39

M. Jay Stottman

Out of Sight, Out of Mind: Privy Architecture and the Perception of Sanitation ABSTRACT Th is study exam ines pr ivy vault architecture, an often underutilized piece of archaeological evidence, to provide another line of evidence for understanding perceptions of sanitation in mid 19th to early 20th-century Loui sville, Kentucky. Specific architectural attributes of privy vaults are analyzed in relation to ordinances that regulated the construction of these features. The vault depth, materials used in construction, method of construction, and their proximity to water sources are analyzed. This analysis reveals that misguided sanitary perceptions affected the ordinances pertaining to sanitary issues and the complian ce of the ordinances by the public, which were manifested in the way privy vaults were constructed. The intention of this research is to demonstrate the utility of privy vault architecture as archaeological information and to illustrate the potential of interpreting archaeological data in specific contexts. By interpreting the same archaeological information in different contexts, we can begin to understand the multiple meanings of objects in the past , leading to a better understanding of past culture.

Privies are most commonly identified with the superstructure which is situated over a vault. These structures reflect a great deal of variability in architectural style. Just like any other publicly observable feature of the houselot, it communicates meaning about the residents that used this facility (Barlow 1989) . Unfortunately, the privy superstructure is usually not archaeologically visible, but this does not mean that archaeological information about human behavior cannot be gleaned from privy architecture. The privy vault (pit, hole, or shaft) is a product of architectural design. These vaults are largely functional, but they are still products of human engineering and thus, susceptible to variability in design. Although privy vault architecture is not commonly the focus of study among archaeologists, several researchers have conducted research aimed specifically at the understanding of the privy vault itself (Cale 1985; Bryant 1988; Stottman 1995) or similar features, like wells (White 1994). These studies have demonstrated that privy vault architecture is highly varied and often underutilized

Introduction

Typically, pnvies are investigated for the deposits held within them, and their vast artifact assemblages often consume the attention of the researcher. Architecture, however, is an aspect of privies frequently overlooked during research: Fixed-feature elem ent s are those that are basically fixed, or thos e that change rarely and slowly. Most of the standard architectural elements-walls, ceilings, and floors-belong to that doma in, as do streets and buildings in cities. Clearly the ways in which these elem ents are organized (their spatial organization), their size, location, sequence, arrangement, and so on, do communicate meaning , part icularly in trad itiona l cultures, but in all cases they are supplemented by other elements. There are cases, however, when they still tell us much (Rapoport 1990:88).

A privy is considered a fixed-feature constructed on a houselot, just like any other structure.

Historical Archaeo logy, 2000, 34(1):39--61.

Permission to reprint required.

N

J Figure 1. Location of the Highland Park and Russell neighborhoods within Louisville and Jefferson County, Kentucky.

40

as archaeological information, While the research is limited, these studies have illustrated the potential of privy vault architecture as important sources of information, Several archaeologists have highlighted the importance of understanding the historical context for the research of these features, specifically laws and ordinances that regulate particular aspects of the privy (Roberts and Barrett 1984; Howson 1992; Geismar 1993). This article will interpret privy vault architecture in the context of sanitary perceptions by examining 20 privies excavated in the Highland Park and Russell neighborhoods of Louisville, Kentucky (Figure 1). This analysis reveals perceptions of sanitation that motivated the decisions concerning the design and construction of privy vaults and the enactment of the ordinances that regulated them . The purpose of this analysis is to demonstrate the utility of using privy vault architecture to understand human behavior. This is accomplished by interpreting archaeological trends within the context of the ordinances governing privies and the perception of sanitation held by those who enacted the ordinance and those who chose to obey it or ignore it. Perhaps the best description for the perception of sanitation during the mid 19th to early 20th century is the title of an article about sanitation by historian Joel Tarr ( 1976), who restates the old saying; "Out of Sight, Out of Mind. " While he does not specifically explain this saying, it is clear that it means exactly what it says. If something were determined to be unsanitary, it was simply removed from sight causing little need to worry about it. The "out of sight , out of mind" perception of sanitation was a derivative of the long established "filth theory" of disease, as defined by historians (Tarr 1976:44: Bushman and Bushman 1988:1231). The filth theory was the linking of disease to uncleanliness. While this concept was not completely misguided, the out of sight , out of mind attitude of dealing with filth was. It was not until the discovery that germs were the invisible vehicle for disease that this attitude changed. The perception of filth has been widely studied in anthropology, most notably by Mary Douglas (1966). Douglas views dirt in this way: "There is no such thing as absolute dirt: it exists in the eye of the beholder. If we shun dirt, it is not

HISTORICALARCHAEOLOGY34(1)

because of craven fear , still less dread or holy terror. Nor do our ideas about disease account for the range of our behavior in cleaning or avoiding dirt. Dirt offends against order. Eliminating it is not a negative movement, but a positive effort to organise the environment" (Douglas 1966:2) . Douglas uses the idea of taboo in her investigations of "primitive" cultures and their perceptions of cleanliness. The concept that particular things are taboo because they are culturally categorized as unclean is frequently seen in many cultures for religious reasons, sanitary reasons, and economic reasons, or as Douglas sees it, the need to control the environment. Whatever the reasoning, people order and categorize their lives. Douglas also considers the idea of individual free choice ; in other words, despite cultural categories, people still have their own perceptions (Douglas 1982:2). This concept has also been the focus for social theorists, particularly Anthony Giddens (1979:69) and his view of structuration, which " involves that of the duality of structure, which relates to the fundamentally recursive character of social life, and expresses the mutual dependence of structure and agency. "There is structure in culture, but the importance of human agency in that structure cannot be ignored. In a study of cleanliness among the 19thcentury peasants and bourgeois of Sweden, Jonas Frykman (1987) has expanded upon the idea of the structuration of cleanliness in society. He focused on the concept of taboo, as perceptions of cleanliness become categories in the structure of culture . While taboo and cleanliness are "universal ways of thinking," the perceptions of cleanliness or the distinction between what is clean and what is not clean, often varies from group to group or person to person, as Frykman has demonstrated in his cross class study. Frykman describes the filth taboo as evidence of humankind's goal to master nature. "We try to create order in nature by forcing our way of thinking onto it. . .. To bring up children is to transform them from their natural animality to the stage of cultured humanity.. .. They have to be trained not to slobber, burp , fart, or gobble their food" (Frykman 1987: 172). In this same way Louisvillians during the 19th and early 20th century encoded a perception of sanitation in their culture. Although their

Stottman--PRIVY ARCHITECTURE

reasoning and the motivations were different, filth was taboo and the method of handling filth was to keep it "out of sight, and out of mind." Historians Bushman and Bushman (1988: 1232) sum up this 19th century American perception: "The acceptance of cleanliness, then , can be understood as resulting from the interplay of cultural values and social structure, and more specifically from forces created along the boundaries where attitudes toward dirt and cleanliness reinforced established social divisions." This paper examines how people perceived sanitation within the structure of tabooed filth.

41

Figure 2. The Louisville wharf, ca. 1850. (From Kennedy 1856.)

The Context of Sanitation

Throughout history, sanitation has been an issue for urban populations, where high densities of people create a high degree of intimacy between people. The activities of everyday life can be seen by and affect many. The waste produced by one individual may be out of the sight of self, but in the sight of another. The habits of daily life begin to penetrate the land, air, water, and the microscopic world of the next door neighbor. Living with people becomes a dangerous activity as cities become decimated by plague and disease. The cause of this urban scourge was often blamed on a god or something that was uncontrollable by humans (Reynolds 1946; Tarr 1976:44). In actuality, this cause was so close, tangible, and controllable by the human being that it went unnoticed for much of history. It was not until archaeologists began to uncover ancient civilizations toward the end of the 19th century, that the world realized that these problems were not new and plagued the ancient cities of the past (Louisville Municipal Reports [LMR] 1889:541; Reynolds 1946; Rathje and Murphy 1992; Horan 1996). Although it was long understood that filth and bad smells were not healthy, it was not until the 19th century that the association of cleanliness and sanitation became fully realized (Tarr 1976). Although it seemed simple enough that good sanitation would reduce disease and increase the quality of life in the city , sanitation was perceived differently by urbanites based on a wide

range of factors including education, politics, and economics. These factors are evident in the history of sanitation in Louisville. Early Sanitation in Louisville

There was little concern for sanitation when Louisville was founded in 1778 at the Falls of the Ohio River. The setting was a floodplain occupied with dense virgin forests next to a clear river teaming with fish. In fact, the greatest threat to the health of Louisville's founders was frequent Indian attacks (Yater 1987). As the settlement grew into a bustling river town of several thousand, some of the natural features on the landscape proved to be a nuisance (Figure 2). The area was an extensive flood plain, hence many natural ponds and swamps dotted the landscape (LMR 1867:55). By the early 1800s, disease bred in these ponds and waste from the town fouled them. "At this time Louisville was looked upon as a very unhealthy point at which to locate, and many emigrants were deterred from settling by the fear of sickness and death. The numerous ponds which covered the level land produced sickness, and as the town site covers many of them now, a passing notice of them deserves to be made" (LMR 1867:58). In 1805, the legislature gave authorization to cit y leaders for draining the ponds. The cost, however, was deemed too expensive and

42

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 34(1)

was subsequently delayed until the 1820s (LMR 1867:59). A view of Louisville by a resident in 1815 illustrates the situation in poetic verse: You know I informed you when I landed here, This town was not handsome and living darned dear, The streets were all ponds, and I'm told the Trustees Had sooner wade thro' them, quite up to the knees, Than incur the expense to have them drained off, Complain to their honors, they sneer, laugh or scoff, And say, we've no money ; and you very well know, Without this intercessor the mare will not go (Casseday 1970 [1852]).

This witty statement sums up the problem and the lack of motivation by the trustees to solve it. In 1817, Louisville was struck by an epidemic of smallpox, affecting mostly the poor who resided in close quarters. In 1822, an epidemic of yellow fever hit the town, killing nearly 140 people including members of Louisville's more prominent families (Yater 1987:41). "The scourge fell so heavily as almost to depopulate the city, and emigrants were for years deterred from coming here in any numbers, and thus the growth of the town was retarded" (LMR 1867:65). This latest and most devastating epidemic finally produced action from the town trustees who began the process of draining the ponds. Ponds were continual nuisances and were drained as the city expanded into undeveloped areas of the county (LMR 1866:29). The pond draining activities of Louisville during the first half of the 19th century placed emphasis on the drainage of the level land that the city occupies. In addition to draining ponds, street drainage gained importance and nearly 4,713 ft. (1,437 m) of sewers were completed before 1850. These sewers were commonly made of brick and ran beneath the streets emptying into the river (LMR 1867:10). The primary goal of these sewers was to prevent streets from flooding and new stagnate ponds from forming. In 1853, the problem of privies was addressed for the first time in an ordinance that regulated privies. "No privy shall be built without a vault at least twelve nor more than thirty feet deep, and walled with hard brick; nor shall any part of the contents of any privy-vault be removed

except by its being taken out of The City , or into the current of the river, in the night-time. Each privy shall be kept in proper condition at all times, and from the first of April till the last of October shall be well sprinkled with lime at least twice in each month. Any owner or occupant of premises, on which any of the above regulations shall not be complied with , shall be fined ten dollars for each offense." Ordinan ce 59 approved Nov. 5, 1853 (Louisville City Code Book [LCe] 1884:289). This ordinance illustrates the out of sight, out of mind philosophy of Louisville's citizens, where the reduction of offensive smells were of prime concern.

Sanitation in Louisville 1860-1894, Political Inaction It was not until the 1860s that words like "sanitary" and "health" were being used and understood by Louisville's leaders. This may have been a result of the major cholera epidemics of the 1850s in London and the discovery that they were caused by water pollution. Possibly from fear of fouled wells and cisterns , Louisville completed construction of the city water works in 1857 and began service to the city in 1860 (LMR 1867:68). The city urged residents to give up wells and cisterns and hook-up to the water works. Fortunately for Louisville, the intake for the water works was far upstream from the city, offsetting the potential catastrophe that was possible from dumping privy contents into the river. In fact, Louisville had gained a reputation for being a very healthy city during this time. This reputation was no doubt enhanced by the severe cholera epidemics that struck several nearby cities, but spared Louisville (LMR 1866:22). The leaders of Louisville intended to keep their status as a healthy city by creating the Board of Health in 1865. The following year, the Board of Health was authorized to appoint sanitary inspectors. The first duties of the sanitary inspectors were inspection of privy vaults . During 1868, the inspectors claimed to have inspected every vault in the city and served 704 notices requiring nuisances to be abated on private premises (LMR 1868:4). In total , 1,800 notices were issued requiring the abatement of nuisances from full privies, damp cellars, and filthy yards. After

Stottman--PRIVY ARCHITECTURE

Louisville had again escaped the cholera epidemics that plagued neighboring cities in 1867, the city Health Officer used the example of London and New York to justify concentrating inspections on privy vaults to maintain Louisville's cholera free status.

43

embarrassing obstacles to the proper efficiency of the Board of Health is the present system of building and managing privies and water closets." (LMR 1869:13). The Health Officer elaborates, describing the privies as "mere pits " most of which were constructed in territory that used to be primarily marshlands. Privies constructed on As in London and New York the devastations of such land are liable to overflow from subsoil cholera were traced to overflowing privies, or to a drainage. "Sometimes when visited by the Sanitary kindred element, deficient drainage from the water plugs, so the Health Officer's report of St. Louis comes Inspectors, they are found not only within a few bearing equally strong testimony to the fact that cholera inches of the top of the ground, but even running is dependent upon local causes, and can be controlled over, flooded; at other times, without interference by the use of proper sanitary measures. Two localities upon the part of anyone, they will be found to are cited where cholera was the most violent. In one have receded several feet" (LMR 1869:13). The within the space of 3 blocks, 43 overflowing privies were found; in another, the contents of the privies Health Officer suggested that these privies could were found to seep into the wells. So soon as the be built so that the deposits were directed into the proper means were resorted to, the disease immediately sewer system. He also favored the adoption of subsided, and in but two or three houses of some the earth closet system, which he had "ardently four hundred disinfected, has the disease appeared the recommended but [which] has never obtained a second time. Every year we are accumulating evidence in favor of the theory that cholera is dependent upon foothold in this community" (LMR 1869:14). An local causes, and we agree with the Chairman of the earth closet was a closable container that used dry Sanitary Committee "that the city in which there is earth and ashes to absorb water from excrement. neither an avoidable death nor and avoidable case of The end result of this system was a supposedly sickness is the only one which is entitled to claim harmless ready-to-use garden fertilizer (Geismar that she has fully discharged her sanitary duty (LMR 1993:61; Detmeter 1994:4). 1868:3-4). A new ordinance concerning the disposal of privy contents was approved in May 1872 (LCC This statement in the Health Officer's report 1884:289). The ordinance reiterated that privy was an important step in the realization that contents were to be disposed of away from the cleanliness was more than an aesthetic concern, city or into the current of the Ohio River. The but also a health concern. Sanitation began to be new section of the ordinance required only the associated with cleanliness for health. Although use of water tight containers to transport privy the Board of Health had been successful for its contents to the aforementioned destinations (LMR first three years, city government bureaucracy 1868:5; LCC 1884:289). This, the city's second was complacent with Louisville's healthy image. ordinance concerning privies, seems to have been The legislature often balked at suggestions made aimed at preventing malodorous privy contents by the Board of Health, such as alterations in from fouling the air during transport to the the ordinance governing privy vaults. The lack river. By 1874, privies were again a focus of the of force to follow-up on notices served and the time consuming process of responding to public Health Officer and the subject of suggestions. nuisances lessened the ability of the office to The Health Officer suggested that the ordinance have any impact on improving sanitation (LMR concerning the cleaning of privies be changed, 1868 :5). Despite the important realizations giving inspectors the power to determine when concerning sanitation and cholera, the previously a vault should be cleaned or not. He provided stated political obstacles facing the Board of Health this suggestion for dealing with privy vaults: "I believe there should be such legislation enacted were just the beginning of the frustration. The City Health Officer expressed dismay as would secure the connection of all privy vaults concerning the privy system and the lack of with a public sewer, where it could be done: that public urinals. He claimed that "one of the most this law should apply particularly to all houses

44

constructed in the future. I am still of the opinion that this should be done. It could be made one of the requirements of building permits which builders are now required by ordinance to obtain .. ." (LMR 1875-1876:432). There is a gap in Health Officer reports for Louisville from 1877 and 1878. The political powers in Louisville had enough of the constant call for more regulation by the Board of Health and abolished it. It appears that there was much public outcry over the possibility of more government regulation (Montrie 1996:37). This action was corrected by 1879, with the reinstatement of the Health Department. In 1880, the Health Officer followed up his 1879 report with an emphasis on wells that were contaminated by privies. He described the geological strata of Louisville, in which most of the wells had been excavated to a depth of 30 to 40 ft. (9 to 12 m) in the first sand and gravel layer. He suggested that many people were disregarding sanitation by digging privies to this level to save money on privy cleaning (LMR 1880:320). Convincing the legislature to consider sanitary measures proved to be just as difficult at this time as it was in the 1860s. The further sanitary complacency by the legislature can be seen in the appropriations to the Sanitary Department in 1881. Appropriations for the Sanitary Department decreased from nearly $4,000 in 1879 to only $1,500 in 1881 (LMR 1881 :285). In 1891, the State Board of Health adopted a set of sanitary rules and regulations that were "recommended" for adoption by county, city, and town Boards of Health. The rules were very simple and resembled the ordinances already in place in Louisville. The first rule gave the Health Officer power to "enforce the rules and regulations of this Board .. ." (Kaufman 1891:80). It seems that this endorsement from the State government concerning the power of the Health Officer may have influenced Louisville's legislators, for the strife that afflicted the Board of Health dissipated. Sanitation in Louisville 1894-1937, Chang ing the View of Sanitation

By 1894, the Health Officer had more power and the city legislature seemed more receptive

HISTOR ICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 34(1)

to sanitary concerns. The City Health Officer, reported that 3,140 nuisances were abated, slightly less than the previous year. During 1894, an ordinance was passed requiring that all drain pipes be connected with public sewers and prohibiting privy vault matter from being drained into dry wells (LMR 1894:99). Although this ordinance is less than the previously requested connection of privies to sewers or their entire abolishment, sanitary measures seem to have gained more favor with the legislators. The first year after the enactment of the new ordinance, the Health Officer reported for the first time that 679 sewer connections were made. Although this was just a fraction of households in Louisville, it may demonstrate that the Health Department had more power, as its recommendations no longer feel upon deaf ears in the legislature (LMR 1895:135). In 1909, the political progress made by the Health Department was overshadowed by a report from the Tenement House Commission of Louisville. The report of a survey of Louisville's tenement houses conducted by consultant Janet Kemp (1909) revealed the horrors of tenement life and its extremely unsanitary conditions. In addition to overflowing privies discovered in her survey, she found that filthy cisterns were the only source of water for the tenements, from which many residents refused to drink (Kemp 1909:58-63). Many of the residents resorted to begging for water from those who had clean water sources. Kemp was most repulsed by Louisville's obsession with the privy-vault system: Bearing in mind that complete and immediate disposal is the end most to be sought in all sanitary systems, we find that the prevailing plan in Louisville seems to aim at retaining the waste matter on the premises for the longest possible time, and that it rarely effects a complete removal. The conservancy system retaining excreted matter in privy vaults, sometimes for years, would not be considered in many up-to-date villages of five thousand inhabitants. Louisville, with a population of two hundred and fifty thousand, and with a law that gives the city authorities the power to do away with probably seventy five percent of the existing vaults, still tolerates this unclean , indecent, and dangerous method of disposal (Kemp 1909:56).

Kemp's revelations illustrated that while the Health Department garnered more respect from

Stottman--PRIVY ARCHITECTURE

the legislature, the general public's perception of sanitation was slow to change. As a result of the tenement report, a law regulating tenement houses, including sanitary aspects , was passed in 1910 (LMR 1910:495). Kemp's report restated what health officials in Louisville had been complaining about since the 1860s, namely the problems with the privy system. Despite this effort, very little was done to abolish the privy system in Louisville for the next four years, as health officials continually pleaded for its demise. Sanitary inspectors frequently inspected these offensive features , examining over 1,000 each year (LMR 1913-1916). An ordinance requiring the elimination of privy vaults where sewers were available and requiring the construction of a "sanitary privy" where sewers were not available was finally passed in 1917 (LCC 1919:496). This ordinance was followed by the State Board of Health's passage of a law in 1919 requiring all hotels, restaurants, health resorts, school houses, court houses, railway and trolley stations to connect to a sewer system or use a privy design like the "Kentucky Sanitary Privy" if a sewer were not available (Kentucky Board of Health 1919:205). Although an ordinance abolishing the privy vault system had been passed, it seemed that little compliance to the ordinance actually occurred. In 1935, a survey of Louisville's health activities and needs demonstrated that the public's perception of sanitation had not changed much since the mid-1800s, despite the drastic change in sanitary perceptions by the Heath Department and legislators . This survey reported that 25% of the dwellings in Louisville were not connected to a sewer and that over 12,000 privies were still in use . It was also mentioned that 75% of these privies were located on lots where sewer connections were available. This survey found that the $100 to $125 sewer hook-up fee probably interfered with the elimination of privies. The survey reported that "strenuous efforts are now being made to have owners connect with public sewers and in all probability another year will see great improvement in the problem of human excreta disposal" (Buck 1935:44). By 1936, the number of privies in use did indeed drop from 12,000 to 9,000. Amidst a

45

terrible drought, privy vaults became front page news of the Louisville Herald-Post. As water pressure in the city's water supply dropped due to the drought , some people resorted to using cisterns and wells. Many of these people became sick from water fouled by privies. The newspaper printed an article begging residents to do their duty and connect to the sewer system. "This is written not with an idea of creating unrest in this city, but to advise the people of Louisville just what the situation is, so that they may intelligently cope with the present conditions" (Lucas 1936:8). Based on several interviews in the article, it appears that the cost of sewer connections and plumbing for indoor toilets was the main factor causing resistance to the abolishment of the privy system. In 1937, the worst flood ever to hit Louisville inundated much of the city, damaging or destroying many of the privies. After the flood, there was a concerted effort to rebuild privies using the Kentucky Sanitary Privy design. The Kentucky Sanitary Privy Project helped owners replace privies by using labor and supervision from the W. P. A. and $24 from the property owner for materials. The Red Cross, however, paid for the majority of the material costs. By the end of 1937, 76 privies had been reconstructed (Louisville Department of Health 1937:47). It is ironic that the privy system was nearly abolished by the very river that had long been abused as the repository for privy contents. The use of privies within the city limits of Louisville was eventually abolished, although the exact date of final abandonment is not clear. More than likely, the remnants of the privy system were gradually phased out through public education and enforcement of existing ordinances . As we have seen, however, an out of sight, out of mind perception of sanitation, economics, and politics seem to have determined Louisville's sanitary history. Archaeolog ical Investigations Highland Park Background

In 1989, an archaeological, architectural, and historical survey was conducted in Highland Park, a late 19th- to early 20th-century working class

46

HISTORICALARCHAEOLOGY34(1)

neighborhood in Louisville, Kentucky (Figure 1). Louisville. The town's trustees had the power to These surveys were requested by the Louisville adopt city ordinances (English 1972:131). No Airport Expansion Project. This project proposed ordinances pertaining to sanitation were enacted to remove Highland Park for airport-related and thus there were no regulations governing development in conjunction with airport expan- privies or wells. Highland Park was located on sion. The archaeological survey resulted in a the outskirts of Louisville, thus the area was quite recommendation that a data recovery effort of rural, and was surrounded by farms. Despite archaeological resources in this neighborhood this rural atmosphere around Highland Park, the should be conducted (Granger 1991). The data community was quite urban, having been designed recovery was conducted in the summer of 1992, on a grid system with modest sized lots. The marking the first time that an entire neighborhood density of housing created by this layout gave the in Louisville had been sampled for archaeological small city an urban atmosphere. In the 30 years prior to the building boom in study. Highland Park, established in 1871, is located in the neighborhood, residents may have had a rural the southern section of Louisville, Kentucky and perception of sanitation where there were few was one of Louisville's first suburbs. Highland concerns about offending your neighbors. Rural Park was planned as an industrial suburb in which perceptions may have been further perpetuated by the residents lived and worked within the same the migration of rural people to the new suburb. community. The developers intended to solicit It was not uncommon for people to use their now the working class, tapping the migration of rural small houselots like miniature farms (Stewartpeople to the cities, especially among African- Abernathy 1986; Huynh 1990:88). People would American populations, which was occurring in often grow crops, raise chickens and pigs, and many cities throughout the country (Pleck 1979). carry out many of the same activities they had The driving force for this new suburb was the practiced all their life on the farm. These activities relocation of the Louisville and Nashville railroad included the use of a privy and a well. workshops in 1889, providing substantial employMost of the residents of Highland Park had ment opportunities for the residents of Highland access to city water through corner hydrants, Park. The proximity of work to the suburb was the key to promoting the development. The TABLE 1 developers boasted that one could work and live HOUSELOTS INVESTIGATED IN HIGHLAND all within a mile. The conveniences of city PARK water and street car transportation were also highly touted (English 1972). Undoubtedly, the Lot Date Function Privies relocation of the workshops lured many people ca. 1922 Residence 0 from the city to Highland Park (Young 1990). 15Jf607 15Jf608 ca. 1925 Residence 1 Other industries were recruited for Highland Park, 15Jf609 ca. 1910 Residence 2 such as a lumber company and a brick factory. 15Jf61O ca. 1912 Residence 0 The brick factory was actually lured from rural 15Jf611 ca. 1910 Residence 1 ca. 1910 Residence 0 Carter County, in eastern Kentucky (Stottman 15Jf612 15Jf613 ca. 1910 Residence 2 and Granger 1993). 15Jf614 ca. 1910 Residence 1 Although Highland Park was created in 1871, 15Jf615 ca. 1910 Residence 1 there was little construction of residences prior to 15Jf616 ca. 1914 Grocery 0 1900. Between 1900 and 1910 mass construction 15Jf617 ca. 1918 Residence 0 ca. 1914 Residence 2 of small shotgun style and cottage type residences 15Jf618 Residence ca. 1918 0 nearly filled all the space in the neighborhood 15Jf619 15Jf620 ca. 1921 Church 2 (McAlester and McAlester 1988; Hedgepeth 15Jf621 ca. 1910 Residence 0 1989). 15Jf622 ca. 1918 Residence 0 At the time of establishment, Highland Park 15Jf623 Drug Store ca. 1905 1 Total 13 was itself a city, lying outside the limits of

47

Stottman--PRIVY ARCHITECTURE

TABLE 2 PRIVY ARCHITECTURE ATIRIBUTES FROM HIGHLAND PARK Privy

Material

Diameter (top)

Diameter (Base)

15Jf608 15Jf609a 15Jf609b 15Jf611 15Jf613a I5Jf613b 15Jf614 15Jf615 15Jf618a 15Jf618b 15Jf620a 15Jf620b 15Jf623

Brick Brick Wood Brick Brick Brick Brick Brick Brick Brick Brick Brick Brick

3.3 x 3.3 ft. 4.6 x 5.0 ft. 5.0 x 3.3 ft. 3.5 ft. 4.1 ft. 4.2 ft. 3.8 ft. 4.3 ft. 3.6 x 4.1 ft. 3.8 ft. 5.2 ft. 3.9 ft. 4.2 ft.

3.3 x 3.3 ft. 4.6 x 5.0 ft. 5.0 x 3.3 ft. 2.6 ft. 2.1 ft. 3.8 ft. 2.5 ft. 2.2 ft. U ft. 2.0 ft. 0.5 ft. 1.7 ft. 2.8 ft.

but many took the option of constructing their own well or cistern (English 1972:120; Huynh 1990:88). Although sewers had been promised by the developers of the suburb, they were not installed until 1917, and then only at the request of the U.S. Army, which had just established Camp Taylor, its largest World War I training camp, nearby. The request was in response to the poor drainage of the area, which historically was swampy. Highland Park's unpaved streets often became stagnant pools of deep mud, raising concerns for the health of the soldiers at Camp Taylor (English 1972:130). This concern did little to prevent disease, as soldiers returning from France sparked a serious influenza epidemic that killed 1,500 Camp Taylor soldiers in 1918 (Yater 1987:168). The sewers were only used for draining water and there was no ordinance requiring privies to be connected to the sewers, until the expanding urban periphery of Louisville finally engulfed the suburb, with annexation in 1922. During the Highland Park archaeological data recovery, a total of 13 privies was excavated on the 16 houselots investigated. The lots represented two distinct groups of residents separated racially and economically (Stottman 1995). AfricanAmericans occupied one section of the

Depth

7.5 ft. 10.2 ft. 7.3 ft. 3.8 ft. 6.3 ft. 11.0 ft. 5.1 ft. 7.8 ft. 7.2 ft. 7.1 ft. 6.8 ft. 8.8 ft. 6.5 ft.

Shape

Square Oval Rectan gle Circular Circular Circular Circular Circular Oval Circul ar Circular Circular Circular

Bonding

Loose Tight None Loose Loose Tight Loose Loose Tight Tight Loose Loose Loose

neighborhood, while people of Euroamerican descent occupied most of the remaining lots. Previous archaeological and historical research has shown that the African-Americans lived at a lower socioeconomic level than the people of Euroamerican descent (Young 1990; Stottman 1995). This factor may have some relevance to the perception of sanitation within the same neighborhood. This factor, however, was not explored in this work. Table 1 provides data on the individual houselots investigated, as derived from city directories, deeds, and Sanborn Insurance maps. Table 2 provides the architectural attributes of the privies excavated in Highland Park. Russell Neighborhood Backg round

The Russell neighborhood encompasses an area west of Louisville's central business district, just south of the Ohio River (Figure 1). In 1991, the Russell neighborhood was slated for a major renovation by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. In conjunct ion with this renovation, historical and archaeological investigations were conducted between 1991 and 1993 on 10 houselots within the Russell neighborhood (Kramer and Granger 1991 ; McBride 1993).

HISTORICALARCHAEOLOGY 34( 1)

48

TABLE 3 HOUSELOTS INVESTIGATED IN THE RUSSELL NEIGHBORHOOD Privies

Lot

Date

Function

15Jf604 15Jf606 15Jf624 (front) 15Jf624 (back I) 15Jf624 (back 2)

1853 1865 1864 ca.l885 ca.l892

Residence Drug Store Residence Residence (Rental) Residence (Rental)

The Russell area represents the first westward expansion of Louisville, beginning in the 1820s with land annexations. Development of the land began as early as 1836 and continued into the 1870s (Kramer and Granger 1991:23). Modest development of the area occurred during the 1830s and 1840s, with the bulk of the area's central core being developed during the mid-1860s. By the 1870s, most of the Russell area had been developed and suburbs, like Highland Park, had begun outside of the city. Unlike Highland Park, which was a later planned community built outside of Louisville, Russell was merely an expansion of the central core of Louisville, which was becoming less residential and more commercial in function . A variety of separate developments comprise the Russell neighborhood, but these developments were within the city limits of Louisville and never had autonomy. The many developers of the Russell area did not cater to any particular group of people, as was the case in the Highland Park neighborhood, creating a heterogeneous mix of ethnicities and socioeconomic classes (Kramer and Granger 1991:24).

2 I 2 I I

The first residents of the Russell area were well -to-do professionals and business owners, primarily from Anglo-Saxon Protestant background (Kramer and Granger 1991:25). These people represented mostly the first and second generation Louisvillians, whose parents had settled and built the city (Louisville City Directories 1832-1850). The first residents of the Russell area had concentrated along the main arteries leading east into the central business district of Louisville. A second growth in the Russell area occurred in the 1840s coinciding with a wave of German and Irish immigration (Yater 1987:62). These immigrants were typically working class, possessing skills and crafts brought from their native lands, which were needed in the rapidly growing city (Kramer and Granger 1991:25). At the conclusion of the Civil War, Louisville's population increased dramatically with the addition of lower class German and Irish immigrants, as well as many recently freed African Americans. Many of these people settled in the Russell area along the many alleys that ran behind the streets settled by the more prominen t initial residents. Many of the first residents subdivided or rented

TABLE 4 PRIVY ARCHITECTURE ATIRI BUTES FROM THE RUSSELL NEIGHBORHOOD Privy

Material

Diameter (top)

Diameter (Base)

15Jf604a 15Jf604b 15Jf606 15Jf624a 15Jf624b 15Jf624c 15Jf624d

Brick Brick Brick Brick Brick Brick Brick

4.8 4.3 5.3 5.1 4.3 4.8 5.3

2.6 3.8 4.2 5.1 4.3 4.8 4.2

ft. ft. ft. x 3.5 ft. ft. ft. ft.

ft. ft. ft. x 3.5 ft. ft. ft. ft.

Depth

16.5 18.5 22.0 11.3 22.0 20.0 19.0

ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft.

Shape

Circular Circular Circular Oval Circular Circular Circular

Bonding

Tight Tight Tight Loose Loose Loose Loose

49

Stottman--PRIVY ARCHITECTURE

out the rear of their lots facing the alleys to accommodate these new immigrants (Stottman and Watts-Roy 1995:107). The growth and development of the Russell area resulted in a heterogeneous mix of people and architecture. Unlike the industrial neighborhood of Highland Park, the Russell area was primarily residential. Very few industries were located nearby and most people commuted to work in Louisville 's central business district. During the archaeological data recovery project in 1994, 3 of the 10 lots initially examined were selected for mitigation (Stottman and Watts-Roy 1995). A total of seven privies was excavated on the three mitigated houselots (Tables 3 and 4). One lot contained a drug store owned by a family of German descent. Another lot was the home of a wealthy widow of Irish descent. The final lot was home to middle class people of German descent , who rented the rear portion of their lot to low income African Americans.

Methods The method chosen to investigate privy vault architecture focuses on those attributes that are directly related to perceptions of sanitation. The selected attributes were derived from the regulations that governed the construction of the vaults, reflecting the sanitary perceptions of the day. The previously stated 1853 privy ordinance required privy vaults to be 12 to 30 ft. (4 to 9 m) deep and lined with brick (LCC 1884). The attributes of depth and construction material seem to have been the only concern that instigated the passage of the ordinance. As indicated in Louisville's sanitary history, it seems that people in Louisville were only concerned with attributes of the privy vault that affected aesthetics, which was synonymous with the "out of sight , out of mind" philosophy at the time . Later, the State Health Board suggested that privy vaults be located at least 100 ft. (30 m) from the nearest water source, suggesting that lawmakers were learning that pri vy vaults contaminated wells (Kaufman 1891:80). These are the only two means of regulation that were meant to influence privy vault construction. The focus of this investigation is on the attributes of privy vault depth, material used in construction, brick bonding, and the location of privy vaults within a houselot.

All of the privies discussed in this article were first exposed with a backhoe. The soil abutting the privy vault on one side was removed leaving the exposed exterior in profile. This excavation strategy allowed for better documentation of the privy vault's architectural attributes. Following the architectural documentation of the privy vault, the feature 's contents were then excavated. The inve stigation of privy vault depth was based on field measurements of the vault from the modem-day ground surface . The construction material used was readily apparent; in this research the privy vaults were mostly brick, with only one wood vault being found. The attributes of the bricks used, such as brick bonding, varied. The brick bonding was investigated for quality of brick used, brick type used, and the brick bonding pattern . The quality of the brick was determined by the hardness of the brick and whether brick fragments or whole bricks were used in construction. The brick types were identified according to their intended function. Standard building bricks are the common type of bricks used for general construction, like buildings. Paving bricks are heavier and harder than standard bricks that were made in a variety of shapes for street paving. Fire bricks were designed to withstand high temperatures and were generally used in hearths and kilns (Gurcke 1987). The brick bonding used in the construction of the vault was analyzed for tight bonding or loose bonding. Tight bonding is defined as brick patterning that has few or no gaps in the construction, with loose bonding exhibiting frequent gaps between bricks. There are particular brick bonding patterns used by professional 20

15

...li 10 5

o Highland Park

Russell Neighborhood

Figure 3. Average privy vault depth for the Highland Park and Russell neighborhoods.

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 34( 1)

50

TABLE 5 PRIVY VAULT DEPTH RANGE FOR HIGHLAND PARK Privy

Depth

15Jf608 15Jf609a 15Jf609b 15Jf611 15Jf613a 15Jf613b 15Jf614 15Jf615 15Jf61 8a 15Jf618b 15Jf620a 15Jf620b 15Jf623 Average Depth

7.5 ft. 10.2 ft. 7.3 ft. 3.8 ft. 6.3 ft. 11.0 ft. 5.1 ft. 7.8 ft. 7.2 ft. 7.1 ft. 6.8 ft. 8.8 ft. 6.5 ft. 7.3 ft.

masons. These patterns are varied according to the orientation of individual bricks in the masonry that create consistent patterns throughout the finished product. The patterns can be identified as particular styles of bonding (McKee 1973:48). The presence or absence of recognized bonding patterns can help determine the quality of construction. Finally, location was investigated by measuring the distance of the most direct route between privy vaults and the household water source, which in this investigation were cisterns. These aspects of privy architecture were compared between neighborhoods to develop general trends. The two neighborhoods being researched here, however, were not always governed by the same ordinances or built by the same people at the same time. Intra-neighborhood trends are also explored, which will shed additional light on the inter-neighborhood differences. Analysis Privy Vault Depth The range for privy depths from the 20 privies excavated in the Russell and Highland Park neighborhoods was 3.8 ft. (1.2 m) for the shallowest to 22 ft. (6.7 m) for the deepest. Examination of the 1853 ordinance governing privy vault

depth shows that privy vaults were supposed to range from 12 to 30 ft. (4 to 9 m) deep (LCC 1884:289). The depth range identified in the two neighborhoods investigated consists of privies that do not adhere to the stated guidelines. There are two possible explanations for this occurrence: 1) the ordinance was being ignored, or 2) the ordinance was not applicable. The possibility that the ordinance was ignored is plausible because historical documents indicate that many of the city ordinances had little power to force compliance (LMR 1866-1916). The second possibility, however, may be the more probable reason for the disparity. The historical contexts of each neighborhood indicates that the Russell neighborhood had always been under the jurisdiction of Louisville, but Highland Park was an autonomous town before becoming annexed to the city of Louisville in 1922. The Highland Park neighborhood, thus, would not have been under the jurisdiction of the Louisville ordinance until 1922. The average depth of privy vaults for each neighborhood clearly demonstrates that the shallower privies were located in the Highland Park neighborhood. The average depth of the Highland Park privies was 7.3 ft. (2.2 m) (n=13), while the average depth of the Russell neighborhood privies was 19.7 ft. (6 .0 m) (n=7) (Figure 3). There is no record of Highland Park regulating the construction of privies on its own . The range of privy vault depth within each neighborhood indicates that some privies were not built to conform to code. The range of privy depths for the Highland Park neighborhood was from 3.8 to 11.0 ft. (1.1 to 3.4 m) This range suggests that all of the privies investigated in the Highland Park neighborhood had been constructed

TABLE 6 PRIVY VAULT DEPTH RANGE FOR THE RUSSELL NEIGHBORHOOD Privy

Depth

15Jf604a 15Jf604b 15Jf606 15Jf624a 15Jf624b 15Jf624c 15Jf624d Average Depth

16.5 ft. 18.5 ft. 22.0 ft. 11.3 ft. 22.0 ft. 20.0 ft. 19.0 ft. 19.7 ft.

Stottman--PRIVYARCHITECTURE

51

TABLE 7 BRICK QUALITY IN EACH NEIGHBORHOOD Neighborhood

Whole bricks used

Fragmented bricks used

Russell Highland Park

N=2 (29%) N=4 (33%)

N=5 (71%) N=8 (67%)

before annexation took place (Table 5). The depth range for the Russell neighborhood was from 11.3 to 22 ft. (3.4 to 6.7 m) (Table 6). This depth range reveals at least one Russell privy that was not constructed to code. An examination of deeds for the houselots investigated in the Russell neighborhood indicates that the house for this shallow privy was constructed in 1853 (McBride 1993:91). Assuming that the privy was constructed simultaneously with the house, it is possible that the privy was constructed before the ordinance took effect in November of that year (LCC 1884:289) . It appears that compliance to the ordinance was common because all of the other privies excavated in the Russell neighborhood were constructed after 1853 and complied with the ordinance (McBride 1993). In addition to this evidence of shallower privies prior to the ordinance, another pre-1853 privy that was less than the 12 ft. (3.7) minimum was documented recently in central Louisville (Stottrnan 1999). The result of the depth analysis demonstrates that privies constructed under the jurisdiction of the 1853 ordinance complied with its specifications. Privies that were constructed outside of the jurisdiction of the ordinance, because of geographic location or time, did not comply with the depth requirements of the ordinance.

downtown Louisville at the Convention Center expansion site located in the central business district (Stottrnan 1999). Although the construction material was explicitly defined in the ordinance, the ordinance did not specify a particular type of brick other than a hard brick. Nor did the ordinance specify how the brick was to be laid or any details of the design of the vault. This lack of detail left the specifics of privy vault construction open to interpretation by vault builders, who took full advantage of the interpretation to provide economic benefit for their clients. An examination of brick bonding from the privies excavated in the Russell and Highland Park neighborhoods illustrates these liberties taken with the ordinance. The quality of brick used in the 19 brick-lined privies excavated indicate the frequent use of poor quality bricks. While in most cases the required hard brick was used, meaning that well-fired brick was selected, the use of fragmented or non-construction type bricks was common. Only 6 of the 19 (32%) brick-lined privy vaults were constructed entirely of whole bricks. The remainder (68%) exhibited frequent inclusions of fragmented brick in the bond (Figure

Construction Material

80 -

-

-

70-

-

-==--

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

, --

-

-

-

--,

60

The 1853 privy ordinance also stipulated that all privies be lined with hard brick (LCC 1884:289). All but 1 of the 20 privies excavated were lined with brick. The exception was a wood-lined privy located in the Highland Park neighborhood. As previously mentioned, Highland Park had no requirements concerning privy construction and a wood-lined privy was legal. Wood-lined privies appeared to have been common within the city limits before the 1853 code was approved. An 1840s wood-lined privy was excavated in

.~ so

;E

'040

Fragmented

Whole Bricks

Figure 4. Brick quality in the Highland Park and Russell neighborhoods.

52

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 34( 1)

TABLE 8 BRICK BONDING TYPES Neighborhood

Tight Brick Bonding Loose Brick Bond ing

Russell N=3 (43%) Highland Park N=5 (42%) Total N=8 (42%)

N=4 (57%) N=7 (58%) N=ll (58%)

4). Differences between the two neighborhood contexts are very small with regards to the use of fragmented bricks (Table 7). In the Highland Park neighborhood, 4 of 12 (33%) brick-lined privy vaults exhibited exclusively whole bricks, while the remainder (67%) were frequently constructed with fragmented brick. The Russell neighborhood privy vaults which exclusively exhibited whole bricks was represented by only 2 of 7 vaults (29%). The remaining 5 vaults (71%) frequently exhibited fragmented bricks. This trend illustrates that there was little difference in the quality of brick used despite the differing neighborhood contexts and ordinance jurisdiction .

An analysis of the brick types used in each neighborhood, however, depict some differences. The type of brick used in the construction of privy vaults varied for each neighborhood. The Russell neighborhood privy vaults were constructed exclusively with standard building brick. This type of brick is commonly used for the construction of buildings or walls (Gurcke 1987). However, 4 of the 12 (33%) brick-lined vaults in the Highland Park neighborhood exhibited types of brick other than standard building brick. All four of these privies utilized fire brick in addition to standard building brick. The fire brick had been scavenged from waster piles of the Louisville Fire Brick Company factory located in Highland Park (Stottman and Granger 1993:237) . Fire brick was designed for resisting heat and does not weather well, leading to quick deterioration of the brick. In addition to fire brick, one privy in Highland Park also exhibited several examples of paving bricks used in its construction. These bricks were possibly scavenged from the brick paved alleys of Highland Park. Aside from the quality of brick used in privy vault construction, the type of bonding in which the bricks were used can also reveal information about the quality of vault construction. The brick bonding type refers to the manner in which the bricks are laid and the type of material used to bind the bricks together. The brick-lined privy vaults investigated in these two neighborhoods were all dry-laid, meaning that no mortar or bonding agent had been used to bind the bricks together. For all of the privy vaults examined, the only type of brick bonding pattern utilized was American common bond or stretcher bond, which features whole bricks laid upon another offset (McKee 1973:44). This type of bonding TABLE 9 DISTANCE FROM CISTERNS TO PRIVIES Privy

Figure 5. Loose brick bonded privy vault in Highland Park.

15Jf604a 15Jf604b 15Jf606 15Jf624a 15Jf624b 15Jf624c 15Jf624d Average Distance

Distance from Cistern 37 58 20 30 18 42 27 33

ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft.

ft.

53

Stottman--PRIVY ARCHITECTURE

occasional gaps in the brick work. Overall, 11 of the 19 privy vaults (58%) were considered to be loosely bonded (Figure 5). The remaining 8 privy vaults (42%) were considered tightly bonded (Table 8). The difference between the two neighborhood contexts was minor. Among the Russell vaults 4 out of 7 exhibited loose bonding (57%) and 3 of 7 (43%) exhibited tight bond. In the Highland Park neighborhood, loosely bonded privy vaults accounted for 58% of the brick-lined privy vaults, while the tightly bonded vaults accounted for 42% (Table 8) (Figure 6). Much of the tightness of the bond may be related to the use of fragmented bricks . Some brick fragments were used as chinking to fill in small gaps in the masonry of whole bricks. Although the use of brick fragments are more likely to cause gaps in the masonry, their use in a tightly bonded style increases the stability of the vault. Location Figure 6. Use of whole and fragmented bricks in a Russell neighborhood privy .

is what is most commonly seen in brick masonry today. All of the privies in this analysis were constructed as only one course of brick wide, which limited the type of pattern that could be used. Other brick bonding patterns utilize different patterns of stretchers (the side of the brick) and headers (the ends of the brick); a structure must have at least two courses of bricks wide to accomplish these other patterns (McKee 1973:51). The six privy vaults that utilized exclusively whole bricks were constructed only in the stretcher bond pattern. The remaining 13 privy vaults examined exhibited no recognizable bond, due primarily to the excessive use of fragmented bricks. Other bonding patterns that utilized two courses of brick, like English bond, were identified in two brick privy vaults excavated at the Convention Center site in the central business district (Stottman 1999) Examination of the brick bonding type raises another issue , loose and tight bonding. This aspect of brick bonding is particularly important for structural integrity since the vaults were constructed without a bonding agent. The tightness of the brick bonding for the 19 brick-lined privies varied greatly from large gaps to very small

An examination of privy location within a houselot and distance from water source may also reflect perceptions of sanitation. There was no ordinance governing the location of privies within a houselot. Where these offensive features were located, however, can provide some additional Stn:d

• • Figure 7. Relative location of privy vaults within a houselot for Highland Park.

54

HISTORICALARCHAEOLOGY34(1)

contained two privies. None of the privies from these houselots was located the required 100 ft. (30 m) from a water source (Table 9).

Sired

Interpretations

••

I

Alley

•

•

Figure 8. Relative location of privy vaults within a houselot for Russell neighborhood.

information about sanitary perceptions. The location of privies excavated in the Highland Park neighborhood indicates that privies were generally placed at the rear of the houselot along the alley. Some privies were placed in the middle of the houselot or along the property boundary. Figure 7 depicts the relative location of privies excavated in Highland Park within a houselot. The privies excavated in the Russell neighborhood seemed to be located mostly along the property boundaries on the sides of the houselot. Some of the Russell privies were located at the rear of the houselot, but still along the side houselot boundaries (Figure 8). Another important consideration of privy location is its relation to the lot's water source. There were only three houselots investigated where both privies and a water source, in this case a cistern, coexisted. All three were located in the Russell neighborhood. Most residents in the Highland Park neighborhood received water from communal hydrants, which were not located on the lot (Huyhn 1990:122). State Board of Health regulations of 1891 stipulated that privy vaults should be at least 100 ft. (30 m) from the nearest water source (Kaufman 1891). Two of the lots investigated

The City of Louisville had only one ordinance regulating construction of privy vaults. The 1853 ordinance required that privies be constructed of hard brick and measure 12 to 30 ft. (3.7 to 9 m) deep (LCC 1884:289). The stated depth of privies was probably stipulated based on the prevailing perception of "out of sight, out of mind." The placement of a depth requirement that is considerably deep ensures that the offensive materials collected in privy vaults remain as far from the surface as poss ible. The deeper the privy vault, the further the offensive material of night-soil is from the sensory range of the individual (Larkin 1988: 160). The night-soil, thus, was out of sight and smell for as long as possible. Eventually, the privy vaults would fill up to the point where they were offensive, which instigated the second portion of the ordinance, referring to night-soil removal. If a vault were not very deep, the potential for night-soil to become offensive was greatly increased. It seems that the deeper the privy , the more sanitary it was perceived to be and the less the second part of the ordinance was needed (Huynh 1990:144). Unfortunately, the idea that "deeper is better" was misguided by the prevailing perception of sanitation and it seems that privy vault builders took advantage of the resulting ordinances . In 1880, the Health officer complained: It is the universal custom to dig privy vaults thirty

to forty feet deep, in order to get a free and ready drainage of the deposit to save cleaning , regardless of an ordinance that they shall not be deeper than twenty-four feet. So, you see, our wells, as they are now, are subject to pollution, first-from seepage from catch-basins and sewers; second-from surface overflow .. . third-from sub-soil drainage fourth from privy vaults dug in our porous soil " (LMR 1880:320).

No amendment to the privy ordinances was found that required privies to be no more than 24 ft. (7 m) as suggested in the quote, regardless the problem of contamination remained the same. The Health Officer stated elsewhere in the document

55

Stottman--PRIVYARCHITECTURE

that the water bearing strata in Louisville ranged between 30 and 40 ft. (9 to 12 m) deep at that time (LMR 1880). The advantage of tapping into the ground water was that the privy contents were consistently drained into the water, thus taking the vault longer to fill up to capacity. This action certainly saved many privy owners money in cleaning fees and it ensured that offensive materials were kept out of sight and smell. This practice actually contaminated the same water-bearing strata that fed the wells that provided much of the city's water. The stipulation requiring privies to be walled with hard brick appears to have been instigated out of concern for sanitation by preventing the seepage of vault materials into surrounding groundwater. This assumption is based on our own concept of sanitation. The specification associated with privy vault depth suggests that contaminating the ground water was not a primary concern prior to the comments of the Health Officer in 1880. It seems that the requirement of a hard brick lining had very little to do with sanitation. The ordinance did not provide any detail for the brick lining and left it open to interpretation by the vault builders. Through archaeological evidence, the liberties that privy vault builders took with the brick lining are evident. All of the brick-lined privies excavated were dry-laid. No matter how tight the bond was, liquid would still seep through the vault walls unless they were plastered. The plaster used in the construction of water cisterns is a case in point. Cisterns were often constructed of dry-laid brick, but based on the five cisterns excavated in the Highland Park and Russell neighborhoods, all cisterns were plastered on the inside to make them water tight (Stottman and Granger 1993; Stottman and Watts-Roy 1995). It was common knowledge to plaster a brick vault to make it water tight, according to city specifications for the construction of public cisterns (LMR 1871:19). In addition to the vaults being dry-laid and not plastered, privy vault builders frequently used fragmented bricks and non-building grade bricks, leaving gaps in the vault walls. Just as it was a common practice to tap into the water strata, based on archaeological data, it was probably a common practice to leave gaps in the vault walls to allow seepage .

The privy vault builders also interpreted the requirement for a privy to be "walled with hard brick" quite literally (LCC 1884:289). In all of the brick-lined privies analyzed, none of them had a paved floor. The walls of the vaults were brick-lined, but the bottom of the privy vault ended in the exposed subsoil (Figure 9). Aside from seepage of vault contents through the brick work, seepage was probably most prevalent through the bottom of these vaults . Although much of the solid waste in the privies would have been filtered by the soil, the unseen waterborne diseases could have easily entered the water supply. Overall, the requirements of the ordinance were certainly not sanitary by our standards; instead they encouraged the pollution of ground water in order to keep offensive materials from sight and smell, which were the sanitary concerns of the day. If the requirement for brick lining were not for sanitary reasons , then what was the purpose of it? It is unclear why the vaults were required to be brick-lined, but a plausible explanation may be for safety reasons by providing a more stable vault. Before the ordinance, wood-lined privy vaults were common (Stottman 1999). Brick vaults would be more stable and last longer. Wood vaults were more likely to rot and were not as strong, thus, more likely to collapse, creating a very dangerous situation. Despite the advantages of a brick-lined vault, this stipulation in the ordinance was probably not required out of sanitary concern.

Figure 9. privy.

Unpaved floor of a Russell neighborhood

56

HISTORICALARCHAEOLOGY34(1)

Although the people of Highland Park were first time. These once rural residents may have not required to brick their privy vaults, they seem brought some of their rural habits and perceptions to have preferred the practice. Only one privy with them. As previously mentioned, many of discovered in Highland Park was wood-lined and the residents used their houselots like small farms, it was later replaced by a brick vault elsewhere on raising small animals and growing their own food the lot. The people of Highland Park may have (Huyhn 1990:146). This type of activity was not preferred the stability of a brick vault. As for uncommon on urban houselots because of the the depth preference, some residents of Highland growing urban populations (Stewart-Abernathy Park preferred a deep vault while others preferred 1986). These residents may have brought their a shallower vault. Without a requirement for perception of sanitation with them as well. Their depth, some people in the Russell neighborhood perception of sanitation was probably very similar may have preferred more shallow privies too. to the "out of sight, out of mind" philosophy, but The only pre-ordinance privy discovered in the they would have dealt with sanitary problems in Russell neighborhood was below the required a different way. On the farm there was ample room to dispose of waste away from view or depth. Certainly economics was a large factor in the smell and to relocate a privy when it became full construction of privy vaults. A deep vault would (Wynn 1959; Larkin 1988; Barlow 1989). Since have required more money to construct than a the privy could be moved and most privies on the shallow one. It is possible that the shallower farm were built by the resident, the shallow depth privies in Highland Park were possibly constructed of some Highland Park privies could reflect this by the residents and not a professional vault cultural difference. It appears that the perception builder, as evidenced by the use of re-used of sanitation was not necessarily different, but the brick in construction (Huynh 1990:106; Stottman manner of dealing with sanitation was. Space 1995:331). The hard clays of Highland Park was limited on the urban houselot, thus, rather would have made privy vault digging difficult. than build a new privy vault, the vault had to These same clay soils also made the leaching be cleaned regularly. Archaeolog ical evidence of privy contents into the surrounding soil much suggests that some residents in Highland Park more difficult than the sandy soils of the Rus- changed the location of their privy, but they sell neighborhood. Although the privies were seemed to change the location only once. Most constructed with the ability to leach privy contents, privies, however, have evidence of cleaning, archaeological evidence, such as the lack of suggesting that after a move, cleaning became staining in the surrounding soil, suggests that the more appropriate means to deal with full very little leaching actually occurred. Thus, the privies. At conflict with the "out of sight, out of Highland Park privies may not have drained as the people may have anticipated. The privies of mind," sanitary philosophy was the location of the Highland Park would have needed more frequent privy vault relative to the house. Comfort and cleaning, which made them inexpensive for the convenience were strong factors that influenced short term cost of construction but more expensive the location of a privy. Many people did not over a longer period of time in maintenance. relish hiking a long distance to the privy in cold Although the more shallow privies were probably weather (Wynn 1959; Strasser 1982:94; Arnold built due to a lack of money and it was then not 1983:44; Larkin 1988:160). A privy located close considered to be as sanitary as deeper vaults, in to the house, however, brought offensive materials reality these vault were actually more sanitary. closer to sensory range. In the case of both the Economics could also explain the previously Highland Park and Russell neighborhoods, the mentioned wide spread use of re-used brick in location of privies tended to be towards the back the construction of the Highland Park privy vaults portion of the houselot or along the side property (Stottman 1995:331). boundaries. The Chamber's Encyclopedia (1881) Another factor may have been the background suggests that the privy be located in the northeast of the people who lived in Highland Park. Many comer of the lot, in other words down wind for of these residents had moved from the rural areas most houselots. Archaeological evidence bears of Kentucky, experiencing urban living for the little evidence that this suggestion was followed in

Stottman--PRIVY ARCHITECTURE

either the Russell or Highland Park neighborhood (Figures 7 and 8). For many urban houselots the northeast corner of the lot was in the front yard. In most cases the furthest point on an urban houselot was at the rear of the lot, thus most privies were kept in that area (Huyhn 1990:144). Although all of the privies investigated were located in the rear yard, some of the Russell privies were located along the lot boundaries near the dwelling, while some Highland Park privies were located in the center and along the side boundaries of the lot near the dwelling. This pattern may suggest that some people in Highland Park and Russell preferred convenience over olfactory comfort. The Kentucky Board of Health recommended that privies be located at least 100 ft. (30 m) from a water source (Kaufman 1891). The archaeological evidence from the Russell neighborhood indicates that the average distance between the cisterns and the privies was only 33 ft. (IO m). The longest distance was only 58 ft. (18 m) (Table 9). Although cisterns were water tight, they were still susceptible to contamination from surface water and overflowing privies. The spatial pattern between cisterns and privies in Russell may have been determined primarily by the limited amount of space on the houselot. The average length of a houselot was 125 ft. (38 m) in Highland Park and 185 ft. (56 m) in Russell, which left little room for a dwelling and privies that were the required distance from a water source. The state regulation governing the distance from water source to privy was probably intended for rural areas because most urban areas were gradually phasing out privies by the time the regulation was written. Regardless, it seems that the prevailing perceptions of sanitation held by the general public were not concerned about privies being too close to water sources. Conclusion

This analysis of privy vault architecture provides information concerning sanitation, and when combined with the historical documentation, reveals much about the perception of sanitation in late 19th and early 20th-century Louisville. Privy vault construction , location, and the ordinances governing them were influenced by an "out of

57

sight, out of mind" philosophy of sanitation. The people who constructed these privies did not understand the invisible dangers of their construction technique and were guided by a different perception of sanitation than our own. Through a contextual analysis of privy architecture, it is possible to see the material manifestations of a perception of sanitation and the human behaviors associated with it. This analysis suggests that the general public's out of sight, out of mind perception of sanitation was slow to change, even though city officials and legislators began to recognize the dangers of this perception by the 1890s. Privies, however, may have attained some symbolic meaning of sanitation to those who had used them for so long. Privies had become a cultural institution, from which stories , jokes, myths, and folklore were created (Horan 1996). A change in the perception of sanitation concerning the privy itself would have meant the complete abandonment of the privy system with a connection to a sanitary sewer. With an old institution like privies, however, the beliefs and meanings associated with them are strong in resisting change. The cost of connecting to a sewer was also an important factor that prevented change in the privy system. In the case of Louisville, privies were still the primary system for disposing of excrement as late as 1936, even though sewers had been consistently constructed since 1850 and were available to most residents by the 1880s. By 1917, an ordinance stipulating that households must connect to a sewer, where available, was enacted but only lightly enforced (LCC 1941). The lots investigated in the Russell neighborhood hooked-up to sewers between 1900 and 1940, while it was not until after the 1920s that Highland Park lots connected to sewers. Even though some wealthy residents purchased toilets and water closets, they were still not connected to the sewer. These innovations in sanitation simply emptied into the privy or cesspool. Two privies in the Russell neighborhood showed evidence of this when sewer pipes from the house were discovered leading into the privy. The wall of the vaults had been punctured to allow the pipes access to the vault. While this situation may have provided more comfort to wealthier individuals, it did not improve sanitation.

58

HISTORICALARCHAEOLOGY34( 1)

It seems that Louisvillians had an obsession with their privies. This obsession was probably not created from the love of trekking out to the privy on a cold morning or being attacked by the various creatures that often lived in the privy, but it was most likely out of factors often beyond their control (Wynn 1959; Barlow 1989). More than likely, the privy system lasted as long as it did because it was too expensive to change (Lucas 1936). Political inaction, complacency, and a misguided perception of sanitation kept the public from investing the money to upgrade their waste disposal systems. While this paper is focused on the interpretation of privy architecture through the context of sanitation and ordinance compliance, it is recognized that many factors can affect privy vault architecture and the way people perceive of sanitation, i.e., economics, ethnicity, class, and time. The approach presented in this paper is but one way to understand human behavior from archaeological data. This paper is just a small step in understanding the complexities of culture. Perhaps, other factors that affect privy architecture, the perception of sanitation, and other facets of culture can investigated in the same way.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank Dr. Kim A. McBride and Dr. W. Stephen McBride for their support and guidance. Thanks to Jeff Watts-Roy for our insightful discussions and to my colleagues in this volume for their comments . I am also appreciative of the guidance provided by Dr. Tom Dillehay and Dr. Richard Jefferies. A special thanks to the University of Louisville Archives, the Filson Club Historical Society, and the Jefferson County Office of Historic Preservation and Archives for their aid in constructing a sanitary context of Louisville. And, finally, to Dr. Joseph Granger and all the crew members on these two projects who recovered such a wonderful data set.

BARLOW, RONALD S.

1989 The Vanishing American Outhou se. Cajon, CA. BRYANT, DOUGLAS D.

1988 A Stylistic Approach to the Study of Privies. American

Archaeology 7(1):66-76. BU CK, CARL E .

1935 Survey and Appraisal of the Health Activities and Needs of Louisville.

American Public Health Association,

University of Louisville Archives, Louisville, KY. BUSHMAN, RICHARD

L., AND CLAUDIA L. BUSHMAN

1988 The Early History of Cleanliness in America.

The

Journal of American History 74:1213-1238. CALE, BRUCE

1985 Privy Construction in Zanesville, Ohio. In Proceedings

of the Symposium on Ohio Valley Urban and Historic Archaeology, Donald B. Ball and Philip J. DiBlasi , editors, 3: 165-171. Archaeological Survey, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY. CASSEDAY, B EN

1970 The History of Louisville From Its Earliest Settlement Till the Year 1852. Reprint of 1852 edition. Clark Press, Louisville, KY.

G. R.

CHAMBER'S EN CYCLOPEDIA

1881 Chambers' Encyclopedia: A Dictionary of Universal

Knowledge for the People, Vol. 8. J. B. Lippincott and Co., Philadelphia, PA. DETMETER, STEPHAN C.

1994 19th-Century Sanitation Technology in Urban Detroit.

The Michigan Archaeologist 40(1):1-24. DOUGLAS, MARY

1966 Purity and Danger:

An Analysis of the Concepts

of Pollution and Taboo. MA.

REFERENCES

Windmill, EI

Ark Paperbacks, Boston,

ARNOLD, EL EANOR (EDITOR)

DOUGLAS, MARY ( EDITOR)

1983 Party Lines, Pumps, and Privies: Memories of Hoosier

1982 Essays in the Sociology of Perception. Routledge and Keagan, Paul, Boston, MA.

Homemakers.

In Hoosier Homemakers Through the

Years, an Oral History Project of The Indiana Extension Homemakers Association. Indiana University Press, Bloomington .

ENGLISH, JUDITH HART

1972 Louisville's 19th Century Suburban Growth: Parkland, Crescent Hill , Cherokee Triangle, Beechmont, and

59

Stottman--PRIVY ARCHITECTURE

Highland Park. Masters thesis, Department of Humanities, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY.

to The Louisville and Jefferson County Regional Airport Authority, Louisville, KY, from the University of Louisville Program of Archaeology, Louisville, KY.

FRYKMAN, JO NAS

1987 Clean and Proper. In Culture Builders: A Historical Anthropology oj Middle Class Life, Alan Crozier,

KAUFMAN, LEO

1891 Builder 's and Trader's Exchange HandbookJor Louisville

translator, Jonas Frykrnan and Orvar Lofgren, editors,

1891.

pp. 157-264. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ.

KY. KEMP,

GEISMAR , JOAN H.

1993 Where is the Night Soil? Thoughts on an Urban Privy.

Historical Archaeology 27(2):42-70.

Filson Club Historical Society, Lou isville,

JANET E.

1909 Report of the Tenement House Commission of Louisville. The University of Louisville Archives, Louisville, KY.

GIDDENS, ANTHONY

KENNEDY, J. C . G. (EDITOR)

1979 Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure,

1856 The Progress oj the Republic .

and Contradiction in Social Analysis. University of California Press, Berkeley.

W. M Morrison &

Co., Washington, DC. KENTUCKY BOARD OF H EALTH

GRANGER, JOSEPH

E.

1991 Arkys in the Hood: Russell Neighborhood Approach as Urban Archaeology. Manuscript, Department of

1919 Bulletin oj the State Board oj Health in Kentucky.

Filson Club Historical Society, Louisville, KY.

E., AND JOSEPH E. GRANGER

Anthropology, University of Louisville, Louisville,

KRAMER , CARL

KY.

1991 The Second Interim Report: A Historical Background

KARL 1987 Bricks and Brickmaking: A Handbook for Historical Archaeology. University of Idaho Press, Moscow.

GURCKE,

Study for Phase I Archaeological Resource Evaluation in the Russell Neighborhood of the City of Louisville, Jefferson County, Kentucky. Report to Louisville Department of Housing and Urban Development, Louisville, KY from Archaeology Resources Consultant

HEDGEPETH, MARY POYNTER

Services.

1989 Environmental Assessment for the Louisville Airport Improvement Program: Working Paper No.8, Subtask

LARKIN, JACK

16, Historical Resources . Report to the Louisville and Jefferson County Regional Airport Authority, Louisville, KY.

1988 The Reshaping oj Everyday Life: 1790-1840. Harper and Row, New York, NY . LOUISVILLE CITY CODE BOOK (LCC)

HORAN, JULIE

L.

1996 The Porcelain God, A Social History oj the Toilet.

Birch Lane Press, Carol Publishing Group, Secaucus, NJ.

1884 Listing of Ordinances University of Louisville 1919 List ing of Ordinances University of Louisville

for the City of Louisville. Archives, Louisville, KY. for the City of Louisville. Archives, Louisville, KY.

1941 Listing of Ordinances for the City of Louisville. HOWSON, JEAN

University of Louisville Archives, Louisville, KY.

1992 The Archaeology of 19th-Century Health and Hygiene at the Sullivan Street Site in New York City. Northeast

LoUISVILLE

Historical Archaeology 21-22:137-160.

1832-1850Louisville City Directories. University of Louisville

CITY DIRECTORIES

Archives, Louisville, KY. HUYNH, HONG PHAN

1990 Historical Interview Data. In Environmental Assessment for the Louis ville Airport Impro vement Program, Working Paper No 9, Sub task 17, Archaeological Resources, Philip J. DiBlasi, editor, pp. 88-157. Report

LOUISVILLE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

1937 Annual Report of Public Health, Louisville Kentucky. University of Louisville Archives, Louisville, KY.

60

HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 34(1)

LOUISVILLE MUNICIPAL REpORTS (LMR)

ROB ERTS, DANIEL , AND DAVID BARRETT

1866-1916 Louisville Municipal Reports, Project 55. University

1984 Nightsoil Disposal Practices of the 19th Century and

of Louisville Archives, Louisville, KY. L UCAS, C .

the Or igin of Artifacts in Plowzone Proveniences. Historical Archaeology 18(1):108-115.

1. P

1936 City Health Periled by Pit-Vaults. Louisville Herald

Post. 30 June. Louisville, KY.

S TEWART-ABERNATHY, LES LIE C .

1986 Urban Farmsteads: Household Responsibilities in the City. Historical Archaeology 20:5-15.

McALESTER, VIRGINIA, AND LE E M cALESTER

1988 A Field Guide to American Houses. Alfred A. Knopf,

New York, NY.

STOTTMAN, M. JAY

1995 Towards a Greater Understanding of Privy Vault Architecture.

M cBRIDE, W. STEPHEN

1993 Archaeological Test Excavations at Ten Sites in the Russell Neighborhood, Louisville, Kentucky. University of Kentucky Program for Cultural Resource Assessment,

Archaeological Report 326. Lexington, KY.

Frankfort. 1999 Archaeological Investigations at the Louisville Convention Center Expansion Site. Report to the Commonwealth of Kentucky Department of Finance, Lexington, from Kentucky Archaeological Survey, Lexington.

M CKEE, HARL EY J.

1973 Introduction to Early Am erican Masonry:

Stone.

Brick. Mortar. and Plaster. National Trust for Historic Preservation and Columbia University, The Preservation Press, Washington DC.

STOTTMAN, M. JAY, AND JOSEPH E . GRA NGER

1993 The Archaeology of Louisville's Highland Park Neighborhood : Jefferson County Kentucky. Report to the Loui sville and Jefferson County Regional Airport Authority, Louisville, KY, from Archaeological Resources

MONTRJE, C HADWICK

1996 A Path to Reform :

In Historical Archaeology in Kentucky,

Kim A. McBride, Stephen McBride, and David Pollack, editors, pp. 316-335 . Kentucky Heritage Council,

Confront ing the Garbage Crisis

in Louisville, 1865-1873. Quarterly 70(1):27-38.

Consultant Services, Louisville, KY.

The Filson Club History STOTTMAN, M . JAY, AND JEFF WATTS-RoY

1995 Archaeology in Louisville's Russell Neighborhood: PL ECK, ELIZABETH

1979 Black Migration and Poverty :

Boston 1865-1900.

Academic Press, New York, NY.

Jefferson County, Kentucky. Report to Louisville Department of Housing and Urban Development, Louisville, KY, from Archaeological Resources Consultant Services, Louisville, KY.

RApOPORT, AMOS

1990 The Meaning of the Built Environment:

Communication Approach. Press, Tucson.

Nonverbal University of Arizona

L., AND C ULLEN M URPHY The Archaeology of Garbag e. Perennial Press, New York, NY.

1982 Never Done:

A History of Am erican Housework . Pantheon Books, New York, NY.

TARR, JO EL A.

RATHJ E, WILLIAM

1992 Rubbish !:

STRASSER. S USAN

Harper

1976 Out of Sight, Out of Mind. American History Illustrated 10(9):40-47.

REYN OLDS, REGINOLD

WHITE, J OHN R .

1946 Cleanliness and Godliness. Doubleday and Company,

1994 Well s as Artifacts.

New York, NY.

The Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 19(1):39-70.

Stotlman--PRIVY ARCHITECTURE

WYNN, MAKIN 1959 OfPots and Privies. William W. Delinger, Middlesburg, VA. YATER , GEORGE

1987 Two Hundred Years at the Falls of the Ohio. Filson

Club Historical Society, Louisville, KY.

61 YOUNG, AMY L. 1990 Reconstruction Class Structure for 1910 Highland Park. In Environmental Assessment for the Louisville Airport Improvement Program, Working Paper No.9, Subtask 17, edited by Philip J. DiBlasi, pp. 158-171. Report to the Louisville and Jefferson County Regional Airport Authority,Louisville,KY, fromthe Universityof Louisville Program of Archaeology, Louisville, KY. M. JAY STOTIMAN UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY KENTUCKY ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY 1020A EXPORT STREET LEXINGTON, KY 40506-9854