The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity 9781407309552, 9781407339368

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Dedication
CONTENTS
NOTE OF THANKS
INTRODUCTION
THE BATH IN BRONZE AGE GREECE AND IN THE HOMERIC EPICS
CHRONOLOGICAL AND TYPOLOGICAL ISSUES INTHE STUDY OF ROMAN BATHS IN ITALY
A SYMMETRICAL PRESENTATION OF THE GREEK AND ROMAN BATHING TRADITIONS ON THE BASIS OF THE STUDY OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REMAINS OF HELLADIC SPACE
HELLENIZATION AND ROMANIZATION OF THE ROMAN AND GREEK BATHING TRADITIONS RESPECTIVELY
CATALOGUE OF BATHS IN THE PELOPONNESE
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL CATALOGUE OF SITES WITH BATHING INSTALLATIONS
PLATES
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Citation preview

BAR S2368 2012

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity The Peloponnese

WASSENHOVEN THE BATH IN GREECE IN CLASSICAL ANTIQUITY: THE PELOPONNESE

B A R Wassenhoven 2368 cover.indd 1

Maria-Evdokia Wassenhoven

BAR International Series 2368 2012 19/04/2012 13:27:23

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity The Peloponnese

Maria-Evdokia Wassenhoven

BAR International Series 2368 2012

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 2368 The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity © M-E Wassenhoven and the Publisher 2012 COVER IMAGE

Baths of Zevgolateio, Peloponnese (after Ginouvès)

The author's moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781407309552 paperback ISBN 9781407339368 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407309552 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2012. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

E MAIL P HONE F AX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

To my parents

CONTENTS Preface

ii

Catalogue of baths in the Peloponnese

Introduction

1

Bibliographical catalogue of other sites with bathing installations 147

Introductory notes The theoretical framework of the study Hellenization and Romanization On architectural taxonomy The intellectual inheritance of Réné Ginouvès in the study of baths On spatiality Summary

1 2 4 7 16 17 20

The bath in Bronze Age Greece and in the Homeric epics

21

Introductory notes The bath in the Minoan civilization The bath in the Mycenaean civilization The bath in the Homeric epics

21 22 26 28

Chronological and typological issues in the study of Roman baths in Italy

33

Introductory notes The architectural development of Roman baths The typological classification of Roman baths The spaciality of the bath Summary

34 34 44 45 46

A symmetrical presentation of the Greek and Roman bathing traditions on the basis of the study of the architectural remains of Helladic space

47

The Greek bathing tradition: The urban countryside, the fountain, the gymnasium, the public bath, the house, the place and the sanctuary The Roman bathing tradition: The gymnasium, the baths, the house and the sanctuary Summary

Hellenization and Romanization of the Roman and Greek bathing traditions respectively Introductory notes The origins of the Roman bathing tradition The Romanization of the bath in Greece The long term development of the bath in Greece

47 74 96

99 99 99 102 103

111

Illustrations

151

Korinthia Argolida Eleia Arkadia Achaea Lakonia Messenia

151 187 221 253 259 271 279

Abbreviations

285

Bibliography

287

NOTE OF THANKS The present work resulted from my PhD thesis which was accepted in November 2008 by the School of Architecture of the National Technical University of Athens. I would like to thank my supervisor Professor M. Korres for the honor of supervising my thesis and for his invaluable advice and guidance. I would also like to thank the Greek State Scholarship Foundation (IKY) and the National Technical University of Athens for the scholarships which enabled me to complete my research. I thank Torsten Bessel to whom I owe the illustrations of my thesis and of the present work. I would like to thank Professor V. Lambrinoudakis, Professor D. Karidis, Professor P. Tournikiotis and Professor V. Ganiatsas for their advice. I would also like to thank Dr A. Farrington, Dr G. Ladstätter, Dr S. Lucore and M. Manidakis for their assistance and advice. Finally I thank my editor, David Davison, for including my research into B.A.R. International Series. I would like to finish by adding that I owe the great pleasure of being able to work in my chosen field of architectural history to my country Greece and I hope that love and dedication to its people and heritage will help overcome all present difficulties. April 2012

Introduction

INTRODUCTION

the reader to the general themes which will appear in the present study. In these passages the function of the bath, the interaction of different cultural traditions, the meaning of origin and of long term cultural phenomena are illuminated. In the following chapters we will attempt to describe the transformations and interactions which took place in the area of bath practices and bath architecture during a long period of time. The phenomena of Hellenization and Romanization figured from the outset as central to the research. In short, the study is an attempt to bring together the general history of a long period of time and the specific developments which took place in the field of bath architecture in a given geographical area.

Introductory notes Pray that yours will be a long voyage; and that there will be many summer mornings when you arrive – very gladly, and with the most grateful thanks – arrive at havens not known to you before. Drop anchor at Phoenician trading-ports and acquire beautiful wares, mother-of-pearl, coral, amber and ebony, and pleasurable perfumes of every kind, the most you can, amass the perfumes of pleasure. You will go to many cities of the Egyptians, and learn, learn from those who know.1

The structure of the study follows a rationale of connecting successive but also autonomous chapters which resulted from the basic classification of cultural traditions described later on in the introduction. The objectives of the study, the research hypothesis, the basic elements of the phenomena of Hellenization and Romanization and of the historical backbone of the period under question, the problem of classification in the study of architecture, the intellectual inheritance of Réné Ginouvès in the study of the baths and the key concept in the present work, that of ‘spatiality’, are described in the introductory chapter.

Ainsi, comme les principes du chauffage, les fonctions principales du bain romain étaient connues dans l’ établissement de Gortys, puisqu’ on y trouvait, bien que dans des proportions différentes, le bain de propreté, le bain par immersion, et l’ étuve pour la sudation. Le bain à hypocauste d’ Olympie présente l’ étape suivante, avec la vasque et la piscie reunies dans la même salle, au-dessus d’ un hypocauste complet. Le rôle des Romains fut de concentrer les dispositifs, en poussant plus loin l’ analyse des fonctions, et de les harmoniser à leurs gouts moins «sportifs». 2

The aim of Chapter 1 (The bath in Bronze Age Greece and in the Homeric epics) is the description and classification of the different bathing traditions which appeared in the Greek territory before the 6th century BC, when the first relevant evidence becomes present [or appears] in the archaeological record. However, the intention is not simply to link the Greek bathing tradition with its historical substratum and its remote past, but rather to investigate and present synoptically the spatiality of the bath in different cultural systems. The chapter contains a presentation of the methodological problems faced by the author and a description of the bath in the Minoan and Mycenaean civilizations and in the Homeric epic poems. It is here that the problems of taxonomy and interpretation of bathing facilities start to be explored. The paucity of written sources and archaeological findings with respect to these periods makes the understanding of the function of baths difficult. As a result, their spatial organization remains enigmatic and open to diverse hypotheses.

On assisterait donc, dans l’ histoire du bain, à une sorte de mouvement de va-et-vient: le bain par immersion, de propreté et de délassement à la fois, courant à l’ époque préhellénique et archaïque, est peu à peu remplacé par le bain de propreté classique et hellénistique, pris dans une cuve plate, et qui toujours précédait le bain de délassement; puis, vers l’ époque romaine, le bain par immersion se répand de plus en plus, à cause de son agrément, et on tend à retrouver l’ indifférenciation des fonctions, qui explique le développement des cuves individuelles pour le bain chaud; la reaction, dans le bain turc, sera d’ abandonner presque complètement l’ immersion, au profit des seules ablutions de propreté.3 The material cultures of the ancient Mediterranean, its artefacts, structures, settlements and landscapes, whatever the region and whatever the period, show the impact of the dense networks of exchange enabled by the Mediterranean sea, and spreading to the surrounding areas. ‘Connectivity’ takes multiple forms: the exchange of artefacts, materials, ideas, beliefs, technologies and styles; the movement of populations through migration, colonisation and slavery; the extension and contestation of zones of power within and between which exchange could be enabled or restricted.4

The evolution of bath architecture in Italy, the main characteristics of the Roman bathing tradition, the spatial configuration of the bath in the Roman culture and finally the different kinds of typological classifications used by scholars are described in Chapter 2 (Chronological and typological issues in the study of Roman baths in Italy), which forms a comparative background for the study of the Romanized bathing culture in Greece in Roman antiquity. The narration of the architectural development of bath architecture through the description of well known complexes in Italy is followed by a presentation of the various typologies and classifications of Roman baths found in the relevant literature.

The selection of introductory passages resulted, not from their significance in the debate concerning the development of the bath in antiquity, but in order to introduce 1 Kavafy, Ithaki, 13-23. 2 Ginouvès 1959, 167. 3 Ginouvès 1955, 152. 4 Description of the theme of the XVIIth International Congress of Classical Archaeology: Meetings between cultures in the Ancient Mediterranean (www.aiac.org/ing/congresso_2008/rome2008. htm) 1

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

In Chapter 3 (A symmetrical presentation of the Greek and Roman bathing traditions on the basis of the study of the architectural remains of Helladic space) the two basic bathing traditions which appear in Greece in classical antiquity are analyzed following the classification scheme which was described in the introductory chapter. The chapter is divided in two subchapters. The title of the first subchapter is “The Greek bathing tradition: The urban countryside, the fountain, the gymnasium, the public bath, the house, the palace and the sanctuary”. The intention is to describe the basic features of bathing practices and their spatial organization, which were earlier (Introductory chapter) grouped within the Greek tradition. This tradition can be subdivided into two technological classes, i.e. before and after the hypocaust. The main aim, beyond the description of the function (or art) of the bath itself, the temporal and geographical distribution of findings and the formulation of typological, technological and construction observations, was to describe the spatiality of the bathing tradition. The question posed, and later answered, belongs to the realm of the phenomenon of cultural influence, specifically of Romanization. The question therefore was whether and to what degree the spatiality of the bath in the Classical and Hellenistic periods was transformed after the Roman conquest. As to the second section of Chapter 3, which is symmetrical to the first, it is called “The Romanized bathing tradition: The gymnasium, the baths, the house and the sanctuary”.

and Romanization, the study’s theoretical framework and the research methodology are developed below.

The theoretical framework of the study The present study evolved out of an attempt to explore the mechanisms involved in the transformation of a social practice and its spatial context from one cultural, technological and architectural system to another in a given geographical area in classical antiquity. The practice we chose was that of the bath, the two main and overlapping cultural traditions were the Greek and the Roman5 and the two technological traditions are termed in the present study ‘before’ and ‘after the hypocaust’. The geographical area covered in the study is that of modern Greece with a more detailed analysis of the Peloponnese. The term classical antiquity refers to the long time span from the end of the sixth century BC to the sixth century AD6. Within the above geographical and chronological framework with references to the broader Mediterranean world we will describe the Greek and the Romanized tradition as well as a set of ‘transitional baths’7. The theoretical framework of the study grew out of two distinct needs, which became apparent in the first stages of research. The first need was that of finding a prior integrated theoretical paradigm of the constitution and evolution of the bath in antiquity, with which the author could enter into a dialogue. The second need was that of separating to a feasible extent the mechanism of classification and interpretation of buildings and spatial entities from the real dynamics of historical phenomena. The first demand was answered by resorting to basic theoretical positions derived from the extensive opus of René Ginouvès on the art of the bath.

In the fourth and last chapter (Hellenization and Romanization of the Roman and Greek bathing traditions respectively) the key issues of the Hellenization of the Roman bathing tradition, the Romanization of the bathing traditions of the Greek world and the long term evolution of the bath in antiquity are readdressed in the light of the present research. The purpose here is to draw conclusions with respect to the nature of cultural influence in the field of the “art of the bath” through the analysis of the physical object of the bath and the use of the analytical instruments of spatiality and typology.

The division of bathing installations into cultural entities (Greek-Roman) is very common in the relevant studies. The division, however, of baths into technological entities (before and after the invention of the hypocaust) was adopted by Yvon Thèbert in his study of the baths of North Africa and their Mediterranean context8. In Thèbert’s study the term ‘hypocaust’ (hypocauston) is used to describe the roman floor heating technology also termed suspensura which, according to the interpretation of the literary tradition by the majority of scholars, is identified with the

The description of the baths in the catalogue is divided into three subcatalogues: baths of the Greek tradition in the wider Greek world, baths of the Greek and romanized tradition in Greece and finally baths of the Greek and romanized tradition in the Peloponnese. During the first stages of the research we decided to treat with more detail the baths of the area of the Peloponnese because of the relative density of installations of both traditions which appear in the archaeological record. The initial organization of the material of the catalogues was based on contemporary geographical boundaries (state-region-settlement).

5 The term ‘Greek bathing tradition’ is used in the present study to describe the bathing tradition which appears in the archaeological record as characteristic of the Greek civilization. The term ‘Roman bathing tradition’ is used to describe the bathing traditions of the Italian peninsula and of the Roman provinces with no preexisting bathing tradition. The bathing tradition which is gradually formed in Greece after the Roman conquest is termed in the present study ‘Romanized bathing tradition’. 6 The subdivision of the main periods in Table 1 was utilized to produce a more detailed chronological classification of the bathing installations. 7 The term ‘transitional’ is used to describe the bathing facilities whose building phases belong to both Greek and Roman antiquity. 8 Thèbert 2003.

The Peloponnese was selected as a case study, first because the main bulk of excavated baths is concentrated there, as well as in Attica, and, secondly, because of the wide chronological spectrum of these baths from the classical to the late Roman period. The working hypothesis of the thesis, the key concepts of Hellenization 2

Introduction

balneae pensiles of Sergius Orata.

bathing traditions of Greece to the shaping of the Roman bathing tradition in Italy. The key elements of the research were the practice and art of the bath and its characteristics during the period under question, the Greek (Classical and Hellenistic) bathing tradition before the Roman conquest and the penetration of Roman influence in the Greek cities of Italy and later in the Orient, the Roman bathing tradition before and after the subjugation of the Greek world, the architectural remains of baths in Greece, with a more thorough analysis of the Peloponnese, the necessity of a consistent taxonomical method of building types and spatial elements and, finally, the cultural phenomena of Hellenization and Romanization and the relevant theoretical debate.

Figure 1 Greece and the Aegaean Period

Time span

Archaic

700-480 BC

Subdivision

The working hypothesis of the investigation was two-sided, in that it was structured by two complementary propositions of a cultural loan and counter-loan. The first proposition concerns the Greek bathing tradition and the hellenization of bathing traditions in the Italian peninsula. The initial hypothesis was that in the Greek tradition the character of the bath was on one hand private, or rather individual, with the exception of the gymnasium, and, on the other, transitional, i.e. bathing marked the passage between distinct activities and / or conditions. The reason why the practice of the bath in gymnasia was an exception is because it accompanied the collective activity of sport, an activity closely associated with the idea of the city-state. As a result what the Roman bathing tradition inherited from the Greek world was the institution of the gymnasium, on which was founded a typically Roman version and ideological construct of the gymnasium.

Abbreviation

A 480-450 BC C (T) (Transitional)

Classical

480-323 BC

Early Hellenistic

323-146 BC

Late Hellenistic (Early Roman)

146-30 BC

Roman

Late Roman

30 BC-285

285-610

450-400 BC

C

400-323 BC (Late Classical)

LC

323-196 BC

EH 1

196-146 BC

EH 2

146-86 BC

LH 1

86-31 BC

LH 2

31 BC-14

R1

14-96

R2

96-180

R3

180-285

R4

285-395

LR 1

395-476

LR 2

476-610

LR 3

The second proposition which fed into the stydy’s working hypothesis concerns the process of romanization. According to this proposition, in spite of the massive introduction of Roman bathing traditions into Greek space and construction of a large number of bath buildings, the practice of bathing in Greece maintained to a point its private character and its context of urban integration. By contrast, the claim made in the thesis is that although the full bundle of Roman bath technology was imported in Greece, the Roman version of the Greek gymnasium never reached a genuine raison d’ être in Italy.

Table 1 Chronological span of the research In the present study with the term ‘hypocaust’ we will refer to the whole of under-floor heating systems in antiquity belonging both to the Greek and Roman bathing traditions. As a result the classifications of baths in the present study into cultural (Greek-Roman) and technological traditions (before and after the hypocaust) do not coincide. It is of course obvious that the division between cultural and technological parameters in the development of the bath is completely artificial and that a synthetic approach must be chosen in any historical treatment of the subject. The basic aim of the research was the description and analysis of the Romanized tradition of the bath in Greece whose form was the result of both cultural and technological factors. A secondary aim was the investigation of the contribution of the

To sum up, the first hypothesis of the study was that the architecture of the bath in the Greek mainland in the Classical and Hellenistic periods did not influence significantly the development of the Roman bathing tradition, which was formed by wider Hellenistic traditions, outside Greece itself, Roman technologies and ideological constructions of the Greek gymnasium. The second hypothesis was that although a significant number of baths of the Romanized tradition are constructed in Greece, its bathing traditions resisted Romanization as they retained some characteristics of their past, such as the private and individual character of the bath and the urban context of the bathing structures. 3

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

Hellenization and Romanization

eastern Mediterranean basin and the inflow of slaves from the East accelerated the Hellenization movement13. The period of the Punic wars in 3rd century BC, during which a large part of military operations took place in South Italy and Sicily, brought Romans and Greeks even closer than in the past, a contact that increased the influx of Greek culture into Rome, usually mediated by Greek prisoners. The Greeks thus provided the context in which Roman cultural activity developed14. In 2nd century BC, the carriers of Greek cultural influence were slaves: Household slavery “provided one of the principal channels by which Greek culture came to Rome, supplying the city with its secretaries, teachers and doctors”15.

We have already made the point that the phenomena of cultural influence, more specifically those of Hellenization and Romanization, and the use of relevant concepts in research have a crucial significance in the context of the present study. We shall refer to four distinct phenomena which, in our judgement, we can relate productively to the evolution of baths, the early Hellenization of Italy, the ideological Hellenization of Rome, the Romanization of the provinces and the turn to Hellenicity in the 2nd century AD. The influence of Greek civilization and of Greek social and cultural standards is a vast subject, extensively studied in the past, which cannot be dealt with in the present study. Especially in the Italian peninsula, this influence started with Greek colonization, well before the emergence of Rome as an important power. The first to receive this influence were the Etruscans. The first genuine cities in Italy appear in 8th century BC with the Greek colonies. Cities were a central element in Etruscan social organization, possibly because of contacts with the Greeks9. Referring to the establishment of Greek cities in 7th and 6th centuries BC, Schuller stresses that colonization exerted great influence on non-Greek peoples and states in West and East. In his view, the extent to which the Greek model affected the structure of the Etruscan state is an open question, although the Etruscans adopted the Greek alphabet and imported Greek artefacts. Furthermore, the Greek presence in central Italy, as well as in Rome itself, is indisputable, not only according to legend, but also on the evidence of archaeological findings, in spite of the fact that in some cases the specific influence remains unclear10. In the city of Rome the influence of Greek knowhow is felt from an early stage. As Rostovtzeff points out, it was thanks to Greek technical achievements that living conditions were made more comfortable in Rome. It was in late 4th century BC that the first aqueduct was built, at the initiative of Appius Claudius Caecus11.

The “Hellenization movement”, mentioned by Lévêque, encountered resistance, to which we shall return later. In Lévêque’s view, certain suspicious critics tried in vain to put an end to it. Cato the Elder introduced legislation in this direction, but was himself keen in his old age to learn Greek. In 186 BC the Senate imposed strict limits on the festivities of the Bacchanalia, but failed to root out the worship of Bacchus (Dionysus) or to eradicate mystic rites. Ancient Rome was on the whole very tolerant to imported religious beliefs and rituals. The ban of 186 BC proved ultimately ineffective, in spite of the authorities’ fear that the cult of the god of ritual madness and ecstasy was dangerous and subversive16. Social and economic change in the years following the Punic wars, mostly in the second half of 2nd century BC, takes place in tandem with cultural change which is of immediate concern to the Greeks. As Rostovtzeff points out, the Romans were anxious to be recognized by the Greeks not only as the most important political power of the period, but also as a civilized state and as part of the Greek civilized world. Most influential Roman statesmen learnt Greek, possibly, at least initially, for practical purposes. Knowledge of Greek was the key for a closer contact with Greek literature and opened the possibility to elaborate historical narratives highlighting the contribution of Rome to world history17. In 2nd century BC, one of the most illustrious of Roman families that of the Scipios, was well known for its admiration for Greek culture, in sharp contrast with Cato the Elder18. Apart from Scipio Africanus, his adopted grandson Scipio Aemilianus had also received a Greek education. The “Scipionic circle”, Grant comments, “played a large role in the partially Hellenized Roman culture of the time”19.

In the early history of Italy, the influence, mainly cultural, of the Greeks was of decisive importance, because of their presence in South Italy and in Sicily12. Consequently, the effects of Greek culture were transmitted both via its influence on the Etruscans, and through the Hellenization of South Italy and Sicily, when the rise of power and territorial expansion brought Rome into close contact with these regions. As argued by Lévêque, Hellenization in Rome had been in operation from an early period, the two key moments being 343 BC, when a treaty with Capua turned Roman attention and interests towards an already Hellenized area, and 272 BC, when the conquest of Magna Graecia by the Romans was completed with the occupation of the city of Taras (Taranto). After this, the political and military contacts with the Greek world, the gradual conquest of the 9 10

11 12

The influence of the Greeks was not limited to the efforts of Roman Emperors to introduce into their own culture Greek letters and art. Political and democratic standards, especially those of Athens, were also a powerful influ13 14 15

Grant 1993, 141.

17

Rostovtzeff 1984, 112 – 113.

16

Stambaugh 1988, 243. Schuller 2001, 39.

Rostovtzeff 1984, 116. Alföldy 2002, 26.

18 19 4

Lévêque 2003, 222. Grant 1993, 90. Grant 1993, 128.

Alföldy 2002, 98 – 99. Grant 1993, 135.

Introduction

ence. Rostovtzeff reminds us that the radical reformer Gaius Sempronius Gracchus, who had been elected tribune (tribunus plebis) in 124 BC, had strived to transfer to a popular assembly the powers held by the Senate to decide on all important state affairs, or, in other words, had tried, albeit in vain, to establish in Rome a republic modelled on the Athenian prototype20. From an earlier stage, the poor classes of Rome derived their democratic aspirations through their contact with Greek traders. As Grant has remarked, the base of the latter in 5th century BC was the markets and wharves near the Aventine Hill in Rome and “it was to the Greeks that the poor of Rome, as of other places, looked for ideas of democracy”21. When, under the pressure of the plebeians, a commission of ten patricians (decemviri) was formed in 451 BC to write a new legal code, which came to be known as the Twelve Tables (lex duodecim tubularum), the models that the decemviri most probably had in mind were the laws of Greek cities, at least those of South Italy and Sicily, if not of Athens, which according to unconfirmed tradition they visited.22

The reaction against Greek customs and habits was directed, among others, at cultural standards related to physical exercise and the exposure of the naked male body in gymnasia, standards which were embraced by the Roman upper classes. Exercise before a meal was a habit adopted by 2nd century BC upper class Romans as an expression of the Greek way of life, endorsed much later by the physician Galen. Before exercise, in the palaestra or with a ball game, such as harpastum, they anointed their body with oil, and after exercise they took a bath. This did not deter the moralists of the day from considering the erection of luxurious baths and daily bathing as evidence of Hellenistic pollution of Roman mores25. It was not rare to look upon bathing as a symptom of decadence and to consider, like Seneca, that any bodily pleasure should be condemned26. The views of these moralizers were probably due to the perception that baths had a Greek origin27. Reaction was both poisonous and contradictory. Statesmen like Cato were convinced that an eventual victory of Greek culture entailed terrible threats to Roman society and spoke with contempt for the Greeks. But ultimately they were unable to escape their influence28. Furthermore, reactionary attitudes against this influence went hand in hand with ultra- conservative and authoritarian positions. In Alföldy’s view nothing exemplifies better the myopic attitude of several distinguished persons of 2nd century BC Roman ruling class than the views of Marcus Porcius Cato. On one hand, Cato supported the adaptation of the ruling classes to new forms of economy, based on a plantation and slavery system, investment and speculation. On the other, he insisted on the preservation of old Roman virtues, especially frugality and modest living, and viewed Greek philosophy and other achievements of the Greek mind, e.g. scientific medicine, as incompatible with Roman ideals29. Cato believed that Greek culture and habits, even beard shaving, were degenerate and would destroy Roman tradition. He was in addition well known for his contempt for women30.

The concentration of power, which started with the various dictators of 1st century BC to reach its climax under the Principatus, eroded gradually, especially when it became blatantly arbitrary, the cohesion, strength and values of the traditional ruling class of Rome. The influence of the conquered Greek provinces also contributed to the erosion of Roman social values. According to Alföldy, in the final analysis, the so-called “revenge of the defeated” consisted of the effect of that most dangerous for Rome cultural current, Greek philosophy, which had tremendous appeal among the social class which acted as the guardian of ancestral morals, particularly the ruling aristocracy and the clan of the Scipios. For the enlightened aristocracy, Alföldy argues, Greek philosophy did not appear as an ideological peril, but rather as a vehicle to legitimize their own dominant position and as an opportunity to secure world supremacy. However, the foremost effect of this influence was to shatter the traditional order of Roman society23. An anti-Greek reaction emerges in Rome in 2nd century BC, of which Cato the Elder is the main spokesman. It is worth remembering, that this is the period of final and total subjugation of Greece. The resistance of the Achaean League is crashed in 146 BC by the Roman general Lucius Mummius in the battle of Leucopetra, near the Isthmus of Corinth. Mummius then proceeded to lay waste the city of Corinth. After these tragic events, the south of Greece was placed under the jurisdiction of the Roman Proconsul of the province of Macedonia, without acquiring the status of a separate province, until much later. This is evidence of its low status in the eyes of Roman authorities. Some of its cities were considered as Roman allies, and had the privilege, in contrast to Macedonia, of tax exemption24. 20 21 22 23 24

The first imperial period, that of Augustus, bears the mark of the dynamic and rising Roman society, the strength of which reaches its apogee. It is in the years of Augustus and Tiberius, according to Bengtson31, that we can see the clear domination of this trend. During the reign of the following emperors (Caligula, Claudius and Nero), Rome receives the impact of prevailing Hellenism, which inundates the centre of the Empire for the first time. Typical evidence of this phenomenon, including Nero’s obsession with Greekness, can be found in the transplantation of the Greek language, the finances of the state, and specifically Hellenistic ideas and concepts in the imperial court. Alongside these 25 Balsdon 2004, 26 – 27, 163 and 166 and Stambaugh 1988, 203. 26 Balsdon 2004, 32. 27 Stambaugh 1988, 202. 28 Rostovtzeff 1984, 114. 29 Alföldy 2002, 120. 30 Grant 1993, 131. 31 Bengtson 1991, 469.

Rostovtzeff 1984, 122. Grant 1993, 62. Grant 1993, 64 – 65. Alföldy 2002, 118 – 119. Rostovtzeff 1984, 95. 5

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

developments, the authoritarianism of the state is being intensified and provokes the open resistance not only of Roman senatorial circles but also of the Greeks, especially in the eastern provinces. Intellectuals, philosophers and educated individuals in Greek society were the main carriers of resistance32.

and the Greek past became a concern for the members of the upper classes of the imperial 2nd century, during the so-called Second Sophistic. “Since Herodotus (at least) the definition of Greekness (over and against the barbarian other) is a familiar aspect of Greek self-reflection ... Yet for all this and long and intricate history, the Roman Empire radically affects the possibilities of what Greekness might imply”37. Goldhill’s interest is focused on cultural identity, a property composed of two concepts, culture and identity, the definition of which is the source of intense disagreements. According to Goldhill, ‘cultural identity’ … is to be taken to imply something more than national, racial or ethnic identification: indeed, before the nation state, and where ethnicity seems not to depend on race and religion, (self-)representation has importantly different contours. ‘Cultural identity’ should be taken here first to mark a set of questions about the formulation of the subject within Empire society … What forms of affiliation, identification and exclusion structure self-representation? How is an idea of Greekness projected and contested? ”38. The answers to these questions, argues Goldhill, are extremely complex, and cannot be found in surviving “explicit statements about the Roman Empire or power or Greekness”. He adds, that “the rhetoric of such self-representation is intricate, veiled and far from self-evident”39. What is certain is that the attitude of each subject with regard to his Greek historical past affects his cultural identity. This attitude however, in the context of the Empire, is not solely a matter of origin, but of other cultural determinants too, such as language.

The authoritarian nature of the Empire is manifested with fluctuations, which often depend on individual emperors. The weight of Greece and of the Eastern provinces within the Empire, in relation to the West, is considerably increased under Emperors Trajan (98 – 117 AD) and Hadrian (117 – 138 AD). The latter’s philhellenic feelings are of special significance. Bengtson speaks of the sun of imperial favour which shines on Hellenic lands, so rich in classical heritage, with the result that Hellenism enjoys a cultural and material renaissance, which was never to be repeated in the imperial period. Material welfare, which lasted until the outbreak of epidemics during the reign of Marcus Aurelius (161 – 180 AD), could only be compared, according to Bengtson, with that experienced by the Greeks of the East under the rule of Alexander the Great. As Alexander had opened new horizons for the Greeks, with his conquests and city building, so Trajan and Hadrian eased the spread of Hellenization and secured its dominance in the East, on a scale not encountered since the days of Pompey33. Hadrian was one of the most important emperors of 2nd century AD and his contacts with the Greeks, especially Athens, make him an outstanding figure from our perspective. As Rostovtzeff remarks, he had great admiration for, and knowledge about, art. He sponsored intense building activity in Rome and the provinces and Athens owes him the erection of splendid edifices34. Yet it is exactly during his reign that the most vituperative attack is launched against the “Little Greeks” (Graeculi) and the infectious effect of Hellenism on Roman traditional virtues and morals. It appears in a satire by Juvenal, in which a Roman countryman is described as infected by Greek habits, through an allegory of the river Orontes which supposedly discharges sewage into the river Tiber. In one of his verses, Juvenal attacks Greek intellectuals, whom he describes as Graeculi35. Hadrian himself, well known for his love of Greek culture and emulation of Greek habits, e.g. in his personal behaviour and demeanour, was nicknamed Graeculus36. We shall return to the issue of Greek influence on Rome, to discuss the dichotomy which became known as “Rom oder Orient”. But we shall close this section with a reference to the important essays of Simon Goldhill and Tim Whitmarsh on the interaction and dialectical relationship between Greekness and Romanness in 2nd c.AD, when classical Athens was a mere distant memory and Roman domination seemed unmoveable and diachronic. Using examples from literary and epigraphic material, Goldhill sketches the various ways in which links with Hellenicity 32 33 34 35 36

In another essay, contained in the same volume, Whitmarsh explores cultural identity through the concept and metaphor of exile and expatriation, as appearing in texts of writers of the Second Sophistic (1st - 2nd century AD), i.e. of Gaius Musonius Rufus, an Italian of Etruscan extraction and member of the equestrian order, the Greek Dio of Prusa (or Dio Chrysostom) and Favorinus, from Gaul. A common element in their work is Greek education and the use of Attic Greek40. Whitmarsh argues that “the Greek literature of the early principate sites itself linguistically, stylistically and thematically within and against the literary tradition of democratic Athens” and that “this process of self-definition against the classical past extends from literary fashioning to political revisionism”, which involves “reconfiguring (sometimes explicitly) the relationship between self and polis in terms more appropriate to the enormous world-empire of the Roman principate”41. The perception in classical Greece, as expressed by Aristotle, is “that a city is a natural production, and that man is naturally a political animal, and that whosoever is naturally and not accidentally unfit for society, must be either inferior or superior to man”42. The social identity of the 37 Goldhill 2001, 13. 38 Goldhill 2001, 20. 39 Ibid. 40 Whitmarsh 2001. 41 Whitmarsh 2001, 271. 42 Aristotle, Politics, Book I, Ch. I, 1253a1-4, trans-

Ibid. Bengtson 1991, 472. Rostovtzeff 1984, 243. Goldhill 2001, 10. Goldhill 2001, 12. 6

Introduction

individual, according to Aristotle and the Greeks of the classical period, is created and integrated through the city and the breach of this connection leads man to a loss of self. In Aristotle’s classical formulation, “the notion of a city naturally precedes that of a family or an individual, for the whole must necessarily be prior to the parts ... [T]he individual ... is to a city as other parts are to a whole; but he that is incapable of society, or so complete in himself as not to want it, makes no part of a city, as a beast or a god”43. Exile from the city is consequently a kind of social death, as Whitmarsh points out. In his view, in the writings of the early period of the Roman Empire which he reviewed, “exile becomes a positive accreditation of philosophical success”. This represents a “shift in attitudes to exile from abhorrence to celebration”, a shift which is difficult to interpret. He warns however, that “it is dangerous to assume too quickly that this discursive transformation represents a direct, knock-on response to changes, between the classical and the Roman periods, in the socio-cultural role of the polis in defining Greek identity”44.

ate writers do not simply reject the city-state as the focus of cultural identification. They rather reproduce and explore a relationship of tension between city and ‘cosmos’, between a limited, local Greek identity and its new role as a welding idiom of the eastern Roman Empire. This dual face is a key element in the culture of the Second Sophistic. The glorious era of republican Athens is both familiar and alien. Self-determination in the Roman present entails both adopting and transcending the standards of the past. The identity of Hellenicity was not an immutable constant, but was redefined continually in accordance with the needs of its bearer. Greek identity was not simply mirrored in language, but was reconstructed through it and, possibly, through other cultural mediums, such as art and architecture.

On architectural taxonomy Having described above the phenomena of Hellenization and Romanization, we will proceed to the issue of classification of architectural remains and types, which as we shall explain plays a key role in the understanding of the subject. The description of the architecture and spatial organization of the bath in the ancient world, as well as that of any other practice, presupposes the choice of an approach to the problem of classification in order to achieve the desirable mode of description of the variety of historical and archaeological information. This choice also reflects and influences the nature of the questions addressed. Because of the large number of architectural remains belonging to bathing installations, the problem of their categorization in a logical scheme became central in the present study. In short, in the context of studies addressing problems of cultural influence, it is necessary to re-evaluate the different mechanisms of classification of the ‘artifact’ under examination as well as the terminology employed.

Whitmarsh argues, that “the Roman Empire created radically new modalities of identity, specifically by allowing the provincial elites access to Roman citizenship …The provincial elite, thus, were affiliated to far-ranging networks of Romans, as well as to their fellow-citizens in their native poleis. To label the local identity ‘Greek’ and the wider identity ‘Roman’, though, would be to oversimplify: in the eastern Empire at any rate, and to a certain extent in the West too, Attic Greek … was the lingua franca of the educated elites, the common cultural store which bound them together and excluded the lower class. There were thus two fundamental criteria which could define ‘Greekness’ … [O]n the one hand, ‘the Greeks’ were, as they had been in the past, the inhabitants of the old poleis and their colonial offshoots; on the other, ‘the Greeks’ were an elite group from a range of cities which covered the entire eastern Empire, united solely by their ability to write and speak in Attic … ‘Hellenizing’ … in this latter sense … implied a fundamentally different relationship with the polis of one’s birth. For the members of the provincial elites, ‘Greekness’ was a stake in an empire-wide aristocratic competition for status … [T]he notion of ‘Greekness’ was not by now coterminous with ethnicity; it was a socially constructed style, one strand in a skein of valorized concepts (civilization, intelligence, manliness) which could not be disentangled meaningfully”45.

In most excavation reports and relevant studies bathing facilities are typically described as ‘Greek’ or ‘Roman’. It rarely, however, becomes clear which are the criteria used for the choice of either term. Although it is implicitly assumed that the designation ‘Roman’ results from the presence of Roman building technology and more specifically of an hypocaust made of bricks, the classification of all the other elements of the bathing facility under the label ‘Roman’ preclude any substantial study of the gradual integration of Italian bathing traditions in the Greek world. The difficulty described above is the result of an implicit assumption that baths, as well as other types of architectural remains, are divided into clear-cut chronological-cultural groups. The shared characteristics (technological, architectural, functional, cultural etc) of such groups are rarely rethought in the relevant studies. Such kinds of assumptions render the detection and understanding of structures, which happen to be transitional or atypical in different ways, extremely difficult. More importantly it is very difficult to recognize in the context of wider cultural traditions

Any relationship between past and present is inevitably complex. The writings of the Second Sophistic analyzed by Whitmarsh do not reject the classical world and the ideology of the city-state. However, the intimations found in these writings to the Athenian literature express equally a conception of continuity with the past. Exiled or expatrilated by A.D.Lindsay, The Project Gutenberg EBook of Politics (Last visit 4/11/2010 http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/ readfile?fk_files=1284213). 43 Ibid. 44 Whitmarsh 2001, 271 – 272. 45 Whitmarsh 2001, 272 – 273. 7

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

(which undoubtedly exist) diversities and discontinuities.

random example of a hierarchy of successive taxonomic levels of bathing facilities, classified into: 1. Cultural – historical entity (e.g. period of Roman civilization); 2. Region of appearance (e.g. Eastern provinces); 3. Architectural type (e.g. architecture of water-related facilities); 4. Architectural sub-type (e.g. baths); 5. Category documented in literature (e.g. balneae); 6. Category documented in archaeological sources (e.g. architectural remains); 7. General typological category (e.g. Roman baths ; 8. Special architectural category (e.g. Roman baths with laconicum); and 9. Functional category (e.g. sequential type). A second example might include a different hierarchy, i.e. 1. Historical entity (e.g. period of Greek civilization); 2. Region of appearance (e.g. Eastern provinces; 3. Architectural type (e.g. architecture of water-related facilities); 4. Architectural sub-type (e.g. balaneia); 5. Category documented in literature (e.g. balaneion); 6. Category documented in archaeological sources (e.g. architectural remains); 7. Typological category (e.g. balaneion with tholos); and 8. Functional category (e.g. informal structure).

The problems we faced during the collection and organization of material for this study, led us to the need to reexamine the various forms of classification of bathing facilities found in the available literature, to distinguish the instrumental from the substantive nature of classification mechanisms and to put forward a taxonomic system which would allow, to the maximum feasible extent, the detection of historical – cultural phenomena to which we referred earlier. To put it in brief, the aim of our approach was to separate the different taxonomic mechanisms of historical research from the real dynamics of historical phenomena so as to shed light on the trends of Hellenization and Romanization. It is for this reason, before we proceed any further, that we consider it essential to make some general observations on the concept of scientific taxonomy. In the following paragraphs we shall examine its application in the history of architecture, although similar approaches have been used in other disciplines concerned with the human production of technical and artistic works.

The defect of this form of classification lies in the fact that either of these two taxonomic sequences could refer to the same physical object, e.g. baths V of the Agora of Athens, some of the building phases of which belong to the Hellenistic bath tradition, but also dispose of a Roman hypocaust. The problem is due to the hermetic structure of the classification classes, which does not allow us to read their overlapping properties and categories. The initial division into cultural entities or periods does not permit from the start to recognize transitional or composite properties.

The function of taxonomic classification is aptly summarized as follows: “Taxonomic classification is the act of placing an object or concept into a set or sets of categories , based on the properties of the object or concept”46. If we adopt the classical approach to taxonomic classification, we can say that it is a succession of generalizations, the latter being a mental act in which common properties of single objects linked by a unifying idea are recognized. This is a first-level, simple generalization. If however the process is taken further by comparing several of these ideas, as it was done with objects, a superior general idea is formed, a genus containing species, as a species contains individual objects. A further step is to group several genera into a family, several families into a class or order and so on, the series of such generalizations leading to a taxonomy47.

The hierarchical taxonomy of Carl Linnaeus, according to which species are classified on the basis of common properties in static diagrams, was gradually adapted to Darwin’s principles of the common origin of species. The consequences of this transformation for scientific taxonomic work in general, and for archaeology and architectural history in particular, is evident. From being an instrument of categorizing the material under study, the act of classification becomes an instrument of historical investigation of the genealogy of objects and building structures.

If we conceive the various forms of classification as being structured along a continuum from the exclusive, or better hermetic, attribution of an object or idea to a category or sub-category to the point where the possibility of further categorization is eliminated because of the uniqueness of the object or idea, then we can distinguish three taxonomic mechanisms, i.e. “categorical”, “spectral” and “narrative” classifications. Categorical classification, which is derived from the taxonomic system of living species developed by Carl Linnaeus (1707-1778), is predicated on the existence of a hierarchy of successive taxonomic levels (regna, phyla, classes, ordines, families, genera, species), with the use of which an object or idea is classified.

In the field of the study of the baths we can observe a highly typical effort of several writers to connect individual buildings in an evolutionary chain, which supposedly proves the “Greekness” or “Italianness” of the origin of Roman bathing tradition. As we shall argue in chapter 4, the use of such genealogical taxonomic systems entails a number of pitfalls. To begin with, the recognition of multiple influences on the formation of a tradition is made more difficult. Secondly, it becomes deceptively easy to invest arbitrary ideological formulations with a scientific mantle. Finally, the search for impacts of other facets of social development on the pattern of various deviations and inventions is rendered impossible.

An equivalent approach in the history of architecture and especially in the study of baths can be illustrated with the

The issue of the origin of Roman baths occupies a central position in the field of study of bathing facilities in antiq-

46 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomic_classification 47 Encyclopedic Dioctionary Eleftheroudaki, Vol. 12, 32. 8

Introduction

uity. A deterministic conception of the genesis of architectural tradition lurks behind all discussions which run persistently in the relevant literature and will be described in detail in the first part of chapter 4 of this study. This conception is dominated by the search of a tangible reason which could explain any innovation at the exclusion of possible systemic origins of the change observed. The main candidate explanations in the case of the origin of Roman baths have been, and still are, a prior culture and an individual, i.e. the influence of the Greek world and the entrepreneur Sergius Orata. The extent to which such a deterministic approach makes historical research easier or more difficult is an issue to which we shall return.

spread of Roman culture over time and space, and the sheer quantity of construction left behind, has led many scholars to filter buildings according to functional types: temples, baths, amphitheatres, villas, aqueducts and so on. A typological format is an obvious candidate for the study of design procedures too, but one that brings with it the danger of losing sight of the prime goal – precisely those general principles that transcend such divisions”48. A rigid or erroneous taxonomic choice can obscure the breadth of the investigation of an object. We distinguished earlier three possible taxonomic mechanisms, i.e. “categorical”, “spectral” and “narrative” classification. The narrative classification is the clear opposite of the categorical classification which we described in some detail. In narrative classification the placement of objects in categories is practically impossible, with the result that the classification itself can only be interpreted as a single entity. However, an approach in this direction deprives us of the possibility to formulate syllogisms and synthetical observations.

The object of scientific disciplines concerned with the history of the human production of technical and artistic works is still mostly governed by the methodological inheritance of the culture history school. Hierarchical taxonomy and the genealogy logic have their roots in the epistemological paradigm of the description and study of the natural world as established in the 17th and 18th centuries. It is to be noted that in the theoretical paradigm introduced by the culture history school, classification, apart from being an instrument for further explanation, becomes an end in itself, in the sense that the taxonomic structure often tends to be confused with the natural order of the objects under study. A second error which is easily committed is the misguided imposition of modern categorizations on material of the past. Having said that, we should not forget that human societies always classified the facts of their environment on the basis of their own cognitive systems.

On the strength of these arguments we decided to use in this study the so-called “spectral” classification, which is based on the assumption that each object is subject to a variety of classifications, without disregarding its partial properties. We can therefore visualize each object placed in a web of different classifications which show its special nature and its integration in a variety of categories and trends. As a result, each type is not deduced from a single taxonomy but from the convergence of different taxonomies which form a network. The different forms of categorization of baths employed in this study are basically structured in three broad classification classes, i.e. historical, architectural and spatial.

The object of the history of architecture is usually classified in terms of 4 or 5 levels, thus merging subgroups into groups on the basis of a hierarchy of common features. The first level of classification is usually defined in terms of a cultural grouping (e.g. Egyptian, Minoan, Greek, Roman or Byzantine civilization). Thus, the first generalization is based on the similarities found in a common cultural background, which has been established through historical evidence and with the assistance of historical science. The subsequent levels are defined in terms of chronological, functional, typological and geographical characteristics. The hierarchical sequence of the last four levels is not rigid and is usually dependent on the methodological choices of each researcher. A study in which a functional similarity is put in top position, with the consequence that the corresponding generalization is placed at the first level of the hierarchy (e.g. the function of staircases in the ancient world), would tend to demote the cultural factor to a lower level of the hierarchy and provide the possibility of wider comparisons. It would however eliminate the role of cultural factors.

The basic forms of historical classification we adopted were historical – geographical, cultural and technological. In the architectural classification class we included the classifications of bathing facilities, of types of spatial bathing units, of functional groupings or diagrams and of architectural styles. Finally, the basic forms of spatial classification involved the urban pattern framework, the spatial framework, the integration in the urban pattern and the spatiality of the bath. In the following paragraphs we explain the categories and terms used, the mechanism of each of these classification approaches, the methodological dead ends it leads to when used on its own, and the contribution each classification makes to this study. A word is in order with regard to architectural types. The typology of bathing facilities is regarded here as being the end result of a synthesis of common historical, architectural and spatial parameters, as these are derived from the three broad classification classes mentioned above. As we shall explain in chapter 2, by architectural type we do not mean an arbitrary form imposed by us on the physical material under study, but rather an “active”

The above observations were necessary in order to clarify gradually the intention of the present study to bring forward a functional similarity, that of the bath, but at the same time to underline the relativity, but also the usefulness of structured classification. As put by Jones, “the vast

48 9

Jones, 2003.

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

parameter which enters the process of design. A.

to interesting conclusions regarding the spheres of influence of various architectural phenomena. It is however of essence to point out that a number of pitfalls await the researcher.

Basic characteristics

A1. Site A2. Date A3.Suspension of operation and/or building constructed in the same location A4. Technology A5. Tradition B.

The wider Mediterranean world in antiquity was composed of a web of geographical and urban systems which evolved in parallel but often in very different ways. There were variations in the scale of phenomena, the timing of their appearance and their manifestation particularities, which were due to independent local factors and were frequently exceptionally pronounced even in neighbouring systems. At the opposite end, similarities in the emergence of certain phenomena in distant places, both geographically and chronologically, cause embarrassment to the observer. For instance, we find bathing facilities in Egypt where elements of the Greek bathing tradition continue to survive during the Roman period (e.g. balaneion of Qasr Qarum, south of Fayoum). In terms of architectural style, the nearest to the bathing facilities of Cilicia are the early baths of Campania49. It is evident therefore that information pertaining to a particular period of a given region can unexpectedly assist with the explanation and representation of building remains which are separated by considerable chronological and geographical distance. The processes which cause this uneven technological and stylistic diffusion are not uniform and cannot be easily mapped. Their outcomes however remain to some extent comparable since they all belong to the wider cohesive whole of the Roman Empire.

Architectural characteristics

B1. Functional units B2. Bathing units B3. Types of bathing units B4. Functional sequence B5. Functional diagrams B6. Room types C.

Spatial characteristics

C1. Urban pattern framework C2. Spatial framework C3. Integration in urban pattern D.

Typological characteristics

D1. Building type D2. Level of spatiality

In the field of the study of bathing facilities the long-lasting use and the successive transformations of the same building often confuse the observer and lead to errors of judgement. It is not unusual to find a building which has sheltered baths for long, but its internal arrangement and its water supply and heating installations have undergone extensive alterations, with the result that the organization and form of its spaces have been transformed, although the integration of the building in question in the urban pattern remained unchanged. Referring to the difficulties facing the researcher, Thébert points out that such a building could remain in use for a long period during which changing tastes or simply the means available could dictate significant transformations50. What all this simply indicates is that a bathing facility is not a chronologically limited unit which can be lightly attributed to the period of its initial construction, because it bears the signs of a multitude of subsequent periods; signs which are the sum of interventions and additions the facility has received in the course of its life. It would be an error to “condense” this life to the narrow chronological span of the bath’s construction and ignore its development throughout the period of its use. Unfortunately, to avoid this error is often impossible because of the urgency of excavations and of the presentation of archaeological findings in a published form.

Table 2 Categories used for the classification of the bathing facilities

The basic forms of historical classification a. Chronological – geographical classification In the present study we used broad chronological (periods before and after the Roman conquest) and geographical divisions (Helladic space and Italy), as well as finer subdivisions into shorter periods and smaller geographical regions. We can turn now to a discussion of the practice of splitting an historical continuum and its cultural products into successive chronological periods and of the consequent classification of various cultural products, e.g. building remains, in chronological subtotals or broad synchronic systems, in the hope that they support each other in explanatory terms and can be used for a comparative approach to the problem. The search for cohesive typological and morphological totals, as well as for cultural and social structures and ideological systems in the context of chronological periods and synchronic systems, is perfectly justified and can lead

A further problem appears particularly in older research 49 50 10

Farrington 1999. Thébert 2003, 7.

Introduction

and is explained by the ideological prejudice of researchers with regard to ancient remains and the devaluation of the Roman past in comparison to the Greek tradition. It has not been rare to label a building ruin as roman without a serious effort to date it precisely. Most of the baths reported in the Archaeologikon Deltion (Arch.Delt.) in Greece have been summarily described as Roman, often disregarding even the fact that they belong to the late Roman period. A typical example is that of the baths of Asine in Argolid, which, as we shall see later, were labeled as Roman when first reported, only to be re-dated in the 1990s by a new group of researchers who were able to date their construction in greater precision. At the other end, but also because of an ideological bias, we sometimes observe the deliberate rigging of chronological data to lend support to a claim about a building’s origin in a cultural system deemed as superior, instead of another, which however may have played a more crucial role in the conception of the building’s form. The case of the gymnasium baths of Olympia may be a typical example of such a twisted explanation.

lowing table51. Phases I-VII in Italy follow the dating of Thermae Stabianae in Pompeii by Εschebach and Nielsen. As far as the presentation of the object of the study in the catalogue is concerned, bathing facilities will be investigated within the context of their geographical regions, urban patterns and spatial frameworks. At a second level, they are classified on the basis of their historical, cultural and technological identity. In each area under examination bathing facilities are distinguished initially according to periods, i.e. ancient Greek, transitional and Roman. This division is not chronologically uniform, since it is dependent on the special conditions of each city’s integration in the Roman Empire. This classification does not necessarily indicate the beginning of Romanization of bathing traditions in a given area, because the latter could well have absorbed Italian elements before its annexation or, inversely, could have resisted the infiltration of cultural influence until the late Roman period. We consider as transitional those facilities which developed in building phases belonging to periods both before and after the turning point of the final annexation of their area.

A final chronological trap is the attribution of characteristics derived from isolated literary testimonies to a broad chronological period or even to an entire cultural system. This trap, stressed by several contemporary commentators, is evident in the study of baths. For instance, it has taken the form of a faithful and misguided transfer of the descriptions of Vitruvius to the representation of building remains.

b. Cultural classification The cultural classification of architectural remains is based on the distinction of groupings of historical and archaeological elements represented in archaeological findings and literary sources and considered as typical of wider cultural entities. In this study we shall refer to bathing traditions (Roman, Greek or of Romanized Helladic space), as well as to isolated transitional situations. The characteristics of these traditions will be presented in Chapter 3.

Chronological classification is complemented by a geographical classification of bathing facilities. A number of scholars, such as Thèbert, Yegül, Hoss, Broise, Farrington and others, have studied the baths of specific geographical regions. The possibility of identification and description of local schools and stylistic particularities is an issue which we will address in the sections dealing with the baths of Helladic space. From the first stages of our study we were left with the impression that bathing facilities escape the boundaries of a clear-cut geographical classification. This means that the student of ancient baths is obliged to be congnitively prepared at any moment to transcend the geographical or chronological entity he/she investigates and seek comparative data in the wider framework of the Mediterranean and of the Roman Empire. In what follows we shall introduce the chronological – geographical approach we adopted in this study.

In most analyses of the development of an architectural expression or form the pattern followed is that of its genesis from one or several forerunning traditions, evolution, heyday, decline and possibly diffusion toward novel categories, forms and expressions. The bulk of the studies of the architectural development of baths are not an exception since they are part of the same narrative tradition. In the bibliography, the history of the baths in antiquity, or else their genealogy, is recorded usually with references to their origin and their precursors, the invention of the hypocaust, its further improvements until the standardization of imperial thermae, the multiplication of types and forms and their diffusion across the length and breadth of the empire, the architectural experimentation52 of Villa Adriana and, finally, the fading of the phenomenon of the Roman bath in the conditions of a wider transformation of cities at the end of the ancient world.

In the data base we compiled for our needs bathing facilities were analyzed in terms of their successive building phases. Each phase was treated as an independent building entity. When the relevant published reports did not supply the necessary chronological data, the baths in question were described as single entities and attributed to broader time periods.

Before the publication of Balaneutikè by Ginouvès in 196253, the history of the bath in Greek antiquity was not an independent subject of study. It is not an accident that in early 20th century the Greek bath of Eretria was charac51 The subdivision of the main periods was utilized to produce a more detailed chronological classification of the bathing facilities. 52 Gros 1996. 53 Ginouvès 1962.

In order to link chronologically Helladic and Italian spaces we used the chronological classification shown in the fol-

11

12

480 - 323 BC

323 - 146 BC

146 - 31 BC

classical

early hellenistic

late hellenistic

285 - 610 AD LR3

476 - 610 AD

LR1

285 - 395 AD LR2

R1 R2 R3 R4

31 BC - 14 AD 14 - 96 AD 96 - 180 AD 180 - 285 AD 395 - 476 AD

LH2

LH1

86 - 31 BC

146 - 86 BC

LC

400 - 323 BC ΕΗ1

C

C (T)

450 - 400 BC

480 - 450 BC

Α

Subdivision Abbreviation

Table 3 Chronological periods for the classification of bathing facilities

late roman

31 BC - 285 ΑD

700 - 480 BC

archaic

roman

Time span

Greece

O F B A T H F A C I L I T I E S

C H R O N O L O G Y

Italy

32 ΒC - 54 AD 55 - 98 99 - 211 212 - 286 287 - 395 396 - 500 500 - 600

phase VIΙ phase VIΙI phase ΙΧ phase Χ phase ΧΙ phase ΧIΙ phase ΧIΙΙ

100 - 80 ΒC 80 - 31 ΒC

200 - 100 ΒC

phase IV phase V phase VI

250 - 200 ΒC

400 - 250 ΒC

500 - 400 ΒC

Time span

phase IIΙ

phase IΙ

phase I

Period

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

Introduction

terized as Roman by the excavation team, while roughly 40 years later, during World War II, the excavators of Olympia acknowledged the Greek identity of the gymnasium baths and their position as the precursor of the spread of the hypocaust in Italy. It is obvious in our mind that, as a rule, historical narrations are embedded in the context of cultural tradition, follow its historical mutations and explain developments in terms of its stages and intertwinements. There are several studies in which the practice of the bath is examined in the context of an entire cultural whole. However, the genealogy of certain practices and spatial types in antiquity, e.g. of the baths, runs through the whole54 of the Mediterranean world and is manifested in the sphere of influence both of the Greek and the Roman tradition. It is consequently essential in a research study, such as this, which explores the diffusion and interaction of phenomena, to steer with great care with respect to the dividing lines between apparently distinct cultural traditions. For this reason, in a study of baths in Helladic space in the Roman period, we believe it is wiser to use the term Romanized, instead or Roman, tradition, in order to place the emphasis on the interaction between local and imported elements.

nature of the cultural relationship between the successive centres of power in the ancient world, Greece and Rome, but no definite conclusion has been reached56. He is of the opinion that Greek architecture was the product of a rather closed and introverted process, which in the period of the 7th to the 4th centuries gave birth to an unbelievably closely knit artistic creation. On the contrary, Roman architecture was born in a world already dominated by the Greek artistic model and then received the influence of a large number of Mediterranean civilizations. The nature of Roman architecture was from the start of its development a hybrid and escapes a clear comprehension of its constituent parts, unlike Greek architecture which was, at least to a greater extent, a cohesive whole. Ward-Perkins’s view is that at the polar opposites of this disagreement conflicting positions have been cultivated, which we believe lie in the core of the study of the evolution of the bath in the ancient world. At one end, WardPerkins argues, we have the scholars who try to uncover a concrete and inherent Roman ingredient, which can explain the innate “romanness” (romanità) of the products of Roman culture. At the other end, we have those who are prepared to reject Roman art on the grounds that it consists of a belated and decadent extension of Greek art, with Greek classicism taken as a benchmark.

It is worth making at this stage a passing reference to two opposite epistemological paradigms of the past, of which the impact on the field of the history of architecture, and especially of the baths, continues to be critical. The first is that of cultural evolutionism which, in its extreme form, supported the idea of the autonomous or internal development of a cultural system and by extension of e.g. a building type, through successive stages of development and innovation. On the contrary, the second paradigm, which emerged in late 19th century, is that of diffusion theory. In its strictest formulation it purports that any innovation or invention cannot be but the outcome of migration or influence from one culture to another55.

There have been, as we stressed already, real conditions which produced an interactive fermentation of the two cultural traditions, e.g. the presence of Greek colonies in the Italian peninsula, the Greek influence on Etruscan civilization and the contacts of Romans with Greek space in the Hellenized Mediterranean region. But beyond these conditions, there have been in operation ideological mechanisms which were activated towards the end of the Punic Wars. The notion of a common ancestry of Greeks and Romans and the idea of a Greek root of Roman civilization were central tenets of the dominant ideology. Apart from such ideological currents already in evidence in ancient times, an important role was played recently by ideological rhetoric in Italy in the 1930s and 1940s, which looked at Roman culture with a nationalistic bias and exaggerated the “Italianness” of Roman art57. Most contemporary students now recognize the realities of merger of cultural traditions and the futility and scientific barrenness of a watertight cultural division. As DeLaine characteristically put it, “while there were precursors in the Hellenistic world, the developed system of bathing and the social context in which it operated were unmistakably Roman”58.

The scientific disagreement underlying the opposing paradigms is of importance when it comes to the debate on the origin of Roman baths and especially of the hypocaust. When one reviews the different arguments and views maintained at various times, one realizes that they fluctuate between two extreme positions. The supporters of the first, those closer to the diffusion paradigm but also to the literary sources which see the Romans as carriers of Greek culture, claim that the precursors of Roman baths must be found in Greek bathing traditions. Those who adhere to the other approach argue that it is in the practices of the indigenous peoples of the Italian peninsula that we must look for the origins of the Roman baths. What underlies this disagreement is a more fundamental conflict in the theoretical body of the history of art and architecture, known as “Rom oder Orient”. Ward-Perkins claims that few issues have been so ardently debated as the

In her introduction to the proceedings of the first international congress on Roman baths, which took place in Bath in 1992, Janet DeLaine emphasized the renewed interest of the scientific community in Roman baths59. In her opinion, this turn is closely related to the higher significance attached today by archaeologists and historians to

54 Ginouvès 1962, Hoffmann 1999, Nielsen 1993, Brödner 1983. 55 Trigger 1989.

56 57 58 59 13

Ward-Perkins 1981, 9. Yegül 1992, 433 (2). DeLaine 1999, 10. DeLaine 1999, 7.

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

the understanding of multiple and diverse cultural activities and habits in antiquity, in comparison to the study of single and uniform cultural wholes. Nevertheless, DeLaine remarks, the arguments concerning the phenomenon of Romanization has not been enriched yet with the perspectives opened by the study of Roman baths. The reasoning underpinning DeLaine’s plea for this enrichment is summarized in the following quotation: “…the surviving evidence does not present an entirely homogenous picture either of the physical bathing environment or of bathing practices. The adoption of specifically Roman bathing habits throughout the empire can thus be seen as one of the many potential indicators of the process of becoming Roman; that is, of ‘Romanization’ in its broadest sense, referring not, as G. D. Woolf has recently argued, to a single standard Roman culture but to ‘an imperial civilization, within which both the differences and similarities came to form a coherent pattern’60. Bathing is a particularly sensitive indicator of this process in that the evidence is geographically and temporally widespread and it has the potential to involve at least all the urban population of an area, not just the elite”61.

the boundaries of “Greekness” and “Romanness” of their origin and function are particularly fuzzy. Inge Nielsen deals with another aspect of the same problematic: “The key word is Romanization: in my view, the presence of Roman baths is one of the main manifestations of this process, and in some areas constitutes one of the few signs that a new epoch has begun. This is especially true of the former Hellenistic kingdoms. There has been much scholarly discussion on whether there was any real cultural break in these areas or whether the early Roman period was simply a continuation of the late Hellenistic. Although Romanization was a minor issue in Rome’s policy towards the East, the presence of Roman baths at an early juncture in this highly civilized area indicates that even here people were not immune to the improvements introduced by the new rulers in certain fields”64. Having taken into account this debate we thought from the beginning that it is important to handle with special care the description of baths in Helladic space after the Roman conquest so as to bring out their special character and any probable relationship with prior traditions. We shall attempt now to outline the ways we chose to avoid an uncritical use of the label “Greek” or “Roman”.

DeLaine’s observation is certainly accurate. If we look at Romanization as an ecumenical, yet unevenly evolving phenomenon, both geographically and temporally, with diverse expressions resulting from various strategies of imperialist expansion or assimilation by the defeated, then the spread of Roman baths is one of its most characteristic indicators. The latter’s value is enhanced by the fact that the study of baths is made easier because their physical remains are recognizable beyond doubt thanks to the standardized form of heating systems.

The classification of a bathing facility in the Romanized or Greek tradition will not be based on the existence of a hypocaust as is the usual practice, but on four criteria, i.e. the typical sequence of bathing spaces (frigidarium– tepidarium - caldarium), the availability of group bathing pools, the use of Roman building technology and the Roman heating system. No doubt some of these criteria consist of interdependent characteristics. However, the presence of all four is not self-evident. Furthermore, the complexity and refinement of some architectural and technical features differ from one bath to another, with the result that it is not unreasonable to claim that the attempt at Romanization and the emulation of imported standards can be graded quantitatively and qualitatively. We have to mention here that at the stage of making a record of the physical object of the study we used the same record sheet for baths of both Greek and Romanized traditions, to avoid an a priori automatic categorization.

The development of baths in the Italian peninsula, especially in Rome, is sufficiently researched, to allow a comparison with the process of the incorporation of the bath in the Imperial provinces. This task acquires additional interest in Helladic space where a solid bathing tradition existed before its conquest by Rome. To quote Farrington: “The study of the spread of Roman bathing habits in the Imperial provinces of Macedonia and Achaea is of interest as it may contribute to our understanding of the penetration of the Greek East by Roman habits and culture. In particular, it may improve our understanding of the penetration of such habits in an area that might be thought to have been most resistant to Roman mores and culture, namely Greece itself ”62.

Finally, as it will become apparent later, special attention was given to facilities we considered as transitional. We include in this group baths the successive building phases of which belong to both Hellenistic and Roman periods. It is obvious that these architectural stages, if placed in a comparative perspective, can provide useful information on the degree of Romanization in various Greek cities and on its temporal evolution.

The studies of Farrington and Hoss, on the introduction of the Roman bath in Greece and the Palestine respectively, have already espoused this approach63. Feedbacks between Greek and Roman bathing traditions present an additional difficulty: The Romanization of the Greek world came after the Hellenization of the Roman. This seemingly trivial observation gains weight in the study of Roman baths, where 60 61 62 63

c. Technological classification Our brief section on technological classification must start with a reference to Yvon Thébert and his Thermes romains

Woolf 1994, 7. DeLaine 1999, 7. Farrington 1999, 57. Farrington 1999, Hoss 2005.

64 14

Nielsen 1999, 35.

Introduction

d’ Afrique du Nord et leur contexte méditterranéen, an impressive work in terms of both the extent of its object and its theoretical grounding. Thébert, through a perspective, which reminds us of the spirit of the work of Braudel on the Mediterranean, shifts the issue of the development of baths from its national – cultural substratum towards a demographic – technological approach. The cutting point of his classification is not the differentiation between Greek and Roman, but the invention of the hypocaust. Baths in the Mediterranean world are distinguished into two categories, before and after the Roman hypocaust. Thébert thus gives precedence to technological over cultural innovation.

Fagan uses this quotation, in his effort to clarify the meanings of two different building categories66. Although the distinction between thermae and balnea appears in a number of literary and epigraphic sources67, as it does in this extract by Martial, it has not been possible to delineate satisfactorily the architectural categories indicated by these terms in antiquity. It is highly probable that the distinction between thermae and balnea was never clear and uniform in the entire territory of the empire throughout the life of the principatus. The same ambiguity and difficulty dog all attempts to classify the enormous number of baths surviving in Roman territory in local, chronological and typological categories, aiming at a more systematic and deeper study. This reflects indirectly the complexity and relativity of judgement surrounding efforts to classify a cultural product such as the Roman bath, which exhibits to a high degree architectural and technical complexity, long life, geographical dispersion and locally differentiated cultural incorporation. The basic bibliographical reference on the question of typological classification of Roman baths remains the work of Krencker68, which will be discussed in Chapter 2.

Here, we combine cultural and technological classification on the premise that the hypocaust was invented independently in the context of both Greek and Roman traditions. Each tradition has its “before” and “after” periods, with the important difference that it was only in Roman culture that social structures, economic conditions and construction technology were in a position to sustain the urban diffusion and the symbolic glorification of the heated bath. d. Architectural classification of baths and the role of typology in the comprehension of cultural phenomena

The typological constitution of baths in antiquity is the expression of a complex architectural phenomenon. Baths were part of both the private and public spheres, with a different emphasis of course in various periods. We cannot be certain that the roots of the Greek tradition lie in the cultural structures of Aegean space in Minoan or Mycenaean times, but we can affirm that precursor forms of baths make their appearance in Helladic space since the Archaic period in the framework of specific building categories, i.e. the bath of private houses, the bath of the palaestra, the sanctuary bath, the balaneion etc. Until the early years of 2nd century BC the practice of the bath in Greek Mediterranean lands had evolved into a fairly cohesive tradition. After the Roman conquest the bundle of Roman tradition and technology was imported into Helladic space, probably carrying with it constituent elements of influence from the Greek cities of the Italian peninsula and the ideological construction of the Greek origin of Roman civilization. The construction of baths in cities and villae rusticae of the Greek countryside continues uninterrupted until the end of late antiquity, even to Byzantine times. No wonder, the attempt to describe the functional and typological order of such a long period is a challenge!

A fourth classification level is that of ranking buildings or the spatial units of which they are composed into known building categories and subcategories, functional entities and typological groups. In the field of the study of baths the multitude and geographical scattering of often inadequately excavated facilities, makes this task exceptionally arduous. A further complicating factor is that the effort of a modern classification is entangled with the sporadic information that has reached us from literary and epigraphic sources on the way the users themselves of ancient baths and their contemporaries placed the baths in their utilitarian, symbolic or urban perception. The following extract reflects an attempt to distinguish categories of baths in antiquity. “Non silice duro structilive caemento nec latere cocto, quo Samiramis longam Babylona cinxit, Tucca balneum fecit: sed strage nemorum pineaque compage, ut navigare Tucca balneo posit. Idem beatas lautus extruit thermas de marmore omni, quod Carystos invenit, quod Phrygia Synnas, Afra quod Nomas misit et quod virenti fonte lavit Eurotas. Sed ligna desunt: subice balneum thermos” (Not of hard flint or laid rubble, nor of burnt brick, wherewith Semiramis girt the long walls of Babylon, has Tucca made his bath; but of the havoc of the woods and of balks of pine, so that Tucca may go to sea in his bath! He also, luxurious man that he is, builds costly warm baths of every kind of marble that Carystos discovers, that Phrygian Synnas, that African Numidia has sent him, and of that which Eurotas has washed green with his spring. But firewood is lacking. Put the bath under the warm bath!)65

In Greek tradition, where the succession of different bathing practices is not an issue, the emphasis of the study is necessarily placed on the function and form of individual functional units. The terminology employed for the description of bathing spaces in the relevant literature, ancient or modern, reflects usually their material form or inDiego (http://www.archive.org/stream/martialepigrams02martiala/ martialepigrams02martiala_djvu.txt) 66 Fagan 2002, 16. 67 Fagan 2002, 14, n. 9. 68 Krencker 1929.

65 Martial, Epigrams, IX, LXXV. Translated by Walter C.A. Ker, The Loeb Classical Library, Library University of San 15

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

neutikè to the concept of spatiality.

frastructure, leaving little room for misunderstanding. In Roman tradition, particularly after the hypocaust had been perfected, the introduction of simple or complex patterns of visitor movements, expressed here in functional diagrams, moves the emphasis of typological research mainly to the classification of functional diagrams and only to a lesser extent of the types of individual spaces. On the contrary, the function itself of spaces has been the subject of intensive study but also the object of conceptual distortion because of the facile recourse to literary texts, especially the work of Vitruvius, in cases where archaeological findings did not permit a precise identification. The literary origin of various functions attributed to bath spaces, Roman or Greek, has been documented by Nielsen69. The somewhat lax use of ancient terminology in conjunction with the wealth of modern terms has produced a pluralism of approaches to the classification of ancient units. It is not rare to have different functions proposed for the same bath space by different writers.

The intellectual inheritance of Réné Ginouvès in the study of baths The book Balaneutikè: Recherches sur le bain dans l’antiquité grecque by Ginouvès was published in 196270. This study is probably the most comprehensive, complete, but also imaginative diatribe on baths in Greek antiquity. Its title is inspired from Plato’s Sophist, where the term signifies one of the human activities (arts) aiming at the separation of good from bad (purification), strictly in the physical sphere, which is distinguished from the spiritual. The definition of the art of bathing is given in the following extract from Plato, where it is described as external cleansing or removal of harmful elements from the human body. «Τα τε των ζώων, όσα εντός σωμάτων υπό γυμναστικής ιατρικής τε ορθώς διακρινόμενα καθαίρεται και περί τακτός, ειπεν μέν φαύλα, όσα βαλανευτική παρέχεται˙ καί των αψύχων σωμάτων, ων γναφευτική και σύμπασα κοσμητική τήν επιμέλειαν παρεχομένη κατά σμικρά πολλά καί γελοία δοκούντα ονόματα εσχεν»71. (There is the purification of living bodies in their inward and in their outward parts, of which the former is duly effected by medicine and gymnastic, the latter by the not very dignified art of the bath-man; and there is the purification of inanimate substances-to this the arts of fulling and of furbishing in general attend in a number of minute particulars, having a variety of names which are thought ridiculous”.)72

vi. Spatial classification of baths and the role of spatiality It was essential for this study to examine bath architecture in a perspective of long duration in the course of which the ancient city follows a path from the crystallization of its form in the late classical period to the first signs of its decline in late antiquity. Public baths, the typical hallmark of the urban way of life, are also a typical expression of changing urban technology in the period under study. Our intention is to study the development of bath architecture in close association with the transformation of the urban landscape (or townscape) in Helladic space. On the record sheets of bathing facilities we recorded the category of the urban pattern framework of each facility. Urban patterns have been distinguished into cities, townships, seaports, sanctuaries, Asklēpieia, countryside villas etc.

The structure of Ginouvès’s study follows the division into public and private life in the different spheres in which bathing practice was taking place in Greek antiquity, as well as the fundamental distinction between secular and religious rituals73. The time span covered by the author is Bronze Age (Minoan and Mycenaean civilizations), Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic periods. The sources used by Ginouvès in his narration are archaeological (architectural remains, mobile and fixed bathing equipment etc.), iconographic (representations of bathing scenes on vases and in sculptures) and literary.

Within each urban formation we tried, wherever possible, to place each bathing facility in the functional zone it served. We described functional zones as the spatial framework which takes the following forms: Agora, residential area, harbour, urban gate, transitional area, natural spring, gymnasium, sanctuary etc. The third framework type which helps to define a bathing facility territorially is what we call integration in the urban pattern. We have also introduced a fourth taxonomic system of territorial character, derived from the above classifications, namely the classification of bathing facilities according to the level of spatiality, to which we shall return later. As we indicated, all classifications contribute to the identification of architectural types. The source of inspiration for the concept of bath spatiality and for the use of space as an instrument of classification was the method and the organizational principles of Balaneutikè by Ginouvès, from whose works we derived the central questions of this study, as we mentioned in the introduction. We shall therefore outline now the transition from the art of the bath or bala69

The fascinating originality of Ginouvès’s approach is that he treats the function and constitution of the bath in the ancient city in a global way. He does not deal only with buildings, structures and equipment from which to derive evidence of bathing functions, but includes in the picture all the localities in which they took place, according to lit70 Ginouvès 1962. 71 Plato, Sophist, 227a. 72 Plato, Sophist, 227a, translated by Benjamin Jowett, The Internet Classics Archive 73 The book is divided into the following parts: Les instruments du bain et leur utilisation (krēnē, asaminthos / pyelos, lebēs / skaphē, podoniptēr), la propreté et la vie laïque, la propreté et la vie religieuse.

Nielsen 1993. 16

Introduction

erary references and iconographic representations. In this way the spatial substance of the bath is not defined solely in terms of special constructions but comes out as the result of a repetitive application of the art of balaneutikè in tangible or symbolic loci. Tangible are the places described in literary texts, such as the bath of Ulysses in the sea of Phaeacia, the riverine baths of the gymnasia of Athens and others. Symbolic are the places usually pictured in iconographic representations, which describe not concrete locations but rather categories of potential bathing environments, e.g. river banks, gymnasia or houses.

do not result with a linearly proportional and predictable manner from the transformations of this activity and from the mutations of its symbolism, to which they strive to give a material form. On the contrary, they move to a different terrain where other defining factors tend to coalesce. The outline of the preceding arguments was necessary in a study where we shall present buildings with diverse purposes, but with the spatial integration of the art of the bath as a common denominator. In the historical period under study the bath, as a spatial unit, was linked to domestic activity in houses and palace complexes, to public hygiene in rivers and springs, to fountains, balaneia and balneae, to educational and social rituals in gymnasia and gymnasium baths, and, finally, to religious ceremonies or healing rites in sanctuaries and Asklēpieia. The social role of the bath in the context of Greek and Roman traditions will be the object of chapter 3.

Ginouvès does not reconstruct the bathing landscape of the ancient city in a fragmented manner but rather through a holistic approach. His account starts with the mobile or fixed bathing equipment of the immediate environment of the bather. He presents all the instruments and utensils of bathing, i.e. bathtubs, flat or round washing bowls or foot baths, but also fountains, used in a variety of spatial frameworks. In the second part of his book (La propreté et la vie laïque) he explores the secular sphere of bathing activity taking place in the countryside and the gymnasium, in the private space of the house or palace and, finally, in the balaneion or else public bath. In the third part (La propreté et la vie religieuse) he examines the relationship between bathing and religious life (La propreté et la vie religieuse), divided into two sections, one on daily life (Le bain à valeur religieuse dans la vie courante) and one on religious rituals (Le bain et les cultes). In Plato’s definition of the art of the bath, as well as of all arts, as given in the Sophist, human activity, in this case for the purification of the body, is detached from its application context in a given cultural framework and is elevated to a basic, ecumenical function. Ginouvès inscribes this function in the Greek culture in which it is enclosed. Having singled out the basic function of the bath, which in this study we called practice or art of the bath in Greek tradition, Ginouvès seeks its application in all walks of human activity, where, however, it preserves a structural autonomy. The various descriptions of rituals, artistic representations and architectural residues, which belong to diverse facets of social life, e.g. domestic, educational, public or religious, never cease to result from certain common codes and conventions of form. According to Gerhard Auer, “man has the most diverse motives for immersing his entire body in water… And the collective term bathing certainly gives grounds for misunderstandings: we bathe in accordance with ritual prescripts, in order to clean our bodies, because we wish to swim, to relax, for therapeutic reasons, to acquire physical strength and for erotic stimulation. The only thing all these activities have in common is their considerable water, energy and space”74.

One further aim is to highlight the diversity, but even more so the order, which rules the production of space and the organization of spatial units accommodating the art of the bath, within building complexes with different or similar social purposes. By diversity we henceforth imply the spatiality of an activity, in our case bathing. Our hypothesis is that the comprehension of the function of baths, or indeed of any real, historical function, is impossible if it remains theoretically divorced from the concept of spatiality.

On spatiality “Spatialization is the spatial forms that social activities and material things, phenomena or processes take on.”75 An intention which runs through our study is to explore the concept which we termed earlier as the spatiality of the bath in Helladic space in Graeco-Roman antiquity. In the next chapter, which has the form of an introduction to the main subject, we shall describe in brief the debate on the spatial structure of the bath in Bronze Age. The questions which will arise concern the character and form of bath spatiality and will be answered, to the extent that this is feasible, through the admittedly insufficient snapshots available to us, first, in the material remains of facilities and, second, in iconography and literary testimony. Our next step will be to apply the concept of spatiality and to explore the spatial diffusion of bathing functions in the Graeco-Roman period, a task which constitutes the central theme of our study. Alternatively, this task might be stated as the reconstitution of the social and spatial framework of the bath.

To Auer’s last sentence we must add that these activities, regardless of their intention, are realized in recognizable and culturally defined ways. Architecture and the variety of morphological patterns which accompany a social activity

To clarify the concept of spatiality of a function or activity and its difference from the function of a building or construction, we must first remind ourselves that the relation between the function of space and its diverse spatial manifestations (i.e. architecture and building or construction

74

75 www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatialization

Auer 1995, 39. 17

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

typologies) is not limited to a single meaning and is not one-dimensional. If we study the various versions of an established architectural type in a given cultural context of the past, a type which transcends the role of a mere container of a particular function and has become its symbol, we shall perceive only a fraction, albeit possibly dominant, of the space where this function takes place. Our intention therefore, beyond the study of architectural types and their geographical and historical integration in Helladic space, was to bring out, as much as possible, the breadth of bath spatiality.

been the object of anthropological studies such as the The Civilizing Process, by Norbert Elias77, and Le propre et le sale – L’ hygiene du corps depuis le Moyen Age, by Georges Vigarello78 , is beyond the scope of the present study. The “kinds of bath” in the context of this study are described rather as bathing practices or forms of the art of the bath and are the object of Chapter 3. If we were to endow the above classificatory scheme of necessities and practices with a spatial dimension, we would have first to map the places in which these diverse practices materialize, combine, diversify and dominate or get ranked, standardized and marginalized, and then to examine the spatial typologies to which these processes give rise to. Such a task in a given temporal, geographical and cultural setting would amount to a search of synchronic spatiality. Private hygiene, spa therapy, water entertainment, athletic swimming, bathing in a local gymnasium, various ethnic bathing practices (e.g. hammam or sauna) etc are performed in a multifarious set of spaces which constantly changes, adapts, reproduces itself and, in its turn, produces new spatial entities, functions and practices.

One way to approach the speculations about bathing is to transfer them to the present day. The reasons for bathing are listed in the entry on bathing of the electronic encyclopaedia ‘Wikipedia’ as follows: One way to approach the speculations about bathing is to transfer them to the present day. The reasons for bathing are listed in the entry on bathing of the electronic encyclopaedia ‘Wikipedia’ as follows: 1. Hygiene, and the physical appearance of cleanliness; 2. Decontamination from chemical, biological, nuclear or other exposure-type hazards; 3. Recreation; 4. Therapy (e.g. hydrotherapy), healing, rehabilitation from injury or addiction, relaxation; 5. Religious or, less frequently, other ceremonial76.

It is clear in our view that this approach would lead not to a description of a cohesive typology of forms and structures, but rather to the outline of a spatial morphological expression of repeated practices and rituals. In the present study, apart from recording and describing surviving bath facilities, we shall strive to approach this “morphological expression” in the period under examination as it emerges from a variety of sources of evidence. In doing so, we take it as self-evident that mapping and describing the spatiality of a historical function should not be undertaken as a closed system, but rather kept open to the incorporation of new places and to stylistic redefinitions.

The culturally determined explanation of bath practice in Greek and Roman antiquity will be provided in the section on the social role of the bath in Chapter 3. At this point however it is worth noting the numerous forms of bath practice included in the list of “kinds of baths” of Wikipedia: 1. Private baths (bathtub); 2. Public baths; 3. Shower; 4. Navy shower; 5. Whirlpool baths (similar to a hot tub); 6. Swimming pools; 7. Steam shower baths; 8. Sauna or infrared sauna baths; 9. Decontamination baths; 10. Sponge baths (usually when water is in short supply); 11. Hot baths; 12. Cold baths; 13. Milk baths.

When an object, which is organically integrated into a cultural system, is being researched and interpreted by a variety of observer groups, it gives rise to diverse conceptions and images of its nature, with the result that it is being detached from its historical context. Thus, the ancient building remains, after their discovery, are reproduced endlessly in visual and explanatory terms in bibliographic sources and are merged in more or less artificial classifications, representations and externalizations of their subjectively perceived essence. We have explained the usefulness of the concept of spatiality in our attempt to comprehend in its totality a practice of the past, such as that of the bath. The spatiality of the bath in a given historical, geographical and cultural framework was defined as the sum of notions, codifications and actions which materialize into a multitude of real or imaginary spatial units and are subjected to spatial, construction and architectural typologies. Having set as our objective the creation of a system of spatial classification of bath facilities in which to combine the urban pattern framework,

In this list we find an enumeration of contemporary activities and practices which, in our days, belong conceptually to what we called “art of the bath”, activities related in various ways with a range of causal attributes. It is apparent that the above classificatory scheme is a summary of global, standardized practices. We are aware no doubt of their regional variations, even if we usually ignore the historical dimension of their evolution, caused by a variety of factors. The history of hygiene, as a cultural trait, which has

77 78

76 www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathing 18

Elias 2000. Vigarello 2000.

Introduction

the spatial framework and the integration in the urban pattern of bath facilities, we devised a hierarchical classification system of bath spatiality. Baths are classified in seven successive levels of spatiality. As we ascend the levels of classification, from level 1 to level 7, the complexity and importance of a bath facility increase, in the context of a particular urban and cultural system. We placed in level 7 various symbolic representations. The relative symbolic richness or poverty of representation signifies the centrality of bath practice in the cultural system of reference. By mapping in this way the presence of the bath at different levels in the framework of a cultural entity and at different historical moments we are in a position to diagnose transformations and discontinuities or instances of stability. What is more, we can compare the importance of the bath in various cultural systems.

Sites of bathing practice

1

Real but arBath practice chaeologically in the palace of immaterial bath- Knossos ing places Sea bath in Greek antiquity

2

Informal bathing Public fountains sites Water wells

3

Parts of buildings

House bath

4

Parts of building complexes

Palaestra bath

5

Buildings with bathing as central use

Ottoman hammam

Building complexes with bathing as central use and urban symbolic function

Imperial thermae of Rome

6

Sites of bathing practice

Examples

7

Representation of symbolic, mythical, imaginary or real places

Diana’s bath in Ovid’s Metamorphoses Assassination of Marat in David’s painting Arthur Evans’s “Queen’s Bath”

As shown in the above table, for reasons of schematic simplification and ranking in terms of importance, the spatiality of the bath can be subdivided into a hierarchy of seven structured levels of analysis. We classified in levels 1 and 7 those sites which cannot be recognized by an archaeologist or historian as accommodating bathing functions, either because they never contained specially constructed bath facilities or because of their immaterial nature. The places of level 7 are mythical, imaginary or real, but they are either creatures of representational or symbolic imagery or, in case they really existed, they are reproduced for us in immaterial traditions, accounts and practices. The reason we placed level 7 at the top of the hierarchy, although it shares an immaterial quality with level 1, is because the symbolic value of the bath practice increases as we ascend the ladder from 1 to 7. Indeed, the “sites” of the seventh level may not possess a material reality but they are rich in symbolism. At the level of research, levels1 and 7 places are traceable only in written records and various artistic reproductions or at best, as in the case of level 7, through comparative anthropological data. Diana’s mythical bath, Ulysses’s bath in the cave of Calypso, the lethal baths of Minos or Agamemnon, the drawings of “experimental places”, as named by Pierre Gros79, in Villa Adriana in Tivoli, all belong to the seventh level. The bath of Ulysses on the beach of Phaeacia can be placed between the first and the seventh level. The hero’s meeting with Nausicaa clearly takes place in a mythical locality.

Table 4 Levels of bath spatiality Level of bath spatiality

Level of bath spatiality

Examples

Finnish sauna

The relaxation or entertainment bath on the sea shore or at a riverine location is an activity which remains absent in archaeological findings. It belongs however to level 1, given that its practice is confirmed in literary and anthropological research. Sea baths appear in iconographic representations, as e.g. in the painting of bathing women on a black-figure Attic amphora of the Priam painter or in the painting of a diver in the Tomba del Tuffatore in Paestum (Poseidonia). The sites of level 7 can appear in endless variations depending on their context of reproduction, while

Temple of Mohenjo-Daro

79 19

Gros 1996.

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

those of level 1 are mostly places of natural water withdrawal (springs, riverine or sea shore locations, caves etc). It is worth stressing here that through level 7 baths, mainly their representations in literary sources, we are in a position to appreciate the social role of the bath in Greek and Roman traditions.

township or sanctuary), and finally in a complex cultural context produced by specific cultural influences and the historical events which marked its birth.

Summary

The second level includes built spatial locations, where bathing was a side activity. Our sources in this case are the same as in levels 1 and 7, but to these is added the existence of some identifiable construction remains. We refer mostly to structures of artificial water withdrawal, i.e. fountains and water wells.

The object of our research is the transformations of the architecture and spatial framework of baths in Helladic space during the Greek and Roman antiquity. We used the region of the Peloponnese as a case study in order to identify basic trends and compare them with the remainder of Helladic space. The study of bathing facilities was integrated in a wider Mediterranean context. Our objective was to improve our understanding of the impact of early Hellenization of the Italian peninsula, of the Hellenizing force of ideology and of the reverse process of Romanization of Eastern provinces, on the production of space and bath architecture. To achieve this objective we used the instrument of “spectral” classification of the constituent elements of bathing facilities of Greek and Roman traditions in Helladic space. Our taxonomy was divided into basic historical categories, architectural classifications and classifications of the modes of spatial integration of baths. The last two types of classification produced indicators of Romanization, i.e. the indices of typology and spatiality. With the help of these indicators we attempt to comprehend and describe the nature and special features of the Romanization of baths in Helladic space.

We classified in the third level spatial units which were specially arranged for bath practice and integrated in houses. Similarly arranged units but integrated in building complexes for public use were classified in the fourth level. Units which, in addition, were integrated in complexes where bathing was the dominant function were classified in the fifth level. This is the case of balaneia, balneae, thermae, byzantine bath facilities, hammam etc. The sixth level can be encountered in a very small number of cultural systems. In this case, as in Rome or in MohenjoDaro in Indus Valley, the social and spatial significance of the baths acquires a dominant dimension in the respective urban formation. We are justified in claiming that the imperial thermae of Rome came to symbolize the very essence of urbanity. As pointed out by Yegül, “the grand layouts of the imperial thermae share the same formal qualities of planning found in the more ambitious of the imperial fora and, like them, display the Roman penchant for creating a total artificial environment, much like a miniature city in size, sense, and symbol”80. From our classification we can conclude that the spatiality of the bath, more than a constantly transformed aggregate of real and imaginary places, constitutes a web of frameworks within which these places are embedded and through which they acquire their form. The need to understand the frameworks, or else their constituent parts, becomes pressing in our study because, as we shall see later, spatial types and forms are often transplanted in toto, geographically and temporally, in different contexts. Sometimes, a stable framework hosts an evolving type the transformation of which follows the example of another geographically remote framework. On other occasions, a stable type survives unalterable in a changing framework. Thus, a spatial unit (i.e. a bath facility) is first integrated in a particular building form within the urban pattern (e.g. in a palaestra, other public building etc), which belongs to one of the levels of spatiality described above and represents in broad terms the unit’s spatial – architectural environment. The same spatial unit is further enclosed in a spatial framework corresponding to the urban functional zone where it is located (e.g. residential area, city periphery etc), then in the urban pattern framework itself (e.g. city, 80

Yegül 1992, 3. 20

THE BATH IN BRONZE AGE GREECE AND IN THE HOMERIC EPICS

by the scarcity of the archaeological remains but also by the role of the bath in palatial societies which was most probably connected to ritual practices and the conspicuous consumption of luxury artefacts82. With the exception of the architectural remains of the bathing installations of the Mycenaean palaces, whose function is indirectly illuminated by abstracts from the Homeric epics and Linear B inscriptions, the bathing traditions of the Aegean Bronze Age remain obscure. Therefore, the description of bathing practices, their social function, spatial characteristics and the function of bath paraphernalia should be approached with great caution.

Introductory notes Meanwhile the fair Polycaste, the youngest daughter of Nestor, son of Neleus, bathed Telemachus. And when she had bathed him and anointed him richly with oil, and had cast about him a fair cloak and a tunic, forth from the bath he came in form like unto the immortals; and he went and sat down by Nestor, the shepherd of the people81.

When the form of a certain ritual, such as the practice of the bath in prehistory, is uncertain, it is very difficult for the historian to select sound criteria for the recognition and description of its spatial and architectural characteristics in the archaeological record. In the following lines the indices commonly used for the recognition of a bathing installation are listed.

The object of Chapter 1 is the historical background of the Greek bathing culture which characterizes the archaeological remains of the archaic, classical, Hellenistic and sometimes of the Roman period. This background, which is located in the Aegean world, is neither homogenous nor historically independent but is characterized by a series of episodes. Neither the historical connection between these episodes nor the origin of the Greek bathing culture from them appears as archaeologically straightforward.

The main index for the interpretation of a functional sequence as a bathing installation is the in situ preservation of some kind of tub or basin whose form can be recognized as not belonging to some other kind of functional category (water tank, industrial installation, ritual layout). A second criterion is the existence of water supply, sewage and heating installations, which can of course be related to functions other than bathing. A third index is the use of water proof coating and architectural details specially perceived for spaces with water installations. The fourth index is formed by the archaeological and functional context of the installation. The scholar must estimate, usually based on common sense, if it appears rational for a bathing installation to be situated in the given architectural and functional context. The fifth and last index is the relation of the installation under examination with the existing comparative material either excavated or belonging to iconographical representations and literary texts.

The chapter is divided into three subchapters. In “The bath in the Minoan civilization” themes concerning the Minoan larnax and the lustral basins of the Cretan palaces and villas are described. In the second subchapter (“The bath in the Mycenaean civilization”) the baths of the Mycenaean palaces of Tiryns, Pylos and Mycenae will be examined along with Linear B inscriptions relevant to bathing practices. The bathing practices in the Odyssey and the Iliad hold a particular place in the history of the bath in antiquity. As Homer’s descriptions represent a fusion of elements belonging to long period of time from the Bronze Age to the 8th century BC, the relevant passages as well as the meaning of the Homeric word asaminthos are examined separately in “The bath in the Homeric epics”.

Indices for the recognition of bathing installations

The aim of the chapter is not an exhausting description of the material pertaining to bathing practices of the period under question, but a delineation of the spatiality of the bath, to the extent that this is possible owing to the scarcity of the archaeological remains and the lack of literary sources and relevant iconography. Additionally we will present the hypotheses formulated in the existing bibliography concerning the continuities and/or discontinuities of bathing traditions in the Aegean from the Bronze Age to the Archaic period.

1

In situ discovery of bath-tub, basin or other bath paraphernalia

2

Water supply and/or sewage installation

3

Use of water proof building technologies

4

Location of bath installation in building

5

Existence of comparative material

Table 5 Indices for the recognition of bathing installations in the study of ancient architectural remains

It is necessary at this point to make some methodological observations on the study of bathing installations (and generally of water installations) in the Bronze Age. The understanding of the available data is impeded not only

82 The term ‘conspicuous consumption’ was used for the first time from Thorstein Veblen in 1899 in his book The Theory of the Leisure Class in order to describe the nouveau riche. The term has been used widely in the study of Bronze Age cultures (See e.g. Schoep, I., 2004, “Assessing the role of architecture in conspicuous consumption in the Middle Minoan I-II Periods.” Oxford Journal of Archaeology, vol. 23/3, 243-269.)

81 Homer’s Odyssey, 3, 464-469 (Translation by A. T. Murray, 1919). 21

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

The bath in the Minoan civilization

described in the following paragraphs.

Although several larnakes have been discovered in residential contexts (houses and palaces), the majority of vessels were found during the excavation of cemeteries. Their peculiar form favoured their reuse as sarcophagi83. As Graham points out: “The comparatively few and fragmentary bathtubs, mostly in LM I-II contexts, that have been mentioned in publications ... were used almost indiscriminately in one or another of the rooms of the Minoan palaces or houses. At any rate their fewness contrasts strongly with the mass of tubs of LM III date found for the most part in burials of that period, where they were used, or reused, as coffins.”84 It is worth mentioning that Evans believed that the practice of burying the dead in wash basins originated in the myth of the murder of Minos in his bath.

As we said before, Evans distinguished the bathrooms of Knossos from the rooms he described as “lustral basins”. Based on a set of common architectural elements he grouped the lustral basins in a discrete typological category to which, at the outset of his investigations, he ascribed the function of the impluvium. Later on he interpreted the group as bathing tanks and finally he named the architectural units “lustral basins”88. Evans describes eight lustral basins, five of which belonged to the palace (Northern, North Eastern, North Western, South Eastern and Lustral Basin of the Throne Room), while three were discovered in independent houses (Little Palace, South House and House of the Chancel Screen). Evans’ interpretation of the bathrooms of Knossos was not based on their architectural characteristics but on the presence of sherds from larnakes near by. He describes three bathrooms in total. The “Bath-room of the Queen’s Megaron” and the “South East Bath-room” were discovered in the palace in the area of the “Queen’s Megaron” and in the residential quarter. The third bathroom was found in the “South House” and according to Evans it was the result of the restoration of a lustral basin of MM III period. The basic criteria used for the recognition of the bathing installations were their location in residential areas and the discovery of sherds from broken basins nearby, the form of which was restored graphically in The Palace of Minos89.

The formal particularities and the decoration of the studied larnakes allow a sufficiently detailed typological classification which is not however the object of the present study. Despite their differences the Minoan larnakes share a set of common characteristics. As Ginouvès mentions “Malgré quelques particularités, elles présentent un type assez régulier: ce sont des récipients de terre cuite, à fond plat, de plan quadrangulaire, mais avec les angles adoucis par des courbes plus ou moins importantes, et dont la hauteur est suffisante pour que le corps soit en grande partie immergé.”85 Not all vessels were equipped with a drain. It is quite possible that bathing in the Minoan world was practiced in portable bathtubs (larnakes) which were placed in non specific rooms of the household layout. If this is the case the spatiality of the bath in the Minoan civilization should be searched in the first level of bath spatiality, namely in that of real but archaeologically immaterial bathing places. Although the findings from Knossos and the other palatial centres confirm the hypothesis stated above, due to the lack of sufficient data it can only be guessed at for the time being.

Unlike the floors of “lustral basins”, the floors of the two bathrooms of the palace are found at the same level with those of the surrounding rooms. The above fact persuaded Evans that the MM III “lustral basin” of the “South House” was filled in order to function as a ground floor bathroom with a portable bathtub. A religious function was thus transformed, according to Evans, into a social ritual. As already mentioned the floor of the “Bathroom of the Queen’s Megaron” was discovered at the same level with the surrounding rooms. The room’s architecture led different scholars to the sound assumption that the core of the spatial unit was, as in the case of the bathroom of the “South House”, originally constructed at a sunken level and functioned as a lustral basin and was filled in later90. The bathroom’s layout follows the typical for a lustral basin labyrinthine plan which was accomplished with the construction of a vertical parapet wall. On this wall a stone column with the trace of a wooden column was found. This layout is probably the result of the existence, during an older phase, of a staircase leading to the sunken level of the lustral basin. The room’s decoration was dated by Evans to the LM IA period.

During the dawn of Minoan archaeology, Evans in The Palace of Minos drew a straight line between “bath-rooms” and “lustral basins”86. As we shall see later Evans’ strict distinction has been reevaluated by other scholars. As a result the function of the bath and its relationship to lustral basins, if any, remains obscure. The studies on the ritual function of Minoan lustral basins in palaces and villas are numerous87. As Minoan religion is completely out of the scope of the present study, the different theories which have been proposed up to date on the role of the lustral basin in Minoan society will not be described here. However, the scientific debate which arose from Evans’ classification of baths and lustral basins will be

If one ignores the ground floor level, the “Bathroom of the Queen’s Megaron” follows the typical layout of the lustral

83 Ginouvès 1962, 29. 84 Graham 1977, 119-120. 85 Ginouvès 1962, 29-30. 86 Evans 1930. 87 Nillson 1950, 93-94, Alexiou 1972, 414-434, Nordfeldt 1987, 187-194.

88 89 90 22

Ginouvès 1962, 160, 1. Evans 1930 III, 385, 386. Graham 1962; Platon 1967.

The bath in Bronze Age Greece and in the Homeric epics

basin. One can easily assume that the reasons which persuaded Evans to interpret the spatial unit as a bath and not as a lustral basin were its ground floor level, its location in the residential quarter and lastly but most importantly the discovery at a small distance of sherds from a broken basin. As Evans mentions “The function of this small chamber … was clearly indicated by the discovery by its entrance, and in the adjoining section of the ‘Megaron’, of remains of a painted clay bath that had been evidently thrown out at the time when the floor had been made use of for the storage of lime.”91 On the basis of the decoration on the sherds the bathtub was dated to the LM II period. Evans’ restitution of the bathtub measured 1,04-1,29m length and 0,50m height. The importance of the basin’s discovery has been questioned by other scholars after Evans. Alexiou refers to a number of similar discoveries which cannot be linked to special rooms92. The second bathtub in Knossos was discovered by Evans in “Southeastern Bath” and was dated to MM IIIB or the LM IA period.

covered with gypsum, a material which is sensitive to water and humidity. According to Ginouvès, however, the presence of gypsum wall coatings cannot be used as an index of bathing practices as it appears in units whose bathing function cannot be questioned (Bath of the Caravanserai) as well as in rooms to which the use of water cannot be ascribed. The basic criterion, however, according to Ginouvès for the classification of a bathing facility is the in situ discovery of a basin, something which does not apply in the case of Evans’ bathrooms. So, inverting Evans’ argument, Ginouvès argued that given the fact that the ceramic sherds from the larnakes were not found inside but near the rooms in question, the two spaces must have accommodated different functions. Ginouvès proposes the classification as a bathing facility for a small area in the area of the Caravanserai in the palace of Knossos. The room was equipped with a water drainage installation97. “Une salle rectangulaire, donnant d’un côté sur l’extérieur, conduisant de l’ autre, par cinq degrés, vers une cour, est presque totalement occupée par un bassin de 1 m. 75x1 m. 45; On pouvait s’ asseoir, les pieds dans l’ eau, sur une sorte de margelle qui forme les longs côtés, et qui comporte des dalles en encorbellement par rapport aux parois du bassin, afin de laisser plus d’ espace aux jambes des usagers. Ce bain aurait été transformé en simple réservoir au MR IIIB”98. In the adjacent room ceramic sherds were discovered and according to Ginouvès we can possibly restore there a water heating installation. Again according to Ginouvès, a second bathroom can be recognized in the area southwest of the central court. On the south wall of this room a basin which measured 1,03m X 0,41m was found, in front of which a drainage canal passed.

In conclusion the two criteria Evans used for the recognition of a bathing installation were (1) the presence of a basin and (2) the location of the bathing unit in a residential area. Graham notes: “He [Evans] tells us what are bathrooms and what are lustral chambers, but exactly what, in his mind, distinguishes them he leaves to be inferred.”93 Evans’ thesis was first disputed in 1950 by Hutchinson who maintained, in an article which appeared in The Town Planning Review, that the bathrooms of Knossos were not actually bathrooms for the following reasons: (1) Water drainage installations are completely absent and (2) gypsum is destroyed when exposed to running water94. In 1962 Ginouvès, in the chapter of Balaneutiké on the private bath in Greek antiquity, follows Evans’ classification of spatial units connected to water consumption into bathrooms and lustral basins95. He proposes, however, a different set of criteria for the recognition of bathing facilities in the archaeological record and classifies the “Bathroom of the Queen’s Megaron” and the “Southeast Bath” in the category of lustral basins.

To his group of bathrooms Ginouvès added Room VI 5 of the Palace of Mallia, a unit in the northeast area of House Δα at the town of Mallia, Room 82 of the Palace of Phaistos, Room ΙΧ of House Ζβ at Mallia, a room in Phylakopi in Melos and finally a unit in Poliochni in Lemnos. The common feature of the above rooms is the presence of water drainage arrangements.

Ginouvès recognizes the absence of a concrete method in Evans’ approach to bathing practices and describes the correct criteria, according to him, for the recognition of lustral basins. The first index, according to Ginouvès is the sunken floor96. The “Bathroom of the Queen’s Megaron” and the “Southeast Bath” in Knossos represent exceptions to the rule. The second characteristic of a lustral basin, following Ginouvès’ thesis, is the absence of drainage installations. The third recognizable element is the typical layout of the lustral basin. Again the “Southeast Bath” in Knossos features as an exception. The walls of lustral basins are 91 92 93 94 95 96

Ginouvès functionalist outlook is important in the following sense: It revealed that up to then no sound method was used for the study and classification of spaces related to bathing practices. Walter Graham’s book The Palaces of Crete appeared in 1962 during the same year as Ginouvès’ Balaneutiké. The fifth chapter of the book included a section entitled “Bathrooms or Lustral Chambers?”99 , which was based on an article of the same author published under the exact same title100. Graham in his analysis proposes a different approach

Evans 1930, III 385. Alexiou 1972. Graham 1962, 99. Graham 1962, 99; Hutchinson 1950, 209ff. Ginouvès 1962. Ginouvès 1962, 160, 1.

97 98 99 100 23

Evans 1930 II, 116-123; Ginouvès 1962, 156. Ginouvès 1962, 156, 10. Graham 1962, 99-108. Graham 1961, 189ff.

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

to the problem of bathrooms and lustral basins101. He does not agree with the centrality of the criterion of water proof coatings and drainage installations in the study of bathing facilities. If the bath took place in basins the existence of water proof coatings on the walls is of no importance. According to Graham the impression that a bathroom should be filled with bath water belongs to Evans’ initial theoretical construction (impluvia, fish tanks and swimming pools)102. Graham’s argument is reinforced by the fact that gypsum was also used on exterior walls. “Gypsum blocks are much used in exterior walls, in the great orthostates on the west façade at Knossos, for example; and gypsum was actually used for the floor of the foot basin in the Caravanserai at Knossos, in which water stood or flowed constantly.”103 According to Graham neither the presence of drainage installations should be used as an index, as the bath could take place in portable basins manually emptied.

was used with larger functional and spatial flexibility than imagined up to date. In his opinion this flexibility is more notable in areas located in between quarters with domestic and religious emphasis. Platon concludes as follows: “…since the first neo-palatial phase bathrooms have been used near the principal living rooms of the Palaces, as well as of other distinguished villas, country houses and large residences… Similar bathrooms were used for the ritual purpose of purification, either near the rooms of the shrine itself or near the entrances leading into them. But even the bathrooms of the living quarters were often used for ritual purposes, as has been proved by the ritual vessels and idols found within them or nearby.107” An important issue touched upon by Platon is that of the transformation of lustral basins into bathrooms. As already mentioned Evans observed that the floor of the “Bathroom of the South House” was filled in during the LM IA in order to function at ground floor level. The same applies to Houses A and Γ of Tylissos and to the Villa of the Lilies in Amnissos. Both Graham and Platon agree with Evans on the point that the same transformation must have taken place in the “Bathroom of the Queen’s Megaron”108.

Graham constructs his basic argument on the assumption that palaces and villas possessed bathrooms. “How are we to explain this apparent anomaly: that an essentially identical room form should have been used both for cult ceremonies and for domestic bathing? The answer I think must lie simply in the similar physical process involved; the washing away or cleansing of sin is not a figure of speech in the ancient Near East but an actual effective process. Thus the household room could be at once bathroom and lustral chamber. In taking a bath one cleansed both the body and the soul”104.

The basic criteria, according to Platon, for the recognition of a bathing installation are its location and the archaeological findings. He does not consider essential the in situ discovery of basins, bathtubs and drainage installations as the bath possibly took place in portable larnakes.

Graham touches upon the well known problem of the use of contemporary classifications (hygienic bathing-ritual bathing) in the study of cultural systems whose structures remain to a great degree unknown. Graham’s basic thesis is summarized in the hypothesis that only one type of spatial unit “bath-lustral basin” existed and that it was used either as a bath in the domestic areas or as a ritual space in the area of the sanctuaries of the house or palace.

Alexiou, in an article which appeared in 1972, supported the view that the spatial units in palaces or in houses, which were discussed up to date, were not related to bathing practices but accommodated religious rituals109. His basic thesis is that the Minoan palaces and houses did not possess a special room for the bath. It could take place anywhere with the use of portable basins. Alexiou, like Ginouvès, based his theory on the absence of drainage installations and basins among the archaeological remains.

Nikolaos Platon, in an article which appeared in 1967, followed up on Graham’s views, which he restated as follows: “…Graham accepted the opinion expressed at first by me that the places recognized as lustral rooms had in fact the character of bathrooms designed for purification, and therefore their form does not vary in the main from that of the bathrooms from which they are derived.”105

An article by Graham, which appeared in 1977, took the form of an answer to the ideas expressed by Platon110. Despite their agreement on the basic elements of the ongoing debate, which is summarized in the following lines, Graham detects a new point of controversy. “…it is still my opinion that most of the BR/LBs (Bathroms-Lustral basins) formed part of what are usually referred to as the women’s apartments, and that most of them were used for ordinary washing or bathing, though this might often, if not always, be accompanied to a greater or lesser degree by an awareness that it was at the same time a religious act involving a purification of the soul as well as of the body. On the other hand, in perhaps as many as five instances, where the room was larger, deeper, more elaborate archi-

Platon corroborated Graham’s arguments with the findings from the Palace of Zakros106 and confirmed the hypothesis that the spatial type of the “bathroom-lustral basin” 101 Tο The paper “Bathrooms or Lustral Chambers?” was first presented at the Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America in 1961 and was published in AJA 65, 1961, 189. 102 Εvans, BSA 6, 1899-1900, 38-39, Evans, BSA 7, 19001901, 63. 103 Graham 1962, 104. 104 Graham 1962, 107. 105 Platon 1967, 237. 106 “Bath-Lustral chamber Ψ of House Δ” and “Lustral chamber” of the palace (see Platon 1962 and και 1963).

107 Platon 1967, 244. 108 Graham 1962, 103; Platon 1967, 239. 109 Alexiou, 1972, “About the Minoan Lustral Chambers”, CretChron, 24, 414-434. 110 Platon 1967. 24

The bath in Bronze Age Greece and in the Homeric epics

tecturally, and sometimes included the display of religious symbols such as the double-axe, the BR/LB may appear to have functioned primarily, or even exclusively, as a place for the ritual performance of an act of lustration or of some related form of religious ritual involving the use of a liquid cleansing agent. Between these two extremes of usage the relative degree of emphasis – practical or religious – might vary widely in the specific case.”111 The most characteristic examples of the first group of spatial units to which Graham refers to is the “Bathroom of the Queen’s Megaron” in Knossos and two similar units in the residential quarters of the Palaces of Phaistos and Mallia. According to Graham these three spaces share the same spatial context. It is therefore logical to assume that if Evans was right and the “Bathroom of the Queen’s Megaron” was indeed a bath, the syntactically homologous rooms in other palaces must have also functioned as baths. The disagreement between Graham and Platon lies in the interpretation of the spatial context of “Baths-Lustral Basins”. Although such areas have been loosely interpreted as domestic quarters (domestic/residential area/quarter), the interpretation of the individual rooms remains obscure. Although Graham argues in favour of the exact correspondence between form and function, Platon ascribes to similar spatial units different functions. From the unresolved debate described above, it becomes clear that the classification of a group of spatial units in Minoan palaces and houses was organized on the basis of a series of unsound criteria. Although the hypothesis that water was present in these rooms remains relevant from Evans’ inquiries until today, in reality it remains obscure and undocumented.

Evans

Hutchinson

Ginouvès

Graham

Bathing facilities

Lustral basin

Bathing facilities/Lustral basins

Bath-room of ‘Queen’s Megaron’ (PK)

Evans

Ginouvès Alexiou

Graham Platon

SE Bath-Room (PK)

Evans

Ginouvès

Graham Platon

N Lustral Basin (PK)

Evans

NE Lustral Basin (PK)

Evans

NW Lustral Basin (PK)

Evans

SE Lustral Basin (PK)

Evans

Lustral Basin of the Throne Room (PK)

Evans Ginouvès

Bain du Caravansérail (PK)

Ginouvès

Bath SW of court (PK)

Ginouvès

Lustral Basin/ Bath-room of the South House (K)

Evans

Lustral Basin of the Little Palace (K)

Evans

Lustral Basin of the House of the Chancel Screen (K)

Evans

House B (K)

Ginouvès

Pièce 82 (Ph)

Ginouvès

North residential quarter (Ph)

Graham

Graham

Graham

Graham

South-western quarter, room 19 (PPh) South-western quarter, room 21 (PPh)

Platon

Basin Floor level Location Floor area

Salle IX (PM)

Ginouvès

Salle III, 9 (PM)

Graham

Maison Δα (M)

Ginouvès

Maison ZβSalle IX (M)

Ginouvès

Maison E (M)

Wall dressing

Graham

House E (T)

Drainage

House Γ (Τ)

Findings

Villa of the Lilies (A) House Ψ οf House Δ (Z)

Table 6 Criteria used by different scholars for the identification of bathing facilities 111

Graham

Evans

East residential quarter (PPh)

Scholars who researched the function of minoan baths and lustral basins Criteria

Location

Graham 1977, 111. 25

Platon

Palace shrine (PZ)

Platon

East Wing, room 58 (PZ)

Platon

Graham

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

Location

Bathing facilities

Phylakopi bath

Ginouvès

Poliochni bath

Ginouvès

Lustral basin

by Dörpfeld in 1885115 and it belongs to a group of rooms which was named Die Räume westlich des Megaron and which represent an important functional unit of the complex. The bath belongs to the third building phase of the acropolis116, is dated to the LH III B period (end of 13th century BC) and was destroyed by fire during the 12th century BC.

Bathing facilities/Lustral basins

Table 7 Baths, lustral basins, baths/lustral basins in the Minoan culture

The bath consists of an antechamber to the south (Xia) and the main unit (XI) and covers a total area of 13,50m. The anteroom measures 2,50m X 2 m and is reached from corridor XII on its west side. No cuttings are made on the threshold and Μüller presumed that the bathroom was closed with the use of a curtain or by other means117. On the east wall of the antechamber a series of stones discovered in situ have been interpreted as the remains of a bench.

In Table 7 the divergence of opinion of the different scholars is shown. The scholars who ascribed bathing practices to spaces with typological elements belonging to the lustral basin were, to a different degree, Evans, Graham and Platon. On the other hand Ginouvès and Alexiou detached these spaces from the function of the bath. Alexiou’ thesis remains up to date the least problematic.

The bathroom floor was constructed with a huge limestone slab which measures 3,00m X 4,00m X 0,70m and which was dressed in such a way as to channel the water towards a drainage hole in the northwest corner of the room. As Μüller mentions “Der riesige Kalsteinblock, der seinen Fußboden bildet und besonders im Westen sogar noch weiter darüber hinausreicht, als Dörpfeld vor der Zerstörung der Mauern annehmen konnte, ist offenbar erst hergerichtet worden, als er schon an Ort und Stelle lag.”118 It is apparent that the location of the bath was determined by the place of the huge slab which was dressed in situ. An elevated frame in the dressing of the stone runs around the floor and functions as a wall base.

A second point, which can be observed in Table 6, can be made on the divergence of the different scholars on the selection of criteria for the recognition of bathing installations. In conclusion, it is fairly safe to propose that in the Minoan culture the existence of a special room type designated for bathing practices cannot be proved up to date. Alexiou’ hypothesis that the bath took place in portable bathtubs remains the soundest. Therefore, for the time being, the spatiality of the bath in the Minoan culture can only be classified to the first level, that of archaeologically invisible bathing installations.

The elevated frame of the floor is interrupted in front of the drainage hole. The section of the drainage pipe which cut through the wall is missing. The water was chanelled to unit X which Dörpfeld interpreted as an open-air courtyard. Μüller recognized the function of a lightwell. “Sein Zweck war auch ein besonderer, nämlich den umliegenden Räumen Licht und Luft zu geben und dem Wasserabfluß zu dienen.”119 The floor of the light well slopes towards south, where the drainage hole which leads to the main channel can be found. “Nahe dieser Stelle ist der Abfluß des Badezimmers; kastenförmige Tonrinnen, die Dörpfeld aufgenommen hat und die seitdem verschwunden sind, leiteten ihr das Wasser zu.”120

The bath in the Mycenean civilization In the following table the dating of the known bathing facilities of the Mycenaean period in Tiryns112, Mycenae113 and Pylos114 are shown. Location

Bathing facilities

Chronology

Tiryns

Bath of the Palace of Tiryns

LHIIIA, LHIIIB

Mycenae

Red Bath of the Palace of Mycenae

LHIIIA

Pylos

Bath of the Palace of Pylos

LHIIIB

Μüller argued that the stone threshhold between the antechamber and the bath was covered with a wooden coating in order to protect the antechamber.121 Μüller based this hypothesis on the undressed surface of the threshhold and on its level which is found 4cm lower than that of the antechamber’s threshhold.

Table 8 Dating of Mycenaean bathing facilities The Bath of the Palace of Tiryns is located to the west of the megaron. It was first interpreted as a bathing facility

In 1907 the remains of a pair of basins were still present on the north wall of room XI. In 1930, however, they were

112 Schliemann 1885, 215-218, Müller 1930, 150-151, Taf. 34, Ginouvès 1962, 159, (9), Hoffmann 1999, 188, Abb. 125a-127. 113 Wace 1925, 263-266, Ginouvès 1962, 159, (9). 114 Βlegen 1956, 99-101, Blegen 1966, Blegen et al 2001, 22, Ginouvès 1962, 159, (9).

115 116 117 118 119 120 121 26

Dörpfeld 1886, 260. Müller 1930, 156. Müller 1930, 150. Müller 1930, 150. Müller 1930, 151. Müller 1930, 151-152. Müller 1930, 150-151; Hoffmann 1999, 188.

The bath in Bronze Age Greece and in the Homeric epics

completely destroyed122. Recessions on the wall of the bathroom functioned possibly for the storage of bathing paraphernalia123.

The floor of the room was covered with stucco and followed a northwest-northeast pitch. One or two drainage holes, which channeled the water under the wall, were constructed in the east corner of the room.

From the location and access to the bath Μüller concluded that the installation must have functioned in the context of the residential area and rules out the possibility of a ritual function. “Das Bad gehört also zu den Wohnräumen im Westen und nicht zum Megaron, und wir können keine Beziehungen ritueller oder sonstiger Natur zwischen ihm und dem Megaron am Grundriß erkennen.”124 It is interesting that, as in the case of the study of minoan baths/lustral basins, the context of the bathing installation detrmines the interpretation of its function.

The asaminthos (larnax) was found in situ against the southeast wall of the bath inside a base made of clay. The plan of the base is trapezoid shaped. The excavators classified the larnax in the “narrow waisted type with broad flat rim.”131 It posessed handles on its three free sides but also possibly on the fourth side against the wall. The entrance of the bather in the tub was facilitated by a clay step. In reference to the function of the bathtub the excavators mention: “The larnax is too short to allow a person of any size to stretch out at length; it was rather a sitz-bad in which the bather sat while water was poured over him by an attendant. Such was no doubt the bath in which Telemachos was scrubbed and rubbed down by Polykaste as recounted in the Odyssey.”132

In the northeast area of the Palace of Mycenae a small room with a drainage installation was excavated which possibly functioned as a bath. Its name, the “Red Bath”, which was given to it by the excavator, derived from the colour of the wall stucco. Its location in the palace complex presents analogies with that of the Bath of the Palace of Tiryns. From the dating of findings in adjacent deposits the “bath” was dated to the LH III A2 period, a period during which the palace was rebuilt125.

To the south west of the asaminthos a second clay base was discovered which contained two pithoi. It is not certain if these vessels contained water or oil or both133. Sherds from broken kylikes were found inside the pithoi.

The “Red Bath” was described by Wace as a “…curious stepped construction covered over with red stucco…”.126 He continues as follows: “On the west we have the remains of three steps which seem to have been, so far as we can judge, about 0,50m deep and 0,23-0,34m high. On the north there is one step running along the base of a wall covered with red stucco, like the steps and the flat rectangular space they enclose. At the east end of the wall a stone-built drain runs down through the wall from north to south.”127 The function of the bath is not straightfoward in the case of the “Red Bath”. The drainage installation and its location in the palace point in the direction of a bathing interpretation of the spatial unit. Wace also points to the similarity of the room with the “tank baths” of the “lustral areas” of the Palace of Knossos and arrives to the conclusion that it possesed a bathing and ritual function128.

From the different features of the spatial units described above it becomes fairly clear that special bathing installations with drainage facilities were constructed in Mycenaean palaces. These installations constituted parts of large complexes so they can be classified in the fourth level of bath spatiality. From the available it is impossible to construct a typology of bathing units in the mycenaean culture. Larnakes, however, as in the Minoan culture present an important level of stylization. We can therefore surmize that the spatiality of bath in the Mycenaean culture is organized is classified in the second and fourth level of bath spatiality. Reference to baths in mycenaean antiquity is made in Linear B texts found in Pylos and Knossos. In these texts words that appear include ke-ni-qa, a-sa-mi-to (asaminthos), rewo-te-re-jo and re-wo-to-ro-ko-wo.

The Bath of Palace of Pylos –Room 43129 - is located in the southeast area of the palace. It is dated to the LH IIIB period. The room measures 6,34m X 2,56m and was accessed through Room 43 which functioned as an antechamber for several rooms. The traces of the wooden wall structure as well of the stucco can still be noticed on the wall of the bathroom whose height does not exceed 1,20m. Slightly over the floor level the trace of a blue-grey band can be seen on the wall. It is not, however, clear if it is decorative or if it was caused by fire130. 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130

The noun “asaminthos” means bathtub and is found both in Homeric epic poems and in Linear B texts. On one side of the seal Kn Ws 8497 discovered in Knossos in 1901 by Arthur Evans and Duncan Mackenzie we find two engraved ideograms on the figure of a reindeer. The first is a symbol, while the second is an oblong which might represent a basin. On the other side we observe two engraved words, i.e. ke-ni-qa (vessel for hand washing) and a-sa-mi-to134. In brief, reference is made in Linear B texts to washing practices, bath equipment and persons charged with tasks related to bathing. References to special bathing spaces are absent. This strengthens the hypothesis of the place of the

Müller 1930, 151. Ginouvès 1962, 159, (9). Müller 1930, 150. Wace 1925, 264-265. Wace 1925, 263. Wace1925, 263-264. Wace 1925, 264. Blegen and Rawson, 1966, 185-190. Blegen and Rawson 1966, 186-187.

131 132 133 134 27

Blegen and Rawson 1966, 187. Blegen and Rawson 1966, 188. Blegen and Rawson 1966, 189. Sali-Axioti 1996, 109, Reece 2002, 705.

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

bath mainly at the second level of spatiality, with the use of portable basins. It also provides evidence of the presence of the bath in texts, i.e. at the seventh level of spatiality, that of various representations.

Extract: 2139 Book: 1 Verses: 309-311 Location and context: Telemachus in Ithaca (in front of disguised Athena) Social role: Preparation for a journey

The bath in the Homeric epics

Extract: 3140 Book: 3 Verses: 439-441 Location and context: Palace of Nestor Social role: Arrival of a guest, hospitality

The debate around the historical value of the archaeological information embedded in the Homeric epics is well known and is not the object of the present study. The Odyssey and the Iliad reached their final form around 700 BC or somewhat later. According to Osborne, “None of these poems offers much in the way of direct narrative history of the Greek world, but all of them presuppose certain interests and experiences on the part of the audiences of the poems”135. Prior to any evaluation of the accounts pertaining to bathing, a reminder is necessary that the objects, sites, practices etc mentioned in these accounts do not have a uniform historical significance and cannot be dated to a single period. It is in fact most probable that certain object descriptions, such as the frequent reference to the asaminthos (bathtub), aimed at recalling the heroic past in the imagination of the audience in a symbolic rather than pragmatic way.

Extract: 4141 Book: 3 Verses: 464-469 Location and context: Palace of Nestor Social role: Arrival of a guest, hospitality Extract: 5142 Book: 4 Verses: 43-54 Location and context: Palace of Menelaus Social role: Arrival of a guest, hospitality Extract: 6143 Book: 4 Verses: 128-129 Location and context: Palace of Menelaus Social role: Gift from a guest

We provide a table of extracts from the Odyssey136, which include references to the practice of the bath. For each extract, which is then quoted in a footnote, we mention the book of the epic poem in which it can be found, the verse numbers, the location and context in which the incident is placed and the social role of the particular bathing event.

Extract: 7144 Book: 4 Verses: 252-255 Location and context: Palace of Menelaus Social role: Arrival of a guest, hospitality

As in the case of the Odyssey, we will also provide a table of extracts from the Iliad137, which include references to the practice of bathing and washing. For each extract we provide the same information as for the Odyssey.

139 [Astute Telemachus said ] But come now, stay a while, though you’re eager for your journey, so that bathed and with dear heart at ease, you’ll go to your ship glad at heart ….. 140 Stratius and divine Echephron led the cow by the horns, Aretus came from his chamber, bringing water for washing in a flowery basin, and he had barley groats in a basket … 141 Meanwhile, beautiful Polycaste, youngest daughter of Nestor Neleides, bathed Telemachus. Then after she bathed him and anointed him richly with olive oil, she threw a fine cloak and tunic about him, then he went from the tub like immortals in form and went and sat down beside Nestor, the shepherd of men. 142 … They beheld with wonder the house of the Zeusnurtured king. For there was a radiance, as of the sun or moon, throughout gloried Menelaus’ high-roofed house. Then after they’d looked and satisfied their eyes, they stepped into wellpolished tubs and bathed. After slave women washed them, and anointed them with olive oil, and threw about them woolen robes and tunics, they sat on chairs beside Atreides Menelaus. A handmaid brought water for washing in a fine golden pitcher and poured it above a silver basin so they could wash then pulled a polished table beside them. 143 Polybus gave Menelaus two silver bathtubs, two tripods, and ten talents of gold. 144 But when at last I’d bathed him and anointed him with olive oil, dressed clothing about him, and swore a great oath not to make him known among the Trojans as Odysseus before he reached his huts and swift ships…

Table 9 Extracts from the Odyssey

Extract: 1138 Book: 1 Verses: 136-138 Location and context: Palace of Ulysses in Ithaca Social role: Relaxation, hospitality

135 Osborne 1996, 137. 136 The extracts are derived from the translation by James Huddleston which can be found in the Chicago Homer database, (http://digital.library.northwestern.edu/homer/) 137 The extracts are derived from the translation by Richmond Lattimore which can be found in the Chicago Homer (database, http://digital.library.northwestern.edu/homer/) 138 A handmaid brought water for washing in a fine golden pitcher and poured it above a silver basin so they could wash, then pulled a polished table beside them. 28

The bath in Bronze Age Greece and in the Homeric epics

Extract: 8145 Book: 5 Verses: 263-264 Location and context: Ogygia (Calypso’s island) Social role: Preparation for a journey

Location and context: Palace of Alcinous Social role: Arrival of a guest, hospitality, preparation of a meal Extract: 13150 Book: 10 Verses: 348-349, 358-365 Location and context: Circe’s house Social role: Hospitality

Extract: 9146 Book: 6 Verses: 214-228 Location and context: Phaeacia (by the river) Social role: Arrival of a guest, hospitality

Extract: 14151 Book: 13 Verses: 10-15 Location and context: Palace of Alcinous Social role: Gift

Extract: 10147 Book: 8 Verses: 360-366 Location and context: Palace of Alcinous (song of singer Demodocus) Social role: Arrival of a guest, hospitality

Extract: 15152 Book: 17 Verses: 77, 84-93 Location and context: Ithaca Social role: Arrival of a guest, hospitality

Extract: 11148 Book: 8 Verses: 426-437 Location and context: Palace of Alcinous Social role: Arrival of a guest, hospitality

Extract: 16153 Book: 19 Verses: 317-320 Location and context: Ithaca Social role: Hospitality

Extract: 12149 Book: 8 Verses: 449-457

Extract: 17154 Book: 19 Verses: 317-320 Location and context: Ithaca Social role: Hospitality

145 Then on the fifth [day], divine Calypso sent him from the island after she’d bathed him and dressed him in fragrant raiment. 146 They placed beside him a cloak, a tunic, and clothing, and gave liquid olive oil in a golden oil flask, then urged him to wash himself in the river’s streams. Then divine Odysseus said to the handmaids: Handmaids, stand off a way, please, so I myself can wash the brine off my shoulders and rub them with olive oil, for ointment is a long time off my flesh. I would not wash myself in front of you, for I am ashamed to find myself naked among fair-haired girls. So said he, and they went off a distance and told the girl. Then in the river divine Odysseus washed from his flesh the brine that covered his back and broad shoulders and wiped off his head the barren sea’s scum. Then after he’d washed and richly anointed everything and put on the clothes the unwedded maiden gave him … 147 After he’d freed them from bondage, mighty as it was, the two sprang up at once, and Ares made his way to Thrace while smile-loving Aphrodite went to Cyprus, to Paphos, where she had an estate and fragrant altar. There the Graces bathed and anointed her with immortal olive oil, such as bedecks the gods who are forever, and put lovely raiment round her, a wonder to behold. 148 Heat a copper cauldron for him on the fire, and heat water so he can bathe, and see, all laid out well, the gifts the noble Phaeacians have brought here, and enjoy himself at dinner listening to the hymn of song. And I myself will present him this gorgeous golden goblet of mine, so he’ll remember me each day, when he makes libation in his hall to Zeus and other gods. So said he, and Arete told her handmaids to stand a large tripod on the fire as soon as possible. They stood a tripod for filling the bath on the burning fire poured water in it, and took and lit wood beneath it. Fire lapped around the tripod’s belly and the water heated. 149 Straightway a housekeeper ordered him to get into the tub and bathe. With gladness in his heart, he looked at the hot bath water, since he hadn’t been accustomed to any care, since he left the home of fair-haired Calypso and had had constant care all that time as a god. After the slaves bathed and anointed him with olive oil, they threw a tunic and beautiful cloak about him, and he got out of the tub and went among the men, the wine-drinkers …

150 Meanwhile, handsmaid worked in the palace, four of them … The fourth brought water and lit a big fireunder a great tripod, and the water heated. Then after the water boiled in the dazzling bronze, she sat me in a tub and bathed me from the great tripod, over my head and shoulders, once she’d mingled it to suit me, until she took the heart-wasting weariness from my limbs. Then after she bathed me and anointed me richly with olive oil, she threw a fine cloak and tunic about me … 151 Clothing for the stranger lies in a well-wrought chest, and gold, richly worked, and all the other gifts, all the ones the Phaeacian counselors brought here. But come, let’s give him a great tripod and a cauldron, each man of us. We’ll collect throughout the kingdom to repay ourselves, for it’s hard for one man to give this freely from his bounty. 152 Astute Telemachus said back to him in turn …So saying, he led the much-tried stranger to his house. Then after they arrived at the well-settled house they put down their cloaks on chairs and couches, stepped into well-polished tubs, and bathed. After slave women washed them and anointed them with olive oil and threw about them woolen robes and tunics, they stepped out of the tubs and sat on couches. A handmaid brought water for washing in a fine golden pitcher and poured it above a silver basin so they could wash, then pulled a polished table beside them. 153 But, handmaids, wash him off and put a bed down, bedding, and cloaks, and shiny blankets, so he can reach goldenthroned Dawn in comfortable warmth. In the morning, very early, bathe and anoint him … 154 I have an old woman, who holds counsels closely in her mind, who reared and brought up well that wretched one and received him with her hands when his mother first bore him, who’ll wash your feet, though, as it is, she has little strength. But come now, prudent Eurycleia, stand up and wash the feet of one the same age as your master … 29

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

Extract: 18155 Book: 19 Verses: 382, 386-393 Location and context: Ithaca Social role: Hospitality

Extract: 24161 Book: 24 Verses: 365-371 Location and context: Ithaca Social role: Festive preparation

Extract: 19156 Book: 19 Verses: 467-470 Location and context: Ithaca Social role: Hospitality

Table 9 Extracts from the Iliad

Extract: 20157 Book: 19 Verses: 505-507 Location and context: Ithaca Social role: Hospitality

Extract: 1162 Book: 5 Verses: 888, 899-909 Location and context: Olympus Social role: Passage from illness to healthy condition

Extract: 21158 Book: 23 Verses: 129-134 Location and context: Ithaca Social role: Festive preparation

Extract: 2163 Book: 10 Verses: 566-567, 572-579 Location and context: Diomedes’s hut Social role: Preparation of a meal

Extract: 22159 Book: 23 Verses: 153-156 Location and context: Ithaca Social role: Festive preparation Extract: 23160 Book: 23 Verses: 163-165 Location and context: Ithaca Social role: Festive preparation

155 Adroit Odysseus said to her in reply …So said he, and the old woman grabbed the gleaming basin she washed feet with, poured a lot of water in it, cold water, then poured the hot on top. Then Odysseus sat at the hearth, but suddenly turned toward darkness, at once, for in his heart he was suspicious, lest in taking hold of himshe’d take notice of his scar and his deeds would be discovered. She came near and washed her lord. She knew at once the scar, that a pig inflicted on him … 156 The old woman took the scar in her downturned hands, and knew it as she touched it, and let go of her hold on his foot. His shin fell in the basin, then the bronze rang and tilted immediately to one side, and water spilled upon the ground. 157 Then after she washed him and anointed him richly with olive oil, Odysseus drew his chair back closer to the fire, to get warm, and he hid his scar down in his rags. 158 Adroit Odysseus said to him in reply: Therefore, I’ll tell you how it seems best to me. First, wash yourselves and put tunics on about you, then bid the slave women in the palace choose their clothes. Then have the divine singer hold his cleartoned lyre and be our leader in a playful dance … 159 Then in his house the housekeeper Eurynome bathed great-hearted Odysseus and anointed him with olive oil and threw a tunic and fine cloak about him. Then Athena poured great beauty on his head … 160 He made his way, in form like the immortals, from the bath, then at once sat back down on the chair from which he’d risen, opposite his wife …

Extract: 3164 Book: 18 Verses: 348-355 Location and context: Social role: Passage to the underworld 161 Meanwhile, the Sicilian handmaid bathed Laertes and anointed him with olive oil in his house, then threw a fine cloak about him. Then Athena stood nearby and made the limbs grow for the shepherd of people. She made him bigger and thicker to behold than before. He then got out of the tub. His dear son marveled at him when he saw him looking like immortal gods … 162 Then looking at him darkly Zeus who gathers the clouds spoke …So he spoke, and told Paiëon to heal him; and scattering medicines to still pain upon him Paiëon rendered himwell again, since he was not made to be one of the mortals. As when the juice of the fig in white milk rapidly fixes that which was fluid before and curdles quickly for one who stirs it; in such speed as this he healed violent Ares; and Hebe washed him clean and put delicate clothing upon him. Meanwhile, the two went back again to the house of great Zeus, Hera of Argos, with Athene who stands by her people, after they stopped the murderous work of manslaughtering Ares. 163 … When they came to Diomedes’ strong-fashioned shelter there they tied up the horses by the carefully cut reins … And the men themselves waded into the sea and washed off the dense sweat from shin and shoulder and thigh. Afterwards when the surf of the sea had rinsed the dense-running sweat awayfrom all their skin, and the inward heart had been cooled to refreshment, they stepped into the bathtubs smooth-polished, and bathed there, and after they had bathed and anointed themselves with olive oil they sat down to dine, and from the full mixing-bowl drawing the sweet-hearted wine poured out an offering to Athene. 164 The fire worked on the swell of the cauldron, and the water heated. But when the water had come to a boil in the shining bronze, then they washed the body and anointed it softly with olive oiland stopped the gashes in his body with stored-up unguents and laid him on a bed, and shrouded him in a thin sheet from head to foot, and covered that over with a white mantle. Then all night long, gathered about Achilleus of the swift feet, the Myrmidons mourned for Patroklos and lamented over him. 30

The bath in Bronze Age Greece and in the Homeric epics

Extract: 4165 Book: 24 Verses: 299-307 Location and context: Social role: Preparation for an invocation of the gods

es which philologists call formulaic phrases which proves that it is dated to periods antedating Homer and that it has become a form of linguistic fossil170.

Extract: 5166 Book: 24 Verses: 579-583, 587-594 Location and context: Social role: Passage to the underworld We can conclude from the study of the quotations reproduced here that the bath in the Homeric world took place in the context of preparations for the arrival or departure of a guest, relaxation, meals, and the aftermath of death. It effects the necessary purification for the passage from one condition to another. The spatial dimension of bathing practice is by no means clear, but as remarked by Cook, the Homeric bathtub must have been portable167. The Homeric asaminthos is a rare case, where both the term and the object have been defined and described in surviving literary sources, as well as by archaeological research. As mentioned by Reece, in the field of research we can rely on two points of reference. The first is that Homer, when referring to an asaminthos meant a device similar to a modern bathtub, i.e. a wash basin enabling the user to immerse himself in water and thus complete an immersion bath. The second is that the word is not of Hellenic origin but has its roots in the Aegean civilization and possibly in Anatolia or Asia Minor168. It has also been suggested that the origin of the word is Cretan169. We have seen earlier that such an asaminthos was found almost intact in the bath room of the palace of Nestor, where according to Homeric legend handmaids had washed Telemachus during his visit to Pylos. The word asaminthos is frequently used in Homeric epics in the context of phras165 Then in answer to her again spoke Priam the godlike: ‘My lady, I will not disregard this wherein you urge me. It is well to lift hands to Zeus and ask if he will have mercy. The old man spoke, and told the housekeeper who attended them to pour unstained water over his hands. She standing beside them and serving them held the washing-bowl in her hands, and a pitcher. He washed his hands and took the cup from his wife. He stood up in the middle of the enclosure, and prayed, and poured the wine out looking up into the sky, and gave utterance and spoke, saying … 166 … lifted out the innumerable spoils for the head of Hektor, but left inside it two great cloaks and a finespun tunic to shroud the corpse in when they carried him home. Then Achilleus called out to his serving-maids to wash the body and anoint it all over; but take it first aside, since otherwise Priam …Then when the serving-maids had washed the corpse and anointed it with olive oil, they threw a fair great cloak and a tunic about him, and Achilleus himself lifted him and laid him on a litter, and his friends helped him lift it to the smooth-polished mule wagon. He groaned then, and called by name on his beloved companion: ‘Be not angry with me, Patroklos, if you discover, though you be in the house of Hades, that I gave back great Hektor to his loved father, for the ransom he gave me was not unworthy ... 167 Cook 1959, 31. 168 Reece 2002, 703. 169 Sali-Axioti 1996, 109.

170 31

Reece 2002, 703.

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

32

CHRONOLOGICAL AND TYPOLOGICAL ISSUES IN THE STUDY OF ROMAN BATHS IN ITALY

continually giving it vent and never holding. Seneca, Epistles, Vol. I, LVI173 In this bath of Scipio’s there are tiny chinks-you cannot call them windows-cut out of the stone wall in such a way as to admit light without weakening the fortifications; nowadays, however, people regard baths as fit only for moths if they have not been arranged that they receive the sun all day long through the widest of windows, if men cannot bathe and get a coat of tan at the same time, and if they cannot look out from their bath-tubs over stretches of land and sea. So it goes; the establishments which had drawn crowds and had won admiration when they were first opened are avoided and put back in the category of venerable antiques as soon as luxury has worked out some new device, to her own ultimate undoing. In the early days, however, there were few baths, and they were not fitted out with any display. For why should men elaborately fit out that which costs a penny only, and was invented for use, not merely for delight? The bathers of those days did not have water poured over them, nor did it always run fresh as if from a hot spring; and they did not believe that it mattered at all how perfectly pure was the water into which they were to leave their dirt. Ye gods, what a pleasure it is to enter that dark bath, covered with a common sort of roof, knowing that therein your hero Cato, as aedile, or Fabius Maximus, or one of the Cornelii, has warmed the water with his own hands! For this also used to be the duty of the noblest aediles—to enter these places to which the populace resorted, and to demand that they be cleaned and warmed to a heat required by considerations of use and health, not the heat that men have recently made fashionable, as great as a conflagration—so much so, indeed, that a slave condemned for some criminal offence now ought to be bathed alive! It seems to me that nowadays there is no difference between “the bath is on fire,” and ‘the bath is warm.”

Trachalio: Even he who goes to the bath to bathe, while there he carefully keeps an eye upon his garments, still they are stolen; inasmuch as some one of those that he is watching is a rogue; the thief easily marks him for whom he’s upon the watch; the keeper knows not which one is the thief. Plautus, Rudens, Act 2, Scene 3171 We went into the hot-house, and having sweated a little, into the cold bath; and while Trimalchio was anointed from head to foot with a liquid perfume, and rubb’d clean again, not with linnen but with finest flannel, his three chyrurgeons ply’d the muscadine, but brawling over their cups; Trimalchio said it was his turn to drink; then wrapt in a scarlet mantle, he was laid on a litter born by six servants … Petronius, Satyricon, Part I172 Beshrew me if I think anything more requisite than silence for a man who secludes himself in order to study! Imagine what a variety of noises reverberates about my ears! I have lodgings right over a bathing establishment. So picture to yourself the assortment of sounds, which are strong enough to make me hate my very powers of hearing! When your strenuous gentleman, for example, is exercising himself by flourishing leaden weights; when he is working hard, or else pretends to be working hard, I can hear him grunt; and whenever he releases his imprisoned breath, I can hear him panting in wheezy and high-pitched tones. Or perhaps I notice some lazy fellow, content with a cheap rubdown, and hear the crack of the pummeling hand on his shoulder, varying in sound according as the hand is laid on flat or hollow. Then, perhaps, a professional comes along, shouting out the score; that is the finishing touch. Add to this the arresting of an occasional roysterer or pickpocket, the racket of the man who always likes to hear his own voice in the bathroom, or the enthusiast who plunges into the swimming-tank with unconscionable noise and splashing. Besides all those whose voices, if nothing else, are good, imagine the hair-plucker with his penetrating, shrill voice, - for purposes of advertisement, 171 T. Maccius Plautus, Rudens, or The Fisherman’s Rope, Henry Thomas Riley, Ed. (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/ text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0108%3Aact%3Dintro% 3Ascene%3Dsubject) 172 Titus Petronius Arbiter, The Satyricon, Translated by W. Burnaby, The Project Gutenberg EBook, (http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/8pasw10a.txt)

How some persons nowadays condemn Scipio as a boor because he did not let daylight into his perspiring-room through wide windows, or because he did not roast in the strong sunlight and dawdle about until he could stew in the hot water! “Poor fool,” they say, “he did not know how to live! He did not bathe in filtered water; it was often turbid, and after heavy rains almost muddy!” But it did not matter much to Scipio if he had to bathe in that way; he went there to wash off sweat, not ointment. And how do you suppose certain persons will answer me? They will say: “I don’t envy Scipio; that was truly an exile’s life-to put up with baths like those!” Friend, if you were wiser, you would know that Scipio did not bathe every day. It is stated by those who have reported to us the old-time ways of Rome that the Romans washed only their arms and legs dailybecause those were the members which gathered dirt in 173 Lucius Annaeus Seneca. Moral Epistles. Translated by Richard M. Gummere. The Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UP, 1917-25. (http://www.stoics.com/seneca_epistles_book_1.html#‘LVI1) 33

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

their daily toil-and bathed all over only once a week. Here someone will retort: “Yes; pretty dirty fellows they evidently were! How they must have smelled!” But they smelled of the camp, the farm, and heroism. Now that spick- andspan bathing establishments have been devised, men are really fouler than of yore.

sion to barbarism and the medieval Church’s antipathy to the concerns of the body, it is now clear that the case is not so simple. While access to bathing in the Christian west after the end of the Roman empire might have been more limited than before, scholars working in medieval history and archaeology since the 1980’s have demonstrated beyond doubt the continued value of bathing for hygienic, curative and symbolic reasons. What we have therefore is a continuum, which even includes the continued use of individual structures, across the ostensible divide between antiquity and the middle ages.”176

Seneca, Epistulae Morales ad Lucilium, LXXXVI174

Introductory notes

Concerning the basic elements of the Roman bathing, its social role and the Roman art of the bath, we will cite here the definition given by Fagan. “In any investigation, it is essential to be clear what one is looking for. The truly vital question, therefore, is what constituted a Roman-style public bath in contrast to, for example, a Greek one. Two features define the Roman bath: first, it comprises gradations of heat in clear sequence of rooms (usually termed in modern studies frigidarium, tepidarium, caldarium) that channels the bather purposefully from one room to the next; second, the Roman-style bath features heated communal bathing pools (termed solia or alvei).”177

In the introductory chapter the three basic mechanisms of historical classification employed in the study of ancient baths (chronological/geographical, cultural and technological) were described. The second mechanism is that of cultural classification with the help of which bathing facilities are classified in broad cultural traditions. In the present chapter we will describe the basic elements of the bathing tradition which, according to archaeological and literary sources, appear in modern historical studies as characteristic of Roman culture. The cultural centrality of the bath in the Roman way of life is attested in literary texts, such as those quoted above, inscriptions and in extensive remains of baths excavated across the Roman Empire.

It is important to remind the reader that the practice of the bath in Roman antiquity was not confined to the satisfaction of needs related only to hygiene and everyday rejuvenation but constituted one of the most important social and cultural institutions in antiquity178. From the study of the written sources it is safely assumed that, at least from the end of the third century BC, the practice of the bath formed an important part of the everyday routine of Roman citizens179.

The aim of the present chapter is to produce a coherent picture of the bathing culture which developed in Italy and spread across the provinces of the Roman Empire in order to explore its contribution to the formation of the Romanized bathing culture in Greece.

In existing bibliography the development of the Roman bathing tradition can be traced from the architectural remains of Period IV (Eschebach) or IV-V (Nielsen) of the Thermae Stabianae in Pompeii and the Central Baths in Cumae to the Baths of Constantine in Rome, namely from the rise to the fall of the Western Roman Empire. It is widely accepted that by the middle of the 1st century BC, the basic elements of the Roman bathing tradition had reached their mature form and that from the second century onwards their massive export to the provinces of the empire had begun.

The architectural development of the Roman baths The chronological period covered in the present chapter spans from c. 250 BC to the 4th century AD. Consequently, the first public baths with hypocaust technology of the Italian towns, private baths without underfloor heating as well as the last examples of monumental bath architecture before the decline of the Roman city are all included in this short narrative. It is evident that the limits of this wide chronological period are artificial and serve solely the needs of the present study. The oldest private baths of central Italy (lavatrinae) are dated to the beginning of the 2nd century BC175. The existence, however, of older bathing traditions in the Italian peninsula cannot be excluded.

Another common place in the existing bibliography which is questionable, is that the history of the Roman bath begins with the Roman hypocaust and the use of temperature gradation. Eschebach dates the construction of the first hypocaust of the Therme Stabianae to the second century BC, while Nielsen transfers it to the beginning of the first century BC and divides Eschebach’s Period IV into her Pe-

At the other end of the period, the beginning of the decline of the Western Roman Empire after the death of Emperor Theodosius I (347-395 AD) does not coincide, as it is widely believed, with the decline of bathing traditions in the West. As Janet DeLaine notes “While in popular thought bathing was also a symbol of all that was lost with the end of the western Roman empire, a symptom of both a rever-

176 DeLaine 2007, 21. 177 Fagan 2001, 403-404. 178 Fagan 2001. 179 DeLaine 1988, 11-32, Yegül 1992, 1, DeLaine 1999, 6-16, DeLaine 2007, 21.

174 http://essays.quotidiana.org/seneca/scipios_villa/ 175 Yegül 1995, 50. 34

Chronological and typological issues in the study of Roman baths in Italy

riods IV and V180. According to Fagan, Nielsen’s Period IV of the Thermae Stabianae (ca 140 BC) can be considered a landmark for the development of the Roman tradition, the beginning of which belongs to the second century BC181.

Periods

Time spans

Baths

III

250-200 BC

Plautus’s references to the public baths of Rome (Plaut. Asin. 356-57, Persa. 90-91, Poen. 703, Rud. 382-85, Trin. 405-8, Truc. 322-5.)

IV

200-100 BC

Villa in Ciampino, Latium (after mid-2nd c.BC) Villa Prato, Sperlonga Thermae Stabianae, Phase IV, Pompeii Baths in Cumae, Campania Baths in Fregellae, Latium

V

100-80 BC

House of the Cryptoporticus, Vulci, Etruria (100 BC) Thermae Stabianae, Phase V, Pompeii Republican baths, Pompeii Forum baths, Phase I, Pompeii Baths in Cales, Campania

VI

80 – 31 BC

Thermae Stabianae, Phase VI, Pompeii Forum baths, Phase II, Pompeii

VII

32 BC – 54

Thermae Stabianae, Phase VII, Pompeii Thermae Agrippae, Rome Forum baths, Phase III, Pompeii

VIII

55 – 98

Baths of Nero Baths of Titus Central Baths of Pompeii

IX

99 – 211

Baths of Trajan Small Baths, Villa Adriana Forum Baths, Ostia Baths of Hippias (Lucian)

X

212 – 286

Baths of Caracalla Balneum des Frères Arval

180 181

Nielsen 1993, 25. Fagan 2002, 44.

Periods

Time spans

Baths

XI

287 – 395

Baths of Diocletian Baths of Constantine Imperial baths of Trier Baths of Roman villa at Piazza Armerina Baths of Maxentius Balneum des Frères Arval

Table 10 Chronological division of the Roman bathing The main formative period of the mature Roman bathing tradition (ca. 1st century BC-1st century AD) follows a phase which has been described as a forerunner of the former and during which the basic characteristics of the Roman tradition make their appearance. To this phase, which spans a period from the third to the first century BC, belong the building phases of several baths in Campania. At the same time Plautus’ references document the existence of bathing installations in Rome at least from the third century BC. It is well documented in both literary and epigraphic sources that in the 1st century AD the baths in the cities and towns of the Roman Empire were already numerous. The exact numbers of bathing facilities in the different cities are unfortunately unknown, even those in Rome, in which case the only known inventory, dated to the age of Constantine, is that of the Notitia Urbis Regionum where 11 thermae and 856 balnea are registered182. The accuracy of the above figures is questioned by several scholars183. However, the vast numbers of baths in the Roman world are illustrated in the narrative referred to by Fagan according to which the Arabs, upon arrival to Alexandria, used for six months the books of the celebrated library to heat the 4,000 baths of the city184. The long period of development of the Roman bathing tradition has been studied by numerous scholars who followed different chronological schemes and classification methods in order to organize the geographically and chronologically vast phenomenon of the Roman bath. In this chapter we will refer to bathing installations “before the hypocaust” and “after the hypocaust”. It should not be forgotten that during the first centuries of the formation of the Roman tradition the Greek bathing tradition was also present in the Mediterranean region and that the interaction of the two traditions influenced their separate developments. It is evident that it is impossible in the context of the present chapter to describe a large number of baths. It is also difficult, due to the complexity of the object under study to 182 183 184 35

Notitia 14 (FTUR 1.1.5) Fagan 2002, 41 n. 8, 357. Fagan 2002, 41 n. 7, Butler 1978.

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

discern general characteristics and trends for each phase of the development of the Roman tradition. The bathing facilities and complexes which will be described in the following paragraphs were selected mainly on the basis of the central position they occupy in the relevant bibliography in order to provide to the reader a simple frame of reference for the development of the bath in Italy, in relation to which the phenomena of the expansion of the Roman tradition in Greece and the Romanization of the Greek bathing tradition will be described in the following chapters.

Roman bathing tradition is symptomatic. As P. Gros mentions “[…] il est difficile d’imaginer que les colonies ou municipes des IIIe et IIe s. n’aient pas été munis d’ établissements dont nous savons par ailleurs que Rome était fort riche dès la fin de la République.”185 However in several studies the first stages of the development of the bath in Campania are identified as those of the Roman bath in general. As a result most scholars consider plausible the theories of the Greek and/or the thermal origins of the Roman baths. Although the above hypothesis is founded on sound arguments we must bear in mind that the Roman bathing traditions might have originated in an area broader than Campania.

In the present study the period from 200 to 100 BC was termed Phase IV. The importance of this period has been emphasized by several students of ancient baths as the first hypocausts of the Roman bathing tradition in its initial stages can be dated to it. As the invention or adoption of the hypocaust from local or Greek precursors constitutes the basic step towards the formation of the complete Roman bathing tradition, it is obvious that the study of the architectural remains of Phase IV is important for the investigation of the origins of Roman baths. In reality the Roman tradition will not acquire its complete form before the 1st century BC to which the construction of the first frigidaria and wall heating systems are dated.

The various historical approaches to the architectural development of Roman baths are classifiable into two broad categories depending on the date they adopt for the construction of the first true Roman hypocaust. In the first group 100 BC is accepted as the key date for the invention of the hypocaust, following the literary tradition of Sergius Orata. In the second group, earlier dates belonging to the 2nd century BC are considered more accurate and a new perception of a gradual adoption of the hypocaust seems to prevail, as opposed to older theories of a sudden invention186. The second group of hypotheses is documented through the study of early bath facilities whose dating is not always beyond dispute.

Phase IV in the present study coincides chronologically with the first part of Eschebach’s Period IV of the Thermae Stabianae in Pompeii and Nielsen’s Period IV. In the context of the present study Phase IV of the Roman bathing tradition corresponds to the end of period A and periods C(T) and C of the Greek tradition.

Most narratives of the architectural genealogy of Roman baths begin with the first building phases of Thermae Stabianae which constitute one of the oldest excavated architectural complexes in Pompeii. The study of the architectural remains was completed by Eschebach and published in the 1970’s187. Eschebach distinguished 6 Periods (I-VI) in the stratigraphy of the Baths the first three of which were explained as belonging to a palaestra building of the Greek type. According to Eschebach the first hypocaust of the complex was constructed during Period IV (200 BC – 80 BC). Nielsen reassessed the archaeological data and proposed the existence of 7 building phases by dividing Period IV into Phases IV and V188. She also argued that the hypocaust was introduced during Phase V, i.e. during the 1st century BC. Nielsen’s approach reconciled the hypotheses of the Campanian origin of the Roman bath, of the invention of the hypocaust by Sergius Orata and of the Greek ancestry of the bath into one single theory. The two basic problems that should be kept in mind in future studies are the assumed Greek character of Periods I-III and the dating of the first Roman technological elements of the baths.

Although it is rational to assume that the forerunners of the Roman bathing tradition made their appearance in an extensive area in Italy, an assumption which is also documented in sporadic architectural remains and literary references, the study of the first baths has focused mainly in the Campanian area, where the majority of facilties have been excavated. This may be due to one or more of the following reasons, although it could equally be unrelated to them. The eruption of the Vesuvius in 79 AD created the conditions for the conservation of building phases which in the rest of Italy were destroyed by repetitive construction on the same site. It is also plausible that the existence of thermal springs in the area inspired the construction of hot baths in the urban context. It is furthermore possible that the bathing habits of the inhabitants of the Greek cities in Campania accelerated the development of the Roman bathing tradition in the area. The literary tradition of the invention of the hypocaust by Sergius Orata in Campania has strengthened many researchers’ conviction that the first Roman baths were constructed in Campania. Finally the wealth of the cities of Campania makes the area a reasonable candidate for the introduction of technological innovation.

The Central Baths of Cumae in Campania also belong to Phase IV. The first building phase of the baths is dated before 180 BC189. Although the building does not possess a hypocaust, its layout is similar to that of the Thermae Stabianae during Period IV190. “The room arrangement and the 185 186 187 188 189 190

Although archaeological data to our day point in the direction of Campania, we must not exclude the possibility that the area’s apparent centrality in the developement of the 36

Gros 1996, 393. DeLaine 1989, Thébert 2003. Εschebach 1970, Eschebach 1979. Nielsen 1993, 25-35. Gallina 1970, 273-274. Nielsen, 1993, 29.

Chronological and typological issues in the study of Roman baths in Italy

niches are highly reminiscent of the bathing section of the Stabian Baths in period IV.” The rectangular rooms with barrel vaults and the walls made of opus caementicium belong beyond doubt to the Roman tradition and the early Pompeian type before the introduction of the hypocaust.

stage of the Roman tradition. However, the heating system remains technologically in the sphere of the traditions of the Greek cities. It is appropriate to end this brief reference to the bathing installations of Period IV in Italy with 4 literary quotations which link the appearance of the first Roman hypocausts in Italy with the activity of the entrepreneur Sergius Orata which is dated around 100 BC. In these extracts the invention of “suspended baths” is attributed to the Campanian businessman who first “suspended” baths in private villas. The equation of his ideas with the hypocaust is not clearly documented. As a result the importance of these extracts in the study of the history of Roman baths remains an object of debate.

A bathing complex dated to the first half of the 2nd century was discovered in the town of Fregellae in Latium. The building must have functioned as a public bath and possessed a type of hypocaust. Thébert describes the hypocaust as follows: “De fait, on reconnaît un foyer, doté d’une chaudière, qui regulièrement distribuées, construit semble-til à l’ aide de fragments de tuile, tout comme la maçonnerie qui enserre le four.”191 What is interesting about this discovery is that it broadens the area of the first appearance of the Roman bathing tradition.

Primus balneola suspendit, inclusit pisces197

The Republican Baths in Pompeii represent another interesting case study in the understanding of the first stages of the Roman bathing tradition. Excavated in 1950 by Maiuri192, the baths comprise two caldaria with an hypocaust constructed of parallel rubble walls, alvei with tegulae mammatae and a circular frigidarium. Maiuri dated the baths to around 80 BC, a date also accepted by Nielsen193. DeLaine, however, proposed an earlier date for the baths based on their construction methods and connects them to the Greek bathing tradition in Sicily. However, the use of tegulae mammatae and the introduction of the frigidarium favour the initial dating of the baths.

Marcus Tullius Cicero, Hortensius198 Sergius Orata pensilia balinea primus facere instituit. quae inpensa, levibus initiis coepta ad suspensa caldae aquae tantum non aequora penetravit.199 Valerius Maximus, IX, 1.1200 Ostrearum vivaria primus omnium Sergius Orata invenit in Baiano aetate L. Crassi oratoris ante Marsicum bellum, nec gulae causa, sed avaritiae, magna vectigalia tali ex ingenio suo percipiens, ut qui primus pensiles invenerit balineas, ita mangonicatas villas subinde vendendo. is primus optimum

In a Roman villa in Sperlonga in Latium a private bath, dated to the last third of the 2nd century BC, was excavated. The bath consisted of two successive rooms the first of which accommodated a large built-in bathtub and a labrum while the second room included two basins encased in a rectangular bench194. In this very interesting bathing suite we can recognize at the same time the Roman element of successive rooms and the Greek individual bain par affusion and bain par immersion.

197 First to suspend little baths [and] enclose fish. 198 M.T. Ciceronis, Fragmenta. Ad optimos codices et editionem J.Vict. Leclerc. Recensita cum selectis veterum ac recentiorum notis. Curante et emendante N.E. Lemaire. Parisiis’ colligebat Nicolaus Eligius Lemaire, MDCCCXXXI [page 236] (http://books.google.gr/books?id=M7BGAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA 236&lpg=PA236&dq=Cicero+primus+balneola+suspendit&so urce=bl&ots=vNF1uChHeK&sig=l0B7EYpMk0p17nrEMOj1W S8ZgZ8&hl=el&ei=BtluTIDAH9CNjAfIr4X8CA&sa=X&oi=bo ok_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAQ#v=one page&q&f=false). For the phrase «M.Tullio in Hortensio : Primus balneola suspendit,inclusit pisces» see also Nonius Marcellus’ De Compendiosa Doctrina, in Lucian Müller, ed., Nonius Marcellus, BiblioLife LLC [page 286] (http://books.google.gr/books?id=JS0ytDKEDl4C&pg=PA286&l pg=PA286&dq=Nonius+Primus+balneola+suspendit&source=b l&ots=ZJtMB4T1qS&sig=vL_VtKwzie4WiTARsjPpXBmWiIs&h l=el&ei=dQBxTPXjGc-TjAer3aH7CA&sa=X&oi=book_result& ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=No nius%20Primus%20balneola%20suspendit&f=false) 199 “C.Sergius Orata was the first to institute the construction of hanging baths. This expense, requiring initially modest spending, developed until the establishment of suspended hot water almost like a sea”. Translated with the help of the French translation in Valère Maxime, Actions et paroles mémorables, Livre IX (http://remacle.org/bloodwolf/historiens/valere/livre9. htm). 200 Valerius Maximus, Factorum et dictorum memorabilium, Liber IX, The Latin Library (http://www.thelatinlibrary. com/).

Another, small and public, bathing facility, dated to the end of the 2nd century BC, was excavated in Musarna in Etruria and was exhaustively studied195. As in the case of the small private bath in Sperlonga, the small bathhouse of Musarna illustrates the influence of both Greek and Roman traditions in the layout and function of a single bath. The bath consists of 3 rooms two of which grew out of the reuse of an older building196. Broise in his functional analysis recognizes in the 3 rooms a suite of apodyterium, tepidarium and caldarium. In the northwest side of the caldarium a small hot water pool was found under which passed the underfloor heating conduit. The successive layout of the functional units and the construction methods (opus incertum, opus signinum) are indices of a formative 191 192 193 194 195 196

Thébert 2003, 82. Maiuri 1950, 116-36. Nielsen 1993. Broise 1994, 28. Barbieri et al 1985, 29-38, Broise 1991, 89-92. Broise 1991, 89. 37

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

saporem ostreis Lucrinis adiudicavit, quando eadem aquatilium genera aliubi atque aliubi meliora …201

Period IV (Periods I-III) and maintains that the Thermae Stabianae were built from the beginning in the context of the Roman tradition. If his hypothesis is valid and the baths, as argued by Nielsen, did not possess from the start an hypocaust but were equipped with it in the early years of the 1st century BC, then it must be accepted that, in this phase, Thermae Stabianae passed directly from the Roman tradition before the hypocaust to that after it. The organization of spaces and the form of the rooms remain the same as in Phase IV.

Pliny the Elder, Natural History, IX, LXXIX202 Hic est Sergius Orata qui primus balneas pensiles habuit, primus ostrearia in Baiano locavit, primus optimum saporem ostreis Lucrinis adiudicavit203 Macrobius, Saturnalia, II, XI204

The Republican Baths of Pompeii belong to Phase V, according to Maiuri’s dating206. As said earlier, DeLaine dated the complex to mid-2nd century BC, in an attempt to link the form of the hypocaust with the baths of the Greek tradition in Magna Graecia. Brödner suggested that the first building phase should be dated to the 3rd century BC207. Two rooms of the complex disposed of a hypocaust consisting of intersecting channels for hot air circulation. The Republican Baths belong to the Roman tradition after the hypocaust although the latter is clearly of an archaic form. These baths, which can be marginally placed in the next phase (VI) as well, had a circular room of uncertain use. Nielsen’s view is that it probably functioned as a laconicum208.

In these quotations the invention of suspended baths is attributed to C. Sergius Orata, a Campanian entrepreneur, who employed this technique in private houses. It is not however certain that the suspended baths are identical with the hypocaust (suspensura). Several scholars, dispute the historic significance of these references. Phase V coincides with Nielsen’s Period V of Thermae Stabianae and the end of Eschebach’s Period IV. It is characterized by the introduction of the hypocaust in the baths of the Roman tradition, which is beyond dispute for this stage. We saw earlier that it is almost certain that the hypocaust had been already implemented in the Roman tradition since the 2nd century BC.

The Baths of the Agora in Pompeii are dated to the period immediately after the establishment of the colony in 80 BC. The complex disposed of a palaestra and separate wings for women and men. The hot spaces of the baths had a hypocaust, eversince the first building phase. The bath complex of the town of Cales, where a caldarium with a semi-circular recess appears for the first time, is dated to Phase V209.

What marks this period, according to Nielsen, is the transition of Thermae Stabianae from the Greek tradition of the bath to the Roman tradition after the hypocaust205. As mentioned earlier, Fagan disputes the existence of baths of the Greek tradition under the architectural remains of 201 “Oyster parks were established for the first time by Sergius Orata at Baiae at the time of the orator L. Crassus, before the Marsic War. He established them not for a gastronomic reason, but to gain money. Such inventions, for which he had a perceptive intelligence, brought him large revenues. It was he, who having first conceived of hanging baths, resold countryside villas after equipping them with this apparatus. He was also the first to give preeminence to the oysters of lake Lucrinus, because the same aquatic animal species are better in certain places than in others …” Translated with the help of the French translation in Pline l’ Ancien, Histoire naturelle, Livre IX (Animaux aquatiques), LXXIX (Quel est l’inventeur des parcs aux huîtres). Texte français. Paris : Durocher, 1848-1850. Édition d’Émile Littré (http://remacle.org/bloodwolf/erudits/plineancien/livre9. htm). 202 C. Plinius Secundus, Naturalis historia, Liber IX, LXXIX (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/L/Roman/Texts/ Pliny_the_Elder/9*.html). 203 ”It is this Sergius Orata who first had hanging baths built, farmed oysters in the environs of Baiae and created the reputation of those of lake Lucrinus”. Translated with the help of the French translation (http://potpourri.fltr.ucl.ac.be/files/ aclassftp/TEXTES/Macrobe/saturnalia_2_fr.txt), in Macrobii, Saturnalia, Liber II (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/L/Roman/Texts/Macrobius/Saturnalia/2*.html). As mentioned in the same paragraph of Saturnalia by Macrobius, orata is the name of a fish (gilthead). 204 http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/L/Roman/Texts/ Macrobius/Saturnalia/3*.html. Book III, chapter XV in this edition. 205 Nielsen 1993.

It is worth noting that Period IV of the Bath of Olympia (Hypokaustenbad) was dated by its excavators to ca. 100 BC, a view which, as we shall see later, was contested by modern students. The excavators of Olympia proposed this early dating in their effort to prove that the hypocaust had been invented on Greek soil. Phase VI coincides with Nielsen’s Period VI and Eschebach’s Period V of Thermae Stabianae and is represented by the appearance of the mature Pompeian type. From an inscription dated to 80-50 BC, the building phase of Thermae Stabianae which followed the establishment of the colony can be dated with certainty to after 80 BC. [Adjust the footnote number.] The inscription contains a reference to the rehabilitation of the entrance hall (prostōon) of the palaestra and the construction of laconicum and destrictarium. The architectural remains indicate that the laconicum was a round room with semi-circular recesses on the diagonals and the destrictarium (scraping room) was an elongated, narrow room in the eastern wing. These additions provide evidence of Hellenization spreading in the Italian peninsula. As we shall see later, the Roman mate206 207 208 209 38

Maiuri 1950, 116-136. Βrödner 1976, 255. Nielsen 1985, 32. Gros 1996.

Chronological and typological issues in the study of Roman baths in Italy

rial form of the ideal structure of the Greek palaestra is described by Vitruvius. We stressed already, in the introductory chapter, that in the 2nd and 1st centuries BC the Roman penetration in the Greek East is completed and the Roman society shapes its new hegemonic identity, founded on Greek models and ideals.

ture and functions of hot baths and of the baths in gymnasia. The introduction of cold baths in the bathing sequence and the construction of the first frigidaria are innovations of the period in question and could well be related to innovative medical views. As we shall mention in chapter 3 healing methods using cold baths had been introduced to Rome around 100 BC by the Greek physician Asclepiades and were also employed by another Greek, Antonius Musa, in the days of Augustus. In the period we are now discussing, another innovation is space heating through hot air circulation in the cavity of walls and domes.

Phase VI coincides with Nielsen’s Period VI and Eschebach’s Period V of Thermae Stabianae and is represented by the appearance of the mature Pompeian type. From an inscription dated to 80-50 BC, the building phase of Thermae Stabianae which followed the establishment of the colony can be dated with certainty to after 80 BC210. The inscription contains a reference to the rehabilitation of the entrance hall (prostōon) of the palaestra and the construction of laconicum and destrictarium. The architectural remains indicate that the laconicum was a round room with semi-circular recesses on the diagonals and the destrictarium (scraping room) was an elongated, narrow room in the eastern wing. These additions provide evidence of Hellenization spreading in the Italian peninsula. As we shall see later, the Roman material form of the ideal structure of the Greek palaestra is described by Vitruvius. We stressed already, in the introductory chapter, that in the 2nd and 1st centuries BC the Roman penetration in the Greek East is completed and the Roman society shapes its new hegemonic identity, founded on Greek models and ideals.

The Hellenization of the dominant ideology in Rome is intense at this stage. The urban building type of thermae with gymnasium finds its expression for the first time in the Baths of Agrippa. In Greece itself, the new Roman colonies of Corinth, Patras and Nicopolis are being established and new bathing complexes are being built, which sadly remain unknown to a large extent. The majority of baths in this period belong to the typological family of linear baths, with an emphasis on the axial type211. It is now considered most probable that the work De Architectura by Vitruvius was written during the era of Augustus, ca. 27 BC. However, the source of the description of bathing facilities is the architectural experiences of 1st century BC and shows common elements with the architectural remains of the baths of Campania of Phases V and VI.

During Phase VI, a circular room was built in the Baths of the Agora in Pompeii. The room probably housed either a laconicum or a destrictarium. It is during this phase that the hypocaust appears in Helladic space, in Athens and Olympia.

Book V of De Architectura includes two descriptions of bathing facilities, i.e. of the palaestra bath212 and of baths in general213, and the description of the heating system. 211 Nielsen 1993, 45. 212 “In the double portico the following provision is to be made: the ephebeum is to be in the middle, which is in truth nothing more than a large exedra with seats, and longer by one third than its width, on the right is the coriceum, immediately adjoining which is the conisterium, near which, in the angle of the portico, is the cold bath, which the Greeks call loutrōn. On the left of the ephebeum is the elaeothesium, adjoining that is the frigidarium, whence a passage leads to the propigneum in the angle of the portico. Near, but more inward, on the side of the frigidarium, is placed the vaulted sudatory, whose length is double its width; on one side of this is the laconicum, constructed as before described: on the other side is the hot bath” (Marcus Vituvius Pollio, De Architectura, Book V, XI; http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Vitruvius/5*.html). 213 ”First, as warm a spot as possible is to be selected, that is to say, one sheltered from the north and north-east. The hot and tepid baths are to receive their light from the winter west; but, if the nature of the place prevent that, at all events from the south, because the hours of bathing are principally from noon to evening. Care must be taken that the warm baths of the women and men adjoin, and have the same aspect; in which case the same furnace and vessels will serve both. The cauldrons over the furnaces are to be three in number, one for hot water, another for tepid water, and a third for cold water: and they must be so arranged, that hot water which runs out of the heated vessel, may be replaced by an equal quantity from the tepid vessel, which in like manner is supplied from the cold vessel, and that the arched cavities in which they stand may be heated by one

It is in the first imperial period of Augustus, that the power of the Roman dynamic and ascending society reaches its apogee. In the years of Augustus and Tiberius we discern the clear dominance of Roman trends. Simultaneously, ideological Hellenization also reaches its peak. Phase VII coincides with Period VII of Thermae Stabianae according to Nielsen and Period VI according to Eschebach. During this phase the circular room of the east wing is converted to a frigidarium and a natatio is constructed in the new west wing. The destrictarium falls into disuse and the caldarium of the male wing acquires the typical form of a hot room with a rectangular pool and a semi-circular recess for the labrum, exactly as described by Vitruvius. The third building phase of the Baths of the Agora in Pompeii belongs to the same period. It too possesses characteristics of the mature Pompeian type. This phase belongs to the period of the Principatus of Augustus and of the years after the death of Claudius and the ascent to power of Nero. Excavated baths in Campania demonstrate now the features of the so-called mature Pompeian type and Vitruvius on his part writes on the struc210

Nielsen 1985, 31. 39

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

The importance of these accounts is great because of their uniqueness, but at the same time overvalued in terms of their explanatory use. These rather vague descriptions are frequently used in modern studies as a tool for understanding and explaining baths, which, temporally and geographically, are remote from the place and time of their writing. As pointed out by Yegül, “the attempt to explain the plans of all ancient gymnasia and baths according to Vituvius’s rigid and theoretical rules, regardless of their date, their location, and other idiosyncratic conditions, persists as an all too common error in some modern interpretations”214. We are not furthermore in a position to know if Vitruvius’ descriptions were based on real more advanced examples

which drew his attention or simply mirrored ideal plans and technological applications; ideal of course according to his own judgment and obviously that of his contemporary readers. The information supplied by Vitruvius can be used to confirm the existence of elements and applications in his days and in all probability during the 1st century BC. On the contrary, it cannot be relied upon to exclude elements which are absent in his writings. The absence of frigidaria in his descriptions, although they are introduced after hot rooms, does not imply their absence in the early Principatus. It can, on the other hand, imply their absence in the majority of baths of the early 1st century BC. On the strength of the example of the frigidarium we take the view that it is rather probable that the descriptions of Vitruvius do not result directly from advanced bath examples of his time but from ideal types, i.e. from a distillation of architectural types of the previous century or at best, as in the case of palaestra, of types enriched with contemporary elements.

fire. The floors of the hot baths are to be made as follows. First, the bottom is paved with tiles of a foot and a half inclining towards the furnace, so that if a ball be thrown into it, it will not remain therein, but roll back to the mouth of the furnace; thus the flame will better spread out under the floor. Upon this, piers of eight inch bricks are raised, at such a distance from each other, that tiles of two feet may form their covering. The piers are to be two feet in height, and are to be laid in clay mixed with hair, on which the above-mentioned two feet tiles are placed, which carry the pavement.

From the Baths (Thermae) of Agrippa, very limited remains survive as part of the Arco della Ciambella. The reconstituted plans are based on the Forma Urbis Romae and Renaissance drawings. It is therefore conceivable that our architectural impression of the baths, their layout and typology of spaces is the result of conversions and does not correspond to the initial building phase. The spatial type of the circular hall with 4 recesses, known to us from the baths of Campania of early 1st century BC, occupies the centre of the representation. The function of this room remains unclear. Comparative data have so far left room for various interpretations, such as laconicum, apodyterium, caldarium or frigidarium215. According to Nielsen, the size of the room and the similarity of its plan with the Tempio di Mercurio in Baiae favour the hypothesis of a circular frigidarium with a large pool. Nielsen’s hypothesis is supported by the fact that in the preceding phase (80-27 BC), during which the cold bath room was introduced in the functional diagram of the baths, the circular laconicum of Thermae Stabianae and of the Baths of the Agora in Pompeii were similarly converted to frigidarium. In the Baths of Agrippa, the caldarium has a rectangular plan with recesses for alvei on three sides.

The ceilings, if of masonry, will be preferable; if, however, they are of timber, they should be plastered on the underside, which must be done as follows. Iron rods, or arcs, are prepared and suspended by iron hooks to the floor as close as possible. These rods or arcs are at such distances from each other, that tiles, without knees, may rest on and be borne by every two ranges, and thus the whole vaulting depending on the iron may be perfected. The upper parts of the joints are stopped with clay and hair. The underside towards the pavement is first plastered with pounded tiles and lime, and then finished with stucco or fine plastering. If the vaulting of hot baths is made double it will be better, because the moisture of the steam cannot then affect the timber, but will be condensed between the two arches. The size of baths must depend on the number of persons who frequent them. Their proportions are as follow: their width is to be two thirds of their length, exclusive of the space round the bathing vessel (schola labri) and the gutter round it (alveus). The bathing vessel (labrum) should be lighted from above, so that the bystanders may not cast any shadow thereon, and thereby obstruct the light. The schola labri ought to be spacious, so that those who are waiting for their turn may be properly accommodated. The width of the alveus between the wall of the labrum and the parapet must not be less than six feet, so that it may be commodious after the reduction of two feet, which are allotted to the lower step and the cushion.

With regard to the representation of the function of the south rooms of the Thermae of Agrippa, as it is given in the Forma Urbis Romae, Nielsen relates the organization of the baths with the palaestra of Vitruvius: “If this interpretation is correct, the large round hall, in which there was possibly a pool, could, analogous to the Campanian Thermae, have been a frigidarium in conjunction with the baths, while the loutrōn / frigida lavatio, courtyard with natatio, and probable apodyterium, were adjuncts of the palaestra. This conforms well to Vitruvius’ description of palaestrae, where both an -isolated- frigida lavatio and a frigidarium in connection with the bathing section are re-

The laconicum and sudatories are to adjoin the tepid apartment, and their height to the springing of the curve of the hemisphere is to be equal to their width. An opening is left in the middle of the dome from which a brazen shield is suspended by chains, capable of being so lowered and raised as to regulate the temperature. It should be circular, that the intensity of the flame and heat may be equally diffused from the centre throughout” (Marcus Vitruvius Vituvius Pollio, De Architectura, Book V, X; http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Vitruvius/5*.html) 214 Yegül 1992, 14.

215 40

Nielsen 1993, 44.

Chronological and typological issues in the study of Roman baths in Italy

ferred to”216. If Nielsen’s representation is accurate, then the Thermae of Agrippa illustrate an architectural stage of Roman tradition (frigidarium, caldaria etc.), as shaped in Campania, comparable with the Roman conception of the Greek gymnasium, before these two elements merged in the bathing complexes of later periods.

influenced by the imperial complexes of later periods, the Thermae of Nero no doubt embody for the first time all the main features of imperial thermae which then kept appearing and undergoing transformations in the baths of Titus, Trajan, Caracalla and Diocletian. As to the Hellenizing spirit of the period, it can be found in literary references, where e.g. the baths of Nero are called gymnasium218.

Phase VIII starts with the death of Claudius in 54 and ends with the ascent to the throne of Trajan, which signposts the beginning of a new era. The extreme authoritarian nature of the imperial regime had been already strengthened under Caligula, Claudius and Nero, while, under Nero, “Hellenomania” receives a boost and the first imperial thermae are built in Rome. The architectural expression of the latter was founded on a two-way interaction between Rome and the cities of Asia Minor, where, during the Hellenistic period, the gymnasium had acquired monumental characteristics and a central place in the urban fabric and social life. This dialogue between the baths of the capital and the bath-gymnasia of the east finds an illustration in the example of the baths of Virgilius Capito in Miletus, constructed towards the end of the previous phase (47-54) to the north east of the Hellenistic gymnasium. From the palaestra and the natatio the visitors were routed to the apodyteria, tepidaria and caldarium via a circular sweating-room, to follow a reverse route in their return. This simple functional expedient of a reverse route, has been described by some students as retrograde.

The central axis of the complex is marked by the succession of the natatio, the frigidarium and the caldarium, which stands out. The natatio is framed by peristylar palaestras, the 3-aisle frigidarium by rooms covered with groin vaults (basilicae) and the caldarium by a typical row of successive heated rooms. The tepidarium acts as a link between frigidarium and caldarium. The incorporation of palaestras in the main body of the complex is an innovation, if of course available representations are accurate. The following table shows the form of individual spatial units. The Thermae of Titus were inaugurated with the Colosseum in 80 AD in the area of Nero’s Domus Aurea (Golden House). The representation of the plan of Titus’ baths is owed to Palladio. The central axis of the complex contains the frigidarium, the tepidarium and the caldarium. It is possible that the cruciform composition centered on the frigidarium was first implemented in the Thermae of Titus and not in those of Nero. A veritable explosion of bath construction across the Empire marks the 2nd and 3rd centuries219. The imperial Thermae of Trajan in Rome and the baths of Villa Adriana, built in that period, were monumental complexes which represented the architectural avant-garde in the heart of the Empire. Lucian’s description of the bath of Hippias belongs to the same period. We shall see in the Catalogue that the greatest part of large scale bath buildings in Helladic space is dated to this period. It is the period during which the practice of the bath in Greece undergoes extensive Romanization, a point on which we shall expand in our conclusions. The relative weight of Greece and the eastern provinces within the Empire and in comparison to the West grows a lot in the 2nd century, under Trajan and Hadrian. In the following paragraphs we shall present in brief the organization of the Thermae of Trajan and of the baths of Villa Adriana, Lucian’s description and the key features of the period.

The Central Baths of Pompeii are also dated to Phase VIII. In this complex we find the full sequence of a palaestra, apodyterium, frigidarium, tepidarium, caldarium and round laconicum. The Thermae of Nero and Titus in Rome belong to the same period. Although the plan representations at our disposal are based mainly on the drawings of Palladio and Antonio da Sangallo and not on the testimony of surviving remains of the first building phase, it is generally accepted that it was in this period that the imperial type of thermae in Rome took its definite form. Baths and gymnasia were combined together. In the words of Suetonius, thermis atque gymnasio217. The Thermae of Nero were built on Campus Martius near the Thermae of Agrippa, so as to share open facilities in the parkland of the original swamps (Stagnum), around the latter. The Thermae of Nero were inaugurated around 60 AD, but in 226 they were restored and renamed as Thermae Alexandrianae.

The southeast section of the Thermae of Trajan was built on Nero’s Golden House, on the north east of the Thermae of Titus. The construction of the complex started in 104 and was completed in 109 AD. The complex covered an area of 112,200 square metres. According to Dio Cassius, the architect who designed the works of Trajan in Rome, the forum, the theatre and the gymnasium, was Apollodorus of Damascus220.

A substantial part of the remains of the complex remained visible until the 17th century. Palladio and Antonio da Sangallo produced rendered drawings. Only small scale excavations have taken place in the area of the thermae. As we stressed earlier, although the available drawings were not based on the first building phase and were probably

218 219 220

216 Nielsen 1993, 45. 217 Suetonius, Nero, 12. 41

Yegül 1992, 137. Hoss 2005. Dio Cassius, Roman History, 69, 4, 1.

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

It is common knowledge in the history of architecture that with the Thermae of Trajan the imperial type reached the peak of its maturity221. This recognition is of course dependent on the authenticity of Palladio’s drawing of Thermae Alexandrianae, since several of the innovations attributed to the designers of the Thermae of Trajan appeared first in his representation of the Thermae of Nero. Placing a cruciform frigidarium in the centre of the synthesis may have been a novel innovation in the Thermae of Trajan and its representation in those of Nero may have been a throw back in time.

imperial thermae”223. The complex of Villa Adriana in Tivoli comprises 4 baths constructed in the period 118-125, i.e. the Baths of Ηeliocaminus, the Great Baths, the Little Baths and the baths of the Maritime Theatre. The last ones were part of the private villa of the emperor, which was secluded from the rest of the complex. The Great and Little Baths were interlinked and shared common facilities. The current interpretation of this twin structure attributes the use of the Little Baths to the emperor’s inner circle and that of the Great Baths to the service personnel of the complex. The role of the Baths of the Heliocaminus remains obscure.

The basic elements which were introduced in the architectural synthesis of the Thermae of Trajan were the place and layout of the frigidarium, the layout of the caldarium, the incorporation of the natatio and of palaestras in the main body of the complex (“internalization of the palaestrae”222) and finally the construction of a peripheral enclosure. A further innovation was the north east – south west orientation of the complex.

The architectural avant-garde of the period found its expression in the synthesis of the Little Baths of Villa Adriana, which, in Gros’ view224, became the experimental place for the spatial structure and the sequence of bath rooms. The baths were built in the years 121-126 and extend over an area of 2,140 square metres. According to Krencker’s classification, which we shall present later, they belong to the semi-axial circular functional type. The palaestra, the frigidarium with its two large piscinae and the tepidarium are located on the axis. The ring consists of hot bath rooms. As Thébert put it, “nous retrouvons ici l’impact des recherches conduites pour l’ élaboration des grands thermes de plan symétrique”225.

The main complex of the Thermae of Trajan was not freestanding as those of Caracalla and Diocletian, but abutted on the north east wing of the enclosure, from the centre of which one had access to the complex. The natatio, the frigidarium and the caldarium were located along the central axis of the main complex, while the two palaestras with their semi-circular exedras were located along the secondary axis. The hot rooms are typically arranged linearly on both sides of the caldarium.

The baroque-styled synthesis of the complex is characterized by the replacement of the axial arrangement of rooms with a diagonal arrangement and the substitution of apsed end-sides in the place of rectangular ones. The frigidarium consists of a rectangular space with arched ends and piscinae of similar geometry. The calida piscina also has arched ends and half of the sides of the polygonal room on the west of the frigidarium are similarly arched. The familiar type of the round room with four recesses is repeated here.

Concerning the form of rooms, we can observe the typical 3-aisle frigidarium with groin vaults, the 3-aisle caldarium also with groin vaults, the circular rooms on either side of the natatio and, finally, the palaestras with semi-circular exedras, of which the diameter was equal to the length of the peristyle. The circular rooms with semi-circular recesses on the diagonals are a typological reference to the round rooms of the Pompeian type, as they appeared in the frigidarium of the Thermae Stabianae, the laconicum of the Central Baths, the Baths of the Agora in Pompeii, the Baths of the Agora in Herculaneum and the baths of Herod’s winter palace in Jericho. However, this type, although it has a clear morphological expression, does not have a clear functional purpose. The function of these rooms is not fully established. Krencker suggested that they functioned as heated apodyteria.

The same pioneering spirit can be observed in the Baths of the Agora in Ostia, dated to the same period, with regard to the structure of spaces and to the combination of a rigorous axial arrangement of cold rooms with a more free, circular design and organization of hot rooms. A glimpse of the world of Roman baths of 2nd century AD is given to us in the short work of Lucian “Hippias or the Bath”. The aim of Lucian’s text is to provide an artful description of a bath complex, constructed by Hippias, which proves his genius. Although, Lucian tells us, the construction of baths in his day was a routine affair, the gifted Hippias created a marvellous edifice. We quote here an extract, in which Lucian describes the plan of the bath:

From an ideological viewpoint, as pointed out by Yegül in relation to the enclosure, “this last feature, the peripheral ring, is of crucial importance as an attempt to establish a physical and social framework in which to re-create elements of the Greek gymnasium; it introduced perhaps for the first time in Rome, intellectual as well as hygienic, recreational, and athletic concerns into the program of the 221 222

“The door is high, with large steps, of which the imperceptible slope is convenient for those who wish to ascend. One enters then a large vestibule, common for the entire build223 224 225

Yegül 1992, 142. Yegül 1992, 142. 42

Yegül 1992, 142. Gros 1996. Thébert 2003, 115.

Chronological and typological issues in the study of Roman baths in Italy

ing, destined to receive servants and slaves, one can bring with him. It is situated on the left of apartments of luxury and pleasure, that befit an edifice of this nature and are elegant and well lighted on a fine day. The precinct that encloses them is not strictly indispensable for a bath, but is necessary in a place where the prosperous are received. After that, one finds on both sides a range of undressing rooms and in the middle an enormous hall, high-ceilinged and brightly lighted, where three cold water basins are located, everything decorated with Lacedaemonian marble. Two white marble statues can be seen here, ancient sculptures, one of Hygeia and the other of Aesculapius.

the main bath building is free-standing. It was built on a huge rectangular platform, of which the south and south west sections were carved in a hill, while the north section was supported on two-floor, vaulted structures which housed commercial functions. As in Diocletian’s baths, the design of the main building follows a pattern of two central axes crossing each other. The short axis includes the natatio, the frigidarium, the tepidarium and the caldarium, while the long one includes the two palaestras. The 3-aisle layout was abandoned in the caldarium and a circular plan was adopted. “The caldarium was a monumental circular structure of 35 meters’ diameter roofed by a tall concrete dome. The dome was relieved by a row of brick structural arches like the Pantheon dome, but here a series of arched windows in two tiers opened under the arches”229.

“The door is high, with large steps, of which the imperceptible slope is convenient for those who wish to ascend. One enters then a large vestibule, common for the entire building, destined to receive servants and slaves, one can bring with him. It is situated on the left of apartments of luxury and pleasure, that befit an edifice of this nature and are elegant and well lighted on a fine day. The precinct that encloses them is not strictly indispensable for a bath, but is necessary in a place where the prosperous are received. After that, one finds on both sides a range of undressing rooms and in the middle an enormous hall, high-ceilinged and brightly lighted, where three cold water basins are located, everything decorated with Lacedaemonian marble. Two white marble statues can be seen here, ancient sculptures, one of Hygeia and the other of Aesculapius. After the bath, one is not obliged to walk back through the same rooms, but can follow a short route that leads immediately to a cold bath, through a tepid room, in which the sun penetrates and lights brightly the interior”226. The construction of the Thermae of Caracalla, on a vast area in the periphery of Rome, started in 206 and came to an end in 216-217. Thanks to their out-of-town location the remains of Thermae Antoninianae survive in a satisfactory condition. The complex covers a surface of 120,000 square meters. The Thermae of Caracalla, although they escaped destruction, became in the course of the 16th century a rich source of works of art which ended in the Farnese collection. During the 16th century excavations, the architect Giuliano da Sangallo produced drawings of the complex. The Thermae Antoninianae were also studied and drawn by Baldassarre Peruzzi, Sebastiano Serlio and Palladio. In 1828 A.G. Blouet published a further representation227 and S.A. Iwanoff published his study in 1898228.

The Τhermae Diocletianae were the largest imperial thermae (120,000 square metres) ever built in the city of Rome. Their construction started in 289 by Maximian and was completed around 305-306. In 1561, Michelangelo undertook the conversion of the frigidarium into the Basilica Santa Maria degli Angeli. Among the plethora of representations, the drawings by Piranesi were of incomparable artistic value (Vedute delle Terme di Diocleziane). Of equal artistic value, dexterity and precision was the architectural representation by E. Paulin at the end of the 19th century. The organization of the plan of the thermae follows the prototypes of the baths of Trajan and Caracalla. “The Thermae Diocletianae […] were clearly constructed according to the classical, functional tradition, which points directly back to the thermae of Caracalla and Trajan”230. A sign of differentiation appears in the extension of the frigidarium to the detriment of hot spaces. The more effective insulation and the reduction of the space of the hot wing are symptoms of a strategy to save resources which marks repeatedly the projects of the Empire during late antiquity. The plan of the complex is characterized by a grid structure and a more clear layout of spatial units roofed with groin vaults. According to Yegül, “the bath block of the thermae … displays a design structurally and spatially more simplified and advanced than the Thermae of Caracalla”231. A bathing complex which presents exceptional interest and is worth mentioning in this concise presentation of the architectural evolution of baths in the Roman tradition is the Baths of the Fratres Arvales in Rome. The complex, built by a fraternity of priests, was erected at the limits of the sacred wood of Dea Dia around the year 225. The complex, which covered a surface of 625 square metres, was studied and published by H. Broise and J. Scheid. It combines the symmetry of imperial thermae with a plasticity of design

A fundamental innovation in the Thermae of Caracalla, which was repeated in the Thermae Diocletianae was that 226 Lucian, Hippias or the Bath, LIII. Translated by the author with the help of a translation in modern Greek [Lucian, Modern Greek translation, Kaktos, Athens, 19] Hippias was an able architect, who lived at the time of Marcus Aurelius and Lucian. 227 Blouet, G.A., 1828. 228 Iwanoff, S. C. und C. Huelsen, 1898, 46-55.

229 230 231 43

Yegül 1992, 158. Nielsen 1993, 55. Yegul 1995, 169.

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

and the monumental axial layout with the ring of bathing spaces. To quote Gros: “Un tel edifice constitue, au terme de la période qui nous occupe, la plus brilliante démonstration de la maîtrise acquise par les bâtisseurs romains dans l’ordonnance des balnea: la souplesse des formules planimétriques et la sûreté des solutions techniques autorisent toutes les variantes imposées par les contraintes topographiques ou fonctionnelles sans nuire à l’ efficacité de la composition”232. Of special interest is the moulding of the frigidarium and the basilica, as well as the displacement of the axis of hot spaces to the east in relation to the axis of the complex.

Our approach to the concepts and issues of classification and typology were explained in the introductory chapter and we can now turn to those approaches which have marked the boundaries of the field of typological analysis of Roman baths. We mention first the typology proposed by Ernst Pfretzschner in the 1909 publication of his doctoral thesis on the evolution of the architectural plan of Roman thermae (Die Grundrissentwicklung der römischen Thermen)234. Pfretzschner, who delved into the architectural genealogy linking the Greek house with Roman thermae, suggested the following typological categories:

The construction of baths continues throughout the 4th century. According to Nielsen, “a final flush of building activity can first and foremost be ascertained in Rome, for nearly all the catalogued baths from this period derive from the city”.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

The Thermae of Constantine were built soon after those of Diocletian. Their surface was substantially reduced in comparison to the latter and the complex has no peripheral ring. This crucial difference is due to the fact that the complex was integrated in the existing urban fabric233.

In Pfretzschner’s classification we recognize elements, which fall within the categories we have introduced in this study, e.g. integration in the urban pattern (Haustyp, Seebäder), social role (Heilbäder), architectural style (Kunsttyp, Blocksystem), functional organization (Reihenanordnung) and spatial units (Βäder mit Hof).

The emphasis on the longitudinal axis, the breaking of a compact whole and the refinement of the form of individual rooms, which in a sense heralds Byzantine architecture, are features found in other bathing facilities in Italy, e.g. in the baths of the villa in Piazza Armerina in Sicily. A similar emphasis on the longitudinal axis can be observed in the imperial baths of Trier in Germany, which are dated to the same period.

The classification of Roman baths proposed by Daniel Krencker more than 80 years ago remains as the most prominent in the literature235. His typology was used for the organization of comparative material contained in the publication on Imperial thermae in Trier and is based on the functional structure of bath complexes. It corresponds to the form of classification which we call functional. According to Krencker, baths are classified in 8 large categories:

The typological classification of the Roman baths In the first section of this chapter we outlined the key characteristics of the Roman bathing tradition, its social role and the art of the bath, to which we shall return in Chapter 3. We commented on the possibility of classifying this tradition using chronological – geographical and technological criteria and we sketched the architectural evolution of the Roman bathing tradition in Italy, before and after the hypocaust.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

We made clear in the introductory chapter that, in order to investigate the Romanization of the bathing tradition in Helladic space, we chose to use as basic instruments the distinction of typological groupings and the comparison of spatialities before and after Roman infiltration. In section B of the present chapter, we shall first present the typological analysis available in existing literature. In section C we shall offer a description of the spatiality of the bath in Roman tradition, so as to compare it in the next chapter with the spatiality of the bath in Greek and Romanized traditions. 232 233

Der Haustyp Der Blocktyp Der symmetrische Blocktyp oder Kaisertyp Die Zentralkomposition Die Kastellbäder a. Die Reihenanordnung b. Das Blocksystem c. Bäder mit Hof d. Der Kunsttyp 6. Heilbäder, Seebäder und Flußbäder

Reihentyp Ringtyp Doppelanlagen Thermen mit Verdoppelung einzelner Abschnitte Thermen mit einer inneren Gabelung des Weges Der kleine Kaisertyp Der große Kaisertyp Halbachsiale Mischtypen

In subsequent literature the most important categories are the linear type (No 1 in Krencker’s classification), the circular or ring type (2), the semi-axial type (8), the small imperial type (6) and the large imperial type (7). Each of Krencker’s categories is subdivided into variations of the same type which result from the incorporation or not of a palaestra or Basilica Thermarum in the functional diagram, the number and diversity of functional units, the typology

Gros 1996. Nielsen 1993, 56.

234 235 44

Pfretzchner 1909. Κrencker 1929, Abb. 234-240.

Chronological and typological issues in the study of Roman baths in Italy

Thermes du Fleuve in Thamusida in Morocco239. In his typology, baths can be classified in 3 categories:

or rooms and the departures from the main movement diagram. In Krencker’s schema we can find a place for all bath facilities of the Roman tradition, which, in accordance with the definitions we adopted, are organized on the principle of the succession or rooms. For instance, the Imperial thermae of Rome are classified in the large imperial type, while the thermae of North Africa and the baths – gymnasia of Asia Minor are classified in the small imperial type. In Krencker’s classification, the key feature which differentiates the large imperial type is the architectural integration of a palaestra in the bath complex. With minor variations, Krencker’s typological classification was followed by Nielsen in her work Thermae et Balnea, published in 1990. Nielsen equates typological classification with what we call here functional classification and characteristically says that “it should be mentioned, however, that as far as typological classification of baths is concerned, this book follows the system established by D. Krencker in 1929 in connection with his publication of the imperial baths in Trier”236. Nevertheless, she tacitly introduces other parameters too, which aim at a more “spectral” approach. The whole of bath facilities is subdivided into two broad categories based on ancient terminology, thermae and balneae. The main properties distinguishing them are scale, urban integration and the presence of a palaestra. Nielsen also introduces into the classification problematic geographical and chronological groupings of bath facilities, although she does not make specific use of the term “type” in their description. Finally, she complements her typological approach with the dimension of ancestry and genealogy, in contrast to Krencker’s more static system and links Roman balneae with Greek balaneia and thermae with gymnasia. We shall have more to say on Nielsen’s position.

1. 2. 3.

Thermes à itineraire retrograde Thermes à itineraire circulaire Thermes à itineraire symmétrique

In 1996, Gros proposed a combination of the typological approaches of Krencker, Rebuffat and Nielsen240. We shall return to this classification in chapter 3 where we will classify bath facilities of the Romanized tradition in Helladic space on the basis of their functional diagrams. In his study on the baths of North Africa and their Mediterranean context, Thébert elaborated yet another diagrammatical approach to typological classification, this time based on the route followed by the bathers241. According to him, baths are classified on the basis of movement diagrams and not simply of the layout of functional units. The conclusion is that, with the exception of Farrington, most students of the subject equate more or less architectural types with the classes of functional diagrams.

The spatiality of the bath Baths in the Roman tradition after the hypocaust, contrary to those of the Greek tradition, consisted of a succession of rooms, the number of which fluctuated depending on the size of the complex. We noted already, that in Italy the bath complex was usually an independent building unit. Private houses too disposed of baths. Arguably, baths were in fact part only of Imperial thermae, which in effect housed a multi-purpose complex.

Yegül’s typology, as presented in his work Baths and Bathing in Classical Antiquity237 is much closer to our definition of typology (see introductory chapter). Yegül admits the existence of wider typological systems which are connected with geographical zones, but also with urban centres. In his book he highlights the thread linking together the evolution of the thermae of Rome, the Pompeii type, groups of North African baths and subgroups of baths – gymnasia of Asia Minor. He consciously uses a combination of strict typological classification and Krencker’s mechanistic taxonomy. As he points out in his chapter on the baths of North Africa, “in the broadest sense, the plans of North African baths can be grouped under three categories: the imperial type, the half-axial type, and the small, asymmetrical establishments. None of these types is peculiar to North Africa, nor are they really ‘types’ in the strict, stylistic sense of the word, but rather describe broadly recognizable generic umbrellas”238.

The integration of baths of the Roman tradition in the urban pattern did not obey rules or some sort of regularity, as was the case in the framework of Greek tradition. Baths, with the exception of large thermae, crept into all gaps of the urban fabric. This is how Yegül put it: “Few rules governed the distribution of baths in the cities. The manner in which public baths, large or small related to the larger urban whole seems to have been by pragmatic concerns rather than theoretical principles. Small baths penetrated the fabric of the city and functioned as true neighbourhood establishments”242. One of the questions we shall try to answer later is whether Romanization transformed the logic of integration of the Greek bath in the urban pattern.

Another approach, with which we shall deal in the next chapter and which consists of an evolution of Krencker’s typology, is that by Rebuffat. He used it in his study of the

Bath spatiality in Roman tradition takes shape in a manner which is radically different from that of the Greek tradition. Baths of the first level are documented in a number of literary texts and their emphasis is mostly on social and daily rituals, and much less on healing ones. The highest place in terms of importance

236 237 238

239 240 241 242

Νielsen 1993, 4. Yegül 1992. Yegül 1992, 186. 45

Rebuffat et al 1970, 178-182. Gros 1996. Thébert 2003. Yegül 1992, 4.

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

is clearly reserved to the fifth level of spatiality, that of independent bathing facilties, which Nielsen classified simply as balneae. Of great importance are of course the fourth level (private house baths) and the sixth (Imperial thermae).

Summary We have made a sharp distinction between a mechanistic classification of characteristics of baths or of entire bathing facilities and a more rigorous typological approach. Whereas the mechanistic approach results from the decision of the researcher to organize the physical object of his/her study on the basis of common properties, in other words is imposed by him/her on the object of the study, a rigorous typological approach is the result of an effort to read the intentions lying behind the design of similar architectural constructs, a design guided by imitation. In the latter case the approach is indirectly imposed on the student by the context of the society he/she investigates. Nielsen’s effort to diagnose the morphological differences concealed by the terms thermae and balneae belongs to this perspective. A diagnosis of morphological groupings relying on ancient written sources proves extremely difficult because of chronological, geographical and ideological differentiations in the description of the objects themselves. It was for this reason that we adopted a spectral classification of types. We consider that an architectural type is constituted by bathing facilities of which the whole or the constituent elements are classified in the same categories, in terms of all or most classifications which cover the full spectrum of properties. In order to classify two or more bathing facilities in the same architectural type, these facilities must exhibit common chronological or geographical, cultural technological, architectural and spatial characteristics. Using the spectral classification approach, we arrive at groups of bathing facilties in Graeco-Roman antiquity. These groups include the baths of the typical Hellenistic palaestra, the balaneia of Sicily, the baths of the Pompeii type, the Imperial thermae of Rome and possibly Carthago, and groups of baths in North Africa and Asia Minor.

Level of spatiality

Places of bathing practice

Examples

1

Periurban countryside

Military training bath in the river Tiber

-

2

-

3

Private baths (Republic and early Principatus)

House of the Faun, Pompeii

4

Part of a villa or palace complex (Principatus)

Baths of Villa Adriana, Tivoli

5

Public baths

Terme di via della Foce, Ostia Mineral baths in Baiae

6

Imperial or imperial type thermae

Diocletian’s baths in Rome Baths of Antoninus in Carthago

7

Representations of daily rituals, healing practices and athletic activity

Seneca’s bath in Aqua Virgo (1st c .) Martial’s accounts of baths in Rome (1st c.) Lucian’s Hippias or The Bath (2nd c.) Descriptions of Aesculapium in Pergamon by Aelius Aristides

Table 11 The spatiality of the bath in the framework of the Roman tradition

46

A SYMMETRICAL PRESENTATION OF THE GREEK AND ROMAN BATHING TRADITIONS ON THE BASIS OF THE STUDY OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REMAINS OF HELLADIC SPACE

sentations and architectural remains at our disposal we are in a position to evaluate the social significance of alternative narratives of bathing activity. As we saw in Chapter 1, Homer’s Odyssey abounds with references to mythical bathing places, which can be classified in the category of daily rituals responding to the imperatives of hygiene, relaxation and hospitality. The most complete record of available literary and iconographic evidence with a taxonomic intention can be found in Ginouvès’s Balaneutikè243. This record was updated in a recent study of documentary evidence244. The presence of the bath in narratives of Greek antiquity can be classified in four categories of ritual, i.e. daily, healing, religious and, finally, athletics and education. It goes without saying that these categories are not mutually exclusive and fully autonomous classes. A typical example is that of bathing practice in the sanctuaries of Asclepius which had both a healing and religious character. We shall return to these categories at a later stage.

The Greek bathing tradition: The urban countryside, the fountain, the gymnasium, the public bath, the house, the place and the sanctuary

The bathing process in Greek antiquity, in comparison to Roman practices, was extremely simple. Diagrammatically it can be divided into hot and cold bath, with the hot bath divided into washing and sweating. There is evidence that nitre was used as soap. The use of oil for anointing the body was widespread.

a. Chronological / geographical classification The period which encompasses the Greek tradition of the bath within the historical continuum starts in 7th century BC to which is dated the oldest known asaminthos, found in Smyrna, and extends up to 1st century AD to which the Tell Edfou balaneion in Egypt is dated. This is a period to which can be also dated the building phases of the reconstruction of several transitional facilities (Baths of the Krene in Corinth, balaneion of Olympia, palaestra of Regilles Street in Athens).

A hot bath took the form of a wash or sweating, while a cold bath included only washing. A wash could be total or partial, involving the use of a flat bowl or basin (lekanē), bowl on a stand (loutērion) or a fountain. Partial washes could be cold, but also hot, requiring water heated in special vessels. In case a free flow of water was available, washes, partial or total, were cold. A free flow was used, though not always, in swimming pools, fountains and gymnasium cisterns.

On the basis of our chronological and geographical classification we can distinguish first a wider area in which variations of the Archaic asaminthos were disseminated to Greek colonies (e.g. Selinus and Smyrna). Apart from scattered examples, we can also distinguish various clusters or loose groupings. These include a concentration of bath facilities of the Classical and late Classical Periods in central mainland (Sterea) Greece and the Peloponnese (e.g. in Athens, Corinth, Delphi, Aegina, Oropos and Olympia), three groups of Hellenistic bath facilities in wider Helladic space (e.g. in Athens, Amphipolis, Delphi, Gortys, Thessaloniki, Oiniades, Pyrasos, Eretria, Thera, Lemnos, Pergamon and Priene), in Egypt and in Magna Graecia, and, finally, a group of palace baths of the Hellenistic period in a vast area from Pella to Afghanistan.

Total washes could take the form of a shower or of immersion of the body in some sort of bathtub, cistern or pool. A shower or spraying bath was cold. We have iconographic evidence of the end of the archaic period, showing a bath taking place under an elevated water spout. In the case of a bath by immersion, the body is immersed in water either totally or partially, possibly with simultaneous sprinkling (bain par affusion). Total immersion took place in a pool or in an asaminthos or, more rarely, in a round bathtub245. Water was cold in a swimming pool, but hot in an asaminthos transported by hand from a nearby cauldron and decanted into the tub. The alvei (hot water basins) of the balaneia of Sicily were an exception. A loutēr (hip-bath or sitzbad) was used for a partial immersion bath, in which one would assume a sitting position, while water

b. Cultural classification We have used the term “Greek tradition” to define the whole of bath practices and their spatial organization which can be reproduced and represented out of literary sources and archaeological remains and characterize Greek culture.

243 Ginouvès 1962. 244 Gill, A. A., 2004, Balaneia: A Sourcebook for the Greek Bath from the Archaic through the Hellenistic Periods, A Dissertation Presented for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree, The University of Memphis. 245 Nielsen 1993, 8.

Through the study of written sources, iconographic repre47

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

was poured over one’s head.

small basins are used in sanctuary baths (baths of Aphaia and Oropos). The basins had the form of a seat with a semispherical cavity in the front part, the omphalos (navel). The materials used to manufacture a loutēr or an asaminthos were carved stone (Athens), terracotta (Syracuse) or rough stones and mortar.

A total hot wash was practised in the course of a daily social, healing or religious ritual, but as a rule it was absent in the bathing routine of the gymnasium. The practice of sweating is however observed in palaestras of the Hellenistic Period (e.g. in the gymnasia of Eretria or Thera).

The sweating bath is also present in the Greek tradition248. Its presence is documented by the existence of underfloor hot air tubes connected with a furnace (balaneia of Gortys, Megara Hyblaea and Gela). Not all sweating rooms disposed of underfloor tubes, because the heated water needed for such a system could not be provided from a small hearth (baths of the Agora of the Italians in Delos and of the gymnasium of Eretria).

An exceptional case is that of the Phase I bath of Thermae Stabianae in Pompeii, dating back to the 5th c.BC, where Eschebach ventures that hot water was used in personal wash basins. It is however necessary to note that the existence of a palaestra in the first three construction phases of Thermae Stabianae has been disputed246. A heating arrangement has also been identified in the bath of the palaestra of Limne in Delos. A total cold wash could be taken in the countryside, as part of social daily rituals (sea bathing or washing in springs and rivers) or as part of athletic – educational activity in a gymnasium.

Having described the basic outline of the art of the bath in the Greek tradition we can now proceed to a discussion of its social role.

We have seen already that the bath by immersion is typical of bathing practice in the Bronze Age and possibly of the Archaic Period, but also characterizes the Roman tradition par excellence. As pointed out by Ginouvès the practice survives during the Archaic Period247, but apparently was gradually replaced by partial immersion in hipbaths during the Classical and Hellenistic Periods, only to return to fashion from the latter period onwards. In the balaneia of Gortys and Olympia we have simultaneous use of hip-baths and asaminthos-like bathtubs. The use of an asaminthos was widespread in the balaneia of Ptolemaic Egypt. Finally, we encounter an asaminthos in Room C of the balaneion of Cyrene.

Having described the basic outline of the art of the bath in the Greek tradition we can now proceed to a discussion of its social role. We started the third part of our study with a quotation from Homer’s Iliad. In it, Nestor, king of Pylos, addresses the wounded Machaon, physician and son of Asclepius, and tells him: “Stay here, therefore, and sit over your wine, while fair Hecamede heats you a bath and washes the clotted blood from off you”249. This is a most expressive incident, in which the medic finds himself in the position of the patient and abandons himself to the care of a wise man, who offers him wine, food and a hot bath250. As Lolas rightly remarks, we may recognize in the person of Hecamede, daughter of Arsinous, who had been healed by Achilles, the first nurse251. This same extract from the Iliad is used by Dominique Laty as an opening phrase in her book on the history of the bath252. This could be considered as paradoxical for a book of this nature. Should the theme of the war be our first choice to link the practice of the bath with the ancient world? However, if we look under the surface we can observe that it was not really war which is of essence here, but rather two other themes. The first is the symbolic power of Homeric epic poems from antiquity to the present day and their significance in the representation of life. The second is the ritualistic function of the bath as an act marking the passage from one condition of life

In Phase II of Thermae Stabianae the personal hip-baths of the first phase were replaced by bathtubs. As we shall see in the next chapter, pools with hypocausts for hot baths have been reconstructed in the balaneia of Syracuse and Megara Hyblaea. Finally, as we have indicated, the early hellenized baths of the Roman tradition before the hypocaust disposed of bathtubs (Villa Prato in Sperlonga) and of immersion pools (baths of Musarna and Ciampino). To provide an explanation we must choose between two hypotheses. The first is the hypothesis of survival of the immersion practice since the Bronze Age in the Aegean region, its spread in the colonies of the West and its incorporation in hellenized Italian bath practices of the 2nd c.BC. The second is the hypothesis of the spread of immersion bathing in Italy because of the tradition of therapeutic bathing in mineral water springs in Campania and Etruria.

248 See our analysis of problems of terminology in Chapter 1. In literary sources the sweating room is linked to the term pyriatērion. Written sources make also use of the term aleiptērion (oil-massage room), which could possibly apply to similar rooms in gymnasia and balaneia (Νielsen 1993, 8). For reasons of precision we prefer to use here the term “sweating bath”. 249 For the original text see Homeri Opera, Tomus II, Iliadis Libros XIII – XXIV, Editio Terta, Oxonii e Typographeo Clarendoniano, 1962. 250 Krug, 2003, 18. 251 Lolas, 2000, 91. 252 Laty, 1991, 3.

Taking a bath in an individual basin or hip-bath was the most common practice in balaneia and private houses of Helladic space, Italy and Sicily, as opposed to Prolemaic Egypt, as pointed out earlier. In the basins the bath was in fact a shower with water poured manually over individuals. Wash basins are not adopted in gymnasium palaestras, but 246 247

Fagan 2001. Ginouvès 1962, 32. 48

A symmetrical presentation of the Greek and Roman bathing traditions on the basis of the study of the architectural remains of Helladic space

Greece archaic

classical

early hellenistic late hellenistic

roman

late roman

Time span

Subdivision Abbreviation

700 - 480 BC

480 - 323 BC

Α

480 - 450 BC

C (T)

450 - 400 BC

C

400 - 323 BC

LC

323 - 146 BC

ΕΗ1

146 - 86 BC

LH1

86 - 31 BC

LH2

31 BC - 14 AD 14 - 96 AD 96 - 180 AD 180 - 285 AD

R1 R2 R3 R4

285 - 395 AD

LR1

395 - 476 AD

285 - 610 AD

LR2

476 - 610 AD

LR3

C H R O N O L O G Y O F B A T H F A C I L I T I E S

146 - 31 BC

31 BC - 285 ΑD

Italy

Table 12 The chronological spectrum of Greek tradition in the Mediterranean area

Figure 2 Diagram of the art of the bath in the Greek tradition

49

Period

Time span

phase I

500 - 400 ΒC

phase IΙ

400 - 250 ΒC

phase IIΙ

250 - 200 ΒC

phase IV

200 - 100 ΒC

phase V phase VI

100 - 80 ΒC 80 - 31 ΒC

phase VIΙ phase VIΙI phase ΙΧ phase Χ phase ΧΙ

32 ΒC - 54 AD 55 - 98 99 - 211 212 - 286 287 - 395

phase ΧIΙ

396 - 500

phase ΧIΙΙ

500 - 600

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

to another (childhood – married life, life – death, illness– health), from one activity to another (before dinner or sacrifice, after athletic exertion or battle), from outside to inside (e.g. after the arrival or before departure of a guest). It will become evident later, that this institutional place of the bath at the limit or point of transition is reproduced in spatial organization. It is worth emphasizing here that the quality of the Greek bath as a passage from one condition or activity to another does not find an equivalent in Roman tradition. There, it is the bath itself that assumes the character of an activity and determines the structuring of space and of the use the Roman citizen makes of his time.

iour). His personal behaviour and his dissolute life had aroused a great deal of reaction. Plutarch provides an account of his illicit craving for Democles the Fair, a youth who owed his epithet to his beauty. Democles “yielded to none of the many who sought to win him by prayers or gifts or threats, and finally, shunning the palaestras and the gymnasium, used to go for his bath to a private bathingroom. Here Demetrius, who had watched his opportunity, came upon him when he was alone. And the boy, when he saw that he was quite alone and in dire straits, took off the lid of the cauldron and jumped into the boiling water, thus destroying himself, and suffering a fate that was unworthy of him, but showing a spirit that was worthy of his country and of his beauty”261.

Following our argument we can locate the social role of the bath in the context of the daily rituals of preparation and passage, in which the care for personal hygiene was also inscribed. There are plenty of references to the social role of the bath in ancient Greek literature, e.g in the works of Aristophanes253, Xenophon and Plato254. It is to the context of a social ritual that we have to place the bath in the Odyssey, Socrates’s bath before the Symposium, the blooddrenched bath of Agamemnon etc. In surviving texts we even find the criticism leveled against bathing, when baths became an independent source of enjoyment. Indeed, in his Clouds, Aristophanes condemns hot baths, which encourage indolence and laxity.

The legendary King Minos also met his violent death in a bath. He had travelled to the court of King Cocalus in Sicily in pursuit of Daedalus. Daedalus had escaped from the court of Minos, where, according to legend, he had engineered the sexual intercourse of the sacred bull of Poseidon and Minos’s wife Pasiphaë, who gave birth to Minotaurus. Minos posed a riddle to Cocalus, asking him to thread a string through the spires of a seashell. Cocalus sought Daedalus’s assistance who advised him to tie the string to an ant, place the insect at one end of the seashell and pour some honey at the other end. Minos guessed that only Daedalus could devise this trick and demanded that he should be surrendered to him. But Cocalus set a trap and persuaded Minos to take a bath, where Cocalus or his daughters murdered him, by showering him with boiling water262.

The hypothesis has been advanced that urban balaneia of the Classical Period were destined for use by women only, while men could use the baths of gymnasia255. It is generally accepted that in the Hellenistic Period urban baths were used by both sexes256. It is possible that the existence of two tholoi with wash basins in several balaneia served the purpose of separating the sexes.

The art of healing in ancient Greece has both a mythological origin and a philosophical root. Even a cursory review of therapeutic rituals and of their relationship with water and bathing practice requires an outline, on one hand, of mythological traditions and, on the other, of Greek medicine. Typical of this twin origin, and at the same time amusing, is a quotation from Etymologiae, a quasi-encyclopaedia compiled by Isidore of Seville around 600 AD: “Among the Greeks, Apollo is reported as the creator and inventor of medicine. His glory and achievements were amplified by his son Asclepius. But after Asclepius’s death from a thunderbolt strike, medical treatment is reported to have been forbidden and remained in darkness for almost five hundred years. Then it was recalled to light by Hippocrates, born by Asclepius on the island of Cos”263.

It is self-evident that death is not a category of the social role of the bath in antiquity. It constitutes however a mythological locus which we cannot possibly overlook. In the words of Cook, “a survey of Greek baths can hardly begin without a mention of Agamemnon”257. Cassandra, in a trance in front of the House of Atreus, foresees the murder of Agamemnon by Aegisthus and Clytaemnestra in his bath. Blood-soaked Agamemnon collapses in some kind of wash basin or bathtub258. Following a remark by Fraenkel259, Cook adds that, in his play Agamemnon, Aeschylus leaves free the imagination of the spectator to reconstruct as he wishes the form of the murderous bath. A reference to a fatal bath is made by Plutarch in his Life of Demetrius (the Besieger)260. Demetrius I of Macedon (330 – 283 BC) had “liberated” Athens from Cassander and had been deified by the Athenians, who called him Sotēr (Sav-

The mythological tradition of healing rituals is intimately linked with the cult of Asclepius. As mentioned in the Iliad, 261 English translation by Bernadotte Perrin in the Loeb Classical Library edition (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/ Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/home.html) 262 Hellēnikē Mythologia (Greek Mythology), 1986, Vol. 3: The Heroes. On Cocalus and Minos, see also http://en.wikipedia. org. 263 Our translation from the Latin text, with the assistance of the Greek translation. See Asklēpios (O) kai oi Aparches tēs Iatrikēs, 1996: 77. For the Latin text see Isidori Hispalensis Episcopi, Etymologiae, Liber IV, “De Medicina”

253 The Clouds, 991, 1045, Plutus, 535, 1045. 254 The Laws, VI 761, The Republic, 453D. 255 Nielsen 1993, 7. 256 Nielsen 1993, 7. 257 Cook 1959, 31. 258 Aschylus, Agamemnon, 1107-29. 259 Fraenkel, Agamemnon, iii, 516. 260 Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, ch. 24. 50

A symmetrical presentation of the Greek and Roman bathing traditions on the basis of the study of the architectural remains of Helladic space the physicians and sons of Asclepius Machaon and Podaleirius took part in the Trojan War on the side of Agamemnon. According to Antje Krug, Homer knew Asclepius as the king of Trikke264, who learnt the art of healing from the wise centaur Cheiron and transmitted it to his sons. Homer was not aware of a god under that name. The testimony of the worship of Asclepius, son of Apollo, appears later in the 6th and 5th century BC265. Although Asclepius is a mythical person, the existence and diffusion of his sanctuaries (Asklēpieia) is a fact of great significance for the history of medicine. According to Vivian Nutton, “the burgeoning of the cult of Asclepius in the late fifth century BC is arguably as significant a development in the history of medicine as the contemporary ferment of medical theories that were later included in the Hippocratic Corpus”266 Thessaly is considered to have been the first location of the cult of Asclepius, but soon a new version of his legend places it in Epidaurus in particular. Asclepius is pictured often with his daughters, especially Hygieia, who was worshipped either jointly with her father or independently. An old sanctuary of the two healing gods existed in Titane, in the Peloponnese, where women sacrificed their hair to Hygieia and hung them on her devotional statue267. Although famous sanctuaries of Asclepius existed in other places too, e.g. in Cos and Corinth, the primacy of Epidaurus had been acknowledged even by the Oracle of Delphi in a divination mentioned by Pausanias268. A pilgrim visiting the Epidaurus sanctuary had to be clean, as prescribed by an inscription on the door mentioned by Porphyry, a neo-platonic philosopher of the 3rd c.AD, in his treatise De abstinentia ab esu animalium (On Abstinence from Animal Food): “Into an odorous temple, he who goes should pure and holy be; but to be wise in what to sanctity pertains, is to be pure”269. The suppliants were purified at a sacred spring270. The spring which the entering visitor found on his way to the sanctuary was, according to Krug, one of several that supplied it with water for purification and sacrifices. The patients who sought the salutary, healing intervention of god Asclepius spent the night in incubation (enkoimēsis), during which the god came to heal them. The alleged divine therapy in the Asklepieia no doubt evolved in parallel with wider developments in ancient Greek medicine. Krug points out that in the prescriptions for baths and physical exercise one can recognize, in spite of undoubted differences, a distant reflection of modern treatment, ordered in the ancient “sleep temples” by priests after a process of hypnosis271.

In the present chapter we shall return to the process of healing in the sanctuaries of Asclepius, as described by Aelius Aristides in 2nd c.AD, but a description of treatment in the incubator (enkoimētērion) of Epidaurus is also found in the play Plutus by Aristophanes, who is poking fun at the whole process272. In Epidaurus, the various types of treatment were inscribed on slabs. According to Strabo this was common in Cos, as well as in Trikke273. In an inscription included in Inscriptiones Graecae IV reference is made to a paralytic who saw in his dream the god guiding him to bathe in a lake with extremely cold water. He hesitated and Asclepius scolded him and told him he cannot cure cowards. When he rose from his sleep he took a bath and left healthy and sane274. As emphasized by Krug the urge for cleanliness was provided for by several springs and bath facilities, which went back to the early stages of the sanctuary. To these belong the baths of Asclepius, mentioned by Pausanias, which were in close touch with the temple and the sacred, inaccessible area of the abaton. In Roman times a larger bath facility was constructed in the stoa of Cotys, the sacred character of which was enhanced by an incorporated sanctuary275. A similar arrangement can be observed in other Asklēpieia, e.g. in Corinth, Troezen and Cos, information on which is again provided by Krug. To satisfy the demand for cleanliness, the visitor entering the sanctuary of Corinth found on his left a water pool under a protective shelter. The abaton occupied almost the entire western section of the sanctuary, access to which was provided by two doors, of which that on the south led first to a wash basin276. In Troezen, in proximity with the south wall of the temple, we find a fountain supplied with water from an external source and a round well, which secured the necessary water supply. A chemical analysis of the spring water which is still flowing has shown a small content of sulphur, acid magnesium carbonate and magnesium sulphate, which endow it with a purgative property, similar to that of the spa of Karlsbad277. In Cos, fountain houses existed on the left and right of the stairs leading to the altar. In the course of time additional ones were probably built to cater for the needs of the rising number of visitors. In the Roman period multiple latrines were added, as well as a hot bath on the other side of the courtyard278. The philosophical roots of medicine in the ancient Greek world are due to the perception that it is a branch of philosophy. According to Aulus Cornelius Celsus, famous Roman encyclopaedist of the 1st c.AD, whose work De Medicina was lost and then discovered 14 centuries later, “at first the science of healing was accounted a branch of philosophy … And thus we find, that many amongst the phi-

264 Near the modern city of Trikala in Thessaly. 265 Krug 2003, 18. 266 Nutton 2004, 103. 267 Krug 2003, 128. 268 Krug 2003, 131. 269 Porphyry, “On Abstinence from Animal Food”, Book II, 58, in The Select Works of Porphyry, trans. by Thomas Taylor, London, 1823 (http://www.animalrightshistory.org/animal-rights-library/porphyry/animal-food-bk2.htm). 270 Nutton 2004, 109. 271 Krug 2003, 141.

272 147. 273 274 275 276 277 278 51

Asklēpios (O) kai oi Aparches tēs Iatrikēs, 1996, 139Asklēpios (O) kai oi Aparches tēs Iatrikēs, 1996, 101. Asklēpios (O) kai oi Aparches tēs Iatrikēs, 1996, 173. Krug 2003, 135-136. Krug 2003, 143. Krug 2003, 146. Krug 2003, 161.

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

losophers were skilled in this science; of whom the most celebrated were Pythagoras, Empedocles, and Democritus; Hippocrates of Cos, who, according to some authors, was the disciple of the last mentioned of these, and is so justly admired both for his knowledge in this profession, and for his eloquence, was the first worthy of notice, who separated medicine from the study of philosophy”279. However, the view that from then onwards a total separation between the art of healing and philosophy has prevailed is disputed vehemently by Nutton280.

the Pythagoreans, any upsetting of the harmonic balance of body, psyche and cosmos leads to disease286. It is during what Windelband and Heimsoeth called the “anthropological period” of ancient Greek philosophy (ca. 450 – 400 BC), that Greek science enters the space of public life. Knowledge about nature feeds practical applications, as in the case of town planner Hippodamus. Even medicine, a hitherto traditional art, had been imbibed with general philosophical concepts about nature and partial theories, notions and hypotheses of natural science, which gradually spread into all scientific domains. Medicine was inundated with theories of aetiology and causality and it was only in Hippocrates that it found a reformer able to reinstate a balanced approach and give back to the art of healing its old character, which was sharply differentiated from scientific dogma287.

The influence of philosophy on medical art starts with Miletian philosophers. Thales of Miletus viewed water as the precondition and the beginning of life281. His researches, and in general those of Ionian philosophers who belong to the so-called cosmological period of ancient Greek philosophy (ca. 600 – 450 BC), revolved around the notion of cosmic matter. Their theoretical views are briefly analyzed by Windelband and Heimsoeth282. It would appear that for Ionian philosophy the view that a uniform cosmic matter was the substratum of all processes of nature was a selfevident postulate. What was at issue was to determine this basic matter. Their obvious response was to seek it among empirically known substances, e.g. water for Thales or air for Anaximenes. Critical attributes for this choice, according to the same authors, were probably agility, changeability and the apparent inner liveliness of water and air. For the Miletians these attributes were not obviously chemical properties of water or air, but rather cumulative conditions. While solid substances appeared to them as dead matter, being moved only by external forces, fluid water and transient air leave the impression of spontaneous movability and vitality. The theories about the elements of life of Anaximander, Anaximenes and, especially Empedocles (5th century BC) constitute the foundation of the theory of fluids of ancient medicine. As explained by Krug, Empedocles is the representative of the theory of four elements (fire, water, air and earth) which correspond to four properties (hot, moist, dry and cold). For him, but also for Anaximenes, the harmony and equilibrium of the four elements are the foundation of the cosmos. The body is the outcome of the mixture of these elements. A disturbance of their equilibrium produces disease283. There is no doubt, in Nutton’s view, that the theories of Empedocles had a definite influence on the medicine of his day284. Of interest are the properties of these elements according to Empedocles. He took the view that each of them was unborn and incorruptible, internally homogeneous and unalterable, but at the same time divisible and, in its constituent parts, immovable285. Finally, for

Hippocrates, who was born in Cos in 460 BC, was not of course the son of Asclepius, as Isidore of Seville seemed to believe. He enjoyed however a reputation as a physician in Athens of the days of Pericles, as great as that enjoyed by Pheidias and Polycleitus as sculptors288. He was not merely the most eminent physician of his day, but had in addition the gift of expressing his knowledge in writing and of interpreting his empirical observations289. He bequeathed to us a large written opus, although there is disagreement as to what is due to him and what is the work of his disciples or others who followed the Hippocratic school. It is however to one of his undoubtedly authentic works, found in the collection Epidemics that belongs the observation that the diagnosis of illness should be based not only on symptoms, but also on human nature and the idiosyncrasy of the patient. As Nutton remarks, the Hippocratic physician was keen to discover the inner changes in the body of the patient which brought about his illness and was primarily concerned with his disposition290. Krug remarks in fact that Hippocrates’s treatise On Airs, Waters and Places should be rather renamed On the Environment, because in it he postulated that the environment affects the state of health or illness of humans. The treatise On the Nature of Man, probably written by his son-in-law Polybus, is the book in which we are introduced to the Hippocratic theory of the four humours or body fluids (chymoi), i.e. blood, phlegm, black bile and yellow bile. These elements and their state of equilibrium determine health or illness, in the sense that their imbalance or bad mixture leads to a deterioration of the body291. In the Hippocratic corpus the four humours were associated with the four seasons and the four elements of Empedocles. The books Regimen of Persons in Health and Of Regimen are probably the product of a wider Hippocratic circle. The term diaita (regimen)

279 Aulus Cornelius Celsus, De Medicina, Book I, Preface (http://auluscorneliuscelsus.com/). See also Krug 2003, 28-29 and48. 280 Nutton 2004, 115. 281 Krug 2003, 30. 282 Windelband and Heimsoeth 1980, 43-44. 283 Krug 2003, 53 and 31. 284 Nutton 2004, 81. 285 Windelband and Heimsoeth, 1980, 51.

286 Krug 2003, 31. 287 Windelband and Heimsoeth, 1980, 79. These authors point out that the rejuvenation of medicine had started with physicians influenced by the Pythagoreans. 288 Krug 2003, 46. 289 For this paragraph on Hippocrates we relied mainly on Krug 2003, 49-55. 290 Nutton 2004, 92. 291 Krug 2003, 53. See also Lolas 2000, 96-98 and 113. 52

A symmetrical presentation of the Greek and Roman bathing traditions on the basis of the study of the architectural remains of Helladic space covers the whole way of life. Here, the elements of water and fire are considered as the materials of living organisms while the four humours correspond to combinations of the properties of cold, hot, dry and moist. The metabolism of human organism is described empirically in terms of the intake of water in food and the effect of fire as conversion of food into heat and motion. For this reason the prescribed regimen dwells on diet and on the activity of the body, i.e. on exercise, cold baths, relaxation and sleep292. In general the Hippocratic school placed less emphasis on drugs, which were limited to laxatives, herbs, emetics and narcotics, and much more on baths, frugal dieting, skin incision and cupping, venesection and blood drawing, and, finally, cautery293. We have made clear that the notion of diaita is very broadly conceived in Hippocratic medicine and means much more than hygienic nutrition, embracing all aspects of the human way of life294. Physical exercise and bathing played an important role in Hippocratic practice. Exercise and diet were used as preventive cures to reduce the probability of illness. Partial or total wash in baths and running water were staple prescriptions in Hippocratic regimen295. Mineral baths, especially of course much later in Roman times, have a special position. However, the Hippocratic school took a rather negative view of hot baths, especially in mineral springs. In Krug’s view, hot mineral baths, even plain hot baths, were considered as having a harmful rather than beneficial effect, although they were not totally rejected296. Hippocrates had classified bath types (body immersion, simple aspersion, wetting with a sponge, hot, tepid, cold) in terms of their suitability for various ailments, complaints and pains, with exceptional meticulousness297. With the exception of cases for which Hippocrates specifically recommended them, e.g. for headaches298, hot baths were blamed as conducive to physical softness299. Their healing properties apart, there is no doubt that the value of baths for a healthy life was fully recognized in ancient Greece. Baths taken by athletes in gymnasia, washing for body relaxation at home or after work and Greek balaneia, all had as their aim individual cleanliness and vigour300.

the influence of Diocles of Carystus301, who recommended hot baths for elderly persons302. Diocles, along with other practitioners of the Hippocratic school, espoused the view than every patient is an individual case and that his body changes, not only with age, but also with the changing seasons and the weather conditions303. To find a personality of ancient medicine of similar stature one has to make a leap to 2nd c.AD when the dominant figure was that of Galen from Pergamon (129 – 201 AD), who lived for long in Rome. Galen, who had come under the influence of stoic philosophy, was much admired as a philosopher in the Renaissance304. “Almost from the first moment when men invented gods and the rites in which to worship them, the notion of purification became attached to acts of ritual ablution. To purify oneself in pure water before rendering homage to the gods has been part of the ceremonial of every religion since earliest antiquity”305. As stressed by Gaston Bachelard, water is the pure matter par excellence, its chastity inherent in its own nature306. It is not therefore surprising that from early on it came to symbolize purity and cleanliness. Ginouvès remarks that baths could well be widespread in ancient Greece for reasons of hygiene, but a particular category of washing practice points to a ritual linked to religious worship, from the simple case of cleaning the body before devotional libations to the pilgrimage to sanctuaries and to rituals associated with birth, marriage and death307.

The two great and rival schools of medicine in the classical period were the school of Cos and that of Cnidus, although later, in late 4th and early 3rd century BC, the school of Alexandria too reaches notable distinction. In the intervening years, around the middle of 4th c.BC, important is

A ritual or rite is usually part of a social occasion or ceremony which has acquired a symbolic significance, according to religious rules or social traditions308. A ritual accompanies special events or occurs at regular intervals and is performed by an individual, a group or society as a whole. It can take place in occasional locations or in purposely arranged public or private, spaces. It may concern only one section of society or be attended solely by a specified group of individuals. Finally, it may mark the passage from one religious or social condition to another (rite de passage) and signify a process of transition, as we indicated earlier. Such was the case, in ancient Greek tradition, of the bath taken by a young woman before her wedding, which symbolized purification and fertility309. The ablution performed by an individual can take the form of a religious or magical ritual involving the use of water, in which the body is immersed or with which it is sprinkled310. The various forms of baptism belong to this category of ritual bath311.

292 Krug 2003, 55. 293 Lolas 2000, 113-114. See also “The Presocratic Influence upon Hippocratic Medicine” (http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/hippocrates/a/hippocraticmeds.htm). 294 Nutton 2004, 97. 295 Nutton 2004, 145; Krug 2003, 170. 296 Krug 2003, 170. 297 Laty 1991, 11. 298 Laty 1991, 11. 299 De Bonneville 1998, 20. 300 Ginouvès 1962, 233.

301 Krug 2003, 61-64. 302 Laty 1991, 13. 303 Nutton 2004, 123. 304 Windelband and Heimsoeth, 1980, 252. 305 De Bonneville 1998, 9. 306 Βachelard 1942. 307 Ginouvès 1962, 233. 308 See “ritual” in http://en.wikipedia.org. 309 Laty 1991, 20. 310 Besides, the Latin verbs luere and abluere meant both to wash away and to purify. 311 See “ritual bath” and “ablution” in http://www.britannica.com and “ritual purification” in http://en.wikipedia.org. 53

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

The aim is to clean, purify and consecrate a human being. In various cultures, use is made, apart from water, of other liquids, like blood or urine of sacred animals. In Greek mythology, both Apollo and Dionysus were purified soon after their birth in a river or lake312. Lustral baths are a typical feature in several religions. Their most prominent prophets and preachers assign a moral value to water and in their teachings recommend ritual ablutions, to clean both body and soul. In ancient Egypt the faithful washed their face and hands before praying to Isis, while the priests had to wash their body twice during the day and again twice at night. In the holy scripts of the Vedas of the Hindus, particularly in Rigveda, water is thought as offering physical and spiritual cleanliness and purity313.

her body goes back to a magical faith in water, in which man is born and reborn; a faith related to the creed of a theogonic Oceanus, father of all rivers, springs and lakes. The origin of the myth of Hera’s rejuvenation washing is the annual ritual of the bath (plyntērion) of the goddess’s effigy and the conviction that the miracle – working power of the idol is thus renewed318. The idol of Athena was also given a bath for a different reason. The goddess had washed herself in the river Ilissos to exorcize her abhorrence for the anthropophagous rage of Tydeus319. We should also note here the special mythical association of Athena with meteorological phenomena, especially storms320. Demeter too sought refuge in river Ladon where she took a purifying bath and thus acquired the epithet Lusia, as mentioned by Pausanias321. The reason was that she wanted to wash away the insult inflicted on her by Poseidon, who hunted her, when both were transformed into horses, and managed to be united with her.

What these rituals aim at is the cleansing of an unclean, in fact impure, body. Impurity may be due to several reasons, but its removal is necessary to prepare a person for a particular task or as a preparation for worshipping a deity. Several such rituals for removing impurity with water are foreseen in Judaism, sometimes with mere hand washing, sometimes with body immersion (mikvah) in living water (river, spring or groundwater well) or in a special bath facility. In the latter case the conditions for securing clean water are specified in great detail314. Mikvah, literally “collection of water”, is not a simple bath for cleaning the body, since a regular bath must precede it. Women take a mikvah at specific moments in their life, e.g. before their wedding, after a passing separation from their companion, after giving birth to a child or following a journey315.

The mythological cycle of Heracles contains several references to water and its importance for men and for the hero himself. He was supposed to have regained his strength in the sulphuric mineral springs of Thermopylae322. The fight with the Lernaean Hydra, one of his famous labours, symbolizes the draining of the swamp, but is also a struggle with the serpent which guards a spring and prevents men from drawing water. Similar is the case of Cadmus who slew the serpent or dragon guarding a spring323 and then sowed the dragon’s teeth on the advice of Athena. A new generation of men sprang from the ground. Athena’s counsel is linked to the relationship of her religious cult with water, sowing and vegetation324. Lernaea Hydra, the serpent slain by Heracles, resided in a lake (Lerna), one of many lakes believed to be entrances to the underworld. Lerna was a place of expiation for murderers, of exorcism rituals and purification sacrifices325.

In the Harai rituals of the Japanese religion Shinto, a bath prepares the faithful to approach a deity or sacred powers. Hot baths with a religious character were widely used in the years between the Nara period (710 – 784) and the Kamakura period (1192 – 1333)316. A Shinto bath was but one stage in a series of purification trials, practiced even today in places of pilgrimage. Before entering the baths, the pilgrim had to wash his mouth and hands317.

In contrast to sea waters, the cult of terrestrial waters had a local character in ancient Greek mythology. Freshwater deities were the Naiads, i.e. the nymphs of rivers, brooks and springs. The Nymphs were spirits of nature residing near springs and running water, but also in mountains, woods and pastures. Special categories of nymphs are often distinguished, such as Alseids (spirits of woods and groves), Hydriads (water spirits), Crenaeae (fountain spirits) or Potameides (river spirits)326. Babies were often given

Rituals related to the worship of Asclepius, which we described already in the section on healing rituals, occupy a special place in ancient Greek religious tradition. Here we limit ourselves to other rituals and beliefs associated with water, although an exhaustive account is impossible in the context of the present study.

318 Hellēnikē Mythologia, Vol. 2: The Gods, 1986, 94. See also “Kanathos” and “Oceanus” in http://en.wikipedia.org. 319 Hellēnikē Mythologia, Vol. 2: The Gods, 1986, 109. 320 Hellēnikē Mythologia, Vol. 2: The Gods, 1986, 104-105. 321 Hellēnikē Mythologia, Vol. 2: The Gods, 1986, 132. See also “Demeter” in http://en.wikipedia.org. Lousis means bath or shower. 322 De Bonneville 1998, 12. 323 Hellēnikē Mythologia, Vol. 3: The Heroes, 1986, 71. 324 Hellēnikē Mythologia, Vol. 2: The Gods, 1986, 111 and 113. 325 Hellēnikē Mythologia, Vol. 4: Heracles and Panhellenic Expeditions, 1986, 38. 326 Hellēnikē Mythologia, Vol. 2: The Gods, 1986, 281-283. See also “Naiad” in http://en.wikipedia.org.

In Greek mythology, water is credited with rejuvenating power. Hera washed herself every year in Kanathos, a spring in Argolid, to renew her virginity. Other sources place her bath in the river Imvrasos or Parthenios in Samos. The belief that Hera regains her virginity by bathing 312 Ginouvès 1962, 235. 313 De Bonneville 1998, 9. 314 See “mikvah” in http://en.wikipedia.org. 315 De Bonneville 1998, 11. 316 See “Harai”, “Nara period” and “Kamakura period” in http://www.britannica.com and “religious bathing – Nara period to Kamakura period” in http://en.wikipedia.org. 317 De Bonneville, F., 1998, 11. 54

A symmetrical presentation of the Greek and Roman bathing traditions on the basis of the study of the architectural remains of Helladic space a bath in springs of the nymphs, in a kind of passage rite327. Mothers too, after giving birth to a child, took a lustral bath, in imitation of Rhea who gave birth to Zeus. Similarly, in Attica, women who had assisted a pregnant woman during her labour took a purifying bath soon after childbirth during the family ceremony amphidromia328, a ceremony marking the recognition of the newborn by the father329.

married couple334. For the bath or shower of the bride use was made of a special vessel known as gamikos lebēs (matrimonial bowl)335. Another form of ritual performed in Athens and involving the use of water was the purification in the spring of Clepsydra in the Acropolis, undergone by those intending to visit a sanctuary, after having sexual intercourse336.

The cult of the Nymphs was closely linked with water and had a pronounced effect on family life and on marital customs of young girls. Water is a fundamental element of the fertility of the earth and consequently of the nature of Nymphs, especially of Naiads as water deities, who often take other names (Oreads) in water rich mountain areas. There were of course male river deities, e.g. Acheloos. Worshipping spring and river divinities had deep and very ancient roots, but was of a mostly local character, since it was usually directed to the local river god or to the Nymphs of the nearby spring. That does not imply that honouring them with sacrifices was in any way inferior to the honour bestowed on other gods. Both worshipping practices and legends demonstrate the significance of water in a Mediterranean country like Greece330. After all, both deified rivers and the Nymphs, according to Hesiod’s Theogony, were children of Oceanus and Tethys331.

We find the presence of the element of water in the myth of Danaus, king of Argos, and his 50 daughters, the Danaides. Because of drought, Danaus sent his daughter Amymone (blameless) to find water, probably for a water ritual. She discovered a spring but it dried out. She was then assaulted by a satyre and Poseidon came to her rescue, but his trident struck the earth and a new spring flowed, which was named after Amymone. The Danaides got married to the 50 sons of Aegyptus, brother of Danaus, but soon afterwards slaughtered them, with only one exception. To expiate their crime in Tartarus, in the underworld, they were forced to fill with water a leaking jar which could never be filled337. The passage to the underworld was also linked to a lustral bath. Apart from the purification with water of the dead body, a purification bath was also taken by those who knew their death was imminent and wished to prepare for it, e.g. Socrates, and by those who visited the house of the deceased. As mentioned by Ginouvès, special water jars, the ardania of the Athenians, were placed in the entrance hall of the house, to enable those departing from it to take a wash338. A similar cleansing wash was necessary for those attending the funeral, the day after burial.

It is not therefore peculiar that because of the fertilizing action of water of which they were the symbol, Nymphs had a role in the maturing process of the young. They were described as kourotrophoi, i.e. nurses of the young, and the celebrations to honour them were in fact initiation rituals of the young. We know from Pindar, that during these rituals young men had their hair cut and offered to the Nymphs. Nymphes, i.e. young brides or girls of marital age, identified with Nymphs and danced in special festivities to honour the divine spirits. They thus exited from the private and entered the public realm where they had the opportunity to meet young men. It follows that the Nymphs had a special relationship with the institution of marriage. According to Pindar a wedding could not be celebrated without their presence332.

We have already referred to the role of the baths in ancient Greek gymnasia and their relationship with sports. Baths were in this case part of an athletics ritual, which has to be discussed in the context of athletics facilities, i.e. in essence gymnasia and their social function. An examination of gymnasia should be placed in the wider framework of athletic activity in the ancient Greek world339, but this is outside the scope of the present study. We have however to provide a context of analysis, reminding ourselves first that the protector of athletics and athletes was none other than Heracles, to whom we have already referred. His statues could be found in all places of athletics, along with those of Hermes340. According to tradition, Heracles was also the founder of Olympic Games (Olympiakoi agones).

In the matrimonial ceremony itself, the use of water was highly symbolical. After making the prescribed sacrificial offerings there followed, after sunset, the ritual of loutrophoria, i.e. the bridal bath of the young bride, or of both bride and bridegroom, with water from a river or spring (e.g. the Callirhoe spring in Athens) brought by a procession in special vessels333, carried by youths, relatives of the

Wolfgang Decker reminds us that the word agon (contest, competition) meant originally gathering or congregation

327 Ginouvès 1962, 237. 328 Ginouvès 1962, 238. 329 See “Amphidromia” in Megalē Hellēnikē Egkyklopaideia. 330 Hellēnikē Mythologia, Vol. 2: The Gods, 1986, 284. 331 See “Acheloos” and “Oceanus” in Megalē Hellēnikē Egkyklopaideia. See also “Mythography” in http://www.loggia. com/myth/rivers.html. 332 Hellēnikē Mythologia, Vol. 2: The Gods, 1986, 284. 333 See “gamos” (marriage) in Megalē Hellēnikē Egkyklopaideia.

334 Ginouvès 1962, 267. 335 See “lebēs gamikos” in http://en.wikipedia.org. 336 Ginouvès 1962, 266. 337 Hellēnikē Mythologia, Vol. 3: The Heroes, 1986, 272276. 338 Ginouvès 1962, 240. 339 On athletic activity in ancient Greece see Decker 2004, Kyle 2007, Decker and Thuillier, 2004, Golden 1998, and Archaios Ellēnikos Athlētismos: Ideōdes kai pragmatikotēta, 1995. 340 Hellēnikē Mythologia, Vol. 4: Heracles and Panhellenic Expeditions, 1986, 121. See also Golden 1998, 153. 55

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

of individuals341, but gradually acquired the meaning of regular meetings, accompanied later by athletic events342. It was thus that regular athletic games were established, among which, in ancient Greece the most prominent were those in Olympia, Delphi, Corinth and Nemea, i.e. the Olympic, Pythian, Isthmian and Nemean games respectively. The organization of games and the creation of athletic facilities in ancient Greece played an important role in the life and spatial structure of cities. Initially, athletic contests took place in various locations, even in agoras, which was the case in Athens too.

of the body, he argued, can fail, and this is undesirable, but even when it succeeds it does not make humans any better than reasonless animals348. Several scholars, including Decker349, are of the view that the emergence of the gymnasium is explained by the adoption of new military tactics based on hoplites, heavily armed infantry soldiers. This was a real revolution in the art of war350. According to this view, gymnasia were places of training and military preparation of the order of hoplites. Kyle however considers as unjustified any attempt to link gymnasia with military needs and military logic. He supports the opposite view, i.e. the relationship from the start of gymnasia with the naked body and the nudist exercise, which was a useless practice for the purpose of fighting in battle. In complete contrast to those who look at the first athletic games as a substitute of military combat, he challenges the military merit of athletic exercise, which was of no value, or perhaps negative, as a preparation for military operations. Physical strength and energy are essential for a soldier, but, according to Kyle, sport and nudism were rather social phenomena351 and had no functional military value, notwithstanding the fact that certain cities, when facing external threat, used their gymnasium for military training352. The spreading of gymnasia was due mainly to the rising popularity of sport and gymnastics, especially among the ruling classes. Changes in military tactics, with the decline of the importance of the hero – warrior and the introduction of the phalanx of hoplites, but also in politics, with the diffusion of democratic ideals and the censure of ostentatious living of the aristocratic class, acted as a pressure on the latter to seek other ways of showing off their wealth and superiority. Thus, Kyle pursues his argument, the classes with time to spare turned to physical training in the gymnasia and to taking part in athletic and equestrian competitions, which provided the opportunity for reinforcing their reputation and social status, which later found additional outlets in erecting monuments, devotional offerings, commissioning lyric odes and sponsoring sanctuaries353. In the process, the gymnasium becomes a place for projecting a social identity, where even nudism determines social class and status. In Kyle’s words, the gymnasium becomes a “text” reflecting social change. Mark Golden too espouses the opinion that the relationship between the emergence of the gymnasium and the change in military tactics must be associated with the role of the social elite. It was only the upper class that had the motivation and the means to engage in physical activity in gymnasia and to transform the nature of athletic contests. Besides, training in the gymnasium and taking part in games was not the appropriate fighting preparation for

The Greek gymnasium, as its name implies343, was a place of nudist physical exercise, but it evolved into a locus of physical training, leisure, athletics and education. As stressed by Decker and Thuillier, the gymnasium is one of the most representative places and facilities of ancient Greek civilization. Like the agora, the prytaneum or the theatre, the gymnasium was an inseparable element of the ancient Greek polis344. Gymnasia had their roots in the Archaic Period, but as Donald Kyle points out, both their origin and their character are the subject of debates345. At first they probably functioned in countryside locations at the edge of cities, in places endowed with free, open spaces, water and vegetation. Already by the 6th c.BC they were attached to sanctuaries and altars of gods and heroes and were sponsored by donors. They spread widely in 5th c.BC, although the earliest surviving remains are mostly dated in 4th c.BC. They can be traced in all Greek colonies, from Sicily to Bactria and from the Black Sea to Egypt. A phrase attributed to Emperor Trajan and recorded in 111 AD by Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia, in his correspondence with the emperor, is very expressive: “These little Greeks have a weakness for gymnasia”346. But as Decker rightly argues, it was not so much the gymnasium building with its interior and external spaces that made the gymnasium so special, but rather the institution that the building sheltered. Although at the beginning it was nothing more than the land area and the framework of military training for the youth of Greek cities, it grew over the years into a pole of socialization with an athletics focus, until it ended up providing moral education. The fact that today the term gymnasium is linked with cultural and scientific education is due to this transformation from physical training to the education of mind and spirit347. Physical education was not considered as an end in itself, worthy of the nature of humankind. Centuries later, the famous physician Galen, already mentioned earlier, made the point that the race of humans shared with gods the gift of reason and speech and with reasonless animals the gift of life. The athletic exercise 341 The initial meaning of gathering or congregation was extended to imply a meeting for athletic contest, and in general competition and rivalry. See “agonas” in Babiniotes, 1998. 342 Decker 2004, 64. 343 Gymnos: Naked. 344 Decker et Thuillier, 2004, 131. 345 Kyle 2007, 83-85. 346 Gymnnasiis indulgent Graeculi (Archaios Ellēnikos Athlētismos, 1995, 369). 347 Decker 2004, 253.

348 Archaios Ellēnikos Athlētismos, 1995, 377. 349 Decker 2004, 253-254. 350 Golden 1998, 25. 351 On the significance of athletic nudism see Golden 1998, 65-68. Golden believes it was a form of ritual initiation of the young. 352 As in Sestos in the Thracian peninsula in 2nd c.BC (Decker 2004, 254). 353 Kyle 2007, 85. 56

A symmetrical presentation of the Greek and Roman bathing traditions on the basis of the study of the architectural remains of Helladic space infantry soldiers354.

made impossible to exercise in gymnasia, hence excluded any chance of distinction in athletic games363. The demand that members of the elite be distinguished in such games is graphically shown by the blows364 inflicted by the people of Kerameikos in Athens on youths lagging behind in the torch race of the festival of Panathenaea365.

Apart from the precondition of having free time to spend in the gymnasium, which alone was an indicator of social class, training in the gymnasium cost money, e.g. to purchase oil for anointing the body. It was for this reason that the offer of oil to the gymnasium was an important liturgy355, i.e. the object of a chorēgia356 by rich citizens acting as sponsors, who frequently as a reward for their grants were given the title of gymnasiarch. As explained by Decker, the gymnasiarchs had to supply daily a large quantity of oil. In addition they had to provide fuel for the baths and ensure a continuous flow of water. According to tradition, it was said of a donor from Aphrodisiás in Asia Minor that he allowed oil to flow like water, which must have been a very flattering praise357. With the economic decline of city-states, benefactors became rare and it was hard to find volunteers to take on public offices, such as that of gymnasiarch. Worth mentioning is a remark by Xenophon that the smell of oil was typical of a free citizen. Using oil in the gymnasium had acquired a symbolic social significance358.

The gymnasium was a place of social encounter, debate, aesthetic valuation of the human body and male eroticism, possibly paederasty. Nudist education was perhaps valued as a form of socialization. Gymnasia were a key element of the identity of a city. Athens had three large gymnasia, the Academy, the Lyceum and the Cynosarges. Their development owed a lot to private sponsorship. In 4th c.BC the blossoming of philosophical schools and their connection with gymnasia signaled a new stage of growth and activity for the latter. Apart from gymnasia, Athens boasted additional separate palaestras, which to a degree, like gymnasia were under the control of the city366. From the point of view of plan layout and architectural form, the Classical gymnasium evolved into a large rectangular facility367 with a central courtyard, lanes for racing and porticoes on all sides. It disposed of open areas for throwing events and of a palaestra, its name often being used in place of gymnasium, of which, in Decker’s expression, it was the heart368. The dimensions of gymnasia used as stadiums for major games were in effect determined by the requirements of running events. The actual dromos (racecourse or track) usually had the length of a stadion369, and was divided into a covered colonnade (xystos), providing protection from bad weather, and a parallel open track (paradromis). Given the length of a stadion, which in practice ranged between 167 and 192 m., the colonnade was an impressive construction370. The development and diffusion of gymnasia was accompanied by the provision of the necessary baths with the use of cold water, gradually and increasingly replaced with hot water371.

Somewhat opposed to the view that the gymnasium was an aristocratic enclave is the argument that both the institution of the gymnasium and athletic nudism are evidence of the ascent of democracy. E.g. Decker regards them as proof of a transition from an aristocratic society to the city-state as a nursery of democracy359. Those exercising in the gymnasium aim at proving themselves on the strength not of their wealth and property, but rather of their personal virtues. However, although socialization in the gymnasia gave to a larger number of citizens the chance to enter the elite class, it could not ultimately promote equality as one might imagine. This is because attendance at gymnasia was predicated on the availability of free time and economic means. There have been in fact examples of gymnasium regulations, as in 2nd c.BC Veria, which provide evidence of exclusion of particular social classes360. It is clear, Decker argues, that membership of a gymnasium distinguished the privileged classes from simple folk. The self-image of the upper classes was that of an elite and there is no doubt that members of gymnasia enjoyed considerable tax advantages361. Not only did they have such concessions, but according to Aristotle there were cities where fines were imposed on the wealthy when they avoided exercise or when they did not pay for the armour of a hoplites, in an effort to maintain physical strength as a ruling class privilege, although this was not the case in Athens362. There, and undoubtedly in other cities, it was the necessity of earning one’s living that

The tendency to create ever larger athletic facilities was reinforced in 4th c.BC and in the entire duration of the Hellenistic Period. Gymnasia and stadiums appeared in 363 Golden 1998, 160. 364 Known as kerameikai plēgai, or blows of the Ceramicus. 365 Golden 1998, 167. 366 Kyle 2007, 169. 367 In Olympia the dimensions of the Hellenistic gymnasium were 66.5 m. (Decker 2004, 261). There existed several ancillary spaces, among which amphitheatres, ephebion (clubroom), storage rooms for gymnastics equipment and common baths. See also Golden 1998, 47. The description and typology of Vitruvius written ca. 30 BC, remains classical (Vitruvius 1960 and 2000; Archaios Ellēnikos Athlētismos, 1995, 307-311.) 368 Decker 2004, 261. 369 Stadion meant the actual stadium, a unit of length (192 m.) and the most prestigious running race. 370 Decker 2004, 260. The relationship between xystos and paradromis is in evidence in the characteristic example of the gymnasium of Delphi (Decker 2004, 181). 371 Laty 1991, 17.

354 Golden 1998, 27. 355 Leitourgia: Public service. 356 “The chorēgia was a liturgy or public service performed by a rich citizen for the polis” (http://www.jrank.org/ history). 357 Decker 2004, 256. 358 Golden 1998, 4. 359 Decker 2004, 253. 360 Kyle 2007, 244-245. 361 Decker 2004, 257-258. 362 Golden 1998, 159-160. 57

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

cities and sanctuaries. Gymnasia, once located outside the urban fabric, acquired greater centrality and were transformed into social and cultural centres. Already in 4th c.BC, in Athens and elsewhere, they played a critical role in the education of the youth. In cities beyond Helladic space proper they had a function of exclusion, separating the prominent classes from non-Greek population. In the cities of the kingdoms of Alexander’s successors, sports’ facilities, athletic games and physical training of the young marked the Greek character of the “gymnasium class”, i.e. of an urban aristocracy372. In these cities the Greeks liked to call themselves, or be called by the natives, the people of the gymnasium373.

Furnaces or traces of braziers for heating water have been excavated in the balaneia of Syracuse, Gela, Megara Hyblaea and Elaia (Velia), in the balaneion of the Centaur in Corinth and elsewhere. It is reasonable to expect that in many cases use was made of portable braziers. It appears that from the beginning an attempt was made to combine water heating with space heating through the circulation of steam. The use of double-purpose furnaces heating both space and water in special vessels has been documented, e.g. in Bath α of Olympia. It is evident that in most cases space heating was provided from braziers. It was also frequent to build an open furnace in a shallow pit in the centre of a tholos (rotunda), in which burning coal was deposited (balaneion of Cyrene and bath of the Agora of the Italians in Delos).

Cities like Athens, Sparta, Thebes and Delos, but also the places where the four major Panhellenic games were held, possessed, in addition to gymnasia, hippodromes for horse racing, which were not equipped with permanent facilities able to withstand the passage of time374. Stadiums375, as a constructed facility, appear first in Olympia. Spectators were originally seated on the banks of earthworks. The addition of seating terraces, even of simple timber construction, appears later. Of the places hosting important games, only Epidaurus, where games for Asclepius were held and attracted wide interest, had a similar infrastructure376. Terraces made of stone were found in Miletus. With the introduction in 4th c.BC of horseshoe terraces at one end, stadiums entered a new stage of development.

In the balaneia of Gortys, Olympia, Gela, Morgantina, Syracuse, Elaia and Megara Hyblaea, excavations have unearthed underfloor heating systems which have been linked to sweating rooms and rooms for hot baths. The system comprises furnaces connected to underfloor ducts for hot air circulation. It is only in Gortys that heating of more than one room from a single furnace and via an interconnected duct system can be documented. c. The architectural constitution of the Greek tradition We have reviewed the ways in which the art of the bath and its social functions have been organized in the Greek tradition and have been embedded in concrete practices. In table 14 we cross-tabulate specific bathing practices and facilities. The table shows how facilities serve different functions and practices. Table 15 shows a classification of spatial bathing units with respect to bathing (main and ancillary) facilities.

The baths of the Greek tradition can be classified into two groups, i.e. before and after the hypocaust. This division does not imply however that the introduction of the hypocaust became a standard fixture and had the same widespread application as in Roman or Ottoman traditions. The mode of social organization in Rome and the taste of Romans for water bathing, the possibilities opened by new construction technologies, the supply of cities with water and the experience of mineral baths gave to heating technology an impetus, which grew into a real revolution. Nevertheless, it can be argued that as in Roman tradition we can speak of facilities before and after the introduction of the hypocaust, the Greeks too experimented with heating technology and reached a stage in the Hellenistic Period of underfloor heating applications in baths, at least in certain rooms or even in suites of internal spaces.

Excavations have revealed balaneia, gymnasium baths and baths in public buildings with one tholos or even three tholoi (rotundas) of the same or different sizes. The balaneia of Velia (Elaia), Qasr-Qarun and Tell el Fara’in, the gymnasium baths of Eretria and others have one tholos. Two tholoi have been found in the balaneion of Cyrene, in the bath of the Agora of the Italians and elsewhere. The balaneion of Gortys in Arcadia has three tholoi. A tholos with hip-baths (loutēres) arranged perimetrically is a recurring feature of a large number of baths. Tholoi with hip-baths have been found in the balaneia of Gortys (room A), Piraeus (room R1), Oiniades (rooms A and B), Tell el Fara’in and others. Hip-baths were often placed in a wall recess, as in the balaneia of Gortys and Tell Atrib. Over the hipbaths an arrangement was sometimes provided to place the personal belongings of bathers, as in Gortys, Piraeus, Caulonia, Cyrene, Tell Edfou, Tell Atrib, Qasr-Qarun and Abousir du Mariut.378

Bath water was being heated in fixed or portable braziers (pyravna) and in boilers placed over furnaces (propnigeia). In private houses, in the absence of other facilities, it is more likely that water was heated with portable braziers in the kitchen area. Of interest is the case of a private house in Delphi where the bath was built next to the kitchen from which heat was transmitted to the bathroom through a special duct377. 372 373 374 375 376 377

Kyle 2007, 249. Decker 2004, 258. Decker 2004, 264. Decker 2004, 236-252. Decker 2004, 240. Ginouvès 1955.

Tholoi were not used exclusively as bathrooms. In the balaneia of Syracuse and Morgantina the largest as well as the 378 58

Ginouvès 1962, 192; Nielsen 1993, 7.

A symmetrical presentation of the Greek and Roman bathing traditions on the basis of the study of the architectural remains of Helladic space Bathing practice

Bathing facility

Abbreviation

Supplementary practices

Bathing facility

Abbreviation

Hot partial immersion (Bain par affusion)

Hip-bath (loutēr, lēnos, cuve plate, Sitzbad).

λου

Undressing

Changing room (apodytērion)

απ

Bathtub (asaminthos, pyelos, baignoire)

ασ

Defecation

Latrine

απο

Boiler (lebēs)

λεβ

Water heating

Furnace (propnigeion)

πρ

Space heating

Hypocaust

υπ

Tank

υδρ

Well

πηγ

Central hall

κε

Courtyard

αυ

Corridor

δια

Anteroom

προθ

Entrance hall

ει

Hot total immersion (Bain chaud par immersion)

asaminthos bath- ασ (υπ) tub (asaminthos) with hypocaust pool (dexamenē) with hypocaust

δε (υπ)

Cold water pool (dexamenē)

δε

Swimming pool (dexamenē)

κο

εφιδρωτήριο Sweating room (ephidrōtērion)

εφ

Basin (lekanē)

λε

Washing basin (loutērion)

λε

Foot bath (podoniptēr)

λε

Natural spring

πη

Fountain (krēnē)

κρ

Hot partial wash

Washing basin (loutērion)

λε (θ)

Shower

Fountain (krēnē)

κρ

Cold total immersion

Sweating

Cold partial wash

Water supply

Leisure, relaxation

Movement

Table 13 Classification of bathing practices and corresponding facilities in the Greek tradition

59

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

Facility

Spatial bathing units

Types of spatial bathing unit

Hip-bath (loutēr)

Rectangular room

Β

Tholos (rotunda) Α inscribed in a rectangular room

Facility

Spatial bathing units

Types of spatial bathing unit

Small rectangular Δ room Fountain

Open air fountain Δ

U-shaped room

Β

Changing room (apodytērion)

Rectangular room

Tholos (rotunda)

Α

Pool (dexamenē)

Small rectangular Γ room

Asaminthos (bathtub)

Rectangular room

Β

Well

Rectangular room

Β

Pool (dexamenē) with hypocaust

Rectangular room with pool (dexamenē)

Γ

Rectangular room

Β

Cold water pool (dexamenē)

Rectangular room with pool (dexamenē)

Γ

Central hall

Tholos (rotunda)

Α

Swimming pool (dexamenē)

Independent swimming pool (dexamenē)

Γ

Corridor

Corridor

Swimming pool (dexamenē) in courtyard

Γ

Anteroom

Rectangular room

Elongated room

Β

Entrance Hall

Rectangular room

Tholos (rotunda)

Α

Courtyard

Courtyard

Sweating room

Paratholion (room adjacent to tholos) Washing bowls, foot baths

Rectangular room

Natural spring

Small rectangular room (rockcut)

Table 14 Classification of bath facilities and corresponding spaces and functional bathing units

60

A symmetrical presentation of the Greek and Roman bathing traditions on the basis of the study of the architectural remains of Helladic space south tholos were equipped with benches instead of hipbaths379. It seems more likely that these round rooms were used as pyriatēria (sweating rooms). Such was the function of tholos E in the balaneion of Gortys and of the small tholos of the balaneion of Piraeus. Two round sweating rooms have been excavated in the baths of the Agora of the Italians and one in the gymnasium bath of Eretria (room G). Similarly, in the balaneion of Cyrene tholoi A and B did not dispose of hip-baths, but only recesses in the perimeter. As already mentioned, burning coal was deposited in shallow pits dug in the centre380.

rooms has in its origin symbolic references to such archetypal natural environments with sacred springs. The balaneion of Cyrene in the sanctuary of Apollo in Libya, which has been dated to the 4th c.BC, is an example of bathing facility hewn in the natural rock in the place of a natural spring. It includes two tholoi which functioned rather as sweating rooms (rooms A and B) and a peculiar double U-shaped room (rooms C and D). Water was supplied to the balaneion from a well in room E. It has been argued that the balaneion served some sort of ritual use. An example of rock-cut balaneion in Helladic space is that of Piraeus, dated approximately to the same period. The balaneion of Krene in Corinth was built near the gymnasium in a deep cavity on the slope of a plateau overlooking the coastal plain. The rooms of the balaneion were cut out of chalk rock.

In the balaneion of Gortys the round room C has the position of a central hall with hip-baths. The balaneion of Syracuse too disposed of a round reception room. Vitruvius refers to the vaulted sweating room of the palaestra or, rather, to a dome-like wet sweating room (concamerata sudatio)381, which in the Roman tradition is differentiated from the laconicum, the dry sweating room. In the balaneion of Elaia the tholos with the hip-baths (room b) has been inscribed in a square space. Similarly, in the balaneion of Qasr-Qarun a round room (room C) is encased in a square shell382. In its first phase, the tholos of QasrQarun was equipped with hip-baths along its perimeter, which, in its second phase, were replaced by a round cold water swimming pool (kolymvēthra).

In an attempt of a tentative categorization of types of spatial bathing units of the Greek tradition, based on the evidence presented in an earlier part of this study, we can now propose a classification (table 16). There is no way in the Greek tradition to speak of functional diagrams and of succession of rooms with graduated temperature. Hence, it is only possible to provide a classification of functional groupings or sequences (table 17).

Alternatively, rooms equipped with hip-baths and wash basins (loutēres) or with bathtubs (pyeloi) could have a rectangular shape (balaneion of Olympia). Rectangular rooms functioned also as sweating rooms, as in the balaneia of Megara Hyblaea (room H), Gortys (room B), Gela (room 2) and Qasr-Qarun (room L). The central room with hipbaths in Gela is U-shaped (room A). In the balaneion of Cyrene, a U-shaped room is double, i.e. it consists of two rock-cut wings. It is conceivable that the initial conception of this spatial type, as well as of that of the tholos, resulted from halls hewn in natural rock and was later transposed to separate structures. It is a type, which, as in a tholos, is suitable for a linear arrangement of hip-baths.

d. Spatial structure in the Greek tradition Our analysis of the Peloponnese case has shown that bath facilities of the Greek tradition have been revealed in towns, townships, Asclepieia and other sanctuaries.

The individual bathrooms are the basic functional units of private baths. They are also found, albeit rarely, in ancient Greek public baths. A typical example is the individual baths of the first phases of Thermae Stabianae, which belong to the hellenized tradition of central Italy. Certain individual rooms of the supposed balaneion of the North Stoa (Painted Building) in Corinth have been also identified as private baths.

We explained in the introductory chapter that by spatial framework we mean the functional area or zone of a town or settlement in which a bath facility is integrated. The functional zones we distinguished are those of a sanctuary, the fringe area of a sanctuary, a gymnasium, the fringe of cities, a residential area, a palace, the place of natural water withdrawal etc. A bath facility may be found in overlapping functional zones. In table 18 we classified the baths of the Greek tradition with respect to the type of spatial framework. We admit in advance that this cannot be a definite classification, because it is founded on often incomplete information regarding the integration of baths in the urban fabric. Wherever we encountered a vacuum in the original documentary source we relied on specialized studies384.

A group of balaneia have been partly hewn in soft rock, thus adapting their structure to natural caves (Piraeus, Cyrene and Abousir du Mariut). Yegül is of the opinion that most probably this balaneion type had its origin in natural caves with springs383. He argues that the recurring type of round

The bath facilities of the Greek tradition and the associated spatial bathing units correspond to different categories of integration in the urban pattern and to different levels of spatiality. In table 19 we indicate the way of their integration in urban structures and complexes.

379 380 381 382 383

Nielsen 1993, 8. Yegül 1992, 25. Vitr. V. XI. 2. Yegül 1992, 29. Yegül 1992, 25.

As shown in the above table, spatial bathing units corresponded to a variety of bathing facilities and, from the 384 61

Ladstätter 1993; Hoffmann 1999; Luts 2005-2006.

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

Spatial bathing units

Examples

A

Variations of circular wash and sweating rooms

Room C of the balaneion of Gortys

B

Variations of rectangular wash rooms

Hip-baths of the balaneion of Gela

Γ

Layout variations of wash pools

Pool (dexamenē) of the balaneion of Oiniades

Δ

Layout variations of fountains and natural artificial springs

Fountain of the balaneion of Krene (Corinth)

Ε

Composite layouts

Fountain and basins of the gymnasium of Delphi

Table 15 Classification of types of spatial bathing units in the Greek bathing tradition

Functional sequences (Units or groupings)

Examples

A

Water well layout

Bath of the Northern Stoa (or portico)

B

Room with washing basin (loutērion)

Pictorial representations

C

Room with one bathtub (asaminthos) or hipbath (loutēr) or several

Domestic baths of Olynthus

D

Fountain layout / Natural or artificial spring

Bath of the gymnasium of Sicyon

E

Layout with washing bowls

Gymnasium of Aegeira

F

Independent pool (dexamenē)

Pool at Isthmia

G

Independent tholos (rotunda/as)

Agora of the Italians; gymnasium of Thera

H

Informal balaneion

Balaneion of Colophon

I

Composite palaestra layout

Bath of the gymnasium of Eretria

J

Composite balaneion layout with one tholos or several

Balaneion of Syracuse

Table 16 Classification of functional bathing units in the Greek bathing tradition

62

63

Kition (Cyprus)

“Painted Building” (Corinth)

Bath of the Agora of the Italians in Delos

Balaneion of Gela

Balaneion of Megara Hyblaea

Balaneion of Morgantina

Balaneion of Cyrene

Bath of Troezen sanctuary

Bath of Amphiareion (Oropos)

Balaneion of Piraeus

Pool (dexamenē) of Gortys

Balaneion of Gortys

Balaneion E in Olympia

Asklēpieion bath (Corinth)

Bath of Isthmia

Balaneion of Dipylon

Balaneion of Eleusis

Bath of Aegina

Bath facilities

• • • • • • •

•

•

Sancturary

•

• •

Sancturay fringe

Gymnasium

•

•

•

Residential area

• •

Agora - Public space

Palace

•

•

Urban fringe – Urban gates

•

Sea port – coastal zone

•

• •

Place of water withdrawal

Acropolis A symmetrical presentation of the Greek and Roman bathing traditions on the basis of the study of the architectural remains of Helladic space

64

Sancturary

Sancturay fringe

• • • •

•

Gymnasium

•

• • •

Residential area

Table 17 The spatial framework of bath facilities of the Greek tradition

Kition (Cyprus)

Small baths of Pella

Large baths of Pella

Palaestra bath in Olympia

Swimming pool of Olympia

Bath A of Olympia

Balaneion of Petra

Balaneion of Piraeus Gate

Balaneion of Priene

Balaneion of Eretria

Balaneion of Qasr-Qarun (Dionysias)

Balaneion of Selinus

South west Balaneion, Athens

Swimming pool in AiKhanoum

Bath facilities

•

Agora - Public space

•

•

Palace

• • •

•

Urban fringe – Urban gates

Sea port – coastal zone

Place of water withdrawal

Acropolis

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

A symmetrical presentation of the Greek and Roman bathing traditions on the basis of the study of the architectural remains of Helladic space Bath facilities

Type of spatial unit

Type of integration in urban pattern

Tholos (rotunda)

Balaneion

Rectangular room

Balaneion , palaestra, sanctuary

U-shaped room

Balaneion

Double shell

Balaneion

Rectangular room with several bathtubs

Balaneion

Small rectangular room with bathtub

Balaneion, house

Tholos (rotunda)

Balaneion

Cold water pool (δε: dexamenē)

Room with pool

Balaneion

Open air swimming pool

Independent element, palaestra, palace

Hot water pool (al: alveus)

Rectangular room with hot water pool (alveus)

Balaneion

Elongated room

Balaneion

Round room

Palaestra, balaneion, public complex

Paratholia (rooms adjacent to tholos)

Balaneion

Basins, foot baths (lekanai, podoniptēres)

Rectangular room

Palaestra, balaneion

Fountain (κρ: krēnē)

Open air layout

Palaestra , autonomous element

Changing room (απ: apodytērion)

Rectangular room

Palaestra, balaneion

Prostas (entrance room or hall)

Balaneion

Furnace (πρ: propnigeion)

Corridor

Balaneion

Hip-baths (λου: loutēres)

Bathtubs (ασ: asaminthoi)

Sweating room (εφ: ephidrotērion)

Boiler (λε: lēbēs)

Balaneion, house

Water pool (υδρ: dexamenē)

Rectangular room

Balaneion

Water well (πη)

Rectangular room

Balaneion

Tholos (rotunda)

Balaneion

Rectangular room

Balaneion

Οpen air space (αυ)

Courtyard

Palaestra

Corridor (δια)

Corridor

Anteroom (προθ)

Rectangular room

Entrance (ει)

Prostōon (entrance hall or stoa or portico) Palaestra, balaneion

Central hall (κε)

Exedra (resting room)

Palaestra, balaneion, public complex

Table 18 Forms of bath integration in urban pattern and corresponding bathing facilities and spatial bathing units in the Greek bath tradition

65

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

point of view of their integration in the urban pattern, they found their place in, or in contact with, springs and fountains of the periurban countryside, well houses (Brunnenhäuser), balaneia, urban fountains, independent swimming pools, independent sweating houses etc. They could equally be incorporated in palaestras, public complexes, private houses and palaces.

of precursor of public baths. During 4th century BC, fountains purposely adapted for a cold wash continued to be prominent elements in the architectural design of palaestra buildings (gymnasia of Delphi and Sicyon). Representations on vases, in which scenes of public bathing of men and women in specially arranged fountains and fountain houses are depicted, become frequent from the 6th c.BC onwards. On a late-6th century BC red-figure vase (Berlin Staatliche Museen) we can see four women washing under free-flowing water, running from a lion or boar mouth-shaped spout, placed under wooden capitals, into a shallow pool in which the bathers are standing. What is represented here is no doubt some kind of public bath in the form of an adapted fountain house with a pitched roof supported by wooden pillars with Doric capitals. The spouts seem to be attached on the pillars. However, this impression may be misleading. The image of the outdoor façade of a building may be a transposition of an indoor arrangement. The walls on which the spouts were fixed may have been conveniently left out of the representation. As to the spatial framework of the bath, it may have been any location of the public space of the city.

The habit of taking a wash in fixed countryside locations, e.g. on the banks of rivers or seasonal streams, by natural springs or on the shore of sea bays, was usually at the origin of bath landscapes. We have seen already that such baths are frequently mentioned in the Homeric epic poems. Documentary evidence of countryside bathing in the classical period is provided by literary sources or from linguistic analysis385. Swimmers are sometimes depicted in iconographic or sculptural representations of the Archaic and Classical Periods, albeit not very frequently. A naked young woman, ready to dive in water from a podium, is represented on an amphora of the Priamos painter386, dated to the period 520-515 BC. Another six women are taking a wash around her. One of them is about to dive from the shore. Their clothes and flasks (aryballoi)387 are hanging from trees on the edges of the picture. A riverine location serving the process of bathing is probably represented here.

The case of a black-figure hydria, also dated to late-6th c.BC (Rijksmuseum Leiden), seems to be different. Here it is obvious that the scene depicted on it takes place in a gymnasium. From the trees painted on the vase we can deduce that the fountain house is observed from the outside. The pitched roof of the structure is supported by two external walls and a row of wooden columns on the axis. On the far end wall we can see spouts in the shape of the head of a feline. Two men are having a shower under running water and another four anoint their bodies with oil under the trees. Here, the independent element of a fountain used by athletes taking a shower is transferred in toto into the architectural plan of a palaestra building. This is a case of a fountain the spatial framework of which is the gymnasium, as in the palaestra of Sicyon.

It would seem as self-evident that a people with a long seafaring tradition would have a fondness for swimming. Yet, the social character of bathing in the countryside in the classical period remains relatively obscure. In other words, it is not clear if the nature of bathing practices narrated in literary sources and represented in iconography was practical and user oriented, recreational, religious, mythological or a combination of the above. Equally, it is not exactly known which social groups engaged in these activities. From the the middle of the 5th c.BC onwards we witness a distinct turn in the subjects of iconographic representation of baths. Figures of bathers in springs and fountains are now shown in the place of those of swimmers. The hallmark of these representations, which often employ a mythological vocabulary, is erotic, while the theme of open air bathing is used as a pretext for the depiction of the naked female body388.

We can now turn to the gymnasium bath par excellence, i.e. the bath which in the late Classical and Hellenistic Periods, from the 4th c.BC onwards, was being built as an organic part of the palaestra and which during the 1st c.BC formed the basis of the theoretical prototype formulated by Vitruvius. The dialogue on the ideological aspect of the origins of Roman baths from the Greek gymnasium has been already discussed. The importance of the gymnasium for the development of baths in Graeco-Roman antiquity is beyond dispute, since it was in specially arranged spaces of palaestras that the art of the bath as a public and collective activity was first accommodated. In Yegül’s words: “The gymnasium created the social and architectural context for one of the earliest forms of communal bathing in ancient society and exerted a formative influence in the subsequent development of baths”389. In his view, the gymnasium was one the most significant institutions and stylistic – architec-

Fountains and fountain houses (Quellhäuser) constituted initially the spatial and architectural organization of the places of natural water withdrawal. When water transportation became feasible they were erected at places where water withdrawal was achieved by technical means. Their spatial framework could be that of the urban fringe, the gymnasium, the palaestra building itself or, in general, urban public space. It is possible that city fountains and specially arranged public facilities functioned as some sort 385 386 387 388

Ginouvès 1962, 110-111. Villa Giulia, Rome, 2609. Possibly containing perfume or oil. Ginouvès 1962, 117.

389 66

Yegül 1992, 7.

A symmetrical presentation of the Greek and Roman bathing traditions on the basis of the study of the architectural remains of Helladic space In his Dictionnaire Méthodique de L’ Architecture Grecque et Romaine, Ginouvès classifies the gymnasium and the palaestra in the category of architecture for spiritual and physical education and in the sub-category of educational buildings391. According to the same writer, the term “gymnasium” denotes above all an educational institution, offering both forms of education. As to the architectural term “palaestra”, it denotes in his view one section of the gymnasium, consisting of the nucleus of the rectangular courtyard and the rooms surrounding it, e.g. anterooms, rooms of physical training, baths and exedras, i.e. resting and discussion rooms.

tural elements foreshadowing the development of Roman baths. The influence was both extensive and multi-dimensional. Epigraphic, literary and archaeological testimonies from the long years of romanization in the eastern provinces of the Empire confirm the co-existence of gymnasia of a pure Greek type, gymnasia of Roman-style conception and construction, older Greek gymnasia with additions of bathing spaces embodying Roman-like technology, and, finally, bath-gymnasia of Asia Minor, which were a unique urban and architectural feature of the eastern Aegean and of the cities or Asia Minor. The gymnasium was one of the most fundamental institutions of ancient Greek cities. The prominence of the institution is testified in an extract of Pausanias’s Periēgēsis where he refers to Panopeus, a town in Phocis. In the words of Pausanias: “From Chaeroneia it is twenty stades to Panopeus, a city of the Phocians, if one can give the name of city to those who possess no government offices, no gymnasium, no theater, no market-place, no water descending to a fountain, but live in bare shelters just like mountain cabins, right on a ravine. Nevertheless, they have boundaries with their neighbours, and even send delegates to the Phocian assembly”390. There is an abundance of such references in ancient literature underlining the role of the gymnasium in social organization and the spatial structure of cities. Beyond its importance for the harmonious life of the city-state, the gymnasium ended up by symbolizing not only a military, educational and spiritual institution, but the Greek way of life itself and the abstract notion of Hellenicity in the context of the Roman Empire.

The following were, according to Ginouvès, the types of rooms and spaces comprised in a palaestra building, the use of which is documented in literary sources or from architectural remains found in excavated complexes: Peristylar court, perimetrical porticoe, changing room (apodytērion), clubroom (ephebeum)392, oil-massage room (aleiptērion)393 and bath394. If we take a somewhat wider perspective, based on the more complex palaestras of the Hellenistic world, a palaestra would typically include a peristylar court, porticoes in the perimeter, an entrance or gateway (propylon), the middle aisle of the peristyle (pastas), a teaching room (paidagogeion), a room for lectures or other events (akroatērion)395, an oil-massage room (aleiptērion), an oil storeroom (elaiothesion), a powdering or body-dusting room (konistērion) for wrestlers, a ball playing room (sphairistērion), a punching bag room (kōrykeion), a superintendent’s room (epistasion), a cold bathroom, a hot bathroom, a sweating room (pyriatērion), a swimming pool, a sanctuary and an imperial hall.

The first gymnasia appeared in Helladic space and in the colonies in the course of the 7th c.BC, in other words during the period of emergence of the city-state. We have indicated already that the institution of the gymnasium aimed initially at military training, and later at the athletic, cultural and artistic education of young citizens, although there are diverging opinions on the matter. On the whole, during the classical period, the emphasis of its social role remained military and athletic. In the Hellenistic Period its role undergoes a transformation and the emphasis of the “curriculum” shifts towards the global education of youths. In this way the gymnasium acquired the character of a “cultural” institution and of a place of public gathering, where various social events, lectures, competitions and religious festivals are happening. The incorportation in the architects’ design brief of the gymnasium of special premises, e.g. libraries or auditoria, and the gymnasium’s transformation into a multi-purpose complex shaped an urban function model which formed the basis of the ideological construct of Roman gymnasia and imperial thermae.

It is clear that this enumeration of spaces and installations takes into account the conditions of a variety of gymnasia in Graeco-Roman antiquity and the descriptions of various writers, of which that by Vitruvius is the most exhaustive. Vitruvius suggests the following inventory: Peristyle, north double stoa, exedras, ephebeum, kōrykeion, konistērion, bath (and cold or hot bath separately), elaiothesion, propnigeion (furnace room), pyriatērion (hot sweating bath) and lakōnikon (laconicum or dry sweating bath). As mentioned earlier in Chapter 2 the type of bath facility that Vitruvius places in the gymnasium (cold and hot baths, elaiothesion, propnigeion, pyriatērion and lakōnikon) is a far cry from archaeological findings of the Classical and Hellenistic Periods. It is however conceivable that the spaces he describes represent a missing link between the late form of Greek gymnasia and the Roman thermae396. The activities which much later became the nucleus of the Greek gymnasium were probably taking place initially in extra muris locations in natural woods near rivers. Very little is known about the form and organization of Archaic

390 Paus. 10.4.1. See Pausanias. Pausanias Description of Greece, with an English Translation by W.H.S. Jones, Litt.D., and H.A. Ormerod, M.A., in 4 Volumes. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1918 (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=paus.+1.1.1&r edirect=true). See also Pausanias, Hellados Periēgēsis: Boeotia

391 392 393 394 395 396

and Phocis, Χ, 4, 1 (in Greek).

67

Ginouvès 1998, 126-129. Vitruvius V 11, 2, Strabo V 4, 7. See Pliny the Younger’s Epistulae (Pliny Εp., II, 17, 11). Vitruvius V 11, 2 Literally “listening room”. Nielsen 1993, 34.

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

and Classical gymnasia of Athens (Academy, Lyceum and Cynosarges) and other Greek cities like Thebes, Corinth or Ēlis397. The gymnasium started occupying a location in the inner city, frequently in the centre next to the agora, in the course of 4th c.BC. The institution of the gymnasium was thus transformed from an open air concentration of activities to an urban function. These activities acquired a spatial form around the quadriporticus of the palaestra, which was integrated in an organic manner in the urban fabric.

It is widely accepted that the institution of the balaneion appears for the first time in the course of 5th c.BC. Athenaeus mentions the existence of a public bath in Sybaris, which was destroyed in 510 BC404. Most balaneia however are dated to the late Classical and Hellenistic Periods, as shown in the chronological table 21. Apart from the Helladic space and Italy, which will be discussed extensively later, balaneia have been excavated in Cyprus, Egypt, Libya, Judaea and Asia Minor405.

The first gymnasium with a palaestra and rooms organized around a peristylar court was constructed in Delphi in 334 BC398. A series of rooms adjoin the central court nucleus on the west and south. An exedra is located in the south wing. The bath of the Delphi gymnasium is in the open air and consists of a series of cold water wash basins abutting on the north revetment, as well as of a round pool (dexamenē).

A separate group of baths of the Greek tradition are those which form part not of gymnasium palaestras, but rather of complexes or buildings of public character. Like the gymnasium bath, they belong to the fifth level of bath spatiality, as we have defined it. In table 22 we show three such examples. In chapter 1 we reviewed aspects of the bath in houses and palaces during the Bronze Age in the Aegean and in the Homeric tradition. Cook makes the following point: “With the collapse of the Mycenaean kingdoms many of the comforts of civilized life disappeared, and bathing facilities must have been sadly diminished; and I think it is generally supposed that the bath disappeared from the domestic scene, not to return for many centuries”406. In this section we shall describe the private bath in the Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic Periods in the context of the Greek tradition.

The palaestra building in Olympia, constructed in 3rd c.BC, is the most typical example of a fully developed peristylar palaestra. The atrium is surrounded by a quadriporticus and rooms on all sides. A second stoa was built on the south side. The palaestras from which we can draw useful information regarding the form of baths in Greek gymnasia tend to be situated mainly in the cities of Asia Minor and in Helladic space. Table 20 shows the geographical distribution and the dating of the most important complexes of the Classical and Hellenistic Periods.

It is apparent that the account of the development of the private bath is intertwined with that of the use of the wash basin, whether the latter takes the form of a bathtub (asaminthos or pyelos) or that of a more shallow loutēr (flat cistern or hip-bath or sitzbad), in a domestic environment.

As pointed out earlier, balaneia served the needs of public hygiene, religious rites, healing rituals and athletic – educational activity in the context of urban centres and sanctuaries. Their functions have a place in both secular and religious spheres399. It does not of course follow that a strict separation is justified in the study of Greek antiquity. As we shall discuss later similar architectural types pervade different domains of social function.

The availability of specially designated rooms was not a precondition of the bath in the house. We have indicated before, that, in all probability, bathing in the Bronze Age and in the Homeric epic poems took place in portable bronze or ceramic basins. In this sense, the spatiality of the bath in the domestic context of antiquity was that of the third and fourth levels (informal bathing sites and parts of buildings).

It would appear that in the Classical and early Hellenistic Periods balaneia serving the needs of urban hygiene did not enjoy the acclaim of the whole of society. A large number of literary references reflect a widespread prejudice400. This attitude seems to change gradually and balaneia become ever more popular in the Hellenistic Period401. Initially they were exclusively private but in the latter period they are frequently public402. Ginouvès claims that the more balaneia gained in popularity and came under public management, the more they were situated in a central urban location403. 397 398 399 400 401 402 403

Fragments of a large number of ceramic basins found in houses of Smyrna are dated to the 7th c.BC407. A chronology before 600 BC can be affirmed with certainty, i.e. before this Ionian city was sacked by the Lydians. From the only basin which could be pieced together we conclude that the immersion of the bather was indeed possible, that the basin was not portable but fixed in its place and that it was emptied through a drainage hole408. The experience of the bath in Smyrna of that period was probably akin to the accounts we find in the Odyssey and shares the same tra-

Yegül 1992, 9. Jannoray 1953. Yegül 1992. Nielsen 1993, 6. Nielsen 1993, 6. Nielsen 1993, 7. Ginouvès 1962, 218f.

404 405 406 407

408 68

Athenaeus 12.518c. Nielsen 1993, 6. Cook 1959, 36. Ginouvès 1962, 35, 162; Nielsen 1993, 6.

A symmetrical presentation of the Greek and Roman bathing traditions on the basis of the study of the architectural remains of Helladic space Site

Chronology

Period

Phase

Thera

2nd century BC

EH1-LH1

Phase IV

Delphi

247-246 BC

EH1

Phase III

Eretria

3rd-2nd century

EH1-LH1

Phases II-III

Olympia

500 BC

A

Phase I

Delos (Gymnasium)

Early 1st century BC

LH1

Phase V

Delos (Granite Palaestra)

Middle 2nd century BC

EH1-LH1

Phase IV

Delos (Palaestra of the Lake)

Second half 3rd century BC EH1

Amphipolis

Hellenistic period

Athens (Lykeion)

325-300 BC

EH1

Phase II

Pythagoreion

Beginning of 2nd century BC

EH1

Phase IV

Priene

150-100 BC

LH1

Phase IV

Pergamon

197-152 BC

EH1

Phase IV

Pompeii (Thermae Stabianae)

500 BC

A

Phase I

Phase III

Table 19 Bath facilities of gymnasia in the Greek bathing tradition Site

Chronology

Period

Phase

Citium (Composite balaneion)

Hellenistic period (Suspension of operation, 1st century BC)

LH1-R1

Phases V-VII

Marion

Hellenistic period

Tell Atrib Athribis

2nd century BC

EH1

Phase IV

Aboukir (Informal balaneion)

2nd-1st century BC

EH1-R1

Phases IV-VII

Tell Edfou (Informal balaneion)

1st century AD

R1-R2

Phases VII-VIII

Abousir du Mariout Taposiris Magna (Composite balaneion with one or more tholi)

2nd century BC

EH1

Phase IV

Kom en-Negileh (Composite balaneion with tholos)

Ptolemaic period

Tell el Fara’in (Composite balaneion with tholos)

ca 180 BC

EH1

Phase IV

Qasr-Qarun Dionysias (Composite balaneion with tholos)

Terminus ante quem: 3rd century AD

EH1

Phase II

Kom el-Wasat (Balaneion with tholi) Marsa-Matrouh Kom Demes 69

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

Site

Chronology

Period

Phase

Late 3rd – Early 2nd century BC

EH

Phases III-IV

Siset el-An’am Karanis Diospolis Parva/Hû (Balaneion with tholos) Asafrah (Balaneion with tholos) Kôm Ganâdy Medinet-Ghoran (Informal balaneion)

Ptolemaic period

Cyrene (Composite balaneion)

Hellenistic period

Gezer Pergamon (Balaneion with tholos)

3rd century BC

EH

Phases II-III

Colophon (Informal balaneion)

4th century BC

LC-EH

Phase II

Velia (Elaia) (Composite balaneion with one or more tholi)

Early 3rd century BC

EH

Phase II

Syracuse (Composite balaneion with one or more tholi)

1st half of 3rd century BC

EH

Phase II

Gela (Composite balaneion with one or more tholi)

310 – 282 BC

EH

Phase II

Morgantina (Composite balaneion with one or more tholi)

Late 4th – Early 3rd century LC-EH BC

Phase II

Megara Hyblaea (Composite balaneion with one or more tholi)

Mid-3rd century BC

EH

Phases II-III

Olympia (Bath a) (Informal balaneion)

5th century BC

A-C(T)

Phase I

Olympia (Bath e) (Composite balaneion with tholos)

Mid-2nd century BC

EH-LH1

Phase IV

Mycenae (Informal balaneion)

Early 2nd century BC

EH

Phase IV

Halieis (Informal balaneion)

Classical period

Gortys (Composite balaneion with one or more tholi)

310-280 BC

EH

Phase II

Messene (Informal balaneion)

Late 4th century BC

EH

Phase II

Nemea (Informal balaneion)

320 BC

EH

320 BC

Korinthos (Bath β)

425 – 400 BC

C

Phase I

Caulonia (Balaneion with tholi ?)

70

A symmetrical presentation of the Greek and Roman bathing traditions on the basis of the study of the architectural remains of Helladic space Site

Chronology

Period

Phase

Korinthos (Bath γ) (Fountain building)

Hellenistic period

Korinthos (Bath α) (Informal balaneion)

3rd quarter 5th century BC

C

Phase I

Athens (Dipylon) (Balaneion with tholos)

5th century BC

A-C

Phase I

Piraeus (Serangeion)

Early 3rd century BC

EH

Phase II

Athens (Piraeus Gate) (Balaneion with tholos)

Hellenistic period

Athens (Agora) (Composite balaneion with tholos)

2nd century BC

EH-LH1

Phase IV

Athens (Makrygianni)

4th century BC

LC-EH

Phase II

Eleusis (Balaneion with tholi)

3rd – 2nd century BC

EH-LH1

Phases II-III

Eretria (Balaneion with tholi)

ca 300 BC

EH

Phase II

Aidipsos (Balaneion with tholi)

Hellenistic period

Delion (Balaneion with tholi)

Hellenistic period

Stylis (Phalara) (Balaneion with tholi)

3rd century BC

EH

Phases II-III

Amvrakia (Balaneion with tholi)

Mid-4th century BC

C

Phase II

Oiniades

230 – 168 BC

EH

Phases III-IV

Thessalonica (Balaneion with tholos)

2nd century BC

EH-LH1

Phase IV

Pella

2nd half of 2nd century BC

LH1

Phase IV

Kallithiros

3rd century BC

EH

Phases II-III

Pyrasos (Balaneion with tholos)

2nd-1st century BC

EH-R1

Phases V-VII

Hephaisteia (Lemnos) (Informal balaneion)

Hellenistic period

Table 20 Bath facilities of independent balaneia in the Greek bathing tradition Site

Chronology

Period

Epidauros (Baths α-Β)

Late 4th – Early 3rd century ΕΗ BC

Phase II

Delos (Agora of the Italians)

Late 2nd – Early 1st century LH1 BC

Phases IV-V

Athens (“Desmotērion” prison of the Agora of Athens)

Mid-5th century BC

Phase I

C(T)-C

Table 21 Bath facilities in public complexes in the Greek bathing tradition

71

Phase

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

Site

Chronology

Period

Smyrna (Bath I)

7th century BC Late 6th century BC Early 4th century BC 6th-5th century BC Hellenistic 4th century BC Hellenistic Hellenistic Hellenistic

A

Smyrna (Bath II) Smyrna (Bath III) Selinus Athens Olynthus Eretria Delos Delphi

Phase

A EH

Phase II

A-C

Phase I

LC-EH

Phase II

Table 22 Domestic baths of the Greek tradition

Site

Chronology

Period

Phase

Vouni (Cyprus)

5th century BC

A-C

Phase I

Ai Khanoun

Late 4th – 3rd century BC

LC-EH

Phase II

Pella

Late Classical

LC

Phase II

Rhodes

Hellenistic

Petra

Hellenistic

Jericho

Hellenistic

Tell Judeich

Hellenistic

Masada

Hellenistic

Table 23 Baths of the Greek tradition in palace complexes

Site

Chronology

Period

Phase

Aphaia (Aegina)

500-470BC

A-C(T)

Phase I

Asklēpieion of Corinth (Bath γ)

425-300ΒC

C-EH

Phases I-II

Oropos

4th century BC

LC-EH

Phase II

Troezen (Bath α)

Late 4th – Early 3rd century ΕΗ BC

Phase II

Asklepieion of Epidaurus (Baths α-Baths B)

5th century BC

A-C(T)

Phase I

Table 24 Sanctuary baths in the Greek tradition Isthmia (Baths α)

Classical

Olympia (Baths β)

Classical

Ai Khanoum

Late 4th – 3rd century BC

ΕΗ

Phase II

Gortys (Baths β)

Late Classical

LC

Phase II

Table 25 Independent swimming pools in the Greek bathing tradition 72

A symmetrical presentation of the Greek and Roman bathing traditions on the basis of the study of the architectural remains of Helladic space dition or art of the bath with the Mycenaean world. Cook describes two more basin findings in old and new Smyrna, i.e. late 6th c.BC and early 4th c.BC respectively409. The gradual reduction of the basins’ capacity led him to the following conclusion: “We are thus able to trace a decline in the comfort of bathers during these centuries, from the roomy aristocratic baths of the days when houses were spacious and servants numerous to the cramped conditions of the fourth century, with its cheaper middle-class homes in which labour-saving devices and the convenience of the housewife came first”410. Cook’s remark, influenced by his convictions and his class ethos as it may be, is of interest, because in it he ascertains with emphasis that the spatiality of the bath changed in parallel with the transformation of the social structure and the urban fabric.

of houses in Olynthos of the 4th century BC disposed of a hot bath room next to the kitchen. In table 23 we listed all the private domestic bath facilities in particular places. Another category of baths of the Greek tradition are parts of palace complexes. Like the gymnasium baths they belong to the fifth level of bath spatiality. We show examples of such bath facilities in table 24. Baths of the Greek tradition which form part of sanctuary complexes constitute yet another category. They belong to the fifth level of spatiality, like gymnasium baths. Examples of this category can be found in table 25. A final category of integration in the urban pattern is made up by independent functional bath units. As independent structures these units belong to the sixth level of bath spatiality. Examples are included in table 26.

The remains of basins of the 6th and the first half of the 5th c.BC are rare and were found mainly in Sicily and Asia Minor411. Hoffmann mentions a bath, probably private, in Selinus dated to the 6th or 5th century BC412.

The diagram in figure 8 provides a simplified schema of the production and reproduction of the art of bathing and bath spatiality in the context of Greek tradition. With the explosion of the urban role of baths in the Roman period this process has been transformed. As we explained in our introductory chapter we have adopted in our study as a theoretical starting point the hypothesis that each cultural system possesses an inherent basic code from which the form of the art of the bath is derived. This code and its transformations lead to the production and organization of space in which bathing takes place. Transformed space, in its turn, reproduces and modifies social codes.

To this day, evidence suggests that bath facilities in city houses of the classical period were absent. However, in the comedies of Aristophanes the bath is presented as common practice in the houses of the Athenians413. Xenophon too makes reference to certain citizens who had in their possession gymnasia, baths and undressing rooms414. Cook though comments that Xenophon is rather referring to public facilities415. The pictured themes of Attic vase painting contribute to an understanding of the Classical domestic bath416. Numerous representations of bathing women in red-figure Attic vases describe, as we can gather, the interior of some domestic space where a loutērion (wahing bowl on a stand) has been installed. This bowl (vasque a pied haut), Ginouvès explains, could find its place in the kitchen or any other room, provided a hole for draining was available. As any portable flat cistern, it does not require the existence of a real bathroom417. In fact, we know from archaeological findings in Delos and Olynthos that hip-baths could be used in a bathroom, a kitchen or a courtyard418. An example of the iconography found in the Attic vases mentioned above is the representation on a redfigure stamnos, a type of pottery for storing liquids, of 430 BC, in which three women wash and make their toilet419. The practice of hot baths and the operation of private facilities is propagated in the late Classical and mainly the Hellenistic Periods, especially in new towns and new urban zones, as in Olynthos and Delos. A significant percentage 409 410 411 412 413

414 415 416 417 418 419

Cook 1959, 37-38. Cook 1959, 38. Ginouvès 1962, 162-163. Hoffmann 1999. Ginouvès 1962, 163.

Figure 3 The production of space in the Greek bathing tradition

Resp. Ath 2.10. Cook 1959, 39. Ginouvès 1962, 163-164. Ginouvès 1962, 164. Ginouvès 1962, 174-175.

One of the fundamental differences between Greek and Roman traditions is the existence in the latter of a predeter-

Heinz 1983, Abb. 23

73

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

mined and repetitive succession of bathing practices which “organize” the structure of space. By contrast, in the Greek tradition the spatial expression of different practices has a single spatial equivalent and is confined to a point in space, without effect on the whole structure or complex. Naturally, these practices determine the form of isolated spatial bathing units (rooms and halls), in which they are accommodated. As a result there emerges a typology of spatial bathing units but not of functional diagrams, as in the Roman tradition. In their turn, spatial bathing units appear in a variety of forms of integration in the urban pattern, where the bath serves diverse social objectives. In the next step of this schematic outline we find a standardization of entire building groupings, which was not common in the Greek, as opposed to the Roman, tradition. It is essential to have this clarification in mind in order to understand the previous diagram (figure 8) and the thematic organization of the present chapter.

balance of the bathers’ preference remains obscure. In any case however, we have to accept as valid a point made by Ginouvès who argues that in a city, the weight and number of those using informal and domestic facilities was directly related to the expansion of public facilities420. We can assume that, in every period, each town had a specific spatial profile regarding bathing practices performed by different sections of its population, placed in the context of the balance between private and public spheres and between urban and periurban spaces. With these observations in mind we provide in table 27 a synopsis of bath spatiality in the Greek tradition. Before embarking on an examination of the Romanized tradition of the bath, it is worth making a brief attempt to answer the question whether we can recognize clear typological classes in the framework of the Greek bathing tradition. As mentioned in the introductory chapter a building typology is understood as involving a maximization of convergence of chronological and geographical, cultural, technological, architectural and spatial classifications.

In Greek antiquity, the extent of spatial and technological standardization of the art of bathing is negligible in comparison to that of the Roman, where bathing practices were the product of totally different cultural and ideological processes and needs. In the Greek tradition the production of bath facilities does not adhere to an established architectural code but rather follows a more relaxed and empirical spatial conversion of different places of water withdrawal.

In this sense we can make the claim that typological groupings exist in the baths of Hellenistic palaestras (Olympia, Priene, Delos), located in the corners of the north stoa, the balaneia of Syracuse, Megara Hyblaea and Morgantina, which share common chronological, historical, technological, spatial and architectural features, and probably, for the same reasons the balaneion of Gortys in Arcadia and Balaneion ε of Olympia.

It is relatively safe to suppose that in the Classical, and partly the Hellenistic, Periods, as well as in the Bronze Age for that matter, the daily bath took place as a rule in private houses with the help of equipment and facilities, which cannot be necessarily detected through archaeological investigation, i.e. portable basins, braziers or kitchen hearths. In addition, it can be surmised with certainty, to a degree which we cannot guess, that certain social and age groups washed in places of public water consumption, as in fountains and natural springs. It is impossible to estimate the extent to which the use of such informal bathing facilities exceeded that of specially organized rooms or buildings.

The Roman bathing tradition: The gymnasium, the baths, the house and the sanctuary We shall return here to the chronological spectrum of the Romanized tradition of Helladic space and to its subdivisions we introduced in the second half of chapter 2. The bath facilities of the Romanized tradition were classified in three long periods, i.e. the transitional, middle and late periods. Fixing time limits is not an easy task, since for the earliest limit we have to seek the first evidence of Romanization of Greek traditions, while for the latest limit we must identify the moment after which Palaeochristian bathing practices begin to predominate following the decline of the influence of the Western Empire, which comes to an end in late 5th century AD421. Bathing traditions no doubt continue, but also shrink. They tend to survive in religious premises and in the heritage left to Byzantium and the Ottoman Empire. The cutting point for our purpose must be found in the period during which the process of bath Romanization in Helladic space starts to whither.

The wide spectrum of various informal manifestations of bathing facilities in space is brought indirectly to our attention through the wealth of iconographic representations of bathing scenes, which unfold in domestic interiors, in front of a public fountain or in a palaestra. The subjects of these representations, which first appear in the Archaic Period, do not suffice to help us understand the spatial relationships of the use of a bath with various social groups, in informal or purposely planned spaces and in the context of cities of the period under examination. It is equally impossible to judge the relative preference of the bathers, according to class, gender, age etc., for private or public bathing places. Here too, available iconographic or archaeological evidence simply informs us of the existence of both. To conclude, while it seems reasonable to accept that the bulk of bathing activity was limited to informal and domestic spaces, we cannot make an informed guess on how this activity compares with bathing in ad hoc public facilities. The

We know already that until recently the first solid evidence 420

421 74

Ginouvès 1962, 151.

Grant 1993, 331.

A symmetrical presentation of the Greek and Roman bathing traditions on the basis of the study of the architectural remains of Helladic space

Level of spatiality

Places of bathing practice

Examples

1

Periurban countryside Portable bath facilities or containers

Sea bath Bath in riverine location Bath in portable bowl or basin

2

Fountains Wells Fountain buildings Buildings with water well

“Fountain of the Lamps”, Corinth

3

Domestic bath

Baths in the houses of Olynthus

4

Bath in public assembly building Bath in palaestras Palace bath Sanctuary bath

Bath of the Agora of the Italians in Delos Bath in the palaestra of Thera Bath in Vouni palace (Cyprus) Bath in Oropos

5

Balaneion Open air swimming pool

Balaneion of Dipylon (Athens) Swimming pool of Isthmia

6

7

Representations of daily ritual, healMinerva’s bath in the Hymns of Caling practice, religious ritual, physical limachus education activity and death in a bath. Bath descriptions by Aristophanes Assassination of Agamennon

Table 26 The spatiality of the bath in the framework of the Greek tradition

75

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

marking the earliest limit was linked to the Hypokaustenbad of Olympia (Baths a, Olympia VIII). This was the first appearance in Helladic space of a Roman hypocaust, testudo alvei422, alveus423, labrum424, a functional unit of caldarium425 and a spatial bathing unit in the form of a rectangular room with semi-cylindrical roof and a semicircular apse accommodating the labrum. However, the typically Roman sequence of rooms is absent. At the time of the excavation the bath was dated to ca. 100 BC, but more recent researchers, like Nielsen and Ladstätter, date it to 50 and 40 BC respectively. A second acceptable sign of the beginnings of bath Romanization is the construction of a laconicum426 and a hypocaust in the tholos of the balaneion of the Agora of Athens around 50 BC. Roughly during the same period, sometime after 86 BC, a hypocaust is built in the palaestra baths of the Lyceum of Athens. Notwithstanding these early signs, the full bundle of Roman tradition dispositions appears for the first time in the baths of Philippi after 30 BC, and later in Corinth. We should not forget that both cities were Roman colonies.

gymnasium of Thera in the light of the influence of Greek and Hellenized cities in Italy on Helladic space. We can close this section by indicating that we took as the latest limit of the period or Romanization of Greek traditions the last building phases of large complexes of the middle Roman period which can be dated to the end of 6th century AD. The decline of monumentality and the turn to new directions and spatialities were already in evidence since the 4th century. On the basis of our observations we propose an outline of the chronological spectrum of the Romanization of Helladic space in table 28. The study of Roman baths moves along two directions of analysis. The first direction touches on the physical object and is architectural in essence. It includes the functional, stylistic, technological, decorative and town planning parameters which determine it, as these are derived from the remains of buildings. The second direction concerns the representation of social, cultural, urban, construction, aesthetic and human conditions involved in the operation of baths. It is evident that a different type of archaeological and other evidence enters this analytical direction.

On the basis of the above evidence we can outline an evolutionary schema of incorporation of Roman innovations, which consists chronologically of the introduction of the technology of underfloor heating, the functional unit of the caldarium, the succession or rooms from hot to cold and, finally, wall heating. The difference of this gradual development from the evolution encountered in Italy lies in the fact that in the latter the hypocaust was combined from the start with room temperature gradations, which shows that the demand for a sequential arrangement of rooms in the Roman tradition probably preceded the technological innovation. The case in the Greek tradition was different. The hypocaust was introduced in the operation of hot baths, without a prior need for temperature gradation. All this indicates that in 1st century BC, i.e. in the first stages of Romanization, Roman technology was called upon to serve a pre-existing bathing tradition, on which it was grafted as an external element.

As argued by P. Gros, a historical reconstruction of the architectural evolution of Roman baths is an arduous task, because more than in any other case it is the resultant of technological and cultural components. The story of Roman baths is linked with the formation of dominant conceptions on hygiene and hydrotherapy and with issues of collective life and urbanization. Gros concludes that this story cannot be comprehended exclusively in terms of style427. We stressed earlier that the social role of the bath in the Greek tradition was manifested in daily, healing, religious and athletics rituals. In Roman tradition the extent of its social role was significantly reduced and was limited only to the sphere of daily and healing rituals. The athletics ritual is still present but as a mere reflection of the Greek model of the gymnasium.

Of interest is also a question concerning the processes of mutual influence in Italy itself, during the 2nd century BC. The question is whether the Italianization process of Greek traditions in the Italian peninsula and the reverse process of Hellenization of Roman ones were later diffused to Helladic space. Although we shall deal with this issue in our concluding chapter, we can point out at this stage that the construction of circular sweating rooms and underfloor heating systems in Helladic space in 3rd century BC and even more so in the next century cannot be interpreted without reference to developments in Italy. We should perhaps examine the bath of the Agora of the Italians, the balaneia of Gortys and Olympia and the sweating room of the 422 water. 423 424 425 426

Fagan provides a succinct description of the art of the bath in the Roman tradition, as it was actually practised: “In any investigation, it is essential to be clear what one is looking for. The truly vital question, therefore, is what constituted a Roman-style public bath in contrast to, for example, a Greek one. Two features define the Roman bath: first, it comprises gradations of heat in a clear sequence of rooms (usually termed in modern studies frigidarium, tepidarium and caldarium) that channels the bather purposefully from one room to the next; second, the Roman-style bath features heated communal bathing pools (termed solia or alvei)”428.

Device used to ensure even distribution of hot

The Roman bath, as opposed to the Greek one, cannot be schematically distinguished into hot and cold. With the

Hot water bathtub. Washing bowl on a stand. Hot bath room. Dry sweating bath.

427 428 76

Gros 1996, 388. Fagan 2001, 403-404.

A symmetrical presentation of the Greek and Roman bathing traditions on the basis of the study of the architectural remains of Helladic space help of heating technology, what was aimed at in bath facilities was temperature gradations. Although, as in Greek baths, one could have a partial or total wash and a sweating bath, the main stage of the bathing process was a total bath by immersion. Special installations made it possible to regulate water temperature from cold to hot.

the buildings of the thermae as the most characteristic edifices of Roman cities next to those destined for spectacles435. Laty refers rightly to the hypertrophic presence of baths in the Roman world436. In 1st c.BC the frequency of use of baths and the number of users had escalated so much, that one is justified to speak of a fundamental ingredient of daily life. The popularity of baths grew spectacularly in the years of the first emperors, in 1st century AD., causing Pliny the Elder (23 – 79 AD) to make a most apposite comment, that in his life baths were increasing beyond limits. In 2nd c.AD baths spread all over the Empire at a fast rate. This is the golden age of Roman baths437. The diffusion of baths, even to small settlements, made them a determining factor of the citizens’ choice of a place for living. Indeed, according to the Pandects, a compendium of Roman law compiled in the days of Emperor Justinian in 6th c.AD, the legal residence (domicilium) of an individual is defined “as the place where he conducts his business …; visits the forum, baths and theatre; and celebrates festivals”438.

In comparison to Greek Classical or Hellenistic times, bath architecture in the Roman era assumes totally different proportions. The periods of the Julii and the Claudii, and later of the Flavii, are marked by the emergence of majestic imperial architecture. Imposing edifices are built mainly in Rome, but also in the provinces. Here however we are primarily interested in the Roman thermae, baths of colossal proportions, erected by Emperors Nero and Titus, with their vast halls, ornamented colonnades, immense cupolas and vaulted roofs429. In the days of the Empire, huge and sumptuous thermae, equipped with sports facilities, restaurants and leisure clubs, were among the most prominent landmarks of the city of Rome430.

After the first small, private and public, balneae, the development of baths entered a new phase with the erection in 19 BC in Rome of the grandiose thermae of Agrippa, a general and public official (aedilis). Physical exercise in the thermae, although possible, was a secondary and complementary activity. What baths offered mainly to the Romans was a leisure outlet and the possibility of using their spare time, which was after all less detrimental than gambling, which was also a favourite pastime, as pointed out by Jérôme Carcopino 439. The social function of Roman baths emerges clearly in written sources, e.g. in the Epigrams by Martial (Marcus Valerius Martialis), a 1st century poet, who lived for many years in Rome. It is his entertaining account that Fagan uses for “a visit to the baths”440.

No matter how strong an emphasis one places on the social significance of baths in the Empire, one does not run the risk of exaggeration. To begin with, as De Bonneville reminds us, the Romans always adored water431. In 1st c.AD, Seneca was boasting that he took his bath in winter in the freezing waters of Aqua Virgo, a aqueduct near Rome. If this was a personal and exceptional case, what followed was a different matter. As stressed by Fagan, for the Romans the bath was a social event. Even private baths in the houses of rich Romans were designed to accommodate several bathers and written sources leave no doubt that they were used for receiving guests and as an accompaniment of banquets offered by their hosts. The same author makes the point that “we are clearly in the presence of a deeply rooted communal bathing habit, where the act of getting clean has become a social process, to be shared not only with invited guests (in private baths) but with everyone (in public ones)”432. But, as he also stresses, “there is little evidence that the Romans, at least in pagan times, associated their local bathhouses with spiritual purification”, although “baths that stood in sanctuaries served as places for ritual cleansing”433. It is for this reason that we do not include here a section on religious rituals making use of water, as we did earlier with regard to Greece.

The route followed by a visitor in the baths, from the apodyterium, to the tepidarium, the laconicum or the sudatorium, the caldarium and, finally, the frigidarium, with certain variations, is presented later in this chapter. The bathing ritual was complex and time-consuming, which in itself made a social event out of it. The sequence in which the bather used the different spatial bathing units was a matter of personal choice441. But a usual route was from a tepid water wash in the tepidarium to a hot bath in the caldarium or to the sweating room (laconicum) and then, again via the tepidarium, to a cold bath in the frigidarium, with a possible return to the caldarium or laconicum442. Apart from these essential functions, baths gradually acquired additional facilities for activities of social encounter and leisure, with the result that they became, in De Bonneville’s expression a Roman equivalent of the modern wa-

In relation to traditional Roman mores, represented by Seneca, the social ritual of the bath that came to dominate Roman society was something entirely different. The public baths that appeared in Rome already in the 2nd c.BC, naturally separate for men and women434, ended up as one of the most remarkable hallmarks of daily life, which found a most glaring architectural expression. Grimal considers 429 430 431 432 433 434

435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442

Rostovtzeff 1984, 232. Rostovtzeff 1984, 286. De Bonneville 1998, 23. Fagan 2002, 1. Fagan 2002, 4-5. Carcopino 1990, 320. See also Fagan 2002, 47. 77

Grimal 1966, 86. Laty 1991, 20. Fagan 2002, 43. Fagan 2002, 194. Carcopino 1990, 319. Fagan 2002, 12-39. Fagan 2002, 10. Balsdon 2004, 29; Stambaugh 1988, 203.

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

Greece

Time span

archaic

700 - 480 BC

classical

480 - 323 BC

early hellenistic late hellenistic

roman

late roman

Subdivision Abbreviation

C H R O N O L O G Y O F

Α

480 - 450 BC

C (T)

450 - 400 BC

C

400 - 323 BC

LC

323 - 146 BC

ΕΗ1

146 - 86 BC

LH1

86 - 31 BC

LH2

31 BC - 14 AD 14 - 96 AD 96 - 180 AD 180 - 285 AD

R1 R2 R3 R4

285 - 395 AD

LR1

395 - 476 AD

LR2

476 - 610 AD

LR3

B A T H

146 - 31 BC

31 BC - 285 ΑD

285 - 610 AD

Italy

F A C I L I T I E S

Period

phase I

500 - 400 ΒC

phase IΙ

400 - 250 ΒC

phase IIΙ

250 - 200 ΒC

phase IV

200 - 100 ΒC

phase V phase VI

100 - 80 ΒC 80 - 31 ΒC

phase VIΙ phase VIΙI phase ΙΧ phase Χ phase ΧΙ

32 ΒC - 54 AD 55 - 98 99 - 211 212 - 286 287 - 395

phase ΧIΙ

396 - 500

phase ΧIΙΙ

500 - 600

Table 27 The chronological span of the Romanized tradition of the bath in Helladic space

78

Time span

A symmetrical presentation of the Greek and Roman bathing traditions on the basis of the study of the architectural remains of Helladic space ter park or theme park for entertainment443.

were built in Rome by Agrippa in the late 1st century BC the term balneum was considered as no longer appropriate and the term “thermae”, of Greek origin, was preferred instead. The term thermulae (little thermae) was used for smaller establishments453. Disreputable baths also existed, which did not differ greatly from brothels, as well as baths of great luxury for the privileged classes. In and around baths intense activity could always be observed, involving patrons, but also servants, gymnasts, hawkers, even thieves, a situation described by Seneca who actually lived near such an establishment and found the noise extremely irritating454. Fighting broke out frequently in baths, which Fagan links with the Roman propensity to engage without hesitation in physical violence455.

Seven large thermae, real palaces, were erected in imperial Rome. Their gigantic size apart, the magnificence of their ornaments grew with time, as the ambition of emperors was to build better and larger thermae than those of their predecessors. Nero’s thermae occupied 3,000 square metres of land, but the Baths of Caracalla reached 140,000 and the Baths of Diocletian 150,000444. In the best baths the visitors were offered personal services, e.g. cosmetic or medical ones445. They could equally enjoy a dinner or drinks. The social importance of baths is reflected in the gesture of imperial authorities under Septimius Severus to distribute free oil, which was a costly accessory luxury446. It is well known that the supply of oil was often the object of donation by benefactors in various cities.

Socially, the baths played a crucial role as meeting places, which offered the opportunity of communication between friends, as in contemporary clubs. According to legend they even made it possible for an emperor to rub shoulders with common citizens, e.g. his veteran soldiers, as it was said to have happened with Hadrian456. Although certain emperors frequented public baths, this was far from the rule457. Fagan in fact insists that the presence of emperors in public baths is doubtful and, to the extent that it did happen, was due rather to an attempt to show good will to their subjects, in other words to demagogic motives. It was also conceivable that such an encounter could have occurred in the course of imperial travels, as in the case of Hadrian who often visited the provinces of the Empire458.

Large thermae included open air swimming pools, grounds for sports and games, gardens, porticoes, walkways adorned with sculptures, dining rooms, relaxation and resting rooms, libraries, picture galleries, theatres and rooms for poetry reading. As Carcopino put it, they offered to the Romans a sort of miniature of all the good things that make life happy and beautiful447. They were no longer mere baths, because all their side activities were there to provide rest and entertainment to patrons448. Apart from thermae, patrons had the option of visiting balnea, which were profit-making businesses managed by private owners or by lessees449, in case the premises were owned by the city. The buildings themselves were sometimes donated to the city by rich benefactors. Patrons paid an entrance fee, which was doubled in the case of women. Under Augustus’s reign, there were in Rome 170 baths, which reached 900 towards the end of the imperial period450. These estimates, based on the account of Pliny the Elder, are open to doubt451, but there is no denying the fact that the proliferation of baths was spectacular.

In thermae, bathers had the possibility, if they so wished, to keep working with the assistance of a secretary459. The baths offered the opportunity for business or political contacts460, but also for entertainment of members of low income strata, who paid a very low entrance fee or had free access. It is for this reason that Stambaugh calls the thermae “villas of the poor”461. The theoretical possibility that all classes had to visit a public bath leaves us with the impression that the baths functioned as a device of equalization and elimination of class difference, an impression that Fagan considers, to say the least, as an exaggeration462. It is true that the spatial distribution of baths in the urban fabric does not lend support to a theory of exclusion of particular social groups and the written sources provide evidence of social intermingling in the baths. One is entitled to wonder however how in such a socially stratified society it was possible for the upper classes to tolerate a close association with lower strata, especially in 2nd century AD. This paradox deserves further discussion.

There was no clear conceptual distinction between thermae and balnea or balneae, as we remarked earlier, in spite of the existence of a 3rd c.BC inscription, found in the town of Lanuvium, making reference to the need to build thermae in the place of existing balneae, which were in serious disrepair because of an ageing structure452. According to one explanation, when the first majestic baths 443 De Bonneville 1998, 24. 444 De Bonneville 1998, 27-28. 445 Balsdon 2004, 30. 446 Balsdon 2004, 31. 447 Carcopino 1990, 322. 448 Balsdon, 2004, 27. 449 The lessee was called conductor, while the person in charge of the bath or manager was the balneator. 450 Balsdon, 2004, 27. The exact number of baths in Rome is still difficult to ascertain, since new baths are revealed all the time. E.g. a new bath complex in a private residence was found in 2007 (www.in.gr, 20 July 2007). 451 Fagan 2002, 42. 452 Balsdon 2004, 28.

453 454 455 456 457 458 459

Stambaugh 1988, 203. De Bonneville 1998, 24. See also Fagan 2002, 33. Fagan 2002, 31. Carcopino 1990, 328. De Bonneville, 1998, 25. Fagan 2002, 190-192. Balsdon 2004, 30.

461 462

Stambaugh 1988, 205. Fagan 2002, 206-219.

460

79

Stambaugh 1988, 201.

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

The privileged classes (ordines) traditionally included the senatorial and equestrian orders (ordo senatorius and ordo equester), to which, in provincial cities, one should add the ordo decurionum, i.e. the order of the members of local parliaments. From the 2nd century AD onwards a new class division emerges which cuts across the old social stratification, a division between honestiores (honourable men) and humiliores (lower status men) or tenuiores463. These distinctions were clear and sharp and Fagan rightly wonders if it was indeed possible for the upper classes to jeopardize the dignitas of their social position by keeping company with the humble strata. He disputes therefore the claim made by several writers that baths subverted the social hierarchy464. The Romans themselves, he argues, never mentioned in their writings the supposed egalitarian role of the baths. It is more probable, in his view, that baths functioned like all public places, where the rich had the opportunity of showing off to enhance their image of social superiority465.

that it acted as the guardian of the masses, takes place both in architecture and in public morals. By virtue of the repetition of the same bath model, this revolution is perpetuated in time by successive emperors, as bath building continues and the size of thermae responds to the growing number of crowds flocking to delight in their environment469. Naturally, neither the conditions were the same for all, nor the possible use of the facilities was uniform. In fact, the baths themselves were not all the same and did not enjoy the same reputation. In different periods some were in fashion, others not. As with today’s fashionable recreation clubs, Roman socialites preferred to put an appearance in particular baths470. Affluent citizens were escorted by servants, who carried their clothes, oil or washing soda, and took care of preparing the bath, of massage and of general smartening up services to their master. Above all the baths offered the opportunity for social intercourse and enjoyment. As made clear in a verse by Martial, they also offered the chance of social recognition, that is why social climbers attended the baths to hunt for a dinner invitation to the house of a nobleman or wealthy citizen. Such dinners were often organized as a happy conclusion of the bathing process471.

Different social classes could well be represented together in the baths, but all knew perfectly well their social standing in the bathing ritual. The servants that opened the way for their masters and kept them apart, the posture, countenance and language of the latter and the use of various bathing accessories must have delineated very clearly the space occupied in the baths by honestiores and humiliores. The social role of the baths was then not to promote equality but rather to reproduce the hierarchical structure of society. It may have encouraged a common spirit, but could not possibly alter the established order. For the elite classes, attendance at the baths was a sign of being part of the community, but by showing all the externals of their social supremacy they confirmed their leadership466.

When baths opened their gates at around 4 or 5 in the evening, a disparate crowd was there waiting to be admitted: Men and women, rich and poor, free men and slaves, respected citizens and crooks or whores, mere mortals and important officials, even emperors. Gradually, De Bonneville maintains, the social ritual of the bath reached the level of a mass neurosis472. It had of course its critics, who looked at baths as places of social decadence, where nudism and the mixing of sexes was the rule, especially after this was explicitly allowed by Emperor Caracalla. Be that as it may, baths were, as Alain Malissard put it, the most complete and consensual expression of the Roman way of life473. Besides, mixed male and female baths had been a reality already in the days of Emperors Domitian and Trajan and in spite of scandals and the order issued by Hadrian to separate baths by sex474, the imperial prohibition did not last long. As in other matters concerning the operation of baths, it seems that the practice of mixed baths was not uniformly applied and it is for this reason that testimonies are contradictory. It is therefore wiser, as Fagan suggests, to accept that practices differed from region to region, even from one bath to the next475.

In theory, access to public baths was open to all, rich and poor. Besides, one of the aims of enormous and magnificent thermae was to provide for the people the satisfacton of taking part in the pleasures, luxuries and spectacles that could be enjoyed in the baths. In Nero’s period especially, who built his thermae in 60 AD, the intention of the emperor to control and exploit public entertainment was obvious467. As stressed by Carcopino, with the baths imperial authorities introduced the care of hygiene in the daily routine of life in the city of Rome and made bathing accessible to the people. By placing them in a fabulous ornamented environment, they turned physical exercise and the care of the human body into a pleasure much loved by all and a relaxation within reach of the poor468. The baths of Agrippa and the free access he introduced were the beginning of a conscious policy, but also of a way of life. Carcopino believes that it was in fact the beginning of a social revolution, which, linked as it was with the mentality of the Empire 463 464 465 466 467 468

For a long period, one section of society was of the opinion that the practice of cultivating the body encouraged immorality and prevented proper military training. But ultimately, the nudism of the Greek gymnasium appeared in 469 470 471 472 473 474 475

Alföldy 2002, 190 – 191. Fagan 2002, 212-214. Fagan 2002, 215. Fagan 2002, 216-219. De Bonneville, 1998, 25. Carcopino 1990, 319. 80

Carcopino 1990, 320. Fagan 2002, 19-21. Fagan 2002, 22-24. De Bonneville 1998, 30. Quoted in De Bonneville 1998, 33. Carcopino 1990, 324. Fagan 2002, 27.

A symmetrical presentation of the Greek and Roman bathing traditions on the basis of the study of the architectural remains of Helladic space Roman baths too476, where recreation and spectacles were disguised under a rationale of caring for hygiene. Thus, in Carcopino’s view, the transformation of morals, that Augustus, Nero and Domitian had vainly tried to bring about, by transplanting to Rome a replica of Olympic Games, was left to imperial baths to achieve, when the Roman population had made it its habit to visit them every day and spend there most of its non-working hours477.

Good physical condition, which this obligation demanded, could be acquired in baths, with training being an instrument to this end481. Donald Kyle starts his comparative analysis of Roman and Greek sports482 by citing the widely accepted view that the Romans never had them in high regard, because the were more fond of wild “athletic” spectacles. Thuillier too says that the overall picture of Roman sports contests was that of a degenerated version of the Greek notion of the good contest and fair competition483. The Romans themselves, he points out, have left us an impression of being spectators rather than athletes484. Both Kyle and Thuillier are wary of this generalization. Kyle remarks that although Romans were not against athletic training and games, they thought on the whole that training must contribute to military readiness and that non-military training was not to be taken seriously. The main athletics ground in Republican Rome, the Campus Martius, was above all a place of military training485. The Romans were also suspicious of Greek athletic activity because, in their view, it was intimately linked with nudism and homosexuality.

There is no disputing the fact that in Rome public baths had become a central social institution and had acquired enormous popularity. One can wonder what were the reasons of this development. Fagan summarizes his answer as follows: “People’s expectation of greater public comfort and their desire to avoid unnecessary and undesirable lingering indoors in cramped apartments led to a demand for public amenities; greater population growth only added to the demand, and cultural contact with increasing numbers of easterners in the city may have ignited ideas in the heads of some; simultaneously, improvements in construction techniques facilitated the erection of more elaborate baths. In this way, all four factors contributed to the rise in the popularity of baths, but not individually in any decisive way. It is their cumulative effect that is seen to be significant”478. There was however one more factor of importance, he adds. The Romans were convinced that bathing was good for them, i.e. beneficial for their health. This subject will occupy us in the section on the healing ritual of the bath.

The Romans started showing greater tolerance when they became familiar with Greek-style games in the years of Emperor Augustus and when they accustomed themselves to nudism, which was gradually accepted, albeit never entirely, in public baths offering the possibility of athletic training. In general, they had a pragmatic, military conception of exercizing the body and mistrusted the culture of the Greek gymnasium, which they slowly accepted, particularly in the conquered Greek provinces. Their athletic games tended to have a cruel, bloody and commercialized character, but as remarked by Kyle, in a passage on the gradual introduction of Greek-style games in the lands of the Empire, there were examples of sport and contest activities in a more pure athletic spirit, in the eastern provinces, but also in Rome itself486. In Greece, the Romans encouraged the continuation of local athletic activity and impoved the necessary infrastructure, either because of their political pragmatism or because they had been genuinely influenced by Greek traditions, as in the case of Emperor Hadrian. As mentioned already, Nero and Domitian organized Greek games in the city of Rome.

Sports are an institution in every society and, consequently, part of what we call social ritual. If we prefer to devote a separate section on the athletics ritual, it is because we did the same thing for the Greek bathing tradition and also because there is a widespread, and to a certain degree justified, view that Roman baths are the Roman version of Greek gymnasia. It is for this reason that we included this section479, without pretending that we shall deal in full with the subject of athletic activity in ancient Rome. What is of interest here is the Greek influence on athletic training in the Roman baths. De Bonneville argues that training in Roman baths was not aiming at cultivating the body and at achieving an ideal of physical beauty, as the Greeks were trying to do in gymnasia, but had rather hygienic, body cleaning and recreation purposes480. Physical exercise was rather secondary and complementary, in spite of the availability of athletic facilities in thermae. Training had a utilitarian aim, because it was considered as an obligation of the citizens to the state.

In imperial Rome, it is the thermae that increasingly host athletic activity, although the Campus Martius is still in operation. Thuillier adopts the opinion of Yvon Thébert and states that instead of treating the Greek gymnasium and the Roman thermae as opposed poles and then attempting to derive comparative conclusions on cultural differences, it is more fruitful to simply admit that the thermae were

476 Fagan keeps certain reservations because the word nudus, which is used in written sources, does not necessarily denote total nudity (Fagan 2002, 25). 477 Carcopino 1990, 323. 478 Fagan 2002, 84. 479 For this section we rely mainly on Kyle 2007 and on the article by Jean – Paul Thuillier on Etruria and Rome in Decker and Thuillier, 2004. 480 De Bonneville 1998, 23.

481

482 483 484 485 486 81

Laty 1991, 20.κ Kyle 2007, 274-276. Decker and Thuillier 2004, 144. Decker and Thuillier 2004, 160. Decker and Thuillier 2004, 164. Kyle 2007, 329-338.

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

the gymnasia of the Roman era487. In support of his argument he describes the sports facilities of the thermae and the rich athletic iconography found in them. Of the athletic events that could be practised in thermae he singles out two, ball games and swimming488, which is naturally what interests us here. All the thermae, even the small ones, disposed of a swimming pool (natatio or piscina). E.g. the thermae of Carthago had a 50 m.- long swimming pool, four 10 m.- long pools in the frigidarium, two large-size heated pools (17.50 X 13.50 m. each), two small pools in the tepidarium and others in the caldarium. The question can be posed, as Thuillier asks, whether in Roman society swimming had replaced running and wrestling as the most popular event. If this question can be answered in the affirmative, then, notwithstanding the fact that thermae were rather a place of leisure, we can state that they were at the same time facilities where water had become the medium of an athletics ritual.

Bithynia of Asia Minor and in Greek Aidipsos493. Mineral springs were associated with religious worship and their water was supposed to have miraculous powers494. At the beginning, baths near hot springs were used for healing and convalescence of wounded soldiers, but were later transformed to general centres of therapy and then leisure. As explained by van Tubergen και van der Linden healing took the form of local applications to particular parts of the body or of total immersion of the body in water (especially for rheumatic or urological diseases) or of swallowing large quantities of mineral water495. The transfer of Greek medical theory and practice to Rome has been a process of historic significance for the development of scientific medicine in the world. This transfer was effected both as a religious ritual, with the introduction of the cult of Asclepius (now Aesculapius), which according to legend started in 293 BC, and through the migration of Greek physicians, with Archagathus being the first to settle in Rome in 219 BC496. The reception of god Aesculapius in Italy is described by Ovid. After a 3-year plague epidemic in Rome, an official mission went to Epidaurus to invite the god. Aesculapius is said to have travelled by boat from Epidaurus in the form of a serpent, which crawled out on land twice in places where sanctuaries were built, the second being an island on the river Tiber. The significance of the legend according to Nutton lies in the invitation of the god by the Roman authorities themselves and in the direct connection of Rome with Greece, Epidaurus in particular, without the authorities first seeking to put into use the tradition existing in similar healing sanctuaries in central Italy. The arrival of Aesculapius in Rome, Nutton continues, is an indication of the assimilation of Roman Italy in the Greek world497.

Good health was a matter of concern to the Romans, who lived in a society with low life expectancy and were vulnerable to several and unexpected diseases489. As Fagan is quick to point out, it should not come as a surprise that social interest in a healthy way of life seems to imbue a large number of written sources, especially medical treatises. Baths occupy a place of prime importance in medical theory and practice in Roman times490. According to Laty, health in those days had a connotation of utilitarian balance. A healthy body was necessary to carry out effectively the duties of a citizen to the state. In this context, bathing was a pillar of good physical condition491. Romans were fully conscious of the importance of public baths for health492. Once again one could observe that the public bath assumed in Roman society the importance that the gymnasium had in the Greek one. This does not imply of course that Greek medicine had not had a decisive influence on medical practice in the Roman Republic and later on under the Principatus. On the contrary, there was a pronounced influence, much greater than the existing in Italy popular healing tradition. There was of course a process of adaptation which ran parallel to social developments in Rome, and, more specifically, to the changing role of the baths.

A famous Aesculapium of the Roman period was that of Pergamon. An extensive account of his treatment by Aesculapius in Pergamon has been left by orator Publius Aelius Aristides a native of Mysia (129 – 189 AD), who eventually became a priest of Aesculapius498. He makes repeated references to the therapeutic effect of water. According to Krug, we owe to him some concrete information on the spring of the Aesculapium, the water of which flowed into the Hellenistic fountain from which it was drawn by visitors to drink and wash499. The miraculous fountain, according to Aelius Aristides, was the invention and possession of Aesculapius, the great miracle – worker. Many who washed themselves in its water recovered their lost eyesight or were cured from ailments of the thorax. Others drank it or were healed simply by drawing it from the fountain. The fountain’s water not only cured the sick

Mineral baths and spas were also very popular in Roman times. Because of geological characteristics, hot springs existed in the central massif in Gaul, in the valley of the Rhine, in central Italy and in south Asia Minor, as well as in Greece. The Romans built healing baths in such places, e.g. in Baden Baden or Wiesbaden in Germany, Évaux or Sanxay (Vienne) in France, Bath in England, Baiae or Puteoli (Pozzuoli) in the bay of Naples in Italy, Prusa in

493 Krug 2003, 170-184. 494 Laty 1991, 32. 495 Van Tubergen and van der Linden 2002. 496 Krug 2003, 162. 497 Nutton 2004, 159-161. 498 Asklēpios (O) kai oi Aparches tēs Iatrikēs, 1996, 117-129. 499 Krug 2003, 168.

487 Decker and Thuillier 2004, 165. 488 Decker and Thuillier 2004, 168-170. 489 For this section we rely mainly on Krug 2003, Nutton 2004 and Fagan 2002. 490 Fagan 2002, 85. 491 Laty 1991, 35. 492 Stambaugh 1988, 135. 82

A symmetrical presentation of the Greek and Roman bathing traditions on the basis of the study of the architectural remains of Helladic space but was also beneficial for healthy persons by making it unnecessary to drink other water500. The various uses of water for healing purposes were not limited to Aesculapian temple medicine. They were part of the various methods used by physicians, like Archagathus, who was eventually forced to return to Greece when his rather primitive surgical and cauterization techniques gave him a bad reputation. It is not clear if this played a role in the attack launched by Cato the Elder against Greek medical practitioners, although of course Cato harboured a general antipathy for the Greeks501. The next case of a Greek physician, in the closing years of the Roman Republic, which deserves a special mention, is that of Asclepiades of Bithynia, who was active in Rome around 130 – 90 BC502. Asclepiades had his own theories on the constitution of the human body, but his reputation in Rome was mainly due to his pleasant for the patient methods, which included special diets, massage, walking, light exercises and baths, to which he gave particular emphasis. He devised in fact his own type of “hanging bath”503. Nutton’s view is that in his person Greek medical practice in Rome found its first famous representative. His activity, he argues, marks the moment of transplantation of Greek medicine to Rome504. It is for this reason that Fagan devotes a sizeable section of his book on Asclepiades and his influence505.

his comments on Asclepiades and considered that the latter’s success was due to the pleasant character of his methods, including hydrotherapy which was popular because of the obsession of the Romans for baths. Asclepiades liked to believe that he was the inventor of cold baths, although he used hot baths as well. As we mentioned earlier, he had devised a system of hanging baths (pensilia balnea) the exact form of which remains unknown. It is possible that they consisted of heated water tanks arranged in successive levels and may have been in operation before Sergius Orata, usually credited with the invention of hanging baths, had created his own system. According to Fagan, all available indications point to the conclusion that the theories of Asclepiades had penetrated all strata of Roman society. He was not of course the first to introduce baths in Rome and did not make them popular single-handed. But he diagnosed correctly the mood of society and added his medical prestige, thus becoming a sort of catalyst of events. He was the best known, although sometimes controversial, representative of a wider trend in medical thinking and managed as a result to have a pronounced influence on Roman bathing habits. His simple message was that baths are not only pleasant, they are also good for health. The Romans were ready to accept the message and therefore Asclepiades is partly credited with their love for bathing.

Yegül is of the opinion that the introduction in Rome of the principles of Hippocratic medicine, including those regarding the use of baths, is the work of Celsus and later of Galen506 to whom we shall return. Given that Celsus used as a source of information the work of Asclepiades who lived in Rome at a time when baths were gaining in popularity, Fagan considers necessary a reassessment of the role of Asclepiades in the dissemination of the belief that baths were beneficial for health. We have little evidence of Greek physicians being active in 2nd c.BC Rome, perhaps because of the hostility of conservative Romans, but with Asclepiades the situation changes rapidly, as he managed to achieve great fame in Rome, both during his life and after his death507. He was a proponent of the use of cold or hot baths or of simply moistening the body, as part of preventive medicine or healing, a view compatible with his theory that the body consisted of corpuscles or atoms, which had to be in harmonious motion, and pores, which should not be obstructed. These conditions, he believed, could be achieved with recommended exercise, diet regime and bathing. Celsus apparently made a comment that the ancients hesitated to use baths, while Asclepiades was bolder in his prescribed therapy. Pliny the Elder was negative in

Famous physicians of the first period of the Principatus were the former slave Antonius Musa and Charmis from Massilia (Marseilles). Both applied cold baths for therapy508. Musa, held in great esteem by Emperor Augustus because he had cured an ailment from which Augustus suffered with cold baths and cold water drinking509, had devised with his brother Euphorbus a therapy based on cold water510. Great success was enjoyed by Gaius Stertinius Xenophon from Cos, who made substantial donations to the Aesculapium of his place of birth, partly to secure the supply of water to the baths of the sanctuary511. The presence and activity of Greek physicians resulted in the identification in the eyes of the Romans of medical practice with the Greeks or, if not exclusively with them, with foreigners, migrants and ex-slaves512. The contribution of the Greeks is especially acknowledged by Celsus in his treatise on medicine513. Celsus lived in the days of Emperor Tiberius (1st c.AD) and was himself recommending baths in his medical practice514. If there is one thing though that Celsus disapproved of was the cupidity and greed of Greek 508 Krug 2003, 171. 509 See Antonios Mousas in Megalē Hellēnikē Egkyklopaideia. 510 Krug 2003, 204-205. 511 Krug 2003, 206. Xenophon had served Augustus as his chief medical officer and was later the favourite physician of Claudius, whom he assassinated in 54 AD. He had amassed an enormous fortune. See Xenophon in Megalē Hellēnikē Egkyklopaideia. 512 Nutton 2004, 164. 513 Nutton 2004, 166. 514 Fagan 2002, 51. We have already mentioned Aulus Cornelius Celsus.

500 Asklēpios (O) kai oi Aparches tēs Iatrikēs, 1996, 125 και 127. 501 Nutton 2004, 161-163; Fagan 2002, 94. 502 Fagan 2002, 97. 503 Nutton 2004, 167-170. 504 Nutton 2004, 170. 505 Fagan 2002, 93-103. We base our presentation of the views of Asclepiades on Fagan’s analysis. 506 Aulus Cornelius Celsus (ca. 25 BC – 50 AD). 507 Fagan 2002, 95 και 97. 83

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

practitioners.

works of older writers either in Greek or in a Latin translation, as in the case of Caelius Aurelianus in 5th centuryAD525. Latin translations were of decisive importance for the development of medicine in the West. “The assimilation of Greek medicine into the Latin-speaking world of central Italy, and thence over time into Western Europe, is one of the most momentous developments in the history of medicine”526.

The most outstanding medical personality of Roman times is no doubt Galen515. As Krug makes the point, Galen of Pergamon is a peak and at the same time a turning point in ancient medicine. His huge opus left the impression that it was impossible to add anything to it, let alone to surpass it516. It was a nodal point between ancient Greek medical knowledge and the subsequent development of medicine in Europe. “Galen by his own example and his writings imposed upon later learned physicians an idea of what medicine was (and, equally important, what it was not) that lasted for more than a millennium”517. Galen considered the theoretical corpus of classical medical writers, including those of the school of Cos and Diocles, as essential knowledge for all physicians of his day518. In the classical Hippocratic triangle “doctor, patient and illness” he stressed the dominant position of the physician and, following the Hippocratic model, he included in the concept of regime a man’s entire lifestyle, his exercise, sleep and environment, with the result that his views are surprisingly close to those of a modern dietitian519. As to his references to the use of baths, Dutton finds that Galen says very little. He does recommend mineral baths in certain cases, but as to the results he has reservations because they are conducive to physical softness520. On the other hand, Fagan argues that Galen’s work is full of references to the medical properties of baths521 and Laty insists that baths are central to his healing methods522.

Before turning to bathing practices in the Roman tradition and the standard facilities found in bath buildings, it is necessary to refer briefly to Roman technological innovations in water supply and heating, which played a key role in shaping bath practice. The supply of large quantities of water and the possibility to heat them were indispensable for collective immersion bathing, as much as temperature gradations in space heating were essential for the introduction of bathing sequences, common in Roman baths. The most important role for the evolution of Roman tradition after the hypocaust was played by heating technology. Heating installation in baths can be distinguished into those providing space heating and those that ensured water heating. It is of course evident that common furnaces were used, that space heating installations also heated water tanks with which they were in contact and that heating large volumes of water raised the temperature of ambient space. As in Greek tradition, water and space heating installations were mutually supportive, with the difference that in Roman tradition emphasis was given to space heating technology.

Taken as a whole, the works of Galen, Pliny the Elder, Celsus and others point to extensive use of baths for therapy. The references of medical writers to baths are, according to Fagan, the first and most important indication of the interconnection between bathing and good health in the Roman mind. Other indications come from non-medical writers, e.g. Plutarch, from mural paintings in bath buildings, e.g. representations of Aesculapius or Hygieia, and from the activity of doctors, well documented by archaeological research, who exercized their profession in thermae523.

Space heating was provided by the circulation of hot air generated by burning wood in furnaces (praefurnia), located in the periphery of the hot section of the bath facility. In contrast to the Greek tradition, the ancillary rooms of the bath where the praefurnia were in operation formed a separate system, in touch, but not in direct communication, with bathing rooms. Consequently the visitor to the baths did not come into contact with auxiliary installations and the interior of the main spaces acquired a different architectural quality and a scenic effect. Hot air circulated under the floor suspensura, in the interior of walls behind the wall tiling, through wall masonry built with special hollow bricks (tegulae mammatae, tubuli), or, sometimes, in the interior of domes. The smoke escaped to the atmosphere through special air ducts.

Like Galen, Oreibasius too was born in Pergamon. He was a friend of Julian the Apostate who invited him to Rome and then to Gaul, when Julian was still a Caesar524. Oreibasius was the author of a compendium of the works of Galen and of a manual on medicine. Many other medical writers, before or after Oreibasius, did little more than collect the

Hot immersion baths in the pools of a caldarium or tepidarium and, to a lesser extent, hot water flowing in the labra required the possibility to heat large water quantities. Vitruvius refers to the use of three bronze boilers in bath facilities527. However, contemporary scholars dispute the universal application of such an installation and tend to support the existence of only one boiler in the majority of cases.

515 Galēnos in Greek; Aelius or Claudius Galenus in Latin (129 – 201 AD). 516 Krug 2003, 209. 517 Nutton 2004, 216. 518 Nutton 2004, 123-124. 519 Nutton 2004, 237, 240-241. 520 Nutton 2004, 242. 521 Fagan 2002, 86. 522 Laty 1991, 29. 523 Fagan 2002, 86-93. 524

525 526 527

Krug 2003, 210.

84

Krug 2003, 216. Nutton 2004, 157. Vitruvius, V 10.1.

A symmetrical presentation of the Greek and Roman bathing traditions on the basis of the study of the architectural remains of Helladic space On the basis of bath remains found in the area of Mount Vesuvius, Manderscheid reproduced in a rendered drawing the operation of a heating system528. The central water mains brought water first to an elevated tank. Thence, water flowed to a boiler (or boilers), placed usually over the furnace cabin, and then to the hypocaust of a hot water pool (alveus). The boiler was made out of lead sheets, had a bronze base and, for reasons of stability and insulation, was frequently encased in a wall envelope. Piping linking the boiler with the pool was also connected with a cold water pipe thus making it possible to regulate bath water temperature. A bronze semi-cylindrical vessel (testudo alvei), connected to the hot water pool, served to maintain the right water temperature, but not all pools disposed of a testudo. Water in the pools was kept hot mainly because of the underlying hypocaust.

ban centres. Naturally it could more easily happen in the case of country houses (villae rusticae) located near rivers or springs, since the choice of location of this type of spatial framework, i.e. of villae rusticae, was made in the first place on the basis of criteria which included the existence of a regular supply of water. The construction of aqueducts for the transportation of water from remote sources to the points of withdrawal inside a built area was the rule and the basic precondition of the advanced development reached by water technology in the cities of the Empire. All the above methods of water supply were used at one stage or the other in the baths of the Roman tradition, but it was the construction of large-scale aqueducts and the continuous transportation of enormous volumes of water that permitted the baths after the application of the hypocaust to realize the Roman art of the bath in all its splendour. The first bath complex of imperial proportions in Rome, the baths of Agrippa, were built in conjunction with the aqueduct that transported water from the spring of Aqua Virgo, which secured the supply of the first “gymnasium” of the city. According to Hodge, “an aqueduct was the normal way of transporting water from its source to the point where it was needed, whether for irrigation or urban use”531.

Manderscheid provides a complete analysis of water management in a large-scale typical Roman bath complex529. His description of this technological aspect of Roman tradition is excellent and we shall limit ourselves to a summary presentation of his approach. The entire process of water management in Roman bath complexes is divided into three distinct stages, i.e. provisioning, utilization and disposal. Provisioning is divided in turn to identifying the water sources, tapping and supplying, decantation, storage and distribution of water.

Table 29 shows the manner in which bath practices in the Romanized tradition materialized in specific facilities and spatial bathing units. The nomenclature and the function of these units, as derived from literary and archaeological testimony, as well as their spatial relationships are described in detail by Nielsen532.

Precipitation and underground water reserves were the usual sources of water supply of ancient settlements. Provisioning a bath complex could be secured with one or more of the following methods: • Collection of rainfall water in water cisterns; • Tapping underground water reserves by digging wells; • Construction of a bath facility in contact with a spring or river; • Construction of aqueducts and transportation of water from remote sources.

A clarification concerning the above table is necessary. We have not shown the full spectrum of functions which in theory could be accommodated in a bath complex, on the strength of evidence from the literary sources. We selected the practices and facilities of which the existence, on the basis of our analysis is either well documented or can be reliably hypothesized in the baths of Helladic space.

Mandescheid quotes as an example of the above system the case of Capri and the water cistern of Villa Iovis, where the lack of springs made inevitable the construction of cisterns and the collecton of rainwater530. With the exception of areas lacking springs and underground reserves, water collection in cisterns to cater for bath needs was extremely rare in the Empire.

In chapter 2 we outlined different approaches to the issue of a typology of baths of the Roman tradition. We started with the classification proposed by Krencker in 1929 in his Die Trier Kaiserthermen, which was based exclusively on the logic of functional diagrams. We then continued with more recent taxonomies put forward by other scholars, who adopted a more dynamic approach towards the incorporation of other parameters in the construction of typological categories. It is clear that the efforts of modern students of the subject aim at employing typological analysis not merely as an instrument of arbitrary categorization but rather as a more meaningful methodological choice. Regarding the typology problem, of interest are the remarks made by Nathalie de Haan in a recent article, where

The use of water wells was in several cases a technical solution surviving at the margin of the widespread use of aqueducts. Often, it fades out after the connection of a bath with an aqueduct; in some cases the use of wells continues as a complementary source. Building a bath in close proximity to a spring was not possible in most cases, especially in the context of existing ur528 529 530

Manderscheid 2000, 496. Manderscheid 2000. Manderscheid 2000, 486.

531 532 85

Hodge 2000, 39. Nielsen 1993, 153-166.

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

she refers to examples which show that the analysis of the architectural plan and of the route followed in a building by visitors provides information for a better understanding of the use of the building complex. It is in this sense, she argues, that the study of the plan and of the typology can have a significant and additional value, but only when the context is equally evaluated. In this way, she concludes, a typology can be a valid instrument. However, a typology without a logical connection with the use and context of buildings of merit runs the risk of becoming simply an arbitrary classification533. In our study we took the decision to adopt the style of classification proposed by Krencker, which has been used with small of great adaptations by Nielsen, Yegül, Βrödner, Heinz, Weber and Rebuffat. However, we used it only in what we call functional classification which differs from our typological classification or rather, to be more precise, is only part of the latter’s full spectrum. For the presentation of functional diagrams of the Romanized tradition in Helladic space we opted for the synthesis of typologies of Κrencker, Rebuffat and Nielsen, as described by Pierre Gros534. Excavations in Helladic space have revealed baths with functional diagrams shown in table 30. The functional diagrams of selected bath complexes of the Peloponnese are shown schematically in figures 9 – 15535.

Figure 5 Plan with duplication of certain rooms and circular visitor routing (VII), Functional diagram of baths C I of Epidaurus(Catalogue number 61)

Figure 4 Angular plan in a line with reverse visitor routing (II), Functional diagram of the Baths A of Asine (Catalogue number 54)

Figure 6 Plan with duplication of certain rooms and circular visitor routing (VII), Functional diagram of baths D of Epidaurus (Catalogue number 63)

533 De Haan 2007. 534 Gros 1996, 389. 535 The following diagrams are not drawn to scale. See scaled plans in illustrations’ annex. 86

A symmetrical presentation of the Greek and Roman bathing traditions on the basis of the study of the architectural remains of Helladic space

Figure 7 Plan with duplication of certain rooms and circular visitor routing (VII), Functional diagram of baths E of Epidaurus (Catalogue number 64)

Figure 9 Plan with duplication of certain rooms and circular visitor routing (VII), Functional diagram of baths A of Isthmia (Catalogue number 29)

Figure 8 Plan with duplication of certain rooms and circular visitor routing (VII), Functional diagram of baths A of Heraion (Catalogue number 57)

Figure 10 Small and large imperial thermae with double circuit in a loop, axial layout of frigidarium, tepidarium and caldarium, and duplication of intermediate rooms (IX), Functional diagram of baths F of Corinth. (Catalogue number 9)

87

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

Bathing practices

Bathing facility

Functional units

Abbreviation

Hot immersion

Alveus

Caldarium, tepidarium

c, t

Piscina calida

Caldarium

c

Piscina

Frigidarium

f

Natatio

Frigidarium

f

Sudatorium

Sudatorium

s

Laconicum

Laconicum

l

Labrum

Caldarium, apodyterium

c, a

Pedilouve

Apodyterium

a

Labrum

Caldarium

c

Entrance

Vestibulum, porticus

v, po

Physical exercise

Palaestra

pa

Undressing

Apodyterium, frigidarium, tepidarium

a, f

Massage and oil anointing

Unctorium, tepidarium

u, t

Toilet

Latrinae

la

Heating

Praefurnia

pr

Water supply

Aqueduct, reservoir

aq, re

Leisure

Basilica thermarum , frigidarium, tepidarium, atrium

ba, f, t, at

Cold immersion Sweating Cold partial wash Hot partial wash

Ancillary spaces

se

Thermal transition

Heat-trap, tepidarium

h, t

Table 28 The chronological span of the Romanized tradition of the bath in Helladic space

Functional diagrams

Examples

I

Linear or axial plan with reverse visitor routing

II

Angular plan in a line with reverse visitor routing

III

Plan with parallel rooms with reverse visitor routing

IV

Axial symmetrical plan with reverse visitor routing

V

Axial semi-symmetrical plan with reverse visitor routing

VI

Plan with duplication of heated rooms and semi-reverse visitor routing

VII

Plan with duplication of certain rooms and circular visitor routing

VIII

Semi-axial plan with circular customer routing

Table 29 Functional diagrams of the baths of Helladic space

88

A symmetrical presentation of the Greek and Roman bathing traditions on the basis of the study of the architectural remains of Helladic space From the above classification we can reach the fairly safe conclusion that the more complex diagrams are typical of the middle Roman period, while the simple diagrams characterize the transitional and late periods. This does not imply that simple baths were not built in the middle period. The most common diagram of the period of intense bath Romanization was no doubt the circular.

room. They are shown in Figure 18. The round room with hip-baths (loutēres) was a dominant feature of the entire period of the Greek tradition. This much has been said already, but in the Hellenistic and late Hellenistic or early Roman phase the round room is associated with other functions too, such as sweating and leisure. Although the round sweating room536 was probably more typical of private architecture or of the architecture of mineral baths in Baiae before 100 BC, it appears for the first time in public baths in the case of the Republican Baths in Pompeii in early 1st century BC. Initially an indication of bath hellenization, the round laconicum, or later the frigidarium and caldarium, becomes a recurring element of Roman tradition. The earliest bath tholoi were built in Campania, in Baiae (Temple of Mercury) and in the Baths of Agrippa in Rome.

From the point of view of stylistic influence we can recognize in the baths of Helladic space three main sources of influence emanating from the architectural avant-garde of the Italian peninsula. If we were to put a short label on the first type of influence, we could describe it as the monumental functionalism of the imperial thermae of Rome. The second source of influence was the architectural experimentation of the baths of the Villa Adriana in Tivoli. The third one is characterized by the fragmentation of volumes and the refinement of the thermal baths of the Villa Romana del Casale in Piazza Armerina in Sicily. Features of these three styles appear in baths F of Corinth, in the baths of Marathon and in baths I of Corinth, in that order.

In spite of the persistent presence of the round sweating or cold bath room in the Roman tradition of the late Republic and the early Empire, this type is absent in the transitional period of Helladic space (100 BC – 100 AD). It still exists however in the context of baths of the Greek tradition (balaneion of Gortys, balaneion of Olympia and gymnasium of Eretria). The circular arrangement makes its appearance in the middle Roman period (Great Balaneion of Eleusis, baths C of Athens and east baths of Olympia) and is repeated in the baths of the late Roman period (Phthiotides Thebes and baths of Hadrian street in Athens).

Room types A

Variations of rectangular rooms with timber roof

B

Variations of rectangular rooms with semi-cylindrical roof

C

Variations of round rooms

D

Variations of polygonal rooms

E

Elliptical rooms

F

Variations of rooms with groin-vault

G

Variations of rooms with semi-spherical dome

H

Composite rooms

Bath facilities of the Romanized tradition in Helladic space have been revealed in the framework of cities, townships, sanctuaries, Aesculapia and countryside villas (villae rusticae). Countryside villas with facilities of high quality, and consequently with baths, were in existence already in the middle period (villa of Herod Atticus in Loukou of Cynouria), but they multiply mainly in the late Roman period. On the whole, the urban pattern framework of bathing facilities, as defined in this study, exhibits a relative stability until the late period.

Table 30 Room and hall types in bath complexes in Helladic space

The spatial framework of bath facilities of the Romanized tradition in Helladic space is presented in table 32. We show the categories of spatial frameworks in the first column and some examples of baths in the second.

The first group (Figure 16) includes rectangular rooms with timber roofs, found as a rule in non-bathing areas of a bath, particularly in apodyteria. Two documented examples of this group, both dating from the late Roman period, have been found in Athens and in Corinthia (baths 2 at Makrygiannis and baths of Zevgolateio). The choice of this type of construction may be linked to the overall decline of bath facilities in the late period.

Table 33 shows the various categories of integration of bath facilities in the urban pattern in Helladic space, in accordance with the definition given in this study. K. Weber has observed that the production of the built environment in antiquity was founded on common basic principles and parameters.537 The parameters were the necessity of a building, the decision process to produce plans and to implement the project, the design itself, the construction process, the budget, the level of technology, the building materials, the aesthetic, symbolical and ideological choices of the parties involved etc.

The second group of rooms is that of variations of rectangular rooms with a semi-cylindrical roof. This category, which is the most common by far in the Empire, is typical of the entire chronological spectrum of the Romanization period of Helladic space. Figure 17 shows variations of this category. Water pools are shaded in grey.

536 We mentioned the round sweating room in chapter 2 and in the description of the palaestra by Vitruvius. 537 Weber 1992.

The third room category is that of variations of a circular 89

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

Figure 11 Variations of rectangular rooms with timber roof in Makrygiannis (Eleftheratou 2004) and Zevgolateio (Baths A)

Figure 12 Variations of rectangular rooms with semi-cylindrical roofs (B)

90

A symmetrical presentation of the Greek and Roman bathing traditions on the basis of the study of the architectural remains of Helladic space

91

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

Figure 13 Variations of round rooms (C)

Figure 14 Variations of polygonal rooms (D)

92

A symmetrical presentation of the Greek and Roman bathing traditions on the basis of the study of the architectural remains of Helladic space

Figure 15 Elliptical rooms (E)

Figure 16 Variations of rooms with groin-vault (F)

93

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

Figure 17 Variations of rooms with semi-spherical dome (G)

Figure 18 Composite rooms (H)

94

A symmetrical presentation of the Greek and Roman bathing traditions on the basis of the study of the architectural remains of Helladic space Spatial framework of bath facilities

Examples

I

Gymnasium area

Baths of the Gymnasium of Delphi

II

Sanctuary area

Baths A of Heraion

III

Main roads

Baths of Lechaeum Road Baths of Eurycles in Corinth

IV

Residential areas

Baths of Makrygiannis district (Athens)

V

Agora (Forum)

Baths V of Athens

VI

Urban central area

Baths A of Argos

VII

Compound of Villa or Villa rustica

Baths of Loukou in Cynouria

VIII

Palace complex

Baths of the palace of Galerius

IX

Religious foundation

Baths of Phthiotides Thebes

Table 31 The spatial framework of the baths of Helladic space in Roman antiquity Integration in urban pattern of bath facilities

Examples

I

Independent bath

Baths of Syntagma Square (Athens)

II

Alteration or adaptation in a public complex of Greek antiquity

Baths of Megara

III

Alteration of a building complex of Roman antiquity

Thermae A of Argos

IV

Alteration of a bath of the Greek tradition

Baths V of the Agora of Athens

V

Part of a philosophical school or of a house

Baths of house Ōmega in Athens

VI

Part of a public building complex

Baths of South Agora of Corinth

VII

Part of a sanctuary complex

Bath of the Priests – Sanctuary of Apollo Maleatas

VIII

Bath – Gymnasium

Baths of Samos

IX

Part of a palaestra

Baths of Gymnasium of Eretria

Table 32 Integration of baths in the urban pattern in Helladic space of Roman antiquity

95

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

One could describe bath facilities, in a schematic way, as the outcome of the processing of a range of critical parameters and components. These factors can be classified into two categories, external and internal.

other words of building typologies. Functional diagrams serve as a good guide for the classification of Roman baths. In table 34 we show diagrammatically the production of space in the Roman tradition.

The first category includes the parameters of the decision making process in a given implementation context of the construction project. We include here the parameters which have no relation with the architectural structure and form or with the technology of the baths, i.e. those related to wider conditions. These conditions comprise the positioning of the project in the urban fabric, access to water supply and drainage, available building materials and knowhow, financial capacity, views and preferences of actors involved, local traditions and cultural context. It is within this first category of parameters that we place the concepts of spatiality, spatial framework and urban pattern framework, which we developed in our introductory chapter. What we mean is that the relational material conditions, which these concepts refer to, are the outcome of the interplay of the first category of parameters.

Summary A critical role of the bath which we identified at the outset is its ritual nature as an act of passage from one sphere of life to another (childhood – married life, life – death, illness – health), from one activity to another (before a dinner or sacrifice, after athletic competition or battle) or between indoors and outdoors (arrival or departure of a guest). We remarked that this institutional place of the bath at the limit or point of transition is reproduced in spatial organization. It is worth underlining the fact that the property of the Greek bath as an act of transition does not find its counterpart in the Roman tradition, in which the bath as an activity acquires a self-centred character and determines the use of space and time by the Roman citizen.

The second category of (internal) parameters, which is related to the structure and function of the building, comes into play both independently and in interaction with external parameters. Internal parameters are in essence the result of the codification of the Roman bathing tradition, which undergoes a geographical and temporal transformation, depending on the environment of its application. Codification is understood here as the processing of four basic components, i.e. the art of the bath, the form and technology of bath facilities, the articulation and functional structure of the bath building, and, finally, the typology and architectural handling of the constituent spatial bathing units.

With the benefit of a comprehensive view of the archaeological, literary and iconographic material, one can proceed to a conclusion. The main emphasis of bathing practice in Greek tradition from the Homeric epic poems to the Hellenistic Period is on the private sphere and on individual practice. This synoptic view is mainly derived from iconographic evidence which throws light on the duality “bath in the house – bath in the gymnasium”. Sadly, this conclusion cannot find support in the excavated remains of older cities in Helladic space where the evidence of the spatiality of the bath is limited to archaeologically immaterial (portable wash basins or hip-baths) or informal installations (e.g. fountains or well houses). The lack of bathing amenities in Greek private houses was probably the reason of the construction of the first public balaneia. This hypothesis is confirmed by the systematic building of bathing facilities in new towns and neighbourhoods in Olynthos, Delos, Cassope in Epirus and Eretria. Another point worth emphasizing is that baths in gymnasia, in spite of the power of the latter’s symbolism in the context of the city-state, is a place of exception as far as the greater part of the population is concerned. The institution of the balaneion acquires great centrality in the cities of Magna Graecia because of the prestige they enjoyed in the Hellenistic Period. The degree to which the Romans assimilated the public character of the Greek balaneion and linked it with the ideas of the gymnasium during their contact with Sicilian cities after the Punic Wars remains a subject under examination.

We saw in our historical review that the bathing process and the resulting fundamental functional relationships and units, which served as the skeleton of the structure of the baths, had crystallized, at least in broad outline, by the middle of 1st c.BC. As heating systems and building technology were being perfected, making temperature gradation a possibility, standardization of form gradually followed. The complexity of the structure of each building and of its architectural design depended on the economic and social capital invested in the project. This process reached its peak with the imperial thermae of Rome, the planning of which aimed at producing a multi-functional urban microcosm. Throughout Roman history they remained the perfect archetype of the polymorphic diversity of the art of the bath of the Roman tradition. A concrete and finite number of relationships, practices and facilities resulted from the codification of Roman tradition. The spatial bathing units in which the bathing process was taking place had fairly fixed links in space. The succession of units and their interconnections channeled the movement of visitors along clear routes and form the basis of functional diagrams which we have already discussed, in 96

A symmetrical presentation of the Greek and Roman bathing traditions on the basis of the study of the architectural remains of Helladic space

Figure 19 Diagrammatic presentation of the production of space in the Roman bathing tradition

Structural interventions in gymnasia

Examples

Repairs – alterations without introduction of hypocaust

Gymnasium of Eretria, palaestra of Amphipolis, gymnasium of Corinth

Repairs – alterations with introduction of hypocaust

Lyceum of Regilles Street, Athens

Construction of baths in the place of older swimming pool in a gymnasium

Baths of Isthmia, baths of Cladeus (Olympia)

Construction of baths in the place of an older stoa or gymnasium

Thermae B of Argos, baths of Samos

Construction of baths in the area of a Greek gymnasium

Isthmia, Delphi, Olympia, Heraion of Argos

Table 33 Structural interventions in gymnasia of Helladic space during the Roman period

97

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

98

HELLENIZATION AND ROMANIZATION OF THE ROMAN AND GREEK BATHING TRADITIONS RESPECTIVELY

functional sequences. In the second case, they were classified with respect to their urban pattern framework, spatial framework and their integration in the urban pattern. The purpose of these successive classifications was the formulation of two composite taxonomical systems founded on the typology and spatiality of bath facilities of the Romanized bathing tradition of Helladic space. Our assumption was that the comparison of these parameters with data from the Italian peninsula of the Roman period and from Helladic space of Greek antiquity can shed light on the issues of Romanization of bathing practices of Helladic space.

Introductory notes

It is necessary at this stage to repeat that our working hypothesis was that in spite of the massive introduction of the Roman bathing tradition in Helladic space, the private character of the bath and the nature of its incorporation in the urban pattern, i.e. its spatiality, preserved their autonomy because of the slow process of interaction of cultures, both before and after the Roman conquest. In the following paragraphs we shall identify the elements which enter the broad picture of Romanization or of the unimpeded introduction of the Roman bath, on one hand, and of resistance to it or inertia of existing structures, on the other. We shall start by examining the first side of this interaction, namely the role of Greek bathing tradition in shaping the Roman art and architecture of the bath.

In the preceding chapters we examined first the architectural development of baths of the Roman tradition in the Italian peninsula and the key characteristics of their typology and spatial organization (chapter 2), secondly the background of the Greek bathing tradition in Helladic space, which we placed in the context of the wider Hellenic world, and then we focused on the particular case of the region of the Peloponnese. We continued in chapter 3 with an examination of the Greek and Romanized bathing tradition in Helladic space with an analysis of their structure and components. The purpose of this final chapter is to answer, to the extent that this is possible, the questions we posed in the introductory chapter, on the basis of our analysis. Our remarks concern mainly the re-examination and reformulation of the concepts of Hellenization and Romanization with reference to the study of bath facilities and the interaction of bathing traditions of Helladic space, on one hand, and of the Italian peninsula, on the other. Before presenting our findings and conclusions we shall summarize briefly the objectives and working hypotheses which we put forward in our introduction.

The contribution of the study of bath facilities in Helladic space to the research of the origins of the Roman bathing tradition Any discussion on the nature of cultural influence, in this case of the Greek bathing tradition on the Roman one, must be broken down into the components of the said influence. Otherwise, we are facing the lurking danger of obscuring complex phenomena with inadequate and simplistic explanatory models. For this reason we consider it essential to clarify in advance that the influence we are dealing with can be analyzed in our view into the following constituent parts:

Our basic intention from the start, when we first approached our subject, was to separate the medium of classification of bath facilities and their components from the real dynamics of historical phenomena. Therefore, we made a conscious distinction between, on one hand, chronological and geographical classification, and, on the other, cultural, technological, architectural and spatial taxonomies. We also distinguished between the concept of architectural category and that of architectural or spatial type. To put it briefly, our methodological approach consisted of classifying the space of the bath in Graeco-Roman antiquity “spectrally” and not categorically, i.e. not on the basis of dividing lines regarding historical periods (before or after the Roman conquest), cultural traditions of the art of the bath and its social role, and technology (before or after the introduction of underfloor heating), in the context of either the Greek or the Romanized tradition (chapters 1 and 3). The next step, in the same context, was to examine two taxonomic sets of bath facilities (chapter 3). The first concerned the architectural and the second the spatial organization of baths. In the first case, baths were classified with respect to their facilities, spatial bathing units and

a. The ideological and social influence of the model of the Greek gymnasium on Roman practices, which affects matters of cultural classification, i.e. the transformation of the art and social role of the bath, and on the architectural organization of the thermae, which affected the architectural and typological classifications; b. The influence of the urban institution of the public balaneion on the architectural category and on the integration of the balneae in the urban domain, which affected a range of classifications (cultural, technological, architectural and spatial), as well as what we described as the spatiality of the bath; c. The influence of Greek techonological applications of underfloor heating on the invention and diffusion of the Roman hypocaust (suspensura), which affected the tech99

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

nological classification; d. The introduction into the Italian peninsula of bath facilities and spatial bathing units, which affected the architectural classification of bath facilities and of forms of spatial units; e. The adoption of typical bathing sequences, which had an effect on architectural classification and functional diagrams. Having outlined in brief our conclusions with regard to the constituent parts of Greek influence, we shall summarize the scientific debate on the origins of the Roman bath, which, as we shall see, dwells mainly on the transition from the Greek balaneion to the Roman hypocaust bath. After studying the different theories and hypotheses that have been advanced over the years, one is easily led to the conclusion that they tend to fluctuate between two diametrically opposed views. The extreme supporters of the first thesis claim that the roots of the Roman tradition can be found in the Greek tradition, while the adherents of the second argue in favour of an endogenous Italian development. A multitude of explanatory combinations has been explored in the area between these two extremities. It is interesting to note that the proponents of one or the other of these polar positions have identified the Roman tradition with the application of the technology of the Roman hypocaust and of heating gradations. The inevitable result of this assumption was that the proponents of the “Greek roots” position were anxious to seek early hypocaust forms in the framework of Greek culture, while members of the “Italian camp” had the option of choosing between the “invention” of the hypocaust by Caius Sergius Orata around 100 BC, the evolution of local bathing traditions and a combination of the two. In our study we strived to distance ourselves from this ancestry argument as a dominant explanatory device in cultural history and to employ instead a model of “spectral” diffusion of various cultural components which are recognizable in the wider Mediterranean context. Although the crucial contribution of Greek on Roman civilization was acknowledged in the ancient world and remains commonplace in modern historiography from the 18th century onwards, the Roman baths were considered until the middle 20th century an undoubted achievement of Roman genius and knowhow. Literary references to Sergius Orata and his invention of pensiles balineas (see chapter 2) gave added weight to this view, which was consistent with the assumption that Roman bathing tradition was inextricably tied solely to the hypocaust, to the neglect of its other components. It is significant that the Greek balaneion of Eretria, discovered in early 20th century, was described by those in charge of the excavation as Roman because the existence of a distinct Greek bathing tradition was still unknown in

those days. The gradual discovery of the remains of this tradition pushed a number of researchers to the opposite shore, i.e. that of supporting the Greek ancestry of the hypocaust and, consequently, of the entire Roman tradition. This change of attitude was spearheaded by the excavation of Thermae Stabianae in Pompeii, the balaneion of Gortys and the Greek Baths (Griechische Bäder) of Olympia. The discovery and excavation of Hellenistic balaneia in Magna Graecia provided evidence of use of underfloor heating from late 4th to early 3rd c.BC, gave additional impetus to the theory of the Greek origin of Roman baths. However, since the 1990s the researchers involved in the controversy show greater understanding of the complex character of the problem and adopt a much less extreme stance. We can now summarize the basic positions on the origin of the Roman tradition. The main argument in favour of the view that the Roman bathing tradition originated in Italy, particularly in the region of Campania, makes use of literary references to Sergius Orata. We quoted some of the relevant extracts in chapter 2. Although the interpretation of these extracts remains doubtful, the view that this entrepreneur from Campania invented in early 1st c.BC the technology of “hanging baths” commanded widespread acceptance. At first sight there is no reason to dispute the truth of the diffusion of an invention or its standardized application, but the literary sources fail to provide substantial information and a wider perspective on the origin of Roman tradition. The involvement of private individuals in the process of standardization of a given technology does not preclude the existence of forerunning practices and traditions. The possibility of inventing the hypocaust ex nihilo can now be exluded after the discovery of precursor bath forms, dated to the period before 100 BC and Sergius Orata, e.g. of the Fregellae baths in Latium. The relation of the Roman bathing tradition with older bath practices of the inhabitants of the Italian peninsula, in the domestic environment or in mineral springs, is plausible but cannot be documented, at least so far. It is not easy to evaluate the contribution of the domestic baths of the Italian peninsula given that the surviving remains belong to periods after the Ηellenization process had already started. The organization of the domestic bath is only known from written sources538. The bathroom was called lavatrina and was located next to the kitchen, from which came the supply of hot water. De Capua maintained that the inhabitants of Latium used the sweating bath to cure rheumatism caused by local climate conditions539. Nielsen however denies that there is sufficient proof of this contention540. As to the hypocaust, there is no evidence yet that it was used in houses and villas of the Republican period before its introduction in public baths. The discovery of the baths of the gymnasium of Olympia 538

539 540 100

Nielsen 1993, 13.

De Capua 1940. Nielsen 1993, 13.

Hellenization and Romanization of the Roman and Greek bathing traditions respectively

during World War II and the dating of baths a VIII to 100 BC gave the archaelogists in charge of the excavation the opportunity to argue that the Roman hypocaust had been invented in Greece. Naturally, this theory negates the validity of the Campania hypothesis and asserts that heating technology had been transferred to the Italian peninsula from the Peloponnese. The proponents of the idea of the Hellenic origin of Roman culture had found a strong ally in the person of those challenging the ‘Romanity” of a key application in the history of technology. Excavations in the balaneion of Gortys by René Ginouvès took the Olympia hypothesis a step further. The discovery of the first ever installation of the Greek tradition before the hypocaust meant that it made sense to relate Gortys to the baths of Olympia. The balaneion of Gortys was the missing link before Baths a VIII. It is nevertheless evident that the geographical and chronological distances involved could not allow this schematic outline of events to escape from the realm of conjecture. The excavation of the Τhermae Stabianae in Pompeii in the 1970s by H. Eschebach and the discovery of the hypocaust of Phase IV (V according to Nielsen) gave a new twist to the controversy. The first implication was that the hypocaust was dated to a period preceding the invention of Sergius Orata; the second was that it had been built in the process of reconstruction of a Greek-style palaestra with a bath wing of the Greek tradition before the hypocaust. In this way, Roman baths were reconnected to Campania, possibly deconnected from Sergius Orata and from the Greek tradition after the hypocaust and, above all, reconnected with the Greek gymnasium inheritance. The strength of the new hypothesis, but also curiously its weakness, lies in these links. The thematic and ideological origin of the Roman thermae and of the daily bath ritual from the Greek gymnasium may be beyond dispute, but the potential organic origin of Roman baths in Greek palaestra buildings came to surface for the first time. It must be noted however that modern scholars, e.g. Fagan, consider this view as being possibly a construct of Eschebach’s imagination. The parallel discovery and study of balaneia of the Greek tradition after the hypocaust paved the way for the theory of Janet DeLaine, which is probably the first of multidimensional conceptual schemes. DeLaine brings back to the centre of attention the issue of the hypocaust and interprets the heating arrangements of the balaneia of Gela, Megara Hyblaea and Syracuse as early examples of alveus. At the same time she argues in favour of an earlier dating of the Republican Baths of Pompeii. In doing so she reconstructed an evolutionary chain linking the balaneia of the Greek tradition after the hypocaust in Southern Italy and Sicily, of which the balaneion of Gortys was a “provincial” expression, with the baths of the Roman tradition after the hypocaust in Campania. DeLaine’s conjectures rely on the assumption that the wealth and cosmopolitanism of the cities of Magna Graecia provided a new impetus to the Greek bathing tradition, which had no opportunity to

flourish any further in Helladic space; the revival of this tradition in its turn was the foundation of the first evolutionary stages of the Roman hypocaust. Garrett Fagan was the first, in 2001, to dissociate the Roman tradition from the invention of the hypocaust and to provide a full account of the scientific debate on the issue of origin541. In his own theoretical approach he exposes methodological errors in previous versions of the Greek origin school, as well as in the explanation of Orata’s breakthrough. In his view the birthplace of Roman tradition is in Campania and the beginnings of the art of the bath must be sought in the mineral springs of that region. We must finally mention the work of Η. Broise and Y. Thébert who transposed the origin issue from the cultural realm of Greece and Rome to the agency of diffuse Mediterranean traditions. By enlarging the conceptual framework, Broise describes the practice of collective bathing in the Hellenistic Period in Italy, without drawing a line between the practices of the population of the Greek cities and those of the inhabitants of Hellenized regions in the Italian peninsula. His work highlights the existence of Italian traditions before the hypocaust. Thébert on his side gives pride of place to the technological revolution of the Roman hypocaust, but at same time switches its earliest development to a date before 100 BC, refutes the privilege of Campania and assigns it to a wider area of the Italian peninsula. We shall now present the conclusions of the present study which hopefully make a contribution towards an understanding of the formation of the Roman tradition after the hypocaust. Our research of the baths of the Greek tradition before the hypocaust and in the context of the gymnasium reinforces the argument that the restitution by Eschebach of the Greek bath of the Thermae Stabianae Ι-ΙΙΙ constitutes a unicum and a rather erroneous construct, which means that the hypothesis of organic evolution from the palaestra is weakened. Individual hot water wash basins in a palaestra wing have never been discovered in Helladic space. Eschebach was probably under the influence of the Balaneion of Olympia, which had been built in the area of the gymnasium. The discovery of Balaneion ε of Olympia has invalidated the assertion that the baths of the Greek tradition before the hypocaust were located exclusively in the cities of Magna Graecia, with the exception of the balaneion of Gortys. As we shall see later, the belated appearance of the hypocaust in the balaneion of Gortys and the construction of Balaneion e of Olympia lend support to the probability that they were the result of diffusion from outside into Greece and that the initial application of the Greek hypocaust had indeed taken place on Italian soil. The excavation of Balaneion e of Olympia seems to confirm a decisive break between Baths a VIII and the under541 101

Fagan 2001.

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

lying building phases of the bath complex and strengthens the hypothesis that the bath was the product of a purely Roman technological import in mid-1st century BC and not a natural progression of the Greek tradition before the hypocaust. The construction of Balaneion e of Olympia and its renovation in 1st century BC show that the Greek tradition after the hypocaust was the supreme model until mid-1st century BC. The morphological comparison of rock-cut balaneia (Piraeus and Cyrene) with balaneia with tholoi leaves room for a possible connection between natural or carved complexes and the architecture of the balaneion. It is not unreasonable to suppose that the use of underfloor heating in balaneia was a transfer from bath practice in hot springs. On the basis of the above argument and having in mind Fagan’s position, one could justifiably claim that, quite independently, the citizens of the cities of Magna Graecia, who had direct knowledge of collective mineral baths, experimented with artificial heating conditions. Nevertheless, it was only in the conditions of Roman building technology that this achievement turned into a real revolution, something which was symbolically attributed to Sergius Orata. These new technologies acted in combination with the Roman version of the institution of the Greek gymnasium, the urban institution of the balaneion in Magna Graecia, the integration in the urban fabric of the experience of the mineral baths of Campi Flegrei, the transformation of the architectural type of the Hellenistic palaestra and the functional and stylistic components of palaestras and balaneia. All these ingredients together went into the novel mixture of the Roman tradition. It is primarily the Greek cities of Italy and Asia Minor which can be credited to a greater or lesser extent with moulding the constituent elements of the Roman bathing tradition, but in our study we found that the core of Helladic space also made a notable contribution to its development with: a. The export of the ideological model of the Greek gymnasium; b. The architectural type of the Hellenistic palaestra, with the mediation of Hellenistic gymnasia in Asia Minor; c. The spatial unit of the circular bathroom; and d. The functional unit of the swimming pool (dexamenē). During the gradual shaping of the Roman bathing tradition the selection in practice of these components was processed and mediated by Roman social structures. With the exception of of the swimming dexamenē, these were the elements found in Vitruvius’s description of the bath of the Greek palaestra.

The Romanization of bathing traditions in Helladic space Memini me quodam et Celsinum Iulium Numidam ad Frontonem Cornelium pedes tunc graviter aegrum ire et visere. Atque ubi introducti sumus, offendimus eum cubantem in scimpodio Graeciensi circumundique sedentibus multis doctrina aut genere aut fortuna nobilibus viris. Adsistebant fabri aedium complures balneis novis moliendis adhibiti ostendebantque depictas in membranulis varias species balnearum. Ex quibus cum elegisset unam formam speciemque veris, interrogavit, quantus esset pecuniae sumptus ad id totum opus absolvendum, cumque architectus dixisset necessaria videri esse sestertia ferme trecenta … (Aulus Gellius, Noctes Atticae, 19, 10, 1-3) (I remember having gone one day, with Celsius Julius from Numidia, to visit Cornelius Fronton, who suffered at that time of a violent attack of gout.We were introduced and we found ourselves lying on a Greek-style bed, in the midst of a circle of several persons distinghuished for their knowledge, by birth or by rank. Architects were present there, who had been summoned to build for him new baths and were showing him various plans drawn on parchment. When he had chosen the design which would serve as a model, he enquired how much total expenditure would amount to. To about three hundred large sestertii, answered the architect …542) The above quotation was extracted from the work Attic Nights by Aulus Gellius, a Roman author and grammarian, probably a native of Africa, of the 2nd century BC. The writer describes an incident in which architects, if fact artisan builders, present plans of bath types drawn on parchment. The incident reflects a society in which the standardization of bath facilities had become common practice. Although we are not certain of the nature of bath typology implied by the author when he used the expression “varias species balnearum”, we are entitled to wonder to what extent standardization had become the norm in Greece and, by extension, whether we can speak of typological groupings. As pointed out in chapter 1 it is plausible to suppose that typological continuities in space and time are largely dependent on the process of Romanization and on the emergence of new cultural identities in the provinces of the Empire. The reverse may also be true, i.e. that discontinuities may be an indication of a random and patchy assimilation of the dominant culture. As we were able to show in the previous chapter, we are in a position to submit bath facilities in Helladic space to all sorts of classifications and categorizations and to diagnose the typological patterns of several parameters and components, from spatial bathing units all the way to their 542 Tranlated from a translation in French of the Latin original. See Itinera Electronica; Aulu-Gelle, Les Nuits Attiques, livre XIX (http://agoraclass.fltr.ucl.ac.be/concordances/aulu-gelle_nuits_att_19/ligne05.cfm?numligne=11&mot=usitati). 102

Hellenization and Romanization of the Roman and Greek bathing traditions respectively

integration in the urban pattern. We are not though in a position to speak of a typology of buildings in the sense in which we defined typology in the introductory chapter. The typological cohesion which is recognizable in particular geographical areas of Italy and Roman provinces has not been observed in occupied Helladic space. In it, as well as in large areas of the Empire, the architectural landscape of the bath can be read as the fragmented narration of the mutations of an architectural type, that of the Greek gymnasium, which is absent in this period. The particularity of Helladic space lies in the fact that, because of its politically marginal position in the Empire and the relative paucity of a new building stock of urban monuments, new architectural typological groupings failed to materialize. We could legitimately claim that what happened is the reverse of a process of typological reordering. What has been activated in Helladic space is a process of random readjustment or tinkering here and there. The anthropological term which is aptly proposed by Nicola Terrenato is bricolage. According to Terrenato, “cultural bricolage” is “defined as a process in which pre-existing cultural elements take on new functions and meanings in a new context, viz. Roman rule. In this model, there is no typical example of Romanization, as local factors are a significant part of both process and outcome... all members of a society undergoing Romanization, including non-elite people, played an active role in the cultural bricolage process, i.e. in negotiating the new functions and meanings of pre-existing cultural elements”543. In table 35 we show the levels of spatiality of the bath in the Romanized tradition. The first level of spatiality in Roman antiquity differs from that of Greece. In contrast to the latter, there are no iconographic findings of non-architectural bathing arrangements in the countryside or of bathing in the house. The baths of Crene (baths d of Corinth) were repaired in the Roman period and remained in operation until the 4th century AD. Although these baths do not purely belong to the second level of spatiality but rather share elements of levels 2 and 5, they may be representative of a trend in Roman antiquity to re-use informal facilities in fountains and natural springs. The third level of spatiality (parts of houses and villas) remains actively present throughout the Roman period. In the transitional period (100 BC – 100 AD) the presence of the bath in the private sphere is attested indirectly by the absence of public bathing facilities. In the middle and mainly in the late periods we have evidence of baths in villas and villae rusticae. There is also evidence of small bathing complexes probably serving groups of houses. In the fourth level of spatiality, the bath, as part of public or larger than usual complexes, appears in the framework of transitional gymnasia of the Hellenistic Period and in agora or palace complexes. Transitional gymnasia survive 543 2007.

Terrenato 1998. See also Colantoni 2008 and Roth

until the 1st century AD, after which, unlike the cities of Asia Minor, gymnasia in Helladic space are spatially associated with independent bathing facilities. The only example of a bathing facility as part of a public complex is Baths G of Corinth. In spite of the technological discontinuity, one is tempted to detect a pattern of continuity in spatiality, although this may sound as provocation, from the baths of the Agora of the Italians in Delos in late 2nd century BC to the integration in the urban pattern of Baths G in the South Agora of Corinth, ca. 300 AD. The large majority of bath facilities in Helladic space are classified in the fifth level of spatiality. Along with the technological innovations, this is the most important characteristic of Romanization. Baths of the sixth level of spatiality are absent in the urban townscape of Helladic space, a feature to which we refer in the next section.

The extent of Hellenization and Romanization in the study of the baths of the ancient world: A synopsis We have completed the presentation and classification of the main bathing facilities and of supplementary, iconographic and literary, data, which taken together can be described as the pieces of the puzzle of the evolution of the bath and its spatial framework from the Bronze Age to late antiquity in Helladic space. While charting this evolution, we have encountered blind spots, areas of dissension and a multitude of challenges facing the researcher. In this concluding section we shall attempt to provide an account of the interaction between various phenomena which make up the picture of archaeological findings known to us to this day. We do not claim that this is a unique narrative, since it is inevitably the result of the historical and epistemological conjuncture in which our research has taken place, the available sources and the researcher’s special gaze and expectations. As explained in chapter 2, the account of the evolution of bath spatiality in Helladic space starts in Minoan Crete. The three key categories of findings, out of which the field of research and controversy is composed, are lustral basins, portable bathtubs and rooms equipped with a runoff layout. We have seen that on the basis of available evidence we cannot link the use of lustral basins with bathing, which no doubt took place in portable wash basins (first level of spatiality), probably in or near rooms with a drainage layout, like those described by Ginouvès, which were not intended exclusively for bathing (second level of spatiality). The inference that special bathrooms really existed, as well as their connection with older, restored lustral basins, is founded exclusively on restitutions by Evans. In case these restitutions are justified and the baths of the Queen’s Megaron and of the South House were indeed built originally as lustral basins and were later converted to bathrooms, then we are possibly entitled to speak of the succession of two 103

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

distinct bath traditions. A further piece of evidence which can lend support to this theory may be coming from the hypothesis of the importation from the east of the bathing vessel known as asaminthos and of the habit of its use. When it comes to Mycenean palaces we are fully in a position to speak of specially dedicated bathrooms in which ceramic asaminthoi were installed (third and fourth levels of spatiality). The use of portable basins is also well documented (first level of spatiality). The emerging representation of the immersion bath in portable basins, with the specially arranged bath space appearing as an exception in palaces, is compatible with references in Homeric epic poems, which we quoted at the end of chapter 2. It remains unclear whether the immersion bath of the Bronze Age can be linked, through an evolutionary process, to the bathtub of Smyrna of 7th c.BC, the Selinus bath of 6th c.BC, the references made by Athenaeus to the baths of the Sybarites and then the Hellenistic tradition of Italy, in the context of either a diffusion model or Ginouvès’s dialectical model. What is however certain is that on the strength of evidence that has come to light so far the architectural and spatial elaboration of bathing practice in the Dark Age and the Archaic Period enters a recession. Clear evidence capable of assisting our understanding of the spatiality of the bath we obtain again in Athens of the late Archaic and then of the Classical Periods. Iconographic, literary, epigraphic and archaeological sources tell us that baths took place initially in countryside (riverine) locations and in informal facilities (fountains) and later in the context of the gymnasium, the urban public space and in houses, where water was being transported from public fountains (first and second levels of spatiality). The history of the bath was indissolubly linked with that of the development of urban water supply systems and building construction. As a result the organization of the bath changes gradually from that of the domestic bath to the independent balaneion and the sanctuary bath (third, fourth and fifth levels of spatiality). To be noted that the first special bath facilities appeared in Athens (balaneion of Dipylon), Aegina (Aphaia sanctuary) and Delphi (bath of a private house). In classical Attic iconography the signature of bath spatiality is found in the bipolar bathing practice, where the woman washes in the house and the man in the gymnasium, although the architectural expression of this practice materializes with a considerable time lag in the late classical period. In this sense the balaneia and sanctuary baths of 5th century BC are the first building expression of the bath, at a time when the houses and gymnasia of the old cities in Helladic space were not yet in a position to accommodate it. The Greek public bath did not therefore start as a genuine urban institution, but as an accompaniment of the individual citizen’s daily activity, in locations related to the statutory role of the bath as a transition between activities and

situations. The exception of the gymnasium lies in the fact that in it the bath was supplementing the collective activity par excellence of the Greek city, that of athletic training and education. The ideological construct of the Roman thermae was later founded on this exceptional role of the gymnasium. In the late classical period baths are constructed in palaestras, individual houses and collective houses or leschae (clubs), as well as in increasingly numerous balaneia of Helladic space and the wider Greek world. The critical issue in our account concerns the moment of conversion of the balaneion from an addendum to the house or gymnasium to an independent institution, always of course in the framework of the Greek tradition. As we saw, in the late Classical and Hellenistic Periods balaneia multiply in the Greek world, their cradles being in Helladic space, Ptolemaic Egypt and Magna Graecia. Palaestras with baths are found mainly in Helladic space and in Asia Minor cities (gymnasia of Priene and Pergamon). Until the end of 4th century BC the key elements which make up the Greek bathing tradition seem to follow a diffusion pattern from their origins in the wider area of Attica and Corinthia, Delphi and Olympia, to the rest of Helladic space and then the wider Greek world. However, towards the end of 4th and early 3rd century BC we witness the development in cities of Magna Graecia (balaneia of Morgantina, Gela, Syracuse and Hyblaea Megara) of certain features of the Greek bathing tradition, which probably shaped the avant-garde of a “common” Greek bathing practice, with the result that Helladic space became the recipient of new trends and technologies during the Hellenistic Period. The same features also prepared the ground for the growth of Roman bathing tradition. These features include the use of setting concrete as building material in the construction of floors and domes, underfloor heating, the standardization of balaneion design, the pools for hot, probably collective, immersion bath, the construction of rooms for leisure and day-long activity and, finally, the erection of bath facilities in the public centre of cities. These developments may be due to two factors. The first was no doubt the rise and wealth of the cities of Magna Graecia and the expansion and improvement of urban infrastructures in the period that followed the mission of Timoleon the Corinthian (410 – 337 BC) to Sicily. The second factor must have been the contact of the Greek population with local habits, among which that of healing mineral baths. The desire, even need, to build underfloor heating installations and collective hot immersion pools may be directly explained by the familiarization of the residents of Greek cities with the mineral springs of the Italian peninsula. There is no way to confirm this hypothesis, but one can find support in the supposed origin of the balaneion in rock-cut basins and springs (balaneia of Piraeus and Cyrene) and in the relevant passages of Diodorus Siculus, which we quoted earlier, where Daedalus is alleged to have invented the hot bath in a cave in Sicily. 104

Hellenization and Romanization of the Roman and Greek bathing traditions respectively

The late Hellenistic Period is marked by cultural and technological exchange in the framework of a common Hellenistic tradition. Typical elements of the new bathing tradition are the circular sweating room, underfloor heating, hot immersion bath, the re-designated role of the palaestra and the public urban character of the bath, which can now be investigated in the context of Greek and Roman tradition from the 3rd century BC onwards. In our view, it is possible that manifestations of the bath in Helladic space, e.g. in the balaneion of Gortys (late 4th to mid-3rd century BC), the balaneion of Olympia (2nd century BC) and the bath of the Agora of the Italians with its two sweating rooms or one tholos and one sweating room (late 2nd century BC), are a reflection of developments taking place in the Italian peninsula. All the above bath facilities were equipped with circular sweating rooms, although the circular rooms of the Agora of the Italians did not dispose of underfloor heating, unlike the balaneia of Gortys and Olympia. It would be rather far fetched to interpret the absence of underfloor heating as due to the influence of Roman, and not Greek, tradition, given that in the course of 2nd century BC underfloor heating had not become established. The early Roman period (or transitional period 100 BC – 100 AD) was the continuation of the Hellenistic Period in Helladic space. Very few new bath facilities were constructed, while renovation took place of already existing facilties in the framework of balaneia and gymnasia. There is no archaeological evidence to support this hypothesis but we can convincingly make a guess that the main emphasis of bath activity remains at the third level of spatiality, i.e. that of the house. New bath facilities, which exhibit all, or even some of, the signs of Roman tradition (hypocaust, collective bath basins, succession of bathing units), were built in intensely Romanized settlements, because of the latter’s early incorporation in the Roman state (Palaeopolis in Corfu), their conversion into Roman colonies (Philippi, Corinth), their violent occupation and subsequent prosperity (Eleutherna) and their high symbolic value for the Romans (Athens, Olympia). In the case of Athens and Olympia, the first bath facilities (1st century BC), which were constructed there, are rather renovated conversions or reconstructions of older buildings (Baths V of Athens, palaestra bath in Regilles street, Baths A of Olympia). They can be described as importations not of the Roman tradition but rather of isolated technologies which upgraded the existing Hellenistic tradition. As with spatiality, the spatial framework of bath facilities and their integration in the urban pattern during the transitional period remain unchanged. The place of the bath in the agora, the gymnasium, the sanctuary, on the urban fringe, and, as we saw, probably in the house too, does not undergo a transformation. It is probable that the established position of the bath at the limits of activities

and situation, which in the Greek tradition is reproduced in spatial terms, also remained relatively unchanged in the transitional period. The main indication of this cultural inertia in the said period is the construction of a very small number of baths in Helladic space. The reason of this paucity in bath innovations may be the limited importance of Greece for the Romans. It is significant that after the sacking of Corinth in 146 BC, southern Greece did not qualify for Roman province status and was placed in the jurisdiction of the Roman governor of Macedonia. Operations of urban improvement, through the erection of relatively large bath complexes with ambitions of architectural refinement and through the construction of water supply networks capable of provisioning large baths, start in early 2nd century AD. Developments in Italy, to which we referred in chapter 2, were in complete contrast to the decline of bath landscapes in Helladic space. After the Punic Wars, Roman aristocracy was keen to wear the mantle of the inheritors of Greek civilization, which, as mentioned, some described as the revenge of the defeated. One of the central features of cultural and ideological Hellenization was the institution of the gymnasium, of which the Roman version was the public bath. This spectacular importation carried with it a whole congeries of ideological, functional, architectural and typological transformations which were activated in this period.The place of athletics and education is taken by variations of bath processes and leisure, while the collective engagement in the former is replaced by the collective character of the bath. We must stress here that in the architectural transformations that followed the key role was played by the gymnasia of the cities of Asia Minor, rather than of those of Helladic space. The main spatial types which entered the vocabulary of the typological transformation of the Hellenistic gymnasium into the Pompeian type and then the early imperial type in Rome were the circular sweating room (and later the frigidarium) and the palaestra. During this period the spatiality of the bath in Helladic space is divided between the third level (baths in villas) and a new hybrid of the fourth level (part of a complex) and the sixth level (independent complex), which becomes a clear case of sixth level with the form of public Roman baths (thermae, balneae). The first major remark that can be made regarding the extent of the Romanization of the bath in Helladic space concerns the absence of bath complexes of the imperial type, like those built e.g. in cities of North Africa. The characteristics of these complexes can be described as an attempt to reproduce on a smaller scale the large imperial thermae of Rome (see e.g. the Large Eastern Baths of Maktar in Tunisia)544. The only exception is probably Baths F of Corinth (Great Baths on the Lechaion Road) in 2nd century, of which the functional diagram consists of con544 105

Nielsen 1993, II 161.

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

centric rings and the surface reaches 2,500 square metres. The absence of such complexes is not a surprise in the already highly urbanized Helladic space, where the existence of prior administrative structures did not necessarily require the Romanization of urban patterns. In brief, we can conclude that the thematic unification of the Greek gymnasium with the bath of the Roman tradition which was observed in Italy was never imported into Helladic space. Of interest is however, the absence, with the exception of the baths of Samos, of the building type of the bath – gymnasium which is so typical of the cities of Asia Minor, as well as of the transitional complexes of Hellenistic gymnasia to which bath wings were added. In other words, the coalescence of the Hellenistic gymnasium with the model of Roman thermae, where the bath was combined with athletic training, education and leisure, did not materialize in Helladic space. The palaestras of the Hellenistic period did not evolve into new typological entities and monumental bath – gymnasium complexes were not built. This difference between cities in Helladic space and Asia Minor is possibly due to different administrative forms and patterns of patronage and sponsorship, resulting from the absence of royal structures in the former. These observations reveal the absence in Helladic space of the foremost sign of Romanization in the field of bathing practice. The inevitable question is to enquire what happened to the Greek gymnasium after the Roman conquest, given that it had been the main ideological inspiration of imperial thermae and the practice of the bath in Rome, in which athletics and social intercourse were merged. The question focuses on the interventions in gymnasia during the Roman period, which have been recorded. A classification is attempted in table 35. The relevant findings and their dating lead to the conclusion that after the Roman conquest two developments took place. In some cases, palaestras were the object of minor alterations, but eventually declined in subsequent centuries. In others, new baths were constructed from the 2nd century onwards in the palaestras’ area of influence, which were not necessarily linked, at least not exclusively, with a gymnasium function. These new baths were but a part of a process of mass construction of bath facilities which affected all walks of social life. What interests us here, is that the Greek gymnasium of Helladic space was not Romanized and did not serve as the basis for the production of new building types. A further point which deserves attention concerns the difference between the Hellenized character of Roman baths and the Romanization of the Greek gymnasium. We saw in chapter 2 that from the first stages of development of the Roman tradition in Campania and later in Rome in the Baths of Agrippa, a large section of bath complexes (those which Nielsen calls thermae as opposed to balneae) included open spaces for athletic exercise. This aspect of bath leisure assumed gigantic proportions in the imperial

thermae of Rome. It is clear though that the convergence of baths and gymnasia was not organic but simply thematic and resulted from the ideological Hellenization of the Roman bathing tradition, which affected the surface and not the essence of the functions performed. Back to Helladic space, we can clearly see that the gymnasium and the bath of the Roman tradition never formed a cohesive whole. The existing palaestras of Eretria and of the Athens Lyceum were renovated but did not undergo substantial changes. In the gymnasium of Olympia, the caldarium of Baths a VIII was added in 40 BC. In the following centuries, newly constructed independent baths in the area of existing gymnasia proliferated, without the creation of an organic unity with their urban context. A number of baths of the Roman period disposed of a courtyard, which did not amount to a palaestra. This feature must be rather interpreted as a second generation transfer from Helladic space to Italy and back again, where (in Greece) its importance atrophied. Finally, it must be remarked that in Helladic space during the Roman period the integration of the bath in the space of the sanctuary is enhanced, although the link of the Roman art of the bath with the sanctuaries of mineral spring deities does not assume significant proportions. All that can be said is that Aesculapia and mineral springs acquire baths in the context of a widespread bath construction from 100 AD onwards. To sum up, we are justified in arguing that the introduction of the Roman art of the bath in Helladic space, although massive and armed with the Roman heating and water supply technology, did not lead to serious shifts of spatiality of the Greek tradition. As we shall remark in a while, the art of collective bathing which is established in the middle Roman period, soon dwindles and reverts to private bathing after the end of 3rd century AD. One of the basic schematic abstractions reached during our study concerned the issue of technological innovation. The historical assumption which is often made is that a cultural system develops a pioneering form of technology which is passed to another system, where the innovation is being perfected. As we pointed out, this is the assumption that underlies the hypothesis of the Greek origin of the hypocaust. An alternative assumption is that of the invention of a technological application from nought, as in the case of the assumption behind the hypothesis that the hypocaust was invented by Sergius Orata. But research findings so far make it clear that the first stages of the development of the hypocaust in Italian cities are far more complicated than its sudden appearance in Campania soon after 100 BC would suggest. The idea of the hypocaust was not however unknown in the Mediterranean world and we have already commented on its application revealed by archaeological excavations in Syracuse, Gela, Megara Hyblaea, Morgantina, Elaia, Gortys and Olympia. It looks reasonable to suggest that parallel developments in building technology, like 106

Hellenization and Romanization of the Roman and Greek bathing traditions respectively

the standardization of bricks and the use of opus caementicium allowed the sudden spreading of the technology of the hypocaust. This means that in the study of an artefact or technological application we have to take into consideration the existence, but also differentiation, of other technological and cultural parameters, so much so as the rings or vectors of influence of a particular cultural tradition and its associated technologies do not coincide and frequently follow diverging trajectories. Our view is that the appearance and adoption of the hypocaust must not be inscribed exclusively in the mental frame of the Romanization of the Greek tradition of the bath, nor in the frame of its origin from the latter, but rather in the scheme of standardization and massive diffusion of ideas which for a long time had been latent but incapable of reaching a stage of implementation in the cities of the Mediterranean during the late Classical and Hellenistic Periods. An indication pointing in this direction may be the heating duct of the hot water pool discovered in the baths of Musarna in Etruria in 2nd century BC. One could naturally reply with a hypothesis of Hellenization of bathing practices in the cities of Etruria. But equally one would be entitled to maintain the adaptation of balaneia in South Italy to local technological conditions and opportunities. The discovery of baths of the Greek tradition with posthypocaust technology in Gortys of Arcadia, Olympia and possibly Pella confirms the social demand for such applications which was eventually satisfied with the spread of the Roman hypocaust. It does not, on the other hand, prove the hypocaust’s Greek origin, nor the total transformation of the Greek art of the bath. A typical example which can illustrate the progressive replacement of technologies in an otherwise stable cultural system in which Greek and Roman elements come into contact is the comparison of the baths of the Agora of the Italians in Delos of late 2nd c.BC and of the baths of the South Stoa in Corinth, dated to approximately 300 AD. In the framework of complexes of urban agoras of a mixed cultural character, we find, in the first case, tholoi heated from central braziers, and, in the second, a well advanced installation of a Roman hypocaust. Having completed our comments on the limits of Romanization with respect to the gymnasium, the private house, mineral bath practices and technological innovations, we turn to the issue of the private vs. collective bathing practice. An important point which came out of the discussion of the spatiality of the bath in the Greek traditions is related to the private nature of bathing practice. Beyond any doubt, the collective practice of the bath, taking place in common pools, is the result of Romanization. We must keep in mind that collective bathing in the swimming pools of gymnasia had the character of an exception, in the sense that it merely supplemented the collective practice of education and athletic exercise, which nevertheless became the foundation of the ideological construct of the Roman bath. The existence of balaneia in cities and sanctuaries was not the result of social choice as in the Roman

world, but rather of the impotence of old cities to integrate fixed bath facilties in the private house for technical and town planning reasons. These observations are supported by the testimony of a wealth of iconographic representations in which domestic hygiene scenes are reproduced and by the evidence of proving that in new towns and residential precincts in Delos and Olynthos the construction of private baths in houses predominated. The huge importance of the city of Olynthos for the study of private housing and, by extension, of private baths in the late classical period is generally acknowledged. As stressed by Nicholas Cahill in his book Household and City Organization at Olynthus, “the houses at Olynthus take a justifiably important place in the history of Greek domestic architecture. More than 100 houses were completely excavated and published, more than at almost any other Greek site, documenting a range of house layouts and organizations”545. In the same chapter of his book, Cahill outlines the basic principles and norms which rule the spatial organization of a typical Olynthos house and must guide us in its study. “Rather than generalize about the Greek house, as if there were a single norm for all citizens, rich or poor, farmer or merchant or craftsman, we should look at the range of possibilities, at how general principles, such as the pastas plan, and generally accepted types of rooms, such as andron or the kitchen-complex, could be adapted to different needs and purposes”546. The typical house plan found in Olynthos is square-shaped. The disposition of rooms follows two main axes with an east – west orientation which divide the plan first in two sections and then sub-divide the north section in two parts. Rooms are arranged around an open internal yard. Long stoas were arranged along one or more sides of the yard. Several houses disposed of only one such space on the north side of the yard, the so-called pastas547. The internal yard and the pastas (or stoa) brought unity of composition to the various spaces and functional zones of a house and served as light shafts. The various rooms were distributed in the north and south sections of the house, while an additional room was often made available in the pastas. The bath was part of the kitchen complex, which consisted of a main space with a hearth and of one or two smaller rooms. The first room may have functioned as a light and ventilation shaft and the second, if available, was frequently equipped with a bathtub. With this information in mind it is worth asking a question regarding the spatiality of the bath in Helladic space during the period we described as transitional. Palaestras were being repaired but not converted to bath complexes, the construction of balaneia had ceased since the 2nd century BC and some of them were converted to baths of Roman technology. Excavated baths of the Roman tradition after the hypocaust are very few and limited to typical Ro545 Cahill 2002, 74. 546 Cahill 2002, 74. 547 The pastas is mentioned in texts by Xenophon (Memorabilia 3.8.9-10) and Vitruvius (Vitruvius 6.7). Graham identifies this term with the stoa of the houses of Olynthos. 107

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

man centres, such as Corinth, Olympia, Kerkyra (Corfu) and Philippi. The shortage of documented examples of the transitional period allows us to put forward a proposition that bathing practice continued to be private, a situation which has totally changed in the middle Roman period with the construction of extensive public complexes with collective wash basins. As Ginouvès was first to observe, the practice of the bath reverts to a private character in late antiquity. Bath facilities shrink and large pools are replaced by individual basins. Although Ginouvès, in his 1959 paper, suggests a number of possible causes of this reversion to private baths in the context of existing facilities, the idea seems attractive to come up with an explanation based on the possible decline of the influence of the Roman tradition on the practice of the bath in Helladic space. To speculate, in other words, that the private character of the bath is regained in a transformed urban and technological environment. This proposition inevitably remains a matter of conjecture.

neion with one or more tholoi in the 3rd and 2nd century BC, as a consequence of the ecumenical character of Hellenistic civilization. This type appeared first in classical Athens and until the 2nd century BC had spread in the Mediterranean and acquired the character of a dominant model. The second line of research would focus on the dominance of Romanization of the baths of Helladic space in the period of Hadrian and the Antonines. The temporal duration of the phenomenon of bath Romanization seems to have spent itself mainly in 2nd and 3rd century AD, i.e. in a time span shorter than we had originally hypothesized. Both lines of research could prove fruitful and generate further in-depth results.

The cities of late antiquity, Athens and Argos being the most typical examples, disposed of water supply systems in full operation which enabled the continued use of the bath in a number of independent buildings. Heating technology was a well established infrastructure which was to be inherited by Byzantium. Yet, the collective form of the bath which still carried the ideological tradition of the Greek gymnasium was constantly losing its attraction. The urban pattern framework of the baths of the Roman tradition in Helladic space, but not only there, included all sorts of urban forms. During the transitional period, Baths a VIII of Olympia were built in the framework of the sanctuary of Zeus, Baths V of Athens in the framework of the city itself, the baths of Philippi in the framework of a colony etc. In the following centuries bath facilities spread in cities, townships, sanctuaries and Asclepieia. However, it is only the baths of villae rusticae that remain a feature of late antiquity. The spatial framework of bath facilities in the middle Roman period takes a different structure in comparison to the Greek antiquity. The role of bath facilities inside settlements and in the nuclei of gymnasia, private houses and sanctuaries has shrunk noticeably at this stage. Baths are built rather in the wider area of gymnasia or agoras, in residential zones, in the periphery of sanctuaries and in the complexes of villae rusticae. With minor exceptions, bath spatiality is limited to the sixth level, that of independent buildings. Our last comment aims at setting the basis for future research directions in the field of studying the mutual influence and interconnections among cultural phenomena, architectural expressions and typological dissemination which were identified in the present study. Future research efforts could follow two possible lines. The first concerns the diffusion and geographical spread of the Greek bala108

Hellenization and Romanization of the Roman and Greek bathing traditions respectively

Level of spatiality

Places of bathing practice

Examples

2

Fountain buildings – Balaneia

Baths B (δII) of Corinth

3

Domestic bath Neighbourhood bath Bath of villa rustica

Bath of the Dionysus Villa in Dion Baths of Patrai and Sparta Baths of Argos and Athens Bath of Loukou in Cynouria

4

Baths in public assembly building Bath in palaestra Sanctuary bath Palace bath

Baths in Southern Stoa of Corinth Baths of the palaestra of Amphipolis Bath in Asklεpieion of Epidaurus Baths of the palace of Galerius in Thessalonike

5

Surviving Greek balaneia Independent baths

Balaneion E of Olympia Baths A of Argos

Balaneion E of Olympia Baths A of Argos

Writings of Aelius Aristides Dedication inscriptions in gymnasia Writings of Pausanias

1

6 7

Table 34 The spatiality of the bath in the Romanized bathing tradition

109

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

110

CATALOGUE OF BATHS IN THE PELOPONNESE

Korinthia [Vd. Figures 1-35, pp. 151-185] Ancient Corinth Greek antiquity

Typical baths A.

Basic characteristics

A1. Site A2. Date A3. Suspension of operation and/or building constructed in the same location A4. Technology A5. Tradition B.

Architectural characteristics

B1. Functional units (Vd. Tables 13, 28, pp. 59, 88) B2. Bathing units (Vd. Table 14, p. 60) B3. Types of bathing units (Vd. Tables 14, 15, pp. 60, 62) B4. Functional sequence (Vd. Table 16, p. 62) B5. Functional diagrams (Vd. Table 29, p. 88) B6. Room types (Vd. Table 30, p. 89) C.

Spatial characteristics

Catalogue number 1 Baths α of Corinth (or “Painted Building”) A1: Ancient Corinth, north of the Temple of Apollo (Vd. Figure 3) A2: Phase I: 450-425 BC (C), Phase II: Unknown A3: Unknown A4: Absence of hypocaust technology, possibly presence of furnaces. A5: Greek bathing tradition B1: Phase I: λε (θ), Phase II: λε (θ), προ, πη, υδρ. (Vd. Figures 4-5) Β2: Rectangular rooms with basins B3: B B4: Water well layout C1: Town (Corinth) C2: Agora of Corinth, location of water withdrawal C3: Well house D2: 2 or 5

C1. Urban pattern framework C2. Spatial framework (Vd. Tables 17, 31, pp. 63-64, 95) C3. Integration in urban pattern (Vd. Tables 18, 32 pp. 65, 95)

E2: Scranton 1951, 155-179. Ε3: Figures 4-5.

D.

F: The functional restitution of the building is largely based on the excavator’s assumptions.

Typological characteristics

D1. Building type D2. Level of spatiality (Vd. Tables 26, 34, pp. 75, 109) E. References E1. Ancient references E2. Modern bibliography E3. Illustrations F.

Notes of the author

*The information on each bath is primarily derived from the basic excavation publication, unless otherwise stated.

Catalogue number 2 Baths β of Corinth (or “Centaur’s Bath”) A1: Ancient Corinth, southwest area of Agora (Vd. Figure 3) A2: Phase I: 425-400 BC (C), Phase II: c. 350 BC (LC) A3: 330-320 BC A4: Absence of hypocaust technology, furnace boiler. A5: Greek bathing tradition B1: Phase I: προθ, κε, εφ, υδρ, πη, λεβ, Phase II: προθ, κε, λου, υδρ, πη, λεβ (Vd. Figs 6-7) Β2: Rectangular room with basins (Phase II) B3: B B4: Informal balaneion C1: Town (Corinth) C2: Agora C3: Autonomous balaneion or part of lesche (club) or guest house D2: 2 or 5 111

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

E2: Williams and Fisher 1974, 33; Williams 1977, 45-53, Yegül 1995, 26-29. Ε3: Figures 6-7.

Roman antiquity

Catalogue number 3

Baths A of Corinth (Baths of Eurycles)

Bath γ of Corinth (or Askpēpieion bath)

A1. North of the peribolos of Apollo (Vd. Figure 12) A2. Phase I: Augustan era (R1), Phase II: End of 1st century AD (R2) A3. End of 4th century AD A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition

A1. Ancient Corinth, Asklēpieion (Vd. Figure 3) A2. 425-300 BC (C-EH1) A3. 146 BC A4. Absence of hypocaust technology A5. Greek bathing tradition B1. κρ (Vd. Figs 8-9) B2. Small rectangular room with fountain B3. Δ B4. Fountain layout C1. Town (Corinth) C2. Asklēpieion C3. Part of Asklēpieion D2. 3 E2. Roebuck 1951, 42-51. E3. Figures 8-9. Transitional bathing facilities

Catalogue number 5

B1. Phase I 1-2: stoa, 3-4: at or pa, 5: na Phase II 1-2: stoa, 3: at or pa, 4: na, 5: f, 6: na, 7: t or ca B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Town (Corinth) C2. Agora C3. Phase I: Independent bath, Phase II: Reconstruction or alteration of a post-hypocaust bath facility Phase III Reconstruction or alteration of a post-hypocaust bath facility D1. Unknown D2. 5

Catalogue number 4

E1. Pausanias, II. 3. 5. (estimate) E2. Williams 1969, 62-63.

Bath δ of Corinth (or “Fountain of the Lamps”) - Baths B

Catalogue number 6

A1: Ancient Corinth, northeast of the gymnasium (Vd. Figures 3, 12) A2: Phase I (Baths δ): 200-146 BC (EH2), Phase II (Baths B): 1st century AD (R1-R2) A3: 4th century AD A4: Absence of hypocaust technology A5: Greek tradition

Baths C of Corinth (Baths west of Lechaion Road)

B1: Phases I and II: αυ, κρ, λε, δ (Vd. Figs 1-2) Β2: Rectangular room with basins (3), rectangular courtyard with pool (1,4), unit with fountain (2). B3: Δ, B, Γ B4: Fountain - Composite palaestra layout, C1: Town (Corinth) C2: Gymnasium, location of water withdrawal C3: Phase I Fountain house Phase II Reconstruction or alteration of a pre-hypocaust bath facility D2: 2 or 5 E2: Wiseman 1970, 130-137; Wiseman 1972, 1-42. Ε3: Figures 10-11.

A1. Northeast of the ancient agora of Corinth, opposite Baths F (Great Baths of Lechaion Road) (Vd. Figure 12) A2. End of 1st-beginning of 2nd century AD (R2-R3) A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. pr, ny, c (estimate), re B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Town (Corinth) C2. Cardo Maximus C3. Independent bath D1. Unknown D2. 5 E2. Kassimi 1995, 133-138; Aslamatzidou-Kotsorou 1998, 136.

112

Catalogue of baths in the Peloponnese

Catalogue number 7

A5. Roman bathing tradition

Baths D of Corinth (Hadrian’s baths)

B1. Phase I 01: po, 02: stoa, 03: pa or at, 6: ny, 1: f, 1i-1iii: pi, 2: t, 3: c, 3i: al, 5: c, 7: c, 7i: al, 4: se, Phase II 01: po, 02: stoa, 03: pa, at, 6: ny, 1: f, 1i-1iii: pi, 2: f, 2i-2ii: pi, 3: c, 3i: al, 5: c, 7: c, 7i: al, 4: se, Phase III 01: po, 02: stoa, 03: pa or at, 6: ny, 1: f, 1ii-1iii: pi, 2: f, 2i-2ii: pi, 3: c, 3ii: al, 7: c, 7i: al, 4: se, 5: 5, Phase IV-V 01: po, 02: stoa, 03: pa or at, 6: ny, 1: f, 1ii-1iii: pi, 2: f, 2i-2ii: pi, 3: c, 3ii-3iii: al, 5: c, 7: c, 7i: al, 4: se, 5: se B5. Small imperial thermae with double circuit in a loop, axial layout of frigidarium, exit-tepidarium and caldarium and duplication of intermediate rooms B6. B: 1, 2, 3, 5, 7

A1. North of the theatre (Vd. Figure 12) A2. Hadrianic era (R3) A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Town (Corinth) C2. Agora area C3. Independent bath D1. Unknown D2. 5 E1. Pausanias, II, 3.5. (estimate) E2. Robinson 1965, 29-31. Catalogue number 8 Baths E of Corinth (West of the Odeon) A1. West of the Odeion (Vd. Figure 12) A2. Roman period (R) A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Town (Corinth) C2. Agora area C3. Independent bath D1. Unknown D2. 5 E2. Robinson 1965, 29. Catalogue number 9 Baths F of Corinth (Great bath on Lechaion Road) A1. Entrance from the east façade of Lechaion Road (Vd. Figure 12) A2. Phase I: End of 2nd-beginning of 3rd century AD (R4), Phase II: 3rd century AD, Phase III: End of 4th century AD, Phase IV: Beginning of 5th century AD, Phase V: Beginning of 6th century AD A3. End of 6th century AD A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura

C1. Town (Corinth) C2. Cardo Maximus C3. Phase I Independent bath Phase II Reconstruction or alteration of a post-hypocaust bath facility Phase III Reconstruction or alteration of a post-hypocaust bath facility IV Reconstruction or alteration of a post-hypocaust bath facility Phase V Reconstruction or alteration of a posthypocaust bath facility D1. Baths with typological elements of the imperial type/ Atypical D2. 5 E2. Biers 1985. E3. Figures 13-16. Catalogue number 10 Baths G of Corinth (South Stoa Baths) A1. South stoa of the Roman forum of Corinth (Vd. Figure 12) A2. ca 300 AD (LR1) A3. Second half of 4th century AD A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. 1: f/a, 2: pi, 3: pi, 4: t, 5: al, 7: c, 8: al, 10: su, 11: al, 12: al, 6: pr, 9: pr, 13: pr B5. Plan with parallel rooms with reverse customer routing B6. B: 1, 7, 10 C1. Town (Corinth) C2. Forum C3. Bath, as part of a public building complex (South Stoa) D1. Atypical D2. 4 E2. Broneer 1954, 145-151. E3. Figures 17-18

113

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

Catalogue number 11 Baths H of Corinth (Oakley House Annex) A1. West of Oakley House Annex A2. ca 300 AD A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Town C2. Villa (estimate) C3. Independent baths or baths in private residential complex (estimate) D1. Unknown D2. 3 or 5 E2. Hodge Hill 1964, 11 Catalogue number 12 Baths I of Corinth (Panagias) A1. South district, Panagia, 40m north of a villa complex (Vd. Figure 12) A2. 6th century AD A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. E: a, F: f, F1-F2: pi, T: t, C: c, C1-3: al, pr B5. Angular plan in a line with reverse customer routing B6. A or B: E, B: F and T, F: C

B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Town (Corinth) C2. Unknown C3. Unknown D1. Unknown D2. Unknown E2. Scranton 1951, 155 Catalogue number 14 Baths K of Corinth (Hadjimoustafa) A1. Slopes of Akrokorinthos A2. Late Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Town (Corinth) C2. Villa (estimate) C3. Unknown D1. Unknown D2. 3 or 5 E2. Biers 1985, introduction Sicyon Greek antiquity

C1. Town (Corinth) C2. Residential area (estimate) C3. Independent bath

Catalogue number 15

D1. Baths of simple layout with complex room types/ Atypical D2. 5

A1. Gymnasium (Vd. Figure 21) A2. Hellenistic period A3. Unknown A4: Absence of hypocaust technology A5: Greek bathing tradition

E2. Sanders 1999, 441-480 E3. Figures 19-20 Catalogue number 13 Baths J of Corinth (North Forum) A1. North of the temple of Apollo (Vd. Figure 12) A2. Late Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition

Bath α

B1. κρ B2. Fountain unit B3. Δ B4. Fountain layout C1. Town (Sicyon) C2. Gymnasium C3. Fountain in palaestra D1. Palaestra 114

Catalogue of baths in the Peloponnese

D2. 2

Fleious

E2. Orlandos 1936, 86-94. E3. Figure 21

Catalogue number 18

Roman antiquity Catalogue number 16 Baths A A1. Museum of Sicyon (Vd. Figure 22) A2. Shortly after 170 AD A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. B C1. Town (Sicyon) C2. Town centre C3. Independent bath D1. Unknown D2. 5 E2. Orlandos 1935, 73-83. E3. Figures 23-24 Catalogue number 17 Baths B A1. Bouleutērion of Ancient Sicyon A2. Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition

Baths A of Fleious A1. Near the Basilica of Fleious A2. Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Town (Fleious) C2. Unknown C3. Independent baths D1. Unknown D2. 5 E2. Sakellariou and Faraklas 1971. Therma Catalogue number 19 Baths A A1. Site of Katounistra A2. Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Unknown

B1. Unknown B2. Unknown B6. Unknown

C1. Township C2. Unknown C3. Independent baths

C1. Town (Sicyon) C2. Town centre C3. Reconstruction of a public building

D1. Unknown D2. 5 E2. Deilaki 1973, 83

D1. Unknown D2. 4 or 5

Catalogue number 20

E2. Orlandos 1951, 187-191; Orlandos 1953, 184-190.

Baths B of Therma A1. Site of Katakalou A2. Late Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition 115

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Unknown

Aegeira (Derveni)

C1. Township C2. Coastal zone C3. Independent baths

Baths α of Aegeira

D1. Unknown D2. 5 E2. Intesiloglou 1987, 261-262. Catalogue number 21 Baths C of Therma A1. Site Pous Meidani A2. Roman or late Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Township C2. Unknown C3. Unknown D1. Unknown D2. Unknown E2. BCH 1957, LXXXI, 529. Lechaion Catalogue number 22 Baths A of Lechaion A1. Southwest of a villa rustica A2. Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Town C2. Villa (estimate) C3. Independent baths D1. Unknown D2. 5 E2. Pallas 1959, 137; Pallas 1965, 149.

Catalogue number 23

A1. Northwest of the acropolis, Solon andēron A2. Phase I: Middle of 4th century BC, Phase II: 1st third of 3rd century BC A3. Unknown A4: Absence of hypocaust technology, furnace boiler A5: Greek bathing tradition B1. αυ, κε, λου, υδρ, πη, λεβ B2. Rectangular room with bathtub(s) B3. B B4. Phase I: Room with bathtubs, Phase II: Room with bathtub C1. Town (Aigeira) C2. Akropolis, urban centre C3. Phase I: Part of public building, Phase II: Part of private house D1. “Leschē” type D2. 4 or 5 E2. Ladstätter 2006; Ladstätter 2007; Ladstätter 2008. Catalogue number 24 Baths β of Aegeira A1. Theatre area A2. ca 300 BC A3. 2nd-1st century BC A4: Absence of hypocaust technology A5: Greek bathing tradition B1. λε B2. Unknown B3. B B4. Layout with basins C1. Town (Aigeira) C2. Gymnasium (estimate) C3. Balaneion or Bath in palaestra D1. Unknown D2. 4 E2. Alziger and Trummer 1986, 52-62 Catalogue number 25 Baths A of Aegeira A1. Derveni (Port of Aegeira), Mavra Litharia A2. Roman period 116

Catalogue of baths in the Peloponnese

A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition

C1. Sanctuary of Zeus (Nemea) C2. Gymnasium C3. Balaneion

B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Unknown

D1. Atypical D2. 5

C1. Port C2. Unknown C3. Independent baths D1. Unknown D2. 5 E2. Demakopoulou, A. 1980, 102. Titanē Catalogue number 26 Baths A A1. West-northwest of Akropolis A2. Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition

E2. Miller 1988, 253-258 E3. Figures 26-27 Isthmia Greek antiquity Catalogue number 28 Baths α A1. North of the Theatre of Isthmia (Vd. Figure 28) A2. 400-350 BC A3. Baths A of Isthmia (Vd. below p. ?) A4: Absence of hypocaust technology A5: Greek bathing tradition B1. δε B2. Independent swimming pool B3. Γ B4. Independent pool

B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Unknown

C1. Sanctuary (Isthmia) C2. Gymnasium C3. Independent bath element (pool)

C1. Town (Titanē) C2. Akropolis, natural fountain, Asklepieion (estimate) C3. Unknown

D1. Gymnasium pool D2. 5

D1. Unknown D2. Unknown E2. Papachatzis 2004b, 111. Nemea Catalogue number 27 Baths α of Nemea A1. Southwest of the temple of Zeus (Vd. Figure 25) A2. ca 320 BC A3. Unknown A4: Absence of hypocaust technology A5: Greek bathing tradition B1. 1: α/κε, 3: δε, 4: λε, 5: λε B2. Rectangular room with basins, Rectangular room with pool B3. Γ, Β B4. Composite palaestra layout

E2. Yegül 1993, 95-113; Gregory 1995, 280-313. E3. Figures 29-30 Catalogue number 29 Baths β A1. Isthmia, Rachi settlement ¬(Vd. Figure 28) A2. 4th century BC A3. Unknown A4: Absence of hypocaust technology A5: Greek bathing tradition B1. λου B2. Rectangular room with bathtub B3. B B4. Room with one bathtub C1. Sanctuary (Isthmia) C2. Residential area, place of water withdrawal C3. Bath in private house D1. Private bathroom D2. 3 117

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

E2. Kardara 1961; Kardara 1974.

Agios Vasileios

Roman antiquity

Catalogue number 32

Catalogue number 30

Baths A

Baths A of Isthmia

A1. Agios Vasileios A2. End of 4th century AD (terminus post quem) A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition

A1. Site of Baths α (Vd. Figure 31) A2. Middle of 2nd century AD A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. XII: v, VII: a, I: v, II: a, VII: ba, III: f, IV: pi, V: pi, X: h, XI: c, XII: al, XIII: c, al, al, IX: c, se, pr B5. Plan with duplication of certain rooms and circular customer routing B6. B: III, XI, XIII, IX C1. Sanctuary (Isthmia) C2. Gymnasium C3. Independent baths D1. Atypical D2. 5 E2. Yegül 1993, 95-113; Gregory 1995, 280-313. E3. Figures 32-33 Zevgolateio Catalogue number 31 Baths A of Zevgolateio A1. Agios Charalambos, Zevgolateio A2. Phase I: End of 2nd-Beginning of 3rd century AD, Phase II: 4th century AD A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. Phase I: F: f, C1: c or t, C2: c, R2: al, Q2: al, Q1: pr, Phase I: F: f, C1: c or t, C2: c, R2: al, Q2: al, Q1: pr, A: a, Se1-Se3: se B5. Angular plan in a line with reverse customer routing B6. A: A, B: F, C1, C2 C1. Villa rustica, river area C2. Villa rustica C3. Independent baths D1. Atypical D2. 5

B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Villa rustica C2. Villa rustica C3. Independent baths or baths of villa complex D1. Unknown D2. 3 or 5 E2. Mountzali 1984, 109-110. Trētos Catalogue number 33 Baths A A1. Trētos A2. 3rd century AD A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Villa rustica C2. Villa rustica C3. Independent baths or baths of villa complex D1. Unknown D2. 3 or 5 E2. Alcock 1996, 68; Krintzas 1972, 213.

E2. Ginouvès and Charitonidis 1955, 102-120 E3. Figures 34-35

118

Catalogue of baths in the Peloponnese

Argolida [Vd. Figures 36-68, pp. 187-219] Argos Roman antiquity Catalogue number 34 Baths A of Argos A1. South slope of Larissa, southeast of ancient theatre (Vd. Figure 38) A2. Phase I: Beginning of 2nd century AD, Phase II: First half of 4th century AD A3. Baths L/585 AD A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. Phase I A1: ba, A2: se, B1: v, D1: a, E1 and E2: v, F: f, Fi: pi, Fii: pi, Fiii: pi, G: v, C1: c or t or s, C1i: al, C2: c or or s, C2i: al, C3: c, C3i: al, C3ii: al, C3iii: al, A5: se, J1 and J2: se, Stoa: se. Phase II A1: ba, A2: se, B1: v, D1: a, E1 and E2: v, F: f, Fi: pi, Fii: pi, Fiii: εξ, H: la, G: f, Gi and Gii: pi, C1: c or t or su, C1ii and C1iii: al, C2: c or t or su, C2ii and C2iii: al, C3: c, C3i-C3iii: al, A5: se, J1 and J2: se, Stoa: se. B5. Phase I: Semi-axial plan with circular customer routing, Phase II: Angular plan in a line with reverse customer routing B6. B (F, C1, C2, C3) C1. Town (Argos) C2. Urban central area/Askēpieion C3. Alteration of a building complex of Roman antiquity (Askēpieion) D1. Atypical complex D2. 5 E1. Inscription dated to the reign of Gordian III (238-244 AD) where the complex is named “Gymnasium of Argos”. E2. Ginouvès 1954, 173-175; Ginouvès 1955a, 322-328; Aupert 1973, 490-500; Aupert 1974, 764-774; Aupert 1975, 699-703; Aupert 1976, 747-750; Aupert 1977, 667-671; Aupert 1978, 773-775; Aupert 1979, 617-618; Aupert 1980b, 689-694; Aupert 1981, 899-902; Aupert 1982, 637-643; Aupert 1983, 761; Aupert 1984, 850; Αupert 1985, 155; Aupert 1986b, 767-772; Aupert 1987, 597-603; Aupert 1988, 710-715; Aupert 1990, 856-866; Sève 1993, 27. E3. Figures 39-41 Catalogue number 35 Baths B of Argos A1. Classical agora of Argos (Vd. Figure 38) A2. Phase I: End of third century AD, Phase II: Late Roman Period

A3. 5th century AD A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. V-VII: c or t or su B5. Plan with parallel rooms with reverse customer routing (estimate) B6. V-VII: B C1. Town (Argos) C2. Agora C3. Alteration of a building complex of Roman antiquity (Gymnasium of the 1st century AD) D1. Atypical D2. 5 E1. Inscription dated to the reign of Augustus (Charneux 1953, 400, 5). E2. Pariente et al 1998, 211-231 ; Roux 1953, 250-253; Daux 1969, 977-986, fig. 7-8. E3. Figure 42 Catalogue number 36 Baths C of Argos A1. Atreos street, east of the Ancient Theatre (Vd. Figure 38) A2. Late Roman Period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. al B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Town (Argos) C2. Urban central area C3. Part of a house or independent baths D1. Unknown D2. 3 or 5 E2. Kritzas 1973-74, 226-227. Catalogue number 37 Baths D of Argos A1. 50m south of Baths A (Vd. Figure 38) A2. Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. Unknown B5. Unknown 119

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

B6. Unknown

Baths G of Argos

C1. Town (Argos) C2. Urban central area C3. Part of a house or independent baths

A1. Northeast of theatre (Vd. Figure 38) A2. Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition

D1. Unknown D2. 3 or 5 E2. Deilaki 1973, 121. Catalogue number 38 Baths E of Argos A1. North east of the Ancient Theatre (Vd. Figure 38) A2. Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition

B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Town (Argos) C2. Urban central area C3. Part of a house or independent baths D1. Unknown D2. 3 or 5 E2. Deilaki 1965, 158

B1. c, t, al, al B5. Unknown B6. Unknown

Catalogue number 41

C1. Town (Argos) C2. Urban central area C3. Part of a house or independent baths

A1. Danaou street, east of Ancient Theatre (Vd. Figure 38) A2. Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition

D1. Unknown D2. 3 or 5 E2. Panagiotopoulou 1998, 376. Catalogue number 39 Baths F of Argos A1. Karanikola street, south of Ancient Theatre (Vd. Figure 38) A2. Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Town (Argos) C2. Urban central area C3. Part of a house or independent baths D1. Unknown D2. 3 or 5 E2. Panagiotopoulou 1998, 377. Catalogue number 40

Baths H of Argos

B1. al B5. Unknown B6. Room types C1. Town (Argos) C2. Urban central area C3. Part of a house or independent baths D1. Unknown D2. 3 or 5 E2. Krystalli-Votsi 1967, 171-172 Catalogue number 42 Baths I of Argos A1. Archaias Voulis street (Vd. Figure 38) A2. Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. al, c or t, al, al, pr B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Town (Argos) C2. Urban central area, on ancient road leading to Agora 120

Catalogue of baths in the Peloponnese

C3. Independent baths

Baths L of Argos

D1. Unknown D2. 3 or 5

A1. South of Baths A (Vd. Figure 38) A2. First half of 4th century AD A3. 6th century AD A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition

E2. Panagiotopoulou 1998, 377. Catalogue number 43 Baths J of Argos A1. East of the Ancient Theatre (Vd. Figure 38) A2. Roman or late Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. c or t, pr B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Town (Argos) C2. Urban central area C3. Independent baths D1. Unknown D2. 3 or 5 E2. Panagiotopoulou 1998, 377. Catalogue number 44 Baths K of Argos A1. Northeast of the Ancient Theatre (Vd. Figure 38) A2. Roman or late Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Town (Argos) C2. Urban central area C3. Independent baths D1. Unknown D2. 3 or 5

B1. 1: a or v, 2: f or a, 3: pi, 5: t or h or su, 3’: c, 6: a, 6i: a, 3: pr, 6’: pr, 6’’: pr B5. Plan with parallel rooms with reverse customer routing B6. F: 2, 5, 6 C1. Town (Argos) C2. Urban central area/ Askēpieion C3. Extension of an existing public building (Baths A) D1. Atypical D2. 4 E2. Aupert 1980b, 377-399. E3. Figures 43-44 Catalogue number 46 Baths M of Argos A1. Near Gounari street (Vd. Figure 38) A2. End of 4th century AD A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. A: c or t, Γ: c or t B5. Unknown B6. A: Groin vault C1. Town (Argos) C2. Urban central area/North area of town C3. Part of a house or independent baths D1. Unknown D2. 3 or 5 E2. Papachristodoulou 1967, 174-176 Catalogue number 47 Baths N of Argos

E2. Panagiotopoulou 1998, 376

A1. Gounari street (Vd. Figure 38) A2. 4th-5th century AD A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition

Catalogue number 45

B1. A: c or t, Γ: c or t B5. Unknown 121

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

B6. F: A

C3. Unknown

C1. Town (Argos) C2. Urban central area/North area of town C3. Part of a house or independent baths

D1. Unknown D2. Unknown E2. Petrounakos 2003, 17.

D1. Unknown D2. 3 or 5

Mycenae

E2. Papachristodoulou 1967, 174-176.

Greek antiquity

Catalogue number 48

Catalogue number 50

Baths O of Argos

Baths α of Mycenae

A1. 200m north of the Theatre of Argos (Vd. Figure 38) A2. 5th century AD A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition

A1. Area of the South House of Mycenae A2. 2nd half of 2nd century BC A3. Unknown A4. Absence of hypocaust technology A5. Greek bathing tradition

B1. Ξ: f, O: pi, A: t, H: c, Z: al, K: al, Γ: se B5. Plan with parallel rooms with reverse customer routing B6. B: Ξ, F: A, H

B1. ΝΔ: ας, ΒΑ: λε B5. Room with bathtub B6. Room types

C1. Town (Argos) C2. Urban central area/North area of town C3. Independent baths D1. Unknown D2. 5 E2. Panagiotopoulou 1998, 373-384. E3. Figures 45-46 Epidavros Roman antiquity Catalogue number 49 Baths A of Epidavros A. Basic characteristics A1. Modern town of Epidavros A2. Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B.

Architectural characteristics

B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Town (Epidavros) C2. Unknown

C1. Town (Mycenae) C2. Residential area C3. Balaneion or part of a house D1. Private bath D2. 3 or 5 E2. Wace 1922-23, 98. E3. Figure 47 Troezen Greek antiquity Catalogue number 51 Baths α of Troezen A1. Sancturary of Hippolytos (Vd. Figure 48) A2. 4th century BC A3. Unknown A4. Absence of hypocaust technology A5. Greek bathing tradition B1. λου B2. Rectangular room with basin B3. B B6. Room with basin C1. Town (Troezen) C2. Sanctuary of Hippolytos C3. Bath in a sanctuary complex D1. Atypical D2. 4 122

Catalogue of baths in the Peloponnese

E2. Legrand 1893, 86-88; Welter 1941, 33-36; Ginouvès 1962, 359-361.

Roman antiquity Catalogue number 54

Roman antiquity

Baths A of Asine

Catalogue number 52

A1. Outside the Akropolis of Asine A2. 4th century AD A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition

Baths A A1. Agora (Vd. Figure 48) A2. Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition

B1. A: a, F: f, II: pi, T: t, I: al, C: c B5. Angular plan in a line with reverse customer routing B6. B: A, F

B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Unknown

C1. Town (Alieis) C2. Akropolis C3. Independent baths

C1. Town (Troezen) C2. Agora C3. Unknown

D1. Atypical D2. 5

D1. Unknown D2. Unknown E2. Welter 1941, 16-17; Kirsten and Kraiker 1967, 308311. Halieis Greek antiquity Catalogue number 53 Baths α (estimate) A1. North east edge of town (Vd. Figure 49) A2. Classical-Hellenistic period A3. Unknown A4. Absence of hypocaust technology (estimate) A5. Greek bathing tradition (estimate) B1. Unknown B2. Unknown B3. Unknown B4. Unknown C1. Town (Halieis) C2. Urban fringe C3. Balaneion (estimate) D1. Unknown D2. 5 E2. Jameson 1969, 327; Faraklas 1972, 26. Asine

E2. Persson 1931, 69; Frödin and Persson 1938, 105-112; Högjammar 1984, 79-97 E3. Figures 50-51 Prosymna Roman antiquity Catalogue number 55 Baths A of Prosymna A1. Berbati, outside the village of Prosymna A2. Late Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Villa rustica C2. Villa rustica C3. Independent baths D1. Unknown D2. 5 E2. Forsell 1996, 337-339. E3. Figure 52

Heraion of Argos

123

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

Greek antiquity

Roman antiquity

Catalogue number 56

Catalogue number 58

Baths α (Bath F)

Baths A

A1. Lower Stoa (Vd. Figure 53) A2. Classical-Hellenistic period A3. Unknown A4. Absence of hypocaust technology (estimate) A5. Greek bathing tradition (estimate)

A1. Southeast edge of sanctuary A2. 2nd century AD A3. 4th century AD A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition

B1. Unknown B2. Unknown B3. Unknown B4. Unknown

B1. A: B: ve, A: a, Γ: u Ψ: K: f C: H: t, I: s B: Z1-Z2, NΔ, Λ, Μ, Ο B5. Plan with duplication of certain rooms and circular customer routing B6. Β: Κ, Η, Ι

C1. Sanctuary (Heraion) C2. Gymnasium C3. Unknown D1. Unknown D2. 4 (estimate) E2. Waldstein 1902-1905, 136.

C1. Sanctuary (Apollo Maleata) C2. Sanctuary fringe C3. Independent baths D1. Atypical D2. 5

Roman antiquity

E2. Lambrinoudakis 1994, 66-67 E3. Figures 56-57

Catalogue number 57

Catalogue number 59

Baths Α of the Heraion of Argos

Baths B

A1. North of the Lower Stoa (Vd. Figure 53) A2. Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition

A1. Priests’ residence (Skana) A2. 2nd half of 2nd century AD A3. Unknown A4. Absence of hypocaust technology A5. Greek tradition

B1. E: A: at A: G: ve Ψ: J, K, L: f, O: na C: C, D: al, M, N, E: al B: F: se/pr B5. Plan with parallel rooms with reverse customer routing B6. B: C, D, M, N, E

C1. Sanctuary (Apollo Maleata) C2. Sanctuary C3. Bath in sanctuary complex

C1. Sanctuary (Heraion) C2. Gymnasium C3. Independent baths D1. Atypical D2. 5 E2. Waldstein 1902-5, 136. E3. Figures 54-55

Sanctuary of Apollo Maleata

D1. Unknown D2. 4 E2. Lambrinoudakis 1990, 49. Askēpieion of Epidavros Transitional bathing facilities Catalogue number 60 Baths α - Baths B (Bath of Asklēpeios) A1. Stoa of the Avaton, near the sacred well (Vd. Figure 58) A2. Phase I: 5th century BC, Phase II: 2nd century AD A3. Unknown 124

Catalogue of baths in the Peloponnese

A4. Absence of hypocaust technology A5. Greek tradition B1. κρ B2. Room with fountain B3. Δ B4. Fountain layout C1. Askēpieion (Epidavros) C2. Sanctuary C3. Bath in sanctuary complex D1. Atypical D2. 4 E2. Petrounakos 2003, 61. Catalogue number 61 Baths β - Baths A (Greek Baths) A1. South edge of sanctuary (Vd. Figure 58) A2. Phase I: End of 4th -beginning of 3rd century BC, Phase II: Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Absence of hypocaust technology A5. Phase I Greek tradition Phase II Transitional tradition B1. E: Θ, Ι, Κ Ψ: Ξ (λε), Λ (λε) B2. Rectangular rooms with basins B3. B B4. Layout with basins C1. Askēpieion (Epidavros) C2. Sanctuary fringe C3. Balaneion or part of public building D1. Atypical D2. 4 or 5 E2. Kavvadias 1898, 17; Kavvadias 2006, 182-183; Aslanidis and Pinatsi 1999. E3. Figures 59-60 Roman antiquity Catalogue number 62 Baths C (Aquae) A1. Northeast corner of the Sacred Square of the Asklēpieion (Vd. Figure 58) A2. Phase I: Middle of 2nd century AD, Phase II: End of 4th century AD A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. Phase I E: 5a (at) A: 1 (ve), 2 (se), 3 (se), 4 (se), 6

(a), 19 (la) Ψ: 5b (f), 5c (pi), 7 (u), 8 (pi) Θ: 10 (t/h), 11 (t/h), 12-13 (c), 12-13i (al), 14 (c), 14i (al), 15 (c), 16 (c), 16ii (al) B: 20 (se), 21 (se), 9 (re) Phase II E: 5a (at) A: 1 (ve), 2 (se), 3 (se), 4 (se), 6 (a), 19 (la) Ψ: 5b (f), 5c (pi), 7 (u), 8 (pi) Θ: 10 (t/h), 11 (t/h), 12 (t), 13 (t), 13i-13iii (al), 14 (c), 14i-14ii (al), 15 (c), 16 (c), 16i (al), 16ii (al) B: 20 (se), 21 (se), 9 (re) B5. Plan with duplication of certain rooms and circular customer routing B6. H: 5a-b-b-c B: 6, 7, 10, 11, 12-13, 15 F: 14, 16 G: 8 C1. Askēpieion (Epidavros) C2. Sanctuary area C3. Independent baths D1. Atypical D2. 5 E1. IG IV, 126, 10 and 18; Kavvadias 1891 E2. Kavvadias 1890; Kavvadias 1891; Ginouvès 1955b, 135-152; Petrounakos 2003, 34-58. E3. Figures 61-63 Catalogue number 63 Baths D (Isieion) A1. Northwest area of sanctuary (Vd. Figure 58) A2. Phase I: 2nd century AD, Phase II: 4th century AD A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. Phase I E: 1 (po), 2 (at/pa) Ψ: 4: f (The rest of the functional units of Phase I are unknown) Phase II E: 1 (po), 2 (at/pa) A: 3(ve), 5 (a) Ψ: 4: f, 4i-4ii (pi) Θ: 6 (t), 7 (s), 7i (al), 8(c), 8i-8iii: al, 9 (la) B: 10 B5. Plan with duplication of certain rooms and circular customer routing B6. B: 4, 6, 7, 10 G: 8 C1. Askēpieion (Epidavros) C2. Sanctuary area C3. Independent baths D1. Atypical D2. 5 E2. Billis 2004 E3. Figures 64-65 Catalogue number 64 Baths E (Northwest baths) A1. Northwest area of Sanctuary, southwest of Baths D A2. Middle of 3rd century AD A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura 125

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

A5. Roman bathing tradition

Catalogue number 67

B1. E: 1a (po) A: 1 (ve), 3-4 (a), 5 (a), 2 (la), 2a Ψ: 7: f, 7i-7iii (pi) Θ: 6 (t), 10 (c), 10i (al), 11 (c), 11i-11ii (al) B: 9, 12-14 (pr) B5. Plan with duplication of certain rooms and circular customer routing B6. B: 3-4, 7, 10, 11

Baths H (Northeast Baths)

C1. Askēpieion (Epidavros) C2. Sanctuary area C3. Independent baths D1. Atypical D2. 5 E2. Vassilakou 2004 E3. Figures 66-67 Catalogue number 65 Baths F A1. South of Temple of Asklēpeios (Vd. Figure 58) A2. Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Askēpieion (Epidavros) C2. Unknown C3. Unknown D1. Unknown D2. Unknown Catalogue number 66 A1. South of Asklēpieion (Vd. Figure 58) A2. Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Unknown

A1. Northeast of Baths C (Vd. Figure 58) A2. 4th century AD A3. 6th century AD A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. A: South 1 (ve), 3 (ve), 4 (a/u) Ψ: 1 (f), 2 (pi), South 4 (u) Θ: 5 (t), 6 (c), 6i (al), 7 (al), 8 (l) B: 10-11 (se) B5. Plan with duplication of certain rooms and circular customer routing B6. Unknown C1. Askēpieion (Epidavros) C2. Sanctuary area C3. Independent baths D1. Unknown D2. 5 E2. Petrounakos 2004 Catalogue number 68 Baths I A1. South of Baths C (Vd. Figure 58) A2. Late 4th century AD A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. A: 1 (ve), 2 (se) Ψ: 17 (f), 17i-17ii (pi) Θ: 18a (t), 18b (c), 18bi (al) B5. Angular plan in a line with reverse customer routing B6. B: 17, 18 C1. Askēpieion (Epidavros) C2. Sanctuary area C3. Extension of Roman baths D1. Atypical D2. 5 E2. E2. Kavvadias 1890; Kavvadias 1891; Ginouvès 1955b, 135-152; Petrounakos 2003, 34-58 E3. Figure 68

C1. Askēpieion (Epidavros) C2. Unknown C3. Unknown D1. Unknown D2. Unknown

Ēlis [Vd. Figures 69-99, pp. 221-251]

126

Catalogue of baths in the Peloponnese

Ēlis

Catalogue number 71

Roman antiquity

Baths C (Baths of House 15)

Catalogue number 69

A1. South of the gymnasium (Vd. Figure 71) A2. Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition

Baths A A1. Gymnasium area (Vd. Figure 71) A2. Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition

B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Unknown

B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Unknown

C1. Town (Ēlis) C2. Urban central area C3. Baths of private house

C1. Town (Ēlis) C2. Gymnasium C3. Independent baths

D1. Unknown D2. 3

D1. Unknown D2. 5 E1. Pausanias, VI, 23, 1 E2. Papachatzis 2004c, 395. Catalogue number 70 Baths B (Baths of House 14) A1. South of the gymnasium (Vd. Figure 71) A2. Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Town (Ēlis) C2. Urban central area C3. Baths of private house D1. Unknown D2. 3 E2. Papachatzis 2004c, 395.

E2. Papachatzis 2004c, 395. Catalogue number 72 Baths D (Baths of House 16) A1. South of the gymnasium (Vd. Figure 71) A2. Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Town (Ēlis) C2. Urban central area C3. Baths of private house D1. Unknown D2. 3 E2. Papachatzis 2004c, 395. Cyllēne Roman antiquity Catalogue number 73 A1. Unknown A2. Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. Unknown 127

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

B5. Unknown B6. Unknown

C2. Unknown C3. Independent baths

C1. Town (Cyllēne) C2. Unknown C3. Unknown

D1. Unknown D2. 5

D1. Unknown D2. 3 E2. Vikatou 1999, 243. Oinoe Roman antiquity Catalogue number 74 Baths A A1. Kotroni A2. Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Town (Cyllēne) C2. Unknown C3. Unknown D1. Unknown D2. Unknown E2. Vikatou 1973-1974, 339. Epitalion Roman antiquity Catalogue number 75 Baths A A1.Vd. Figure 72 A2. Phase I: Hadrianic period, Phase II: 3rd century AD, Phase III: 4th century AD A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition

E2. Themelis 1968, 165-170. E3. Figures 72-73 Makistos Roman antiquity Catalogue number 76 Baths A A1. Mygdalies, in the area of the spring and Ag. Apostoloi A2. Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Township (Makistos) C2. Unknown C3. Unknown D1. Unknown D2. Unknown E2. Arapogianni 1999, 234. Samikon Roman antiquity Catalogue number 77 Baths A A1. Marmaritsa A2. Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Unknown

B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Unknown

C1. Township (Samikon) C2. Unknown C3. Unknown

C1. Township (Epitalion)

D1. Unknown 128

Catalogue of baths in the Peloponnese

D2. Unknown E2. Papakonstantinou 1982, 134

D2. 5 E2. Kunze and Schleif 1944, 40-46. E3. Figures 82-83

[Floka]

Catalogue number 80

Roman antiquity

Baths γ (Palaestra bathing facility)

Catalogue number 78

A1. Gymnasium area (Vd. Figure 76) A2. 3rd century BC A3. Unknown A4. Absence of hypocaust technology A5. Greek tradition

Baths A A1. Panoukla A2. Phase I: 3rd century AD, Phase II: 4th century AD A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Township C2. Unknown C3. Phase I: Independent baths, Phase II: Reconstruction of bathing facility D1. Unknown D2. 5 E2. Karagiorga-Stathakopoulou 1973, 199. E3. Figures 74-75

B1. λε B2. Rectangular room with basin B3. B B4. Layout with basin C1. Sanctuary C2. Gymnasium C3. Bath in palaestra D1. Atypical D2. 4 E2. Kunze and Schleif 1944, 40-46. E3. Figure 84 Transitional bathing facilities Catalogue number 81

Sanctuary of Zeus at Olympia

Baths α-Baths A (Griechisches bad-Hypocaustenbad)

Greek antiquity

A1. Area of Gymnasium, east of the river Kladeos (Vd. Figure 76) A2. Phase I: 500-450 BC, Phase II: ca 450 BC, Phase III: ca 400 BC, Phase IV: Beginning of 4th century BC, Phase V: ca 300 BC, Phase VI: 3rd century BC, Phase VII: 3rd century BC, Phase VIII (Baths A): ca 100 BC A3. 100 AD A4. Phases I-VII: Absence of hypocaust technology, Phases VIII: Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Transitional tradition

Catalogue number 79 Baths β (Schwimmbad) A1. Area of Gymnasium, east of the river Kladeos (Vd. Figure 76) A2. 5th or beginning of 4th century BC A3. 100 BC/Baths D A4. Absence of hypocaust technology A5. Greek tradition B1. κο B2. Rectangular swimming pool B3. B B4. Independent pool C1. Sanctuary C2. Gymnasium C3. Independent pool D1. Independent gymnasium swimming pool of the Greek tradition

B1. Phase I Ψ: I (πηγ), Phase II Θ: ΙΙ (λου, δε) Β: Ι (πηγ), Phase III Θ: ΙΙ (λου, εφ), Ι (λου, δε) Β: Hof (δε, προ), Phase V Α: Ε (προθ) Ψ: D Θ: Α (λου) Β: C (πη), F (δε), F (πρ, λε), Phase VII A: E (προθ) Θ: D (εφ), Α (λου) Β: C (πη), F (δε), F (πρ), Phase VIII A: 1 (v), 2 (a) Θ: 3 (ca), 4 (al), 5 (la) B: 6 (ve, se), 7 (pr, se), 8 (re) B2. Rectangular baths B3. B B4. Informal balaneion B5. Linear or axial plan with reverse customer routing B6. B: 3

129

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

C1. Sanctuary C2. Gymnasium C3. Phase I: Well house, Phase II: Transformation of well house into an atypical balaneion, Phase III: Balaneion reconstruction, Phase IV: Balaneion reconstruction, Phase V: Balaneion reconstruction, Phase VI: Balaneion reconstruction, Phase VII: Balaneion reconstruction, Phases, VIII: Balaneion reconstruction D1. Atypical D2. 5 E1. Unknown E2. Kunze und Schleif 1944, 32-39. E3. Figures 77-82, 89-90 Catalogue number 82 Baths δ-Baths Β A1. West slopes of Kronion (Vd. Figure 76) A2. Phase I: Middle of 2nd century BC, Phase II: Middle of 1st century BC A3. Middle of 1st century AD/Baths H A4. Presence of hypocaust technology A5. Greek tradition B1. Phase I A: d, e Θ: a (λου), b (εφ), c (ασ-υπ), B2. Tholos with hip-baths, tholos-sweating room, rectangular room with bathtubs B3. A, B B4. Composite balaneion with two tholoi C1. Sanctuary C2. Edge of sanctuary C3. Balaneion D1. Composite balaneion type D2. 5 E1. Unknown E2. Sinn et al 2003, 617-623. E3. Figures 85-86 Roman period Catalogue number 83 Baths C (Nordthermen) A1. Baths δ-Baths B (Vd. Figure 76, 88) A2. Middle of 1st century AD A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Room types

C1. Sanctuary C2. Edge of Sanctuary C3. Independent baths D1. Unknown D2. 5 E1. Unknown E2. Kunze und Schleif, 181 Catalogue number 84 Baths D (Kladeos Thermen) A1. Baths β (Vd. Figure 76, 88) A2. ca 100 AD A3. ca 400 AD A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. E: 2 (at) A: 3 (ba), 4 (a) Ψ: 5 (f), 6 (pi), 7 (pi) Θ: 8 (t), 9 (c), 10 (al), 11 (al), 12 (al), 13 (l) B: 14, 1 B5. Plan with duplication of certain rooms and circular customer routing B6. B: 4, 5, 8, 9; F: 11 C1. Sanctuary C2. Gymnasium C3. Independent baths D1. Atypical D2. 5 E2. Kunze and Schleif 1944, 57-68. E3. Figures 91-92 Catalogue number 85 Baths E (Kladeos Thermen Einzelbad) A1. Extension of Baths D (Vd. Figure 88) A2. ca 100 AD A3. ca 400 AD A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. A: c (a) Ψ: a (f), b (pi) Θ: d (t), e (c), f (al) B: g B5. Linear plan with reverse customer routing B6. B: c, a, b, d, e C1. Sanctuary C2. Gymnasium C3. Side-building addition to a Roman bath D1. Atypical D2. 4 E2. Kunze and Schleif 1944, 57-68. E3. Figures 91, 93 130

Catalogue of baths in the Peloponnese

Catalogue number 86 Baths F (Ostthermen) A1. East area of sanctuary (Vd. Figure 87) A2. 193-211 AD A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. E: at or pa Ψ: 020 (f), 0 (t), 02 (pi) Θ: 01 (l), 05, 06, 07, 08, 09 B: 03 B5. Angular plan in a line with reverse customer routing, Plan with duplication of certain rooms and circular customer routing B6. B, D, F, G C1. Sanctuary C2. Sanctuary area C3. Bath, as part of a public building complex D1. Atypical D2. 4 E1. Ancient references E2. Mallwitz 1972, 209-210 E3. Figures 94-95 Catalogue number 87 Baths G (Leonidaionthermen) A1. Southwest area of sanctuary (Vd. Figure 88) A2. 1st half of 3rd century AD A3. 267 AD A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. Unknown B5. Angular plan in a line with reverse customer routing B6. B, F C1. Sanctuary C2. Sanctuary area (outside the walls) C3. Bath, as part of a public building complex D1. Unknown D2. 4 E1. Ancient references E2. Touchais 1981, 800-803. E3. Figures 96-97 Catalogue number 88 Baths H (Südthermen) A1. South area of sanctuary (Vd. Figure 87) A2. 284-305 AD

A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. E: 1 (at) A: 2 (a) Ψ: 4 (f) Θ: 5, 6, 7 Β: 3 (la) B5. Angular plan in a line with reverse customer routing B6. B C1. Sanctuary C2. Sanctuary area (outside the walls) C3. Bath, as part of a public building complex D1. Atypical D2. 4 E2. Kunze 1961, 4; Mallwitz 1972, 245-255 E3. Figures 98-99 [Manolas] Catalogue number 89 Baths A A1. Unknown A2. Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Unknown C2. Unknown C3. Unknown D1. Unknown D2. Unknown E1. Ancient references E2. Choremis 1969, 149-150. Olena Catalogue number 90 Baths A A1. Unknown A2. Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Unknown 131

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

C1. Unknown C2. Unknown C3. Unknown

E2. Vikatou 1997, 263.

D1. Unknown D2. Unknown E1. Ancient references E2. Gialouris 1965, 210. [Skafidia] Catalogue number 91 Baths A A1. “Miramare” baths A2. Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Unknown C2. Unknown C3. Unknown D1. Unknown D2. Unknown E2. Papathanasopoulos1970, 194; Chatzi-Spiliopoulou 1991, 133-134. [Latta] Catalogue number 92 Baths A A1. Livani building A2. Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Unknown C2. Unknown C3. Unknown D1. Unknown D2. Unknown

132

Catalogue of baths in the Peloponnese

Arkadia [Vd. Figures 100-105, pp. 253-258] Mantineia Catalogue number 93 Baths A A1. Main archaeological site of Mantineia A2. Hadrianic period (estimate) A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Town C2. Urban central area C3. Independent baths D1. Unknown D2. 5 E1. Unknown E2. Spyropoulos 1982, 118-119. Megalopolis Catalogue number 94 Baths A A1. North of the river Elisson (Vd. Figure 102) A2. Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Town C2. Urban central area C3. Bath in private residential complex D1. Unknown D2. 3

A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Town C2. Urban central area C3. Independent baths D1. Unknown D2. 5 E2. Gardner 1892; Petronotis 1972, 77 F1. The baths are referred to as a large scale bathing complex. Gortys Catalogue number 96 Baths α A1. Asklēpieion of Gortys (Vd. Figure 103) A2. Phase I: 310-280 BC, Phase II: Middle of 3rd century BC A3. 1st century AD A4. Presence of hypocaust technology A5. Greek tradition B1. E: A (ει) Α: Β (προ), C (κε), Η, Ι Ψ: Υ (κο), C (λε), F (λε) Θ: Β (προ), C (λε), Ε (πυ), D (ασ), G (λου) Β: F (δι), F (πρ), V (β), W (β) B2. Tholos with hip baths, tholos-sweating room, rectangular room with asaminthoi, rectangular cold water pool B3. A, B, Γ, Δ B4. Composite balaneion with tholoi C1. Town C2. Asklpēpieion C3. Phase I: Balaneion, Phase II: Reconstruction of a bathing facility D1. Composite balaneion type D2. 5

E2. Gardner 1892; Petronotis 1972, 77

E1. Unknown E2. Ginouvès 1959. E3. Figures 104-105

Catalogue number 95

Catalogue number 97

Baths B

Baths β

A1. South bank of the river Elisson (Vd. Figure 102) A2. Roman period

A1. Asklēpieion of Gortys (Vd. Figure 103) A2. Phase I: End of 5th century BC, Phase II: End of 3rd133

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

beginning of 2nd century BC A3. Unknown A4. Absence of heating technology A5. Greek tradition

B1. Unknown B5. Angular plan in a line with reverse customer routing (estimate) B6. B

B1. δε B2. Rectangular water tank B3. Γ B4. Independent pool

C1. Villa C2. Villa C3. Bath, as part of building complex

C1. Town C2. Asklpēpieion C3. Independent bath element D1. Atypical D2. 5

D1. Atypical D2. 4 E1. Ancient references E2. DAAM/Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Tourism archive – Special permission

E1. Unknown E2. Ginouvès 1959. Skia Catalogue number 98 Baths α A1. Edge of town of Skias A2. Classical period A3. Unknown A4. Unknown A5. Greek tradition B1. Unknown B2. Unknown B3. Unknown B4. Unknown C1. Township C2. Edge of settlement C3. Balaneion D1. Unknown D2. 5 E1. Unknown E2. Petronotis 1977, fig. 18. [Loukou] Catalogue number 99 Baths A A1. Villa site A2. Late Roman A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition

134

Catalogue of baths in the Peloponnese

Achaea [Vd. Figures 106-116, pp. 259-269] Patrai Catalogue number 100 Baths A A1. 231 Maizonos street, 225 Maizonos and Gennadiou street A2. 1st century AD A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Town (Patrai) C2. Gymnasium (estimate), Town fringe C3. Alteration in a public complex of Greek antiquity D1. Unknown D2. 5 E2. Papazoglou-Manioudaki 1984, 90. Catalogue number 101 Baths B A1. 119-121 Gounari street A2. End of 1st – beginning of 2nd century A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. X5: at or pa, X1: c or t or su, X3: al, X6: c or t or su. B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Town (Patrai) C2. Unknown C3. Baths of private house or independent baths D1. Unknown D2. 3 or 5 E2. Dekoulakou 1976, 111 Catalogue number 102 Baths C A1. 121-125 Vassileos Roufou street A2. Phase I: Middle of 2nd century AD, Phase II: 3rd century AD A3. 5th century AD

A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. X5: pa or at or ba, X1: f, X2: pi, X3: c or t or su, X6: c or t or su, X7: c or t or su, X9: c or t or su, X4: pr B5. Plan with parallel rooms with reverse customer routing B6. Unknown C1. Town (Patrai) C2. Unknown C3. Phase I: Independent baths; Phase II: Alteration of baths of Roman antiquity D1. Unknown D2. 5 E2. Papapostolou 1982, 140. E3. Figures 108-109 Catalogue number 103 Baths D A1. Agiou Dimitriou 90 A2. Middle of 2nd century AD (terminus post quem) A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. X2: a or f or ve or ba, X3: a or f or ve or ba, X4: a or f or ve or ba, X1: c or s or t, X1i: al B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Town (Patrai) C2. Akropolis area C3. Bathing facility of private house or independent baths D1. Unknown D2. 3 or 5 E2. Agallopoulou 1973-1974, 370. Catalogue number 104 Baths E A1. 65-67 Charalambi street A2. Roman period A3. Late Roman period A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. X2: at, Λ1: pi, Λ2: pi, Δα: pi, Χ5α: al B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Town (Patrai) 135

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

C2. Unknown C3. Bathing facility of private house D1. Unknown D2. 3 E2. Petritaki 1985, 111 Catalogue number 105 Baths F A1. Papadiamandopoulou street A2. Roman period A3. Late Roman period A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. al B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Town (Patrai) C2. Unknown C3. Bathing facility of private house or independent baths D1. Unknown D2. 3 or 5 E2. Alexopoulou 1991, 143 Catalogue number 106 Baths G A1. Veironos 1 and Cheilonos Patreos street A2. Late Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Town (Patrai) C2. Unknown C3. Unknown D1. Unknown D2. Unknown E2. Dekoulakou 1975, 99-100; Papapostolou 1978, 86.

Catalogue number 107 Baths H A1. 41 Eynardou and Metropolitou Neofytou street A2. Roman or Late Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Town (Patrai) C2. Akropolis area C3. Baths of private house D1. Unknown D2. 3 E2. Agallopoulou 1973-1974, 406 Catalogue number 108 Baths I A1. 88-90 G. Roufou street A2. Roman or Late Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. 1: at or ba, 2: f, 3: pi, 4: pi, 5: pi, 6: f, 7: pi, 8: c or t or h, 9: c, 10: al, 11: al, 12: se or pr B5. Unknown B6. B: 2 and 6, B or F: 8 and 9 C1. Town (Patrai) C2. Unknown C3. Independent baths or baths of private house D1. Unknown D2. 3 or 5 E2. Kotsaki 1987, 138 E3. Figures 110-111 Catalogue number 109 Baths J A1. 91-93 Charalambi street A2. Roman or Late Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. X4β: c or t or su or h, X3: c or t or su or h, X2: al, X1: 136

Catalogue of baths in the Peloponnese

pr B5. Unknown B6. Unknown

Catalogue number 112

C1. Town (Patrai) C2. Unknown C3. Independent baths or baths of private house

A1. 31 Australias street A2. Roman or Late Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition

D1. Unknown D2. 3 or 5 E2. Papapostolou 1979, 130 E3. Figures 112-113 Catalogue number 110 Baths K A1. 101 Boukaouri street A2. Roman or Late Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. X3: c or t B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Town (Patrai) C2. Unknown C3. Independent baths or baths of private house D1. Unknown D2. 3 or 5 E2. Alexopoulou 1998, 256 Catalogue number 111 Baths L A1. Panachaidos Athēnas street A2. Roman or Late Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. c or t B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Town (Patrai) C2. Unknown C3. Independent baths or baths of private house D1. Unknown D2. 3 or 5 E2. Alexopoulou 1991, 143

Baths M

B1. c or t B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Town (Patrai) C2. Unknown C3. Independent baths or baths of private house D1. Unknown D2. 3 or 5 E2. Alexopoulou 1998, 256 Catalogue number 113 Baths N A1. 177-179 Maizonos and Miaouli street A2. Roman or Late Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. f, pi B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Town (Patrai) C2. Unknown C3. Private baths-reconstruction of older public building D1. Unknown D2. 3 E2. Papapostolou 1972, 286 Catalogue number 113 Baths O A1. 17 Sissini street A2. Roman or Late Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Unknown 137

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

C1. Town (Patrai) C2. Unknown C3. Unknown

Catalogue number 117

D1. Unknown D2. Unknown

A1. Andrea Londou 29 A2. Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition

E2. Alexopoulou 1998, 263. Aigeion Catalogue number 115 Baths A A1. Balfour and Oikonomou street A2. Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. c or t or su B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Town C2. Unknown C3. Unknown D1. Unknown D2. Unknown E2. Dekoulakou 1971, 185 Catalogue number 116 Baths B A1. Kleomenous Oikonomou street A2. Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. ve or a or ba, c or t or su B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Town C2. Unknown C3. Independent baths (estimate) D1. Unknown D2. 5 E2. Petropoulos 1976, 115

Baths C

B1. X7: f, X8: pi, X1: t X9: al, X2: c, X3: c, X10: al B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Town C2. Unknown C3. Independent baths (estimate) D1. Unknown D2. 5 E2. Petropoulos 1976, 123 E3. Figures 114-115 Catalogue number 118 Baths D A1. Asēmaki Fotēla street A2. Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. c or t or su or al B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Town C2. Unknown C3. Unknown D1. Unknown D2. Unknown E2. Alexopoulou 1999, 264 Catalogue number 119 Baths E A1. Kleomenous Oikonomou street A2. 3rd or 4th century AD A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. X1: f, X17: pi, X13: pr B5. Unknown 138

Catalogue of baths in the Peloponnese

B6. Unknown C1. Town C2. Unknown C3. Independent baths (estimate) D1. Unknown D2. 5 E2. Papapostolou 1979, 149-151 E3. Figure 116 Mentzaina Catalogue number 120 Baths A A1. Site of byzantine temple A2. Roman period A3. Beginning of 5th century AD A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. 1: n B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Township (estimate) C2. Unknown C3. Independent baths D1. Unknown D2. 5 E2. Moutzali 1984, 21-41; Moutzali1987, 194

139

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

Lakonia [Vd. Figures 117-124, pp. 271-278]

Catalogue number 123

Voiai

Baths B

Catalogue number 121

A1. Alkmanos street A2. Phase I: 2nd century AD, Ρ3; Phase II: 3rd or 4th century AD, Ρ4 or YΡ1 A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition

Baths A A1. Central square A2. LR 1, 310 AD (Terminus post quem) A3. 4th century AD A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Town (Voiai) C2. Unknown C3. Independent baths D1. Unknown D2. 5

B1. c, al B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Town (Sparta) C2. Important urban area C3. Phase I: Baths of private villa, Phase II: Alteration of Phase I baths D1. Unknown D2. 3 E2. Themos 1998, 159-161

E2. Davaras 1970, 172; Steinhauer 1971, 120-122; Steinhauer 1973, 173, fig. 7, plate 151a-b E3. Figure 119

Catalogue number 124

Sparta

A1. Site of 2nd Primary School A2. 2nd century AD A3. Second half of 3rd century AD A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition

Catalogue number 122 Baths A A1. Dioskouron street A2. End of 1st century BC, R1 A3. 6th century AD A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. Δ3: f, Δ1: c, Δ2: t or c, Δ6: al, Δ5: pr B5. Linear or axial plan with reverse customer routing B6. B: Δ1, Δ2, Δ3 C1. Town (Sparta) C2. Unknown C3. Baths of private villa D1. Unknown D2. 3 E2. Karapanagiotou 1994, 180; Karapanagiotou 1995, 133138; Karapanagiotou 1996. E3. Figure 120

Baths C

B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Town (Sparta) C2. Unknown C3. Unknown D1. Unknown D2. Unknown E2. Spyropoulos 1980, 135, plate 46a-b. Catalogue number 125 Baths D A1. 64 Herakleidon street A2. Phase I: 2nd century AD-Beginning of 3rd century AD; Phase II: Unknown A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition

140

Catalogue of baths in the Peloponnese

B1. VII: f or at or ba, C1: c or t or su, C2: h or t or c, C3: t or c, I: t or su or c or h, IA: t or su or c or h, IIA-ΙΙΙΓ: t, su, c or h, VI: t, su, c or h B5. Unknown B6. B C1. Town (Sparta) C2. Unknown C3. Phase I: Independent baths or baths of private villa, Phase II: Alteration of Phase I baths D1. Unknown D2. 3 or 5 E2. Steinhauer 1973-1974, 283-285; Zavou and Themos 1988, 167-169 Catalogue number 126 Baths E A1. Orthias Artrmidos street A2. 2nd – 3rd century AD A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. 1: t or su or c, 2: t or su or c, 3: t or su or c, 4: 3: t or su or c B5. Unknown B6. B C1. Town (Sparta) C2. Unknown C3. Independent baths D1. Unknown D2. 5 E2. Spyropoulos 1981, 121 E3. Figures 121-122 Catalogue number 127 Baths F A1. Lyssandrou and Triakosion street A2. Middle of 3rd century AD, Ρ4 A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. b or f; f; t or su or c, B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Town (Sparta) C2. Unknown C3. Independent baths (Large complex)

D1. Unknown D2. 5 E2. Demakopoulou 1965, 173-174; Demakopoulou 1966, 155-156; Themos and Pantou, 1996, 121-123. Catalogue number 128 Baths G A1. Thermopylon street A2. End of 3rd – beginning of 4th century AD A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. 2: ba or a; 5: f; 6: pi; 1: h or su or t or c; 2: al; 4: h or su or t B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Town (Sparta) C2. Unknown C3. Independent baths D1. Unknown D2. 5 E2. Rammou 1997, 187-189. Catalogue number 129 Baths H A1. Area of Ancient Lakes, Orthias Artemidos street A2. Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Town (Sparta) C2. Unknown C3. Independent baths D1. Unknown D2. 5 E2. Raftopoulou 1982, 108. Catalogue number 130 Baths I A1. Platanista street A2. Roman period 141

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition

D2. Unknown

B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Unknown

Catalogue number 133

C1. Town (Sparta) C2. Unknown C3. Unknown

A1. 59 Palaiologou street A2. Beginning of 3rd century AD A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition

D1. Unknown D2. 5 E2. Karapanagiotou 1994, 178. Catalogue number 131 Baths J A1. Xenofondos street A2. Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Town (Sparta) C2. Unknown C3. Unknown D1. Unknown D2. Unknown E2. Kourinou-Pikoula 1985, 102. Catalogue number 132 Baths K A1. Vrasida street A2. Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Town (Sparta) C2. Unknown C3. Unknown D1. Unknown

E2. Steinhauer 1975, 76-77.

Baths L

B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Town (Sparta) C2. Unknown C3. Unknown D1. Unknown D2. Unknown E2. Steinhauer 1973-1974, 290-291, fig. 4. E3. Figures 123-124 Catalogue number 134 Baths M A1. Dikaiou plot, 500m north of the temple of Orthia Artemis A2. Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Town (Sparta) C2. Unknown C3. Unknown D1. Unknown D2. Unknown E2. Demakopoulou 1965, 176, fig. 3; Demakopoulou 1967, 201-202, fig. 1, plate 142; ???? 1969, 137. Catalogue number 135 Baths N A1. Building block 114, Aggelopoulou plot A2. Roman period 142

Catalogue of baths in the Peloponnese

A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. Functional units B5. Functional diagrams B6. Room types C1. Town (Sparta) C2. Unknown C3. Unknown D1. Building type D2. Unknown E2. Steinhauer 1973-1974, 286. Catalogue number 136 Baths O A1. Road from new Sparta to Magoula (Arapissa) A2. Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. O, M, N, C: c, t B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Town (Sparta) C2. Unknown C3. Independent baths D1. Unknown D2. 5 E2. Wace 1905-1906, 407-413. Gytheion Catalogue number 137 Baths A A1. Central archaeological site of Gytheion A2. 4th century AD A3. 5th century AD A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. c, c, re B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Town (Gytheion) C2. Central urban area C3. Independent baths

D1. Unknown D2. 5 E2. Spyropoulos 1983, 94-95 . Catalogue number 138 Baths B A1. Archaiou Theatrou and Mikras Asias street A2. Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Town (Gytheion) C2. Central urban area C3. Independent baths D1. Unknown D2. 5 E2. Zavou 1999, 178-180. Zarax Catalogue number 139 Baths A A2. Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Town (Zarax) C2. Outside akropolis C3. Independent baths D1. Unknown D2. 5 Asine (Lakonian) Catalogue number 140 Baths A A2. Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition 143

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Township (Asine) C2. Sanctuary of Aphrodite C3. Independent baths D1. Unknown D2. 5 Teuthronē Catalogue number 141 Baths A A2. Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Township (Teuthronē) C2. Unknown C3. Unknown D1. Unknown D2. Unknown Kokkinorachē Catalogue number 142 Baths A A1. Site A2. 4th century (Terminus post quem) A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. A: a, F: frigidarium, C:c B5. Linear or axial plan with reverse visitor routing B6. A: A, F: B, C: B C1. Unknown C2. Unknown C3. Independent baths D1. Building type D2. 5 E2. Athanasoulis 1995, 14-244.

144

Catalogue of baths in the Peloponnese

Messenia [Vd. Figures 125-129, pp. 279-283]

Catalogue number 145

Messēne

Baths B

Catalogue number 143

A1. Lower district of ancient town A2. Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition

Baths α A1. South of the Asklēpieion (Vd. Figure 127) A2. Phase I: End of 4th-2nd century BC, Phase II: Augustan era A3. 3rd-4th century building without bath installations A4. Absence of hypocaust A5. Greek bathing tradition B1. 20-1-2-3-4: δια; 6,7: ει; 12: κε; 8-9:δε; 11, 13, 14, 17: λου; 18, 19, 19α: δια; 15: πρ; 21: απο B2. 8-9: Rectangular room with pool; 11, 13, 14, 17: Rectangular room with basins B3. Γ: 8-9; 11, 13, 14, 17: Β B4. Informal balaneion C1. Town (Messēne) C2. Asklēpieion C3. Phase I: Independent baths, Phase II: Reconstruction of Phase I bath facility D1. Atypical D2. 5 E1. IG V 1, 1474 E2. Themelis 2002, 90-91 E3. Figures 128-129 Korone Catalogue number 144 Baths A A1. 1,5 km north of Akropolis A2. 2nd century AD A3. 6th century AD A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. II, III: a; I: f; IVa: t or su or c; IVb: t or su or c; IVc: c B5. Linear or axial plan with reverse customer routing B6. B: I, Iva, IVb, IVc

B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Town (Koroni) C2. Urban district C3. Independent baths D1. Unknown D2. 5 E2. Lazaridis 1983, 113. Thouria Catalogue number 146 Baths A A1. Lower district of ancient town A2. Late Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Town (Thouria) C2. Unknown C3. Independent baths D1. Building type D2. 5 E2. Papachatzis 2004c, 395. Ancient Kardamylē

C1. Town (Koroni) C2. Villa C3. Independent baths

Catalogue number 147

D1. Unknown D2. 5

A1. Urban area A2. Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition

E2. Vikatou 1996, 191

Baths A

145

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Unknown

E2. Stone and Kampke 1998, 198 [Longas]

C1. Town (Kardamylē) C2. Unknown C3. Unknown

Catalogue number 150

D1. Unknown D2. Unknown

A1. Potamia, Agios Antonios A2. Late Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition

E2. Ginouvès 1962, 432; Valmin 1928-9, 42, no 23. Ancient Eranē Catalogue number 148 Baths A A1. Urban area A2. Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Unknown

Baths A

B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Unknown C2. Unknown C3. Unknown D1. Unknown D2. Unknown E2. Papakonstantinou 1982, 136. [Volimidia]

C1. Town (Kardamylē) C2. Unknown C3. Unknown

Catalogue number 151

D1. Unknown D2. Unknown . Dialiskari

A1. 40m west of Mycenaen cemetery A2. Roman period A3. Unknown A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition

Catalogue number 149 Baths A A1. Villa site A2. 4th century AD A3. 7th century AD A4. Hypocaust technology, suspensura A5. Roman bathing tradition B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Unknown

Baths A

B1. Unknown B5. Unknown B6. Unknown C1. Town (Kardamylē) C2. Unknown C3. Unknown D1. Unknown D2. Unknown E2. Marinatos 1954, 307-308, fig. 5.

C1. Villa Rustica C2. Villa Rustica C3. Unknown D1. Atypical D2. 3 or 5

146

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL CATALOGUE OF SITES WITH BATHING INSTALLATIONS * * The catalogue includes sites with (a) baths of the greek tradition outside the peloponnese, (b) baths of the roman tradition ouside the peloponnese and in the Helladic space and (c) Bronze Age baths of the Aegaean area including those of the Peloponnese.

Caulonia Ginouvès 1962, 35, 37. Colophon Ginouvès 1962, 186; De Boccard 1922; Holland 1944, 91171, pl. 9. Cos Karo 1936, 179-180; Morricone 1950, 219-220; Kirsten und Kraiker1967, 565.

Aboukir

Cyrene

Breccia 1923, 142-151; Ginouvès 1962, 187-191; Hoffmann 199, 102; Luts 2006.

Ginouvès 1962, 186; Yegül 1992, 25; Goodchild 1971.

Abousir du Mariut (Taposiris Magna) Breccia 1923, 142-151; Ginouvès 1962, 187, 189, 191; Hoffmann 1999, 182.

Delion Charami 1996, 282-284. Delos

Aidipsos

Bruneau et Ducat 2005.

Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1987, 203.

Delphi

Ai-Khanoum

Jannoray et Ducoux, 1953.

Hoffmann 1999, 105.

Dion

Amnissos

Pantermalis 1986, 9-16.

Ginouvès 1962.

Diospolis Parva/Hû

Amphipolis

Ladstätter 1993, Abb. 81.

Lazaridi 1987, 314.

Eleusis

Amvrakia

Travlos 1988, 166; Ginouvès 1962, 185, 6.

Andreou 1976.

Eretria

Aphaia (Aegina)

Ginouvès 1962, 42, 185, 190, 193-194, 196, 206-207, 210212; Ducrey, P. et al, 2004, 248-249; Hoffmann 1999, 126; Mango 2003, 99-102.

Furtwängler 1906, 94-95; Ginouvės 1962, 385-386; Hoffmann 1999, 104. Asafrah

Gela

Raids 1975, 113-122; Luts 2005-2006.

Ginouvès 1962, 429f; Orlandini και Adamesteanu, 1960, 181-211, Hoffman 1999.

Athens

Gezer

Gebauer, K. und H. Johannes, 1936, 208-212, fig. 21, 22; Gebauer, K. und H. Johannes, 1937, 181-195 ; Gebauer, K., 1940, 318-334; Shear 1969; Travlos 1980, 180, 345; Andereiomenou 1996, 74; Lygouri-Tolia 2002, 203-212.

Macalister 1912.

147

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

Jericho

Masada

Luts 2005 – 2006.

Luts 2005 – 2006.

Kallithiros

Medinet-Ghoran

Intzesiloglou 1987, 267.

Breccia 1923, 149, Hoffmann 199, 145, Luts 2005-2006.

Karanis

Megara

El-Nassery 1976, 231-275.

Travlos 1988, 268.

Kition Karageorghis 1966, 346-351. Knossos Alexiou 1972; Evans 1928; Ginouvès 1962; Graham 1961, 1962, 1977; Platon 1976.

Megara Hyblaea Vallet et al 1983, 49-58. Morgantina Allen 1974, 368-383; Lucore 2009, 43-59. Mycenae

Kom Demes

Wace 1925, 263-266, Ginouvès 1962, 159, 9.

Ginouvès 1962, 186-187.

Nikopolis

Kôm Ganâdy

Leake 1835; Nikopolis 1984.

Sedky 1968, 221-225, Luts 2005-2006.

Oiniades

Kom en-Negileh

Sears 1904, 216-226; Ginouvès 1962, 185, 190, 193-195, 196, 197, 200, 211, 212.

Breccia 1923, 142-151; Ginouvès 1962, 186-188, 195; Hoffmann 1999, 138-139.

Oropos

Kom el-Wasat

Ginouvès 1962, 345-348; Hoffmann 1999.

Ginouvès 1962, 186.

Qasr-Qarun

Lemnos Messineo 1988-89.

Schwartz et Wild, 1950, 51-62; Ginouvès 1962, 186, 189, 193,195, 206, 210-211; Yegül 1992, 29, Hoffmann 1999, 202-204.

Mallia

Pella

Ginouvès 1962; Graham 1961, 1962, 1977.

Lilimbaki – Akamati 1997; Ergon 11, 1997, 196-200.

Marathon

Pergamon

Arapogianni 1993, 132.

Radt 1982, 521-561.

Marion

Petra

Nielsen 1993, 6.

Hoffmann 1999, 207-208; Luts 2005 – 2006.

Marsa-Matrouh

Phaistos

Ginouvès 1962, 186.

Ginouvès 1962; Graham 1961, 1962, 1977. 148

Bibliographical catalogue of sites with bathing installations

Philippoi

Stylis

Lazaridis 1973, 40-41, fig. 20; Gounaris 1990.

Dakoronia 1992, 192.

Phthiotides Thebes

Syracuse

Sotiriou, G. A., Praktika, 1935, 52-69, figs 15-19. Sotiriou, G. A., Praktika, 1936, 57-67.

Cultrera 1938, 261-301, Ginouvès 1959, 161, Hoffmann 1999.

Phylakopi

Tell Atrib

Ginouvès 1962

Michalowsky 1962, 49-77; Ginouvès 1962, 186, 192, 195196; Myśliwiec 1998.

Piraeus Ginouvès 1962, 184, 9, fig. 156-157. Poliochni Ginouvès 1962.

Tell Edfou Ginouvès 1962, 44, 45. Tell el Fara’in

Priene

Charlesworth 1970, 19-28; Nielsen 1993, fig. 7; Ladstätter 1993, Abb. 80.

Yegül 1992, 11.

Tell Judeich

Pylos

Luts 2005 – 2006.

Βlegen 1956, 99-101; Blegen 1966; Blegen et al 2001, 22; Ginouvès 1962, 159, 9.

Thera

Pyrasos Lazarivis 1966, figs. 1-3.

Sperling 1973; Luts 2006. Thessaloniki

Qasr-Qarun

Adami-Veleni 1996, 1997a and 1998; Ergon 11, 1997, 351364; Ergon 12, 1998, 86-102.

Ginouvès 1962, 186, 187.

Tiryns

Rhodes Luts 2005 – 2006.

Schliemann 1885, 215-218; Müller 1930, 150-151, Taf. 34; Ginouvès 1962, 159, 9; Hoffmann 1999, 188, Abb. 125a127.

Samos

Tylissos

Martini 1984.

Ginouvès 1962.

Selinus

Velia

Ginouvès 1962, 38, 3.

Johannowsky 1982, 225-246.

Siset el-An’am

Vouni

Ginouvès 1962, 187; Luts 2005-2006.

Nielsen 1993, 6, 4; Westholm 1939, 4-14.

Smyrna Cook 1959, 36-37; Ginouvès 1962, 162.

Zakros Graham 1961, 1962, 1977; Platon 1976.

149

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

150

Plates Figure 1 (Catalogue number 1-33, pp. 111-118) Korinthia

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 2 (Catalogue number 1-33, pp. 111-118) Sites of bathing facilities in Korinthia | Korinthia

Aegeira

Sicyon Titane

Therma Zevgolateio Korinthos Lechaeum

Fleious Tretos Nemea Agios Vasileios

Urban pattern framework of bathing facilities Towns Townships

Sanctuaries Askepieion Villae Rusticae ?

Unknown

Chronological groups of bathing facilities Greek antiquity Transitional bathing facilities Roman antiquity

152

Isthmia

Plates Figure 3 (Catalogue number 1-4, pp. 111-112) Περίληψη in Greek antiquity Korinthos (Source: Biers 1985 and Williams 1977 Indications added and drawings collated by the author)

Korinthos Town | Corinthia Korinthia

Ασ C-EH1 Bath γ (Sanctuary bath)

Γ, Υ ΕΗ2 Bath δ (Fountain house - Gymnasium bath)

Spatial framework of bath facilities Agora or Forum (Public Space) Asklepieion Gymnasium Residential area Main roads Urban fringe Site of natural water withdrawal Sanctuary Sanctuary fringe Palace Port - Seafront Site of artificial water withdrawal Akropolis Urban centre Broad urban centre Periphery of sanctuary

Α Ασ Γ Κ CD Ο Ν Ι ΟΙ Αν Λ Υ Ακ Κε ΕΚε ΠΙ

A or Γ (?) C Bath α (Well house)

Chronology of bath facilities Periods

Chronology Abbreviation

Archaic

700-480 BC

A

Classical Early Hellenistic

480 – 323 BC

C(T), C, LC

323 - 146 BC

EH1, EH2

Late Hellenistic (Early Roman)

146 - 31 BC

LH1, LH2

Roman

31 BC - 285 AD

R1, R2, R3, R4

Late Roman

285 - 610

LR1, LR2, LR3

A C Bath β (Balaneion)

153

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 4 (Catalogue number 1, p. 111) Well house - Bath α („Painted Building“) Building phase ΙΙ | Korinthos | Korinthia

Plan (After Scranton)

4

4

4 5 6

154

4

4

Plates Figure 5 (Catalogue number 2, p. 111) Functional diagram

Well house - Bath (?) α („Painted Building“) Building Phase ΙΙ | Korinthos | Korinthia

λε (θ)

λε (θ) προθ

λε (θ)

δια

λε (θ)

λε (θ)

λε (θ)

πη

Bathing facilities of the Greek tradition Hip-bath Bathtub (asaminthos) Bathtub (with hypocaust) Pool (with hypocaust) Countryside: sea, rivers etc Cold water pool Swimming pool Sweating room

λου ασ ασ (υπ) δε (υπ) υπ δε κο εφ

Basin Washing basin (louterion) Foot bath

λε

Natural or artificial spring Fountain Changing room Latrinae Furnace Boiler Water tank Water well Central hall Andron Courtyard Corridor Anteroom Entrance hall

πη κρ απ απο πρ λεβ υδρ πη κε ανδ αυ δια προθ ει

Functional areas of the bath Open air spaces Spaces without bathing facilities Spaces with facilities for the cold bath Spaces with facilities for the hot bath Ancillary spaces

Types of spatial bathing units Α Β Γ Δ Ε

Variations of circular wash and sweating rooms Variations of rectangular wash rooms Layout variations of wash pools Layout variations of fountains and natural / artificial springs Composite layouts

155

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 6 (Catalogue number 2, pp. 111-112) Plan (according to Williams)

Lesche (Guest house) - Bath β („Centaur‘s Bath“) Building phases Ι και ΙΙ | Korinthos | Korinthia

8 5

4 6 1

3

7

2

156

Plates Figure 7 (Catalogue number 2, pp. 111-112) Functional diagram

Lesche (Guest house) - Bath β („Centaur‘s Bath“) Building phases Ι και ΙΙ | Korinthos | Korinthia

λεβ

πη υδρ

;

;

;

εφ λου ανδ

προ

Bathing facilities of the Greek tradition Hip-bath Bathtub (asaminthos) Bathtub (with hypocaust) Pool (with hypocaust) Countryside: sea, rivers etc Cold water pool Swimming pool Sweating room

λου ασ ασ (υπ) δε (υπ) υπ δε κο εφ

Basin Washing basin (louterion) Foot bath

λε

Natural or artificial spring Fountain Changing room Latrinae Furnace Boiler Water tank Water well Central hall Andron Courtyard Corridor Anteroom Entrance hall

πη κρ απ απο πρ λεβ υδρ πη κε ανδ αυ δια προθ ει

Functional areas of the bath Open air spaces Spaces without bathing facilities Spaces with facilities for the cold bath Spaces with facilities for the hot bath Ancillary spaces

Types of spatial bathing units Α Β Γ Δ Ε

Variations of circular wash and sweating rooms Variations of rectangular wash rooms Layout variations of wash pools Layout variations of fountains and natural / artificial springs Composite layouts

157

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 8 (Catalogue number 3, p. 112) Bath γ (Bath of the Asklepieion) | Korinthos | Korinthia

Plan (After Roebuck)

158

Plates Figure 9 (Catalogue number 3, p. 112) Functional diagram

Bath γ (Bath of the Askpepieion) | Korinthos | Korinthia

Δ πη

Bathing facilities of the Greek tradition Hip-bath Bathtub (asaminthos) Bathtub (with hypocaust) Pool (with hypocaust) Countryside: sea, rivers etc Cold water pool Swimming pool Sweating room

λου ασ ασ (υπ) δε (υπ) υπ δε κο εφ

Basin Washing basin (louterion) Foot bath

λε

Natural or artificial spring Fountain Changing room Latrinae Furnace Boiler Water tank Water well Central hall Andron Courtyard Corridor Anteroom Entrance hall

πη κρ απ απο πρ λεβ υδρ πη κε ανδ αυ δια προθ ει

Functional areas of the bath Open air spaces Spaces without bathing facilities Spaces with facilities for the cold bath Spaces with facilities for the hot bath Ancillary spaces

Types of spatial bathing units Α Β Γ Δ Ε

Variations of circular wash and sweating rooms Variations of rectangular wash rooms Layout variations of wash pools Layout variations of fountains and natural / artificial springs Composite layouts

159

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 10 (Catalogue number 4, p. 112) Plan (After Wiseman)

Bath δ („Fountain of the Lamps”) | Korinthos | Korinthia

1, 4

3

160

Plates Figure 11 (Catalogue number 4, p. 112) Functional diagram

Bath δ („Fountain of the Lamps”) | Korinthos | Korinthia

Γ ο ,κ

αυ

Δ

γ,

πη

λε

Bathing facilities of the Greek tradition Hip-bath Bathtub (asaminthos) Bathtub (with hypocaust) Pool (with hypocaust) Countryside: sea, rivers etc Cold water pool Swimming pool Sweating room

λου ασ ασ (υπ) δε (υπ) υπ δε κο εφ

Basin Washing basin (louterion) Foot bath

λε

Natural or artificial spring Fountain Changing room Latrinae Furnace Boiler Water tank Water well Central hall Andron Courtyard Corridor Anteroom Entrance hall

πη κρ απ απο πρ λεβ υδρ πη κε ανδ αυ δια προθ ει

Functional areas of the bath Open air spaces Spaces without bathing facilities Spaces with facilities for the cold bath Spaces with facilities for the hot bath Ancillary spaces

Types of spatial bathing units Α Β Γ Δ Ε

Variations of circular wash and sweating rooms Variations of rectangular wash rooms Layout variations of wash pools Layout variations of fountains and natural / artificial springs Composite layouts

161

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 12 (Catalogue number 4-14, pp. 106-108) Korinthos in Roman antiquity (Biers 1985 Indications added by author)

Korinthos | Korinthia

Baths Β (δ): Γ

R1-R2

Baths C: CD

Baths D: Kε

A

Spatial framework of bath facilities Α Ασ Γ Κ CD Ο Ν Ι ΟΙ Αν Λ Υ Ακ Κε ΕΚε ΠΙ

CD

R3

Baths J:

Agora or Forum (Public Space) Asklepieion Gymnasium Residential area Main roads Urban fringe Site of natural water withdrawal Sanctuary Sanctuary fringe Palace Port - Seafront Site of artificial water withdrawal Akropolis Urban centre Broad urban centre Periphery of sanctuary

Baths F:

R2-R3

LR

Baths Α: Α

R1

Baths E: Kε R

Baths G: Α

Chronology of bath facilities

Baths I:

Periods

Chronology Abbreviation

Archaic

700-480 BC

A

Classical Early Hellenistic

480 – 323 BC

C(T), C, LC

323 - 146 BC

EH1, EH2

Late Hellenistic (Early Roman)

146 - 31 BC

LH1, LH2

Roman

31 BC - 285 AD

R1, R2, R3, R4

Late Roman

285 - 610

LR1, LR2, LR3

K

162

YΡ3

LR1

R4

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 13 (Catalogue number 9, p. 113) Plan (After Biers)

Baths F “Great Bath on the Lechaion Road” | Korinthos | Korinthia

4 5

1ι

3ιι

2ι

03 3ι

3

3ιv

1ιι

2

6

1

2ιι 3ιιι

7

7i

1ιιι

163

Plates Figure 14 (Catalogue number 9, p. 113) Baths F “Great Bath on the Lechaion Road” Building phase I | Korinthos | Korinthia

θ

Β

Functional diagram

c, s

pi ψ

θ

θ

pi

Β al t, hl,

s

Β f

Β

c, t

c,

s

Β

θ

pi

Bathing facilities of the Roman tradition alveus al piscina calida pi (ca) piscina pi natatio na sudatorium s laconicum l labrum la pedilouve pe caldarium c tepidarium t frigidarium f apodyterium a vestibulum v palaestra pa unctorium u latrinae la praefurnia pr basilica thermarum ba heat lock h atrium at

Functional areas of the bath Open air spaces Spaces without bathing facilities Spaces with facilities for the cold bath Spaces with facilities for the hot bath Ancillary spaces

Room and hall types Α Β C D Ε F G H

Variations of rectangular rooms with timber roof Variations of rectangular rooms with semi-cylindrical roof Variations of round rooms Variations of polygonal rooms Elliptical rooms Variations of rooms with groin-vault Variations of rooms with semi-spherical dome Composite rooms

164

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 15 (Catalogue number 9, p. 113) Baths F “Great Bath on the Lechaion Road” Building phase II | Korinthos | Korinthia

θ

Functional diagram

c, s

pi

pi

ψ

ψ

θ

pi

al f

pi

f

c, t

c,

s

θ

pi

Bathing facilities of the Roman tradition alveus al piscina calida pi (ca) piscina pi natatio na sudatorium s laconicum l labrum la pedilouve pe caldarium c tepidarium t frigidarium f apodyterium a vestibulum v palaestra pa unctorium u latrinae la praefurnia pr basilica thermarum ba heat lock h atrium at

Functional areas of the bath Open air spaces Spaces without bathing facilities Spaces with facilities for the cold bath Spaces with facilities for the hot bath Ancillary spaces

Room and hall types Α Β C D Ε F G H

Variations of rectangular rooms with timber roof Variations of rectangular rooms with semi-cylindrical roof Variations of round rooms Variations of polygonal rooms Elliptical rooms Variations of rooms with groin-vault Variations of rooms with semi-spherical dome Composite rooms

165

Plates Figure 16 (Catalogue number 9, p. 113) Functional diagram

θ

Baths F “Great Bath on the Lechaion Road” Building phase III | Korinthos | Korinthia

c, s

pi

pi

ψ

ψ

θ

pi

al f

pi

f

c, t

c,

s

θ

pi

Bathing facilities of the Roman tradition alveus al piscina calida pi (ca) piscina pi natatio na sudatorium s laconicum l labrum la pedilouve pe caldarium c tepidarium t frigidarium f apodyterium a vestibulum v palaestra pa unctorium u latrinae la praefurnia pr basilica thermarum ba heat lock h atrium at

Functional areas of the bath Open air spaces Spaces without bathing facilities Spaces with facilities for the cold bath Spaces with facilities for the hot bath Ancillary spaces

Room and hall types Α Β C D Ε F G H

Variations of rectangular rooms with timber roof Variations of rectangular rooms with semi-cylindrical roof Variations of round rooms Variations of polygonal rooms Elliptical rooms Variations of rooms with groin-vault Variations of rooms with semi-spherical dome Composite rooms

166

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 17 (Catalogue number 10, p. 113) Plan (After Broneer)

Baths G “South Stoa Baths” | Korinthos | Korinthia

2 3 1

4 7 10 12

167

8 11

5 6

Plates Figure 18 (Catalogue number 10, p. 113) Functional diagram

Baths G “South Stoa Baths” | Korinthos | Korinthia

f/a

Β c

Β

Β

Bathing facilities of the Roman tradition alveus al piscina calida pi (ca) piscina pi natatio na sudatorium s laconicum l labrum la pedilouve pe caldarium c tepidarium t frigidarium f apodyterium a vestibulum v palaestra pa unctorium u latrinae la praefurnia pr basilica thermarum ba heat lock h atrium at

t

t

Β

Functional areas of the bath Open air spaces Spaces without bathing facilities Spaces with facilities for the cold bath Spaces with facilities for the hot bath Ancillary spaces

Room and hall types Α Β C D Ε F G H

Variations of rectangular rooms with timber roof Variations of rectangular rooms with semi-cylindrical roof Variations of round rooms Variations of polygonal rooms Elliptical rooms Variations of rooms with groin-vault Variations of rooms with semi-spherical dome Composite rooms

168

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 19 (Catalogue number 12, p. 114) Plan (After Sanders)

Baths Ι “Panagia Baths” | Korinthos | Korinthia

Ε

F2

F

F1

C1 T C

C2

C3

169

Plates Figure 20 (Catalogue number 12, p. 114) Functional diagram

Baths Ι “Panagia Baths” | Korinthos | Korinthia

v, a

Β

pi

f

pi

Β al t

F al

c

Β

al

Bathing facilities of the Roman tradition alveus al piscina calida pi (ca) piscina pi natatio na sudatorium s laconicum l labrum la pedilouve pe caldarium c tepidarium t frigidarium f apodyterium a vestibulum v palaestra pa unctorium u latrinae la praefurnia pr basilica thermarum ba heat lock h atrium at

Functional areas of the bath Open air spaces Spaces without bathing facilities Spaces with facilities for the cold bath Spaces with facilities for the hot bath Ancillary spaces

Room and hall types Α Β C D Ε F G H

Variations of rectangular rooms with timber roof Variations of rectangular rooms with semi-cylindrical roof Variations of round rooms Variations of polygonal rooms Elliptical rooms Variations of rooms with groin-vault Variations of rooms with semi-spherical dome Composite rooms

170

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 21 (Catalogue number 15, pp. 108-109) Sicyon in Greek antiquity (Papachatzis 1979) Indications added by the author)

Sicyon | Korinthia

Γ EH1-LH2 Gymnasium bath Spatial framework of bath facilities Agora or Forum (Public Space) Asklepieion Gymnasium Residential area Main roads Urban fringe Site of natural water withdrawal Sanctuary Sanctuary fringe Palace Port - Seafront Site of artificial water withdrawal Akropolis Urban centre Broad urban centre Periphery of sanctuary

Α Ασ Γ Κ CD Ο Ν Ι ΟΙ Αν Λ Υ Ακ Κε ΕΚε ΠΙ

Chronology of bath facilities Periods

Chronology Abbreviation

Archaic

700-480 BC

A

Classical Early Hellenistic

480 – 323 BC

C(T), C, LC

323 - 146 BC

EH1, EH2

Late Hellenistic (Early Roman)

146 - 31 BC

LH1, LH2

Roman

31 BC - 285 AD

R1, R2, R3, R4

Late Roman

285 - 610

LR1, LR2, LR3

171

Plates Figure 22 (Catalogue number 16-17, p. 109) Sicyon | Corinthia

Sicyon in Roman antiquity (Papachatzis 1979) Indications added by the author)

Spatial framework of bath facilities Agora or Forum (Public Space) Asklepieion Gymnasium Residential area Main roads Urban fringe Site of natural water withdrawal Sanctuary Sanctuary fringe Palace Port - Seafront Site of artificial water withdrawal Akropolis Urban centre Broad urban centre Periphery of sanctuary

Α Ασ Γ Κ CD Ο Ν Ι ΟΙ Αν Λ Υ Ακ Κε ΕΚε ΠΙ

Baths Β of Sicyon Α R

Baths Α of Sicyon Κε R3

Chronology of bath facilities Periods

Chronology Abbreviation

Archaic

700-480 BC

A

Classical Early Hellenistic

480 – 323 BC

C(T), C, LC

323 - 146 BC

EH1, EH2

Late Hellenistic (Early Roman)

146 - 31 BC

LH1, LH2

Roman

31 BC - 285 AD

R1, R2, R3, R4

Late Roman

285 - 610

LR1, LR2, LR3

172

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 23 (Catalogue number 16, p. 115) Plan (according to Orlandos )

Baths A | Sicyon | Korinthia

Ε

Δ

Β

Γ

173

Α

Plates Figure 24 (Catalogue number 16, p. 115) Functional diagram

Baths A | Sicyon | Korinthia

Β

Β

Β

Β

Bathing facilities of the Roman tradition alveus al piscina calida pi (ca) piscina pi natatio na sudatorium s laconicum l labrum la pedilouve pe caldarium c tepidarium t frigidarium f apodyterium a vestibulum v palaestra pa unctorium u latrinae la praefurnia pr basilica thermarum ba heat lock h atrium at

Functional areas of the bath Open air spaces Spaces without bathing facilities Spaces with facilities for the cold bath Spaces with facilities for the hot bath Ancillary spaces

Room and hall types Α Β C D Ε F G H

Variations of rectangular rooms with timber roof Variations of rectangular rooms with semi-cylindrical roof Variations of round rooms Variations of polygonal rooms Elliptical rooms Variations of rooms with groin-vault Variations of rooms with semi-spherical dome Composite rooms

174

Β

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 25 (Catalogue number 27, p. 111) Nemea in Greek antiquity (Miller 2005 Indications added by the author)

Nemea | Korinthia

Γ EH1 Bath α

Spatial framework of bath facilities Agora or Forum (Public Space) Asklepieion Gymnasium Residential area Main roads Urban fringe Site of natural water withdrawal Sanctuary Sanctuary fringe Palace Port - Seafront Site of artificial water withdrawal Akropolis Urban centre Broad urban centre Periphery of sanctuary

Chronology of bath facilities Α Ασ Γ Κ CD Ο Ν Ι ΟΙ Αν Λ Υ Ακ Κε ΕΚε ΠΙ

Periods

Chronology Abbreviation

Archaic

700-480 BC

A

Classical Early Hellenistic

480 – 323 BC

C(T), C, LC

323 - 146 BC

EH1, EH2

Late Hellenistic (Early Roman)

146 - 31 BC

LH1, LH2

Roman

31 BC - 285 AD

R1, R2, R3, R4

Late Roman

285 - 610

LR1, LR2, LR3

175

Plates Figure 26 (Catalogue number 27, p. 117) Plan (After Miller)

Baths α | Nemea | Korinthia

2

1

4

3

5

176

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 27 (Catalogue number 27, p. 117) Functional diagram

Bath a | Nemea | Korinthos

απ (?)

Β λε

Β

Γ κο

λε

Bathing facilities of the Greek tradition Hip-bath Bathtub (asaminthos) Bathtub (with hypocaust) Pool (with hypocaust) Countryside: sea, rivers etc Cold water pool Swimming pool Sweating room

λου ασ ασ (υπ) δε (υπ) υπ δε κο εφ

Basin Washing basin (louterion) Foot bath

λε

Natural or artificial spring Fountain Changing room Latrinae Furnace Boiler Water tank Water well Central hall Andron Courtyard Corridor Anteroom Entrance hall

πη κρ απ απο πρ λεβ υδρ πη κε ανδ αυ δια προθ ει

Functional areas of the bath Open air spaces Spaces without bathing facilities Spaces with facilities for the cold bath Spaces with facilities for the hot bath Ancillary spaces

Types of spatial bathing units Α Β Γ Δ Ε

Variations of circular wash and sweating rooms Variations of rectangular wash rooms Layout variations of wash pools Layout variations of fountains and natural / artificial springs Composite layouts

177

Plates Figure 28 (Catalogue number 28-29, pp. 111-112) Isthmia in Greek antiquity (Gregory 1993 Indications added by the author)

Isthmia | Korinthia

Γ LC Bath α

Κ LC-EH1 Bath β

Spatial framework of bath facilities Agora or Forum (Public Space) Asklepieion Gymnasium Residential area Main roads Urban fringe Site of natural water withdrawal Sanctuary Sanctuary fringe Palace Port - Seafront Site of artificial water withdrawal Akropolis Urban centre Broad urban centre Periphery of sanctuary

Chronology of bath facilities Α Ασ Γ Κ CD Ο Ν Ι ΟΙ Αν Λ Υ Ακ Κε ΕΚε ΠΙ

Periods

Chronology Abbreviation

Archaic

700-480 BC

A

Classical Early Hellenistic

480 – 323 BC

C(T), C, LC

323 - 146 BC

EH1, EH2

Late Hellenistic (Early Roman)

146 - 31 BC

LH1, LH2

Roman

31 BC - 285 AD

R1, R2, R3, R4

Late Roman

285 - 610

LR1, LR2, LR3

178

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 29 (Catalogue number 28, p. 117) Plan (After Gregory)

Bath α | Isthmia | Korinthia

179

Plates Figure 30 (Catalogue number 28, p. 117) Functional diagram

Bath α | Isthmia | Korinthia

Γ

κο

Bathing facilities of the Greek tradition Hip-bath Bathtub (asaminthos) Bathtub (with hypocaust) Pool (with hypocaust) Countryside: sea, rivers etc Cold water pool Swimming pool Sweating room

λου ασ ασ (υπ) δε (υπ) υπ δε κο εφ

Basin Washing basin (louterion) Foot bath

λε

Natural or artificial spring Fountain Changing room Latrinae Furnace Boiler Water tank Water well Central hall Andron Courtyard Corridor Anteroom Entrance hall

πη κρ απ απο πρ λεβ υδρ πη κε ανδ αυ δια προθ ει

Functional areas of the bath Open air spaces Spaces without bathing facilities Spaces with facilities for the cold bath Spaces with facilities for the hot bath Ancillary spaces

Types of spatial bathing units Α Β Γ Δ Ε

Variations of circular wash and sweating rooms Variations of rectangular wash rooms Layout variations of wash pools Layout variations of fountains and natural / artificial springs Composite layouts

180

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 31 (Catalogue number 29, p. 112) Isthmia | Korinthia

Isthmia in Roman antiquity (Gregory 1995 Indications added by the author)

Γ R3 Baths A

Spatial framework of bath facilities Agora or Forum (Public Space) Asklepieion Gymnasium Residential area Main roads Urban fringe Site of natural water withdrawal Sanctuary Sanctuary fringe Palace Port - Seafront Site of artificial water withdrawal Akropolis Urban centre Broad urban centre Periphery of sanctuary

Chronology of bath facilities Α Ασ Γ Κ CD Ο Ν Ι ΟΙ Αν Λ Υ Ακ Κε ΕΚε ΠΙ

Periods

Chronology Abbreviation

Archaic

700-480 BC

A

Classical Early Hellenistic

480 – 323 BC

C(T), C, LC

323 - 146 BC

EH1, EH2

Late Hellenistic (Early Roman)

146 - 31 BC

LH1, LH2

Roman

31 BC - 285 AD

R1, R2, R3, R4

Late Roman

285 - 610

LR1, LR2, LR3

181

Plates Figure 32 (Catalogue number 29, p. 118) Plan (After Yegül)

Baths A | Isthmia | Korinthia

IV

ΙΙ Ι

V

III

XIIIi VI

X

XIV

XIII

XI

IX

XIIIii

VIII

VII

XII

182

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 33 (Catalogue number 29, p. 118 Baths A | Isthmia | Korinthia

Functional diagram

pi a v

pi

f

Β al ba

h

c

Β

c, s, t

al

s, t a

Β

Β

al

Β

V

Bathing facilities of the Roman tradition alveus al piscina calida pi (ca) piscina pi natatio na sudatorium s laconicum l labrum la pedilouve pe caldarium c tepidarium t frigidarium f apodyterium a vestibulum v palaestra pa unctorium u latrinae la praefurnia pr basilica thermarum ba heat lock h atrium at

Functional areas of the bath Open air spaces Spaces without bathing facilities Spaces with facilities for the cold bath Spaces with facilities for the hot bath Ancillary spaces

Room and hall types Α Β C D Ε F G H

Variations of rectangular rooms with timber roof Variations of rectangular rooms with semi-cylindrical roof Variations of round rooms Variations of polygonal rooms Elliptical rooms Variations of rooms with groin-vault Variations of rooms with semi-spherical dome Composite rooms

183

Plates Figure 34 (Catalogue number 31, p. 118) Baths A | Zevgolatio | Korinthia

Plan (After Ginouvès)

A

P1 F P2 Q2

C2 C1 Q1 R2 R1

184

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 35 (Catalogue number 31, p. 118) Functional diagram

Baths A | Zevgolatio | Korinthia

v, a

A

pi f

Β al

θ θ

Β

c

t, c, hl,

s

Β

pr

al

Bathing facilities of the Roman tradition alveus al piscina calida pi (ca) piscina pi natatio na sudatorium s laconicum l labrum la pedilouve pe caldarium c tepidarium t frigidarium f apodyterium a vestibulum v palaestra pa unctorium u latrinae la praefurnia pr basilica thermarum ba heat lock h atrium at

Functional areas of the bath Open air spaces Spaces without bathing facilities Spaces with facilities for the cold bath Spaces with facilities for the hot bath Ancillary spaces

Room and hall types Α Β C D Ε F G H

Variations of rectangular rooms with timber roof Variations of rectangular rooms with semi-cylindrical roof Variations of round rooms Variations of polygonal rooms Elliptical rooms Variations of rooms with groin-vault Variations of rooms with semi-spherical dome Composite rooms

185

pi

186

Plates Figure 36 (Catalogue number 34-68, pp. 119-126) Argolida

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 37 (Catalogue number 34-68, pp. 119-126) Sites of bathing facilities in Argolida | Argolida

Mycenae Heraion Prosymna Epidavros Sanctuary of Apollo Maleata Argos

Asklepieion of Epidavros

Asine

Troizena

Αlieis

Urban pattern framework of bathing facilities Towns Townships

Sanctuaries Askepieion Villae Rusticae ?

Unknown

Chronological groups of bathing facilities Greek antiquity Transitional bathing facilities Roman antiquity

188

Plates Figure 38 (Catalogue number 34-48, p. 119-122) Argos | Argolida

Argos in Roman antiquity (Source: Panagiotopoulou 1998 Indications added and drawings collated by the author)

Baths Μ ΕKε,K LR1

Spatial framework of bath facilities Agora or Forum (Public Space) Asklepieion Gymnasium Residential area Main roads Urban fringe Site of natural water withdrawal Sanctuary Sanctuary fringe Palace Port - Seafront Site of artificial water withdrawal Akropolis Urban centre Broad urban centre Periphery of sanctuary

Α Ασ Γ Κ CD Ο Ν Ι ΟΙ Αν Λ Υ Ακ Κε ΕΚε ΠΙ

Baths G ΕKε R Baths Κ ΕKε R/LR

Baths L Κε, Ασ LR1

Chronology of bath facilities Chronology Abbreviation

Archaic

700-480 BC

A

Classical Early Hellenistic

480 – 323 BC

C(T), C, LC

323 - 146 BC

EH1, EH2

Late Hellenistic (Early Roman)

146 - 31 BC

LH1, LH2

Roman

31 BC - 285 AD

R1, R2, R3, R4

Late Roman

285 - 610

LR1, LR2, LR3

Baths Ε ΕKε R

Baths Α Kε, Ασ R3

Baths D Kε R

Periods

Baths Ν ΕKε,K LR1-2

Baths Ο ΕKε,K LR2

Baths Β Kε, Γ R4

Baths J ΕKε R/LR

Baths C EKε R4

Baths H ΕKε R

Baths F EKε R Baths I ΕKε,K R

189

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 39 (Catalogue number 34, p. 119) Baths Α Ι | Argos | Argolida

Plan (After Ginouvès and Aupert)

B4

A2 B2 A1

E2

Fi

B1 D1 A3

C2i

H

Fiii

C3i

F

B3

C2

G E1

C3

B5

C3i

i

Fii

C1 C1i

C3i

ii J1

J2

190

Plates Figure 40 (Catalogue number 34, p. 119) Functional diagram

Baths Α Ι | Argos | Argolida

se ; ba v

pi

v a

;

pi

; ;

al

f

c, t,

v, h

v

Β pi

al s c

Β c, t,

s

Β

al

al al

se

Bathing facilities of the Roman tradition alveus al piscina calida pi (ca) piscina pi natatio na sudatorium s laconicum l labrum la pedilouve pe caldarium c tepidarium t frigidarium f apodyterium a vestibulum v palaestra pa unctorium u latrinae la praefurnia pr basilica thermarum ba heat lock h atrium at

Functional areas of the bath Open air spaces Spaces without bathing facilities Spaces with facilities for the cold bath Spaces with facilities for the hot bath Ancillary spaces

Room and hall types Α Β C D Ε F G H

Variations of rectangular rooms with timber roof Variations of rectangular rooms with semi-cylindrical roof Variations of round rooms Variations of polygonal rooms Elliptical rooms Variations of rooms with groin-vault Variations of rooms with semi-spherical dome Composite rooms

191

Β

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 41 (Catalogue number 34, p. 119) Baths Α IΙ | Argos | Argolida

Functional diagram

se ? ba v

pi

v a

?

pi

? ?

al

f

c, t,

v, h

v

Β pi

al s c

Β c, t,

s

Β

al

al al

se

Bathing facilities of the Roman tradition alveus al piscina calida pi (ca) piscina pi natatio na sudatorium s laconicum l labrum la pedilouve pe caldarium c tepidarium t frigidarium f apodyterium a vestibulum v palaestra pa unctorium u latrinae la praefurnia pr basilica thermarum ba heat lock h atrium at

Functional areas of the bath Open air spaces Spaces without bathing facilities Spaces with facilities for the cold bath Spaces with facilities for the hot bath Ancillary spaces

Room and hall types Α Β C D Ε F G H

Variations of rectangular rooms with timber roof Variations of rectangular rooms with semi-cylindrical roof Variations of round rooms Variations of polygonal rooms Elliptical rooms Variations of rooms with groin-vault Variations of rooms with semi-spherical dome Composite rooms

192

Β

Plates Figure 42 (Catalogue number 35, pp. 119) Baths Β | Argos | Argolida

Functional diagram

v (;)

at (

pi

;)

Β f

Β t, c,

Β

s

t, c, s

Β

t, c,

s ;

Bathing facilities of the Roman tradition alveus al piscina calida pi (ca) piscina pi natatio na sudatorium s laconicum l labrum la pedilouve pe caldarium c tepidarium t frigidarium f apodyterium a vestibulum v palaestra pa unctorium u latrinae la praefurnia pr basilica thermarum ba heat lock h atrium at

pa

Functional areas of the bath Open air spaces Spaces without bathing facilities Spaces with facilities for the cold bath Spaces with facilities for the hot bath Ancillary spaces

Room and hall types Α Β C D Ε F G H

Variations of rectangular rooms with timber roof Variations of rectangular rooms with semi-cylindrical roof Variations of round rooms Variations of polygonal rooms Elliptical rooms Variations of rooms with groin-vault Variations of rooms with semi-spherical dome Composite rooms

193

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 43 (Catalogue number 45, p. 121) Baths L | Argos | Argolida

Plan (After Aupert)

1

3 4

3’ 2 5

6i 6

6’’

6’

194

Plates Figure 44 (Catalogue number 45, p. 121) Baths L | Argos | Argolida

Functional diagram

Α

se a, v pi

al

Β Β t, h,

s

f al

Β c

Bathing facilities of the Roman tradition alveus al piscina calida pi (ca) piscina pi natatio na sudatorium s laconicum l labrum la pedilouve pe caldarium c tepidarium t frigidarium f apodyterium a vestibulum v palaestra pa unctorium u latrinae la praefurnia pr basilica thermarum ba heat lock h atrium at

Functional areas of the bath Open air spaces Spaces without bathing facilities Spaces with facilities for the cold bath Spaces with facilities for the hot bath Ancillary spaces

Room and hall types Α Β C D Ε F G H

Variations of rectangular rooms with timber roof Variations of rectangular rooms with semi-cylindrical roof Variations of round rooms Variations of polygonal rooms Elliptical rooms Variations of rooms with groin-vault Variations of rooms with semi-spherical dome Composite rooms

195

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 45 (Catalogue number 48, p. 122) Plan (After Panagiotopoulou)

Baths Ο | Argos | Argolida

Κ Ο Ζ

Η Ξ Α

196

Plates Figure 46 (Catalogue number 48, p. 122) Functional diagram

Baths Ο | Argos | Argolida

al al

c

a

pi

F f, ba, a

t, h, s

F Β

Bathing facilities of the Roman tradition alveus al piscina calida pi (ca) piscina pi natatio na sudatorium s laconicum l labrum la pedilouve pe caldarium c tepidarium t frigidarium f apodyterium a vestibulum v palaestra pa unctorium u latrinae la praefurnia pr basilica thermarum ba heat lock h atrium at

ve

Functional areas of the bath Open air spaces Spaces without bathing facilities Spaces with facilities for the cold bath Spaces with facilities for the hot bath Ancillary spaces

Room and hall types Α Β C D Ε F G H

Variations of rectangular rooms with timber roof Variations of rectangular rooms with semi-cylindrical roof Variations of round rooms Variations of polygonal rooms Elliptical rooms Variations of rooms with groin-vault Variations of rooms with semi-spherical dome Composite rooms

197

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 47 (Catalogue number 50, p. 122) Plan (After Wace)

Baths α | Mycenae | Argolida

198

Plates Figure 48 (Catalogue number 51-52, pp. 122-123) Troizena | Argolida

Troizena in Greek and Roman antiquity (Source: Welter 1931 Indications added by the author)

Baths A Κε, Α | R

Baths α Ι|Α

Chronology of bath facilities

Spatial framework of bath facilities Agora or Forum (Public Space) Asklepieion Gymnasium Residential area Main roads Urban fringe Site of natural water withdrawal Sanctuary Sanctuary fringe Palace Port - Seafront Site of artificial water withdrawal Akropolis Urban centre Broad urban centre Periphery of sanctuary

Α Ασ Γ Κ CD Ο Ν Ι ΟΙ Αν Λ Υ Ακ Κε ΕΚε ΠΙ

Periods

Chronology Abbreviation

Archaic

700-480 BC

A

Classical Early Hellenistic

480 – 323 BC

C(T), C, LC

323 - 146 BC

EH1, EH2

146 - 31 BC

LH1, LH2

Roman R4

31 BC - 285 AD

R1, R2, R3,

Late Roman

285 - 610

LR1, LR2, LR3

Late Hellenistic (Early Roman)

199

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 49 (Catalogue number 53, p. 123) Halieis (Source: Faraklas 1973 Indications added by the author)

Halieis | Argolida

Baths α Ο Κ

Chronology of bath facilities

Spatial framework of bath facilities Agora or Forum (Public Space) Asklepieion Gymnasium Residential area Main roads Urban fringe Site of natural water withdrawal Sanctuary Sanctuary fringe Palace Port - Seafront Site of artificial water withdrawal Akropolis Urban centre Broad urban centre Periphery of sanctuary

Α Ασ Γ Κ CD Ο Ν Ι ΟΙ Αν Λ Υ Ακ Κε ΕΚε ΠΙ

Periods

Chronology Abbreviation

Archaic

700-480 BC

A

Classical Early Hellenistic

480 – 323 BC

C(T), C, LC

323 - 146 BC

EH1, EH2

146 - 31 BC

LH1, LH2

Roman R4

31 BC - 285 AD

R1, R2, R3,

Late Roman

285 - 610

LR1, LR2, LR3

Late Hellenistic (Early Roman)

200

Plates Figure 50 (Catalogue number 54, p. 123) Plan (After Frödin and Persson)

Baths A | Asine | Argolida

C

T

F

A

201

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 51 (Catalogue number 54, p. 123) Baths A | Asine | Argolida

Functional diagram

c

Β

t

Β

f/a

Β

Bathing facilities of the Roman tradition alveus al piscina calida pi (ca) piscina pi natatio na sudatorium s laconicum l labrum la pedilouve pe caldarium c tepidarium t frigidarium f apodyterium a vestibulum v palaestra pa unctorium u latrinae la praefurnia pr basilica thermarum ba heat lock h atrium at

Functional areas of the bath Open air spaces Spaces without bathing facilities Spaces with facilities for the cold bath Spaces with facilities for the hot bath Ancillary spaces

Room and hall types Α Β C D Ε F G H

Variations of rectangular rooms with timber roof Variations of rectangular rooms with semi-cylindrical roof Variations of round rooms Variations of polygonal rooms Elliptical rooms Variations of rooms with groin-vault Variations of rooms with semi-spherical dome Composite rooms

202

Plates Figure 52 (Catalogue number 55, p. 123) Functional diagram

Bathing facilities of the Roman tradition alveus al piscina calida pi (ca) piscina pi natatio na sudatorium s laconicum l labrum la pedilouve pe caldarium c tepidarium t frigidarium f apodyterium a vestibulum v palaestra pa unctorium u latrinae la praefurnia pr basilica thermarum ba heat lock h atrium at

Baths A | Prosymna | Argolida

Functional areas of the bath Open air spaces Spaces without bathing facilities Spaces with facilities for the cold bath Spaces with facilities for the hot bath Ancillary spaces

Room and hall types Α Β C D Ε F G H

Variations of rectangular rooms with timber roof Variations of rectangular rooms with semi-cylindrical roof Variations of round rooms Variations of polygonal rooms Elliptical rooms Variations of rooms with groin-vault Variations of rooms with semi-spherical dome Composite rooms

203

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 53 (Catalogue number 56-57, p. 124) Heraion in Greek and Roman antiquity (Source: Waldstein 1902-1905 Indications added by the author)

Heraion | Argolida

Baths A Γ|R

Baths α Γ | C or H

Spatial framework of bath facilities Agora or Forum (Public Space) Asklepieion Gymnasium Residential area Main roads Urban fringe Site of natural water withdrawal Sanctuary Sanctuary fringe Palace Port - Seafront Site of artificial water withdrawal Akropolis Urban centre Broad urban centre Periphery of sanctuary

Chronology of bath facilities Α Ασ Γ Κ CD Ο Ν Ι ΟΙ Αν Λ Υ Ακ Κε ΕΚε ΠΙ

Periods

Chronology Abbreviation

Archaic

700-480 BC

A

Classical Early Hellenistic

480 – 323 BC

C(T), C, LC

323 - 146 BC

EH1, EH2

146 - 31 BC

LH1, LH2

Roman R4

31 BC - 285 AD

R1, R2, R3,

Late Roman

285 - 610

LR1, LR2, LR3

Late Hellenistic (Early Roman)

204

Plates Figure 54 (Catalogue number 57, p. 124) Plan (After Waldstein)

Baths A | Heraion | Argolida

H K O

J

G

A

F

L N

M

E D

205

C

B

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 55 (Catalogue number 57, p. 124) Baths A | Heraion | Argolida

Functional diagram

ve, a

pi

at, ba n

f

se

c

h t

c

Bathing facilities of the Roman tradition alveus al piscina calida pi (ca) piscina pi natatio na sudatorium s laconicum l labrum la pedilouve pe caldarium c tepidarium t frigidarium f apodyterium a vestibulum v palaestra pa unctorium u latrinae la praefurnia pr basilica thermarum ba heat lock h atrium at

Functional areas of the bath Open air spaces Spaces without bathing facilities Spaces with facilities for the cold bath Spaces with facilities for the hot bath Ancillary spaces

Room and hall types Α Β C D Ε F G H

Variations of rectangular rooms with timber roof Variations of rectangular rooms with semi-cylindrical roof Variations of round rooms Variations of polygonal rooms Elliptical rooms Variations of rooms with groin-vault Variations of rooms with semi-spherical dome Composite rooms

206

h

Plates Figure 56 (Catalogue number 58, p. 124) Excavation plan (Labrinoudakis 1994)

Baths A | Apollo Maleata Sanctuary | Argolida

Ξ

Ν

Μ2

Δ1

Θ

A

Μ1 Δ2

Ε

Η

Β

Γ

Ζ1

Ζ2

Ι

Λ

Κ

207

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 57 (Catalogue number 58, p. 124) Functional diagram

Baths A | Apollo Maleata Sanctuary | Argolida

v

t,s,c

t, s

Bathing facilities of the Roman tradition alveus al piscina calida pi (ca) piscina pi natatio na sudatorium s laconicum l labrum la pedilouve pe caldarium c tepidarium t frigidarium f apodyterium a vestibulum v palaestra pa unctorium u latrinae la praefurnia pr basilica thermarum ba heat lock h atrium at

f

Functional areas of the bath Open air spaces Spaces without bathing facilities Spaces with facilities for the cold bath Spaces with facilities for the hot bath Ancillary spaces

Room and hall types Α Β C D Ε F G H

Variations of rectangular rooms with timber roof Variations of rectangular rooms with semi-cylindrical roof Variations of round rooms Variations of polygonal rooms Elliptical rooms Variations of rooms with groin-vault Variations of rooms with semi-spherical dome Composite rooms

208

Plates Figure 58 (Catalogue number 60-68, pp. 124-126) The Askepieion of Epidavros in Greek and Roman antiquity (Source: Faraklas 1972 Indications added by the author)

Asklepieion of Epidavros | Argolida

Baths Η ΠΙ LR1 Baths D ΠΙ R3

Baths C ΠΙ R3 Baths Ι ΠΙ LR1

Baths E ΠΙ R3-LR1 Baths α/Β Ασ C

Λουτρά β/Α ΟΙ ΥΚ-ΠΕ1

Spatial framework of bath facilities Agora or Forum (Public Space) Asklepieion Gymnasium Residential area Main roads Urban fringe Site of natural water withdrawal Sanctuary Sanctuary fringe Palace Port - Seafront Site of artificial water withdrawal Akropolis Urban centre Broad urban centre Periphery of sanctuary

Chronology of bath facilities Α Ασ Γ Κ CD Ο Ν Ι ΟΙ Αν Λ Υ Ακ Κε ΕΚε ΠΙ

Periods

Chronology Abbreviation

Archaic

700-480 BC

A

Classical Early Hellenistic

480 – 323 BC

C(T), C, LC

323 - 146 BC

EH1, EH2

146 - 31 BC

LH1, LH2

Roman R4

31 BC - 285 AD

R1, R2, R3,

Late Roman

285 - 610

LR1, LR2, LR3

Late Hellenistic (Early Roman)

209

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 59 (Catalogue number 61, p. 125) Plan (After Aslanidis and Pinatsi)

Bath β | Asklepieion of Epidavros | Argolida

210

Plates Figure 60 (Catalogue number 61, p. 125) Bath β | Asklepieion of Epidavros | Argolida

Functional diagram

λου

λου

Bathing facilities of the Greek tradition Hip-bath Bathtub (asaminthos) Bathtub (with hypocaust) Pool (with hypocaust) Countryside: sea, rivers etc Cold water pool Swimming pool Sweating room

λου ασ ασ (υπ) δε (υπ) υπ δε κο εφ

Basin Washing basin (louterion) Foot bath

λε

Natural or artificial spring Fountain Changing room Latrinae Furnace Boiler Water tank Water well Central hall Andron Courtyard Corridor Anteroom Entrance hall

πη κρ απ απο πρ λεβ υδρ πη κε ανδ αυ δια προθ ει

Functional areas of the bath Open air spaces Spaces without bathing facilities Spaces with facilities for the cold bath Spaces with facilities for the hot bath Ancillary spaces

Types of spatial bathing units Α Β Γ Δ Ε

Variations of circular wash and sweating rooms Variations of rectangular wash rooms Layout variations of wash pools Layout variations of fountains and natural / artificial springs Composite layouts

211

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 61 (Catalogue number 62, p. 125) Plan (according Ginouvès 1959)

Baths C I and ΙΙ „Aquae“ | Asklepieion of Epidavros | Argolida

212

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 62 (Catalogue number 62, p. 125) Baths C I „Aquae“ |Asklepieion of Epidavros | Argolida

Functional diagram

al al t, c, s

t, c

F

Β

F

Β

Β

Β

pi

f

ba, f, a

V

al

c

t, h

t, h

Β u

a

Bathing facilities of the Roman tradition alveus al piscina calida pi (ca) piscina pi natatio na sudatorium s laconicum l labrum la pedilouve pe caldarium c tepidarium t frigidarium f apodyterium a vestibulum v palaestra pa unctorium u latrinae la praefurnia pr basilica thermarum ba heat lock h atrium at

G

pi

Β

Functional areas of the bath Open air spaces Spaces without bathing facilities Spaces with facilities for the cold bath Spaces with facilities for the hot bath Ancillary spaces

Room and hall types Α Β C D Ε F G H

Variations of rectangular rooms with timber roof Variations of rectangular rooms with semi-cylindrical roof Variations of round rooms Variations of polygonal rooms Elliptical rooms Variations of rooms with groin-vault Variations of rooms with semi-spherical dome Composite rooms

213

al

t, c, s

Plates Figure 63 (Catalogue number 62, p. 125) Baths C II „Aquae“ | Asklepieion of Epidavros | Argolida

Functional diagram

al al t, c, s

t, c

F

Β

F

al

c t, h

t, h

Β

Β

Β

pi

f

ba, f, a

V

Β u

a

Bathing facilities of the Roman tradition alveus al piscina calida pi (ca) piscina pi natatio na sudatorium s laconicum l labrum la pedilouve pe caldarium c tepidarium t frigidarium f apodyterium a vestibulum v palaestra pa unctorium u latrinae la praefurnia pr basilica thermarum ba heat lock h atrium at

G

pi

Β

Functional areas of the bath Open air spaces Spaces without bathing facilities Spaces with facilities for the cold bath Spaces with facilities for the hot bath Ancillary spaces

Room and hall types Α Β C D Ε F G H

Variations of rectangular rooms with timber roof Variations of rectangular rooms with semi-cylindrical roof Variations of round rooms Variations of polygonal rooms Elliptical rooms Variations of rooms with groin-vault Variations of rooms with semi-spherical dome Composite rooms

214

al

t, c, s

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 64 (Catalogue number 63, p. 125) Plan (After Bilis)

Baths D IΙ „Isieion“ | Asklepieion of Epidavros | Argolida

5 9

4

8

3

6

7 2

1

215

Plates Figure 65 (Catalogue number 63, p. 125) Baths D IΙ „Isieion“ | Asklepieion of Epidavros | Argolida

Functional diagram

pi ,a

ba

pi f

h,

B

h,

l al c

t

G

B t, δ

se

B ,

pa

at

v

Bathing facilities of the Roman tradition alveus al piscina calida pi (ca) piscina pi natatio na sudatorium s laconicum l labrum la pedilouve pe caldarium c tepidarium t frigidarium f apodyterium a vestibulum v palaestra pa unctorium u latrinae la praefurnia pr basilica thermarum ba heat lock h atrium at

Functional areas of the bath Open air spaces Spaces without bathing facilities Spaces with facilities for the cold bath Spaces with facilities for the hot bath Ancillary spaces

Room and hall types Α Β C D Ε F G H

Variations of rectangular rooms with timber roof Variations of rectangular rooms with semi-cylindrical roof Variations of round rooms Variations of polygonal rooms Elliptical rooms Variations of rooms with groin-vault Variations of rooms with semi-spherical dome Composite rooms

216

al

al

al

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 66 (Catalogue number 64, pp. 125-126) Baths Ε II „Northwest baths“ | Asklepieion of Epidavros | Argolida

Plan (After Vasilakou)

3

2

5

8

7

1

4

11 14 6 10

13

12

9

217

3

Plates Figure 67 (Catalogue number 64, pp. 125-126) Baths Ε II „Northwest baths“ | Asklepieion of Epidavros | Argolida

Functional diagram

pi

pi

pi al

f pa, at,

c

al

B

B

a

h, s, t al

t, c, s

B

B

Bathing facilities of the Roman tradition alveus al piscina calida pi (ca) piscina pi natatio na sudatorium s laconicum l labrum la pedilouve pe caldarium c tepidarium t frigidarium f apodyterium a vestibulum v palaestra pa unctorium u latrinae la praefurnia pr basilica thermarum ba heat lock h atrium at

Functional areas of the bath Open air spaces Spaces without bathing facilities Spaces with facilities for the cold bath Spaces with facilities for the hot bath Ancillary spaces

Room and hall types Α Β C D Ε F G H

Variations of rectangular rooms with timber roof Variations of rectangular rooms with semi-cylindrical roof Variations of round rooms Variations of polygonal rooms Elliptical rooms Variations of rooms with groin-vault Variations of rooms with semi-spherical dome Composite rooms

218

ve

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 68 (Catalogue number 68, p. 126) Baths Ι „South Aquae“ | Asklepieion of Epidavros | Argolida

Functional diagram

t, s

f

al

s

c

Bathing facilities of the Roman tradition alveus al piscina calida pi (ca) piscina pi natatio na sudatorium s laconicum l labrum la pedilouve pe caldarium c tepidarium t frigidarium f apodyterium a vestibulum v palaestra pa unctorium u latrinae la praefurnia pr basilica thermarum ba heat lock h atrium at

Functional areas of the bath Open air spaces Spaces without bathing facilities Spaces with facilities for the cold bath Spaces with facilities for the hot bath Ancillary spaces

Room and hall types Α Β C D Ε F G H

Variations of rectangular rooms with timber roof Variations of rectangular rooms with semi-cylindrical roof Variations of round rooms Variations of polygonal rooms Elliptical rooms Variations of rooms with groin-vault Variations of rooms with semi-spherical dome Composite rooms

219

220

Plates Figure 69 (Catalogue number 69-92, pp. 127-132) Eleia

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 70 (Catalogue number 69-92, pp. 127-132) Sites of bathing facilities in Eleia | Eleia

Manolas Kyllene Latta

Elis Oinoe

Skafidia

Floka Olympia Epitalio Samikon Makistos

Urban pattern framework of bathing facilities Towns Townships

Sanctuaries Askepieion Villae Rusticae ?

Unknown

Chronological groups of bathing facilities Greek antiquity Transitional bathing facilities Roman antiquity 222

Plates Figure 71 (Catalogue number 69-72, pp. 127) Elis in Greek and Roman antiquity (Papachatzis 1979)

Elis | Eleia

Λουτρά Γυμνασίου Ήλιδος Γ Ρ

Οκτάγωνο Ρ

Spatial framework of bath facilities Agora or Forum (Public Space) Asklepieion Gymnasium Residential area Main roads Urban fringe Site of natural water withdrawal Sanctuary Sanctuary fringe Palace Port - Seafront Site of artificial water withdrawal Akropolis Urban centre Broad urban centre Periphery of sanctuary

Chronology of bath facilities Α Ασ Γ Κ CD Ο Ν Ι ΟΙ Αν Λ Υ Ακ Κε ΕΚε ΠΙ

Periods

Chronology Abbreviation

Archaic

700-480 BC

A

Classical Early Hellenistic

480 – 323 BC

C(T), C, LC

323 - 146 BC

EH1, EH2

146 - 31 BC

LH1, LH2

Roman R4

31 BC - 285 AD

R1, R2, R3,

Late Roman

285 - 610

LR1, LR2, LR3

Late Hellenistic (Early Roman)

223

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 72 (Catalogue number 75, p. 128) Epitalion | Eleia

Epitalion area (Themelis 1967)

Λουτρά Επιυαλίοι Γ Ρ3

Spatial framework of bath facilities Agora or Forum (Public Space) Asklepieion Gymnasium Residential area Main roads Urban fringe Site of natural water withdrawal Sanctuary Sanctuary fringe Palace Port - Seafront Site of artificial water withdrawal Akropolis Urban centre Broad urban centre Periphery of sanctuary

Α Ασ Γ Κ CD Ο Ν Ι ΟΙ Αν Λ Υ Ακ Κε ΕΚε ΠΙ

Chronology of bath facilities Periods

Chronology Abbreviation

Archaic

700-480 BC

A

Classical Early Hellenistic

480 – 323 BC

C(T), C, LC

323 - 146 BC

EH1, EH2

Late Hellenistic (Early Roman)

146 - 31 BC

LH1, LH2

Roman

31 BC - 285 AD

R1, R2, R3, R4

Late Roman

285 - 610

LR1, LR2, LR3

224

Plates Figure 73 (Catalogue number 75, p. 128) Functional diagram

Baths A | Epitalion | Eleia

Β

Β

c, t, s

c, t, s

Β f

Bathing facilities of the Roman tradition alveus al piscina calida pi (ca) piscina pi natatio na sudatorium s laconicum l labrum la pedilouve pe caldarium c tepidarium t frigidarium f apodyterium a vestibulum v palaestra pa unctorium u latrinae la praefurnia pr basilica thermarum ba heat lock h atrium at

Functional areas of the bath Open air spaces Spaces without bathing facilities Spaces with facilities for the cold bath Spaces with facilities for the hot bath Ancillary spaces

Room and hall types Α Β C D Ε F G H

Variations of rectangular rooms with timber roof Variations of rectangular rooms with semi-cylindrical roof Variations of round rooms Variations of polygonal rooms Elliptical rooms Variations of rooms with groin-vault Variations of rooms with semi-spherical dome Composite rooms

225

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 74 (Catalogue number 78, pp. 129) Plan (After Karagiorga-Stathakopoulou)

Baths A | Floka Olympia | Eleia

226

Plates Figure 75 (Catalogue number 78, pp. 129) Functional diagram Baths A | Floka Olympia | Eleia

? ?

s

B

t,

p B s t,

B c

Bathing facilities of the Roman tradition alveus al piscina calida pi (ca) piscina pi natatio na sudatorium s laconicum l labrum la pedilouve pe caldarium c tepidarium t frigidarium f apodyterium a vestibulum v palaestra pa unctorium u latrinae la praefurnia pr basilica thermarum ba heat lock h atrium at

Functional areas of the bath Open air spaces Spaces without bathing facilities Spaces with facilities for the cold bath Spaces with facilities for the hot bath Ancillary spaces

Room and hall types Α Β C D Ε F G H

Variations of rectangular rooms with timber roof Variations of rectangular rooms with semi-cylindrical roof Variations of round rooms Variations of polygonal rooms Elliptical rooms Variations of rooms with groin-vault Variations of rooms with semi-spherical dome Composite rooms

227

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 76 (Catalogue number 79-82, pp. 129-130) Olympia | Eleia

Olympia in Greek antiquity (Source: Wacker 1996 Indications addes by author)

Bath δ ΟΙ ΕΗ-LR1

Bath γ Γ ΕΗ

Bath α Γ A-EH Bath β Γ A-LC

Spatial framework of bath facilities Agora or Forum (Public Space) Asklepieion Gymnasium Residential area Main roads Urban fringe Site of natural water withdrawal Sanctuary Sanctuary fringe Palace Port - Seafront Site of artificial water withdrawal Akropolis Urban centre Broad urban centre Periphery of sanctuary

Chronology of bath facilities Α Ασ Γ Κ CD Ο Ν Ι ΟΙ Αν Λ Υ Ακ Κε ΕΚε ΠΙ

Periods

Chronology Abbreviation

Archaic

700-480 BC

A

Classical Early Hellenistic

480 – 323 BC

C(T), C, LC

323 - 146 BC

EH1, EH2

146 - 31 BC

LH1, LH2

Roman R4

31 BC - 285 AD

R1, R2, R3,

Late Roman

285 - 610

LR1, LR2, LR3

Late Hellenistic (Early Roman)

228

Plates Figure 77 (Catalogue number 81, pp. 129-130) Baths α Ι „Bau I“ | Olympia | Eleia

Plan (After Kunze and Schleif)

Ι

229

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 78 (Catalogue number 81, pp. 129-130) Functional diagram

Baths α Ι „Bau I“ | Olympia | Eleia

πη

Δ

Bathing facilities of the Greek tradition Hip-bath Bathtub (asaminthos) Bathtub (with hypocaust) Pool (with hypocaust) Countryside: sea, rivers etc Cold water pool Swimming pool Sweating room

λου ασ ασ (υπ) δε (υπ) υπ δε κο εφ

Basin Washing basin (louterion) Foot bath

λε

Natural or artificial spring Fountain Changing room Latrinae Furnace Boiler Water tank Water well Central hall Andron Courtyard Corridor Anteroom Entrance hall

πη κρ απ απο πρ λεβ υδρ πη κε ανδ αυ δια προθ ει

Functional areas of the bath Open air spaces Spaces without bathing facilities Spaces with facilities for the cold bath Spaces with facilities for the hot bath Ancillary spaces

Types of spatial bathing units Α Β Γ Δ Ε

Variations of circular wash and sweating rooms Variations of rectangular wash rooms Layout variations of wash pools Layout variations of fountains and natural / artificial springs Composite layouts

230

Plates Figure 79 (Catalogue number 81, pp. 129-130) Baths α ΙΙ „Sitzbad II“ | Olympia | Eleia

Plan (After Kunze and Schleif)

Ι

ΙΙ

231

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 80 (Catalogue number 81, pp. 129-130) Functional diagram

Baths α ΙΙ „Sitzbad II“ | Olympia | Eleia

πη

Δ

Β λου

Bathing facilities of the Greek tradition Hip-bath Bathtub (asaminthos) Bathtub (with hypocaust) Pool (with hypocaust) Countryside: sea, rivers etc Cold water pool Swimming pool Sweating room

λου ασ ασ (υπ) δε (υπ) υπ δε κο εφ

Basin Washing basin (louterion) Foot bath

λε

Natural or artificial spring Fountain Changing room Latrinae Furnace Boiler Water tank Water well Central hall Andron Courtyard Corridor Anteroom Entrance hall

πη κρ απ απο πρ λεβ υδρ πη κε ανδ αυ δια προθ ει

Functional areas of the bath Open air spaces Spaces without bathing facilities Spaces with facilities for the cold bath Spaces with facilities for the hot bath Ancillary spaces

Types of spatial bathing units Α Β Γ Δ Ε

Variations of circular wash and sweating rooms Variations of rectangular wash rooms Layout variations of wash pools Layout variations of fountains and natural / artificial springs Composite layouts

232

Plates Figure 81 (Catalogue number 81, pp. 129-130) Plan (After Kunze and Schleif)

Baths α V „Sitzbad III“ | Olympia | Eleia

C Ε A

F D

Β

233

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 82 (Catalogue number 81, p. 129-130) Baths α V „Sitzbad III“ | Olympia | Eleia

Functional diagram

Δ πη

Β

προθ

λου ;

Bathing facilities of the Greek tradition Hip-bath Bathtub (asaminthos) Bathtub (with hypocaust) Pool (with hypocaust) Countryside: sea, rivers etc Cold water pool Swimming pool Sweating room

λου ασ ασ (υπ) δε (υπ) υπ δε κο εφ

Basin Washing basin (louterion) Foot bath

λε

Natural or artificial spring Fountain Changing room Latrinae Furnace Boiler Water tank Water well Central hall Andron Courtyard Corridor Anteroom Entrance hall

πη κρ απ απο πρ λεβ υδρ πη κε ανδ αυ δια προθ ει

Functional areas of the bath Open air spaces Spaces without bathing facilities Spaces with facilities for the cold bath Spaces with facilities for the hot bath Ancillary spaces

Types of spatial bathing units Α Β Γ Δ Ε

Variations of circular wash and sweating rooms Variations of rectangular wash rooms Layout variations of wash pools Layout variations of fountains and natural / artificial springs Composite layouts

234

Plates Figure 83 (Catalogue number 79, p. 129) Baths β „Schwimmbad“ | Olympia | Eleia

Plan (After Kunze and Schleif)

235

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 84 (Catalogue number 79, p. 129) Functional diagram

Baths β „Schwimmbad“ | Olympia | Eleia

Γ

κο Bathing facilities of the Greek tradition Hip-bath Bathtub (asaminthos) Bathtub (with hypocaust) Pool (with hypocaust) Countryside: sea, rivers etc Cold water pool Swimming pool Sweating room

λου ασ ασ (υπ) δε (υπ) υπ δε κο εφ

Basin Washing basin (louterion) Foot bath

λε

Natural or artificial spring Fountain Changing room Latrinae Furnace Boiler Water tank Water well Central hall Andron Courtyard Corridor Anteroom Entrance hall

πη κρ απ απο πρ λεβ υδρ πη κε ανδ αυ δια προθ ει

Functional areas of the bath Open air spaces Spaces without bathing facilities Spaces with facilities for the cold bath Spaces with facilities for the hot bath Ancillary spaces

Types of spatial bathing units Α Β Γ Δ Ε

Variations of circular wash and sweating rooms Variations of rectangular wash rooms Layout variations of wash pools Layout variations of fountains and natural / artificial springs Composite layouts

236

Plates Figure 85 (Catalogue number 80, p. 129) Baths γ | Olympia | Eleia

Functional diagram

Β

Β λε

λε

Bathing facilities of the Greek tradition Hip-bath Bathtub (asaminthos) Bathtub (with hypocaust) Pool (with hypocaust) Countryside: sea, rivers etc Cold water pool Swimming pool Sweating room

λου ασ ασ (υπ) δε (υπ) υπ δε κο εφ

Basin Washing basin (louterion) Foot bath

λε

Natural or artificial spring Fountain Changing room Latrinae Furnace Boiler Water tank Water well Central hall Andron Courtyard Corridor Anteroom Entrance hall

πη κρ απ απο πρ λεβ υδρ πη κε ανδ αυ δια προθ ει

Functional areas of the bath Open air spaces Spaces without bathing facilities Spaces with facilities for the cold bath Spaces with facilities for the hot bath Ancillary spaces

Types of spatial bathing units Α Β Γ Δ Ε

Variations of circular wash and sweating rooms Variations of rectangular wash rooms Layout variations of wash pools Layout variations of fountains and natural / artificial springs Composite layouts

237

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 86 (Catalogue number 64, p. 130) Plan (After Sinn et al)

Baths δ | Olympia | Eleia

a

c

b

238

Plates Figure 87 (Catalogue number 64, p. 130) Functional diagram

Baths δ | Olympia | Eleia

A Β

A

Bathing facilities of the Greek tradition Hip-bath Bathtub (asaminthos) Bathtub (with hypocaust) Pool (with hypocaust) Countryside: sea, rivers etc Cold water pool Swimming pool Sweating room

λου ασ ασ (υπ) δε (υπ) υπ δε κο εφ

Basin Washing basin (louterion) Foot bath

λε

Natural or artificial spring Fountain Changing room Latrinae Furnace Boiler Water tank Water well Central hall Andron Courtyard Corridor Anteroom Entrance hall

πη κρ απ απο πρ λεβ υδρ πη κε ανδ αυ δια προθ ει

Functional areas of the bath Open air spaces Spaces without bathing facilities Spaces with facilities for the cold bath Spaces with facilities for the hot bath Ancillary spaces

Types of spatial bathing units Α Β Γ Δ Ε

Variations of circular wash and sweating rooms Variations of rectangular wash rooms Layout variations of wash pools Layout variations of fountains and natural / artificial springs Composite layouts

239

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 88 (Catalogue number 81-88, pp. 130-131) Olympia | Eleia

Olympia in Roman antiquity (Source: Wacker 1996 Indications added by the author)

Baths Β ΟΙ LH 2 Baths C ΟΙ R 2

Baths Α Γ LH 2 Baths D Γ R3 Baths E Γ R3

Baths F ΠΙ R3 Baths Η ΠΙ LR 1 Baths G ΠΙ R4

Spatial framework of bath facilities Agora or Forum (Public Space) Asklepieion Gymnasium Residential area Main roads Urban fringe Site of natural water withdrawal Sanctuary Sanctuary fringe Palace Port - Seafront Site of artificial water withdrawal Akropolis Urban centre Broad urban centre Periphery of sanctuary

Chronology of bath facilities Α Ασ Γ Κ CD Ο Ν Ι ΟΙ Αν Λ Υ Ακ Κε ΕΚε ΠΙ

Periods

Chronology Abbreviation

Archaic

700-480 BC

A

Classical Early Hellenistic

480 – 323 BC

C(T), C, LC

323 - 146 BC

EH1, EH2

146 - 31 BC

LH1, LH2

Roman R4

31 BC - 285 AD

R1, R2, R3,

Late Roman

285 - 610

LR1, LR2, LR3

Late Hellenistic (Early Roman)

240

Plates Figure 89 (Catalogue number 81, pp. 120-130) Baths Α (α VIII) „Hypokaustenbad“ | Olympia | Eleia

Plan (After Kunze and Schleif)

7

8

6

4 1 3 2

5

241

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 90 (Catalogue number 81, p. 129-130) Baths Α (α VIII) „Hypokaustenbad“ | Olympia | Eleia

Functional diagram

pr ? al v

Β

c

; la

Bathing facilities of the Roman tradition alveus al piscina calida pi (ca) piscina pi natatio na sudatorium s laconicum l labrum la pedilouve pe caldarium c tepidarium t frigidarium f apodyterium a vestibulum v palaestra pa unctorium u latrinae la praefurnia pr basilica thermarum ba heat lock h atrium at

Functional areas of the bath Open air spaces Spaces without bathing facilities Spaces with facilities for the cold bath Spaces with facilities for the hot bath Ancillary spaces

Room and hall types Α Β C D Ε F G H

Variations of rectangular rooms with timber roof Variations of rectangular rooms with semi-cylindrical roof Variations of round rooms Variations of polygonal rooms Elliptical rooms Variations of rooms with groin-vault Variations of rooms with semi-spherical dome Composite rooms

242

Plates Figure 91 (Catalogue number 64, p. 130) Baths D „Kladeos Thermen“ | Olympia | Eleia

Plan (After Kunze and Schleif)

6

2 7

3

10

11

8

9

13

12

243

4

1

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 92 (Catalogue number 84, p. 130) Functional diagram

Baths D „Kladeos Thermen“ | Olympia | Eleia

Β

h

pi

v

f

c al

Β

pi

Β pi at

ba

f al

Β

Β

F al

a

t

c al

Bathing facilities of the Roman tradition alveus al piscina calida pi (ca) piscina pi natatio na sudatorium s laconicum l labrum la pedilouve pe caldarium c tepidarium t frigidarium f apodyterium a vestibulum v palaestra pa unctorium u latrinae la praefurnia pr basilica thermarum ba heat lock h atrium at

Functional areas of the bath Open air spaces Spaces without bathing facilities Spaces with facilities for the cold bath Spaces with facilities for the hot bath Ancillary spaces

Room and hall types Α Β C D Ε F G H

Variations of rectangular rooms with timber roof Variations of rectangular rooms with semi-cylindrical roof Variations of round rooms Variations of polygonal rooms Elliptical rooms Variations of rooms with groin-vault Variations of rooms with semi-spherical dome Composite rooms

244

Plates Figure 93 (Catalogue number 85, pp. 130-131) Baths E „Einzelbad“ | Olympia | Eleia

Functional diagram

Β t, s

pi

Β

alveus al piscina calida pi (ca) piscina pi natatio na sudatorium s laconicum l labrum la pedilouve pe caldarium c tepidarium t frigidarium f apodyterium a vestibulum v palaestra pa unctorium u latrinae la praefurnia pr basilica thermarum ba heat lock h atrium at

c

Β

Β

f

Bathing facilities of the Roman tradition

Β

h

al

Functional areas of the bath Open air spaces Spaces without bathing facilities Spaces with facilities for the cold bath Spaces with facilities for the hot bath Ancillary spaces

Room and hall types Α Β C D Ε F G H

Variations of rectangular rooms with timber roof Variations of rectangular rooms with semi-cylindrical roof Variations of round rooms Variations of polygonal rooms Elliptical rooms Variations of rooms with groin-vault Variations of rooms with semi-spherical dome Composite rooms

245

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 94 (Catalogue number 86, pp. 131) Plan (After Mallwitz)

Baths F „Ostthermen“ | Olympia | Eleia

αυ

Ο20 β

α Ο10

Ο13

Ο2

Ο Ο3

Ο11

Ο9

Ο8

246

Ο7

Ο1

Ο6

Ο5

Plates Figure 95 (Catalogue number 86, pp. 131) Baths F „Ostthermen“ | Olympia | Eleia

Functional diagram

pi

F h pi

t

D, H

t, s, c

t, s, c

B

B

Bathing facilities of the Roman tradition alveus al piscina calida pi (ca) piscina pi natatio na sudatorium s laconicum l labrum la pedilouve pe caldarium c tepidarium t frigidarium f apodyterium a vestibulum v palaestra pa unctorium u latrinae la praefurnia pr basilica thermarum ba heat lock h atrium at

l

G B, H

h

t, s, c

B

Functional areas of the bath Open air spaces Spaces without bathing facilities Spaces with facilities for the cold bath Spaces with facilities for the hot bath Ancillary spaces

Room and hall types Α Β C D Ε F G H

Variations of rectangular rooms with timber roof Variations of rectangular rooms with semi-cylindrical roof Variations of round rooms Variations of polygonal rooms Elliptical rooms Variations of rooms with groin-vault Variations of rooms with semi-spherical dome Composite rooms

247

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 96 (Catalogue number 87, p. 131) Plan (After Touchais)

Baths G „Leonidaionthermen“ | Olympia | Eleia

I

V

III

IV

248

II

Plates Figure 97 (Catalogue number 87, p. 131) Functional diagram

Baths G „Leonidaionthermen“ | Olympia | Eleia

al

al

t, s

t, s

t al

c al

Bathing facilities of the Roman tradition alveus al piscina calida pi (ca) piscina pi natatio na sudatorium s laconicum l labrum la pedilouve pe caldarium c tepidarium t frigidarium f apodyterium a vestibulum v palaestra pa unctorium u latrinae la praefurnia pr basilica thermarum ba heat lock h atrium at

Functional areas of the bath Open air spaces Spaces without bathing facilities Spaces with facilities for the cold bath Spaces with facilities for the hot bath Ancillary spaces

Room and hall types Α Β C D Ε F G H

Variations of rectangular rooms with timber roof Variations of rectangular rooms with semi-cylindrical roof Variations of round rooms Variations of polygonal rooms Elliptical rooms Variations of rooms with groin-vault Variations of rooms with semi-spherical dome Composite rooms

249

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 98 (Catalogue number 88, p. 131) Plan (κατά Herrmann)

Baths H „Südthermen“ | Olympia | Eleia

7

5

6

4

1

250

Plates Figure 99 (Catalogue number 88, p. 131) Functional diagram

Baths H „Südthermen“ | Olympia | Eleia

al al

Bathing facilities of the Roman tradition alveus al piscina calida pi (ca) piscina pi natatio na sudatorium s laconicum l labrum la pedilouve pe caldarium c tepidarium t frigidarium f apodyterium a vestibulum v palaestra pa unctorium u latrinae la praefurnia pr basilica thermarum ba heat lock h atrium at

s

c

t

Functional areas of the bath Open air spaces Spaces without bathing facilities Spaces with facilities for the cold bath Spaces with facilities for the hot bath Ancillary spaces

Room and hall types Α Β C D Ε F G H

Variations of rectangular rooms with timber roof Variations of rectangular rooms with semi-cylindrical roof Variations of round rooms Variations of polygonal rooms Elliptical rooms Variations of rooms with groin-vault Variations of rooms with semi-spherical dome Composite rooms

251

252

Plates Figure 100 (Catalogue number 93-99, pp. 133-134) Arkadia

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 101 (Catalogue number 93-99, pp. 133-134) Sites of bathing facilities in Arkadia | Arkadia

Mantineia

Gortyna

Loukou Megalopolis Skias

Urban pattern framework of bathing facilities Towns Townships

Sanctuaries Askepieion Villae Rusticae ?

Unknown

Chronological groups of bathing facilities Greek antiquity Transitional bathing facilities Roman antiquity 254

Plates Figure 102 (Catalogue number 94-95, p. 133) Megalopolis in Roman antiquity (Source: Gardner 1892 Indications added by the author)

Megalopolis | Arkadia

Baths Α (?) Κε R Baths Β (?) Κε R

Spatial framework of bath facilities Agora or Forum (Public Space) Asklepieion Gymnasium Residential area Main roads Urban fringe Site of natural water withdrawal Sanctuary Sanctuary fringe Palace Port - Seafront Site of artificial water withdrawal Akropolis Urban centre Broad urban centre Periphery of sanctuary

Chronology of bath facilities Α Ασ Γ Κ CD Ο Ν Ι ΟΙ Αν Λ Υ Ακ Κε ΕΚε ΠΙ

Periods

Chronology Abbreviation

Archaic

700-480 BC

A

Classical Early Hellenistic

480 – 323 BC

C(T), C, LC

323 - 146 BC

EH1, EH2

146 - 31 BC

LH1, LH2

Roman R4

31 BC - 285 AD

R1, R2, R3,

Late Roman

285 - 610

LR1, LR2, LR3

Late Hellenistic (Early Roman)

255

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 103 (Catalogue number 96-97, pp. 133-134) Gortyna in Greek antiquity (Source: Ginouvès 1959 Indications added by the author)

Gortyna | Arkadia

Basth α Ασ C

Baths β Ασ EH 1

Spatial framework of bath facilities Agora or Forum (Public Space) Asklepieion Gymnasium Residential area Main roads Urban fringe Site of natural water withdrawal Sanctuary Sanctuary fringe Palace Port - Seafront Site of artificial water withdrawal Akropolis Urban centre Broad urban centre Periphery of sanctuary

Chronology of bath facilities Α Ασ Γ Κ CD Ο Ν Ι ΟΙ Αν Λ Υ Ακ Κε ΕΚε ΠΙ

Periods

Chronology Abbreviation

Archaic

700-480 BC

A

Classical Early Hellenistic

480 – 323 BC

C(T), C, LC

323 - 146 BC

EH1, EH2

146 - 31 BC

LH1, LH2

Roman R4

31 BC - 285 AD

R1, R2, R3,

Late Roman

285 - 610

LR1, LR2, LR3

Late Hellenistic (Early Roman)

256

Plates Figure 104 (Catalogue number 96, p. 133) Plan (according to Ginouvès)

Bath β | Gortyna | Arkadia

H

G

I

D y

F

E

ξ

λ

θ

C A

B

257

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 105 (Catalogue number 96, p. 133) Functional diagram

Bath β | Gortyna | Arkadia

λου

? ?

λε εφ κε λε δια, πρ

εφ

ο

ει εφ απ

ασ

Bathing facilities of the Greek tradition Hip-bath Bathtub (asaminthos) Bathtub (with hypocaust) Pool (with hypocaust) Countryside: sea, rivers etc Cold water pool Swimming pool Sweating room

λου ασ ασ (υπ) δε (υπ) υπ δε κο εφ

Basin Washing basin (louterion) Foot bath

λε

Natural or artificial spring Fountain Changing room Latrinae Furnace Boiler Water tank Water well Central hall Andron Courtyard Corridor Anteroom Entrance hall

πη κρ απ απο πρ λεβ υδρ πη κε ανδ αυ δια προθ ει

Functional areas of the bath Open air spaces Spaces without bathing facilities Spaces with facilities for the cold bath Spaces with facilities for the hot bath Ancillary spaces

Types of spatial bathing units Α Β Γ Δ Ε

Variations of circular wash and sweating rooms Variations of rectangular wash rooms Layout variations of wash pools Layout variations of fountains and natural / artificial springs Composite layouts

258

Plates Figure 106 (Catalogue number 100-114, pp. 135-139) Achaea

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 107 (Catalogue number 100-114, pp. 135-139) Sites of bathing facilities in Argolida | Achaea

Patra Aigion

Mentzaina

Urban pattern framework of bathing facilities Towns Townships

Sanctuaries Askepieion Villae Rusticae ?

Unknown

Chronological groups of bathing facilities Greek antiquity Transitional bathing facilities Roman antiquity 260

Plates Figure 108 (Catalogue number 102, p. 135) Plan (After Papapostolou)

Baths C | Patra | Achaea

Χ3α

Χ3β

Χ4α

Χ4β

Χ5 Χ9

Χ9

Χ6

Χ1

261

Χ2

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 109 (Catalogue number 102, p. 135) Functional diagram

Baths C | Patra | Achaea

s?

s?

Β c, t, s

pa, at. ba

al

Β

alveus al piscina calida pi (ca) piscina pi natatio na sudatorium s laconicum l labrum la pedilouve pe caldarium c tepidarium t frigidarium f apodyterium a vestibulum v palaestra pa unctorium u latrinae la praefurnia pr basilica thermarum ba heat lock h atrium at

Β

t, c

s

Bathing facilities of the Roman tradition

Β

al

f

Functional areas of the bath Open air spaces Spaces without bathing facilities Spaces with facilities for the cold bath Spaces with facilities for the hot bath Ancillary spaces

Room and hall types Α Β C D Ε F G H

Variations of rectangular rooms with timber roof Variations of rectangular rooms with semi-cylindrical roof Variations of round rooms Variations of polygonal rooms Elliptical rooms Variations of rooms with groin-vault Variations of rooms with semi-spherical dome Composite rooms

262

pi

Plates Figure 110 (Catalogue number 108, p. 136) Plan (After Kotsaki)

Baths I | Patra | Achaea

4

7 5 2 3

6

1

10

9 8

263

11

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 111 (Catalogue number 108, p. 136) Functional diagram

Baths I | Patra | Achaea

pi

pi

Β

pi

pi f

Β

f al a, ba,

pa

F F c t, s

Bathing facilities of the Roman tradition alveus al piscina calida pi (ca) piscina pi natatio na sudatorium s laconicum l labrum la pedilouve pe caldarium c tepidarium t frigidarium f apodyterium a vestibulum v palaestra pa unctorium u latrinae la praefurnia pr basilica thermarum ba heat lock h atrium at

Functional areas of the bath Open air spaces Spaces without bathing facilities Spaces with facilities for the cold bath Spaces with facilities for the hot bath Ancillary spaces

Room and hall types Α Β C D Ε F G H

Variations of rectangular rooms with timber roof Variations of rectangular rooms with semi-cylindrical roof Variations of round rooms Variations of polygonal rooms Elliptical rooms Variations of rooms with groin-vault Variations of rooms with semi-spherical dome Composite rooms

264

al

Plates Figure 112 (Catalogue number 109, pp. 136-137) Plan (After Petritaki)

Baths J | Patra | Achaea

Χ4β Χ3 Χ2 Χ1

265

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 113 (Catalogue number 109, pp. 136-137) Functional diagram

Baths J | Patra | Achaea

t, s

Β

Β c, t

Bathing facilities of the Roman tradition alveus al piscina calida pi (ca) piscina pi natatio na sudatorium s laconicum l labrum la pedilouve pe caldarium c tepidarium t frigidarium f apodyterium a vestibulum v palaestra pa unctorium u latrinae la praefurnia pr basilica thermarum ba heat lock h atrium at

Functional areas of the bath Open air spaces Spaces without bathing facilities Spaces with facilities for the cold bath Spaces with facilities for the hot bath Ancillary spaces

Room and hall types Α Β C D Ε F G H

Variations of rectangular rooms with timber roof Variations of rectangular rooms with semi-cylindrical roof Variations of round rooms Variations of polygonal rooms Elliptical rooms Variations of rooms with groin-vault Variations of rooms with semi-spherical dome Composite rooms

266

Plates Figure 114 (Catalogue number 117, p. 138) Plan (After Petropoulos)

Baths C | Aigion | Achaea

Χ2

Χ1

Χ9

Χ4 Χ3

Χ10

267

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 115 (Catalogue number 117, p. 138) Functional diagram

Baths C | Aigion | Achaea

F

F

t, s

t

F

c

Bathing facilities of the Roman tradition alveus al piscina calida pi (ca) piscina pi natatio na sudatorium s laconicum l labrum la pedilouve pe caldarium c tepidarium t frigidarium f apodyterium a vestibulum v palaestra pa unctorium u latrinae la praefurnia pr basilica thermarum ba heat lock h atrium at

Functional areas of the bath Open air spaces Spaces without bathing facilities Spaces with facilities for the cold bath Spaces with facilities for the hot bath Ancillary spaces

Room and hall types Α Β C D Ε F G H

Variations of rectangular rooms with timber roof Variations of rectangular rooms with semi-cylindrical roof Variations of round rooms Variations of polygonal rooms Elliptical rooms Variations of rooms with groin-vault Variations of rooms with semi-spherical dome Composite rooms

268

Plates Figure 116 (Catalogue number 119, pp. 138-139) Baths E | Aigion | Achaea

Plan (After Papapostolou)

Χ17

Χ1

Χ8 Χ5

Χ6 Χ7 Χ10

269

Χ9

270

Plates Figure 117 (Catalogue number 121-142, pp. 140-144) Lakonia

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 118 (Catalogue number 121-142, pp. 140-144) Sites of bathing facilities in Lakonia | Lakonia

Sparti Kokkinorachi

Zarax Gytheion

Asine Teuthroni

Voiai

Urban pattern framework of bathing facilities Towns Townships

Sanctuaries Askepieion Villae Rusticae ?

Unknown

Chronological groups of bathing facilities Greek antiquity Transitional bathing facilities Roman antiquity 272

Plates Figure 119 (Catalogue number 121, p. 140) Functional diagram

Baths A | Voiai | Lakonia

Β c,

t

al

Bathing facilities of the Roman tradition alveus al piscina calida pi (ca) piscina pi natatio na sudatorium s laconicum l labrum la pedilouve pe caldarium c tepidarium t frigidarium f apodyterium a vestibulum v palaestra pa unctorium u latrinae la praefurnia pr basilica thermarum ba heat lock h atrium at

Functional areas of the bath Open air spaces Spaces without bathing facilities Spaces with facilities for the cold bath Spaces with facilities for the hot bath Ancillary spaces

Room and hall types Α Β C D Ε F G H

Variations of rectangular rooms with timber roof Variations of rectangular rooms with semi-cylindrical roof Variations of round rooms Variations of polygonal rooms Elliptical rooms Variations of rooms with groin-vault Variations of rooms with semi-spherical dome Composite rooms

273

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 120 (Catalogue number 64, p. 140) Functional diagram

Baths A | Sparti | Lakonia

B B al

Bathing facilities of the Roman tradition alveus al piscina calida pi (ca) piscina pi natatio na sudatorium s laconicum l labrum la pedilouve pe caldarium c tepidarium t frigidarium f apodyterium a vestibulum v palaestra pa unctorium u latrinae la praefurnia pr basilica thermarum ba heat lock h atrium at

Functional areas of the bath Open air spaces Spaces without bathing facilities Spaces with facilities for the cold bath Spaces with facilities for the hot bath Ancillary spaces

Room and hall types Α Β C D Ε F G H

Variations of rectangular rooms with timber roof Variations of rectangular rooms with semi-cylindrical roof Variations of round rooms Variations of polygonal rooms Elliptical rooms Variations of rooms with groin-vault Variations of rooms with semi-spherical dome Composite rooms

274

Plates Zeugolateiou | Zeugolateio | Λακωνία FigureLoutro 121 (Catalogue number 126, p. 141) Plan (After Spyropoulos)

Baths E | Sparti | Lakonia

2 1

3

4

275

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 122 (Catalogue number 126, p. 141) Functional diagram

Baths E | Sparti | Lakonia

al

B B

c

t, s

al

B al t, s

Bathing facilities of the Roman tradition alveus al piscina calida pi (ca) piscina pi natatio na sudatorium s laconicum l labrum la pedilouve pe caldarium c tepidarium t frigidarium f apodyterium a vestibulum v palaestra pa unctorium u latrinae la praefurnia pr basilica thermarum ba heat lock h atrium at

Functional areas of the bath Open air spaces Spaces without bathing facilities Spaces with facilities for the cold bath Spaces with facilities for the hot bath Ancillary spaces

Room and hall types Α Β C D Ε F G H

Variations of rectangular rooms with timber roof Variations of rectangular rooms with semi-cylindrical roof Variations of round rooms Variations of polygonal rooms Elliptical rooms Variations of rooms with groin-vault Variations of rooms with semi-spherical dome Composite rooms

276

Plates Figure 123 (Catalogue number 133, p. 142) Baths L | Sparti | Lakonia

Plan (After Steinhauer)

277

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 124 (Catalogue number 133, p. 142) Functional diagram

B

B

B

Baths L | Sparti | Lakonia

Bathing facilities of the Roman tradition alveus al piscina calida pi (ca) piscina pi natatio na sudatorium s laconicum l labrum la pedilouve pe caldarium c tepidarium t frigidarium f apodyterium a vestibulum v palaestra pa unctorium u latrinae la praefurnia pr basilica thermarum ba heat lock h atrium at

Functional areas of the bath Open air spaces Spaces without bathing facilities Spaces with facilities for the cold bath Spaces with facilities for the hot bath Ancillary spaces

Room and hall types Α Β C D Ε F G H

Variations of rectangular rooms with timber roof Variations of rectangular rooms with semi-cylindrical roof Variations of round rooms Variations of polygonal rooms Elliptical rooms Variations of rooms with groin-vault Variations of rooms with semi-spherical dome Composite rooms

278

Plates Figure 125 (Catalogue number 143-151, pp. 145-146) Messenia

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 126 (Catalogue number 143-151, pp. 145-146) Sites of bathing facilities in Argolida | Messenia

Messene

?

Volimidia

Thouria

Dialiskari Erane

Korone

Kardamyle ?

Longas

Urban pattern framework of bathing facilities Towns Townships

Sanctuaries Askepieion Villae Rusticae ?

Unknown

Chronological groups of bathing facilities Greek antiquity Transitional bathing facilities Roman antiquity

280

Plates Figure 127 (Catalogue number 143, p. 145) Messene in Greek and Roman antiquity (Themelis 2000)

Ασ EH 1 Baths α

Spatial framework of bath facilities Agora or Forum (Public Space) Asklepieion Gymnasium Residential area Main roads Urban fringe Site of natural water withdrawal Sanctuary Sanctuary fringe Palace Port - Seafront Site of artificial water withdrawal Akropolis Urban centre Broad urban centre Periphery of sanctuary

Messene | Messenia

Α Ασ Γ Κ CD Ο Ν Ι ΟΙ Αν Λ Υ Ακ Κε ΕΚε ΠΙ

Chronology of bath facilities Periods

Chronology Abbreviation

Archaic

700-480 BC

A

Classical Early Hellenistic

480 – 323 BC

C(T), C, LC

323 - 146 BC

EH1, EH2

Late Hellenistic (Early Roman)

146 - 31 BC

LH1, LH2

Roman

31 BC - 285 AD

R1, R2, R3, R4

Late Roman

285 - 610

LR1, LR2, LR3

281

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity Figure 128 (Catalogue number 143, p. 145) Plan (according to Themelis)

Baths α Ι | Μessene | Messenia

1

2

3

4

20

6 15

9

8

7

18

12

17

14 11 13

282

10

Plates Figure 129 (Catalogue number 143, p. 145) Functional diagram

Baths α Ι | Μessene | Messenia

ει δια

πρ

προθ κο

κε

λε (?)

λε (?)

λε (?)

λε (?)

Bathing facilities of the Greek tradition Hip-bath Bathtub (asaminthos) Bathtub (with hypocaust) Pool (with hypocaust) Countryside: sea, rivers etc Cold water pool Swimming pool Sweating room

λου ασ ασ (υπ) δε (υπ) υπ δε κο εφ

Basin Washing basin (louterion) Foot bath

λε

Natural or artificial spring Fountain Changing room Latrinae Furnace Boiler Water tank Water well Central hall Andron Courtyard Corridor Anteroom Entrance hall

πη κρ απ απο πρ λεβ υδρ πη κε ανδ αυ δια προθ ει

Functional areas of the bath Open air spaces Spaces without bathing facilities Spaces with facilities for the cold bath Spaces with facilities for the hot bath Ancillary spaces

Types of spatial bathing units Α Β Γ Δ Ε

Variations of circular wash and sweating rooms Variations of rectangular wash rooms Layout variations of wash pools Layout variations of fountains and natural / artificial springs Composite layouts

283

284

Abbreviations

ABBREVIATIONS AA Archäologischer Anzeiger ABSA Annual of the British School at Athens AEMTH Archaeologiko Ergo stin Makedonia kai tin Thraki AJA American Journal of Archaeology Arch.Delt. Archaeologikon Deltion Arch.Ephem. Archaeologiki Ephimeris ASAE Annales du Service des antiquités de l’Égypte AW Antike Welt BCH Bulletin de correspondance hellénique BEFAR Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome CretChron Cretika Chronika EAA Enciclopedia dell’arte antica, classica e orientale (Rome 1958–1984) Ergon To Ergon tes Archaiologikes Etaireias Hesperia Hesperia. The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens JRA Journal of Roman Archaeology Klio Klio. Beiträge zur alten Geschichte NSc Notizie degli scavi di antichità OJA Oxford Journal of Archaeology Praktika Praktika tes en Athenais Archaiologikes Etaireias ProcCambPhilSoc Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society SMEA Studi micenei ed egeo-anatolici

285

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

286

Bibliography

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adami-Veleni, P., 1996, Arch.Delt. 51, B2 Chronicles, 423. Adami-Veleni, P., 1997a, Arch.Delt. 52, B2 Chronicles, 631-633. Adami-Veleni, P., 1997b“Valaneio progenestero tēs agoras Thessalonikēs” (A balaneion antedating the agora of Thessalonica), Ergon, 11, 1997. Adami-Veleni, P., 1998, Arch.Delt. 53, 549-551. Adami-Veleni, P., 2003, “Romaikes thermes sta Stephanina nomou Thessalonikēs” (Roman thermae in Stephanina of Thessalonica prefecture), Ergon, 17, 2003. Agallopoulou, P., Arch.Delt. 29, 1973-1974, Chronicles, 370, 406. Alcock, Susan E., 1996, Graecia Capta: The landscapes of Roman Greece, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK. Alexiou, S., 1972, “Peri ton minoikon dexamenon katharmou” (Of Minoan lustral baths), CretChron 24, 414-434. Alexopoulou, G., 1991, Arch.Delt. 46, B1 Chronicles, 143. Alexopoulou, G., 1998, Arch.Delt. 53, B1 Chronicles, 256, 263. Alexopoulou, G., 1999, Arch.Delt. 54, 264. Alföldy, Géza, 2002, History of Roman Society, Cultural Foundation of the National Bank of Greece, Athens (Greek translation). Original: Römische Sozialgeschichte. 3. Aufl. Steiner, Stuttgart 1984. Allen, H., L., 1974, ‘Excavations at Morgantina (Serra Orlando) 1970-1972. Preliminary Report XI’, AJA 78, 368383. Alzinger, W. and R. Trummer, 1986, “Aigeira – Hyperesa II”, Klio 68, 52-62. Andereiomenou, A., Arch.Delt. 21, 1996, Chronicles, 74. Andreou, I., 1976, Arch.Delt. 31, Chronicles, 199-201. Anthony, David W, 1990, “Migration in Archaeology: The Baby and the Bathwater”, American Anthropologist 92, 895-914. Antoniou, G., 1998, “Romaïka loutra: Apotyposē – Phaseis” (Roman baths : Measured drawing – Phases), Athens. Antoniou, G., 1999, “Romaïka loutra: Meletē anadeixēs” (Roman baths : Site enhancement study), Athens. Arapogianni, X., 1993, “To romaïko valaneio stēn Brexiza tou Marathonos” (The Roman balaneion in Brexiza, Marathon), Arch.Ephem. 132. Arapogianni, X., 1999, Arch.Delt. 54, Chronicles, 234. Archaeologikos Atlas tou Aigaiou (Archaeological Atlas of the Aegean), 1998, Ministry of the Aegean and University of Athens, Athens. Archaios Ellēnikos Athlētismos: Ideōdes kai pragmatikotēta (Ancient Greek Athletics: Ideal and reality), 1995, Exantas, Athens. Argout, G., 1982, Reflection d’ une fontaine et de bains à l’ Amphiaraion d’ Oropos, Proceedings of the 8th Congress on Greek and Latin Epigraphy, Athens 3-9 October 1982, 2.

Asklēpios (O) kai oi Aparches tēs Iatrikēs (Aesculapius and the Beginnings of Medicine), 1996, Exantas, Athens. Aslamatzidou – Kostourou, Z., 1998, Arch.Delt. 53, B1 Chronicles. Aslanidis, K. and Ch. Pinatsi, 1999, Ta Ellēnika Loutra sto Asklēpieio tēs Epidavrou (The Greek Baths in the Asclēpieion of Epidaurus), O.E.S.M.E., Athens, 136. Athanasoulis, D.Ch., 1995, “Loutrikē egkatastasē stēn Kokkinorachē Spartēs” (Bath facility in Kokkinorachi of Sparta), Proceedings of the 5th International Conference of Peloponnesian Studies, Argos – Nauplion, 6-10 September. Auer, G., 1995, “Living wetter: On consumption of water in the townhouse”, Daidalos: Architektur, Kunst, Kultur, vol. 55 - Wasser Künste/Aquatic Arts. Aupert, M.P., 1985, «Un Sérapeion Argien?», Académie des Inscriptiona & Belles-Lettres: Comptes Rendues des Séances de l’ Année 1985, Janvier-Mars, Paris, 151-175. Aupert, P., 1973, BCH 97, 490-500. Aupert, P., 1974, BCH 98, 764-774. Aupert, P., 1975, BCH 99, 699-703. Aupert, P., 1976, BCH 100, 747-750. Aupert, P., 1977, BCH 101, 667-671. Aupert, P., 1978, BCH 102, 773-775. Aupert, P., 1979, BCH 103, 617-618. Aupert, P., 1980a, BCH Suppl. VI, Études Argiennes, p. 395-457. Aupert, P., 1980b, BCH 104, 689-694. Aupert, P., 1981, BCH 105, 899-902. Aupert, P., 1982, BCH 106, 637-643. Aupert, P., 1983, BCH 107, 761. Aupert, P., 1984, BCH 108, 850. Aupert, P., 1986a, “Une toiture révolutionnaire à Argos” The Greek Renaissance in the Roman Empire, Papers from the Tenth British Museum Classical Colloquium, London, 151-155. Aupert, P., 1986b, BCH 110, 767-772. Aupert, P., 1987, BCH 111, 597-603. Aupert, P., 1988, BCH 112, 710-715. Aupert, P., 1990, BCH 114, 856-866. Balsdon, J.P.V.D., 2004, Life and Leisure in Ancient Rome, Phoenix Press, London. Barbieri, G. et al., 1985, “Musarna, 1. I bagni tardo repubblicani”, Bollettino d’ arte, 29, 29-38. Bengtson, Hermann, 1991, History of Ancient Greece, Melissa, Athens (Greek translation). Original: 1950 Griechische Geschichte von den Anfängen bis in die römische Kaiserzeit. 1950 (5. Aufl. 1996). Benjamin, W., 1998, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” in McNeil, W. and K. S. Feldman (eds), 1998, Continental Philosophy: An Anthology, London, Blackwell. Berger, A., 1982, Das Bad in der byzantinischen Zeit, Miscellanea Byzantina Monacensia, 27, 172 S., Abb. Βiers, J.C., 1985, The Great Bath on the Lechaion Road, vol. XVII, Princeton. Bilis, Th., 2004, Meletē Apokatastasēs ‘Isieiou Epidaurou (Restoration Study of the Isieion of Epidaurus), Diploma dissertation, National Technical University of Athens, Athens. 287

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

Billows, Richard, 2005, “Cities”, in A. Erskine (ed), 2005, 196-215. Βlegen, G., 1956, AJA, 60, 99-101. Blegen, C. W. and M. Rawson (Revised by J. L. Davis and C. W. Shelmerdine), 2001, The Palace of Nestor: Mycenaean Sites in its Environs and the Chora Museum, American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Princeton. Blegen, C. W. and M. Rawson, 1966, The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in Western Messenia I: The Buildings and Their Contexts, Princeton, Princeton University Press. Blouet, G.A., 1828, Restauration des thermes d’ Antonin Caracalla, Paris. Boardman, John, Jasper Griffin and Oswyn Murray (eds.), 1996, Greece and the Hellenistic World, Nepheli, Athens (Greek translation). Original : The Oxford History of Greece and the Hellenistic World, Oxford, 1986. Botsford, George W. and Charles A. Robinson, Jr. (revised by D. Kagan), 2003, Ancient Greek History, Cultural Foundation of the National Bank of Greece, Athens (Greek translation). Original : Hellenic History, 1969. Bouras, Ch., 1991, Mathēmata Historias tēs Architektonikēs (Lessons in the History of Architecture), Symmetria, Athens. Brödner, E., 1976, “Untersuchungen an frühen Hypokaustenanlagen“, TG 43, 249-267. Brödner, E., 1977, “Zur Entwicklunggeschichte des Bades 1“, AW 9, 45-56. Brödner, E., 1978, “Zur Entwicklunggeschichte des Bades 2“, AW 8, 47-56. Brödner, E., 1982, “Entwicklung, Bedeutung und Bauformen des Heissluftbades (Laconicum) in hellenistischer und römischer Zeit“, Bericht über die 31 Tagung der Koldewey Gesellschaft, Bonn, 47-50. Brödner, E., 1983, Die römischen Thermen und das antike Badewesen, Darmstadt. Broise, H. et al., 2004, Musarna 2: Les bains hellénistiques, Rome, École Française de Rome. Broise, H., 1994, “La pratique du bain chaud par immersion en Sicile et dans la péninsule italique à l’ époque hellénistique”, Xenia Antiqua 3, 17-32. Broneer, O., 1954, The South Stoa and its Roman Successors, Corinth, I, IV, Princeton. Bruneau, P. et J. Ducat, 2005, Guide de Délos, De Boccard, Paris. Burn, Andrew R., 1990, The Penguin History of Greece, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth. Butler, A.J., 1978, The Arab Conquest of Egypt, Oxford. Cahill, N., 2002, Household and City Organization at Olynthus, Yale University Press, New Haven and London. Cambridge University, 2005, Historia tēs Archaias Helladas (History of Ancient Greece), Vols 6 and 7 (Greek translation), Ta Nea Hellēnika Grammata, Athens. Carcopino, J., 1990, Daily Life in Rome at the Apogee of the Empire, Papadimas, Athens (Greek translation). Original: Daily Life in Ancient Rome: The People and the City at the Height of the Empire, Yale University Press, 1968. Chapouthier F. et J. Charbonneaux, Mallia, I, premier rapport. Charami, A., Arch.Delt. 51, 1996, B1 Chronicles, 282-284.

Charlesworth, D., 1970, “The Tell El-Farâ’ in excavation, 1969”, JEA 56, 19-28 Charneux, P., 1953, BCH 77, 400, no 5. Charpentier, G., 2000, Les bains protobyzantins de la Syrie du Nord : Une transition entre thermes et hammams, Th. Doct., Versailles. Chatzi-Spiliopoulou, G., 1991, Arch.Delt 46, B1 Chronicles, 133-134. Choremis, A. K., Arch.Delt. 24, 1969, B1 Chronicles, 149150. Chrysostomou, P. and F. Kephallonitou, 2003, Nikopolis (Nicopolis), Ministry of Culture, Fund of Archaeological Resources and Expropriations, Athens. Clamer, C., 1997, “Ain ez-Zara-Kallirrhoe. The thermal bath of Herod the Great”, Occident and Orient, 2. 1, 10-12. Cook, J.M., 1959, “Bath Tubs in Ancient Greece”, GaR 6, 31-41. Cornell, Tim and John Matthews, 2002, Atlas of the Roman World, Checkmark Books / Facts on File Inc., New York. Crouch, D., P., 1993, Water Management in Ancient Cities, Oxford. Cultrera, G., 1938, ‘Siracusa: Rovine di un antico stabilimento idraulico in contrada Zappalà’, NSc 16, 261-301. Curtius, E. und E. Adler, 1892, Olympia. Die Ergebnisse der von dem Deutschen Reich veranstalteten Ausgrabung. II. Die Baudenkmäler. Dakoronia, F., Arch.Delt. 47, 1992, B1 Chronicles, 192. Daux, G. 1953, “Académie des Inscriptions & Belles-Lettres: Comptes Rendues des Séances de l’ Année 195”, 459. Daux, G., 1969, BCH 93, 977-986, fig. 7-8. Davaras, K., Arch. Delt. 25, 1970, B1 Chronicles, 172. De Boccard, E., 1922, BCH, 46, 549. De Bonneville, F., 1998, The Book of the Bath, Rizzoli, New York. De Capua, F., 1940, 1939-40, “Appunti su l’origine e sviluppo delle terme romane”, RendAccNapoli N.S. 20, 83-155. De Haan, N., “Terme romane: tipologie tra uso e utilityà”, Guérin-Beauvois, M. and J. M. Martin (eds), Bains curatifs et bains hygiéniques en Italie de l’Antiquité au Moyen Âge, Collection de l’École française, 383, École française de Rome, Rome, 37-51. Decker, W. et J.-P. Thuillier, 2004, Le Sport dans l’ Antiquité, A. et J. Picard, Paris. Decker, W., 2004, Sportrs in Greek Antiquity, Papazissis, Athens (Greek translation). Original: Sport in der griechischen Antike: Vom minoischen Wettkampf bis zu den Olympischen Spielen, Munich, 1995. Deïlaki, E., 1965, Arch.Delt. 20, Chronicles. Deïlaki, E., 1973, Arch.Delt. 28, B1 Chronicles. Dekoulakou, I., 1971, Arch.Delt. 26, Chronicles, 185. Dekoulakou, I., 1975, Arch.Delt. 30, B1 Chronicles, 99100. Dekoulakou, I., 1976, Arch.Delt. 31, B1 Chronicles, 111. DeLaine, J. and D.E. Johnston (eds), 1999, Roman Baths and Bathing, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Roman Baths held at Bath, England, 30 March – 4 April 1999, Portsmouth, Rhode Island. 288

Bibliography

DeLaine, J., 1988, “Recent Research on Roman Baths”, Journal of Roman Archaeology 1, 11-31. DeLaine, J., 1989, “Some observations on the transition from Greek to Roman baths in Hellenistic Italy”, Mediterranean Archaeology, 2, pp. 111-25. DeLaine, J., 1992, “New models, old modes: Continuity and change in the design of public baths”, Schalles, H., J. et al (eds), Die römische Stadt im 2. Jahrhundert n. Chr.: Der Funktionswandel des öffentlichen Raumes, Bonn, 257-275. DeLaine, J., 1993, “Roman Baths and Bathing”, Journal of Roman Archaeology 6, 348-358. DeLaine, J., 1997, The Baths of Caracalla in Rome: a study in the design, construction and economics of large-scale building projects in imperial Rome, JRA, Suppl. 25. DeLaine, J., 1999, “Introduction: Bathing and society” in DeLaine, J. and D.E. Johnston (eds), 1999, Roman Baths and Bathing, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Roman Baths held at Bath, England, 30 March – 4 April 1999, Portsmouth, Rhode Island. Delorme, J., 1949, “Étude architecturale sur Vitruve”, BCH 73, 398-420. Delorme, J., 1960, Gymnasion: Étude consacrée à l’ éducation en Grèce, BEFAR, 196. Demakopoulou, A., Arch.Delt. 20, 1965, Chronicles, 173174, 176, fig. 3. Demakopoulou, A., Arch.Delt. 21, 1966, Chronicles, 155156. Demakopoulou, A., Arch.Delt. 22, 1967, Β1 Chronicles, 201-202, fig. 1, plate 142. Delivorias, A., Arch.Delt. 24, 1969, Β1 Chronicles, 137. Demakopoulou. A., Arch.Delt. 35, 1980, 102. Déonna, W., 1938, “Le mobilier délien”, Exploration archéologique de Délos. Ducrey, P. et al., 2004, Eretria: Guide to the ancient city, Swiss Archaeological School (in Greek). Ducrey, P. et.al., 2004, Ερέτρια: οδηγός της αρχαίας πόλης, Ελβετική Αρχαιολογική Σχολή στην Ελλάδα, 248-249. Ducrey, P. et.al., 2004, Eretria: Odigos tis archaias polis (Eretria: Swiss School of Archaeology in Greece), 248-249. Eleftheratou, S., 2004, “Anatoliko Loutro sto Oikopedo Makrygianni” (East Baths at Makrygianni), Arch.Delt. 55 (2000), Part A’ – Studies, 285-327. Elias, N., 2000, The Civilizing Process: Sociogenetic and phychogenetic investigations, London, Blackwell. El-Nassery, S.A.A., 1976, “Un grand bain gréco-romain à Karanis, Fouilles de l’Université Du Caire, 1972 – 75”, Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 76.1976, 231-275. Encyclopaedia Papyros – Larousse – Britannica, 1991, Papyros Publishing, Amaroussion, Attica (in Greek). Encyclopaedia Papyros – Larousse – Britannica, 2006, Papyros Publishing, Athens (in Greek). Encyclopedic Dioctionary Eleftheroudaki, 1931, Eleftheroudakis Publishing, Athens (in Greek). Engels, D., 1990, Roman Corinth: An alternative model for the classical city, University of Chicago Press. Erskine, Andrew (ed), 2005, A Companion to the Hellenistic World, Blackwell, Oxford.

Εschebach, H., 1970, Die Städtebauliche Entwicklung des Antiken Pompeji mit einem Plan 1:1000 und einem Excurs: Die Baugeschichte der Stabianer Thermen nach H. Sulze, F. H. Kerle Verlag, Heidelberg. Eschebach, H., 1979, “Die Stabianer Thermen in Pompeji”, Denkmäler Antiker Architektur 13, Berlin. Evans, A., 1899-1990, ABSA 6. Evans, A., 1901-1902, ABSA 8. Evans, A., 1901-1902, ABSA 8. Evans, A., 1928, Palace of Minos, Ι, ΙΙ,ΙΙΙ, London. Fabricotti, E., 1976, “I bagni nelle prime ville romane”, Cronache pompeiane 2.1976, 29-111. Fagan, G. G., 2001, “The Genesis of the Roman Public Bath: Recent Approaches and Future Directions”, AJA 105, 403-426. Fagan, G., G., 2002, Bathing in Public in the Roman World, Ann Arbor, The University of Michigan Press. Fagan, G.G., 1996, “Sergius Orata. Inventor of the hypocaust?”, Phoenix (The Journal of the Classical Association of Canada - Revue de la Société canadienne des études classiques), 50.1996. Faraklas, N. 1972, Epidavria (Epidauria), Series “Ancient Greek Cities”, No 12, Athēnaikos Technologikos Omilos, Athenaiko Kentro Oikistikēs, Athens. Faraklas, N. 1973, Hermionis – Halias, Series “Ancient Greek Cities”, No 12, Athēnaikos Technologikos Omilos, Athenaiko Kentro Oikistikēs, Athens. Farrington, A., 1999, “The introduction and spread of Roman bathing in Greece”, in DeLaine, J. and D. E. Johnston (eds), 1999, Roman Baths and Bathing, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Roman Baths held at Bath, England, 30 March – 4 April 1992, Portsmouth, Rhode Island. Forsell, R., 1996, “The Berbati-Limnes Survey: The Roman Period”, in Wells, B. (ed.), The Berbati – Limnes Archaeological Survey 1988-1990, Stockholm, 337-339. Frödin, O. and A. W. Persson, 1938, Asine. Results of the Swedish Excavation 1922-1930, Stockholm, 105-112. Frontisi – Ducroux, F., 2002, Daedalus: Mythology of the Artisan in Ancient Greece (Greek translation), Olkos, Athens. Original: Dédale: Mythologie de l’artisan en Grèce ancienne, Paris, 1975. Furtwängler, A., 1906, Aegina: Das Heiligtum der Aphaia, München. Gallina, A., 1970, “Cuma”, EAA suppl. 1970, 273-274. Garnsey, Peter and Richard Saller, 2003, The Roman Empire: Economy, society and culture, Crete University Press, Herakleion (Greek translation). Original: The Roman Empire: Economy, society and culture, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1987). Gebauer, K. und H. Johannes, 1936, “Ausgrabungen in Kerameikos”, ΑΑ 51, 208-212. Gebauer, K. und H. Johannes, 1937, “Ausgrabungen in Kerameikos”, AA 52, 181-195. Gebauer, K., 1940, AA 55, 318-334. Geus, Klaus, 2005, “Space and Geography”, in A. Erskine (ed), 2005, pp. 232-245. Gialouris, N.F., Arch.Delt. 20, 1965, B2 Chronicles, 210, plate 238B. 289

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

Gill, A. A., 2004, Balaneia: A Sourcebook for the Greek Bath from the Archaic through the Hellenistic Periods, A Dissertation Presented for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree, The University of Memphis. Gill, A.A., 2005, “Aphrodite’s Bath: Mediating Difference in Classical Antiquity”, Water and Civilization, Paris, France, 1-4 Dec 2005. Ginouvès, R. et al., 1985, Dictionnaire Méthodique de l’ Architecture Grecque et Romaine, Vols. 1 – 2, Écoles Françaises d’Athènes et de Rome. Ginouvès, R. et S. Charitonidis, 1955, “Bains romains de Zevgolatio”, ΒCH 79, 102-120. Ginouvès, R., 1952, “Une salle de bains hellénistique à Delphes”, BCH 76, 541-561. Ginouvès, R., 1954, BCH 78, 173-175. Ginouvès, R., 1955a, BCH 79, 322-328. Ginouvès, R., 1955b, “Sur un aspect de l’evolution des bains en Grèce vers le IVe siècle de notre ère”, BCH 79, 135-152. Ginouvès, R., 1959, L’établissement thermal de Gortys d’Arcadie, Études Péloponnésiennes, 2, Paris. Ginouvès, R., 1962, Balaneutikè: Recherches sur le bain dans l’antiquité grecque, Éditions E. de Boccard, Paris. Ginouvès, R., 1971, Revue archeologique, 155-157. Ginouvès, R., 1998, Dictionnaire Méthodique de l’Architecture Grecque et Romaine, Vol. 3: Espaces architecturaux, bâtiments et ensembles, Écoles Françaises d’ Athènes et de Rome. Golden, M., 1998, Sport and Society in Ancient Greece, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK. Goldhill, Simon (ed.), 2001, Being Greek under Rome, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK. Goldhill, Simon, 2001, “Introduction. Setting an agenda: ‘Everything is Greece to the wise’”, in S. Goldhill (ed.), 2001, 1 – 25. Goodchild, R., G., 1971, Kyrene and Apollonia, Zurich. Goodman, Martin, 1997, The Roman World 44 BC – AD 180, Routledge, London. Gounaris, G. G., 1990, To Balaneio kai ta voreia prosktismata tou oktagonou ton Philippon (The Balanaeion and the north annexes of Octagon of Philippoi), Bibliothiki tis en Athinais Archaeologikis Etairias, 112, Athens. Graham, J. W., 1961, “Bathrooms or Lustral Chambers”, AJA 65, 189. Graham, J. W., 1962, The Palaces of Crete, Princeton, Princeton University Press. Graham, J. W., 1977, “Bathrooms and Lustral Chambers”, in Kinzl, K.H. (ed.), Greece and the Eastern Mediterranean in Ancient History and Prehistory, Studies Presented to Fritz Schachermeyr on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday, de Gruyter, Berlin, 110-125. Graham, J.W. and D.M. Robinson Olynthos, 1938, The Hellenistic house, Excavations at Olynthus VIII, Johns Hopkins University Studies in Archaeology. Grant, Michael, 1993, The History of Rome, Faber and Faber, London. Gras, Michel, 2004, Mégara Hyblae : L’espace urbain d’une cité grecque de Sicile orientale, Rome: École Française de Rome; Paris: Diff. de Boccard.

Green, Peter, 1993, Alexander to Actium: The Hellenistic Age, Thames and Hudson, London. Gregory, T., 1995, “The Roman Bath at Isthmia, Preliminary Report 1972-1992”, Hesperia 64.3, 280-313. Grenier, A., 1960, “Les monuments des eaux”, Archéologie gallo-romaine 4, Paris. Gros, P., 1996, L’ Architecture Romaine du début du IIIe siècle av. J.-C. à la fin du Haut-Empire: Les Monuments Publiques, Picard. Grosser Historischer Weltatlas, 1953, Herausgegeben vom Bayerischen Schulbuch – Verlag, I.Teil, Vorgeschichten und Altertum, Bayerischer Schulbuch – Verlag, München. Haywood, John, 2005, The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Civilizations, Penguin Books, London. Hazzidakis, J., 1934, Les villas minoennes de Tylissos, Paris, P. Geuthner. Heinz, W., 1983, Römische Thermen: Badewesen und Badeluxus im Römischen Reich, München. Hellēnikē Mythologia (Greek Mythology), 1986, Vols. 2,3 and 4, Ekdotikē Athēnon, Athens. Historia tou Hellēnikou Ethnous (History of the Greek Nation), 1973-74, Vols C1, C2, D and E, Ekdotikē Athēnon, Athens. Hodge Hill, B., 1964, The springs: Peirene, Sacred Spring, Glauke, Corinth I, VI, Princeton University Press. Hodge, T., 2000, “Aqueducts”, in Wikander, O. (ed.), Handbook of Ancient Water Technology, Brill, LeidenBoston-Koln. Hoepfner, W. (ed.), 1999, Geschichte des Wohnens, Band 1, Stuttgart. Hoepfner, W. und E. L. Schwander, 1994, Haus und Stadt im klassischen Griechenland, Wohnen in der klassischen Polis, 1, München und Berlin. Hoffmann, M., 1999, Griechische Bäder, tuduv, München. Höghammer, K., 1984, “The dating of the Roman bath at Asine in Argolis”, Opuscula Atheniensia, 15.1984, 79-97. Holland, L. B., 1944, “Colophon”, Hesperia, 13, 1944, 91171. Homer’s Iliad [a], n.d., Modern Greek translation by N. Kazantzakis and I.Th, Kakridis, Estia Bookshop Publications, Athens. Homer’s Iliad [b], 1962, Homeri Opera, Tomus II, Iliadis Libros XIII – XXIV, Editio Terta, Oxonii e Typographeo Clarendoniano. Homer’s Odyssey, 1919, English Translation by A. T. Murray in two volumes, Cambridge, MA., Harvard University Press, London, William Heinemann, Ltd. 1919. Homer’s Odyssey, 2006, Modern Greek translation by D.N. Maronitis, Institouton Neoellēnikon Spoudon. Huskinson, Janet (ed.), 2004, Experiencing Rome: Culture, identity and power in the Roman Empire, Routledge, London. Hutchinson, R. W., 1950, “Prehistoric Town Planning”, The Town Planning Review 21. Intzesiloglou, A., Arch.Delt. 42, 1987, Chronicles, 261-262. Intzesiloglou, B., Arch.Delt. 42, 1987, Chronicles, 267. Iwanoff, S. C. und C. Huelsen, 1898, Architektonische Studien: Aus den Thermen des Caracalla. Jacoby, R., 2001, The four seasons in zodiac mosaics. The 290

Bibliography

Tallaras baths in Astypalaea Greece, Israel Exploration Journal 51.2001, 225-230. Jameson, M.H., 1969, Hesperia 38. Jameson, M.H., C.N. Runnels and T.H. van Andel, 1994, Countryside: The Southern Argolid from Prehistory to the Present Day, Stanford University Press, Stanford. Jannoray, J. et H. Ducoux, 1953, Fouilles de Delphes II, Le Gymnase, Paris. Jannoray, J., 1953, Le Gymnase: Fouilles de Delphes, Paris. Johannowsky, W., 1982a, ‘Considerazioni sullo sviluppo urbano e la cultura materiale di Velia’, PP 37, 225-246. Johannowsky, W., 1982b, PP 37, 242-6. Jones, M. W., 2003, Principles of Roman Architecture, Yale University Press, New Haven and London. Karageorghis, B., 1966, ‘Chroniques des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques à Chypre en 1965: Fouilles à Kithion’, BCH 90, 346-351. Karageorghis, V., 1998, “Hearths and Bathtubs in Cyprus: A Sea Peoples’ Innovation?”, in Seymour G et al (eds), Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE, In Honor of Professor Trude Dothan, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 276-282. Karagiorga – Stathakopoulou, Th., 1973, Arch.Delt. 28, 199-203. Karagiorga-Stathopoulou, Th., Arch.Delt. 28, 1973, B1 Chronicles, 199. Karapanagiotou, A.B., 1994, Arch.Delt. 49, B1 Chronicles, 178-180. Karapanagiotou, A.B., 1995, Arch.Delt. 50, B1 Chronicles, 133-138. Karapanagiotou, A.B., 1996, A’ Archaeologikē Synodos Notiodytikēs Hellados (1st Archaeological Synod of SW Greece), Patras. Karapaschalidou, A., 1986, ‘Rōmaïko valaneio stēn Chalkida’ (Roman balaneion from Chalkis), Anthropologika kai Archaeologika Chronika 1. Kardara, C., 1961, “Dyeing and Weaving Works at Isthmia,” AJA, 65, 261-266. Kardara, C., 1974, “Vafi, vafeia kai vafai kata thn archaiotita,”Hesperia, 43, 446-453. Kargakos, S., 1999, Historia tou Hellēnikou Kosmou kai tou Meizonos Chorou (History of the Greek World and of Greater Space), Vol. I, Gutenberg, Athens. Karo, G., 1936, AA, 179-180. Morricone, L., 1950, Terme del Poctos, Boll d’ Arte, 1950, 219-220. Kassimi, 1995, Arch.Delt. 50, B1 Chronicles, 133-138. Kavvadias, P. 1893, Praktika 10. Kavvadias, P. 1898, Praktika, 17. Kavvadias, P. 1921, Praktika, 39-41. Kavvadias, P. 1922, Praktika, 23-25. Kavvadias, P. 1922-23, Praktika, 2, 24. Kavvadias, P. 1924, Praktika, 116-117. Kavvadias, P. 1925, Praktika, 47-51. Kavvadias, P., 1891, Fouilles d’ Epidaure, Athènes. Kavvadias, P., 1900a, To Ieron tou Asklēpiou en Epidaurō (The Sanctuary of Aesculapius in Epidaurus), Athens. Kavvadias, P., 1900b, To Ieron tou Asklēpiou en Epidaurō kai ē Therapeia tōn Asthenōn (The Sanctuary of Aesculapi-

us in Epidaurus and the Healing of Patients), The Athens Archaeological Society, Athens. Kavvadias, P., 2006, To Asklēpieion t ēs Epidaurou, (The Asklēpieion of Epidaurus), Kaktos, Athens. Kirsten, E. und W. Kraiker, 1962, Griechenlandkunde: ein Führer zu klassischen Stätten, Heidelberg, Winter , 1962. Kitto, H.D.F., 1970, The Greeks, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth. Kotsaki, M., 1987, Arch.Delt. 42, B1 Chronicles, 138. Koukouli – Chrysanthaki, Ch. and Charalambos Bakirtzis, 2003, Philippoi (Philippi), Ministry of Culture, Fund of Archaeological Resources and Expropriations, Athens. Kourinou-Pikoula, E., Arch.Delt. 40, 1985, Β Chronicles, 102. Krencker, D., 1938, Der Schlüssel zum Verständnis der grossen Thermen Roms: Ein technisch-wirtschaftliches Problem, Berlin. Krintzas, Ch., Arch.Delt. 27, 1972, 213. Kritzas, Ch., 1973, Arch.Delt. 28, B Chronicles, 129-132. Kritzas, Ch., 1973-74, Arch.Delt. 29, 226-227. Krug, A., 2003, Ancient Medicine: Scientific and religious medicine in antiquity, Papadimas, Athens (Greek translation). Original: Heilkunst und Heilkult: Medizin in der Antike, Beck’s archäologische Bibliothek, C.H. Beck, 1985. Krystalli – Votsi, K., 1967, Arch.Delt. 22, 171-172. Kunze, E. und H. Schleif, 1944, Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Olympia 1940 und 1941, IV, Berlin. Kunze, E. und H. Schleif, Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Olympia. 2, Winter 1937/38, Berlin. Kunze, E., 1960, Αrch.Delt. 16, Chronicles, 129. Kyle, D.G., 2007, Sport and Spectacle in the Ancient World, Blackwell, Oxford. Lacy, L.R., 1990, “Aktaion and a lost bath of Artemis”, The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 110.1990, 26-42. Ladstätter, G., 1993, Balaneion. Untersuchungen zur zöffentlichen Badeanlagen vom X. bis in das II/I Jh. V. Chr, Diss. Innsbruck (unpubliziert). Ladstätter, G., 1994, Die Badeanlage nordlich des Vereinshauses, Nikephoros 7, 241-247. Ladstätter, G., 1995, “Das sog. ‘Griechische Hypocaustenbad’ in Zeusheiligtum von Olympia: Eine Neubetrachtung in Verbindung mit frühen italischen Thermenarchitektur.“, in Marc, J. Y. et al (eds), Constructions publiques et programmes édilitaires en Grèce du Iie S. Av. J.-C, Actes du Colloque organisé par l’ École Française d’ Athènes avec le concours du CNRS, Athènes (EFA), 14-17 Mai 1995. Ladstätter, G., 2006 (BCH-Chronique des fouilles en ligne: 149) Ladstätter, G., 2007 (Chronique BCH-Chronique des fouilles en ligne: 339) Ladstätter, G., 2008 (Chronique BCH-Chronique des fouilles en ligne: 895) Lambrinoudakis, B., 1989, ‘Epidauros: Ieron Apollōnos Maleata’ (Epidaurus: Sanctuary of Apollo Maleatas), Praktika, 55. Lambrinoudakis, B., 1990, ‘Epidauros: Ieron Apollōnos Maleata’ (Epidaurus: Sanctuary of Apollo Maleatas), Praktika, 49. Lambrinoudakis, B., 1991, ‘Epidauros: Ieron Apollōnos 291

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

Maleata’ (Epidaurus: Sanctuary of Apollo Maleatas), Praktika, 70-78. Lambrinoudakis, B., 1992, ‘Epidauros: Ieron Apollōnos Maleata’ (Epidaurus: Sanctuary of Apollo Maleatas), Praktika, 50-51. Lambrinoudakis, B., 1993, Ergon, 19-21. Lambrinoudakis, B., 1994, ‘Epidauros: Ieron Apollōnos Maleata’ (Epidaurus: Sanctuary of Apollo Maleatas), Praktika, 67. Lambrinoudakis, B., 1996, ‘Epidauros: Ieron Apollōnos Maleata’ (Epidaurus: Sanctuary of Apollo Maleatas), Praktika, 69. Lane Fox, Robin, 1996, “Hellenistic culture and literature“, in Boardman, Griffin and Murray (eds), 1996, pp. 487-527 (Greek translation). Laty, D., 1991, Histoire des Bains, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris. Lazaridi, K., 1987, “To gymnasio tis archaias Amphipolis” (The gymnasium of ancient Amphipolis), AEMTH, 314. Lazaridis, A., Arch.Delt. 38, 1983, Β1 Chronicles, 113. Lazaridis, D., 1973, Philippoi – Romaiki Apoikia (Philippoi – Roman Colony), Series “Ancient Greek Cities”, No 20, Athēnaikos Technologikos Omilos, Athenaiko Kentro Oikistikēs, Athens. Lazarivis, P., 1966, Praktika, 8-14. Leake, W. M., 1835, Travels in northern Greece, I-IV, London. Legrand, E., 1893, BCH 17, 86-88. Lenoir, M. (ed.), 1991, Les thermes romains: Actes de la table ronde organisée par l’ École française de Rome, 11-12 Novembre 1988, École Française de Rome, Rome. Lévêque, Pierre, 2003, The Hellenistic World, Metaichmio, Athens (Greek translation). Original : Le monde hellénistique, Armand Colin, 1992. Lilimbaki – Akamati, M., 1997, Arch.Delt. 52, B2 Chronicles, 714-716. Lolas, Ch., 2000, Iatrikē Frontida stous Archaious Olympiakous Agōnes (Medical Care in the Ancient Olympic Games), Odysseas, Athens. Lucian, Modern Greek translation, Kaktos, Athens, 19. Lucore, S. K., 2009, “Archimedes, the North Baths at Morgantina, and Early Developments in Vaulted Construction”, in Kosso C. and A. Scott (eds), The Nature and Function of Water, Baths, Bathing and Hygiene from Antiquity through Renaissance, Leiden-Boston, Brill, 43-59. Luts, K., Griekse Baden, Scriptie voorgelegd aan de Faculteit Letteren en Wijsbegeerte, voor het behalen van de graad van Licentiaat in de Archeologie, Academiejaar: 2005-2006, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, (http://www. ethesis.net/griekse_baden/griekse_baden_inhoud.htm). Lygouri-Tolia, E., 2002, “Excavating an ancient palaestra in Athens”, in Stamatopoulou, M. and M. Yeroulanou (eds), Excavating classical culture: Recent archaeological discoveries in Greece, 203-212. MacDonald W., L., 1980, “The Small Baths of Hadrian’s Villa”, Journal of Architectural Historians, vol. XXXIX n. 1. Maiuri, A., 1950, “Pompei: scoperta di un edificio termale nella region VIII, 5, 36”, NSc, 4, 116-136. Malissard, A., 1994, Les romains et l’eau: fontaines, salles

de bains, thermes, égouts, aqueducs, Les Belles Lettres, Paris. Mallwitz, A., 1972, Olympia und seine Bauten, München. Mallwitz, A., Winter 1953-54 und 1954-55, “Das Gebiet südlich der Bäder am Kladeos”, VI. Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Olympia. Manderscheid, H., 1988, Bibliographie zum römischen Badewesen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der öffentlichen Thermen, München. Manderscheid, H., 2000, “The water management of greek and roman baths”, in Wikander, Ö. (ed.), Handbook of Ancient Water Technology, Technology and Change in History 2, Brill, Leiden-Boston-Köln, 467-484. Manderscheid, H., 2004, “Ancient Baths and Bathing: A Bibliography for the Years 1988 – 2001”, JRA, Supplementary Series Number 55, Portsmouth, Rhode Island, 10-14. Mango, E., 2003, Das Gymnasion, Eretria XIII. Μarcadé, J., 1957, BCH 81, 405-467. Marinatos, S., Praktika, 1954, 307-308, fig. 5. Martini, W., 1984, Das Gymnasion von Samos, Samos XVI, Bonn. Mattingly, D., J., 1997, “Dialogues in Roman imperialism”, JRA, Suppl. 23. Mavromichali, A., ‘Ta gyalina evrēmata tou valaneiou’ (The glassware findings of the balaneion), Archaia Agora Thessalonikis – Praktika diēmeridas gia tis ergasies tōn etōn 1989-1999 (Ancient Agora of Thessalonica – Proceedings of a two-day conference for the work of the years 19891999). Mee, Christopher and Antony Spawforth [a], Archaeological Guide of Attica, Leadercom sa, Athens (Greek translation). Original: Greece – An Oxford archaeological guide, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2001. Mee, Christopher και Antony Spawforth [b], ArchaeologicalGuide of the Peloponnese, Leadercom sa, Athens (Greek translation). Original: Greece – An Oxford archaeological guide, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2001. Mee, Christopher και Antony Spawforth [c], ArchaeologicalGuide of Central, Western and Northern Greece, Leadercom sa, Athens (Greek translation). Original: Greece – An Oxford archaeological guide, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2001. Megalē Hellēnikē Egkyklopaideia (Great Greek Encyclopaedia), n.d., 2nd edition, Pavlos Drandakis / Publishing House “Phoenix”, Athens (in Greek). Messineo, G., 1988-89, “Efestia (Lemno). Area sacra: il nuovo hieron (scavi 1979-81), ASAtene LXVI-LXVII, 379425. Meyer,B., 1989, Les femmes et les bains publics dans l’ Égypte grecque, romaine et byzantine, Proceedings of the XIXth International Congress of Papyrology, Cairo 2-9 September 1989, 2. Michalowsky, K., 1962, ‘Les Fouilles Polonaises à Tell Atrib (1957-60), AnnEg 57, 49-77. Miller, S.G. et al., 2005, Nemea: Mouseio kai Archaeologikos Choros (Nemea: Museum and Archaeological Site), Ministry of Culture, Fund of Archaeological Resources and Expropriations, Athens. Miller, S.G., 1988, “The Bath at Nemea and its place in the 292

Bibliography

development of hellenistic building types”, in Akten des ΧΙΙ Internationalen Kongresses fur Klasische Archeologie, Berlin, 1988, 253-258. Miller, S.G., 1992, “The Bath” in Birge, D.E. et al (eds), Excavations at Nemea, Vol. I, Topographical and Architectural Studies: The Sacred Square, The Xenon, and the Bath, University of Califormia Press, Berkeley, 188-261. Mountzali, A., Arch.Delt. 39, 1984, 109-110. Moutzali, A.G., 1984, AAA XVII, 21-41. Moutzali, A.G., 1987, Arch.Delt. 42, B1 Chronicles, 194. Μüller-Wiener, W., 1988, Griechisches Bauwesen in der Antike, Beck’s Archäologische Bibliothek, München. Myśliwiec, K., 1998, “La fonction des bains publics de l’époque ptolémaique à Athribis”, Kwartalnik historii Kultury materialnej, 46. 1998. Nielsen, I., 1985, “Considerazioni sulle prime fasi dell’ evoluzione dell’ edificio termale romano”, Analecta Romana Instituti Danici, 14, 81-112. Nielsen, I., 1993, Thermae et Balnea: The architecture and cultural history of Roman public baths, Vol. I: Text, Vol. II: Catalogue and plates, Aarhus University Press, Aarhus. Nielsen, I., 1999, “Early provincial baths and their relations to early Italic baths”, in DeLaine, J. and D. E. Johnston (eds), 1999, Roman Baths and Bathing, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Roman Baths held at Bath, England, 30 March – 4 April 1992, Portsmouth, Rhode Island. Nikopolis A’: Praktika tou Prōtou Diethnous Symposiou gia tēn Nikopolē, 1984 (Nicopolis A’: Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium about Nicopolis), 23-29 September 1984. Nordfeldt, A. C., 1987, «Residential Quarters and Lustral Basins», in Hägg, R and N. Marinatos (eds), The Function of the Minoan Palaces: Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 10-16 June, 1984, Stockholm, 187-194. Nutton, V., 2004, Ancient Medicine, Routledge, London. Orlandini, P. et D. Adamesteanu, 1960, ‘Gela. Nuovi scavi. Il impianto greco di bagni pubblici presso l’ ospizio’, NSc, ser. 8.14, 181-211. Orlandos, A. and I.N. Travlos, 1986, Lexikon Archaiōn Architektonikōn Orōn (Dictionary of Arcient Architectural Terms), Library of the Athens Archaeological Society, No 94, Athens. Orlandos, A. K., 1935, “Anaskafi Sikyonos” (Excavation of Sikyon), Praktika 1935, 73-83. Orlandos, A. K., 1936, “Anaskafi Sikyonos” (Excavation of Sikyon), Praktika 1936, 86-94. Orlandos, A. K., Praktika 1951, 187-191. Orlandos, A. K., Praktika 1953, 184-190. Osborne, R., 1996, Greece in the making: 1200-479 BC, Routledge, London. Owens, E., J., 1991, The City in the Greek and Roman World, Routledge, London. Pallas, D.I., 1959, “Anaskafikai erevnai en Lechaio (Excavation at Lechaion)”, Praktika, 1959, 137. Pallas, D.I., 1965, “Anaskafikai erevnai en Lechaio (Excavation at Lechaion)”, Praktika, 1965, 149. Panagiotopoulou, A., 1998, ‘Rōmaïka kai ysterorōmaïka

loutra sto Argos’ (Roman and late-Roman baths in Argos), in Pariente, A. et G. Touchais (éds.), 1998, Argos et l’Argolide : Topographie et urbanisme, Actes de la Table ronde organisée par l’Ecole française d’Athènes et la 4e Éphorie des antiquités préhistoriques et classiques, Athènes-Argos, 28 avril-1er mai 1987, Paris, 373-384. Pantermalis, D., 1986, Oi archaeologoi miloun gia tin Pieria (The archaeologists talk about Pieria), 9-16. Papachatzis, N., 2004a, Pausaniou Hellados Periēgēsis: Attika (Pausanias’s Description Greece: Attika), Ekdotikē Athēnon, Athens. Papachatzis, N., 2004b, Pausaniou Hellados Periēgēsis: Korinthiaka - Lakonika (Pausanias’s Description Greece: Korinthia), Ekdotikē Athēnon, Athens. Papachatzis, N., 2004c, Pausaniou Hellados Periēgēsis: Messēniaka kai Ēliaka (Pausanias’s Description Greece: Messēnia and Ēlis), Ekdotikē Athēnon, Athens. Papachatzis, N., 2004d, Pausaniou Hellados Periēgēsis: Achaeka kai Arkadika (Pausanias’s Description Greece: Achaea and Arkadia), Ekdotikē Athēnon, Athens. Papachatzis, N., 2004e, Pausaniou Hellados Periēgēsis: Boeotia and Phocis, (Pausanias’s Description Greece: Boeotia and Phocis), Ekdotikē Athēnon, Athens. Papachristodoulou, I., 1967, Arch.Delt. 22, B1 Chronicles, 174-176. Papakonstantinou, E., Arch.Delt. 37, 1982, B1 Chronicles, 134, 136. Papapostolou, I.A., 1972, Arch.Delt. 27, Chronicles, 286. Papapostolou, I.A., 1978, Arch.Delt. 37, B1 Chronicles, 86. Papapostolou, I.A., 1979, Arch.Delt. 34, B1 Chronicles, 130, 149-151. Papapostolou, I.A., 1982, Arch.Delt. 37, B1 Chronicles, 140. Papathanasopoulos, G. A., Arch.Delt. 25, 1970, B1 Chronicles, 194, plate 174B. Papazoglou – Manioudaki, 1984, Arch.Delt. 39, B Chronicles, 90. Pariente, A. et G. Touchais (éds.), 1998, Argos et l’Argolide : Topographie et urbanisme, Actes de la Table ronde organisée par l’Ecole française d’Athènes et la 4e Éphorie des antiquités préhistoriques et classiques, Athènes-Argos, 28 avril-1er mai 1987, Paris. Pariente, A., M. Pierart et J.P. Thalmann, 1998, “Les Recherches sur l’ Agora d’ Argos”, in Pariente, A. et G. Touchais (éds.), 1998, Argos et l’Argolide : Topographie et urbanisme, Actes de la Table ronde organisée par l’Ecole française d’Athènes et la 4e Éphorie des antiquités préhistoriques et classiques, Athènes-Argos, 28 avril-1er mai 1987, Paris, 211-231. Perkins, Phil and Lisa Nevett, 2004, “Urbanism and urbanization in the Roman world”, in J. Huskinson (ed), Experiencing Rome: Culture Identity and Power in the Roman Empire, 213-244. Persson, A.W., 1931, Asine. De svenska utgrävningarna, Stockholm. Petritaki, M., 1985, Arch.Delt. 40, Chronicles, 111. Petronotis, A., 1973, Ē Megalē Polis tēs Arkadias (The Great City of Arcadia), Series “Ancient Greek Cities”, No 23, Athēnaikos Technologikos Omilos, Athēnaiko Kentro 293

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

Oikistikēs, Athens. Petropoulos, M., 1976, Arch.Delt. 31, B1 Chronicles, 115, 123. Petropoulos, M., 1985, Arch.Delt. 40, B Chronicles, 123. Petrounakos, S., 2003, Ena Neo Loutriko Sygkrotēma tēs Hysterēs Romaïkēs Periodou sto Asklēpieio tēs Epidaurou (A new Bath Complex of the Late Roman Period in the Asklēpieion of Epidaurus), Athens. Pfretzschner, E., 1909, Die Grundriss Entwicklung der romischen Thermen, Strassburg. Pierart, M. et G. Touchais, 1996, Argos : Une ville grecque de 6000 ans, CNRS Éditions, Paris. Platon, N. 1967, “Bathrooms and Lustral Basins in Minoan Dwellings”, in Brice, William C. (ed.), Europa. Studien zur Geschichte und Epigraphik der Frühen Aegaeis, Festschrift für Ernst Grumach, Walter de Gruyter and Co., Berlin, 236-245. Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, ch. 24, English translation by Bernadotte Perrin, Loeb Classical Library edition. Preston, L., 2004, «Contextualisng the Larnax: tradition, innovation and regionalism in coffin use of Late Minoan II-IIIB Crete», Oxford Journal of Archaeology, 23: 2, 177197. Price, Simon, 1996, “The history of the Hellenistic period”, in Boardman, Griffin and Murray (eds), 1996, 453-485 (Greek translation). Radt, W., 1982, AA 1982, 521-561. Raftopoulou, S.P., 1992, Arch.Delt. 47, B1 Chronicles, 108. Rammou, A., 1997, Arch.Delt. 52, B1 Chronicles, 187-189. Raptopoulos, S., 2005, Xana gia ton vyzantino loutrōna tou Kastrou Nafpaktou (Again about the byzantine bath of the Castle of Naupactus), Delphi. Reece, S., 2002, “The Homeric Asaminthos: Stirring the Waters of the Mycenaean Bath”, Mnemosyne 55.6., 703707. Renehan, R., 1968, “The Greeks and the Bath”, CR 18:2, 133-134. Riad, H., 1975, “Anciens bains d’ Alexandrie”, Bulletin, Société archéologique d’ Alexandrie, 43, 113-122. Robinson, D.M. and J.W. Graham, 1930, Architecture and sculpture: Houses and other buildings, Excavations at Olynthus, 2, Baltimore, London and Oxford. Robinson, D.M. and J.W. Graham, 1938, The Hellenic house: A study of the houses found at Olynthus with a detailed account of those excavated in 1931 and 1934, Excavations at Olynthus, 8, Baltimore, London and Oxford. Robinson, H. S., 1965, The urban development of ancient Corinth, Athens, American School of Classical Studies. Rocco, G., 1961, L’ antica Solunta, Palermo, 14-15. Roebuck, C., 1951, The Asklepieion and Lerna, Corinth, XIV, Princeton, 42-51. Rossiter, J. J., 2004, “Bath-house or house bath”, The Swedish Excavation at Carthage, Journal of Roman Archaeology, 17. 2004, 647-650. Rostovtzeff, Michael, 1984, Roman History, Papazissis, Athens (Greek translation). Original: The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire, 1928 and 1972. Roth, R., 2007, Styling Romanisation: Pottery and Society in Central Italy, Cambridge Classical Studies, Cambridge

Uiversity Press. Roux, G., 1958, Pausanias en Corinthie, Paris. Sakellariou, Μ. V. and N. Faraklas, 1971, Corinthia – Cleonaea, Athens Technological Organization, Athens Center of Ekistics. Sanders, G. D. R., 1999, “A Late Roman Bath at Corinth: Excavations in the Panayia Field, 1995-1996”, Hesperia, Vol. 68, No. 4, 441-480. Sandklef, A., 1976, “The heating of classical thermae”, Opuscula Romana, 11.1976. Sapouna-Sakellaraki, E., Arch.Delt. 42, 1987, B1 Chronicles, 203. Schalles, H. J., 1991, Die römischen Bäder, Köln: Rheinland-Verl. Schliemann, H., 1885, Tirynthe, Paris. Schliemann, H., 1886, Tiryns: Der prähistorische Palast der Könige von Tirys. Ergebnisse der neuesten Ausgrabungen, Leipzig, F. A. Brockhaus. Schuller, Wolfgang, 2001, History of Ancient Greece, Cultural Foundation of the National Bank of Greece, Athens (Greek translation). Original: Griechische Geschichte, 1991. Schwartz, H. et H. Wild, 1950, “Qasr-Qarun/Dionysias 1948”, Publications de l’ Institut francais d’ Archeologie Oriental du Caire. Fouilles franco-suisses. Rapports 2, 51-62. Schwarzstein, A., 1909, “Eine Gebäudegruppe in Olympia”, Zur Kunstgeschichte des Auslandes, LXVI, 29. Scranton, R.L., 1912, Monuments in the lower agora north of the archaic temple, Corinth, v. 1,3, Athens. Scranton, R.L., 1951, “Buildings north of the archaic temple”, Corinth I.3, 155-179. Sears, J.M., 1904, “Oeniadae 5, A greek bath”, AJA 8, 216226. Sedky, K., 1968, “Ptolemaic Baths of Kôm Ganâdy”, ASAE 60, 221-225. Sève, M., 1993, Les Voyageurs Français à Argos, École Française d’ Αthènes. EfA. Shear, T.L., “The Athenian Agora: Excavations of 1968”, Hesperia 38, 1969, 395-398. Sinn, U., C. Leypold und C. Schauer, 2003, “Olympia – eine Spitzenstellung nicht nur im Sport: Eine neuentdeckte Badeanlage der hellenistischen Zeit”, AW, 617-623. Smith, T. K., 1995, «Bathing in Late Bronze Age Greece» (abstract) , 96th Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America. Abstracts of Papers, AJA 99, 322. Smith, W., 2000, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, Doudoumis, Athens (Greek translation). Original: Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, 1849. Sotiriou, G. A., Praktika, 1935, 52-69, figs 15-19. Sotiriou, G. A., Praktika, 1936, 57-67. Sperling, J. W., 1973, Thera and Therasia, Series “Ancient Greek Cities”, No 22, Athēnaikos Technologikos Omilos, Athenaiko Kentro Oikistikēs, Athens. Spyropoulos, Th. G., , Arch.Delt. 37, 1982, B1 Chronicles, 118-119. Spyropoulos, Th. G., Arch.Delt. 35, 1980, Β1 Chronicles, 135, plate 46a-b. Spyropoulos, Th., 1981, Arch.Delt. 36, Chronicles, 121, fig. 1. 294

Bibliography

Spyropoulos, Th., 1983, Arch.Delt. 38, B1 Chronicles, 9495, fig. 3. Staes, B., 1886, Praktika, 79. Staes, B., 1887, Praktika, 67. Stamatelatos, M. and F. Vamva – Stamatelatou, 2006, Epitomo Geographiko Lexiko tēs Hellados (Abridged Geographical Dictionary of Greece), 2nd edition, Ekdotikē Hermēs, Athens. Stambaugh, John E., 1988, The Ancient Roman City, The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Steinhauer, G, Arch.Delt. 30, 1975, Β1 Chronicles, 76-77. Steinhauer, G., Arch.Delt. 28, 1973, B1 Chronicles, 173, fig. 7, plate 151a-b. Steinhauer, G., Arch.Delt. 29, 1973-1974, B2 Chronicles, 286, 290-291, fig. 4. Steinhauer, G., 1971, Arch.Delt. 26, Chronicles, 120-123. Steinhauer, G., 1973-74, Arch.Delt. 29, Chronicles, 283301. Steinhauer, G., Arch.Delt. 26, 1971, B1 Chronicles, 120122. Suceveanu, A., et al, 1982, “Les thermes romains”, Historia 6, Paris, Diffusion de Boccard. Sudhoff, K., 1910, Aus dem Antiken Badewesen: Medizinisch, Kulturgeschichtliche Studien an Vasenbildern, Berlin. Talbert, R.J.A., ed., 2000, Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World, Princeton University Press, Princeton and Oxford. Terrenato, N., 1998, “The Romanization of Italy: global acculturation or cultural bricolage?” in Colin Forcey, John Hawthorne, and Robert Witcher, editors, TRAC 97. Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference, Oxbow Books, 20-27. Thébert, Y., 2003, Thermes romains d’Afrique du nord et leur contexte mediterranéen, École Française de Rome. Themelis, P., 1967, Arch.Delt. 22, B1 Chronicles, 208, table 148. Themelis, P., 1968, Arch.Delt. 23, Chronicles, 165-170. Themelis, P., 1989, Praktika, 77-91. Themelis, P., 2000, Herōes kai herōa stē Messēnē (Heroes and heroic shrines in Messene), Library of the Athens Archaeological Society, Athens. Themos, A. and G.P. Pantou, 1996, Arch.Delt. 51, B1 Chronicles, 121-123. Themos, A., 1998, Arch.Delt. 53, B1 Chronicles, 159-161. Tomlinson, R., A., 1983, Epidauros, Toronto. Touchais, G, 1978, “Chronique des fouilles en 1977”, BCH 102. Touchais, G., 1981, “Chronique des Fouilles en 1980”, BCH 105. Touratsoglou, I., 1999, Makedonia: Historia – Mnēmeia – Mouseia (Macedonia: History, monuments, museums), Ekdotikē Athēnon, Athens. Travlos, J., 1980, A Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Athens, Hacker Art Books, New York. Travlos, J., 1988, Bildlexikon zur Topographie des Antiken Attika, Deutches Archaologisches Institut, Ernst Wasmuth Verlag, Tübingen. Trigger, B. G., 1989, A History of Archaeological Thought,

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Tsipopoulou, M. and L. Vagnetti, 1999, “A Bath-Tub Larnax from Tourloti (Sitia), East Crete”, SMEA 41.1., 123-143. Vallet, G., P. Villard et P. Auberson, 1983, Megara Hyblaea: Guide des fouilles, Rome, 49-58. Valmin, M. N., 1938, The Swedish Messenia Expedition, Lund. Valmin, N., 1928-9, Bull. Soc. Royale, Lund. Van Esveld, W.H.C., 1908, De Balneis Lavationibusque Graecorum, Diss., Utrecht. Van Tubergen, A. and S. van der Linden, 2002, “A brief history of spa therapy”, Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 2002, 61: 273-275. Vassileiou, A., 1985, Mélanges de l’ École française de Rome, Antiquité 97.1985. Vigarello, G., 2000, Clean and Dirty: Body hygiene from the Middle Ages to the present, Alexandreia, Athens (Greek translation). Original : Le propre et le sale – L’ hygiene du corps depuis le Moyen Age, Seuil, Paris, 1985. Vikatou, O., 1973-1974, Arch.Delt. 29, Chronicles, 339. Vikatou, O., 1977, Arch.Delt. 52, B1 Chronicles, 263. Vikatou, O., 1999, Arch.Delt. 54, Chronicles, 243. Vitruvius, 1960, The Ten Books on Architecture, New York. Vitruvius, 2000, Peri Architektonikis (De Architectura), Greek translation and commentary by Pavlos Lefas, Plethron, Athens. Wace, A. J. B., 1905-1906, “Laconia II – Excavations at Sparta”, BSA 12, 407-414. Wace, A.J.B., 1921-2, 1922-3, ABSA 25, 263-266. Wacker, C., 1996, Das Gymnasion in Olympia : Geschichte und Funktion, Würzburg, Ergon Verlag. Waldstein, C. et al., 1902-1905, The Argive Heraeum, vol. II, Boston, Houghton Mifflin. Ward-Perkins, 1981, Roman Imperial Architecture, Yale University Press, New Haven and London. Wasif, F.M., 1979, “A Graeco-Roman bath at Tell Sersena”, Annales du Service des antiquités de l’Egypte, 63.1979, 177182. Weber, K.K., 1992, “Verdingung von Bauleistungen bei öffentlichen Bauten in Griechenland von der Mitte des 5. bis zum 2. Jahrhundert v. Chr. – Erkentnisse aus einem Vergleich zur heutigen Zeit”, Architectura 22, 2. Weber, M., 1996, Antike Badekultur, C. H. Beck, München. Wells, B. (ed.), 1996, The Berbati – Limnes Archaeological Survey 1988-1990, Stockholm. Welter, G., 1941, Troizen und Kalaureia, Berlin, Gebr. Mann, 33-36. Westholm, A., 1939, “Vounipalatsets vattencisterner, ledningssystem, och badeanläggning”, Rörinstallatören, January 1939. Whitmarsh, Tim, 2001, “’Greece is the World’: exile and identity in the Second Sophistic”, in S. Goldhill (ed), 2001, 269 – 305. Wikander, O. (ed.), 2000, Handbook of Ancient Water Technology, Brill, Leiden-Boston-Köln. Williams, C.K., 1969, “Excavations in Corinth, 1968”, Hesperia 38, 62-63. Williams, C.K., 1975, “Excavations in Corinth, 1974”, 295

The Bath in Greece in Classical Antiquity

Hesperia 43, 32-39. Williams, C.K., 1976, “Excavations in Corinth, 1975”, Hesperia 45, 109-116. Williams, C.K., 1977, ΙΙ, “Corinth 1976: Forum Southeast”, Hesperia 46, 45-53. Williams, C.K., II, J. Macintosh and J. E. Fisher, 1974, Hesperia 43, 33. Windelband, W. and H. Heimsoeth, 1980, Manual of the History of Philosophy, Vol. I, Cultural Foundation of the National Bank of Greece, Athens (Greek translation). Original: Lehrbuch der Geschichte der Philosophie, Mohr Siebeck Gmbh & Co. Wiseman, J., 1969, Hesperia 38, 75-78. Wiseman, J., 1970, Archaeology 23, 130-137. Wiseman, J., 1972, “The Gymnasium Area at Corinth: 1969-1970”, Hesperia 41, 1-42. Woolf, G.D., 1994, “Becoming Roman, staying Greek: culture, identity and the civilizing process in the Roman east”, ProcCambPhilSoc 40, 116-43. Yegül, F., 1979, The small city bath in classical antiquity and a reconstruction study of Lucian’s “Baths of Hippias”, Archeologia classica, 31.1979, 108-131. Yegül, F., 1993, “The Roman baths at Isthmia in their Mediterranean context”, in Gregory, T., E. (ed.), The Corinthia in the roman period, Ann Arbor, 95-113. Yegül, F., 1995, Baths and Bathing in Classical Antiquity, Cambridge University Press. Yegül, F., 2003, “Building a Roman bath for the cameras”, JRA, 16.2003, 153-177. Zavvoú, E. and A. Themos, 1998, Arch.Delt. 53, Chronicles, 167-169. Zavvoú, E., 1999, Arch.Delt. 54, 178-180.

296