
Researchers reveal what Ancient Rome smelled like – and it's disgusting
We cannot, of course, go back and sniff to find out. But the literary texts, physical remains of structures, objects, and environmental evidence (such as plants and animals) can offer clues.
So what might ancient Rome have smelled like?
Honestly, often pretty rank.
In describing the smells of plants, author and naturalist Pliny the Elder uses words such as iucundus (agreeable), acutus (pungent), vis (strong), or dilutus (weak).
None of that language is particularly evocative in its power to transport us back in time, unfortunately.
But we can probably safely assume that, in many areas, Rome was likely pretty dirty and rank-smelling. Property owners did not commonly connect their toilets to the sewers in large Roman towns and cities – perhaps fearing rodent incursions or odours.
Roman sewers were more like storm drains, and served to take standing water away from public areas.
Professionals collected faeces for fertiliser and urine for cloth processing from domestic and public latrines and cesspits. Chamber pots were also used, which could later be dumped in cesspits.
This waste disposal process was just for those who could afford to live in houses; many lived in small, non-domestic spaces, barely furnished apartments, or on the streets.
A common whiff in the Roman city would have come from the animals and the waste they created. Roman bakeries frequently used large lava stone mills (or 'querns') turned by mules or donkeys. Then there was the smell of pack animals and livestock being brought into town for slaughter or sale.
The large 'stepping-stones' still seen in the streets of Pompeii were likely so people could cross streets and avoid the assorted feculence that covered the paving stones.
Disposal of corpses (animals and human) was not formulaic. Depending on the class of the person who had died, people might well have been left out in the open without cremation or burial.
Bodies, potentially decaying, were a more common sight in ancient Rome than now.
Suetonius, writing in the first century CE, famously wrote of a dog carrying a severed human hand to the dining table of the Emperor Vespasian.
Deodorants and toothpastes
In a world devoid of today's modern scented products – and daily bathing by most of the population – ancient Roman settlements would have smelt of body odour.
Classical literature has some recipes for toothpaste and even deodorants.
However, many of the deodorants were to be used orally (chewed or swallowed) to stop one's armpits smelling.
One was made by boiling golden thistle root in fine wine to induce urination (which was thought to flush out odour).
The Roman baths would likely not have been as hygienic as they may appear to tourists visiting today. A small tub in a public bath could hold between eight and 12 bathers.
The Romans had soap, but it wasn't commonly used for personal hygiene. Olive oil (including scented oil) was preferred. It was scraped off the skin with a strigil (a bronze curved tool).
This oil and skin combination was then discarded (maybe even slung at a wall). Baths had drains – but as oil and water don't mix, it was likely pretty grimy.
Scented perfumes
The Romans did have perfumes and incense.
The invention of glassblowing in the late first century BCE (likely in Roman-controlled Jerusalem) made glass readily available, and glass perfume bottles are a common archaeological find.
Animal and plant fats were infused with scents – such as rose, cinnamon, iris, frankincense and saffron – and were mixed with medicinal ingredients and pigments.
The roses of Paestum in Campania (southern Italy) were particularly prized, and a perfume shop has even been excavated in the city's Roman forum.
The trading power of the vast Roman empire meant spices could be sourced from India and the surrounding regions.
There were warehouses for storing spices such as pepper, cinnamon and myrrh in the centre of Rome.
In a recent Oxford Journal of Archaeology article, researcher Cecilie Brøns writes that even ancient statues could be perfumed with scented oils.
Sources frequently do not describe the smell of perfumes used to anoint the statues, but a predominantly rose-based perfume is specifically mentioned for this purpose in inscriptions from the Greek city of Delos (at which archaeologists have also identified perfume workshops). Beeswax was likely added to perfumes as a stabiliser.
Enhancing the scent of statues (particularly those of gods and goddesses) with perfumes and garlands was important in their veneration and worship.
An olfactory onslaught
The ancient city would have smelt like human waste, wood smoke, rotting and decay, cremating flesh, cooking food, perfumes and incense, and many other things.
It sounds awful to a modern person, but it seems the Romans did not complain about the smell of the ancient city that much.
Perhaps, as historian Neville Morley has suggested, to them these were the smells of home or even of the height of civilisation.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Sudoku 6,956 expert
Click here to access the print version. Fill the grid so that every row, every column and every 3x3 box contains the numbers 1 to 9. To see the completed puzzle, buy the next issue of the Guardian (for puzzles published Monday to Thursday). Solutions to Friday and Saturday puzzles are given in either Saturday's or Monday's edition.


The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Killer sudoku 977
Click here to access the print version. Normal sudoku rules apply, except the numbers in the cells contained within dotted lines add up to the figures in the corner. No number can be repeated within each shape formed by dotted lines. To see the completed puzzle, buy the next issue of the Guardian (for puzzles published Monday to Thursday). Solutions to Friday and Saturday puzzles are given in either Saturday's or Monday's edition.


Times
4 hours ago
- Times
Is that orca being friendly or am I turtly deluded?
It must be a relief to know, if your boat is attacked by orcas in the Strait of Gibraltar, that they are probably only playing. Some scientists think the whales have discovered that detached rudders make excellent bath toys. We reported this week that their latest puzzling behaviour — the whales', not the scientists' — is the apparent offering of gifts of food, and I use the term loosely, to humans. Readers were quick to jump in with their theories in the comments section. 'Maybe,' suggested Breaca Moger, 'they think the humans seem to be good at killing things so they are encouraging us to work cooperatively with them.' Carl May took a more spiritual view: 'Throughout our history as a species, we have made offerings to beings that we imagined were superior to ourselves. Perhaps, looking at our achievements, these creatures are bringing us their sacrifices, imagining that it will bring them favours in return.' The experts in our report had admitted they could not rule out a darker, 'Machiavellian' explanation for the behaviour. 'Beware of orcas bearing gifts,' Samuel Lowe warned. 'Yes,' agreed J Prawer, 'the turtle they brought may have been wooden and filled with dozens of heavily armed orcas.' Orcamemnon was presumably waiting out of sight. Akilleres had died earlier. John Holmes noticed a curious coincidence in Letters. 'On Thursday you published two letters from the little Hampshire village of Hartley Wintney (from Neil Grundy and Elizabeth Dalling). Is this a record? I will discuss this matter with the inhabitants of our two duck ponds.' John is also from Hartley Wintney, of course. The two letters concerned Starmer's U-turns and Wimbledon linesmen and women, and the letters editor assures me there was nothing untoward in their selection. Readers will no doubt have noticed similar quirks of fate in Letters as well as the nearby birthdays column — three famous actors on one day, say — and I expect statisticians would tell us it would be odder not to see such conjunctions. In fact it brings to mind the so-called birthday paradox: if you put 22 people in a room, the next person to walk in is more likely to share a birthday with one of them than not. Alternatively, there is something in the water — and I don't mean the ducks — at Hartley Wintney. A letter from Dr Jeremy Auchincloss of Elgin on the same day had cleared up a debate that had been raging, or perhaps slowly coagulating and ripening. He explained that 'the science behind cheese and dreaming is straightforward: cheese is rich in tryptophan, one of the building blocks for neurotransmitters that influence sleep and moods. Wallace and Gromit never eat Wensleydale before bedtime.' Grand advice for David Ben-Nathan, who had written to Feedback: 'It was nice to find out that I am not alone in finding cheese causes nightmares. I am in my late fifties and in the last few years have noticed that when I have even a small amount of cheese, even in the morning, I usually have very disturbing dreams. I now rarely buy cheese because of this. It's good to know that there is a university where this is a whole area of study. I may contact the researchers and see if they will pay for me to go out to Montreal if I volunteer to take part in some experiments.' I wish you bonne chance, David. I predict they will discover 1) you have lactose intolerance, as in our report; 2) you are being haunted by the ghost of a former business partner; or 3) tryptophan. I cannot claim to have earned my ornithologist's wings, but the word lover in me could not resist having a beak at Richard King's query. Richard, from Macclesfield, said that for the past month he had been enthralled by watching his bird table through the kitchen window. 'There have been numerous daily visits there by a family of spotted woodpeckers: first the adults feeding the newly fledged young, and now the youngsters managing on their own. In attempting to determine the male v female and youngster v adult attributes and colourings, I have resorted to consulting the RSPB's and other books on British birds. They all give the same names. Question: why should Dendrocopos major, the great spotted woodpecker, be so named, whereas Dendrocopos minor is called the lesser spotted woodpecker? Why not greater and lesser? Or great and small? Any guidance you can give would be appreciated.' I'm not sure about guidance but I reckon I can make things a bit more confusing. In geography we tend to use greater and lesser, as in the Antilles. Body parts too we label greater and lesser — the hippocampus, say — but constellations such as Ursa Major and Minor are generally called Great Bear and Lesser Bear. Or Little Bear. Now for the birds. The larger Dendrocopos — a wonderful Greek compound meaning tree-basher — has occasionally been known as greater. Bird nomenclature can be a little flighty. But the British Ornithologists' Union publishes a handy table, which shows that since 1923 the greater black-backed gull has changed its name to the great black-backed gull, while its lesser cousin has remained lesser. In the same period the two spotted woodpeckers have remained great and lesser, but have unaccountably changed their genus from Dryobates to Dendrocopos. I can't blame them: I'd far rather be a treebasher than a woodwalker. In late breaking news I hear our lesser basher may be changing his Latin name back to Dryobates. I warned you Richard's question would put the caterpillar among the woodpeckers.