ancient Indian hygiene

[Ashoka maurya]

i have found that ancient indian hygiene was pretty epic.

there is an example of mohenjo daro, but i cannot find parallel examples from ancient india where hygiene was so domestic with private toilets, nalanda only had one toilet or so it seems from archaeology which is pretty surprising giving nalanda was a huge university consisting of ten thousand pupils.

the entire concept of namaste was to avoid physical contact during hand shake, this seems practical considering hygiene

arabs also report of indians eating in separate plates and not in one plate as the arabs did, indians also used tables and chairs which would have been more hygienic considering that if you eat on the floor which middle easterns did, there are more chances that food will contact germs.

the public baths and step wells was a pretty common phenomenon, it can be argued that those step wells can become dirty and non hygienic because of exposure to environment and stagnant water.

there are accounts of how king harsha took a bath before eating and washed with soap/ cleaning agents which was perfumed with sandalwood after he had finished eating. the use of soapnut was also common. i read some arab histories which talks about how indians always smelled of perfumes, the agrwood perfume infact came from india and has also been called indian insense. the buddhist baths were also well known, ponds made in lotus shape has been present in polonnurawa, there were also hospitals in india according to indian texts, srilankan ruins and faxian, chinese buddhist pilgrim.

it is also claimed that indian knew soap making during gupta period

Will Durant wrote in The Story of Civilization I: Our Oriental Heritage: "Something has been said about the chemical excellence of cast iron in ancient India, and about the high industrial development of the Gupta times, when India was looked to, even by Imperial Rome, as the most skilled of the nations in such chemical industries as dyeing, tanning, soap-making, glass and cement... By the sixth century the Hindus were far ahead of Europe in industrial chemistry

i have also read alberuni's praise for indian step wells and baths.i have also found some pretty nasty things as well, which i dont want to reveal, so my question is how was general hygiene in ancient india? was it like medieval europe where the streets were littered with human excretion or was it more hygienic, is there any source which indicates that?

 

[Aupmanyav]

arabs also report of indians eating in separate plates and not in one plate as the arabs did, indians also used tables and chairs which would have been more hygienic considering that if you eat on the floor which middle easterns did, there are more chances that food will contact germs.

Not at all. Consider that shoes were not allowed in the house, the kitchen (which also served as the dining area) was kept scrupulously clean, the woman/person (many a times brahmins) who cooked did that after taking a bath, the 'thali' was served on a clean wooden stool (patra), and the person who ate the food also either took a bath before that or washed his/her hands thoroughly. I do not think any other people at that time put so much effort for cleanliness as Indians did. Separate plates, separate glasses, which were washed carefully after meals and arranged on kitchen shelves. They were the pride of a home-maker.

 

[Ashoka maurya]

Not at all. Consider that shoes were not allowed in the house, the kitchen (which also served as the dining area) was kept scrupulously clean, the woman/person (many a times brahmins) who cooked did that after taking a bath, the 'thali' was served on a clean wooden stool (patra), and the person who ate the food also either took a bath before that or washed his/her hands thoroughly. I do not think any other people at that time put so much effort for cleanliness as Indians did.

yeah, but i have some evidences which may debunk this notion, i want to know how the human excretion was disposed, was it done the same way the medieval europeans did, or was the management much better, how common were the drainage systems, toilets, mohenjo daro is just one example also from bronze age, as i stated nalanda housed ten thousand pupils, why was there only one toilet or atleast thats what archaeological evidences show, i think is it banabhatta or kalidasa which talk about toilets being used by royal people. and were there any wet toilets compared to dry toilets? nalanda had one wet toilet but it also had one dry toilet, there are toilets from amer fort for instance, mandu, vijayanagar etc but how common were toilets in general public.

regards

 

[Ajathashatru]

Not at all. Consider that shoes were not allowed in the house, the kitchen (which also served as the dining area) was kept scrupulously clean, the woman/person (many a times brahmins) who cooked did that after taking a bath, the 'thali' was served on a clean wooden stool (patra), and the person who ate the food also either took a bath before that or washed his/her hands thoroughly. I do not think any other people at that time put so much effort for cleanliness as Indians did. Separate plates, separate glasses, which were washed carefully after meals and arranged on kitchen shelves. They were the pride of a home-maker.

Probability of contamination increase when you eat, sitting on the floor. The floor itself is highly contaminated through, your own footsteps, rodents and insects which may be seasoned vectors, and even ants. It's not going to be cleansed of germs properly even if you clean it using water or mild disinfectants. Best alternative is to use slightly elevated seats and diadems.

 

[Ajathashatru]

yeah, but i have some evidences which may debunk this notion, i want to know how the human excretion was disposed, was it done the same way the medieval europeans did, or was the management much better, how common were the drainage systems, toilets, mohenjo daro is just one example also from bronze age, as i stated nalanda housed ten thousand pupils, why was there only one toilet or atleast thats what archaeological evidences show, i think is it banabhatta or kalidasa which talk about toilets being used by royal people. and were there any wet toilets compared to dry toilets? nalanda had one wet toilet but it also had one dry toilet, there are toilets from amer fort for instance, mandu, vijayanagar etc but how common were toilets in general public.

regards

Human excretion case was probably very bad. Personalized wet toilets with tanks to contain the waste was a very recent phenomenon, only after the extensive plumbing started to be practiced.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Nature did that in the villages. We were not as densely populated as we are now. Yeah, in cities, the sweeper pushed it out and the 'bhishti' (carrying water in animal skin bag) would come and flush it down the drins. In my childhood in Jodhpur, that is what was done. Wet toilets would only increase the mess. In cities, toilets were common. Even when the toilets were there, people used to go to outside the city areas. For women, they went in groups, it was a time for chatting.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Probability of contamination increase when you eat, sitting on the floor. The floor itself is highly contaminated through, your own footsteps, rodents and insects which may be seasoned vectors, and even ants. It's not going to be cleansed of germs properly even if you clean it using water or mild disinfectants. Best alternative is to use slightly elevated seats and diadems.

May be, if you say so. We never had that problem in my childhood. Also, it is so much more comfortable to eat while sitting. Now, my grandsons say, it puts pressure on their stomach. The elder one cannot fold his legs.

 

[Ashoka maurya]

Human excretion case was probably very bad. Personalized wet toilets with tanks to contain the waste was a very recent phenomenon, only after the extensive plumbing started to be practiced.

i dont think so, the parallels have been made between harappan toilets systems from bronze age and the present harappan toilets.

The Harappan Bathroom

regards

 

[Ajathashatru]

May be, if you say so. We never had that problem in my childhood. Also, it is so much more comfortable to eat while sitting. Now, my grandsons say, it puts pressure on their stomach. The elder one cannot fold his legs.

We do the same, at occasions. But I find it very stressful also. Exerts too much pressure on lower abdomen, as well as back. Eating while sitting on an upright, relaxed position is always best.

 

[Aupmanyav]

That is generational change.

 

[Ajathashatru]

That is generational change.

How? One stresses your muscles, and the other is done in a relaxed state. So obviously the latter is better.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Does sitting cross-legged for a while stresses the muscles? Not mine. As I said 'generational change'.

 

[Ajathashatru]

Does sitting cross-legged for a while stresses the muscles? Not mine. As I said 'generational change'.

Bending down to eat stresses your muscles.