Welcome to the Toilet!

Ancient Water Technology

Mar 17, 2021 | History, Individual Research (UG), innovation, Research | 0 comments

Ancient Water Technology

Leilani Kane

 

 

This research focuses on the water technology of ancient Mesopotamia to ancient Greece societies. Brief parts of this research also looks at Roman Latrines. The first half of the research specifically looks into Greek toilets and the different waste water systems that were used. In the second half of the research looks at the water technology that was created and used in these ancient societies. Through this research we begin to understand the different water technology that was created to support and sustain life in these societies. The theme throughout is get a better understanding of what these tools did, not just mechanically but also for understanding the society in their development over time. By focusing the research on Mesopotamia and Greece we can begin to understand how ancient societies thought and worked to create and maintain a steady sources of water and society. The primary mode of research on these societies was through primary and secondary research articles on the subject. These article range from broadly about the water technology to in-depth information on the water waste systems. From this research we found key water technology like water clocks, aqueducts, canals, and waste water systems that helped these ancient societies sustain life.

 

 

Ancient Greek Toilets & Water Systems 

Looks a the private and public restrooms in Greece. Also talks about the different water waste systems used.

 

Water Technology in Ancient Societies

In this different types of water technology used in ancient societies are discussed. 

 

Progress of Toilet Sewage Systems

This reflects on the Greek sewage systems research. It compares and contrasts with systems in place used around the world.

 

Water Technology & Latrines From Ancient Mesopotamia to Ancient Rome

A look at water technology history and ancient latrines.

Bibliography

 

Tamburrino, Aldo. “Water Technology in Ancient Mesopotamia.” Ancient Water Technologies, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2010, pp. 29–51.

 

Mays, Larry W. “A Brief History of Water Technology During Antiquity: Before the Romans.” Ancient Water Technologies, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2010, pp. 1–28.

 

Antoniou, Georgios P. “Ancient Greek Lavatories: Operation with Reused Water.” Ancient Water Technologies, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2010, pp. 67–86.

 

Angelakis, A.N, et al. “Urban Wastewater and Stormwater Technologies in Ancient Greece.” Water Research (Oxford), vol. 39, no. 1, 2005, pp. 210–220.

 

Figure 1: Antoniou

Figure 2: Tamburrino

Figure 3: Angelakis

 

Public Toilet Designs Effects for Women and Marginalized People

Mar 17, 2021 | final paper, Graduate, History, public restroom, Research | 0 comments

Introduction

Public toilets are often a last-minute emergency trip people do not want to take. It is a common space in the built environment, often located inside commercial buildings or on their own at a rest stop. The design, quantity, and location of public toilets is crucial to creating a pleasant experience for the people that use them. The smallest room is often overlooked in the mind of the designer, architect, or city planner. Lacking adequate dimensions, routes to and from, and the frequency of public toilets is an issue that needs to be considered.

The public toilet is a symbol of separation and inequality through multiple lenses. The prominent issues of gender or sex segregation is at the forefront of discussions due to transgender rights. While discussing one inequality, the intersection of other disadvantages is important to include. The public toilet is a space that should be equitable for all; however, gender, class, ability, houselessness, and race are all critical factors relating to the discrimination in public toilets. The history of the public toilet reveals the contexts surrounding society at various developments in the bathroom design and how these social implications arose with it. Architecture, design, and planning are important contributors to these implications and the lack of change in the public toilet structure.

Public Toilet History

In 1819 New York common council prohibited the dumping of waste into sewage systems due to the belief they would only be used as storm drains for run-off water. People were frequently seen in cloaks to obtain privacy when needed in relieve oneself in public. The city was seen as dirty and various diseases were running ramped. In the 1850s the sewers were thought to be the cause of the cholera outbreaks (Mokdad, Allaa).  

 

In the early 1800s, Paris was accustomed to the use of chamber pots and waste carts. The city was becoming overcrowded quickly and barrels of easement were placed on street corners to alleviate the great amount of waste on the streets. In 1830 public urinals were seen as sculptural objects and public urination was banned. Groups of women would gather in circles to allow one at a time to relieve themselves in the center with privacy or what they would call picking a flower. Cholera outbreaks began in 1849 leading to legislation to improve public health and the idea to take a top-down approach to sewage by 1853. The rest of Europe was now endowed with their versions of public toilets called public waiting rooms totally about 95 across various cities (Mokdad, Allaa).

In an effort to keep up with other European countries, London issued the Health Act of 1854 and continued to build upon the sewer system they began implementing in 1815. Prior to this, trying to outdo their rival city of Paris, the Society of Arts pressured the sewer companies heavily and eventually the Great Exhibition was hosted in England. The Crystal Palace facilities engineer was placed in charge of integrating water closets into the building. The 1851

The Great Exhibition wanted to provide the comfort of public toilets to their already accustomed visitors. Paris already had cabinets and urinals. London needed the success of these water closets to further push for the sewer systems. In the eyes of those who visited these public toilets, it was a great success. It was not enough however to keep them around and more years passed before public toilets were prominent in London (Penner, Barbara pg 45-48).

The year of the great exhibition was the year john snow discovered the water fountain with leaky sewage connected was causing the cholera epidemic. By 1858 comprehensive sewage plants protected water supply and provided modern infrastructure. The Water Act of 1862 presumably stopped the design of toilets. The water based flushing system became standard and was improved by 1895. In New York, vertical plumbing was implemented in 1880. Plumbing was now for everyone, not just the elites; however, woman suffragettes were fighting for their rights to accessing public toilets throughout this time (Mokdad, Allaa).

In 1928, there were 233 public toilets available to men and 184 available to women in London. The Public Health Act of 1936 allowed fees to be charged for the use of public toilets with the exception to urinals placing women at the disadvantage. A Paris company in 1964 produced automatic public toilets to 300 countries. Known as Sunny Sets by 1981 these toilets implemented barrier free usage, recycled water, and were protected from drug use and prostitution. At the same time in the New York, the AIDS epidemic placed public toilets in association with drug use, security issues, sexual activity, hygiene issues, and other illegal usage.  Of the 700 available public toilets in 1991, only 350 were accessible to those with disabilities and only 125 could accommodate those with infants. By 2004, only 419 remained and by 2010 129 remain standing with only 60 actually available. Yet the NYPD issues over 17,000 public urination citations each year (Mokdad, Allaa).

Description

The modern public toilet was born at the Great Exhibition in London providing a space that allowed almost all everyday people to use modern technology. At the same time, these spaces called public toilets, restrooms, bathrooms, etc, also became some of the first gendered spaces.  From the start of their story, sex separation was connected to public health concerns and the idea of creating well-ordered families. Public toilets were unequal for the poor, the disabled and women. The spaces created separation in society in other aspects, such as race and religion. This paper explores the public toilet in relation to women’s equality issues, including homelessness and accessibility issues.

Implications for Women

The first notable disparity between men and women in regard to the public toilet was the payment of a penny to use the facilities. Regulations stated that a payment was required to use a public toilet but there was no payment for the use of public urinals. Men often were able to do their business for free, while women had to pay for the new technology (Mokdad, Allaa). As the public toilet became further developed, the differentiation of public toilet design for men and women continued to create disparities. The idea of women out in public was new at this time, and the creation of public toilets was minimal because there was not a strong desire to actively help women spend more time in public.

            The mid-nineteenth century was in the business of continuing to keep women at home and in private. Ideas of privacy surrounding the bathroom were continuing to grow. The social anxiety surrounding the time was highlighted by the idea of women going to work in factories a as well as their participation in social activism. The need for sex separated toilets was conflated with this anxiety and keeping the privacy between men and women at work. The idea of privacy was elevated to modern ideas of modesty and bodily functions and social morality.  The effort to protect the virtue of modesty, hiding women away from their male counterparts in all public realms was important to this time. (Kogan, Terry pg 148).

This realist approach of the nineteenth century and anxiety over the emergence of women lead to the design of women exclusive spaces in public buildings along with the idea that women were fragile and in need of a retreat. The laws that separate sex in public toilets have created great complications for all transsexual and transgendered people, people with disabilities, parents with opposite-gendered children, intersex persons and women. The separation encourages the social understanding that these groups of people need public protection from their inherent vulnerability, while men are inherently predatory (Kogan, Terry pg 164).

Although sex separated bathrooms were determined to fit the needs of keeping men and women distanced, it did not make any change to the design of the public toilet. Most public toilets are labeled men and women, but what really is the difference? In a one-person public toilet, the women’s room often has a changing table while the men’s room may have a urinal in addition to the sit down toilet. In a shared public toilet, these differences remain, but the stall shapes and sizes are largely the same. Public toilet design was done by male architects and engineers because they’re were not any female coworkers at the time toilets were becoming a part of society. Women did not have a say and did not get much consideration when the design of public toilet stalls were integrated into bathrooms (Ramster and Greed).

The standard stall size created to fit the male proportions leads to issues for women, people with disabilities, and parents or caretakers. The time needed to enter a stall, remove garments, sit down, use toilet paper, and redress in the confined spaces of the stall is a disadvantage that men using urinals do not have to bear. Imbedded in this is the need for changing tables, handicap bars, and sanitary disposal bins that were not accounted for in the design of many public bathrooms. Often architecture produces the minimum requirements for public toilets to meet ADA standards, but forgets to think about the user. There is no code in place to protect the dimensions of stall needed for women to appropriately use the restroom in the public domain (Ramster and Greed).

Along with the inconsiderate design of the public toilet for women, the lack of public toilets for women in public places continues to be a serious issue. The nineteenth century societal norm of women not working or visiting public spaces created spaces that only had male public toilets. Many government buildings and public offices did not have a women’s toilet room and needed a space for them. This led to public toilets for women, as well as other marginalized persons, being placed further away than the men’s toilet when women began to enter these workplaces. Women were sent somewhere else to use the toilet, or through a long trek to get there. Some women were often left with no option to use the toilet (Anthony and Dufresne)

In many public spaces, the number of public toilets for men were often double or triple the number of public toilets for women. This has since developed into more equal numbers of public toilets for women compared to men; however, having equal public toilets for men and women does not necessarily provide equal experiences. Due to the layout of stalls and the addition of urinals for men, public restroom trips average a man about 30 seconds upon entering. For women, the time taken to use the bathroom averaged just under three minutes. This timing does not account for waiting in line to use a public toilet. In places where there are more public toilets for men, or even equal numbers of public toilet rooms, women still face long lines waiting to use the restroom (Anthony and Dufresne).

In the time spent by women finding, using, and returning from a trip to a public toilet, men are likely to use the time productively in a workplace setting. Not only does the time spent in the bathroom serve as an inconvenience to women at events, but it can take precious time away from important daily life. Their voices are left out of important meetings or informal conversations where they are needed to be heard. Decision making to create public toilets and the design of them continues to be by male dominated fields such as architecture and planning. The 17 percent of registered female architects in 2020 makes it clear this issue is still just as prevalent today as it was from the beginning of the modern public toilet (Anthony and Dufresne).

The number of public toilets and the placement of them is also a sanitary and public health issue for marginalized groups. For women who menstruate finding a toilet can be what feels like a life or death situation. While this isn’t often the case, menstruation proves a serious issue for women. The idea of privacy and the social virtue of hiding women’s bodily functions goes beyond number one and two. Menstruation is culturally something to be hidden away and kept hush hush. The stall design in public toilets is cramped and leaves little room for women to take care of themselves in a situation of menstruation. Without properly sanitary and private restrooms, those who menstruate are at a disadvantage (Greed, Cara).

Many places cannot provide women with these facilities, keeping them at home and out of places of work and education. This furthers the disparity between them and their male counterparts. The lack of these public toilets and the time spent waiting to get to them, creates a hazard of potential toxic shock syndrome or bleeding onto clothes if they cannot change their sanitary products in time. Architecture and design have not changed the normative outcome for public toilets since the late nineteenth century and has not grown to fit the demands of modern society and public restrooms. This is also evident by the continuation in sex separated spaces in the post sexual revelation society and gender nonconforming persons (Anthony and Dufresne).

Being pregnant is also a circumstance specific to those who menstruate. This entails the need to use the bathroom more frequently than non-pregnant counterparts due to pressure on the bladder. Having a pregnant belly also requires much more space within a public toilet and demands the needs of more accessible spaces with grab bars and extra room. After the birth of a child, women need private and clean spaces to breastfeed as well as deal with post-partum bleeding. The majority of women are the primary caretaker of their children and need to take children with them into public restrooms. For young children prone to wandering, mothers have a need for extra room or the accessible stall to keep these children nearby. The standard stall for one average sized male does not work for women in a caretaking role (Serlin, David).

Disability and Gender Issues

Caretaking is not specific to women with children. In the context of people with disabilities, the gendering of public toilets by default causes the gendering of disabled toilets. Inequality is faced by people with disabilities is prevalent in the realm of the public toilet. While the majority of United States cities had common public toilets throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the design lacked accessibility and functionality for people with disabilities. When the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 implemented curb cuts and ramps, they provided innovations of grab bars, lowered sinks and more to be instated in private homes for the disabled. The installations of these familiar standards were not finalized until 1980, when the larger stalls and curved floors were implemented to assist the disabled (Serlin, David).  

For the majority of the twentieth century, the design and manufacturing of bathroom necessities, toilets, sinks, stalls, were unmindful of the body with special needs. Toilet design was at the height of ergonomic, industrial design, and anthropometry that created and unwavering sense of what normal should be for a physical body. The designs neglected any body type that was seen as atypical and further excluded those with disabilities from the public eye (Serlin, David).

            As ADA regulations state the minimums needed for design, the accommodations often are made to feel different. The furthers the notions of separate but not equal, especially in facilities like public bathrooms for those with disabilities. Design needs to be based on more than just the radius it takes a wheelchair to navigate a stall, but rather should create spaces in public restrooms that feel inclusive and welcoming to those with any sort of disability or special need. The benefit of making the able-bodied build environment more friendly to the disabled also can benefit those only temporarily disabled, the elderly, parents pushing strollers, or people who are overweight. The stereotypical design of the public toilet and stalls neglect many of these realities

            Another issue present with disability is the notion of dependency. Those with a disability may often times need a caregiver or potentially just need a little extra help. The idea of needing this help is viewed primarily to be feminine. This view along with the contrast of private female spheres versus male public spheres is important to note. People with disability being hidden from the public eye and only having access to stalls in which they must relieve themselves in “female form” creates the gendered space. Men with disabilities cannot perform the masculine task of using a urinal but instead must relieve themselves sitting down. The space itself requires more than the average male public toilet and therefore is combined with the mentality of the ladies’ room (Serlin, David).

Class and Race Implications

 

Lower income and unhoused persons are another marginalized group when it comes to the public toilet. In 1858 when the sewer system was being added to most parts of London, many slum areas and their residents were not able to afford the new technology. They were forced to continually live among cesspools until laws were passed and sewer systems reached all houses. The pay a penny model for public toilets was another barrier to those with little to no income. Although the 1970s the banishment of pay restrooms was in motion, the majority stores only provide bathroom door codes for paying customers (Richards, Katie).

For those without houses, going to the bathroom is an added pressure. In 2011, a Starbucks in New York began to lock their bathrooms. They were frequently being used as a replacement for public bathrooms due to the lack thereof in the city. The buzz surrounding the ordeal raised the need for adequate and sanitary public toilets for all, but especially for those who have no other choice (Barnard, Anne). The previous disparities experienced by women in relation to the public toilet are increasingly problematic for homeless women as well. Homelessness is a crisis that needs the proper facilities to take care of, including the unchosen act of using the bathroom.   

Another Starbucks created public toilet trouble in the name of racial segregation in 2018. The Philadelphia barista denied access to the bathroom and had police called to escort two black men out of the store. Claims that they had not purchased anything were they only justification. America has a long history of segregating toilet rooms by race by the signs that read Whites Only and Colored Only (Glanton, Dahleen). In most cases, there were gendered white toilets but only one toilet for people of color. The past mentality of safety and sanitary laws that separated women and men in public toilets did not seem to matter if it were for black men and women. Black women in the height of segregation were not given the privilege of privacy like other women at the time.

Conclusion

Race, houselessness, class, ability and sexual orientation are intersectional attributes to the oppression of women in the sphere of public toilets. The design, location, and quantity of public toilets contribute to the disadvantages women face daily in history and in modern society. Architects and planners have work to do in order to bridge the gaps in public toilet equality. Design efforts to create nongendered public toilets and policy changes to allow for more unisex and family restrooms are beginning the conversation about how to find equity in public toilets. The implication for designers to create new ways of interacting with toilets could reflect other changes in the bathroom surrounding hygiene and design. In light of 2020 and the post covid era, public toilet design is bound to change from a hygienic standard. Designers working on these changes need to be aware of the societal factors that must influence a modern public toilet design.

 

Bibliography

 

Anthony, Kathryn H., and Meghan Dufresne. “Potty Parity in Perspective: Gender and Family Issues in Planning and Designing Public Restrooms.” Journal of Planning Literature, vol. 21, no. 3, Feb. 2007, pp. 267–294, doi:10.1177/0885412206295846.https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0885412206295846#articleCitationDownloadContainer

 

Barnard, Anne. “Baristas Lock Restrooms, but the Revolt Doesn’t Last.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 23 Nov. 2011, www.nytimes.com/2011/11/23/nyregion/starbucks-mutiny-exposes-new-yorks-reliance-on-chains-toilets.html.

 

Greed, Clara. “Taking women’s bodily functions into account in urban planning and policy: public toilets and menstruation.” Town Planning Review, vol. 87, no. 5, Sept.-Oct. 2016, p. 505+. GaleAcademicOneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A466167283/AONE?u=euge94201&sid=AONE&xid=3ba1cd3a. Accessed 6 Feb. 2021.

 

Greed, Clara. “Creating a Nonsexist Restroom.” Toilet: Public Restrooms and the Politics of Sharing, edited by Harvey Molotoch and Laura Noren, New York University Press, 2010, 117-141.

 

Kogan, Terry S. “Sex Separation: The Cure-All for Victorian Social Anxiety.” Toilet: Public Restrooms and the Politics of Sharing, edited by Harvey Molotoch and Laura Noren, New York University Press, 2010, 141-164.

 

Glanton, Dahleen. “America’s Problems with Race Start (but Don’t End) at Your Starbucks Bathroom.” Chicagotribune.com, Chicago Tribune, 20 May 2019, www.chicagotribune.com/columns/dahleen-glanton/ct-met-dahleen-glanton-toilets-discrimination-20180418-story.html.

 

Mokdad, Allaa. “Public Toilets and the Implications In/For Architecture by Allaa Mokdad.” YouTube, YouTube, 23 Nov. 2020, www.youtube.com/watch?v=ii6DtUhdqz8.

 

Ramster, Gail, Greed, Clara, and Bichard, Jo-Anne. “How Inclusion Can Exclude: The Case of Public Toilet Provision for Women.” Built Environment (London. 1978) 44.1 (2018): 52-76. Web.

 

Richards, Katie. “It is a Privilege to Pee”: The Rise and Demise of the Pay Toilet in America.” 2018. The Thetean: A Student Journal for Scholarly Historical Writing: Vol. 47 : Iss. 1 , Article 3. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/thetean/vol47/iss1/3

 

Penner, Barbara. Bathroom, Reaktion Books, Limited, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.libproxy.uoregon.edu/lib/uoregon/detail.action?docID=1707062.

 

Serlin, David. “Pissing without Pity: Disability, Gender, and the Public Toilet.” Toilet: Public Restrooms and the Politics of Sharing, edited by Harvey Molotoch and Laura Noren, New York University Press, 2010, 117-141.

 

Toilet : Public Restrooms and the Politics of Sharing, edited by Harvey Molotch, and Laura Noren, New York University Press, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.libproxy.uoregon.edu/lib/uoregon/detail.action?docID=865705.

 

 

 

 

 

Image Citation

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/23/health/public-restrooms-safety-coronavirus-pandemic-wellness/index.html

https://www.swansea.ac.uk/humanandhealthsciences/news-and-events/latest-news/makepublictoiletsdementia-friendlyexpertscallforbetterdesignandsignage.php

Anthony, Kathryn H., and Meghan Dufresne. “Potty Parity in Perspective: Gender and Family Issues in Planning and Designing Public Restrooms.” Journal of Planning Literature, vol. 21, no. 3, Feb. 2007, pp. 267–294, doi:10.1177/0885412206295846.https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0885412206295846#articleCitationDownloadContainer

Serlin, David. “Pissing without Pity: Disability, Gender, and the Public Toilet.” Toilet: Public Restrooms and the Politics of Sharing, edited by Harvey Molotoch and Laura Noren, New York University Press, 2010, 117-141.

 

 

Water Technology in Ancient Societies

Mar 16, 2021 | Ancient, History, history, Individual Research (UG), Research, technology | 0 comments

Ancient Mesopotamia and Ancient Greek Water Technology
Leilani Kane 

Introduction

Water technology can be found in some of the world’s most ancient societies. They have left behind the basic understanding and workings of the technology that is used to today. In Mesopotamia there are loads of water technology used to make their society function. In studying Mesopotamia we find water tunnels, canals, water clocks and the start of toilet facilities in relation to sanitation water use. In Ancient Greece you get an early look at how toilet facilities function and develop in their society that influenced many other societies. 

.

Mesopotamia and Greece

Mesopotamia is one of the world’s most ancient societies and has left behind a world to learn about and from. Water technology began because of the development that was happening with agriculture. Mesopotamia deeps roots with water and its power as a resource in their art. In vases from that time water is frequently showcased. Water more than just an element that they used, it was a part of their way of life. 

Ancient Greece has influenced our culture abundantly from architecture to water technology. In this society you can look at how water technology works in toilets facilities. There is a difference in how they function in public and private settings in regards to socially and mechanically. This aspect is often compared and contrasted with other societies later on in how they function.

As stated earlier the first use of water technology came from agriculture needs, They needed to provide and maintain a steady source of water. It was needed to irrigate the lands. From here more water technology was developed to fit different needs that they had. To bring water from far distances closer to cities and homes, to tell time, astrological needs and sanitary engineering.

 

 

##### Caption

Canals 

Artificial canals were created to be used for gardens and parks, to bring water in order to maintain them. After a kingdom moved to Nineveh a canal was built as part of a large water supply system. The large system was built to not only support the agriculture of the city but to sustain the life of it.  After studies of the system it’s suspected that it was built in four different phases. In these four phases the Kisiri canal, the Mount Musri canal, the Northern System, and the Khinisi system were developed to support the city. ( Mays, 7) Canals were not only used for agriculture,  they also would carry wastewater and rain to the countryside. There are different types of the canals that are built. The first type has walls on the side that are made out of limestone, while the bottom of it’s form is two to three layers of clay. The second type is a U-shaped open drain, made of clay. The last type of canal is joined by clay pipes. (Tamburrino, 39) The layout of canals throughout the city depends on the region of the land that needs to be irrigated and where water needs to be diverted from.

##### Caption

Aqueducts 

Aqueducts were made to supply water from springs on the mountain to the city. The first aqueducts were constructed and used in Pergamon.(Mays,14) They were originally made with clay pipes, but as time went on there was a need for more pressure running through the aqueducts. Different materials were brought in to replace the clay pipes to create the pressure that was needed. An example of this material are metal pipes that were made out of the lead.( Mays, 15) These pipes were laid in an excavated bed below the natural soil surface. Aqueducts were originally operated by free surface flow, eventually technology and science further developed and they utilized inverted siphons instead. This would convey water across valleys in aqueducts. Channels supported these aqueducts in moving water from mountains and bringing them closer to cities.(Mays,14)

Water Clocks

 

Water clocks are an example of water technology that’s purpose is not related to a steady source of water for toilets or agriculture. Instead this technology was used to tell time. It’s use goes back to 1500 B.C. and was also called a clepsydra. Like other water technology it did have a constant flow of water going through. That constant water would go into wedges of the drum, as the wedges were filled up with water it would cause the mechanism to rotate. These rotations would allow them to tell the time.(Mays, 17) Water clocks played a significant role in astronomical calculations that were made during this time period.

 

Private & Public Greek Toilets 

 

As early as 6500 B.C. there is evidence of the sophisticated water technology that was developed in sanitary engineering. Wastewater facilities and storm-water drainage systems were created. Lavatories have been found not just in private houses but also in public buildings and also sanctuaries. Toilets at the time commonly look like seats with keyhole openings over a ditch. Other types that were used are clay containers that were used for defecation, earthen seats that were above cesspits, or had a mechanism for collection and drainage.  (Antoniou,69)  In another city stone toilet seats were found. Often structures for toilets start with a piece of wood as the bench with key-shaped holes and a seat on top of that. Toilets are typically located at a part of the building that would be the most convenient for the water supply to come through.  ( Antoniou, 67) Lavatories were often used by multiple people at a time. 

 In domestic lavatories, 2-3 people could use them at a given, while in public lavatory they could reach up to 60 people. With public and private lavatories came slight distinctions between the two of them. The size and number of holes in them changed. It also determined if continuous water flow was used in them.  In public lavatories, the layout was determined by the ditch underneath them, used water from the natural flow was used to flush the toilets, (Antoniou, 73) Private lavatories in domestic homes used either small or medium-sized ditches under them. The small sizes often had one opening on a bench along one wall. Since larger ones had more space they were able to utilize three walls that each had benches along with them and the toilet holes along with them. The private bathroom was also often flushed with reused water.

Greek Sewer Systems 

In Ancient Greece, lavatories and sewer systems were not as necessary as then, but they had them in place for the convenience factor. In order to have them through, the Greeks had to create innovative systems in order to source the water that is used from a long distance. Studies of the systems show that they could’ve been able to flush the systems out with rainfall but instead, evidence suggests the Greeks poured water in the toilets to flush them out.

Sewer systems in ancient Greece were made out of stone blocks that were lined with cement. These systems were big enough so that someone could go down and clean them. This system though was not entirely effective when there were intense storms. (Angelakis, Koutsoyiannis, Tchobanoglous, 214) Sewage disposal at the time happened in one of three options, “directly into the gutters or canals of a street, towards pits located in the city of the house was close to one of them, and for the houses being next to the city wall, directly out of the city by means of canals regularly spaced along the ramparts.” ( Temburrino,29) In the beginning, there were few houses that had toilet facilities in them. Communal toilet facilities were commonly used. 

In places, like what is now Santorini, sewage systems were found under paved streets that connect to lavatories. According to Angelakis, Koutsoyiannis, and Tchobanoglous, most common sewers were made of “stone masonry with a rectangular cross-section covered by stone blocks” (Angelakis, Koutsoyiannis, and Tchobanoglous, 217)

 

Bibliography

 

Tamburrino, Aldo. “Water Technology in Ancient Mesopotamia.” Ancient Water Technologies, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2010, pp. 29–51.

Mays, Larry W. “A Brief History of Water Technology During Antiquity: Before the Romans.” Ancient Water Technologies, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2010, pp. 1–28.

Antoniou, Georgios P. “Ancient Greek Lavatories: Operation with Reused Water.” Ancient Water Technologies, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2010, pp. 67–86.

Angelakis, A.N, et al. “Urban Wastewater and Stormwater Technologies in Ancient Greece.” Water Research (Oxford), vol. 39, no. 1, 2005, pp. 210–220.

Image source

Figure 1: Tamburrino, 44

Figure 2: Mays, 20

Figure 3: Mays, 10

Figure 4: Mays, 9

Figure 5: Tamburrino, 40

Figure 6: Mays, 13

Figure 7: Mays, 18

Figure 8: Antoniou, 75

Figure 9: Antoniou, 71

Figure 10: Antoniou, 83

 

Comparing and Contrasting Toilets from the Industrial Revolution

Mar 15, 2021 | BLACK BANNER, Case Study, Industrial Revolution, Research | 0 comments

Comparing and Contrasting Toilets

from the Industrial Revolution

Brandon Volpicelli | Phase-2 Research | IARC 475 | March 14, 2021

The Industrial Revolution showed the evolution of countless innovations. Meyer-Sniffen Co. developed over 45 different water closets with adjustments of traps, shapes, materials, and flushing techniques in this setting. 

Each Meyer-Sniffen model contains a cistern several feet above the basin and some form of flushing upon completion. Yet, numerous differences can be spotted showing the growth of the toilet over this period of time. The beginning of the catalog depicts a large basin with a pull lever for flushing that holds water in its basin prior to use. This idea doesn’t circle back until the No. 30 model which is shocking since that is what is used in current examples. The other differences are the style in which the basins were flushed and their shapes.

Upon their research the initial idea of holding water in the basin was found to be a waste. An unfilled basin that flushes before and after saves water for each use. The style of flush, after the initial lever had been adapted into both the pressure plate and pull chain, continued to vary between those two adaptations in future iterations. The size of the bowl was also adjusted as a means to need less water to flush. 

Inspiration due to innovations of the Industrial Revolution would be the use of a trap built into the unit and materiality of the water closets and cisterns. An interesting sight was the trap that kept being added and subtracted from the unit over time. The materials kept progressing, the basin became porcelain then shifted to earthenware and the trap adapted to stronger materials. It can be seen that small adjustments to parts are being made as they are being invented. One example is the new clamp additions that connect the basin to the trap and then to the ground. As the models progress these change metals, keeping up with the most modern versions..

There are three similarities from the toilets of this time and that of the current examples in the USA; material, shape, flush action. In the 21st century, toilets are made out of porcelain which was seen in several examples from the Industrial Revolution. The shape of the basin matches that of the iterations from No. 30 and above. The flush action is similar to modern flushing however, instead of pulling on a cord it is a handle that reacts the same way causing the flush of water that was being held in the basin. The true difference is the cistern being held so high, now it is contained all in one simple unit together sitting as nearly a backrest on the toilet.

Six categories can be made of the toilets from the Meyer-Sniffen Water-Closets of the Industrial Revolution; the arrangement of the trap with the subcategories of in-ground or above ground, the next is the flushing system with lever, pressure plate, and pull chain as its subcategories, and the outliers of the group which are multi-person use and self flushing toilets.

 

 

Trap Placement

In-Ground Traps; No. 10, No. 16, No. 23, and No. 27 

No. 10 Plate 22; A Hellyer Artisan Hopper flushed from the Meyer-Sniffen Co.’s Waste Preventing Cistern with Chain and Tassel

–A cord is pulled in order to draw water from the cistern to wash the excrements down. Water is to be flushed before and after use so that the basin is wet prior to use and clean after. This water closet has no S or P Trap built in which means it relies on one being in place in the pre-existing building under the floor. (Page 24)

Figure 1. No.10 Plate 22 (Page 24)

No. 16 Plate 32; A Hellyer Artisan Hopper flushed from the Meyer-Sniffen Co.’s Waste Preventing Cistern Arranged to Operate by the Door

—A water closet in a closet, when the door is opened a chain is pulled through a pulley contraption flushing the toilet to wet the Hopper. It continues to expel water down however it is held to a limit to not release a constant heavy flow of water. Once complete the door closes flushing the excrements and ready to be opened and used again. Trap not included, required in the infrastructure below the water closet.  (Page 32)

Figure 2. No. 16 Plate 32 (Page 32)

No. 23 Plate 38; Hellyer Long Hopper with “Em Ess” Cast Lead Lined Syphon Cistern with Chain and Tassel

—Improved flushing rim to keep bowl wet before and after use. Chain and tassel flush action with no built in trap, must be in the infrastructure. (Page 40)

Figure 3. No. 23 Plate 38 (Page 40)

No. 27 Plate 42; Hellyer Artisan Hopper, flushed with small “Em Ess” Cast Lead Lined, Air Pipe, Valve Cistern with Chain and Tassel.

—A very similar adaptation of the model No. 14, this included the “Em Ess” cistern system. No trap above ground requiring the infrastructure to supply one. (Page 44)

 Figure 4. No. 27 Plate 42 (Page 44)

Trap Placement

Above Ground / In Unit Traps; No. 12, No. 24, No. 26, and No. 30 

Figure 5. No. 12 Plate 26 (Page 28) 

No. 12 Plate 26; Hellyer Short Artisan Hopper with earthen trap set above the floor, flushed from the Meyer-Sniffen Co.’s No. 4 Patent Regulator Sure-Supply Cistern With Chain and Tassel

—A built into unit trap that sits above the floor and doesn’t require a preset trap in infrastructure. Uses a chain for the flush system and must be flushed before and after use to wet and clean the basin. (Page 28)

Figure 6. No. 24 Plate 39 (Page 41)

No. 24 Plate 39; Hellyer Short Artisan Hopper with earthenware trap to set above the floor and “Em Ess” Cast Lead Lined Syphon Cistern with Chain and Tassel

—Simple pull flush toilet system with trap above ground making it easier to place in the building. Very similar to model No. 12 however uses the “Em Ess” cistern system. (Page 41)

Figure 7. No. 26 Plate 41 (Page 43)

No. 26 Plate 41; Hellyer Short Artisan Hopper with earthenware trap to set above the floor, flushed by No. 7 “Em Ess” Cast Lead-lined cistern with Chain and Tassel.

—The basin being a similar model to No. 14, however an above ground trap and a chain to pull as the flushing system still needs to be flushed before and after use. Above ground trap allows it to be placed anywhere. (Page 43)

Figure 8. No. 30 Plate 44 (Page 47)

No. 30 Plate 44; Brighton Water-closet, cistern, brackets, patent floor flange, Chain and Tassel.

—Extreme jump to modern shape of the toilet. All one piece, trap behind the bowl rather than to the side and the bowl constantly holds water until flush by pull of the chain. (Page 47)

Flushing Systems

Lever Pull; No. 1, No. 7, No. 9, and No. 11 

No. 1 Plate 1; Meyer-Sniffen Co.’s Water Closet Apparatus, Hellyer

—Ovular shaped basin with lever contraption to flush. No built in trap, infrastructure requires it below the placement. This toilet is always ⅔ full of water and is flushed with 8 gallons of water from the cistern. (Page 4)

Figure 9. No. 1 Plate 1 (Page 4)

No. 7 Plate 16; Hellyer Artisan Hopper, flushed from the Meyer-Sniffen Co.’s No. 4 Cistern, Cup, Pull, and Standard.

—The basin now circular and is empty prior to use, needing the handle to be lifted before and after use, to wet the bowl. There is no built in trap making it required in the infrastructure. (Page 18)

Figure 10. No. 7 Plate 16 (Page 18)

No. 9 Plate 20; Hellyer Artisan Hopper, flushed with The Meyer-Sniffen Co.’s No. 8 Waste Preventing Cistern, Cup, Pull, and Standard

—Similar to No. 7, lifting the handle is required to wet the basin prior and post use. Also has no trap above ground requiring it in the infrastructure as well. The one difference from No. 7 is the size of the cistern. (Page 22)

Figure 11. No. 9 Plate 20 (Page 22)

No. 11 Plate 24; Hellyer Short Hopper with earthen trap set above the floor, flushed from the Meyer-Sniffen Co.’s No. 4 Pat. Regulator Sure-Supply Cistern, Cup, Pull, and Standard.

—An improved shape and flushing rim, with brass connection to earthenware trap. Handle still needs to be lifted prior and post use to wet the bowl as the bowl doesn’t hold water. (Page 26)

 Figure 12. No. 11 Plate 24 (Page 26)

Flushing Systems

Pressure Plates; No. 3, No. 5, No. 31, and No. 33 

Figure 13. No. 3 Plate 3 (Page 6)

No. 3 Plate 3; Water Closet Apparatus with Improved Flushing Rim, flushed from the Meyer-Sniffen Co.’s Patent Regulator No. 2 Waste Preventing Cistern Complete with Seat and all attachments.

—The first pressure plated seat, when sat upon it flushes to wet the bowl and then when the weight is lifted the bowl is flushed again. This basin has an improved flushing rim and no above ground trap. (Page 6)

Figure 14. No. 5 Plate 11 (Page 13)

No. 5 Plate 11; Hellyer Short Artisan Hopper with earthenware trap to set above the floor, flushed from the Meyer-Sniffen Co.’s Patent Regulator No. 2 Waste Preventing Cistern

—A pressure plated flush system that activated when sat upon for before and after use flushing. Improved cistern and added trap above floor were the changes made to No. 3. (Page 13)

Figure 15. No. 31 Plate 46 (Page 49)

No. 31 Plate 46; Brighton Water Closet– To work automatically flushed from the Meyer-Sniffen Co.’s Regulator No. 2 Waste-Preventing Cistern.

—This model uses the previous model, No. 30, all one unit, trap behind the bowl rather than to the side. Uses a pressure plate attachment as a flushing system control. (Page 49)

Figure 16. No. 33 Plate 50 (Page 53)

No. 33 Plate 50; Brighton Water Closet without trap, to work automatically, flushed from the Meyer-Sniffen Co.’s Regulator No. 2 Waste Preventing Cistern.

—New model of the toilet, a sleeker design however the trap is not included. Use of pressure plate flushing makes it simple for users, as it works automatically. (Page 53)

Flushing Systems

Chain and Tassel; No. 8, No. 15, No. 28, and No. 32 

No. 8 Plate 18; Hellyer Artisan Hopper Flushed from the Meyer-Sniffen Co.’s No. 4 Cistern with Chain and Tassel.

—Same model as prior, No. 7, with the addition of a pull cord rather than the lever. Flushing needs to be prior and post use to wet the bowl and this model saves about 2 dollars a use. No trap in this iteration. (Page 20)

Figure 17. No. 8 Plate 18 (Page 20)

No. 15 Plate 30; Hellyer Artisan Hopper, flushed from the Meyer-Sniffen Co.’s Waste Preventing Cistern arranged to Operate by the Door.

—The use of the Model No. 11 with the closet attachment. Helps to conceal the toilet while also activating it upon opening and closing of the closet door which pulls the chain for the user. No trap on this iteration. (Page 32)

Figure 18. No. 15 Plate 30 (Page 32)

No. 28 Plate 43; Hellyer Short Artisan Hopper with earthenware trap to set above floor, flushed with small “Em Ess” cast lead line, air-pipe, valve cistern with Chain and Tassel.

—Similar to the Model No. 14, however with a trap connection. Uses a pull cord to flush before and after use to ensure wetting of the bowl, water released from the “Em Ess” cistern system. (Page 45)

 Figure 19. No. 28 Plate 43 (Page 45)

No. 32 Plate 48; Brighton Water Closet, without trap, cistern, brackets, with Chain and Tassel. “The Brighton without trap is intended to be put where the trap is already in, or where pirates prefer it below the floor.”

—This toilet takes the innovative and novel design model of No. 30 and makes a few adjustments. The main shift is the lack of a trap which requires specific placement in the infrastructure. Uses a pull cord for flushing and just needs to be used once due to it already being full of water. (Page 51)

Figure 20. No. 32 Plate 48 (Page 51)

Other Outliers from the Catalog

Multiple Joined Water Closets; No. 4 and No. 6

Figure 21. No. 4 Plate 9 (Page 11)

No. 4 Plate 9; Hellyer No. 4 Water Closet Apparatus

—This iteration is based off of No. 3 however it is a connection of multiple toilets together. A function highly valued during the Industrial Revolution in factories, railway stations, schools, etc. where the toilets are in constant use. This model uses pressure plates to draw water from the massive cistern to wash away the excrement and wet the basin before and after use. There is no trap requiring it in the infrastructure below the floor. (Page 11)

Figure 22. No. 6 Plate 15 (Page 17)

No. 6 Plate 15; Hellyer Short Artisan Hopper with Earthenware Trap to Set Above the Floor

—This multi-toilet can be as long as needed in the proposal of the client. Adaptation of No. 4, using the pressure plate similarly. However this iteration uses above the ground traps making it easier to use in the building. Used for public places much like the previous multi-toilet. (Page 17)

Other Outliers from the Catalog

Automatic Flushing; No. 13 

No. 13 Plate 28; Rhoads’ Porcelain-Seated Hopper, with flush tank for use in exposed places where water is liable to freeze.

—This toilet not only has a novel shape for the time, but has an unheard of aspect of self flushing. The unit will flush at intervals determined by the user but it doesn’t need to be activated during use. It helps keep water from freezing in pipes of cold places but also the use in urinals to keep units clean. (Page 30)

Figure 23. No. 13 Plate 28 (Page 30)

Bibliography

Meyer-Sniffen co., limited [from old catalog. Illustrated Catalogue of Water-Closet and Bathing Arrangements for Public and Private Places. [New York], 1884. Internet Archive, http://archive.org/details/illustratedcatal02meye

Image source

Figure 1: Page 24

Figure 2: Page 32

Figure 3: Page 40

Figure 4: Page 44

Figure 5: Page 28

Figure 6: Page 41

Figure 7: Page 43

Figure 8: Page 47

Figure 9: Page 4

Figure 10: Page 18

Figure 11: Page 22

Figure 12: Page 26

Figure 13: Page 6

Figure 14: Page 13

Figure 15: Page 49

Figure 16: Page 53

Figure 17: Page 20

Figure 18: Page 32

Figure 19: Page 45

Figure 20: Page 51

Figure 21: Page 11

Figure 22: Page 17

Figure 23: Page 30

 

Technological and Cultural Bathroom Advancements

Mar 14, 2021 | culture, Individual Research (UG), Research, technology, United States | 0 comments

Technological and Cultural Bathroom Advancements

By: Lauren Preston

My research has included the technological and cultural evolution of the bathroom and the elements of a bathroom within the United States during the 19th and 20th century. I focused on what aspects of American culture caused those shifts and how technology has been increasingly introduced into the home. Technology is constantly changing and extremely popular, but the slow implementation shows us the importance to not rush the integration of technology as it may not always produce the intended result. This research is specifically relevant to inform us on the advancement’s technology may continue to have on the bathroom and how influential culture, design, and style is to Americans and their homes and specifically their bathrooms. I used primarily secondary sources to inform my research as well as many images that show the difference of fixtures before and after the major cultural shift of bathrooms in the US. In conclusion, I have learned about the roots of toilets and bathrooms and their initial functional purpose. Recent history has informed us about the value the bathroom has in American homes and that it’s no longer simply a place of function but also a place of luxury and design. Homes, hotels, and vacation destinations all have heavy focus on the beauty of their bathrooms which proves the importance and value of decorated bathrooms in the United States.

Individual Research

Integration of Technology in the Bathroom

The influence and incorporation of technology into a specific Sydney Opera House project as well as the implementation of technology in the United States throughout the 20th century

The Soft Bathroom

The movement from more brutalist forms of toilets in history to the more modern notion of privacy and pleasure that exists today.

Group Research

Timeline

The Spread of the English Bathroom Home Page

Toilets in Medieval England

Mar 14, 2021 | History, history | 0 comments

Toilets in Medieval England

Garderobes, Latrines, and Cesspools

Medieval London started like most societies with little technology for sewer systems. This leads to many unique and interesting ways to alleviate waste in day to day life. Many of these ways included Latrines that were over flowing water, cesspools and many other ways. These allowed for waste to be taken away and avoid odor, however accessibility was limited for the lower class. While nobility created latrines for many floors, others were left without. This created public latrines more popular and many buildings were left without latrines readily accessible. Soon nobility would have access to garderobes these would typically be on the wall of castles. Through technology we see the use of pipes and how they gradually allow privies to be more flexible.

"

Garderobe is a type of toilet that was usually used in the castle. Nobles and kings built privies called garderobes in their castle that were hidden in the thick wall and directly dropped the waste into the moat. Through the development of pipe systems and technology, the position and environment of the garderobes became better and more flexible, and the amounts of the garderobes increased as well. Unfortunately, after years of using the garderobes, it might cause water pollution and bad odors of the moat.

Garderobes

Reviving of Sewage System

People stopped using the sewage system for about a thousand years after Roman culture, and the monastery in England resurrected in extremely organized compounds with rational arrangement and techniques in 1167. For example, they used lead pipes to provide running water, rainwater drainage, settling tanks for purification, and using drainage pipes as well at the same time. Moreover, these sewage systems highly influenced the whole sanitation system all around England, no matter the privies or the public latrines.

 

Association between Private Bathroom And Wealth

Even though most of English people in London used public bathrooms like latrines in the Medieval, Antiquarians found that London citizens never stop developing to bring the convenience in toilets. And these tries of developments highly depend on their wealthy statues.  There is rarely a private Garderobe in the residential houses in Medieval England. However, antiquarians founded a large number of garderobes in old English monasteries and in the ancient establishments of the wealthy landed nobility. Some nobles built toilets in each story, even in each room. And for this purpose, they had to give over one of the principal towers of the castle.

 

Arrangement and Connection to the Cesspool And Garderobes

At the very start, designers put the garderobes in the secret chambers in the towers at the corners of the castle. In that way, it’s easy to build a connection between the toilets and the moat to help release the excrements from the castle. But for some exceptions, there were also examples to have a garderobes that disposal the wastes into an underground cesspool. In this case, the cesspool needs to be cleaned by servants. In conclusion, there are four typologies of garderobes: (1) fall in cesspit, (2) be conveyed into a moat, (3) breteche-style garderobes, (4) evacuated in different styles. (Figure 2) Through the development of technologies and strategies in drainage and pipe systems, architects built underground sewage to help release the excrements and waste. This development made the arrangement of garderobes more flexible. There are eight types of privies were mentioned by Sabine, which are the followings: (1) within the thickness of castle walls, as in London Tower; (2) within towers; (3) within turrets; (4) within chimneys; (5) within chambers corbelled out over the water of the moats; (6) within chambers on arches over the water; (7) with pipe drains to the moats; and (8) with cesspools to receive their filth. Due to these developments, the using feeling of the toilet also developed. For example, the garderobes within chimneys absorb the heat from the chimneys, which give a warmer environment in the garderobes. In the earlier period, there were no pipes and sewage systems in the castle. This absence of pipe led innovation of the arrangement of garderobes. Due to the gravity, these garderobes could not be arranged in the same vertical level. One way to solve this problem is to stagger the vertical orientation. The other way is to alley in a horizontal way. (Figure 3)

 

The Weak Point of The Castle vs. The Defending Strategy

Koolhaas and Horn have totally different ideas about the garderobes in defending level.  Koolhaas states that garderobes were the weak points of the castle. They are open and directly connect the moat or the cesspool, which gives a good opportunity for the enemy to enter the castle. And Koolhaas gives an example of the siege of Chateau Gaillard, a French soldier climbed into the castle by an unguarded garderobe. Owners of the castle used to add some iron bars to the chutes to prevent the castle from attack by enemy. On the other hand, Horn has a contrast idea. She mentioned the water pollution of the moat. After years of using the garderobes, an unpredictable amount of waste was released to the moat. It has more difficulty to clean and maintain. In that way, the water became disgusting in the moat. There was lots of excrement in the moat with bad smells. The bad situation of moat increased the defense ability of the moat, because nobody wants to swim in this kind of dirty water. However she also points out that the underground cesspool and pipe systems gave an opportunity for prisoners to escape from the castle through the pipe system. 

 

Garderobes in The Tower

What Garderobes Look like Outside Of The Wall

Layout of the Garderobes

LATRINES

Latrines were not just used by royalty, high clergy, and nobility, but reached the public sphere in the 1200s. Public latrines and tenant latrines served the masses, but in small numbers compared to the population of people. At most, three latrines would be provided for a large tenement housing block, but also sometimes not at all, in which case, tenants would use one of the public latrines in London. Sixteen latrines in London were mentioned throughout history, one of which being the London Bridge. This of course was due to the fact that the bridge, and many of the other latrines, was built near running water – perfect for the disposal of waste. However, private latrines, belonging to people of nobility or wealth, would system their own running water as a type of open sewer system. This did not come without cost, the waterways to be cleaned required an annual fee for the cleaners. (Trevor, 306-310)

The monetary price was not the only cost to latrines, the stench was cause for complaints and even indictment in many cases. The “nuisances” and complaints of odor and inconvenience were all too common in medieval London, bringing the problems to the city officials and mayors. This common complaint was a result of no centralized sewer or waste management system, as each household or housing group dealt with waste in their individual way, inconsiderate of the effect on passersby and neighbors to the waste. The creative solutions of each household resulted in the accumulation of waste in the public gutters, which as a result, would become backed up with waste. (Trevor, 311-313)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cesspools, like the one above, remained a common waste disposal system throughout medieval London with the attachment of privies, or outhouses. The matter of cleanliness, more a matter of odor and built up waste, was dealt with by paid privy-cleaners who worked during the night hours. Unfortunately, cesspools used by the poor would be within the same unit as the privy, in which the floor was the only separation between the privy and cesspool below. This led to numerous accidents and deaths. (Huxham, 314-317)

Cesspools

Citizens Poured Waste And Dirty Water Into The Cesspool

History of Cesspool

In the early 1800’s, London’s population was at an all time high with little to no sewage system. An average person defecated and urinated about four ounces of feces a day (Angus, Pg.35),  and as one could imagine this caused many problems for the City of London. During this time there were a few sewers that were made mostly of ditches but allowed for rainwater to be caught in it as well. If you were of nobility or the wealthy, one could have a private cesspool. This had many contributing factors that went with it. One could pay to have the waste removed, or they could simply have other cesspools be built. “In the 1840s, Queen Victoria’s principal residence, Windsor Castle, had fifty-three overflowing cesspools inits cellars, and sanitary conditions under Buckingham Palace were so bad that the government suppressed the inspector’s report” (Angus, Pg. 35-36). Unfortunately this was not the case for people that could not afford such luxuries. Many tendons shared one cesspool, and many were never emptied. This caused many issues such as seeping through the cesspool walls and leaking into the surrounding soil as well as even affecting the walls of the homes themselves (Angus, Pg.36). This lead to the question of what are the effects of such living conditions and how is that to shape the future of waste removal. 

Removal of Waste

The usage of waste was quite fascinating, “as towns grew, so did urban- rural manure trade” (Angus, pg. 32).  This was how many people created sources of income, they would clean out cesspools for a fee, and then later trade to nearby farmers. However, as cities began to grow, such as Cities like London with a million or more people at the time, many farmers could not take on the large amounts of waste that the city was producing.(Angus, Pg. 33). As water became more mainstream, there was a tendency to overflow cesspools which would cause “…many homeowners and builders to connect household drains to public sewers that were supposed to carry only rainwater.” (Angus, PG. 36) or many would dispose of such waste into the street gutters (Geels, Pg.1073).  In addition to public cesspools, “Middle and upper class families had in-house privies, where excrements fell down a tube into privy vaults. Cesspools and privy vaults were cleaned by private contractors” (Geels, Pg. 1073). It wasn’t until 1851 when public health hygiene and social order was addressed. This could be majorly contributed to the fact of the epidemics of cholera that struck in the 1830’s (Geels, Pg 1073).  It wasn’t until 1842, when Chadwick  proposed a plan to streamline manure to farmers with a sewer system that would allow for London to charge for the manure while having it be transported by this new system (Angus, Pg. 41).

Sanitation of Cesspools

Due to the lack of sanitation that cesspools and lack of a sewer system, many people living in poverty were likely to fall ill more frequently. In 1842, Edwin Chadwick wrote a report The Sanitary Condition of the Laboring Population, this highlighted the conditions in which poorer neighborhoods as well as health conditions they may face as well. (Angus, Pg. 39). Chadwick research led him to believe that the illness was not caused by physical contact, but “illness was caused by miasma, the foul air emitted by rotting organic matter” (Angus, Pg. 40). He proposed the following solutions, every dwelling has a water closet and is able to revive freshwater and take waste away from the city itself (Angus, Pg. 41). However, this proposal was passed on and in 1847, 30,000 people were killed due to a typhus epidemic. It wasn’t until the 1850’s weather water closets and houses with running water were in homes (Angus, Pg. 50).

Bibliography

Huxham, Trevor. Garderobe, Tower of London, 06 June 2018. Flickr. https://www.flickr.com/photos/ferrariguy90/3388183916 

MOLA. Secrets of the cesspit: Courtauld excavation reveals remnants of 15th century residence, MOLA. https://www.mola.org.uk/blog/secrets-cesspit-courtauld-excavation-reveals-remnants-15th-century-residence

Sabine, Ernest L. “Latrines and Cesspools of Mediaeval London.” Speculum 9.3 (1934): 303-21. Web. 

Koolhaas, Rem. “Elements”. Toilets. (2014): 12-33. 

Horn, Julie L. “The Porcelain God – A Social History of Toilets.” The Middle Ages: Sir Lancelot’s Toilet. (2000): 21-42.

Angus, Ian. Cesspols, Sewage, and Social Murder: Environmental Crisis and Metabolic Rift in Nineteenth-Century London. 

Geels, Frank W. The Hygenic Transition from Cesspools to Sewer Systems  (1840-1930): The Dynamics of Regime Transformation

 

W9-UG-Phase-2 Research

Mar 13, 2021 | Ancient, History, Individual Research (UG), Research | 0 comments

The volcano Vesuvius, south of Naples, is one of the most brutal volcanoes in most people’s memory, and became famous for the eruption in 79 A.D. that destroyed the three bustling Roman towns of Pompeii, Herculaneum and Stabia in quick succession. The scenes of life in the two ancient cities were also immortalized at that moment, providing a rare physical source for modern understanding and study of ancient Roman society.

Studying the ancient city of Herculaneum and the Latrines of Pompeii, most of the buildings with toilets were built by the wealthy members of the society, and it can be seen that almost all of them were located close to the kitchen on the main street side, and most of them had toilets very close to the atrium. Because the kitchen and the toilet are the important “sewage” outlets for both buildings, the proximity to the street is a good way to connect the sewage of the house to the city’s sewage system. And the location near the atrium can increase the air flow and prevent the air from polluting the house. I think this layout can already be seen in the preliminary form of modern human housing, as the ancient Romans had already started to think about wet and dry partitioning and waste disposal.

Perhaps what we need to think about is why the toilet and kitchen are closely connected? Was the problem of “excretion” of the house ignored from the very beginning? Did people focus more on the magnificent palaces and frescoes, but neglected the most basic and important indicator of happiness?

 

 

HOUSE OF THE LARARIUM

Pompei insula

The House of the Lararium on Pompei insula, was discovered in 1912. The toilet of the house is located in area (N) of the plan (northeast corner), close to the kitchen. Now it has lost any trace of its decoration

HOUSE OF THE PRIEST AMANDUS

Pompeii

The house was first excavated in 1912 and the toilet was located at the east end of the kitchen (C)

HOUSE OF THE SILVER WEDDING

Pompeii

Also known as the House of L. Albucius Celsus, this house was continuously excavated between 1891 and 1908. The northwest corner of the space opens into the kitchen (n). The photo shows the door leading to the toilet.

HOUSE OF BRONZE BULL

Pompeii

The Copper Bull House is located on the north side of Nora Avenue. The house was excavated in 1836 has been neglected because it has not been well protected and is now in a poor condition.
The “L” shaped passage (p) opening from the west side of the colonnade leads to the kitchen area and private bath.

HOUSE OF THE CENTENNIAL

Pompeii

The house was excavated in 1879, the toilet is close to the kitchen and the bathroom

HOUSE OF THE PRINCE OF NAPLES

Pompeii

Off the northwest corner of the atrium is the kitchen (d) (left), which has a storage room at its west end. On the north wall is a small niche with a fireplace and toilet.

HOUSE OF THE DOUBLE ATRIUM

Pompeii

 

The kitchen (c) is located in the southwest corner of the atrium. In the southwest corner, there is a toilet next to the work surface.

HOUSE OF THE GREAT PORTAL

Herculaneum

The house of the Great Portal was built on the site of the old peristyle of the neighbouring Samnite House. On the north side of the vestibule is the kitchen area (f), including a toilet.

House of M. Fabius Rufus

Pompeii

The house was first excavated in 1759 and was excavated again in 1910, 1940 and between 1958 and 1980. It is the largest dwelling ever found in Pompeii. The toilet is located in the interior of the service area, close to the kitchen

House of Julia Felix

Pompeii

The house, Julia Felix House, was originally excavated between 1754-57 and later reburied after being severely damaged. The house and gardens occupy one of the largest plots of land in Pompeii, taking up almost the entire block.
Immediately south of the pool (p) are the baths’ toilets (o)

House of the Restaurant

Pompeii

The restaurant house is located on the west side of Vicolo del Centenario and the toilets are located in the service area on the south side of the colonnade.

Fullonica of Stephanus

Pompeii

This property, excavated in 1912, is the only laundry in Pompeii, with the toilet located in the southwest corner of the space, next to the kitchen (l)

House of Apollo

Pompeii

The House of Apollo is located in Via di Mercurio, a house named after the mythical frescoes of Apollo found in a cube at the back of the garden. The toilet is located next to the kitchen (j) in the northwest corner of the second floor via the staircase (i).

House of Octavius Quartio

Pompeii

It was first excavated in 1916, followed by excavations in 1933-35 and 1971. The southeast corner of the atrium contains two interconnected rooms (e), which may have been service areas and toilets.

Villa of the Mysteries

Pompeii

Beyond the Villa Diomedes is the Villa Mysterium, known for having one of the most important collections of decorative frescoes in the Roman world. The villa originally dates from the 2nd century B.C., but its present layout is set between 70 and 60 B.C. The toilet is located in the northeast corner of the atrium in a passage connected to the kitchen courtyard (j).

House of the Corinthian Atrium

Herculaneum

This house is located in the middle of the west side of the Cardo IV along Insula V.
The toilet is near the kitchen (g) (left photo) in the southeast corner of the colonnade, with a staircase leading to the upper floor.

Bibliography

House of the lararium – ad79eruption. (n.d.). Retrieved March 13, 2021, from https://sites.google.com/site/ad79eruption/pompeii/regio-i/reg-i-ins-6/house-of-the-lararium

House of the Priest amandus – AD79eruption. (n.d.). Retrieved March 13, 2021, from https://sites.google.com/site/ad79eruption/pompeii/regio-i/reg-i-ins-7/house-of-the-priest-amandus

House of the Centennial – AD79eruption. (n.d.). Retrieved March 13, 2021, from https://sites.google.com/site/ad79eruption/pompeii/regio-ix/reg-ix-ins-8/house-of-the-centennial

House of the Prince of Naples – AD79eruption. (n.d.). Retrieved March 13, 2021, from https://sites.google.com/site/ad79eruption/pompeii/regio-vi/reg-vi-ins-15/house-of-the-prince-of-naples

House of bronze bull – ad79eruption. (n.d.). Retrieved March 13, 2021, from https://sites.google.com/site/ad79eruption/pompeii/regio-v/reg-v-ins-1/house-of-bronze-bull

 

Evolution of the Residential Bathroom: An Analysis on the Design and Social Implications of the American Domestic Toilet

Mar 13, 2021 | Research, United States | 0 comments

’60s American Bathroom Design, (Americana)
After researching the evolution of the toilet from the perspective of the Industrial Revolution, questions have arisen on the development of the residential bathroom in Western society. From the first glimpses of the toilet in residential settings to the creation of the colorful, glorified bathroom, how did one perspective evolve into the other? Much is revealed through analysis on the post-industrial approach to toilet design and how that design impacted and was impacted by sociological gender roles of American society. Looking at the domestic toilet from the first adoption of the flushed toilet in the United States to its evolution through the 1980s, much can be said about how the toilet, and eventually the restroom, defined the roles and practices of domestic living.
Home Plan from 1869, (Gerling)

The Adoption of the Flushed Toilet in the Residential Setting

As the adoption of sewer systems grew in large population and urban settings during the 1870s, the implementation of toilets in the home was a growing phenomenon. Since sanitation was a huge focus at this time, there was great concern with having a toilet inside the house; most toilets were then designed to be placed in a small water closet in the back of the house with an exterior entryway. Given that the flushed toilet was a new technology, only wealthy families were able to acquire the water closet ramifications to their homes; poorer families remained to dig holes in the ground and bury bodily waste away from the home (Gerling).

As the home was a sacred, clean space, there was much backlash to the domestic toilet. Even after the first sightings of the residential water closet, some families remained to follow the practices of disposing of excrement via digging holes, using chamber pots, or occasionally constructing an outhouse structure so the flushed toilet remained away from the sacred home space (Gerling). It took many more decades for the toilet to be a common household feature.

In the 1920s, American residences began to incorporate the flushed toilet as a separate room combined with the bathtub. This allowed for the water closet to evolve into the bathroom. With defecation and bodily cleaning being associated together, the toilet grew to be perceived as an important mode for sanitary practices (Lupton 5-8). As residential design evolved with the decades, so did the bathroom. By the 1950s, it became common practice to have more than one bathroom in the household, and by the 1960s, the floor plan of the bathroom grew in size to create the grand master bathroom. The flush toilet developed from an invention of fear and disgust to a grand, porcelain necessity of sanitation.

Left: Home Plan from 1928
Middle: Home Plan from 1934
Right: Home Plan from 1949

Sociological Implications of the Toilet

 

Toward the end of the Sanitation Revolution, the way the populations in both England and America adopted the sanitary systems into their day-to-day lives was through relating sanitation to religious practices. The phrase “cleanliness next to godliness” was coined soon after the implementation of the toilet into residences. The proper upkeep of toilets and home sewer systems became a religious obligation that was crucial to the ideals of western society. To defecate in dug up holes or to not maintain bodily cleanliness in relation to bowel health was considered ungodly and savage. These beliefs then grew to carry racist meaning as poorer communities and native cultures did not have access to these newer inventions and still practiced defecation methods that white populations had used only a few decades prior. The pressure to convert other cultures to a Christian lifestyle, and so therefore a sanitary lifestyle, became an aggressive behavioral trait in post Industrial Revolution populations (Gerling).

 

Continually, once toilets were incorporated in the residential setting, toilets and defecating processes became a domestic duty. Toilets quickly became the responsibility of women (Gerling). It was the woman’s obligation to maintain the cleanliness of the toilet and be sure the sewer line functioned properly, so excrement remained away from the home. By making toilet maintenance a domestic duty, women were further suppressed into the home and discouraged to enter into the work force. It was this association between defecation and female duty that drove females to the “American housewife” label and prevented movements of gender equality for generations. It was not until the later 80s that men began to take over some responsibility over the upkeep of the toilet (Neuhaus, 69-70).

The Colorful Bathroom

 

As the Industrial Revolution and Victorian era past and the bathroom evolved into the essential room that included the toilet as well as the bathtub, the residential bathroom was no longer a space for waste disposal, but a space for dwelling and promoting hygiene. As the bathroom became more of a dwelling space, bathroom personalization grew and marketing for these populations also grew. Since women were the central caretakers of the bathroom, these advertisements were directed solely to women. Bright patterned wallpapers and richly colored bathroom tiles grew in fashion so that women could make the bathroom a space of their own (Lupton, 5-8).

Pink Bathroom Design from the ’60’s, (Americana)

It was during the 1920’s that the colorful bathroom first began to come into being. With residual influence from the production methods of the Industrial Revolution, the use of mass production to create elaborate wallpaper and patterned decorative materials began to spread into the bathroom. Seeing the bathroom in full color changed the perception of the space from a clinical, sanitation room to a dwelling space. Particularly alluring was the pink porcelain bathroom that promoted a sexy atmosphere within the space. With the colorful bathroom came also the romanticization of the bathroom and the beginning of the “soft bathroom” aesthetic (Penner 164-7).

 

Although centered on the sexualized bathtub, the colorful bathroom drove the perceptions of the toilet away from its connotations of negativity and filth; the colorful, decorative nature of the bathroom allowed the toilet to be a vision of comfort. This feeling of comfort was further created through the adoption of softer toilet paper and innovations further focusing on connecting sanitation with pleasure (Penner, 165).

Home Plan 1952, (Old Prints)

Evolution of Gender Roles

 

During the 1970s and 80s, bathroom cleaning tools were on the rise in advertising. With the use of servants and housekeepers becoming obsolete, there was a need to find a way for every family to find ease in cleaning the bathroom. The responsibility of the bathroom still remained to be under the woman’s leadership. Advertisements first began to use mythical creatures as symbols on how the bathroom is cleaned in order to make the job more mysterious and whimsical for women. Toward the later 80s, there were even advertisements for cleaning products that were used by men; these were thrown amidst other images of men doing more manly tasks, but it was the first step in taking the bathroom responsibilities away from solely the women in the household (Neuhaus, 69-72).

From the beginning, the domestic restroom has proven to be a constant burden and obligation of women. As women were in charge of promoting sanitation, there grew to be more duties for females in the domestic sphere (Gerling). It took over a century since the adoption of the flushed toilet in the residential setting for men to even be considered for domestic toilet maintenance. In recent decades, the “housewife” stereotype and the responsibilities of women to be the sole leader in household sanitation is little by little being eradicated. Once there is an equality in toilet responsibility between both sexes, gender equality can spread into other spheres.

1920’s Bathroom Design, (Aposporos)

Conclusion

 

Since its adoption into the residential sphere during the 1800s, the toilet has undergone many stages of evolution. As a main drive for promoting sanitation and eradicating deadly diseases related to excrement, the domestic toilet created an unexpected effect of increased gender role disparity, becoming a leading element in the design details and creation of the renowned bathroom, and has now become the common household fixture of today. There is much evolution still necessary for the flushed toilet, but over the past century, the bathroom has undergone many drastic and unexpected changes to match the sociological needs of the times.

Bibliography

Gerling, Daniel Max. “Excrementalisms: Revaluing What We Have Only Ever Known as Waste.” Food, Culture & Society, vol. 22, no. 5, 2019, pp. 622-638., doi:10.1080/15528014.2019.1638126. 

Lupton, Ellen, and J.Abbott Miller. The Bathroom, the Kitchen and the Aesthetics of Waste: a Process of Elimination. Princeton University Press, 1996.

Neuhaus, Jessamyn. Housework and Housewives in American Advertising: Married to the Mop. Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.

Penner, Barbara. 2013. Bathroom. Objekt. London: Reaktion Books.

 

Image Sources

“60 Vintage ’60s Bathrooms: Retro Home Decorating Ideas.” Click Americana, 6 Mar. 2021, clickamericana.com/topics/home-garden/vintage-60s-bathrooms-decor-ideas.

Aposporos, Demetra. “Colorful Old-House Bathrooms.” Old House Journal Magazine, Old House Journal Magazine, 30 June 2011, www.oldhouseonline.com/kitchens-and-baths-articles/colorful-old-house-bathrooms.

Gerling, Daniel Max. “Excrementalisms: Revaluing What We Have Only Ever Known as Waste.” Food, Culture & Society, vol. 22, no. 5, 2019, pp. 622-638., doi:10.1080/15528014.2019.1638126. 

Sixty-Five Years of American Homes 1900-1965, Old Imprints, 2016. https://www.oldimprints.com/images/upload/houseplans-2016.pdf?v=139264756057e980805f5e1

The Dwellings of the Labouring Classes (1855) – Henry Roberts Case Study

Mar 11, 2021 | Case Study, Industrial Revolution, Research | 0 comments

10 Dwellings of England’s 19th Century Labouring Classes

View of the Model buildings near Bagnigge Wells

 

Great Britain was at the heart of the Industrial Revolution, which brought with it new technologies and new ways of life. Urban centers were becoming overcrowded as the labouring classes grew and the streets were filled with garbage and human waste. Disease epidemics struck during the mid 19th century with smallpox, cholera and typhoid devastating Europe and North America. The desperation during this time led to sanitation improvements that dramatically decreased the spread of communicable diseases. In 1842, Britain’s leading health reformer, Edwin Chadwick, published a report about the sanitary conditions of the labouring classes in Great Britain, which highlighted the connection between overcrowded conditions, lack of adequate disposal of human waste, and diseases. 

Henry Roberts was an important figure during this time. He was a fellow of the Royal Institute of British Architects and the honorary architect to the Society for Improving the Conditions for the Labouring Classes, which was established in 1844 under the patronage of the Queen with Prince Albert as their president. As their name suggests, their goal was to improve the living conditions of the labouring classes by studying the plans and arrangements of dwellings to create available Models with sound principles that could be adopted in the Metropolis and in the Manufacturing and Agricultural Districts. Over five years, they created successive Models and improved dwellings that were adapted to the varied circumstances of the labouring classes. Their work was criticized as being overly complicated and not likely to make a profit as an investment. To combat this, they published a case study with experiments to demonstrate by experience that indeed a return could be obtained from an investment in improving the dwellings of the labouring classes. Their main objective was to combine what was essential to the health, comfort and moral habits of the labouring classes and their families. This meant close attention being paid to the ventilation, drainage, and an ample supply of water. Another important aspect of this was bringing the water closet and increased hygiene into the home. Below are just ten examples of the floor plans from Henry Robert’s case study The Dwellings of the Labouring Classes (1855).

Double Houses Adapted to Towns

 

These dwellings were intended to be as workmen’s dwellings in towns. On grounds of economy, they were built in pairs; ranging from two to four tenement spaces, with up to three bedrooms in each to accommodate families. Each tenement space has a water closet with a window, located next to the scullery.

 

 

Family Houses for Workmen

 

Here are two floor plans of Family Houses for Workmen, both built by the Metropolitan Association. The plans are mirrored, sharing plumbing walls. Robert Henry criticized these arrangements for lacking proper ventilation, which was due to a window tax at the time that presented serious barriers to improving spaces. 

 

 

Model Lodging House

 

This Model Lodging House was to accommodate 104 working men in one of the worst neighborhoods to make even more clear the beneficial results of improving the dwelling conditions. There were four floors of dormitories above the ground floor, with one water closet on each level. The aim of this arrangement was to provide everything deemed essential or valuable, which while conducive to the health and physical comfort of the individuals was also thought to increase their self respect and well being. During a time when cholera was ravaging neighboring dwellings, not one case occurred among the 104 tenements in this Model Lodging House.

Model Houses for Families

 

This Model House for Families was to accommodate 48 families. With such a large number of families in a single building, it was extremely important to preserve domestic privacy and to keep the apartments distinct and separate in order to prevent any communication of contagious disease. This was accomplished by avoiding separate staircases or other internal communications between stories, and by instead using one common open staircase that led into corridors and galleries that were open to a spacious quadrangle on one side.

Asylum for Destitute Sailors

 

Perhaps the most simple of these plans is the Asylum for Destitute Sailors, which was a converted warehouse to shelter and provide food for shipwrecked seamen. The open air yard contained the water closet and provided any arrangements for washing or bathing.

Model Houses for Four Families

 

Prince Albert had this building constructed to present at the Great Exhibition of 1851 to excite visitors and promote improving the dwellings of the labouring classes. Each bedroom has access to a window and the water closet is fitted with a glazed basin that contains no wood fittings. Ventilation was carefully considered and the arrangement was thoughtfully laid out to minimize any communication of contagious diseases.

The Thanksgiving Model

 

The Thanksgiving Model contains dwellings raised for twenty families, and for one hundred and twenty-eight single women. An existing building has been converted into a washhouse for the tenants as well as the neighborhood. The washhouse is heated with hot water, containing thirty-four washing troughs, twelve ironing tables, a wringing apparatus, two baths and twelve drying horses.

The Windsor Royal Society Cottages

 

The Windsor Royal Society Cottages were designed with two rows of cottages opposite one another. They accommodated about forty families, each having a small garden. A central building combines a superintendent’s residence, a bake house, wash house, bath, fuel store and a 3,000 gallon cistern for the general supply of the houses. These cottages were reported to have a degree of healthiness that was above the general average of the town, with zero deaths from cholera. 

Double Cottages

 

These Double Cottages were designed in pairs, locating the entrances on opposite ends to separate the spaces while locating the chimney stack at the center to maximize warmth in both spaces. Three bedrooms were to provide ample space to separate the sexes, which was considered to be essential to morality and decency.

Lodging House for Unmarried Labourers

 

The Lodging House for Unmarried Labourers was intended to provide a comfortable, cheap and healthy abode. It was one that was free from the temptations and immorality of a crowded cottage where the married and unmarried were thought to contaminate each other. A selected library and garden were provided to amuse the young men to avoid nights spent at the beer shop.

Conclusion

It cannot be understated just how great of an impact the Industrial Revolution had on people’s lives. While there is much to praise about the new technology and innovation that came about during this time, it is important to acknowledge its dark side. The Industrial Revolution cannot be separated from the broader context of the time. As people flooded to urban areas for work, there wasn’t adequate infrastructure to handle the increase in population and no labor laws to protect the labouring classes from being exploited under capitalism. The sweeping change left the poor and labouring classes in squalor, living in crowded and filthy conditions exasperated by multiple disease epidemics. During this time, dwellings of the labouring classes were being cleared away to make room for modern improvements, which only aggravated the already dire situation. Many innovations from this time came about in response to desperate situations. With so many people to house at a time when contagious diseases were a top concern, it was necessary to create options that were economical and healthful.

There was a growing awareness around the poor living conditions of the labouring classes. In 1848, the first public health act came into effect, which required any new or remodeled dwellings to include a bathroom. One of the most meaningful architectural manifestations of the new innovation and technology from this time was bringing the bathroom into the home. If architecture evolves to reflect our everyday experiences, the introduction of the bathroom into homes would forever change that everyday experience of not only individuals but the society at large.

The benefits of improving the dwellings of the labouring classes laid out by the Henry Roberts case study are undeniable, from improving the comfort and well being of individuals to combating the spread of deadly diseases. As we currently face a housing crisis with over half a million unhoused Americans, I can’t help but long for a similar but contemporary effort to improve the living conditions of not only the working class, but people in general. The attention paid to our connection and relationships with our built environment in these case studies is remarkable. It was knowledge that was used to better not only individual’s lives but their broader communities and society. Henry Roberts quotes one landlord:

“To improve the dwellings of the labouring class, and afford them the means of greater cleanliness, health, and comfort in their own homes; to extend education, and thus raise the social and moral habits of those most valuable members of the community, are among the first duties, and ought to be amongst the truest pleasures, of every landlord.” (19)

As history shows us, too often social change doesn’t come about until the situation is so dire that it reaches the upper classes and therefore cannot be ignored. As we face compounding crises with the Covid-19 pandemic, commodifying basic human needs such as housing and healthcare, impending climate change and a mental health crisis, just to name a few, I can’t help but hope that change is around the corner. One thing that was striking to me was that in order for the ideas of Henry Roberts and the Society for Improving the Conditions of the Labouring Classes to be taken seriously, they had to prove that it could be profitable in order to be practical. When will we prioritize people over profits when it comes to our basic needs and well being?

 

Bibliography

Roberts, Henry. The Dwellings of the Labouring Classes (1855). London: Society for Improving the Condition of the Working Classes, 1855. Internet Archive.

“The Victorian Age: Prim and Proper Piss Pots.” The Porcelain God: a Social History of the Toilet, by Julie L. Horan, Carol Publishing Group, 1997, pp. 77–103.

 

Image source

https://archive.org/details/dwellingslabouringclasses/page/n81/mode/2up

 

Sanitation Infrastructure and Class disparity

Mar 8, 2021 | History, Individual Research (UG), Industrial Revolution, Research, Thematic | 0 comments

Sanitation Infrastructure and Class Disparity in The Industrial Revolution

 

 

Figure 1: Factories running in London

The Industrial Revolution era of the 18th and 19th century led to the start of the technological boom in England which allowed for the nation’s population to grow with the advancement of farming and manufactured goods. In response to this boom, urban centers developed overcrowding issues that caused pollution and class disparity. To address the pollution and the problems that occurred due to unmanaged waste, reforms on sanitation infrastructure were developed.

 

 

Class Disparity in Cities

 

A larger divide in social class inequality followed the sanitation reform due to wealthier parts of the cities benefiting from the innovations while the poor parts still relied on the outdated systems that were initially in place. Due to the fact that the poor people, in this case the working class, still relied on the outdated sanitation systems, disease and pollution from human waste created poor living conditions.

Although the sanitation reforms that were established for 18th century England were put in place to address the issues with waste management that were causing disease, rural and working class neighborhoods of London’s infrastructure were not as developed which created a social inequality between the wealthy and working class.

Figure 2: Overcrowded dwellings in London

Figure 3: Busy streets in the city

Figure: 4 Drainage from homes leading in to the river 

First Solutions and Pollution

Pollution increased as new innovations for toilets emerged, since most solutions involved flushing waste into the rivers. A prominent example was that the government pushed the use of public privies that were built on bridges since the river would wash away the waste. Privies were essentially a hole in the ground with a wooden seat right above it (Jorgensen). They were an effective way of managing human waste when a small number of people used them. The reason behind this was that waste was given the opportunity to decompose which in turn could be used as fertilizer. When a large number of people used the privies, the waste was not given the time to decompose which then caused the holes to fill with waste and cause foul odor (Goodman). This method of dealing with waste led to contamination of water and it only increased with the replacement of privies and the creation of water closets. Water closets were created in an attempt to manage the odors coming from the excrement. They consisted of a cistern that held water, the seat and a vessel with a sluice. The water closets created a variety of issues such as inadequate draining and rapid filling of the cesspits. As the construction of these water closets were expensive, they were not readily available to the working class. Working class families shared public privies. Later on, through the Metropolitan Sanitary Commission, domestic sewer lines were created and led to the Thames River.

Public privies caused contamination to water systems when the waste in the holes leaked out and seeped into the water systems. For example, the waste would seep into wells. Another form of contamination was cesspools being emptied into the rivers. Some parts of London had public privies constructed over bridges in efforts to wash away the waste. By directly emptying waste into the river, people became ill from using the contaminated water.

J.W. Bazalgette proposed a system of sewage lines and pumping stations to address the sanitation conditions and the cholera outbreaks. There were to be four large pumping stations constructed in the north, east, south, and west suburbs of London which would have underground sewer lines run through (Bazalgette). These lines ran on both sides of the Thames River. Since the lines were in the metropolis, this left the rural areas and a lot of the working-class neighborhoods without the new systems.

Although many things were more affordable for the middle class during the Industrial Revolution, the working class’s living conditions were quite poor. There were issues of overcrowding in not just the neighborhoods, but in the households as well (Solomon). In one household, there could be up to three families living together.

In addition, these households had inadequate water supply. Street taps would supply a limited amount of water to up to 30 households. For example, one street tap for the 30 households would sell for an hour a day and only a few times per week (Solomon). Furthermore, water wasn’t the only issue the working class had to live through during these times. In the households that did have water closets and sewer connection, the drainage was inadequate. The water closets would be located in the cellars and in many cases, they would overflow or leak. Since the homes in the neighborhood would share a wall, the occupants would find their cellars flooded with excrement from the other household if it leaked (Wright).

The occupants of these neighborhoods suffered from higher fatality rates than the others. They were affected by chronic illnesses, shortened life spans, and a high infant mortality rate in which 15 out of 100 infants died within a year of birth (Solomon).

One of the illnesses that took countless lives was cholera. It spread through contamination of water by leaky sewers that fed into wells and rivers. Since water was pumped from the rivers to provide drinking, cleaning, and cooking, neighborhoods near the contaminated pumps suffered high fatalities from the cholera bacteria (Solomon). Cholera could be identified by the symptoms the victim would develop. Intense diarrhea, cramps, vomiting, and fevers were a few that the victim would demonstrate. The most intense part of the illness was the rapturing capillaries that resulted in death (Solomon).

Figure 5: Under ground sewer line
Figure 6: Wentworth St. and the families that live there

Final Take Away

The Industrial revolution period was filled with great advancement and opportunity, but when looking at the living conditions of the working class in urban and rural areas, class disparity occurred. Inadequate living conditions such as overcrowding, poor drainage, limited water, and pollution caused the working class to suffer higher mortality rates. To address the problems that occurred due to these issues, reforms on sanitation infrastructure were developed.

Bibliography

“Letter of Mr. J.W. Bazalgette on Establishment of Public Conveniences throughout the Metropolis : Printed by Order of Court, 22nd March, 1849 : London (England). Metropolitan Commission of Sewers : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming.” Internet Archive. [London] : Printed by Reynell and Weight, 16 Little Pulteney Street, 01 Jan. 1970. Web. 08 Mar. 2021.

Jorgensen, Dolly. The Metamorphosis of Ajax, jakes, and early modern urban sanitation. Early English Studies. Vol. 3. 2010

Wright. “Clean and Decent : The Fascinating History of the Bathroom & the Water Closet and of Sundry Habits, Fashions & Accessories of the Toilet Principally in Great …” Web. 08 Mar. 2021.

Solomon, Steven. “Water: The Epic Struggle for Wealth, Power, and Civilization.” Water: The Epic Struggle for Wealth, Power, and Civilization. New York: Harper Perennial, 2011. 249-66. Print.

Image source

Figure 1: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/smokestacks-of-industrial-revolution.jpg?w=720

Figure 2: Wright. “Clean and Decent : The Fascinating History of the Bathroom & the Water Closet and of Sundry Habits, Fashions & Accessories of the Toilet Principally in Great …” Web. 08 Mar. 2021.

Figure 3: https://spartacus-educational.com/DIScholera.htm

Figure 4: Wright. “Clean and Decent : The Fascinating History of the Bathroom & the Water Closet and of Sundry Habits, Fashions & Accessories of the Toilet Principally in Great …” Web. 08 Mar. 2021.

Figure 5: http://www.hevac-heritage.org/built_environment/pioneers_revisited/surnames_a-o/bazalgette.pdf

Figure 6: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wentworth_st,_Whitechapel_Wellcome_L0000878.jpg

 

Integration of Technology in the Bathroom

Mar 7, 2021 | culture, Individual Research (UG), Research, technology, United States | 0 comments

Figure 1 – Example of Commercial Bathroom Design

Integration of Technology in the Bathroom

By Lauren Preston

 

The bathroom has transitioned from a purely functional space to a technologically advanced and stylized element of homes. It’s a modern idea that the bathroom is a product of design and streamlined luxury and is found in every American household. The 19th and 20th century largely shifted the understanding of the functionality of bathrooms and the incorporation of architectural design in bathrooms. In this paper I will discuss the influence and incorporation of technology into a specific Sydney Opera House project as well as the implementation of technology in the United States throughout the 20th century. The layout, plumbing system, and design/style of the modern bathroom all play a part in the technological advancements that have occurred over the last few centuries. 

The Sydney Opera House

 

The toilet design in the Sydney Opera House focused largely on using a new technological development which unfortunately resulted in many problems in the short term. In the long run, it helped a company learn and re-work their technology to mass produce amenities to many in the future. At the time of this project, architects didn’t see a “problem in the combination of design and manufacturing processes of different scale, time length, and import” (Martel and Tombesi, 44). Architects were integrating both industrial design and technology into a project without thinking about the functionality of different architectural components. Technology was new and exciting, and people wanted to use it in every design or product they could to prove its effectiveness. Fowler, a major manufacturer in Australia, was chosen to design and produce the toilets in the bathrooms of the Opera House. They were known as a “producer of domestic pottery and later pipes used in drainage [and] introduced vitreous china technology to Australia” (Martel and Tombesi, 45). The bathrooms in the Opera House were located under the seating of the auditoriums or the front podium. These bathrooms were hidden, purposefully isolated from the rest of the building, and weren’t embraced pieces of design. This isolating theme is very different from how Americans embraced and centered their homes around their bathrooms which I will discuss more in depth later.

 

Fowler decided to go for a Scandinavian look which was sleek with a main body, rim, and cover. They used their newest technology, using open flame kilns because of the fast firing time than the older muffled style kilns. This forced them to make the toilets out of many separate components and then join them together later in the process. This process was extremely unreliable because of the large number of pieces. The new kilns ended up not being compatible with the clay Fowler typically used, which added to the list of complications. Many toilets cracked and ended up needing to be replaced. The Opera House chose a completely different and more readily available model to replace them. Fowler’s idea and design was “interrupted by technological divergences” (Martel and Tombesi, 46).  Fowler had to learn from their mistakes with technology and stopped producing project-based products and instead focused on product-based items. This project was done in the mid 1970’s but is now going under further renovation to, “reintegrate the toilets into the episteme of the Opera House” (Martel and Tombesi, 47). Their focus is on removing elements that, “isolated the functional space of the toilets from the architectural space of the larger concrete canopy” (Martel and Tombesi, 47). This idea of integrating the bathroom into the main space of a building is a theme we see in western society, specifically in the United States.

Figure 2 – Women’s bathroom in the Sydney Opera House located under the auditorium

Figure 3 – “Florida wall-hung close-coupled vitreous china toilet suite from the Fowler Cataloque (1998). The unit was used as replacement for the Sydney Opera House model once the original reverse stock had been exhausted” (Martel and Tombesi, 48).

Figure 4 – “Deluxe bathroom as depicted in the J.L. Mott Iron Works Catalogue of 1888” (Miller and Lupton, 26).

The Modern Bathroom

 

The Modern Bathroom by Abbott Miller and Ellen Lupton discussed the changes that exist within the bathroom in America during the 20th century. At this time, it was normalized to see a bathroom in every American home. The bathroom was a pleasant environment and, “its straightforwardly technological forms and the novelty of its materials within the domestic landscape” (Miller and Lupton, 25) made it truly modern. Hygiene was becoming increasingly important in American culture and, “determined the evolution of the ‘bathroom’ aesthetic” (Miller and Lupton, 26). Certain materials became popular because of their resistance to germs. Ornament also was mostly eradicated to make room for smoother surfaces to appear neat and clean. Another major reason behind the elimination of ornament was that people questioned if ornament could be produced by machine in the increasingly industrialized society. People argued that, “ornament is wasted labor power and hence wasted health” (Miller and Lupton, 26). Technology was evolving and people were more interested in using machines to mass-produce products instead of handmade products. Design and technology met and led to the modernized bathroom.

Plumbing

 

Plumbing in the household led to an increase in portable appliances like bathtubs and sinks. Water supplied appliances were to be enclosed and stylized to hide the unattractive pipes and plumbing beneath. The toilet tank also moved from being, “made of wood with copper or lead-lining” (Miller and Lupton, 28)  to vitreous china and it moved from being elevated on the wall to right behind the bowl which created a typology and material commonly still used today. Washstands also evolved from a simple bowl of furniture to wash your hands, to a bowl sunken into a larger piece of cabinetry. Manufacturers started to produce the slab and bowl as one unit to prevent separation that collected dirt and dust. Bathtubs also focused more on having a material that felt comforting to the skin. Many materials were used and tested, but cast-iron tubs were the most popular in the late 19th century. All of these appliances made the move from furniture to fixture, “passing through ornamental to exposed states” (Miller and Lupton, 30).

Figure 5 – Example of cabinetry and sunken sink as opposed to washstand

Figure 6 – Example of toilet tank placement before it moved to right behind the bowl

Feminization

 

The shower was a new invention in the 20th century and initially was found in wealthier homes. It was linked to male use while the bath was feminized. In movies and pop culture the image of a women bathing advertised the diversity in which a bathroom could be used, unlike it ever had in history. In the 1980’s a cultural movie called the “Pink Palace” featured a luxurious bathroom with a heart shaped swimming pool. There were gold details throughout the room, with carpet on the floors, walls and ceiling, all while the main character was enjoying a relaxing bubble bath. These features come from a history of gender segregation in the home and the bathroom. Some elements prioritized towards attracting either men or women. The shower is a perfect example; it, “was seen as incompatible with female grooming rituals” (Miller and Lupton, 31). The shower eventually began to displace the tub and is a prominent feature in many modern bathrooms.

As decoration became more and more popular in the 20th century, the female influence was more prominent. According to Barbara Penner, up until this point, the bathroom was traditionally white. Kohler decided to create a campaign that offered a variety of colors for installation. Many companies quickly followed suite creating this norm to have extremely bright and colorful fixtures in a typical bathroom. Another reason behind this shift in color is that, “the modern bathroom had reached ‘almost perfect sanitation’” (Miller and Lupton, 32). Bathrooms cleanliness reflected the hygiene standards of the wife, and the added decoration was based on her style and taste. White was considered dull at this point and more creativity and decoration was found in American homes and bathrooms.

Figure 7 – “Advertisement for Pocono Gardens Lodge’s Royal Suite in Bride’s Magazine (1965)” (Penner, 177). Example of feminized luxury bathtubs.

Figure 8 – Ornament and feminine influence example from the 1950’s

Conclusion

 

In American society the changes that existed in the bathroom stem from cultural norms. American homes have turned the functional bathroom into a place of luxury and integrated it into the rest of the home. As the Sydney Opera House begins their re-design, their goal is to relate the bathroom to the rest of the building proving that modern bathrooms have a place of importance in architecture. Technology has helped develop architecture but in the case of the Opera House ended up causing further damage. American society slowly implemented technological advancements and helped develop the bathroom into a place we can’t live without. We’ll see how technology continues to influence the design of bathrooms in the future.

Bibliography

Miller, J. Abbott, and Ellen Lupton. “THE MODERN BATHROOM Ornament and Grime.” In The Bathroom, the Kitchen, and the Aesthetics of Waste: A Process of Elimination, 1992.

Tombesi, Paolo, and Andrew Martel. “Vessels of Expression and Flows of Innovation: On the Connection between Toilets and Architecture.” Journal of Architectural Education (1984-) 59, no. 2 (2005): 43–52.

Penner, Barbara. 2013. Bathroom. Objekt. London: Reaktion Books.

Image Sources

Figure 1: 

Commercial Bathroom Design & Trends | Modern Public Restroom Ideas (scrantonproducts.com)

Figure 2 + 3:

Tombesi, Paolo, and Andrew Martel. “Vessels of Expression and Flows of Innovation: On the Connection between Toilets and Architecture.” Journal of Architectural Education (1984-) 59, no. 2 (2005): 43–52.

Figure 4, 5 + 6:

Miller, J. Abbott, and Ellen Lupton. “THE MODERN BATHROOM Ornament and Grime.” In The Bathroom, the Kitchen, and the Aesthetics of Waste: A Process of Elimination, 1992.

Figure 7:

Penner, Barbara. 2013. Bathroom. Objekt. London: Reaktion Books.

Figure 8: 

Pinterest

 

Sociological Implications of the Residential Bathroom

Feb 15, 2021 | Industrial Revolution, Research | 0 comments

1920s Residential Bathroom Design (Aposporos) 

 

After researching the evolution of the toilet from the perspective of the Industrial Revolution, questions have arisen on the development of the residential bathroom in Western society. From the first glimpses of the toilet in residential settings to the creation of the love centered glorified bathroom, how did one perspective evolve into the other? Digging deep into the post-industrial approach to toilet design in order to see the progression of the residential toilet will reveal the sociological implications of the restroom and how the residential bathroom has shifted the entire dynamic of the home.

From the span of the 1800s through the 20th century, technology and the perceptions of hygiene have greatly evolved. Defecation practices consisted largely of digging a hole outside or the use of chamber pots in other communities. Bodily wastes were intended to leave the premises of the residence as quickly as possible and no evidence was to be found in the house. During the Industrial Revolution and the flush toilet came into public adoption, the toilet was placed in the home. Having the mode of excrement disposal within the residence was difficult for American and European households to accept. Many of the early residences had the toilet placed in small room attached to the exterior of the house with an entryway of its own. Since the toilet became an element of domestic life, the duties of maintenance and hygiene quickly became the responsibility of women.

As the Industrial Revolution and Victorian era past and the bathroom evolved into the essential room that included the toilet as well as the bathtub, the residential bathroom was no longer a space for waste disposal, but a space for dwelling and promoting hygiene. As the bathroom became more of a dwelling space, bathroom personalization grew and marketing for these populations also grew. Since women were the central caretakers of the bathroom, these advertisements were directed solely to women. Bright patterned wallpapers and richly colored bathroom tiles grew in fashion so that women could make the bathroom a space of their own (Lupton, 5-8).

During the 1970s and 80s, bathroom cleaning tools were on the rise in advertising. With the use of servants and housekeepers becoming obsolete, there was a need to find a way for every family to find ease in cleaning the bathroom. The responsibility of the bathroom still remained to be under the woman’s leadership. Advertisements first began to use mythical creatures as symbols on how the bathroom is cleaned in order to make the job more mysterious and whimsical for women. Toward the later 80s, there were even advertisements for cleaning products that were used by men; these were thrown amidst other images of men doing more manly tasks, but it was the first step in taking the bathroom responsibilities away from solely the women in the household. From the beginning, the domestic restroom has proven to be a constant burden and obligation of women. 

Sources:

Lupton, Ellen, and J.Abbott Miller. The Bathroom, the Kitchen and the Aesthetics of Waste: a
Process of Elimination. Princeton University Press, 1996.

Neuhaus, Jessamyn. Housework and Housewives in American Advertising: Married to the Mop.
Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.

Image Source:

Aposporos, Demetra. “Colorful Old-House Bathrooms.” Old House Journal Magazine, Old House Journal Magazine, 30 June 2011, www.oldhouseonline.com/kitchens-and-baths-articles/colorful-old-house-bathrooms.

 

Archaeological Evidence of Toilet System

Feb 15, 2021 | Ancient, Research | 0 comments

Archaeological Evidence of Toilet Systems 

Introduction

Toilet practice has a very close correlation to people’s everyday living no matter what time period one is in. Analyzing a bathroom and its characteristics can tell how life, societal norms, religious values, and habits were in whichever time they were built. Overtime, the subject of using the restroom became taboo and those who even spoke of it would be ostracized socially and deemed strange. Slowly, societies started to prioritize keeping their environments clean instead of throwing their waste and defecation out in the open. This journal focuses on the development of toilets and flushing systems in India. They were one of the first civilizations to create flushing technology for their waste.

3 Main Points:

1. Early civilization’s toilet practices can be attributed by their technological standing and religious values
2. The timeline of the development of a toilet is not a straight line; it improves as well as digresses
3. Disposal of waste in ancient times relied on rain typically, but terracotta pipes existed in certain societies used that were very advanced and “western”

 

 

Early Years

There is debate in which civilization was the first to use toilets. There is evidence of some sort of toilet technology Indus‐Saraswati Valley Civilisation in 3rd millennium BC (Tiwary, 2018) and in the Mesopotamian era. Back then when there were royalties and nobles, toilets were another distinguisher of class, since the wealthy were some of the only ones that were able to use it. On the Island of Crete during the Bronze age, archaeologists found one of the first existing toilets that flushed with water on Knossos Palace. Roman civilizations were one of the first societies to create the concept of private and public bathrooms (Tiwary, 2018).

Figure 1 | Toilet at Knoss Palace

Figure 1 | Evidence of toilet found at Palace at Knossos

Figure 2 | Indus Valley toilet system

Indus Civilization

The Indus civilization was the society to first perfect the flushable toilet given their technological circumstances. They implicated hydraulic engineering and fabricated a intricate set of pipes to transfer water and waste as well as a central well where they keep their water to flush. Wood and stone were typically used and they also got much of their water sources from the rain. One option they took was getting the water storage from the roof and the waste would be carried through terracotta pipes which then lead the excretions to cesspools which would be periodically sanitized (Jansen, 1989). As soon as the waste was expelled into the streets with the clay pipes, they relied on the rain for sanitization to wash it away. During the Indus civilization, there was a time era called the Gupta Period. The Gupta period was a very important one in Indian culture, it was the time of progressive architecture, interesting art, literature, and many technological advancements. (Tiwary, 2018).

Post-Indus Period

Archaeologists discovered a space that has a central courtyard with rooms that diverge into their own spaces, as well as remains of terracotta bowls. There are some reasons to speculate that they did indeed value the idea of privacy when archaeologists found many wells in close proximity and rings that suggest the existence of some type of curtain. Each ‘stall’ had a dug well with a slab that had a drop hole well people would squat over. During the Pre-Mauryan period and the Vedic Period, which came during the end of the Indus period, it was much more connected to nature. This society, in a way, reverted back to their roots and was primarily agrarian. They considered their home as a way to connect to God so they did not keep their toilets in their enclosures. Due to this, primitive practices and religious beliefs, scientists and archaeologists predict that this society digressed and simply used the bathroom wherever they pleased. Later, in the village of Manikpur, researchers found evidence of terracotta toilet pans which were a very ‘Western’ type of design already. As time went,  archaeologists also found a Buddhist university called Vikramshila mahavihara that was estimated to have existed during the Pala period 8th-12th century E.C. The structure of the toilet was made out of bricks. Terracotta pots would store water and the extrements would be released into dug pits or farming fields. (Tiwary, 2018).Archaeologists discovered a space that has a central courtyard with rooms that diverge into their own spaces, as well as remains of terracotta bowls. There are some reasons to speculate that they did indeed value the idea of privacy when archaeologists found many wells in close proximity and rings that suggest the existence of some type of curtain. Each ‘stall’ had a dug well with a slab that had a drop hole well people would squat over. During the Pre-Mauryan period and the Vedic Period, which came during the end of the Indus period, it was much more connected to nature. This society, in a way, reverted back to their roots and was primarily agrarian. They considered their home as a way to connect to God so they did not keep their toilets in their enclosures. Due to this, primitive practices and religious beliefs, scientists and archaeologists predict that this society digressed and simply used the bathroom wherever they pleased. Later, in the village of Manikpur, researchers found evidence of terracotta toilet pans which were a very ‘Western’ type of design already. As time went,  archaeologists also found a Buddhist university called Vikramshila mahavihara that was estimated to have existed during the Pala period 8th-12th century E.C. The structure of the toilet was made out of bricks. Terracotta pots would store water and the extrements would be released into dug pits or farming fields. (Tiwary, 2018). Later in the Indian timeline, as many societies have adapted, toilets were slowly evolving to be only meant for the wealthy. With each era in India, civilizations came up with new techniques to keep areas clean and get rid of waste which were also formed through cultural norms at that time. Following the Indian historical trajectory it shows that they already had a basis for the beginnings of a working society and a concern for hygiene practices (Tiwary, 2018).

Figure 3 | Indus Valley squat toilet

Figure 4 | Post-Indus flush toilet systems

Biblography

Jansen, M. 1989. Water supply and sewage disposal at Mohenjo‐Daro. World  Archaeology.

Volume 21. No.02. Archaeology of Public Health

 Tiwary, Sachin Kr., and Shubham Saurabh. “Archaeological Evidences of Toilet System in Ancient India.” Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology, vol. 6, no. 36, 1 Dec. 2018, doi:http://www.heritageuniversityofkerala.com/JournalPDF/Volume6/36.pdf. 

Evolution of Toilets Worldwide through the Millennia

Feb 14, 2021 | Ancient, Research | 0 comments

The evolution of toilets Worldwide through the millennia

Introduction |

This article focuses on the development of the toilet throughout history starting in ancient times. The article focuses on many early inventions of the latrine in Mesopotamia and the early Empires. Then focusing on the developing fundamentals of the Medieval European Practices in central and northern Europe where the latrine starts to become a more prominent feature of interior architecture. Moving on to similar innovations in Medieval Muslim Spain demonstrating Ottoman lavatory practices. Consequently touching on lavatory progress in late Chinese Dynasties where they showcase different approaches to latrine uses. Finally discussing the advancements in latrine innovation in modern times, showing future trends and what becomes known as the main inspiration for the modern-day toilets we see now. 

Main Points: 

  • The evolution of the latrine location in conjunction with its waste disposal 

  • Comparison between private latrines and city-wide latrine use; Wealthy vs. Poor 

  • Evolution of different latrine and sewage disposal innovation throughout different parts of the world (the main civilizations) 

Central & Northern European Toilet Installations

      

As the evolution of toilets developed in the ancient civilizations, areas such as Mesopotamia, Egypt, Rome, and other parts of Europe developed toilets they demonstrated similar innovations around the world narrowing down to a few consistent designs in between the 8th and 15th c. AD. Starting in Central and Northern Europe they developed two main latrines private and or communal. Private latrine design mostly took place in different castles in England and Scotland (Antoniou). The most common design in the castle was a lavatory located in towers adjacent to the castle reached by covered corridors to keep odor away from the main spaces. The waste was disposed of in chutes usually leading to cesspits, seen in Figures 1 and 2. The most common individual toilet design during the middle ages was known as “Garderobes”, these were constructed in the castle towers and designed to extrude out of the wall to ease the disposal of waste, the different constructions can be seen in Figure 3 (Antoniou, 30). Garderobes were either designed out of wood or stone, yet wood was more common; in this innovation, they were designed as seats rather than squatting holes much like the toilets we have today. While city used latrines although privately attached to homes demonstrated a hole and squatting routine in a very small space compared to the lavish designs in the castles; where waste would be directly disagreed to the streets creating pollution and sanitization issues.

Figure 1| Castle Tower Garderobe

Figure 2| Castle Garderobe Waste

Figure 3 | Disposal Constructions

Figure 4 | Latrine Pit

Figure 5 | Slab Squat Designs

Figure 6 | Advance Lavatory

Development of Lavatories in Spain and the Ottoman Empire

The development of latrines in Medieval Muslim Spain consisted of main latrines connected to cesspool systems. Although it is important to note that the majority of towns and settlements did not have access to latrines within their own residencies and those who did, did not always have a cesspit connection. In residencies that did have the traditional latrine and cesspool system usually connected their latrine adjacent to the facade of the house, connecting the latrine to the cesspool with a multitude of sewage channels. The pit itself was usually constructed with paved stone or wood but still demonstrated the squatting dynamic, seen in Figure 4. These latrines were tiny spaces but they focused on intimacy and privacy. As a means to make the space feel more intimate, they would add carved murals to the walls or some aspect of decoration. Although they did achieve an extensive sewage system connecting the cesspools through the cities that have been noted to aid their hygienic improvement. 

As the Ottoman Empire expanded into Turkey and other regions the development of the latrine also expanded as the empire designed urban centers. These centers housed public lavatory areas, later being designed into every ground floor plan. They constructed simple squat pit toilets separated by partition walls; demonstrating a very simple design but advanced in the public communal space design. There are a variety of slab squat toilet designs, seen in Figure 5, that exhibit the many designs used within these communal social spaces; specifically found in Turkey. These lavatory designs were also more advanced in the sense of decoration and material use, including the use of marble slabs creating a more peaceful intimate space rather than a dirty one, Figure 6.

Late Chinese Dynasties

The article also touches on some of the developments in the late Chinese Dynasties. Although the Chinese Dynasties did not develop as complex systems as exhibited in the early European countries and the Ottoman Empire they do showcase interesting lavatory designs. One aspect that was different is toilets were being constructed in an abundance of areas around the cities and rural settlements, most homes have some sort of latrine adjacent to the home; it was important to keep the lavatory outside of the home. The latrines used by the Quing dynasty showcased a wooden compartment that could be used by one or two people, seen in Figure 7, this cabinet exhibited every part of the latrine rather than being connected to different parts for waste and squatting, etc (Antoniou, 40). Toilets were being constructed vastly due to the use of waste as fertilizer it became a way for residents to also make a profit.

Figure 7 | Toilet Compartment

Future Toilet Trends

Not until the Industrial Revolution was the development of the toilet drastically changed. Starting in England with the increase of industrial jobs lavatories needed to be designed and constructed leading to the first pass of the water closet privy. Leading as well to the separation of genders in the early 1700s. The technology still struggled with the sewage waste systems and effectively diluting the odor and waste from a residence. It was not until the early 20th century that flush toilets were invented and started to be constructed helping solve the wastewater and sewage issues with the implementation of water tanks and pipe systems.

Biblography

Antoniou, Georgios p, and Giovanni De Feo. “Evolution of Toilets Worldwide through the Millenia .” Sustainability, Edited by Marc A Rosen, 13 Aug. 2016, pp. 1–55., doi:https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability.  

Greek and Roman Toilets

Feb 10, 2021 | Ancient, History, Research | 0 comments

 

In this study, we focus on the use and development of urban toilet systems in ancient times as an entry point. First, we examine the history of lavatories in ancient Greece and the difference between public and private toilets in ancient Greek society. The study then moves on to the urban sewage system of ancient Rome, discussing the means of transporting and treating water. Finally, it extends to how the development of ancient toilet systems reflected social issues and influenced human behavior, and how modern human societies have better addressed toilet issues from a historical perspective. The growing attention to the toilet issue offers a new way of understanding the diets, diseases, and habits of past populations, especially those of the lower classes that have received little attention from archaeologists. At the same time, although ancient Rome is known for its complex plumbing system, modern studies of ancient excreta show that its sanitation technology did not provide much benefit to the health of its inhabitants.

TIMELINE

MAP

Ancient Greek Lavatories, Urban wastewater 

This research looks into the history of ancient Greek Lavatories, It discusses the different toilet types that are used. This also leads to a discussion of the sewage systems behind them and the use of wastewater in society. It also takes a look at the difference between the public and private lavatories of ancient Greek society. 

 

 

 

The history of Roman water technology is actually very interesting when we look at how quickly advancements were made in order to expand the land. From localizing cities around water systems to building aqueducts beneath the ground, to building aqueduct bridges and siphons, the romans quickly learned how to transfer water to many homes and places thus changing their societal habits. The advancement of water movement over the years has allowed hygiene habits to change from collecting rain water for drinking and bathing in river water to having water delivered to wells and local cisterns for use. As the Roman society continued to advance so deed the need for water in public areas as well as more localized areas as well. We will first be looking at the advancements in water distribution and holding systems in Rome, as well as the changes that were brought through the society with this new access to water, concluding with how it has progressed into todays society.

The volcano Vesuvius, south of Naples, is one of the most brutal volcanoes in most people’s memory, and became famous for the eruption in 79 A.D. that destroyed the three bustling Roman towns of Pompeii, Herculaneum and Stabia in quick succession. The scenes of life in the two ancient cities were also immortalized at that moment, providing a rare physical source for modern understanding and study of ancient Roman society.

Studying the ancient city of Herculaneum and the Latrines of Pompeii, most of the buildings with toilets were built by the wealthy members of the society, and it can be seen that almost all of them were located close to the kitchen on the main street side, and most of them had toilets very close to the atrium. Because the kitchen and the toilet are the important “sewage” outlets for both buildings, the proximity to the street is a good way to connect the sewage of the house to the city’s sewage system. And the location near the atrium can increase the air flow and prevent the air from polluting the house. I think this layout can already be seen in the preliminary form of modern human housing, as the ancient Romans had already started to think about wet and dry partitioning and waste disposal.

Perhaps what we need to think about is why the toilet and kitchen are closely connected? Was the problem of “excretion” of the house ignored from the very beginning? Did people focus more on the magnificent palaces and frescoes, but neglected the most basic and important indicator of happiness?

People talk a lot about food, clothing, housing and transportation, which are the basis of human existence, but food and housing are closely related to toilets. The world is currently facing major problems such as environmental pollution, ecological damage and resource scarcity, which cannot be ignored and are closely related to the construction of our public toilets. A city is the most populated area in a region and is the center of politics, economy and culture. Since the birth of a city, it cannot function without a series of infrastructures. For a modern city, the construction of infrastructure is related to the life of the city and is a business card of the city. Especially the toilet, as the window of the city civilization, plays a pivotal role.

We will be looking at water distribution development, bathroom design advancements, and changes to the culture around the restroom after these changes. Starting as early as 20 BC we see some changes to move water from water sources to be tunneled to another source, and that’s where we will start…

University of Oregon • School of Architecture and Environment • IARC 475/575 • History of Interior Architecture II • Winter 2021 • Solmaz Kive