Hier die wissenschaftliche Abhandlung ueber roemische Marschlager. Interessant was da an Faekalien anfaellt wenn man mal hoch rechnet..
http://www.bandaarcgeophysics.co.uk/arc ... ps_uk.htmlFuer mich momentan gerade interessant wieviel wohl gesch...en wurde in so einem Kamp, Wasser wurde ja auch benoetigt ums wegzuspuelen etc..
Ganz schoen viel was da zusammen kommt
It is worthwhile examining the effluent problem in some detail. A study of civilians in the 1960s produced the first recorded figures on the quantity of human effluent. Unfortunately, the author is not aware of a similar study for active soldiers who require considerably more energy and hydration, with concomitant effluent output, than the average civilian. Nevertheless, we can use the civilian figures to gauge the effluent problem relating to a large marching camp, but also remembering that the figures are considerably underestimated.
Hence the study showed that civilian men produce an average of 0.498 kg of solids per day.
Using these figures and applying them to the Newsteads V marching camp (approx. 60k humans at a density of 690/hectare) gives a figure of 37.87 metric tonnes of solids each day which is 265 tonnes a week. As a means of putting these numbers in perspective, this is the weight of 18 London double-decker buses. By volume the solids occupy 37.97 cubic metres each day (Figure 14) and 265 a week.
To-date none of the pits etc. located within the ramparts excavated in Britain has shown evidence of latrine use. However this does not mean that they did not exist as the remains may have been destroyed over time. Nevertheless the size of the management issue suggests that the latrines were probably located outside the camp but close enough to be readily guarded during the day by patrolling foot and cavalry. Of course, there would have been a need for some latrines within the camp to accommodate any night-time needs.
The amount of continuous effort needed to dig and maintain the large number of latrines, the local proximity by choice of numerous rivers and streams, and the known expertise with which the Romans elsewhere managed effluent by water flow, suggests the possibility that the rivers and streams near camps may have been similarly utilised. Might the camp occupants have simply dug a trench sub-parallel to a river or stream then connected it at either end to allow water to flow through? Simple, effective and well within the engineering capacity and capability of the Romans. And of course, choosing a single river for waste disposal, while using others for water extraction and drinking, literally carries away the possibility of noisome fouling of the camp and grounds, and diminishes the possibility of disease transmission.
It should be made quite clear that there is no evidence, written or otherwise, to confirm this hypothesis but, given the Roman predilection for soldierly-cleanliness and their keenness for engineered solutions, it seems to this author to have merit.