handle much like the patera already discussed, which gave rise to them being named as such. The original iron version with a folding handle, upon which the replicas is based, was found near the fort Gelduba (Krefeld-Gellep, Germany) and dates from the 3rd-century AD. A similarly dated folding handle pan, made for a soldier of the Roman army in Wales, is housed in the National Roman Legion Museum, Caerleon. The folding handle makes perfect sense in a military context as it minimises the space needed to carry it.

The replica’s handle is attached by a single barrel hinge and pin to an integral tang, as shown in the bottom image (above right). The pan has a spout to drain off fat, just like the originals. It is made of 1 mm thick steel and measures approximately 235 mm wide, 630 mm long with the handle extended or 360 mm folded. The pan’s depth is approximately 25 mm and it weighs 1.25 kg.

 
References:

Davies, R. W., (2011), ‘The Roman Military Diet’, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goldsworthy, A., (2003), ‘The Complete Roman Army, London: Thames and Hudson.

Endnotes:

1. To confuse matters, pa′tera was also the name given to round dishes, small plates or saucers which, according to Pliny (Natural History, XXX.8 s21), were sometimes used in cooking, an operation more commonly performed in pots [olla] and basins or bowls. They could also be used at meals to eat upon or to serve food. The use of paterae at meals no doubt gave origin to the employment of them in sacrifices. On these occasions they held either solid food or any liquid intended to be poured out as a libation. We find paterae frequently represented in conjunction with the other instruments of sacrifice upon coins, gems, altars, bas-reliefs, and the friezes of temples.

2. Flavius Josephus (c. AD 37 – c. AD 100) was a first-century Romano-Jewish historian. He initially fought against the Romans in the First Jewish-Roman War (AD 66-70) but surrendered to the forces led by the future emperor Vespasian in AD 67. Subsequently, having defected to the Roman side, Josephus set about recording Jewish history with special emphasis on The Jewish War which, written c. AD 75, recounts the Jewish revolt against Roman occupation and includes his account of the siege of Masada.