 UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! |
 Castle Quest
 School Projects
 Bathrooms
|
| next newest topic | next oldest topic |
| Author | Topic: Bathrooms |
|
YbbeYArg Member |
posted 10-12-2000 05:54 PM
  
Hi! i'm doing a project on life in medieval castles. i'm 16, in 11th grade. i just have one quick question: what were the bathrooms like in castles? did they just have outhouse-type things, or what? thank you for your help. i would appreciate a reply as soon as possible, thank you! Abby |
|
Levan Moderator |
posted 10-13-2000 02:46 AM
Most British castles had internal bathrooms, which were called 'garderobes'. These varied in sophistication. At the basic level this might be a small room with a toilet chute running out to the base of an outside wall, to a moat if there was one, or just to a dung-heap which was typically covered with straw. Often on the outside of a garderobe would be a recess in a wall to hold a jug and basin for hand washing. At the other end of the scale, some garderobes were large heated rooms, some even had primitive systems for running water, some even had window seats so one could really enjoy time taken for one's 'ablutions'! Baths were very rare. Levan |
|
Glaive203 Senior Member |
posted 10-27-2000 09:46 PM
excellent post by levan;but a little misleading for the ignorant. First,garderobes were just as likely to be called wardrobes and had a more complicated function than as simple privies. During the MA people did not have private rooms like we do,because they lived in common rooms they needed a private place to change clothes and this was at least as much the function of wardrobes as that of prives.Inside them their would have been cedar chests storing clothes,as well as,a "toilet" and Laver(basin) to wash up with.Actual baths;however were never taken in wardrobes,though despite the popular images,boths baths and soap never went out of fashion;but the soap was gel like and not in bars like we use. |
|
duncan Senior Member |
posted 10-28-2000 07:05 AM
If possible, I'd really like to know your reference source on the soap. ------------------ And in all your comings |
|
Erik Schmidt Senior Member |
posted 10-29-2000 01:13 AM
Most castles I've visited had the toilet built out from an external wall, like a machiolation, and just had a stone slab with a hole in it to sit on. The waste just dropped down outside the wall. I've also seen the system with the shute, which may be more common in other places. The toilet was usually small and separated from other rooms by a door, although toilets on the battlements for the soldiers did not have this luxury. |
|
Philip Davis unregistered |
posted 11-16-2000 04:10 PM
A bit late but I've been away. Two points. As with today latrines had many different names depending on local custom and the person who was using them. Garderode, wardrode, privy, nessecarium may all have been used, plus other more direct names and others lost in time. The frequency of bathing varied between individuals, but a discussion in the newsgroup soc.mediveal.history a few months ago made the point that many scandinavian counties call the 6th day of the week 'bath day' as opposed to the English Saturn's day (Saturday), strongly implying that the norm was for weekly baths during the medieval period. I'm not untirely convinced that this meant full soaks in a tub every week, rather than thorough strip washes. It's always worth remembering that what happed in the past was as varied as what happens today, different people did things differently. History is always a simplification of what really happened. ------------------ |
|
wurdsmiff unregistered |
posted 11-16-2000 04:20 PM
Welcome back Philip, greatly missed your input . ------------------ Gordon. |
|
duncan Senior Member |
posted 11-16-2000 05:24 PM
Glad your back Phillip, your've missed most of the fun. |
|
Philip Davis unregistered |
posted 11-18-2000 12:21 AM
Duncan re soap. If you post a question on soc.history.medieval about soap someone there will give you more detail than you can possible want. ------------------ |
|
duncan Senior Member |
posted 11-18-2000 05:58 AM
Thanks Philip for the link. But I have a 4th generation or more soap maker in this house, thats one of the many things we teach and do here. ------------------ And in all your comings |
|
Glaive203 Senior Member |
posted 12-23-2000 11:53 PM
I cann't find the source-curse my notes! But I was doing research on gilds when I picked up that piece of thrivia.Dunan you've a soaper in the family-it must be quite cool! I'll try to find the source;but don't have access to all the books I've used studing the MA and propable will not be able to find it. |
|
fafwolf Senior Member |
posted 12-27-2000 07:40 AM
I've seen sources that mention some castle toilets (possible ones located in the inner ward, where a direct chute to the ground would be less attractive) had chutes that led to cesspool type thingys which had to be periodically cleaned out by some poor servant. Anyone know more 'bout this? |
|
Philip Davis unregistered |
posted 12-27-2000 04:16 PM
There is a fine example at the keep of Dover castle but I've seen many. This probably sounds worse than what it was, the liquid would have soaked away leaving just solids, mainly faeces, but also the leaves and old rags used instead of toilet paper (although the rags would have only been thrown away when entirely worn out and no longer washable) plus the straw and rushes that lay on the floor. Generally the mix of waste would have been a good composting mix (particually since the diet of most people was much higher in fibre than todays diet) this sort of mix quite rapidly loses it's smell and becomes good fertiliser (some composting toilets are used in modern western homes, because they are so ecologically sound). The mix would have been shovelled out and loaded onto small carts or wheelbarrows and then used to fertilise fields. As an aside people who have a high fibre diet (and most medieval people ate one or two loaves of whole grain bread a day) don't need to use anything to wipe their bottoms since their stool is soft but firm. |
|
Glaive203 Senior Member |
posted 12-27-2000 10:28 PM
Bad argument Philip,when talking about the gentry and nobiliy they ate a diet very high in animal proteins and everyone ate a lot of cheese which would have hardened their "nightsoil"to something like thick clay.Straw is also described as being used to wipe ones bottom in England.I'm not so sure the urine would have soaked away either-I've lived near dairy farmers who kept dunghills and the bovine urine was largely kept from soaking away by the dung(which otherwise would have dried out to about the wetness of an oatmeal cookie).It would all depend upon the soil and the daily volume dropped on the spot. |
|
Philip Davis unregistered |
posted 12-28-2000 12:13 AM
Yes I was aware of the argument that the nobility had a high protein diet, which is why I used the modifier most. Actually, however, I'm not entirly convinced that this was true, Certainly we have records of vast meat rich feasts but these are recorded because they were exceptional. I'm fairly convinced that near everybody breakfasted on bread and cheese (and course bread at that, and even fine medival bread would have had more bran in it than modern white bread). If there is sufficent fibre in a diet any other dietary factor is soon overwhelmed and stools become soft and firm. Certainly at times people became constipated or had diarrheoa but the general picture would not have been so. As to what was used for wiping bums I've heard the straw story and others, including the use of feathers. I can image using soft hay but unless people had very much harder flesh than the do today straw is out of the question ditto soft down might be used (but what a waste of a precious material) but full feathers is out of the question. As for modern dung heaps these are often built on concrete and therefore can't drain away, This keep the slurry liquid which is convient for modern slurry spreaders. Older dung heaps do drain away producing a dry fertiliser that doesn't smell (as much). The smell of the country people sometimes complain of is much a result of modern liquid slurry fertilising techiques. (Oh by the way I used to be a nurse and have wiped many bottoms and been much in contact with the various types of human faeces!!) ------------------ Secreta Secretorum |
|
Glaive203 Senior Member |
posted 12-29-2000 03:52 AM
much better arguments;but still a litle off.ME had two terms for what we call "meal" the word meal and the word meat-the nobility(including the gentry) ate "meats" while commoners at "meals".porriage whether oatmeal or barleymeal was a much more likely breakfeast than bread and cheese which where more likely to have been an alnight(mid-night snatch)that did not have to be prepared. As for dunghills,the one I'm most familiar with was just a low lying natural pit on sandy soil and the mound of dung kept a lot of the urine from leaking away. |
|
Philip Davis unregistered |
posted 12-29-2000 04:09 PM
In terms of consistancy of stool the most important dietary factor is not protein intake but fibre intake. To this extent it doesn't matter if the fibre was via bread, or porridge. Actually the people with the highest protein content in there food where paleolithic man (Cro Mangon and Neaderthal Man) protein content in diet has gone down ever since then and has only increased recently in the rich countries. Man is adapted to eat a high protein diet and process it effectively, particularly if that is his usual diet. Modern constipation is mainly due to inactivety and relatively low liquid intake. Medieval people where almost all active and seem to have drank at least 4 litres of fluid a day. The important factor in the drainage of dung heaps is the amount of bulking material (straw etc) which allows the liquid to escape. Medieval floors were covered with straw or rushes and these were changed regularly (sometimes as often as daily) this vast amount of stuff almost certainly found itself down the latrine chute. Hence I stick with my view that the soil at the bases of these internal chute fairly rapidly drained and composted into a friable and relatively unnoxious fertiliser. Even if the richer protein diet of the nobility did have an effect on stool consistency this would have little effect on the big internal latrines of Dover castle which clearly served the whole garrison and, even in a castle, the nobility are in the minority. The other factor affecting modern dung heaps other than general being placed on concrete floors is the reduced amount of bedding material (straw) used in modern animal husbandry. Perhaps this is the reason for your poor draining dung. ------------------ Secreta Secretorum |
|
Levan Moderator |
posted 12-31-2000 03:52 AM
Hunterston Castle (Ayrshire, Scotland) had (in fact, still has) a hatch from the great hall to allow the straw floor covering to be swept directly out of the room, down a chute, to the outside of the castle - more-or-less adjacent to the spot where the garderobes emptied. Hunterston Castle was originally surrounded by marsh until the land was later drained for potato farming (which incidentally, due to the high demand of nearby Glasgow, provided Clan Hunter sufficient wealth to build the 'new' adjacent manor house). It's unlikely that any further manual processing of the debris was required, at least not until the land was drained, by which time more sophisticated means were available. No doubt the dung merely enhanced the extremely fertile soil producing the excellent potatoes for which Ayrshire is rightly famous - the mind boggles! Levan |
|
Merlin Senior Member |
posted 01-09-2001 07:55 AM
To add my bit to this very interesting conversation about medieval meals and where they went: Most families of the nobility indeed had a higher protein diet. At almost every swiss castle covered by exact archeological research, lots of animal bones have been found on heaps, mixed with other junk (such of wild animals as well as such of pigs, sheep, cows and chicken). Merlin |
|
duncan Senior Member |
posted 01-09-2001 09:39 AM
Bread and cheese's of many different types were a large part of the diet of everyone from before the Greeks to past the Middle Ages. Often times a house hold grew their own hops and other grains used in the makeing of beer. One of our old books says "every good wife knows how to make her husbund his beer" {modernized spelling} That must have been nice. My wife says if i want it, i can make it or buy it. Many of the same grains also provided a way for producing leavening used in cooking and bakeing. The small as well as the large house holds did their own weaving. The cloth could be wove to what ever fineness they wanted which allowed them to sift flower through it to even a finer grade then we buy today, or they could use the whole grains. Cheese makeing is an ancient craft from the dawn of time. The Roman Legions carried it as a essential food ration and that influenced its development in Britain and Europe to become a popular food. The general methods used to make the different cheeses changed very little up to the nineteenth century. Back in the small house holds, Butter milk left on the hearth over night will make the starter culture that is used with rennet {either plant or animal type} to make many different cheeses. Left over chesse can and is used for makeing the new batches and old bread is also used in bakeing new loaves as well as in cooking, as Merlin said. [This message has been edited by duncan (edited 01-09-2001).] |
|
castlesmiley Senior Member |
posted 01-18-2001 03:22 PM
YbbeYarg, Sometimes the toilets drained directly to the moats. They could simply be a chute to the moat from inside. ------------------ |
All times are PT (US) | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
  |
|
Contact Us | Castles on the Web
Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.40
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 1999.
