1The management of waste is not only a modern concern ; during Antiquity it already served a need. Latrines are one of the solutions contributed by the Roman civilization to the problem of evacuating human waste. A symbol of the Roman world, they are distinguished by their configuration and, in particular, the presence of a bench with holes, designed to accommodate many persons at once, fixed above a drain with flowing water. Recent studies have concentrated on the most evocative remains, which are present throughout the Empire, but particularly well represented in Africa and the Asia Minor. However, these examples constitute only part of the full range of these constructions, which merit a more global reconstruction. Following a method already applied to thermal baths, we focused our study on a small portion of the territory dominated by Rome the Germanic and Alpine Gallic provinces. In these regions, the advances of modern archaeology allow us to extend our analysis to the most modest and tenuous structures. We thus considered all latrines, from the most simple to the most luxurious.

2The first chapter of this work presents a detailed typology of latrines. Indeed, the constructions destined to receive human waste had diverse forms, sometimes very different from the classic stereotype. The most modest among them-pits, lined or not-predominate. Due to the simplicity of their operation, they were also the earliest solution adopted. Nonetheless, they were almost nonexistent south of Gaul. Other pit structures, more complex and less numerous, possessed a system of alimentation, and thus served as a sump, or an evacuation to dispose of overflow. The constructions equipped with drains had diverse forms, but attest to a different type of management because the waste is evacuated at a distance. They include simple openings at the extremity of or along a conduit and could accommodate only one person at a time. The smallest of these latrines could be used only as a urinal. Rooms with drains covered by benches with holes installed along one or several of their walls were more frequent. They varied greatly in size, from a few to more than one hundred square meters, accommodating a few to several dozen individuals. Their monumental nature was sometimes accentuated by an interior colonnade.

3A particular type of drained latrine, whose conduit extended over the entire surface of the room, and which was covered with a floor, knew very little geographic or chronological success. This is probably due to their low degree of efficiency : as the waste water was distributed over the entire surface, its flow speed was reduced and thus insufficient to evacuate the waste material at a long distance.

4This study also accords particular attention to portable night-use vessels, which were an indispensible compliment to stone constructions and were probably widely used. Despite being poorly known until now due to the small number of remains found, these objects are rich and diverse. They include the matella, a male urinal, the scaphium, a female urinal, the lasanum, the chamber pot, as well as amphorae that were recycled and placed on street corners to collect the urine indispensable to certain craft activities. The elements found in excavations are made from terra cotta ; Pompeii yielded a few in bronze, but it is especially through textual data, consisting of savory, comical and trivial anecdotes, that we can grasp the diversity of their materials and uses.

5The second chapter is devoted to the architecture of latrines. The walls were generally identical to those of surrounding buildings, though sometimes made with lighter materials, such as opus craticium at Cavalaire, or wood and earth at Strasbourg. This is the source of problems with many isolated pits, which were protected by very light structures and thus left almost no traces. The roofs were generally tiled, but shingles, for example, were also used. The entrances were rarely equipped with doors, but often covered by curtains, which allowed access day and night while preventing peering looks from the outside. The interior was often further isolated by a vestibule. The windows are poorly known, often recognizable only through negative imprints preserved in the plaster. It is likely that lighting methods varied in different periods. The oldest latrines were probably the most dimly lit ; when windows did exist, they were situated high up on the wall and the glass was opaque to prevent indiscreet viewing from the outside.

6The principal element of latrines was the bench with holes, supported or not by brackets. Most of the known examples are in stone, but discoveries of specimens made from wood prove that this was probably the most widely used material.

7In the simplest latrines, liquids and solids were collected in pits. Some had a wood lining in various forms : horizontal planks, stakes placed side by side, weaved branches, « wicker », or reused barrels. Elsewhere, stone was used, with or without mortar. The drains are not different from those of other constructions. Valves were sometimes used at the entrance to a room to create a flushing action. This same system was sometimes used at the exit to maintain a constant water level in order to prevent the backflow of odors. In many cases, the flowing water in the conduits came from nearby thermal baths, in proximity to which these structures were often installed. The clean water, or water that was considered to be clean, running in the small channels in front of the benches was used to rinse the sponges used for intimate cleaning. These channels were sometimes replaced by a simple recipient containing stagnant water. Particularly important latrines were sometimes adorned by a labrum, fountain, or in exceptional cases, a nymph (Thermes des Lutteurs at Saint-Romain-en-Gal).

8The floors are also very diverse. Most consist of a simple layer of dirt, while constructed floors are rarely attested. A surface of ceramic tile/brick mortar or concrete, which was rarely covered with bricks, was the simplest type of flooring. Mosaics are very rare. Pavements, in their most luxurious forms, were preferred. We know less about the walls. White coatings, sometimes colored or red, were frequent. The only distinctive latrine decorations are those of the Thermes des Lutteurs and Rottemburg am Neckar. No statuary elements were found in the regions studied ; only the niches in the Grands Thermes of Xanten suggest their presence.

9The third chapter explores the different economic and social aspects of latrines. These public structures are located in proximity to monumental centers, sanctuaries, campi and gymnastic complexes, but especially near thermal baths. The amphitheater of Nimes is a surprising case as it is the only theater building to have yielded twenty urinals. In the houses, there is no favored location for latrines ; their placement depends above all on their destination for use by servants or masters.

10The chronological evolution of latrines was also revealed. There is no certain evidence before the Augustinian period. The first latrines, mostly pits and more rarely conduit openings, appear at the end of the 1^st century BC. They become more numerous during the first half of the 1^st century AD, more often in the private than in the public domain, suggesting that the management of human waste occurred most often in the context of the house. Private and public latrines become common during the second half of the century. They were often linked to thermal baths : this period in fact corresponds to the development of bath architecture. They attest to a global acknowledgement of the problem by authorities and Euergetes. The 2^nd century has yielded the largest number of remains and the most luxurious constructions. They then become rarer in the 3^rd century, while those of the following century are located in the villae. Evidence from the 5^th century is extremely rare.

11Though no particular Euergete name has been associated with the financing of these buildings, it is probable that some of them were privately owned, but open to the public, perhaps in exchange for a fee. In the case of pits, it is likely that their contents, which could be a source of revenue, were used for agricultural purposes.

12Latrines constitute social spaces where diverse populations met and the rules of modesty and propriety did not apply. Finally, they reflect the health condition of Antique populations, which appears to have been equivalent to that of modern sub-developed countries.

13Through their multiplicity, latrines contributed to sanitizing private and public spaces, though only to a limited extent. From an ecological perspective, however, there was no improvement at all. In the cities and countrysides, illnesses still ran rampant ; it was not until the 19^th century, with the discoveries of bacteria and germs that behaviors began to evolve.

14 Translated by Magen O’Farrell