Public toilets were staples of Roman urbanism, which emerged in their fully mature form during the early Imperial period. In this book, Antonella P. Merletto provides the first comprehensive catalogue of (known) foricae in the Roman world. The data collected and published in this volume will be immensely helpful to researchers moving forward; as such, the book now stands as a fundamental reference point for anyone researching the subject. Merletto also provides the first sustained analysis of the peristyle forica, which tended to be the most monumental form of public toilet in the Roman world, and she spells out key aspects of the planning and building phases of these facilities. The latter provides us with information on some of the technological challenges (water supply, sewage systems) involved in constructing foricae. These subjects (and others) are explored thoroughly in several (broad) chapters and through three detailed case studies of foricae in Kos, Lepcis Magna, and Gortyn. The book also includes three appendices, and it contains a rich array of plans, images, excavation photos, and digital reconstructions.
An introductory chapter lays out the historiography of her topic, in which Merletto notes that the study of ancient sanitation (broadly conceived) is now well established and multidisciplinary.[1] Brief discussions of ancient hygienic practices and outlooks, the terminology used in our sources, and gender use in the foricae are also found in this chapter. On the latter issue, Merletto favors extending our conclusions for bathing norms to the foricae, noting that we might reasonably expect there to have been a great deal of variation facility to facility due to a variety of factors. Chapter two provides an overview of sanitation methods and facilities prior to the emergence of foricae and includes (brief) discussions of examples ranging from the Bronze Age to the Hellenistic period, concluding with a focused discussion of urine and fecal containers in Greek and Roman contexts.
Chapter three dissects the various components—support blocks, seats, channels, flooring, etc.—typically associated with foricae, while providing commentary on some of the design features and variations found in the archaeological record. Merletto also emphasizes the importance of running water in the operation of the foricae, which, of course, explains their common placement next to or within aqueduct-fed baths. In these contexts, water pressure was usually sufficient to flush waste from the foricae channels into broader sewage systems. As Merletto notes, this was not always the case for foricae hooked into other types of water systems (e.g., tanks, reservoirs), which tended to require more regular cleaning and maintenance.
The next chapter presents a detailed discussion of building processes associated with foricae in the Roman world. Merletto positions her work in the tradition of Janet DeLaine (and others), who have studied construction methods and processes in depth, though mainly through monumental architecture. Although foricae were small buildings, Merletto notes that they required careful forethought due to their integration with water, sewer, and drainage systems as well as the importance of flushing out the main waste channel. The latter required consideration of both gradients and water pressure to get the job done. On the whole, she emphasizes (correctly) that the process of constructing a forica was not simply an “unskilled labor activity” (p. 42), but rather involved a range of specialized labor and (potentially significant) associated costs. All of this is quite visible in the design, decoration, and (at times) size of these facilities.
Merletto then presents her typological categories, based on her catalogue of foricae. She notes that some of her typologies were included in Neudecker’s study (above), but in a substantially more basic manner. Her discussion here expands our architectural understanding of the foricae substantially, introducing a much fuller system of typological classification for use in the study of toilets. She utilizes five core classifications: square/rectangular, peristyle, semicircular, geometric, and asymmetric. Alongside these, there are foricae labeled as “undefined” (i.e., those with “unreadable plans” due to poor or incomplete excavation records) or “uncertain attribution” (i.e., those thought to be toilets, but not definitively so).
These typologies are also arranged into several tables, centered on the following: date range, urban location, geographic location, and modes of decoration. Of note, table two demonstrates the degree to which baths were the preferred location for the installation of foricae. Merletto catalogues 163 square/rectangular foricae located in baths; the next closest categories are elite homes/villas (16) and free-standing facilities (14). And table three permits us to see some interesting regional variations/preferences among the foricae. Peristyle types are found in large numbers in the eastern provinces, but not so elsewhere. Other types are more evenly distributed (or at least attested), with square/rectangular types the most commonly found in all regions.
From here (chapter 6 onward), Merletto begins her focused analysis of peristyle foricae via an introductory chapter and three case studies. Merletto argues that this type of forica is the “most eloquent evidence of civic prosperity applied to functional architecture, especially in the Eastern provinces.” (p. 72) She notes that adoption was rooted in expressions of luxury within the context of monumental architectural projects. Of course, this type also offered certain functional advantages: better air circulation and light alongside shade/shadows. These, too, Merletto notes, were factors in the adoption of this type.
In the first case study, Merletto explores a major peristyle forica in Kos town (Greece). She presents a detailed overview of the archaeology of the forica, including the building’s phasing, plan, interior decoration, water supply and drainage system, and its mid-twentieth century restoration program. The forica was likely planned and built alongside the Western Baths sometime in the late first or early second century, then monumentalized from the mid-second century onward. It was positioned prominently in the city, on the cardo directly across from the Western Baths, where the facility could access a developed water supply and drainage system. It is an exceptional facility, as Merletto notes, due in large part to its sophisticated interior decoration, consisting of mosaic flooring, marble veneer, and an internal nymphaeum. This is, Merletto notes, a textbook example of a “monumental” forica, one built to express civic pride and luxury through a practical building. She favors the notion that the inspiration for this forica came from the peristyle courtyard houses in Kos.
The next chapter details the two peristyle foricae built within the Imperial thermae (Hadrianic Baths) at Lepcis Magna, one of the largest bathing establishments in North Africa. As such, it should come as no surprise that the public toilets were conceived, in all respects, to match the monumental scale and opulent character of the entire facility. Both contained marble veneer, Corinthian capitals, sculpture and were positioned next to the baths’ apodyteria. Uniquely, we have an inscription associated with the larger of the two foricae, on the eastern side of the bath. This attests to a (probable) restoration of the facility undertaken by a woman named Eirene around the time of Commodus. Merletto notes that foricae were not necessarily a “first preference” for potential city patrons, and, of course, these were often bundled into larger bath establishments whose central dedicatory inscriptions tended to cover them as well.[2] Merletto sees in these foricae the blending of local influence in building materials (opus africanum) with Imperial design (thermae) and eastern preferences (peristyle foricae). These are, in fact, the earliest peristyle foricae attached to Imperial thermae in the provinces.
The final case study presents a cluster of foricae found in the Praetorium Complex at Gortyn, a unique concentration of such facilities in one area of a settlement. One of the peristyles, the Latrina Porticata, is the most ornate of the three under discussion here and provides the first and only known forica with mosaic floors on Crete to date. The other two foricae, Vano 19 and 23, seem to have been more strictly functional in nature. Merletto notes that they are the simplest of the known peristyle foricae anywhere in the empire, and she thinks they were designed primarily for light and air circulation rather than display. The choice of peristyle, of course, links Gortyn to eastern (architectural) preferences, and Merletto notes the high concentration of facilities here denotes a concern among local elites to provide public toilets as a public service.
Merletto has produced a rich and rewarding study, which will serve as a fundamental point of reference in the field moving forward. The book will be of interest to scholars of toilets and ancient sanitation, Roman building techniques and processes, and Roman urbanism (more broadly). She is especially strong when discussing and analyzing the archaeological evidence itself, which entailed dealing with a range of limitations inherent in the evidence. The Kos phasing was problematized due to the mid-twentieth century restoration project; Vano 19 and 23 at Gortyn were not dug well; and the Lepcis Magna case study is dependent on Bertoccini’s publication of 1929, when (various) fascist priorities structured Italian archaeology and clearance operations were often employed. Likewise, her discussion of building processes is thorough and rewarding, and she has demonstrated conclusively the significant amount of labor and effort that went into the design and construction of foricae in the Roman world.
One of the major contributions of this book is the sustained analysis of the peristyle foricae, a first, and the use of case studies to extend and ground that analysis. She demonstrates conclusively that peristyle foricae, found especially and uniquely in the eastern provinces, were more than mere functional architecture. They were, in fact, also display pieces, keyed to monumental architectural programs and their (various) messages. However, while one can certainly accept the various arguments she advances in her case studies (noted above), this reviewer was left wanting a bit more from the analysis. A focused, more thoroughly contextualized discussion exploring why the peristyle took such firm root in the eastern portion of the empire, though not elsewhere, would have been rewarding to read. Still, regardless of this (minor) critique, Merletto’s book is an impressive accomplishment and a welcome addition to the scholarship on Roman toilets and ancient sanitation.
Notes
[1] A. Scobie, “Slums, Sanitation, and Mortality in the Roman World,” Klio 68 (1968): 399-433; R. Neudecker, Die Pracht der Latrine, Munich, 1994; B. Hobson, Latrinae et Foricae: Toilets in the Roman World. London, 2009; G.C.M. Jansen, A.O. Koloski-Ostrow, and Eric M. Moormann, eds. Roman Toilets: Their Archaeology and Cultural History. Leuven, 2011; A.O. Koloski-Ostrow, The Archaeology of Sanitation in Roman Italy: Toilets, Sewers and Water Systems. Chapel Hill, NC, 2015; Regional/site studies: A. Bouet, “Les latrines dans les provinces gauloises, germaniques et alpines,” Gallia, supp. no. 59. Paris, 2009; S. Hoss, ed. Latrinae: Roman Toilets in the Northwest Provinces of the Roman Empire. Oxford, Archaeopress, 2018; C.A. Murphy, Romans Rubbish and Refuse: The Archaeobotanical Assemblage of Regione VI, Insula I, Pompeii. Oxford, Archaeopress, 2015; M. Ledger et. al., “Intestinal Parasites from Public and Private Latrines and the Harbor Canal in Roman Period Ephesus, Turkey (1st c. BCE to 6th c. CE),” Journal of Archaeological Science Reports 21 (2018): 289-97.
[2] This is one of the only known examples we have from foricae in the Roman world. The other example comes from Ephesus: Publius Quintilius Varus is praised for having built a brothel and a public toilet. The inscription appears to be in secondary usage. See p. 145.