WCF

History, politics, and culture articles and forum discussions.

Rome

- By

The fusion of Greek and Roman culture

The more I read about him, the more I’m convinced that it was Hadrian who fused Greek and Roman culture and made it the cornerstone of Greco-Roman/Western civilization.

I’m reading (casually) a book called “Monumentality and the Roman Empire: Architecture in the Antonine Age,” by Edmund Thomas, and he claims Hadrian built or rebuilt a ton of Greek temples and designed cities using Athens as a model (with, of course, the added Roman amenities).  Agree or disagree?

Either way, I think Hadrian is one of the most underestimated Roman emperors. To my knowledge, there are only two modern, scholarly biographies of Hadrian (Bernard Henderson in 1923 and Anthony Birley in 2000). Perhaps it is my calling to write a third biography (so around 2019, check out Amazon ;D).

- By

The History of Sanitation

One of the things I love about history is that it’s easy to become fascinated with otherwise mundane topics.  An interesting show (on National Geographic, I think) which chronicled the history of sanitation is one such example of this, and I’ll try to recount it here.

Ancient Greek toilets.

As urban areas developed, good sanitation was a must, as it was a serious health concern. Although ancient civilizations made some headway in this (such as the Cretans), the Romans were the “septic pioneers”, probably due to the fact that they had plentiful water running into the city by way of aqueduct. During those days, toilet areas were common to neighborhoods and Romans would treat the affair in a sort of “social” affair. These toilets appeared to have been cut in some sort of stone slab below which was some sort of water flow.

Medieval toilet in Water TowerAfter the Middle Ages, more advancements in toilet technology were made, and an early version of the flush toilet (the “Aiax”?) was around by 1597. Unfortunately, piped water was not available in those days which made it somewhat disadvantageous, and pipes leading straight down meant that noxious fumed could rise back up and literally stink up the room – or the house.

In nineteenth century England, toilet technology was especially needed during the crowded years of the Industrial Revolution. Many homes with toilets during those days simply released the sewage back into the ground not far from their homes, which meant that the same people (or their neighbors) could very well end up drinking water from the ground that was tainted with disease. Cholera incidents spread and killed thousands during this time, both in Europe and the United States.

Bathroom and toilet from the early 1900s.

Around the 1850s, the English government wanted to correct the matter and forced homes to have indoor toilets. Unfortunately this only exacerbated the problem, and the “Summer of Stink” around 1858 resulted as sewage that ran into the river backed up and baked in the sun. After this, new underground sewage flow and containment areas were constructed to prevent this from happening again.

A modern bathroom: the joys of our world today.

One of the last topics covered by the show I saw explored how toilet technology was developed when man first went into space. For Alan Shepherd, the lack of anticipating the toilet question led him to have to urinate in his own space suit as he waited for hours for his flight to launch. Later on, devices were created which disposed of waste and urine, and I believe it is on the International Space Station where urine is now recycled rather than disposed of. The show mentioned that for long trips to Mars, even excrement may have to be recycled to make use of it rather than dispose of it.

- By

Should historical sites be used for modern entertainment?

It survived the barbarians, the Middle Ages, and a few World Wars. But a mosh pit?
It survived the barbarians, the Middle Ages, and a few World Wars. But a mosh pit?

A story came out in The Guardian about the prospect of the Italians using Rome’s famous Colosseum as a site to host modern-day entertainment acts.  The article indicated that it’s only a matter of time before this takes place since work has already been done on restoring some of the passageways and a visitor’s center is in the works.  It also said that the Rolling Stones performed at the Circus Maximus in 2014, and that it will be used again by Bruce Springsteen for a concert in the near future.  I know that at least in the past, the Baths of Caracalla have been used as a backdrop for opera.

Should historical sites be used for modern entertainment?

The Circus Maximus.
The Circus Maximus.

There are valid arguments both for and against using historical monuments or locations as modern-day entertainment venues.  One of the arguments in support of such use is that doing so actually helps to preserve the site.  I recall a line by the motivational speaker, Zig Ziglar, who said that a ship in harbor gathers barnacles and decays, but a ship at sea does not.  A ship should therefore do what it is supposed to do in order to remain afloat.  I have heard a similar thing said about houses – houses that are lived in will last longer than those which are empty.  This may seem counter-intuitive since living in a house brings wear-and-tear on the building, but I think the larger point is that people tend to notice and take care of their living spaces.  They notice when rooms are draftier than they should be.  They fix a leaking roof sooner rather than later.  They wash floors on a regular basis.  Yes, there is wear-and-tear, but this is a small price to pay for the larger benefit that is provided by normal use.

Another benefit to the ongoing use of historical sites is that it’s a great way to fund their upkeep.  Historical sites tend to require significant investments of money for repairs, to bring them up to modern-day legal requirements, or just to modernize them around the edges (e.g. adding air conditioning, bathrooms, etc.).  Relying on donations from the public can succeed to some degree, but this income model relies on the goodwill of others – something which may be sporadic – as well as professional pitchmen employed by the site to beg for donations.  By transforming the site into a working, revenue-generating venue, funds can be generated at a more predictable rate and may then be reinvested for normal upkeep and long-term capital improvements.

Remember this guy’s stunt?

Lastly, using historical sites as venues makes the public aware of the site.  It allows the public to experience history as it should be experienced – up close and personal, rather than from a textbook or some far away place.  If you want a site to be appreciated by the general public, you can either write a history book on the topic (and hope people read it), or you can allow them in to experience it for themselves.  By attending an event at a historical site, people get to use the site as it was intended – for experiencing, rather than just for looking.

This is the kind of thing we'd want to avoid.
This is the kind of thing we’d want to avoid.

Against these arguments for using historical sites as entertainment venues is one obvious counter-argument: it opens sites up to abuse.  Once historical sites are damaged, it can be difficult, if not impossible, to restore them to their previous condition.  No generation wants to be known as the generation that lost a priceless historical treasure at the hands of neglect, abuse, or incompetence.  This is particularly true when sites have particularly lengthy histories (such as the Colosseum), or when they possess iconic importance for a region, country, or the world.  No amount of money generated from an event can buy back what may be lost if a site is greatly degraded.  The risk is simply not worth the reward.

I suppose that another (minor) argument is that it forces historical sites to operate as entertainment venues rather than museums and places of learning.  It’s one thing to hold be a site for learning and education; quite another to be one that hosts vendors, caterers, and production crews.  This shift in focus may irk some who think it’s outside the scope of what a historical site should really be doing.

The final analysis

There are legitimate arguments on both sides, but I generally lean on the side of use rather than non-use.  Historical sites may be important for what came about decades, centuries, or millennia ago, but they continue to occupy the land of the living.  There’s no point in sealing off the past forever and eliminating it from all future use.  Yes, it’s important to preserve the past for future generations, but this should not be done at all costs.  Prudence needs to dictate here.  Some uses should be off limits, particularly when dealing with highly significant historical sites.  For the majority of historical sites, however, alternative uses – including that of entertainment – should at least be considered as a practical means of preserving and promoting the past.

WCF