After offering an overview of hygiene ideas of different regions in different periods, Koloski-Ostrow concludes that the concept of hygiene varied over time. The author uses relics and documents to prove that in ancient Roman cities, human waste was removed because it could harm traffic or attract wild animals, rather than because it could cause health hazards, and that sewers were constructed for draining stormwater rather than carrying away toilet sewage. Toilets and sewers have long been regarded as hygiene facilities that played an important role in discharging sewage and wastewater. The second aspect focuses on rethinking Roman hygiene concepts. Therefore the main purpose of the construction of Roman toilets and sewers was clearly not to improve urban public health. The Roman sewer was designed as a “combined sewer” in which the sewage was just “pushed into them and carried along by the flowing water” (p. However, she curiously found that though they had incredible water carriage and divergent techniques, which can be undoubtedly proved by their numerous hydraulic projects, the Romans used limited effort to compensate the negative influences of their sewers. By a thorough study of the relics, she raises a bold argument that those constructions, which in modern times were made for improving public health, were actually bringing health threats to urban dwellers. Moving from Pompeii, Herculaneum, Rome, and Ostia to other places in Italy, the author provides an overview of the location, structure, and constitution of public and private latrine remains. The author’s revisions on Roman Italian sanitation can be summarized into three aspects: the physical situation of Roman toilets, Roman sanitation concepts, and Roman attitudes toward latrines. The first aspect dominates the study of well-preserved archaeological remains of Roman urban latrines. To some extent, this book challenges common perceptions of Roman sanitation, the meaning of toilets and sewers, and people’s attitudes toward filth and privacy in Roman cities. Using abundant archaeological and literary materials, she found that Roman facilities were set up more for cultural than for hygiene reasons. The author argues that our biases about hygiene could influence the understanding of Roman history since modern and Roman concepts of hygiene are very different. So this book is “a thorough consideration of the origin and development of research on toilets, sewers, and water systems and explains how archaeological discoveries at various cities in Roman Italy have yielded new information about sanitation” (p. Koloski-Ostrow believes that research of Roman toilets is necessary because Rome has the best examples of toilets that have not been thoroughly studied, especially their cultural and technical aspects. This uncommon research interest, according to the author, comes from her study of Roman urban infrastructure and sanitation, especially Roman baths. From this perspective, this book’s value is far beyond common archaeological research and could inspire studies in other fields.
Even in China (a country with a long history of excrement use), related topics are still mostly limited to agricultural books.
Though sewage and excrement is an essential part of the connection of man and nature, they are also inappropriate subjects to talk about in public.
Using a number of solid references, this book provides a new interpretation of Roman sanitation. Reviewed by Mu Cao (Tianjin Normal University)Ĭommissioned by Yan Gao (Rachel Carson Center for Environment and Society)Īnn Olga Koloski-Ostrow’s book The Archaeology of Sanitation in Roman Italy: Toilets, Sewers, and Water Systems is based on her long-time research on Roman public sanitation facilities. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2015.
Studies in the History of Greece and Rome Series. The Archaeology of Sanitation in Roman Italy: Toilets, Sewers, and Water Systems.