A Short Architectural History of Waste, Water, Privacy, and the Modern Bathroom

There is a room inside almost every modern house that we rarely consider architectural history.

The bathroom.

It is usually treated as infrastructure. A small serviced room. A place for plumbing, waterproofing, ventilation, tiles, fixtures, and maintenance.

But the bathroom is one of the most radical changes ever made to the domestic plan.

For most of human history, defecating, bathing, washing, and sleeping did not belong to one architectural system. They occupied different spaces, followed different social rules, and depended on different technologies.

The toilet has one history.

Bathing has another.

The modern bathroom has a third.

They only converged relatively recently.

That distinction is essential.

Because the question is not simply:

When was the toilet invented?

The architectural question is more interesting:

When did human waste become something that could be safely managed inside the house?

And then:

When did bathing, washing, and the toilet become compressed into the single room we now call the bathroom?

The answer begins more than four thousand years ago.

But it is not a straight line.

Before the Bathroom, There Were Three Different Problems

The modern bathroom combines at least three functions:

• disposal of human waste,
• washing of the body,
• and access to clean water.

Today they arrive in one compact room connected to a pressurized water network and a municipal sewer.

Historically, they were separate.

A latrine did not necessarily contain a bath.

A bath did not necessarily contain a toilet.

And a house supplied with water did not necessarily have either.

This is why the history of domestic sanitation cannot be written as a simple technological sequence from primitive to modern.

In some of the earliest cities, toilets were already inside houses.

Thousands of years later, many Europeans were still walking into a yard to use an outhouse.

Progress moved forward, backward, sideways, and sometimes disappeared altogether.

1. The First Indoor Toilets Were Not Modern

One of the most important examples comes from the Indus Valley civilization.

At Mohenjo-Daro, around 2600–1900 BC, domestic water management was already integrated into the architecture of the house.

Archaeological evidence shows hundreds of brick-lined wells distributed through the city and an extensive network of covered street drains. Michael Jansen records that wastewater and sewage from almost every house was channelled toward drains running along the street [1].

Inside many houses was a small bathing platform.

It was not a bathtub.

It was a carefully built wet surface, typically around two square metres, paved with high-quality brick and surrounded by a low rim. Water poured over the body could leave through an outlet in the external wall and enter a soak pit or street drain [1].

The toilet could be incorporated into the same part of the plan.

Latrines were sometimes built into the outside wall of these bathing areas, with vertical chutes dropping waste toward a drain or cesspit [1].

This is already an architectural principle that remains familiar today:

put the wet functions near the external drainage system.

The fixture was primitive.

The planning logic was not.

Jansen even records evidence of one of sanitation’s oldest architectural enemies: smell.

In one house, the vertical waste chute terminated too high, producing what he described as a penetrating odor [1].

Four thousand years later, architects and mechanical engineers are still solving the same problem.

Only the pipe has improved.

The Important Correction: Water-Based Toilets Are Ancient

It would be tempting to tell this story as:

dry toilet → water toilet → modern bathroom.

That would be convenient.

It would also be historically wrong.

Water-assisted sanitation existed extremely early.

Minoan Crete offers another striking example.

At Knossos, a toilet in the residential quarter of the palace has often been described as one of the earliest flushing toilets in Europe. A wooden seat was positioned above an earthenware pan, and water could be introduced into the system and carried away through clay drainage pipes [2].

Similar toilets are known from other Minoan sites, including Malia, Phaistos, Tylissos, and Akrotiri [2].

The significant point is not the argument over which ancient toilet deserves to be called the “first flush toilet.”

The significant point is spatial.

These toilets were inside architecture.

They were connected to drainage.

And in several cases they were positioned close to bathing facilities [2].

So the modern bathroom did not begin when the toilet first entered the house.

The toilet had already entered the house.

It would later leave again.

2. Mesopotamia: The Toilet Moves to the Edge of the Plan

Mesopotamian houses also contained built latrines.

Archaeological examples from Mari, Eshnunna, Girsu, Kish, and Nuzi include squat toilets and seat-type toilets constructed in baked brick, sometimes coated with bitumen and connected through clay pipes to cesspits [2].

Their position within the house tells us something important.

Bathrooms and toilets tended to be located in less accessible areas of the plan, away from the principal entrance.

Where houses had upper floors, toilets could also be placed beneath stairs [2].

This is already the beginning of a spatial hierarchy that would survive for centuries.

Waste could be inside the building.

But it should not occupy the social center.

The toilet became an internal space that architecture attempted to hide.

3. Egypt: Inside for the Rich, Outside for Everyone Else

Ancient Egypt presents another familiar pattern.

Wealthy houses and temples could contain indoor cesspool toilets.

Other households relied on external facilities [2].

A stone or wooden seat could be positioned over a receptacle or sand-filled pit, while portable toilets were also used.

One preserved example from the tomb of Kha consists essentially of a wooden stool placed over a pottery vessel [2].

This was sanitation without a sewer.

In architectural terms, the toilet had entered the room before plumbing had fully entered the house.

That distinction would recur repeatedly in history.

4. Greece and Rome: The Toilet Becomes Part of the Domestic Plan

By the Classical and Hellenistic periods, the domestic latrine had developed into a recognizable architectural type.

Greek examples from Delos, Thera, Kassope and other settlements used stone seats positioned over channels that could be flushed with reused household water [3].

The location was normally determined by drainage.

The room tended to occupy the perimeter of the building, often beside a street where a sewer could be reached. In houses, small spaces near entrances and building corners were common locations [3].

This is plumbing beginning to generate architecture.

The toilet is no longer simply placed where privacy is available.

It is placed where the waste can leave.

Rome Makes the Relationship Explicit

Roman houses provide some of the clearest archaeological evidence for indoor toilets.

At Pompeii, Herculaneum and Ostia, private latrines appear in houses, apartments and multi-storey buildings [4,5].

Their position was practical.

A toilet might be placed under a staircase.

It could be located near a kitchen so that both functions shared drainage.

Wastewater from domestic activity could also help flush the latrine [5].

But Roman planning also reveals social hierarchy.

Elite houses tended to push latrines toward rear and service areas.

Smaller houses and upper-floor apartments often placed them in more accessible positions [4].

Cicero summarized the logic almost architecturally when he compared the body’s concealed organs to the architect’s decision to place house drains at the rear, away from the eyes and noses of the occupants [4].

The principle could almost appear in a contemporary design manual:

necessary infrastructure should be close enough to function and far enough away not to be experienced.

Pompeii Had Upstairs Toilets

This is particularly important because it destroys another common assumption: that early indoor toilets were exclusively ground-floor facilities.

Archaeological surveys in Pompeii have identified upper-storey latrines and hundreds of large terracotta downpipes associated with waste disposal [4].

Laboratory analysis of sampled pipes identified human parasite eggs, confirming that at least some carried human excrement [4].

These systems served upper-storey apartments above shops and houses.

In other words, the vertical plumbing stack — one of the defining elements of the modern apartment building — has ancient precedents.

The material changed.

The planning problem did not.

5. The Islamic World: Water Comes Indoors Without Creating the Modern Bathroom

The history becomes particularly interesting in Islamic architecture because water carried a religious function in addition to a hygienic one.

Islamic practices of purification require washing.

Minor ablution, wudu, precedes prayer.

Major purification, ghusl, requires washing the whole body under particular circumstances [6].

This contributed to the extraordinary development of the Islamic hammam.

After the expansion of Islamic rule into former Byzantine territories, the Roman and Byzantine bathing tradition was transformed rather than simply copied [6].

The hammam developed into a sequence of spaces:

entrance,

undressing room,

warm transitional spaces,

and the hot room.

Heating systems continued principles inherited from Roman hypocaust technology [6].

But one important feature changed.

The large communal cold-water immersion pool characteristic of Roman bathing was generally removed because Islamic purification emphasized washing with clean running water rather than immersion in shared still water [6].

Architecture adapted to theology.

But the Hammam Was Usually Not the Toilet

This distinction matters.

The hammam is part of the history of bathing.

It is not the direct ancestor of the combined modern bathroom.

Across much of the Islamic world, public hammams served neighborhoods while toilets remained separate and discreet.

In the traditional Ottoman house, the WC could still be outside in the courtyard or garden, using an alaturka squat configuration [7].

Bathing could take place at the neighborhood hammam.

Larger houses might possess private hammams [7].

But there was also another small domestic space that deserves more attention.

The gusülhane.

This was a closet-like washing compartment incorporated into the room of a house, allowing complete private ablution using water containers and drainage [7].

Architecturally, this is fascinating.

It was not a modern ensuite.

But it represented a private wet space immediately associated with sleeping and domestic life.

The concept of attaching washing directly to the room existed long before the contemporary master bathroom.

Al-Andalus: The Toilet as an Urban Domestic Necessity

Evidence from Islamic Iberia shows another important development.

In urban houses of Al-Andalus, the toilet became a regular and sometimes indispensable element of the dwelling [2].

This was significant when compared with many contemporary European towns, where sanitation was increasingly being pushed toward yards, pits and shared facilities.

Again, history is not moving in one universal direction.

One region could be integrating the toilet into domestic architecture while another was removing it.

6. Medieval Europe: The Toilet Leaves the House

This may be the most important reversal in the entire story.

The Roman world had normalized indoor latrines.

Later medieval Europe increasingly moved human waste away from the domestic interior.

In castles, the garderobe remained within the architectural envelope, but usually as a marginal projection built into or beyond the external wall.

Waste dropped through a shaft toward the ground, a pit, or sometimes a moat [2].

The toilet technically remained “inside.”

But architecturally it was being pushed as far outside as possible.

Monasteries developed communal latrine blocks, or reredorters, separated from primary living and worship spaces [2].

Urban houses followed a similar logic.

By the fourteenth century, archaeological and documentary evidence from northern Europe shows increasing use of separate latrine structures, overhanging galleries and yard privies [10].

The reason was practical.

A detached toilet made it easier to remove accumulated waste.

The Dry Toilet Returns

This is where the history stops looking like technological progress.

A civilization that had inherited knowledge of Roman water systems increasingly relied on cesspits, buckets, pits and manually removed waste.

The toilet became dry again.

In medieval York, public latrine facilities were supported by the city government by the fourteenth century [10].

London also had public toilets [10].

Private houses increasingly depended on cesspits and night-soil removal.

Human waste was an urban logistics problem rather than something instantly carried away through water.

Architecture responded by distancing the problem.

Put it outside.

Put it behind the house.

Put it over a pit.

Remove the contents later.

For much of Europe, this became the normal domestic condition for centuries.

7. Bathing Did Not Disappear

The toilet moved outward.

Bathing followed a different history.

The common idea that medieval Europeans simply stopped bathing is not supported by the historical evidence [8,9].

Public baths existed.

And some wealthy houses even contained sophisticated private bathing rooms.

Jill Caskey documented thirteenth-century domestic balnea in southern Italy, including examples in Amalfi, Ravello and Pontone [8].

These were small, specialized bathing chambers integrated into elite residences, sometimes with domed ceilings, changing spaces, plumbing and hypocaust-type heating systems [8].

This is architecturally important.

The private bathroom existed before the modern toilet returned indoors.

But it was a bathing room.

Not the modern combined bathroom.

For centuries, the bath and the toilet could occupy completely different architectural worlds.

8. Early Modern Europe: The Toilet Becomes Furniture

For much of early modern Europe, the most convenient indoor toilet was not a room.

It was an object.

The chamber pot.

Or the close stool.

You could relieve yourself inside the bedroom.

But the waste did not disappear.

Someone had to carry it away.

Usually a servant.

The fixed privy remained in the yard or service area [11,12].

This creates an important distinction:

using the toilet indoors is not the same thing as having an indoor toilet.

Architecture had allowed the act into the bedroom.

Infrastructure had not yet followed it.

9. Privacy Changes the House Before Plumbing Does

The eighteenth-century European house underwent another transformation that would later make the modern bathroom possible.

Corridors became more common.

Back stairs separated servant movement from family movement.

Sleeping rooms became increasingly specialized.

Servants moved into attics or service zones.

Kitchens moved toward basements or rear parts of the house [11].

The house was no longer just a collection of interconnected rooms.

It was becoming a system of circulation and privacy.

This matters because plumbing would later enter a house that had already learned how to separate functions.

The modern bathroom needed more than pipes.

It needed the architectural idea of a private room.

10. The Nineteenth Century: The Toilet Comes Back Inside

This is the decisive moment.

For most people asking, “When did toilets enter the house?”, this is probably the period they actually mean.

Not the first archaeological occurrence.

The modern permanent return.

During the nineteenth century, the water closet became increasingly reliable, sewer networks expanded, municipal water supplies improved, and sanitary reform transformed the relationship between the house and the city [2,12].

The toilet could finally do something the chamber pot and cesspit could not:

remove human waste from the building immediately.

Water changed the architectural equation.

The problem was no longer:

Where do we store the waste?

It became:

Where do we connect the pipe?

But the Toilet Did Not Immediately Join the Bath

The first nineteenth-century domestic plumbing fixtures often entered the house separately.

According to the history summarized by Alison Hoagland, the washbasin or sink could be associated with the bedroom.

The bathtub might receive a separate room adjacent to the bedroom.

The toilet was often placed somewhere else because of its odor [12].

This is perhaps the most important fact in the history of the modern bathroom.

The fixtures arrived before the room.

The sink came in.

The bath came in.

The toilet came in.

But they did not initially live together.

11. Around the 1870s, the Modern Bathroom Begins to Form

The consolidation begins in the late nineteenth century.

From around the 1870s, public-health and building professionals increasingly encouraged placing the sink, bathtub and water closet in one room because doing so simplified pipes, traps and servicing [12].

The room took its name from the least offensive fixture.

Not the toilet room.

Not the sanitation room.

The bathroom.

By the 1880s, the word had become established in the modern sense [12].

This was more than vocabulary.

The domestic plan had acquired a new room type.

12. Why Plumbing Changed the Floor Plan

Once a bathroom became a fixed interior room, architecture could no longer treat sanitation as an afterthought.

The bathroom needed:

water supply,

hot water,

waste pipes,

ventilation,

waterproof surfaces,

cleanable materials,

and structural accommodation for fixtures.

Bathrooms therefore began clustering around plumbing stacks.

Kitchens and bathrooms were frequently placed near one another or vertically aligned between floors.

This reduced pipe lengths and simplified construction.

A hidden mechanical network began determining visible architecture.

In some ways, this is one of the great unacknowledged revolutions in domestic design.

The façade might still express style.

The plumbing stack began organizing the plan.

13. For the Working Class, the First Indoor Toilet Was Often in the Basement

The transformation did not happen equally.

Wealthy houses could redesign rooms around new plumbing.

Small houses could not.

In working-class housing, the outdoor privy remained common well into the era of municipal plumbing [12].

The toilet typically stood at the end of the yard.

It was cold in winter.

It smelled in summer.

It was especially inconvenient for women, children and elderly residents.

When indoor plumbing finally arrived, the toilet was often placed in the basement because installation was cheaper and there was no room elsewhere [12].

This was not yet the bathroom we recognize.

It was simply the outdoor toilet brought inside the building envelope.

The bath and sink might still remain elsewhere.

Again:

the indoor toilet came before the complete bathroom.

14. The Bathroom Was Often Carved Out of Another Room

In existing small houses, a bathroom could not simply appear.

Space had to be taken from somewhere.

A bedroom was divided.

A corner of the dining room disappeared.

A rear porch was enclosed.

A closet became a wet room [12].

This is important because architectural modernization often looks clean in textbooks.

In reality it is frequently subtraction.

To gain one room, another room becomes smaller.

Hoagland describes this particularly clearly in working-class houses: sanitary improvement changed circulation, convenience and the allocation of domestic space [12].

The bathroom was therefore not merely another fixture.

It was a renegotiation of the plan.

15. Around 1900–1920, the Bathroom Becomes Recognizably Modern

By the early twentieth century, the bathroom was becoming standardized.

Three fixtures increasingly defined it:

bathtub,

washbasin,

water closet.

The room became smaller and more efficient.

Fixtures were aligned along walls.

Plumbing was concentrated.

The standard five-foot bathtub became common.

White ceramic and enameled surfaces created a visual language of sanitation [7].

The bathroom began to look like something we would recognize today.

Why Everything Became White

Modern bathroom materials were not selected only for appearance.

They expressed a new ideology.

Porcelain.

Glazed ceramic.

Enameled cast iron.

Tile.

Smooth surfaces.

White finishes.

The room was designed so dirt could be seen and removed.

Cleanliness became visible.

Adolf Loos argued strongly for white bathrooms as evidence of health and hygiene [7].

The sanitary-ware industry promoted similar ideas.

This was not simply interior decoration.

It was hygienic rationalism translated into material.

The bathroom became one of the first rooms in the house where the aesthetic ideal was almost medical.

16. The Bathroom Becomes a Machine

Modernist architects pushed the idea further.

Le Corbusier imagined bathrooms filled with light, ventilation, showers and even spaces for physical exercise [7].

The bathroom became part of a larger modernist project:

the rational house,

the hygienic body,

the standardized fixture,

the efficient plan.

Water now arrived at the turn of a tap.

Waste disappeared through a pipe.

The user no longer needed to understand where either came from or where either went.

The infrastructure became invisible.

That invisibility may be the real achievement of the modern bathroom.

17. The Ensuite: When the Bathroom Reaches the Bedroom

The ensuite seems contemporary.

Its logic is older.

During the nineteenth century, baths were already sometimes placed in dedicated rooms beside bedrooms, while washing basins remained closely connected to sleeping spaces [12].

The twentieth century completed the relationship.

As plumbing became cheaper, standardized and easier to duplicate, houses moved from one shared bathroom toward several bathrooms [7].

Eventually, the principal bedroom received its own.

The bathroom crossed the corridor.

It entered the bedroom suite.

And one of the longest spatial migrations in domestic architecture was complete.

The toilet had moved:

from pit,

to yard,

to peripheral room,

to basement,

to shared bathroom,

to bedroom.

18. The Ottoman House Shows How Quickly Culture Can Change a Plan

The Turkish case illustrates the transformation particularly clearly.

Traditional houses could contain an external alaturka squat toilet, while complete bathing took place in the hammam or in the small domestic gusülhane [7].

The twentieth-century modern apartment introduced another system.

Western-style water closet.

Sink.

Bathtub.

Hot water.

One combined room.

The modern bathroom became a symbol of contemporary domestic life [7].

Some plans still retained a small traditional squat toilet for servants or older family members while the principal family bathroom used Western fixtures [7].

Architecture was documenting cultural transition inside a single floor plan.

Modernity had a plumbing fixture.

So did tradition.

19. From Dry to Wet — But Not in a Straight Line

If this entire history had to be reduced to one diagram, I would resist drawing a straight arrow.

It would be misleading.

The real sequence looks more like this:

Dry pit / container sanitation

↓

Ancient indoor latrine

↓

Water-assisted drains and flushing in some ancient civilizations

↓

Cesspits and peripheral toilets

↓

Return to external dry privies in much of medieval and early modern Europe

↓

Chamber pots used indoors while fixed sanitation remains outside

↓

Nineteenth-century water closet

↓

Permanent indoor toilet

↓

Toilet + bath + basin consolidated into one room

↓

Standardized modern bathroom

↓

Multiple bathrooms

↓

Ensuite

The technological story therefore contains regression as well as development.

Human beings had indoor water-flushed sanitation thousands of years before Victorian London.

What nineteenth-century industrial society achieved was not the first indoor toilet.

It achieved something more consequential:

reliable, scalable, networked sanitation capable of being repeated in millions of houses.

That is the real modern invention.

20. The Bathroom Is Where the House Connects to the City

This may be the most important architectural conclusion.

The bathroom appears private.

Mechanically, it is one of the least private spaces in the house.

Every time we flush a toilet, the room connects to a network extending far beyond the property line.

Municipal water treatment.

Pumping.

Storage.

Pressure systems.

Sewer mains.

Wastewater treatment.

Storm and sanitary engineering.

The apparently private bathroom depends on collective urban infrastructure.

The room is small.

The system behind it is territorial.

21. What the Bathroom Changed in Architecture

Looking across these civilizations, several changes become clear.

First, waste moved from being stored to being transported.

The cesspit required space for accumulation.

The sewer required space for pipes.

That change alone altered the plan.

Second, wet spaces began to cluster.

Kitchen, WC and bathroom moved closer because infrastructure rewarded proximity.

Third, privacy became architectural.

The toilet moved behind a door.

The bath became personal.

Eventually each bedroom could receive its own bathroom.

Fourth, materials changed.

Brick platforms and stone seats became porcelain, enamel, tile, membranes and concealed pipework.

And finally, the bathroom became standardized.

What had once depended heavily on local customs became one of the most globally recognizable rooms in architecture.

The Strange Conclusion

The toilet is ancient.

The bathroom is modern.

That distinction is the entire story.

People were using toilets inside houses in Mohenjo-Daro, Mesopotamia, Minoan Crete, Greece and Rome thousands of years ago [1–5].

Islamic cities developed sophisticated traditions of water, ablution, hammams and domestic washing spaces [6,7].

Medieval Europe maintained private bathing in some elite houses while increasingly pushing fixed latrines toward external or marginal spaces [8–10].

The chamber pot then allowed bodily functions to return indoors without bringing sanitation infrastructure with them [11,12].

Only in the nineteenth century did the toilet return permanently to the interior through the water closet, sewer and municipal water network [2,12].

And only around the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries did toilet, bath and washbasin become the single standardized room we now understand as the bathroom [7,12].

So when we draw a bathroom today, we are not drawing an ancient room improved over time.

We are drawing the point at which several completely different histories finally collided.

Waste.

Water.

Bathing.

Privacy.

Plumbing.

Urban infrastructure.

Interior design.

All compressed into a few square metres.

Perhaps that is why the bathroom deserves more architectural attention than it normally receives.

It is not simply where the house becomes wet.

It is where the house became modern.

✦ ArchUp Editorial Insight

The article’s most structurally precise contribution is its demonstration that the modern bathroom is not the endpoint of a technological sequence but the outcome of a specific nineteenth-century convergence between municipal sewer infrastructure, pressurized water networks, and a domestic plan that had already learned — through the separate history of corridor development and servant circulation — how to spatially isolate functions from one another. The toilet had entered and exited the house multiple times across four millennia not because of cultural ignorance but because the infrastructure required to make its indoor presence permanently viable — the networked sewer capable of removing waste at scale rather than accumulating it — was a collective urban investment that no individual household could finance alone, which means that the bathroom’s appearance in the domestic plan is not a story about plumbing fixtures but about the moment a city decided to treat human waste as a shared governance problem rather than a private logistical one. The white ceramic surfaces and enameled cast iron that standardized the modern bathroom in the early twentieth century were not an aesthetic choice — they were a public health ideology made material, the visible surface of a sanitary reform movement that required individual rooms to perform, through their cleanability, the same accountability that municipal infrastructure was performing through its pipes, and the spatial consequence of that ideology — the clustering of wet functions around shared stacks, the compression of three historically separate human activities into a single standardized room — is the direct architectural descendant of the same logic this archive identified in The Hidden Cost of Breathing: the moment a building connects to collective urban infrastructure, the room that houses that connection becomes the point where private space and public governance negotiate their terms, and the negotiation is always visible in the tile, the pipe, and the precisely four square meters that the plan allocates to the place where the house becomes modern.

References

[1] Jansen, M. “Water Supply and Sewage Disposal at Mohenjo-Daro.” World Archaeology, vol. 21, no. 2, 1989, pp. 177–192.
DOI: 10.1080/00438243.1989.9980100

[2] Antoniou, G., De Feo, G., Fardin, F., et al. “Evolution of Toilets Worldwide through the Millennia.” Sustainability, vol. 8, no. 8, 2016, article 779.
DOI: 10.3390/su8080779

[3] Antoniou, G. P. “Lavatories in Ancient Greece.” Water Supply, vol. 7, no. 1, 2007, pp. 155–164.
DOI: 10.2166/ws.2007.018

[4] Trusler, A. K., and Hobson, B. “Downpipes and Upper Story Latrines in Pompeii.” Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, vol. 13, 2017, pp. 652–665.
DOI: 10.1016/j.jasrep.2017.05.016

[5] Vuorinen, H. S. “Water, Toilets and Public Health in the Roman Era.” Water Supply, vol. 10, no. 3, 2010, pp. 411–415.
DOI: 10.2166/ws.2010.111

[6] Sibley, M., and Jackson, I. “The Architecture of Islamic Public Baths of North Africa and the Middle East: An Analysis of Their Internal Spatial Configurations.” Architectural Research Quarterly, vol. 16, no. 2, 2012, pp. 155–170.
DOI: 10.1017/S1359135512000462

[7] Gürel, M. Ö. “Bathroom as a Modern Space.” The Journal of Architecture, vol. 13, no. 3, 2008, pp. 215–233.
DOI: 10.1080/13602360802214943

[8] Caskey, J. “Steam and ‘Sanitas’ in the Domestic Realm: Baths and Bathing in Southern Italy in the Middle Ages.” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, vol. 58, no. 2, 1999, pp. 170–195.
DOI: 10.2307/991483

[9] Thorndike, L. “Sanitation, Baths, and Street-Cleaning in the Middle Ages and Renaissance.” Speculum, vol. 3, no. 2, 1928, pp. 192–203.
DOI: 10.2307/2848055

[10] Jørgensen, D. “Cooperative Sanitation: Managing Streets and Gutters in Late Medieval England and Scandinavia.” Technology and Culture, vol. 49, no. 3, 2008, pp. 547–567.
DOI: 10.1353/tech.0.0047

[11] Meldrum, T. “Domestic Service, Privacy and the Eighteenth-Century Metropolitan Household.” Urban History, vol. 26, no. 1, 1999, pp. 27–39.
DOI: 10.1017/S0963926899000127

[12] Hoagland, A. K. “Introducing the Bathroom: Space and Change in Working-Class Houses.” Buildings & Landscapes: Journal of the Vernacular Architecture Forum, vol. 18, no. 2, 2011, pp. 15–42.
DOI: 10.1353/bdl.2011.0023