Baths and Bathing: The culture of bathing and the baths and thermae in Palestine from the Hasmoneans to the Moslem Conquest: With an appendix on Jewish Ritual baths (miqva'ot) 9781841716923, 9781407327754

Citation preview

BAR S1346 2005

HOSS

BATHS AND BATHING

B A R

Baths and Bathing The culture of bathing and the baths and thermae in Palestine from the Hasmoneans to the Moslem Conquest with an Appendix on Jewish Ritual baths (miqva’ot)

Stefanie Hoss

BAR International Series 1346 2005

ISBN 9781841716923 paperback ISBN 9781407327754 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841716923 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

A scholar should not reside in a city where the following ten things are not found: A court of justice, […], a charity fund […], a Synagogue, public baths, a convenience [public toilet], a circumciser, a surgeon, a notary, a slaughterer and a school-master. (b Tal Syn 17 b, Translation Epstein)

Meinen Eltern gewidmet

NOTE OF THANKS I would like to thank my “Doktorvater“, Thomas Fischer, for agreeing to supervise a thesis whose subject is rather far removed from Provincial Roman Archaeology in Germany. I also owe thanks to Robert Wenning, who agreed to be my second supervisor after the sudden death of Hannelore Künzl in the summer of 2000. I owe a large dept of gratitude to the Gerda-HenkelStiftung for making this thesis possible with the help of a generous scholarship. In addition, the Stiftung enabled me to participate in the twelfth World Congress of Jewish Studies in Jerusalem in 2001, where I had the opportunity to present a part of my thesis and discuss it with many scholars. The generosity of this foundation and their gracious and helpful staff were a great support for me. I was fortunate enough to repeatedly enjoy the unmatched hospitality of the German Institute of Archaeology at Jerusalem (Deutsches Evangelisches Institut für die Altertumskunde des Heiligen Landes). The then director, Hanswulf Bloedhorn, went far beyond his call of duty in showing me round the country, bringing me into contact with scholars and tracking down many a bath for me. Even by Jerusalem standards, the library of the Institute is exceptionally well-sorted, ancient, quiet and cool. It has proved to be invaluable to me and without it neither the catalogue nor the text would have attained their present form. I hope the institute will continue to exist and help scholars from all countries to live and research in Jerusalem. I would like to thank Ronny Reich for allowing me to copy his unpublished PhD-Thesis and for some very enlightening discussions. Martin Jacobs, Ehud Netzer, Leah Di Segni and Boaz Zissu were also kind enough to clarify a host of questions in several discussions. In addition, Boaz Zissu showed me round his excavation at Khirbet Ethri (Judea) and “found” some published baths and miqva’ot for me, as did David Milson. Katharina Galor allowed me to use her unpublished articles on the miqva’ot in Qumran and Sepphoris and has furthermore helped me avoid several pitfalls during the writing of the part on miqva’ot. Roland Deines also helped and kindly encouraged me during the writing of this chapter, which I much appreciate. I owe thanks to Bert deVries and S. Th. Parker for sending me a copy of the chapter on the bath at the Legionary fortress of el-Lejjun before publication and to Annette Plontke-Lüning for sending me a copy of her article on Roman architecture in Georgia, which enabled me to draw an interesting comparison.

I have to thank Martin Goodman and Mordechai Gichon both for kindly taking the time to talk to a student looking for a subject for a thesis and for their ideas, which were the seeds for this thesis, even if it turned out completely different from what each of them – and I - had imagined. For discussions on innumerable points of this work I thank Eva Bopp, Annette Paez gen. Schieck, Marianne Tabaczek, Wolfgang Thiel and the other members of the Institute of Archaeology at the University of Cologne. Thanks are due to Christiane Hoss, Joachim Hoss and Paul Franzen for their tireless proofreading of the English version of this work. Finally I have to thank my editor, David Davison for including this work into the B. A. R. International Series.

CONTENTS ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………...………………………………

1

1. Baths

1

2. Miqva’ot

5 BATHS AND THERMAE IN ROMAN PALESTINE

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

The Jewish Tradition on Bathing according to the Literary Evidence…………………………………...

9

1. Health and hygienic considerations

10

2. Religious objections against baths of the Roman type

11

3. Nakedness and shame in Judaism

12

The Roman Bathing Tradition and the Roman “Bathing Life” according to the Literary Evidence…….

15

1. Health and hygienic concerns

15

2. Management of the baths

17

3. Design, equipment and decoration of the baths

19

4. Thermal and other special baths

21

5. Bathing customs and regulations

22

The Development of Bath Building Types: Architecture and Decoration………………..……….……..

27

1. The Forerunners of the Roman Baths

27

2. The Roman Baths

30

The Two Main Technical Systems of a Roman Bath: Heating and Water Supply………………………

33

1. Heating

33

2. Water supply and waste water disposal

36

Analysis of the Hellenistic and Roman Baths in Palestine ………………………………………...........

38

1. Hellenistic Period (150 – 36 BCE)

38

2. Early Roman Period (37 BCE – 70 CE)

45

3. Imperial Roman Period (70 – 324 CE)

49

4. Late Antiquity (180-324 CE)

52

5. Byzantine Period (324-640 CE)

57

6. Summary: The development, dating and typology of the baths in Roman Palestine

64

The Jewish “Bathing Life” according to the Jewish Literary Evidence………………….…….………...

67

1. Health and hygienic concerns

67

2. Design and equipment of the baths

68

3. Bathing customs and regulations

73

CONTENTS ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

7.

8.

The “Bathing Life” according to the Christian and Pagan Literary Evidence…………….…………...

81

1. Health and hygienic concerns

82

2. Design and equipment of the baths

84

3. Bathing customs and regulations

87

Synthesis and Conclusion: The “Bathing Culture” and the Baths and Thermae ….……….………….

92

in Roman Palestine .

APPENDIX: MIQVA’OT IN ROMAN PALESTINE Introduction............................................................................................................................................. 103

1.

2.

3.

Ritual Purity and the Miqveh according to the Literary Evidence……………...…………..………….

104

1. Ritual Purity.

104

2. Halakha and Miqveh.

106

3. Halakhic requirements for a miqveh

108

The Miqveh according to the Archaeological Discoveries……..……………………………………… 111 1. Identification of the Miqva’ot

111

2. Analysis of the Miqva’ot in Palestine

113

Synthesis and Conclusion…………………………………………………………...…………………. 118

CATALOGUES 1. Catalogue of Baths in Roman Palestine…………………………………………………………….….

123

2. Selective Catalogue of Miqva’ot in Roman Palestine…………………………………………..……...

179

APPENDICES 1. Abbreviations.………………………………………………………...………………………………..

197

2. Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………..………….. 201 3. Glossary………………………………………………………………………………………..………. 206 4. Index of Place Names……………………………………………………………………………..…… 210 ILLUSTRATIONS 1. Maps 2. Illustrations Catalogue Baths 3. Illustrations Catalogue Miqva’ot

INTRODUCTION it is concerned with one aspect of the “Romansation” of Palestine. Romansation, that is, the acculturation of a native people to and their adoption of the Roman modes of living, has always been one of the main interests of students of history. One of the facts that have emerged from this (still ongoing) discussion has been that we cannot speak of one Romansation, but rather of several Romansation. The process of Romansation seems to have happened in a slightly different manner and at a different pace for each Romanised culture. If we want to know if, when and how that process happened, we have to look at the remains of the Romanised culture - the receiving end, so to speak. Signs for a change in ideas can be found in the literary remains of the ‘receiving’ culture and the signs for changed modes of living can be found in changes in buildings, tools or other implements.

The present volume is the slightly updated and expanded version of my doctoral thesis, accepted by the Universität zu Köln (University of Cologne) in the winter semester of 2002. I had originally planned to write a thesis on Roman baths in Israel, but after some time it became clear, that it would be useful to also include a part on miqva’ot to explain their appearance in Hellenistic and Early Roman baths. Because of the complexity of the subject and the number of excavated miqva’ot (over 600), I could only include an appendix with a short introduction into the subject, dealing both with the literary sources and the archaeological finds, while special attention is given to the installation of miqva’ot in bathrooms. The quantity of published bath buildings proved to be larger than estimated at first, ranging from large city thermae to small find notices on the cutting of a hypocaust during roadwork. Among other things, this was due to the extension of the time frame dealt with. At first, I had wanted to restrict the investigation to the period from Herod the Great to Theodosius (37 BCE to 383 CE). It soon became apparent that it was necessary to include the Hellenistic baths to show the difference in bathing concepts and thus the development of the bathing culture. The baths of the late Byzantine period were included since the excavation reports often did not distinguish between the different Byzantine periods. Thus the time frame became almost doubled and now includes the time between the reign of Alexander Jannai (103 - 76 BCE) and the Muslim conquest (640 CE). The extension of the geographical area beyond Israel was suggested after the completion of the thesis, since today's borders cut through the geographical units of antiquity and it appears disproportionate to present the thermomineral baths of Hammat Gader (Israel), a city in the ancient chora of Gadera without completing the picture with the thermae in the city of Gadera, modern Umm Queis (Jordan). The baths found in the Kingdom of Jordan now make up almost a third of the total catalogue. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the literary sources on baths and bathing in the non-Jewish cultures of Palestine. All these elements have contributed to the fact that the present volume is divided into two main parts – the first and larger dealing with the baths and thermae in Palestine, the second with the miqva’ot. Each subject is again subdivided - although less visibly - due to the two different kinds of sources (the archaeological and the historical) explored.

Acculturation is a subject as important in modern societies as it was in antiquity. To better understand that process, it is important to compare different acculturations in different cultures. It is helpful for the comparison to have as many literary remains from both cultures, the influencing and the influenced, as possible. The attempt to measure the influence of Romansation on religion in Gaul for instance is severely hindered by the fact that no literary evidence of Gaulish origin exists, which could enlighten us as to the form and content of the religion in Gaul previous to the advent of the Romans.1 In the case of the Romansation of Palestine we are very fortunate. Here we have the almost unique circumstance of both architectural remains and literary sources being preserved for us to study. We are even fortunate enough to be able to study them from both sides, as literary sources exist both from the Romans and from one of the largest communities inhabiting Palestine at that time, the Jewish people. In this case we have the chance of comparing notes, so to speak, we can - if only fragmentary - compare what both cultures thought about the process of acculturation. One of the aspects especially interesting for a study in Romansation is the change in bathing arrangements. This change is well suited for such a study, as “bathing the Roman way” was a habit central to the social life of an average Roman and quite unknown to an average Jew in the Palestine of the mid 1st century CE. The importance of bathing as a focus point of social life and a ritual daily habit in the Roman world can be observed in the amount of Roman literature dealing with this subject. This impression is confirmed by the large number and the luxurious design and decoration of

1. Baths and thermae The main subject of this work is in a field at the intersection of archaeology, history and Jewish studies, as

1

J. L. Bruneaux, Les religions gauloises. Nouvelles approches sur les rituels celtiques de la Gaule indépendante, Paris 2000, 5-22.

1

INTRODUCTION relationship of Judaism and Hellenism in the so-called “Second Temple Period” (536 BCE-70 CE) as follows5:

Roman baths – be they public or private. The large number of new baths that sprung up in new provinces shortly after their conquest by the Romans also corroborates it2. Taking the Northwestern provinces of the Roman Empire as an example, Roman baths were built shortly after the occupation by the Romans both in forts and cities and in the private homes of the wealthy. The habit of “bathing the Roman way” and the buildings it entails, was of course introduced by the Romans, but its fast spreading in places that were not (or not exclusively) inhabited by Romans shows, that it seems to have caught on quite fast in the non-Roman population. So "bathing the Roman way" can be seen as a characteristic feature of Romansation, just as "eating the Roman way" has been shown to be3.

1. Judaism and Hellenism as two completely different, antagonistic concepts existing side by side in eternal enmity. 2. Although Judaism and Hellenism were engaged in a constant and intense struggle, they also maintained a continual contact. Judaism remained a sovereign culture, nevertheless borrowing and assimilating various elements of the Hellenistic culture. 3. The confrontation of Judaism and Hellenism was the hub of Jewish history in the Second Temple period, around which Jewish life revolved. Judaism stayed in contact with all surrounding cultures.

The archaeological evidence has shown, that the construction of Roman public baths in Palestine did not begin shortly after Judea became a Roman province, nor did it start earlier under the Roman client king Herod the Great. Some time elapsed, before large public baths already common in other provinces - started to appear in Palestine on anything resembling a larger scale. Some scholars assume that the Jewish population of Judea rejected the Roman baths. The reason for this rejection is seen in some cultural concepts and religious principles, excluding bathing in Roman public baths for pious Jews.

4. The Judaism of the Second Temple period was Hellenistic Judaism; all its forms of expression were forms of Hellenistic culture. Both concepts, Hellenism and Judaism cannot be separated, as they both exist side by side in the same comprehensive cultural system. Judaism does not take up a position on the outside of and segregated from this system of referrals. In conclusion, it is incorrect to speak of “borrowing” or “assimilating” from one cultural concept to the other, as they both function within the same framework. 5. Judaism was Hellenistic Judaism; no “normative Judaism” existed. The idea of a “normative Judaism” is not only an a-historical concept, but also an ideological image, created at a later time and cast over the antique reality of a manifold Judaism in the Second Temple Period. In this model, a diverse Judaism functions within a wider Hellenistic context.

In particular Reich states, that those halakhic problems (concluded from several passages of the Mishnah and Talmud) were a major cause for the lack of Roman public baths in Early Roman Palestine (see chapters 1 and 6). 4 Nevertheless, not only were Roman private and public baths (thermae) built in Palestine in the Roman and Byzantine periods, the Jewish sources confirm their habitual use by pious Jews, even Rabbis. Can this change in bathing habits be attributed to a successful Romansation of the Jews in Palestine?

The discussion can be summarized in the same manner concerning the Romansation of Palestine. The same theoretical models are applied here, as is demonstrated by a quote of Yaron Eliav on Roman baths: “Is architecture the sole factor in defining cultural identity? In other words, does the typical model designed by the Romans – a series of bathing rooms built more or less according to the same plan and method, and heated by the hypocaust technology – mean that this particular edifice is Roman? The answer must be negative.” 6 Eliav dos not take into account that not only the model of the bath buildings was taken over from the Romans, but also the activity for which it was built, namely “bathing the Roman way”. This mode of bathing is clearly a Roman development, imported to Palestine in the second half of the 1st century BCE, where different forms of

The process of the Romansation of the Jews in Palestine has been under discussion among scholars for more then a hundred years now, just as long as the process of Hellenisation of the Jews. This Hellenisation of the Jews and the history of its research has been a subject of the historian Yaakov Shavit. In his book “Athens in Jerusalem” he summarises the historical theories on the

2

I. Nielsen, Early provincial baths and their relation to early Italic baths. In: DeLaine, Roman Baths, 35-43. 3 Baatz defines the mortarium (Reibschale) as evidence for the preparation of „Roman-style“ meals - and thus Romansation. D. Baatz, Reibschale und Romanisierung. In: D. Baatz, Bauten und Katapulte des römischen Heeres, MAVORS Roman Army Researches Vol. XI, Stuttgart, 1994, 42- 53 4 Reich, Hot Bath-House, 103.

5

Y. Shavit, Athens in Jerusalem. Classical Antiquity and Hellenism in the Making of the Modern Secular Jew. (Transl.: Ch. Naor, N. Werner), Littman Library of Jewish Civilisation, London 1997, 304-305. 6 Eliav, Roman Bath-House, 427.

2

INTRODUCTION used only by a specified group (family, club members, the monks of a monastery) without payment. It could also be a privately owned smaller commercial bath, balneion, which theoretically was open to everybody after the payment of a fee. As it is sometimes difficult to decide if a smaller bath building was a private bath or a balneion, I have decided not to differentiate between them and discuss both kinds together.

bathing had hitherto been practised. As the principle of “form follows function” is highly applicable to bath buildings, the activities that took place in the bath buildings in Roman and Byzantine Palestine must have been “bathing the Roman way”. Besides that, the Jewish sources not only confirm that the practice of bathing was the same as in other Roman baths in the Roman Empire, but also confirm the use of these baths by Jews, even by Rabbis. Consequently, a “Romansation” can be stated here.

The geographical limits of this study are set by the ancient identification of Palestine that is Cis- and Transjordania. This is occasioned by the changing borders of the ancient provinces of Judea and Palestina and the ensuing difficulties. Today, this area mainly belongs to the State of Israel, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the territory of the Palestinian Authority. The state of excavations in Israel and in the territory of the Palestinian Authority is somewhat different from that of Jordan and greatly different from that in Lebanon or Syria, in whose borders parts of the ancient Roman provinces of Judea and Syria Palestina and the Byzantine provinces of Palestina Prima, Secunda and Tertia also lay. Of all these, Israel is without question the one in which archaeology has been pursued most thoroughly in the last forty years, including (since 1967) the former occupied territories, now the territories of the Palestinian Authority. Large scale settlement and Tell excavations were (and are) conducted both by Israeli and foreign institutions, but smaller sites were also frequently excavated and surveys and salvage excavations after the accidental discovery of sites complete the picture. In addition many of the excavations are published, often (also) in English. In Jordan, excavation projects were more sporadic after World War II, the focus being more on large-scale excavations and reconstruction of the larger ancient cities. In the past twenty years though, the excavation record has almost exploded, with surveys and salvage excavations being conducted regularly as well as smaller sites being explored. Many excavations were and are conducted with the participation of foreign institutions. The publication of the results of the excavations has also improved much in the last decades. By now, most excavation results get published rapidly and generally (also) in English, French or Italian

In this book, I shall try to draw a picture of the development of Roman baths and thermae in Palestine using a combination of literary and archaeological sources. This includes not only an account of the purely architectural development of the buildings, but also an account of the development of the institution of “bathing the Roman way” itself and the utilisation of the Roman baths and thermae in Palestine. For this purpose, an examination of the Roman and Jewish literary sources is necessary. In the last years, several publications have appeared, throwing a light on the most diverse aspects of the Roman literature about bathing (the “bath poetry”, for example). Several other publications dealing with the Jewish and Christian literature on bathing were very helpful as well. I shall restrict myself to summaries or citations of them. The specific state of publication will be discussed in the individual chapters. The state of publication on the development of Roman baths and thermae in the Roman sphere is excellent. Almost all aspects of the Roman bathing culture have been treated several times by various authors, so that just a selection of works can be cited. I therefore have based the summary of the rise and development of the Roman baths and thermae primarily on the two main source books, Inge Nielsens “Thermae et Balnea” and Fikret Yegüls “Baths and Bathing in Classical Antiquity”7. The Roman baths in Palestine were already summarised over 20 years ago in an article.8 Since then, several large thermae and smaller bath buildings have been discovered. Some of these are able to throw a new light on the development of the Roman baths and thermae in Palestine or on the absorption of the Roman bathing habit. The baths in Palestine range from very large public thermae in the inner cities to small and simple private bathing suites. Almost all thermae were public, both in ownership and visitors. That means that they were owned by the city and that they were open to everybody - after the payment of a small sum. A smaller bath building could have been a private bath proper, and thus being

As the original idea of this study was to follow the question of Romansation by the change in bathing, this study is limited to the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine baths in Palestine. Of course, the development of the bathing culture does not stop there. On the contrary, after the Muslim conquest of Palestine most baths remained in use and were constantly restored and rebuilt, while at the same time new baths were constructed. This development took place not only in Palestine, but also in all the other former Roman provinces conquered by the Muslims. A

7

Aarhus 1990 and New York, 1992, respectively. M. Gichon; The Roman Bath-House in Eretz-Israel. In: Qadmoniot 11, 1978, 37-53 (Hebrew).

8

3

INTRODUCTION Following this, they are compared to baths and thermae in other provinces of the Roman Empire. This helps to determine the grade of similarity of development of bath architecture compared to the rest of the Roman Empire and discover local and regional variations. The two following chapters describe the design, decoration, equipment, operation and function of Roman baths and thermae in Palestine as can be determined by the literary sources. As the literary tradition is predominantly Late Roman or Byzantine, two separate chapters examine the Jewish and the Christian and contemporary “pagan” Roman literature. Both the Jewish and (a part of) the non-Jewish inhabitants of Roman Palestine are thus examined. In addition, the Christians also formed another group separated from the “mainstream” of Roman culture. Their reactions can be compared to the Jewish reactions on the same subject. Furthermore, any changes of the design, decoration, function, etc. of Roman baths and thermae during the Late Roman or Byzantine periods as described by the literary sources can be discovered. In the final chapter, the individual results will be summarised and put into relation with each other. A synopsis of the development of the Roman bath in Palestine concludes this chapter. The catalogue includes the excavated remains of the baths and thermae in the alphabetical order of their modern site names. This order seemed best to ensure the ease of use of the catalogue. Several baths at one site are listed either according to date (if there is a known difference) or according to specific site name.

rich and varied bathing culture evolved, developing distinct architectural forms and expressions. This culture flourished until well into the 20th century CE and the (justly) famous Turkish baths are the descendants of the Roman thermae. Nevertheless, for several reasons I have decided to omit the development of the Byzantine to the Umayyad and Early Islamic baths from this study. One is that the evolution of the Muslim bath from the Byzantine bath does not help to answer questions about Romansation, the main focus of this study. More important though is, that this subject has already been competently dealt with. Both Nielsen and Yegül include the early Umayyad baths into their studies and a separate study on Islamic baths in Palestine has been published by Martin Dow in 1996.9 As the aim of this study is to understand both the development of the architecture and of the habit of bathing, archaeological and historical approaches to the baths of Roman Palestine are brought together. Because of this, the chapters alternate between various fields of research such as Classical and Near Eastern Archaeology, Jewish and Early Christian Studies, History and Philology. While this approach may seem confused, I have tried to (approximately) follow the chronological sequence. Thus the first chapter tries to set the stage by examining the Jewish literary and material sources on bathing in the pre-Hellenistic and Early Hellenistic times in relation to health concerns, social connotations and the much discussed Jewish cultural aversion of bathing the Roman way. The next three chapters turn to the Roman side and explain the institution of bathing the Roman way. Chapter 2 is based on the publications of literary and epigraphical material, to illustrate the rise of popularity of bathing in Rome and the “bathing life” that ensued. This “bathing life” was a principal condition for the development and flourishing of the bathing culture in the Roman world. The different manifestations of the “bathing life” can just be outlined here, as the amount of material is very large, while its excellent state of publication makes a repetition redundant. The following chapter 3 is a short summary of the evolution of bath buildings until the appearance of Roman baths in Palestine. As in the former chapter, it is restricted to a general account of the development and again the works of Nielsen and Yegül give more detailed information. Chapter 4 describes the working of the two main technical systems of Roman baths, heating and waterdistribution. Chapter 5 is an interpretation of the known baths and thermae in Palestine, based on the catalogue. The chapter is divided in five periods. In each, the baths and thermae are briefly introduced and their components examined.

2. Miqva’ot The miqveh (ritual Jewish bath) first appears in the 2nd century B. C. E. and becomes a fairly common feature both of Hellenistic private baths and other areas such as cemeteries, oil or wine presses and synagogues in Palestine in the 1st century BCE. Since the (unpublished) Ph.D. thesis of Ronny Reich in 1990, in which he already listed 306 miqva’ot, the number of excavated (and published) miqva’ot has more than doubled.10 The much-discussed miqva’ot of Qumran have been reexamined and several other settlements with a large amount of miqva’ot (e. g. Sepphoris) will be published in the near future.11 Among others, David Amit has catalogued the miqva’ot of Hebron in his (unpublished)

10

R. Reich; Miqva’ot (Jewish Ritual Immersion Baths) in Eretz-Israel in the Second Temple and the Mishna and Talmudic Periods. Unpublished Dissertation Hebrew University Jerusalem (Hebrew with English summary), 1990. Reich plans to publish his thesis in English in the near future. 11 Galor, Qumran.

9

M. Dow, The Islamic Baths of Palestine. British Academy Monographs in Archaeology 7, 1996.

4

INTRODUCTION Ph.D. thesis.12 All in all, the number of miqva’ot known at present far exceeds 600 examples. I had originally planned to just include a short appendix on miqva’ot to explain their appearance in Hellenistic and Early Roman baths. While working on this it became clear that I also had to explain the conditions under which this ritual bath emerged. I decided to include a short summary of the concept of purity in the Jewish religion and the halakhic regulations applying to it and consequently to the miqveh. This section is followed by a discussion of the archaeological finds on the basis of a catalogue of all miqva’ot connected to baths plus several other examples. This part of the book is not meant to be a comprehensive discussion of all known miqva’ot, but rather an introduction into the problem and the known types of miqva’ot. The first chapter is a short summary of the religious and historical background of the phenomenon “miqveh” with the help of the literary sources. The religious regulations concerning the construction of miqva’ot are introduced and discussed, as they are an important part of the identification of the individual miqveh. The question of the relevancy of these regulations is also examined, as the date of their formulation is controversial. In the second chapter, the archaeological material is discussed, starting with a short summary of the identification of the miqveh and its building types. The examples are briefly introduced and their components examined. A classification into several building and function types follows. The last chapter summarises the individual results of the two earlier chapters and puts them into relation with each other. A synopsis of the development of the miqveh in Palestine concludes the chapter. The selective catalogue includes several representative examples to give a general impression of the different types of miqva’ot on the basis of a standardised order. It is confined to introducing unambiguous and typical (published) examples, the dubious and untypical examples of miqva’ot are (with the exception of Qumran) left out.

12 D. Amit, Miqva’ot from the Second Temple Period in Hebron, (Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Hebrew University Jerusalem 1996).

5

BATHS AND THERMAE IN ROMAN PALESTINE

1. THE JEWISH TRADITION OF BATHING ACCORDING TO THE LITERARY AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

which is attributed to them”6 and lived in the time (often concluded from filiations) ascribed to them. The other group, whose main representative is Jacob Neusner with his students, is of the opinion that the final editorship of the corpus was so thorough; each work can only be studied independently and taken only as evidence of the time of its redaction. Neusner states that no differentiating criteria can be deduced from “neutral”, textual indicators such as composition or form, with whose assistance one can differentiate the older passages of the texts from younger ones.7 Consequently he thinks the Rabbinic corpus should only be regarded as a product of the time of its final editorship and its editors. This in my opinion excludes the use of the Mishnah, Tosefta and the Talmud Yerushalmi for the clarification of the Jewish thoughts on baths and bathing of both the traditional and the “new” Roman kind in Hellenistic and Early Roman times. This is also true concerning the question about the Jewish disapproval of the baths of the Roman type, raised by Reich.8 One of the first to deal with this problem Reich states several characteristics of the Roman baths were in contradiction to Jewish religious legislation. Reich concludes these from several passages of the Mishnah and the Talmuds. These, however, discuss these problems in the context of Late Antiquity, a period during which the Jews were using Roman public baths (see chapter 6). Some conflicts, on the other hand can be assumed to have also existed in the Late Hellenistic and Early Roman period, since they derived from concepts already formulated in the Torah. Whether they really kept Jews from using Roman public baths, can only be surmised. One of them, the Jewish attitude towards nakedness has attracted much scholarly attention. The subject has usually been treated apologetically and superficially, though.9 The discussion has been mainly concerned with the question whether nakedness was defined as “good” or “bad”. The opinion that it was considered “bad” has become “something of a commonplace”10 in scholarly literature. In his article Satlow at first tries to define nakedness, both in regard to the sociological meaning and to the definition of what constitutes nakedness. Is one “naked” when not wearing a head cover, when not wearing clothing or when not wearing underwear? In which situation is nakedness “bad” (only in public or also in private?) and is a difference made between male and female nakedness? Satlow tries to show the nuances of the meaning of nakedness for the Jews of antiquity. Even though he mostly has to recur on material gained from the rabbinic

The sources on the Jewish traditions of bathing before the Common Era can be differentiated into two groups: One is formed by the literary evidence, the Biblical texts and the books of the Hellenistic Jewish writers Flavius Josephus and Philo. These unfortunately contain only a few references. The archaeological evidence of the excavated remains of baths form the other group. These are also inconclusive, since bathrooms were found only in some palaces. Beside bathrooms with copper or clay tubs (e.g. in the palace of Lachish), different types of washing basins were found. Among them are washing basins in which one sat and had water poured over oneself and foot washing basins with a footstep inside1. Unfortunately, a modern and thorough investigation of the sources concerned with bathing before the Common Era remains a desideratum. The works of Krauss2 and Preuss3 from the beginning of the 20th century are characterised by an apologetic tone, trying to justify the ritual purity regulations as hygienic measures, and even deducing a specific “cleanliness” of the Jews from them. Both these works, as well as many newer studies of the topic do not differentiate between the “Second Temple Period” (536 BCE-70 CE) and the “Period of Mishnah and Talmud” (c. 200-500 CE). Quotations from Mishnah, Tosefta or the Talmud Yerushalmi are used for the description of the situation in Late Hellenistic and Early Roman Israel. These writings are compilations, whose final editing can be approximated (Mishnah around 200 CE, Tosefta around 300 CE, Talmud Yerushalmi around 400 CE). It is traditionally assumed, that many statements were handed down through an oral tradition reaching back into the time before the destruction of the second temple, occasionally even the 1st century B. C. E. Some scholars also assume that the statements were handed down with the help of written sources, which since then have been lost. The traditions and statements are said to go back to the Rabbinic movement, to the pupils of the Rabbis Schammai and Hillel.4 To what extent passages actually can be proven to belong to earlier textual layers and thus reflect older traditions than those of the time of their compilation is disputed. Scholars are divided into two camps, as Avery-Peck demonstrates in his summary.5 One group assumes that from the corpus of Rabbinic works (that is the Mishnah, Tosefta and the Talmud Yerushalmi), statements and views can be attributed to individual Rabbis, collected and brought into a chronological order. This method presumes that “the named authorities actually said that 1

Weippert, Bad 31-32, fig. 1-3. Krauss, Archäologie. 3 Preuss, Medizin. 4 Schammai (50 B. CE – 30 CE) and Hillel, chairman of the Sanhedrin (60 BCE -10 CE). All information about them derives from the Talmud itself. 5 Avery-Peck, Mishnah, 173. 2

6

Avery-Peck, Mishnah, 174. Neusner, Use of Mishnah, 180 - Avery-Peck, Mishnah, 181. Reich, Hot Bath-House, 103-104. 9 Satlow, Nakedness, 430. 10 Satlow, Nakedness, 430. 7 8

9

JEWISH TRADITION corpus, the concepts of nakedness as they show up in the Tanach (the Hebrew bible or Old Testament), in the New Testament and the works of the Hellenistic authors Josephus and Philo are similar. In my summary of his article, I have tried to consider only material from the Tanach and the New Testament. When quoting from the Rabbinic corpus I have tried to confine myself to such opinions that seem to be mirrored by similar concepts in the Tanach and the New Testament.

was an obligation of the wife towards her husband, and of the children towards their parents.18 Washing babies after birth seems to have been a measure of both hygienic and ritual character, as the rubbing with salt and oil that followed it indicates.19 One also washed or bathed as a means of “beautifying”, as shown in the Song of Songs, in Ezekiel and in Ruth.20 The washing of the whole body seems to have been the principal reason of the bath of Tobit in the river, while the daughter of the Pharaoh must have had ample means to take a bath in the palace.21 Her bath in the Nile might have been motivated by the desire for novelty. The bath of a woman as an act of (inadvertent) seduction is described in the stories of Bathseba and Susanna.22 In addition to the bath, Susanna has oils and ointments brought to her by her servants for use during or after the bath.23 The bath of Bathsheba takes place in a transportable tub in the yard or on the roof (as she is observed during bathing by David, presumably from a higher position) The bath of Susanna presumably also takes place in such a tub in her walled and locked garden. A separate room for bathing is not mentioned in the Tanach. Besides the oils and ointments already mentioned and used for this purpose in the whole Mediterranean in antiquity, a kind of soda soap was also known.24 The use of strigiles is proven by a find of the 4th century BCE from ‘Atlit.25 To sum up, bathing seems to have taken place in springs, lakes or rivers and in tubs set up for the purpose. The fullsized bathing tubs seem to have been found in palaces only and were thus reserved for the wealthy. For everyday use and for the poor, a “bath” taken squatting in a large bowl placed in the yard must have been common. One had water poured over the body with a smaller container (the size of a jug or cup).26 This method is still in use by people living without running water in warmer countries (Arab world, India, South America, Asia), especially for the bathing of children. This can also be proven on the basis of archaeological findings. Bathing tubs firmly installed or rooms set aside for bathing have only rarely been found from preHellenistic times: In Tel el-‘Ajjul and Beth-She’an rooms with plastered floors or floors covered with pebbles or shells were excavated. The excavators interpreted these as bathrooms, in which one stood or squatted and had water poured over the body. Bathing tubs of terracotta (or

1. Health and hygienic considerations In the Tanach, the word “washing” is used mostly in connection with ritual cleansing and in a metaphorical meaning (“washing off of sins”). Most of the few references of “real” washing are about the washing of hands and feet. This often seems to have taken place in the house, while bathing the whole body was done outside for practical reasons, and most likely primarily in natural waters.11 In the Tanach, the washing of the feet is designated an act of homecoming into the house and was among the preparations for the night rest.12 It was presumably also regarded as a favour, as in the New Testament, where it is an expression of the love of the sinner Mary Magdalene towards Jesus, and of Jesus towards his followers.13 Making water and a foot tub available for guests was an act of honouring the guest and an element of eastern hospitality.14 Washing the feet was considered an activity of low rank though, usually left to maids. It was a special honour to have the feet washed by the housewife or – even more so - by the host himself. Oiling the feet after washing them even heightened this honour.15 Oval ceramic basins, interpreted as foot-washing basins, were found in layers of the Iron period in Samaria, Tel en-Nasbeh and Megiddo.16 In the New Testament, a discussion about washing the hands before the meals as practised by the Pharisees is mentioned. Jesus rejects this practise. But in this case not the hygienically motivated washing of hands is meant, but the ritual washing in order to eat everyday meals in a condition of ritual purity.17 In Rabbinic opinion - probably based on older conceptions - washing the face, the hands and the feet

11

18

Ex; 2; Kin 5:10,12; Judith 12:8; John 9:7,11. 2 Sam 11:8; Judg. 19:21; Song 5:3. 13 Luke 7:38-47 u. John 13:1-15 - O. Hofius, Fußwaschung als Erweis der Liebe. Sprachliche und sachliche Anmerkungen zu Lk 7, 44b. In: Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 81, 1990, 171-177. 14 Gen. 19:2, 43, 24; John 13:5; Luke 7:44. 15 1Sam 25:41; 1Tim 5:9f; Gen. 24:32; compare. Luke 7:44, Luke 7:38; John 11:2; 12:3. 16 A. Killebrew, Article “Baths”. In. E. M. Meyers (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopaedia of Archaeology in the Near East, Oxford 1997, Vol. I, 283-285. 17 See Part II: Miqva’ot.

Talmud, bKet 4b; tQid 1,11. Washing: Ezra 16:4; 16:9 – Oiling: Ezek. 16:4,10. 20 Song 5:3; Ezek 23:40; Ruth 3:3. 21 Ex 2:4 and Tobit 6:2. 22 2 Sam 11:1-27 and Dan 13:1-64. 23 Dan 13:17. 24 Oils: Dan 13:17; Ruth 3:3-2 Sam 12:20; Judith 10:3; StD 1:17 – Soap: Jer. 2:22. 25 Weippert, Bad, 32, fig. 4. 26 Ps 60:10; John13:5ff - J. Briend , M. Quesnel, Bad und Schönheitspflege in biblischer Zeit, Welt und Umwelt der Bibel 2 (1997), Heft 3, 54–56.

12

19

10.

JEWISH TRADITION fragments of them) were found in different places (Tel Qasile, Ashdod, Tel Miqne/Ekron, Tel Abu Hawam and Tel Dan). The rooms with waterproof floors resemble the bathrooms common in Egypt.27.

2. Religious objections against baths of the Roman type Rooms set aside and furnished solely for the occupation of bathing become more frequent in Israel in the mid-2nd century BCE All of them are private baths in palaces or palace-like houses. Public baths are only known archaeologically from the late 2nd century CE in Israel. The reason for this late acceptance of the public baths of the Roman type is still in discussion among scholars. Reich, who was one of the first to write on this problem, is convinced that the religious Jewish legislation prevented the Jews of the “Second Temple Period”, the Late Hellenistic and Early Roman time from using (and consequently also from building) public baths of the Roman type.36 In his opinion this explains the absence of public baths of the Roman type in Early Roman times in Israel. Reich deduced those alleged conflicts from discussions in the Mishnah and the Talmud Yerushalmi. The difficulties of such conclusions have already been demonstrated. Those discussions were conducted in a Jewish society frequently using baths of the Roman type, as is clear both by their vast knowledge of the technical facts of thermae and the stories in which they are embedded. Nevertheless, some of the objections might have also existent in the Late Hellenistic and Early Roman period. To what extent they affected the attitude of the Jews towards baths of the Roman type, or were the reason for a refusal of this type, remains in discussion. The different points of conflict will be described and discussed briefly.

Bathing was not only governed by practicalities, but by sociological rules as well. Washing or bathing was considered inappropriate at times; while at other times it was considered inappropriate not take a bath. Before meeting with a senior one bathed as an indication of respect, as Josephus reported: “Nehemiah, cupbearer of the king Xerxes [Artaxerxes] was outside of Susa, when he found out the king had sat down to his meal. Thereupon he went directly to the king without [as it was usual] bathing to take up his service.”28 During fasting – as during a period of mourning – one did usually neither wash nor take a bath. This can be gathered from a passage in the gospel of Matthew, where Jesus appeals to his followers not to abstain from washing during fasting (and thus let everybody know of the fasting), but to wash and anoint themselves during fasting, so that their fasting it is not noticed (and praised) in public.29 Not washing or bathing also is an indication of mourning (or shame) as mentioned in the Tanach.30 In Josephus’ works, it is an indication of mourning or discouragement not to wash oneself.31 Therapeutic baths were not used in pre-Roman times, although the hot sources of the country were quite well known. Perhaps they were used for magic healing practices, as a papyrus from the 1st century BCE seems to indicate.32 Herod the Great is supposed to have bathed in the hot springs of Kallirhoe33 shortly before his death, in order to find relief from his pains.34 The regular use of thermal springs for medical purposes and the development of the springs into health resorts for various ailments is a development of the Roman era (see chapter 6).35

Menstruants According to the purity regulations of the book Leviticus the woman who has given birth (parturient), the menstruant (niddâ) and the woman having a bloody discharge (zâbâ) are impure.37 Every man having sexual contact with them during this time not only becomes impure, but is also considered a sinner.38 This prohibition of “drawing near”39 a menstruant for sexual purposes is part of a list of forbidden sexual unions in Leviticus and has nothing to do with ritual purity, which is only concerned with contact to the holy. This is the reason for this prohibition to remain valid even after the destruction of the Temple in 70 C. E.40 It is still valid today for Jewish men and women living after the Jewish tradition. In Leviticus 15, 20 it is established that the niddâ, the zâbâ and the parturient can transfer their impurity on everything they sit on or lie upon. Everybody touching these things will likewise become impure. Thus it can be inferred that the common use of rooms, in which one is naked is problematic even if the use takes place at different times. This fact is confirmed by the

27 A. Killebrew, Article “Baths” In. E. M. Meyers (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopaedia of Archaeology in the Near East, Oxford 1997, Vol. I, 284 - Deines, Bad, 1 – P. Hidiroglou, L'eau et les bains à Qoumrân, REJ 159 (2000), 19-47. 28 In the biblical version of this story (Nem 2:1) bathing is not mentioned, it is an addition of Josephus. Ant XI, 163 - Kottek 1994, 63 – E. Bäumer, Die Geschichte des Badewesens, Breslau 1903, 16. 29 Matt. 6:17. 30 2 Sam 19:25. 31 Ant. VIII, 356-7 - Kottek 1994, 63. Both are astute observations, the connection between depression and (lack of) personal hygiene being explored more thoroughly by modern psychology. 32 Weber, Thermalquellen, 422. 33 Cat. No. 3. 34 Weber, Thermalquellen, 440. 35 Weber, Thermalquellen 442 – Dvorjetski, Hot Springs, 430.

36

Reich, Hot Bath-House (1988). Lev 12:1-5; 15:19-33. - Cohen, Menstruants, 274. 38 Lev. 15:24 - Lev. 18:19; 20:18. 39 Cohen, Menstruants, 274. 40 Cohen. Menstruants, 276. 37

11.

JEWISH TRADITION slaves and animals - also represented a problem..46 Roman baths had to be constantly heated in order to guarantee an optimal utilization of the bath and prevent damage to the plaster. The significance of the problem can best be seen on the basis of the discussion in the Mishnah and the Talmud Yerushalmi (see chapter 6.), since pre-Roman sources on this complex problem are missing.

discussion of the conflicts in the Mishnah and the Talmud Yerushalmi (mNidda 9,3 tNidda 6,15), which result from the use of the thermae of Late Antiquity by both men and women. One had to trust the women of one’s own family in matters of purity, since a family life was otherwise impossible. It can be assumed that it was considered to be less of a problem if women and men of the same family used the same private bathing room. Sculptural decoration The decoration of the thermae with mosaics, wall paintings and statues (often representing gods of the Greek-Roman pantheon) went against the Jewish prohibition of pictorial representation. An investigation into the literary sources on the prohibition of pictorial representation in pre-Hellenistic times is still a desideratum, the works of Blaufuss (1910), Urbach (1959) and Liebermann (1962) still being fundamental.41 The Roman writers Tacitus, Pliny, Strabo and Varro noticed the absence of statues and pictures in the Jewish cities and synagogues was characteristic of the Jews.42 The same view was held by Josephus, when he counted both the erection of the large iron vessel (called the “iron sea”) standing on twelve iron bulls in the Temple precinct and the throne flanked by statues of lions among the sins of Salomo, since he let three-dimensional pictorial representations be set up in the holy of holiest.43 The strict views on this prohibition seem to have been the reason behind the fact that three-dimensional representations (statues and relief’s) were found only in exceptional cases in Jewish environments of the Hellenistic and Early Roman period.44 Mosaics and wall paintings seem to have been allowed if they were without representation of humans or animals. Usually, geometrical or vegetable designs were preferred, as in the palaces of the Hasmoneans and Herod or the houses of the so-called “Herodian Quarter” in the Jewish quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem.45

3. Nakedness and shame in Judaism Nakedness was a cause for shame in Judaism, as already mentioned in the Tanach. Nakedness was a sign of poverty and vulnerability and even purposefully used to shame persons.47 Somebody who is naked is at least ridiculous in Judaism; at worst he or she loses his or her “honour”. Seeing the nakedness of social superiors (e.g. Ham seeing the nakedness of his father Noah) is a humiliation for the superior and a forbidden, punishable act for the inferior. Wearing a garment meant, “having status and standing in the world” and being naked meant having none of that48. However, nakedness in all cultures not only simply describes the state of being without clothes, it also has many socio-cultural aspects.49 A many other peoples, Jews had a differentiated attitude to nakedness, differing in particular between the sexes. With men nakedness was defined as exposing the penis, representing an offence towards God within the sanctum (in which the presence of God was assumed). This prohibition of male nakedness before God is already mentioned in Exodus.50 A Jewish man could create such a sanctum by the uttering of God’s name (e.g. in a prayer) or by the reading of God’s word; accordingly the genital organs had to be covered at such times: “When a man works naked on the field, then he has to cover himself first with gleaning, straw or something [else at hand], before he speaks the shema [Deut. 6:4]”.51 It was seemingly not unusual to be naked when working in the fields, but it was still criticised. An afterthought to this example reads: “even if they say that it is not praiseworthy for a man to be naked.”.52 This attitude was also represented in the Hellenistic period, as Jubilees shows in a comparison of the Jews and the Gentiles: “And to Adam alone did he give (the wherewithal) to cover his shame, of all the beasts and all the cattle. On this account, it is prescribed on the

Heating Heating the baths on a holiday like the Shabbat, when work is strictly forbidden to Jews – and their servants, 41 H. Blaufuss, Götter, Bilder und Symbole nach dem Traktaten über fremden Dienst (Aboda zara) in Mishnah, Tosefta, Jerusalemer und babylonischem Talmud, Nürnberg 1910 (Beilage zum Jahresberichte des Königl. Neuen Gymnasiums in Nürnberg für das Schuljahr 1909/1910) - S. Liebermann, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, New York 1962 (Reprint 1994), 115-127. 42

Urbach, Idolatry, 155. 1 Kin 7:25 and 10:20 – Josephus, Ant. VIII, 7,5. 44 An exceptional example is the plaster frieze with animal representations found in a house south of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. In: Meir Ben-Dov, In the Shadow of the Temple, Jerusalem 1985, 149-150, with fig. Another exception is the “eagle above the entrance to the Temple” as described by Josephus. The event is used by Josephus to illustrate the strict observance of the prohibition of pictorial representations. Josephus, Bell. I 648-655. 45 In one of the baths of Herod the Great a fragment of a sculpted head of a Silen was found (Cat. No 39).

46

Ex 20:8, Mishnah Makschirin 2:5. Vulnerability: Gen 9:18-27- Shaming: Is. 20:4; Amos 2:16; Hab. 2:15. 48 M. Vogel, Warum „nicht nackt“? Sozioanthropologische Erwägungen zu 2 Kor 5,3. In: A. v. Dobbeler, K. Erlemann, R. Heiligenthal (ed.) Religionsgeschichte des neuen Testaments. Festchrift Klaus Berger, Tübingen 2000, 445-463, esp. 452-455. 49 Satlow, Nakedness, 429. 50 Ex. 20:23; 28, 42-43 - Satlow, Nakedness, 431. 51 Satlow, Nakedness, 436. 52 See: John 21:7. 47

43

12.

JEWISH TRADITION heavenly tablets as touching all those who know the judgement of the law they should cover their shame and they shouldn’t uncover themselves as the Gentiles uncover themselves”.53 The Jews cover themselves, because they are “holy”, while the Gentiles do not. The criticism at the establishment of a Gymnasion in 1 and 2 Macabees could be connected (among other things) with the aversion to nakedness: In a Gymnasion, the athletes trained in the nude. It was probably considered particularly disturbing that the Gymnasion was in the direct proximity of the Temple precinct and was visited by priests.54 The Qumran scrolls show particularly strict regulations: “Whoever walks naked before his fellow without being forced shall be punished [for [six months [...]; whoever causes his penis to come out from under his garment, or it [has] holes, so his nakedness is seen shall be punished [for] thirty days... “.55 This severity was probably connected with the view that the community was “holy” as a whole and accordingly male genital nakedness should be completely avoided.56 Josephus reports that the Essenes were clothed when bathing (in cold water) – the women with a dress and the men with a loincloth.57 But the prohibition of nakedness did not only apply regarding God. Leaders (kings, high priests, even fathers or fathers-in-law) should not expose themselves before their subjects since it would cause them (the subjects) to lose respect of them. To expose oneself before a man of socially higher standing was a clear sign of disrespect.58 Nakedness was seen in connection with social hierarchy. Male nakedness was thus limited to a specific area – the genital organs – and in relation to God understood as immorality, while in relation to other men it was a statement about social status. Satlow proves that a connection exists here, since the relations between a man and his social superior were understood in a similar way to those between man and God.59 Female nakedness was defined completely differently: Female nakedness was no offence to God and women could be naked before other women independent of their status. Female nakedness was exclusively interpreted in the context of its effect on men.60 A naked woman could excite a man regarding her, and this could lead to sexual misdemeanours. Female nakedness was thus seen exclusively as temptation for the man.61

Additionally, female nakedness was defined more strictly than male nakedness Not only the genital organs had to be covered, in order not to be naked, but the whole body. With married women this also included the hair. Any woman leaving the house with her hair uncovered or a torn dress could be divorced by her husband without the (usual) payment of the marriage settlement (ketubah). Forcefully exposing a woman (uncovering her hair) was understood as a humiliation of the woman concerned. When Susanna has to remove her veil before her judges her family cried because of her humiliation.62 To be “naked” (with uncovered head, arms or legs) threw a negative light on the moral character of the woman. Therefore, a woman “naked” that is: without a headdress in “public” - that is: before men - was not a respectable woman.63 Summary Before the Roman period and perhaps even well into it, bathing seems to have taken place in bathing tubs set up for the purpose for those not living near a river or a spring. Bathing in rivers and springs remained the principal means of washing the whole body. The bathing tubs were reserved for the wealthy and for special occasions (as the bride’s bath before the wedding). For the everyday use of the poor, a ”bath” in a large bowl must probably have sufficed. One stood or squatted in it and had water poured over the body with a smaller container. Bathing was also governed by sociological rules. Thus, it was considered inappropriate to wash or bath while fasting or mourning, while it was a sign or disrespect not take a bath before meeting with persons of a higher social standing. Reich describes several Jewish religious-legal problems that were inherent in the Roman public baths, among them the inadvertent contact with menstrual discharge, heating on holidays, sculptural decoration and public nakedness. While the latter two are mentioned by Hellenistic and early Roman sources, the former can only be concluded from similar discussions in the Rabbinic corpus and are thus inconclusive. In addition, solutions to all of these problems were found in Late Antiquity, as it is proven that religious Jews then used the Roman public baths regularly. It is therefore not impossible that similar or other solutions could have been found in the Early Roman period. Reich regards the presence of the many religious-legal conflicts as one of the principal reasons for the absence of Roman public baths “at a time, when they were built in growing numbers by non-Jews”.64

53 Book of Jubilees 3, 30-31, translation R. H. Charles, see Pseudoepigrapha. 54 1 Macc. 1:14-15; 2 Macc. 4:11-12; 4:14 - Satlow, Nakedness, 450. 55 IQS VII, 12-14, translation: J. H. Charlesworthy, L. T. Stuckenbruck, The Community Rule. In: J. H. Chralesworthy (ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, Tübingen1994, 30-33. 56 Satlow, Nakedness, 449. 57 Bell., II, VIII, 5. (129 and 161)- Kottek 1994, 62.. 58 Satlow, Nakedness, 440. 59 Satlow, Nakedness, 440. 60 Satlow, Nakedness, 440. 61 Satlow, Nakedness, 442.

62 63 64

13.

Dan 13:32-33. Satlow, Nakedness, 443-444. Reich, Hot Bath-House, 103.

JEWISH TRADITION Therefore, a large amount of Roman public baths must accordingly have existed at places in Palestine that had a known majority of non-Jews, but also in the neighbouring province of Syria. If one examines this statement on the basis of the works of Nielsen and Yegül it is easy to see that only a few Roman public baths are known from the first century in the whole region, most of them in Palestine65: One bath assumed to have been public was excavated each in Beth-She’an, Capernaum, Ein Gedi and Mo’a (the latter three being doubtful, see chapter 5), two public baths were discovered in Sepphoris, while three public baths are known from Dura-Europos. This may be connected to the fact that excavations have been less frequent in Jordan, Lebanon or Syria as in Israel and the territory of the Palestine Authority and perhaps also with the positioning of large Byzantine bathhouses over their smaller predecessors, practically blocking their excavation. But even considering these possibilities, the fact remains, that public baths had not been built in large numbers in the whole region during the Early Roman Period. Reich argues that the case was different in the private baths of the wealthy. Here, one found ways to get around the difficulties: The use and heating of the bath could be restricted in such a way to make the keeping of the Sabbath possible. The decoration was in the hands of the owner; pictorial representations could thus be avoided. Regarding ritual purity the women of the family had to be trusted anyway, since they were in constant contact with the men. Finally, concerning nakedness one could either use the baths alone, or use other measures to guarantee a protection from exposing oneself (e.g. a loincloth). Reich concludes these factors led to the existence of private baths of the Roman type in Judea during the “Second Temple Period”, while Roman public baths were neither used nor built at that time. This theory of Reich is challenged by Eliav who cites Josephus’ mention of Roman public baths in the Jewish town of Isana and in Jerusalem.66 He also refers to Josephus mentioning donations of Roman public baths by Herod the Great in Ashkelon and by Herod Agrippa in Berytus and “many places”.67 The city of Isana has not been identified with certainty yet and no baths of the Roman type of this period have been found in Jerusalem, despite extensive excavations. The donation of baths by members of the Herodian royal family might have been for the benefit of the non-Jewish population of Palestine. It certainly does not imply the use of these baths by Jews – or, to be more precise - by pious Jews. Herod the Great and his successors out-did themselves in donating buildings with an explicit Roman character, e.g. with the donation of theatres and

amphitheatres.68 This corresponds to the politics of Herod and his successors to promote romanitas. Eliav argues that the absence of excavated bath buildings of the Early Roman period in Palestine is not a consequence of the rejection of bathing the Roman way by the Jews. Rather it is a characteristic of the whole region: From the Early Roman period hardly any Roman public baths are known in the Middle East.69 This observation is correct, as only a few of the public thermae in the region date into the 1st or 2nd century C. E. The emphasis of the building activity in thermae in this region seems to lie in Late Antiquity (see chapter 5). But there must be a reason behind this lack of Early Roman baths, as they were built in great numbers in other provinces after these were incorporated into the Roman Empire. Eliav also makes the bad conditions for the preservation of Roman public baths responsible for the absence of excavated examples from Early Roman time. Baths, however, rank among the buildings of which at least traces are relatively often found. This is the case because of the many bricks used in the building, some of them of a unique, easily recognisable form and many of them not re-used. The absence of Early Roman thermae could be explained more convincingly with the building of new thermae on top of them in later periods. The reason for the scarcity of Roman public baths in Palestine in the Late Hellenistic and Early Roman periods has thus to be investigated more thoroughly.

65

68 Lichtenberger, Baupolitik, 186 - 190 - Roller, Building Program, S 139ff – Japp, Baupolitik, 22, 47. 69 Eliav, Roman Bathhouse, 194*.

Nielsen, Thermae and Yegül, Baths. Eliav, Roman Bath-House, 194*. 67 Josephus, Bell. I, 21,11 and Ant. XIX, 7,5. 66

14.

2. THE ROMAN BATHING TRADITION AND THE ROMAN BATHING LIFE ACCORDING TO THE LITERARY EVIDENCE

This chapter will be describing the development of bathing tradition and the “bathing life” taking place in the baths and thermae of the Roman world. This development mainly took place in Greece and Italy. The development of different types of baths will be discussed in the next chapter. The conditions that made the rise in baths in the Roman world possible will be discussed here. The characteristics of this bathing culture and its development are important to the understanding of the Roman bath. The source material describing the bathing life is very diverse and includes epigraphic material from building inscriptions as well as descriptions of individual baths or the so-called “bath poetry”. This extensive material is well published and will be dealt with rather briefly here. The two main source books concerned with Roman bathing, Inge Nielsens “Thermae et Balnea” and Fikret Yegüls “Baths and Bathing in Classical Antiquity” include the most important sources and have extensive bibliographies. 1 Unfortunately, the sources describing private baths and the “bathing life” taking place there have - with the exception of the Late Republic and Early Empire not been dealt with as extensively. A study of this material would be highly desirable, completing the picture of the bathing life in the Roman era. Both the literary and the epigraphic material shows, that the popularity of bathing in Rome rose to new heights between the times of Cicero (106-43 BCE) and Martial (40-104 BCE). The reasons for this are hard to define, as many different factors must have played a role: The growth of the population in first century CE Rome and its increasing demand for facilities to wash and find a refuge from squalid living conditions must have been one factor. Another factor was the growth of private wealth, starting in the first century BCE represented by the hitherto unknown riches of a Crassus or Pompeius. This wealth was one of the conditions for the powerful increase in public munificence, in which the owner of these private fortunes had to outdo each other with larger, more beautiful and expensive gifts to the masses to win their favour. A new dimension for the display of luxury became established, both in the private and public sphere. Finally, new and improved building techniques made the construction of such large and complex structures possible. These factors alone are not enough to explain the rise in bathing, though. Fagan names the spread of medicinal theories that recommend bathing as 1

improving the health as the main reason for the rise of baths in popularity. The famous physician Asklepiades of Bithynia, who became influential in the first century BCE, is in Fagan’s opinion the most influential representative of the therapeutic effects of bathing and responsible for the spread of this opinion in Rome.2. In my opinion, Asclepiads alone cannot be held responsible for the popularisation of the notion of the healthiness of bathing. It is rather more likely that other physicians took up the theory and helped to spread it. In addition, the psychological moment of the refreshed and strengthened feeling after a bath is not to be underestimated. The people had the impression that bathing was good for them. The confirmation by the physicians was happily used to prevent the accusation of becoming soft, spoiled and un-Roman. There is confirmation for this by Pliny the Elder (c. 23-79 CE), who ascribes the success of Asclepiads in Rome to the agreeable nature of his treatments, among them “a system of hydrotherapy, appealing to the unrestrained love of bathing of the people”.3. In his opinion, bathing was already popular and the notions of Asclepiads offered a convenient rationalisation of the existing practice, further enhancing the popularity. Considering the attractiveness of other medical treatments of this period, many of which were unpleasant or dangerous or both, it is no wonder that hydrotherapy was such a success. There may even be an element of cunning involved: Advising the Romans to do something he knew them to like doing was certainly positive to Asclepiads’ own popularity.4 1. Health and hygiene Bathing and athletics were important aspects of medicine in antiquity, firmly rooted in the social and intellectual life.5 The medicinal theories were spread by lectures and the antique scientific literature. These and later medicinal encyclopaedias are the main source for the role of bathing in the medicine of antiquity. Information about the detailed system of the Hippocratic School was transmitted to the Romans by the works of the encyclopaedist Celsus (first half of

2

Fagan, Studies, 177. Plinius, Nat. Hist. 26.14. 4 Fagan, Studies, 168. 5 Yegül, Baths, 352. 3

Aarhus 1990 and New York, 1992, respectively.

15

ROMAN TRADITION the 1st century CE) and the physician Galen (c. 129 to c. 199 CE).6 In antiquity, medicine was chiefly preventive, and primarily attempted to maintain the body’s health. The desire for health played an important role in the Greek culture. Yegül writes that to maintain and promote health was a moral obligation and a spiritual and religious necessity.7 The two principal methods used were the observance of a certain diet and the practice of certain exercises, some of whom were aided by massages and bathing. The Hippocratic School already declared bathing a salutary therapeutic measure. The opinions of this school were largely founded on a body of empirical facts, but also included many disconnected and partly inconsistent assumptions. According to their teachings, one should bath more frequently in summer than in winter and thin people should bath more frequently than corpulent ones. Fresh water baths moistened and cooled the body, while salt water baths heated and dried it. Galen (c. 129 to c. 199 CE) describes an ideal bathing regimen for healthy people: After undressing, they should begin the bathing process in a room with moderate heat, whose warmth was supposed to soften and loosen the body. One continued into a hot room with a hot water pool. In antique medicinal opinion, the steam would moisten the dry parts in the body. After this, a plunge in a cold-water pool in the cold room would close the pores, refresh the body and increase the energy. Now the bather could either dry off and dress or go into another room with dry heat for sweating again, followed by a massage with oil, which was supposed to clear the skin.8 These prescriptions correspond to the sequence of rooms in a Roman bath: apodyterium or changing room, tepidarium with a mild heat, caldarium, the hot room and frigidarium, the cold room (the latter both furnished with pools) and finally the laconicum or sudatorium, a room filled with a dry heat and containing no pool.9 An important part of bathing was oiling one’s body. This was no simple smearing of the body with oil, but an almost medicinal massage with oils and unguents of different uses. Different effects were ascribed to different preparations, such as preventing, protecting, soothing or beautifying. The effects desired and the physician’s advice as well as the patient’s preferences determined the kind of massage and the quality of the oil used and his economic possibilities, as both the oils and the massage could be very expensive.10

possible. A visit to the public baths was quite usual for a therapeutic bath as well and there was no separation of the healthy and the sick. With the exception of thermal baths and spas and the ritual baths at the sanctuaries of Aesculapius, the use of public baths for medicinal purposes on an organised basis is never hinted at in the written sources. No specified area defined for medicinal purposes has yet been found in the many excavated public baths, but baths surely proved ideal surroundings for physicians to practise their art. Finds of medicinal instruments in the sewers of several public baths in Germany support the assumption that the physicians may have used any (heated) side rooms available as examination and operation rooms.11 In his Historia naturalis, Pliny the Elder discusses the curative qualities of several waters, including therapeutic spas, thermal springs and seawater.12 Baths in salt of freshwater at different temperatures was prescribed for a whole variety of ills.13 Seawater was even brought inland, if needed, as it was considered beneficial for nervous patients and those suffering from consumption. Augustus bathed both in heated seawater and in sulphuric water to relieve his arthritic pains.14 The use of the mineral water of therapeutic spas (especially thermal springs) for medicinal purposes was also well known in antiquity. Many therapeutic spas active today have been first used in an organized manner in Roman times and have continued the tradition of curative bathing. Therapeutic springs and baths were usually dedicated to Gods, supposed either to have caused the spring to well up or to aid the healing process (or both). Among the gods revered in all baths, be they therapeutic or not, were Hygieia and Aesculap/Asklepios as gods of health and healing. In the baths of the western provinces, Fortuna was additionally worshipped in her capacity as patron of baths. Sometimes a genius thermarum (a personification of the bath’s curative effects and protecting spirit of the bath’s good qualities) was also worshipped. In the eastern provinces, Heracles/Hercules and Aphrodite/Venus were more frequently represented in the baths, representing the ideal of a perfect body in a man and a woman. The baths could also be named for gods if a statue of the divinity was placed in a prominent place of the bath (see chapter 6). This also applied to statues not representing gods, as the “Bath of the Horse” in Alexandria shows.15 Those statues of gods in the

Most medicinal baths not needing complete immersion or strong heat took place at home, if

11 In the Barbarathermen /Trier, in Weissenburg and in the large thermae of Xanten. See E. Künzl, Medizin in der Antike, Stuttgart 2002, 43-45 and E. Künzl, Operationsräume in römischen Thermen, BJh 186, 1986, 491-511. 12 Plinius, Nat. Hist. 31, 2. 13 R. Jackson, Spas, waters and hydrotheraphy in the Roman world. In: Delaine, Roman baths, 107-116. 14 Yegül, Baths, 92. 15 Anth. Gr. III 628.

6

Yegül, Baths, 352. Yegül, Baths, 353. 8 Yegül, Baths, 354. 9 Yegül, Baths, 354. 10 Yegül, Baths, 354. 7

16

ROMAN TRADITION baths were usually just a decoration, the baths themselves being secular.16 Some baths though mostly the ones intended for curative or ritual bathing purposes - were dedicated to gods.17

Baths also were seen to help with the Romanisation of conquered peoples, a thought expressively voiced by Tacitus in his praise of Agricola, who (in his words) had subdued the inhabitants of Britain by making them addicted to elaborated feasts and bathing (among other things).20 Baths were part of “what distinguished and defined the essence of romanitas and its concomitant urbanitas.” 21

2. The Management of the baths Ownership and Funding Baths could be private property or the property either of a city or of the Empire, if they had been an imperial donation.18 The latter usually were the large thermal establishments, while most smaller establishments probably fell into the first category. Imperial donations were mainly built in Rome, occasionally also in other large cities of the Empire such as Antiocheia at the Orontes or Alexandria. Most times however, the cities in Italy and the provinces had to finance their large thermal establishments themselves. The money was either taken from the city funds, or the rich and influential citizens of the city financed the bath establishments on their own. This group often paid for the redecoration or rebuilding of the baths and usually recorded their generosity in inscriptions. The reason for this philanthropy lay in the fact that the supply of public baths guaranteed a large popularity of the donators, which usually were officials of the city. The chances of a re-election into municipal offices could be increased in this way. The emperors also wanted to increase their popularity by the donation of baths. As long as the cities flourished, this system worked well. With the economic crisis in Late Antiquity it became increasingly difficult to find citizens who could afford such donations or wanted to. Therefore the financing was divided and taxes were issued. The supply of the baths with certain consumer goods such as wood or oil could be made a tax-like obligation (munus) either for individual citizen or for groups e.g. guilds. Since the second half of the 3rd century CE, the restoration and maintenance of the baths increasingly became the affair of the emperors. One reason for this might have been the financial problems of the cities. It has also been argued that the emperors took over this important part of munificence in concert with other efforts at centralization. Baths were seen as symbols of power by Roman society, as Zajac has argued: They were a proof of the power over nature by engineering and “expressed the glory of Empire and urban majesty in their organisation, scale and aesthetics”.19 They also were cities within the city, a reductio of the city surrounding it.

Private baths were the property of businessmen and were considered safe investments with good profits. The actual daily running of the bath was often taken over by a manager or by a leaseholder to whom the bath was leased for a certain time. The so-called lex metalli Vipascensis is an inscription on a bronze tablet found near Aljustrel, the Roman mining district of Vipasca in southern Lusitania (Portugal) and dated into the Trajanic period. It reports the leasing of several establishments owned by the mine operating near the city and lists the leasing conditions. In addition to a barber, a shoemaker and others, a bath is named.22 Urban baths were often leased out, while the large public-owned thermae usually were operated by public slaves and freedmen. Comparatively little is known about the actual costs of the building, renovation or maintenance of an establishment like this. The origin of the few existing sources is quite disparate, making general statements difficult.23 The costs for the maintenance of a bathing establishment must have been quite different for a bath in large city to that of a smaller city, in Italy or in a province, in economically prosperous surroundings or in a rather underdeveloped part of the Empire. The main factor of the costs – the heating - can serve as an example: The procurement of the substantial quantities of wood needed for heating was surely more expensive in cities than in the country and less expensive in more wooded provinces such as Germania than for instance in Greece. Martial reports the closing of the bath “of Tucca”, because of the heating costs.24 Water formed another considerable cost factor. Public baths had the right to tap the public water pipelines free of charge while private baths had to pay for it and (together with the other private households) were the first to have their water supply cut off during a drought.25 The amount of money (called vectigal) to be paid for the water was probably determined by the diameter of the water pipeline.26

20

Tacitus Agr. 21.1-2. Zajac, Policy 102. 22 CIL II 5181 – Flach, Vipasca, 411. 23 see Nielsen, Thermae, 121. 24 Martial, Epigr. 9, 75. - Robinson, Aspect, 1077. 25 Vitruv, De Arch. – H. Eschebach, Die Gebrauchswasserversorgung des antiken Pompeji, Antike Welt 10, 2 1979, 3-24. 26 Frontin, De Aquis. (Translation C. E. Bennett, ed. M. B. McElwain, London 31961), Buch I, 23-35, S. 364-377, note 3 Cod. Theod. 15. 2. 3. 21

16

Nielsen, Thermae, 146 – Yegül, Baths, 125. Nielsen, Thermae, 146. 18 Nielsen, Thermae, 119. 19 Zajac, Policy 102. 17

17

ROMAN TRADITION In contrast to the enormous costs of a bathing establishment, the income from the admission fees seems very small. As a bath was considered a safe investment by the Roman writers, the principle seems to been that many small contribution in the end can make a large amount. Additionally, the leaseholder of a bath could lease out certain services, for example stalls or booths in which bathing implements (e.g. oil) or snacks and beverages were sold. Perhaps the prostitutes working in the baths represented a further source of income, paying for the “work permit”. Sometimes they were also working directly for the personnel.

as a lot of the water used by the women must have remained in the pools. This would explain the smaller price the men had to pay. On feast days, the emperor or rich citizens would sponsor the entrance fee for certain groups the citizens of a city.32 The owners of private baths were compensated with a sum corresponding to their daily earnings. Apparently, marks were given out to the groups concerned, entitling them to the entrance. Many such lead marks with inscriptions or illustrations referring to baths have been found. Perhaps these marks could also be bought and used as a ticket.33 An inscription of the 3rd century CE from Veii mentions a woman, who sponsored free entrance to the baths to all women of the city.34 Other inscriptions name certain occupational groups or guilds as beneficiaries. In some baths inscriptions of different guilds or associations reserving certain places in the latrines have been found. They demonstrate that a fee must have been paid for privilege of using the latrines more or less exclusively. Maybe the guilds could also contribute in a different way to the maintenance of the latrine. Dittmann-Schöne points out, that this stressed the public spirit of the guild or association concerned; it helped its members to have a place both in the latrine and in society.35

Admission fees The admission fees were very low and bathing was completely free of charge in some baths in Rome. The admission fees of course changed with time. In the days of Cicero or Martial (1st c. BCE – 1st century CE) the admission fee was one quadrans, in the price edict of Diocletian (301 CE) the maximum price was two denarii, perhaps illustrating the inflation of Late Antiquity. The metallum Vipascenum mentioned earlier also lists among other things the admission fees of the bath. According to it, men paid a semis (1/2 as), women 1 as, and children had free entrance. The leaseholder was obliged to open the bath for women from daylight up to the seventh hour (approx.12-13 o'clock) and from then to sunset for men.27 The difference of the admission fees is confirmed by other sources, the general free entrance for children even being used by Juvenal as an age group description, “boys, [...] who do not bath for money”.28 As the preferred hour for bathing was the afternoon, the women seem to be doubly discriminated against. The reason for this unequal treatment of the sexes has been discussed intensively. Some authors have claimed that “long hair and inadequate menstrual protection would explain the different charges for the sexes on pure practical grounds”29, others, that the “discrimination of the sexes [...] seems to be general”.30 Sommer has found another, more convincing solution for the problem.31 In his opinion, the different price has its reason in the different freshness and heat of the water. According to the lease contract in the lex metalli Vipascensis, the pools were newly filled with fresh hot water every morning. The women using the bath at that time had fresh and hot water. The lex states that the water had to be filled to a certain mark by the leaseholder of the bath before the men came in. Nevertheless, the water would have been both cooler and dirtier at that time,

Personnel It seems likely that in smaller baths, only only a few persons performed several tasks. In the larger establishments, a large and in part very specialised work force must have been employed. Many different work units, each with their own leader, were responsible for the different service sectors within the bath.36 These might contain central administration, heating, technical maintenance and supply, cash, clothes and finally bath assistance (such as massage, depilation, etc.).37 Not all of these functions had to be performed by trained personnel. It can be assumed that some tasks were performed by untrained slaves, e.g. transport and storage of the heating material or the cleaning of the rooms and the daily washing, drying and greasing of the metal armatures (as recorded by the lex metalli Vipascensis 38). The control of the public baths was executed during the Republic by the aediles39. Since the early imperial period, this office was taken over by curatores. In 32 H. Meusel, Die Verwaltung und Finanzierung der öffentlichen Bäder zur römischen Kaiserzeit, Köln 1960, 110. 33 Nielsen, Thermae, 124 and 134. 34 CIL XI 3811 Veii. 35 I. Dittmann-Schöne, Die Berufsvereine in den Städten des kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasiens, Regensburg 2001, 78. 36 Nielsen, Thermae, 125 – H. Meusel, Die Verwaltung und Finanzierung der öffentlichen Bäder zur römischen Kaiserzeit, Diss. Köln 1960. 37 Wissemann, Personal, 81. 38 CIL II 5181 – Flach, Vipasca, 411. 39 Seneca, Epist. , 86, 8-9 S. 314-17.

27

CIL II 5181 – Flach, Vipasca, 411. Juvenal Sat. 2, 152. 29 Robinson, Aspect, 1074. 30 Nielsen Thermae, 132 (note 6). 31 C. S. Sommer, Waren Frauen in der Römerzeit schmutziger als Männer? Überlegungen zur Eintrittspreisgestaltung in römischen Thermen. In: Fundberichte Baden-Württemberg 21, 1996, 301-306. 28

18

ROMAN TRADITION Late Antique Constantinopel, the control was provided by the praefectus urbi and the praefectus vigilum, in the other cities of the Empire it seems, to have been continued to be executed by aediles.40 Public baths could be let to leaseholders or be administered by managers; in addition, the administration could be assigned as liturgie or munus, as it was typical for Greece and Egypt. Private baths were administered either by the owner, a manager used by the owner or a leaseholder. The most frequent form (both with public and private baths in cities) was the lease of the bath.41 The leaseholders and manager seem – as far as that can be concluded from the sources – to have been free men. In the case of the liturgical officials they even were of high rank. The actual managers on the other hand, usually were freedmen or slaves. These were called balneatores, a term derived from the name for the bath, balneion.42 Occasionally, the Latin version of the name is mentioned (thermarius or thermularius), deriving from thermae. In small baths, this person could be fulfilling most of the necessary functions. In larger establishments, he was probably responsible for the supervision of the staff. In the private baths of rich houses, used only by the family and its guests, the slave responsible for the bath was probably called balneator. The social status of the balneator was low. The capsarius is mentioned as an official under the supervision of the balneator. He was responsible for the clothes of the guests in the apodyterium. He was probably frequently also a doorman and seller of bath oils. In this function, he might have had access to a small room to the side of the apodyterium, to keep the oils and the cash box. His name is given in Greek both as kapsarios and himatiophylax. Many complaints on the theft of clothes in the bath show the necessity of such a post - and the frequency of it happening nevertheless. In addition, an “oiler” and a masseur are mentioned, working either in the unctorium (the room, in which one oiled oneself or was oiled) or in the tepidarium. He was obviously called either unctor or aliptes, the latter being the Latin form of the Greek word aleiptes. Juvenal mentions, that some “shameless” women were massaged by such an unctor. In some baths, the services of a depilator, removing unwanted bodily hair, could be obtained.43 A further task was given to the slaves pouring hot water over the guests in the hot pool, the alveus. They were called parachytes in Greek, and perfusor in Latin. The person responsible for the ovens was called fornacator, (after the furnace, fornax), in Greek hypokaustes. These functions were

usually occupied by slaves. All bathhouse slaves belonged , to the inventory of the bath, as the Digesta show.44 In addition there could be a cashier (captuarius) or a coach (gymnastes or paidotribes), who cared for the guests training in the palaestra. Besides these technical personnel there were also slaves for the low work, as mentioned. They were rented or bought as needed.45 All slaves probably lived in the bath or in direct proximity. The fire in the furnace was not allowed to go out, since a renewed firing of the furnace was more expensive than a continuous heating, as well as causing cracks in the plaster. In the forum thermae of Herculaneum a whole suite of rooms was found above the bath, accessible from the service wing and probably serving as dwelling for the slaves of the bath.46 Owner of slaves could bring them into the baths to be served by them. This seems to have been usual during the whole imperial period. It was customary to bring one or two slaves to carry bathing implements, watch the clothes of their masters and oil and massage their owners, or pour water over them. Parvenus such as Trimalchio brought a whole entourage of slaves into the baths, in order to show off their wealth.47

40 O. Robinson, Baths: An Aspect of Roman Government Law. In: Sodalitas, Sciritti in onore di Antonio Guarino 3, Napoli 1984, 1065-1082, here1079. 41 Nielsen, Thermae 126. 42 Varro, Ling. 8.53 – Nielsen, Thermae 127. 43 Nielsen, Thermae 128.

44

3. The design, equipment and decoration of the baths. The luxurious decoration of the baths is emphasised in almost all sources. Unfortunately it is very difficult to have an accurate impression, as almost all baths have been robbed of their decoration. One has to fall back on written sources, if one wants to experience the effect of the decoration of the baths. These are not all in praise: Confirmation of the luxurious furnishing of some baths is given in the moralising treatises of Seneca or Pliny the Elder – disapprovingly.48 Disregarding the simpler baths, stucco ornamentation of the vaults, and multicoloured marble incrustation of the walls and floors were common elements of the decoration. Martial particularly admired the marble incrustations of a bath on the Quirinal with green marble from Laconia, yellow giallo antico from Numidia and dark red marble from Phrygia. Statius praised the same bath for its sun-flooded rooms, walls decorated with mosaics (in part with glass tessarae), doorframes of marble and armatures not of bronze, but of silver.49 Pools were faced with marble or polished stone, the basins made of shining bronze. The taps of the basins were often decorated with bronze lion heads. Many Dig..33.7.14 (Paulus.) Dig. 3. 2. 4. 2 (Ulpian) - Nielsen, Thermae, 130. Berger, Bad, 125 - Nielsen, Thermae, 130. 47 Martial, Epigr. 11.75. – Petron, Sat., 27. 48 Yegül, Baths, 31f. 49 Silvae, 1, 5, esp. 34-End and Mart. Epigr. 6, 42. 45 46

19

ROMAN TRADITION feeling of dizziness when burned.55 Pliny claims that darnel was occasionally burned by the employees of some baths in Greece and Asia Minor, in order to drive crowds of guests out of the bath.56 Plutarch reports that careful aedils forbade the burning of darnel in the furnace.57 The quality of the water apparently often left much to be desired. The sick and the healthy and everybody bathed together, the water often not being changed as frequently as needed. It is reported that Hadrian limited the use of the baths by the sick to two hours daily, but in Fagan’s opinion the intention was more to spare the healthy customers the sight of ugly diseases than any medical concerns. Warnings against bathing with the sick are not known from any medical writer in Antiquity.58 Martial in an epigram makes fun of a certain Cotilus, who is disgusted by the water of the pools, as others would have already washed their genitals in it, but he does not state any medical reasons for this disgust.59 Pliny the Elder also mentions that the baths were the preferential breeding place for cockroaches - an animal that the average Roman surely knew from his own home. The fact that aedils had to control the cleanness of a bath and could arrange its (immediate?) closing up, if it failed to meet the standards, speaks for the necessity for such measures and gives rise to the fear that at least some operators of baths did not take cleaning too seriously.60 All in all, one has to consider that the Romans had completely different conceptions of hygiene than we do today. Many things appearing quite unappetising to us belonged to the everyday life of antiquity. This can also be concluded from the fact, that despite the complaints mentioned and some others, most authors have rather pleasing associations of cleanliness and splendour when writing about baths instead of unpleasant ones of dirt and disgust.61 The Romans were nevertheless conscious of the dangers of bathing. Sometimes their perception of danger would be quite different form ours, sometimes the dangers are still feared today. Various inscriptions give witness to death by drowning in the large basins of the baths, and quite often the victims are children.62 A standard motive for horror stories with a setting in the baths was suffocation or strangling by other visitors or by the demons of the bath. Dirty water was

statues and wall paintings decorated the rooms: “[...] We think ourselves poor and mean if our walls are not resplendent with large and costly mirrors; if our marbles from Alexandria are not set off by mosaics from Numidian stone, if their borders are not faced over on all sides with difficult patterns, arranged in many colours like paintings; if our vaulted ceilings are not buried in glass; if our swimming-pools are not lined with Thasian marble, once a rare and wonderful sight in any temple – pools into which we let down our bodies after they have been drained weak by abundant perspiration; and finally, if the water has not poured from silver spigots. I have so far been speaking of the ordinary bathing-establishments; what shall I say when I come to those of the freedmen? What a vast number of statues, of columns that support nothing, but are built for decoration, merely in order to spend money! And what masses of water that fall crashing from level to level!” 50 Quantity and quality of the water in the baths were often emphasised by the authors. Another amenity which the Romans particularly loved were the large, sun-filled rooms, contrasted in many writings with the dark and small baths of earlier times. The economical Vitruvius writes, that one should select a warm place for the building of the bath, and “the hot and warm baths [...] should get their light from the south-west. If however the place does not permit that, then from the south, because the time for bathing is mainly from noon to evening.” 51 Seneca writes:”[...] nowadays, however, people regard baths fit only for moths if they have not been so arranged that they receive the sun all day long through the widest of windows, if men cannot bath 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.”52 On the other hand the baths had also less pleasant aspects53. The dark baths of Gyllus, and the draught in the baths of Lupus as well as the unspecific “unpleasant” baths of Faustus in Rome are described by Martial in his satirical poem, in which these disagreeable baths were braved by the scrounge Selius in search for a free dinner invitation.54 Gases and smoke from the praefurnium could come through cracks in the floor and walls into the bathing rooms and trouble the bathers. These, however, must have been relatively accustomed to this kind of annoyance, since the normal heating of Roman houses was provided by charcoal basins. The complaints about smoky baths mostly seem to refer to the burning of darnel, a grass whose seed leads to headaches and a

55

Lolium temulentum, a grass growing alongside wheat with a long and narrow ear. The seeds are very poisonous, having a narcotic effect leading to nausea, shaking, respiratory difficulties and a state of panic. 56 Plinius, Nat. Hist. 18, 156. 57 Plut. Mor., 658 E. 58 Fagan, Roman Public Bathing, 251. 59 Mart. 2, 70 - Busch, Versus Balnearum, 480-482. 60 Fagan, Roman Public Bathing, 251f. 61 Fagan, Roman Public Bathing, 256. 62 CIL VI 6740 = ILS 8518 (Rom), CIL IX 6318 (Chieti).

50

Seneca, Epist., 86, 4-13 S. 311-319. Vitruv, De Arch. V 10,1. 52 Seneca, Epist. 86, 4-13 S. 311-319. 53 Fagan, Roman Public Bathing, 245-256. 54 Mart., Epigr. 2.14.11-13. 51

20

ROMAN TRADITION was stolen.69 Approximately 130 such lamellae were found, most of which ask for the punishment of thieves. This throws a light on both the faith in the powers of Sulis Minerva and on the frequency of thefts in the thermal baths.70

regarded as the home of demons and the souls of the dead.63 It was also dangerous to provoke envy (phthonos) and the evil eye by arrogance (hybris) or by excessive beauty. This applied not only to humans in the bath, but also to the bath itself. That is the background for the manifold apotropaic pictures and inscriptions on baths, e.g. that of the bath of Serjilla in Syria.64 These pictures were especially frequent in the baths of North Africa. Phalli were apparently the most frequent symbol, additionally other motives, like the swastika or kantharos, appear.65 The use of the baths for magic practices shows up in many sources. Different papyri describe love charms in which “magic” objects were thrown into the hypocaust. Because the demons of the bath, in whose power the fulfilment of such desires lay, lived in the hypocaust, the objects had to be thrown in to unfold their effect. A symbol of the loved person, e.g. a twig of myrrh, was thrown into the hypocaust and was supposed to have a “sympathetic” (that is: homogeneous) effect with the person desired; he or she should be inflamed with love for the user of the charm.66 A particularly interesting example of a love charm connected with the baths was recorded on a lamella found in an Egyptian grave: Sophia called the higher powers to win the love of the Gorgonia. Gorgonia should be thrown into the bath (probably the hypocaust), where she should inflame with body and soul for Sophia. The lamella was deposited in the grave to ask the shade of the person buried there to grant the fulfilment of the wish.67 Defixiones were also found in the springs of thermal baths, since the Romans believed that the water had a connection with the underground powers, because of its origins in the depth. The gods responsible for the sources were not only asked to heal, as a lamella found in the holy source of Bath in England shows. On it, a man robbed of his robe records the gift of the robe to the goddess, so that she will punish the thief: “Solinus to the goddess Sulis Minerva. I give to your divinity (and) majesty (my) bathing tunic and cloak. Do not allow sleep or health to him who has done me wrong, whether man or woman, whether slave or free, unless he reveals himself and brings those goods to your temple [...].”68 Solinus was not the only victim, a Cantissena also complains, that her “bathing tunic”

4. Therapeutic and other special baths The curative qualities attributed to therapeutic baths have already been discussed. In general terms, their establishments were probably even more magnificent than that of most thermae.71 This is the result of two effects. There was a continuous supply of hot water and steam heating the rooms for free, so that no economical restriction was needed on the number and size of the rooms. In addition, “taking a cure” was a kind of vacation in which one looked for healing, but also diversion and relaxation. This is confirmed by the many descriptions of the “wild life” in the bathing resorts, particularly Baiae. It can be presumed, that the proprietors of thermal bathing establishments had them equipped and furnished especially luxurious, to make the stay as pleasant as possible and thereby inducing the guest to return to this particular bath. In Baiae and the region around it, many baths were competing for customers. The similarity with modern health resorts even goes as far as “souvenirs” with representations of the health resort and its main attraction being produced and sold in Baiae.72 Due to the nature of the therapeutic bath, the gods connected to health and healing were even more strongly present here than in the thermae. Frequently the god or goddess supposed to have “caused” the thermal source, usually a nymph, was honoured in the bath. The worship and votive offerings to the god or goddess were considered a normal and necessary part of the treatment.73 The most interesting votive offering in this connection a complete model of a therapeutic bath from limestone, with a basin, reservoir and stairs, found in Taormina on Sicily and today in the Collection of the Akademisches Kunstmuseum of the University of Bonn.74 Several epigraphic references to winter and summer baths originate mainly from Italy, North Africa and the east of the Empire in the 3 – 5th century CE. To judge by the descriptions, winter baths were smaller and equipped with fewer hot water basins than the summer baths. In the latter, the latrines usually were open, while they were small and closed in the winter

63 S. Eitrem, Opferritus und Voropfer der Griechen und Römer, Kristiania 1915, 119-124. 64 H. Butler, W. Prentiss, A Mosaic Pavement and Inscription from the Baths at Serdjilla, RA 39, 1901, 62-76 H. Butler, Publications of the Princeton University Archaeological Expeditions to Syria in 1904-5 and 1909 II Architecture B, Leiden 1920, 188-123. 65 Dunbabin, Pleasures, 37 – 45. 66 B. Meyer, Magie et Bains Publics. In: Atti del Congresso Internazionale di Papirologia, Firenze 1998, Florenz 2001, 937-942. 67 R. Daniel, E. Maltomini (Hrsg.), Supplementum Magicum, Opladen, 2 Vol. 1990, 1992, No. I 42. 68 Nr. 32 in: Tomlin, Curse Tablets, 150-151.

69

Nr. 63 in: Tomlin, Curse Tablets, 196. Tomlin, Curse Tablets , 59 – 278 – D. R. Jordan, Curses from the Waters of Sulis, JRA 3 1990, 437-441. 71 Yegül, Baths, 92. 72 Yegül, Baths, fig. 113. 73 Yegül, Baths, 125. 74 H. Manderscheid, Ein Gebäudemodell in Bonn, BJb, 183, 1983, 429-44. 70

21

ROMAN TRADITION baths.75 This seems to have been a measure to save heating material by the reduction of rooms and hot water basins as well as the closing of the cold-water pools (used rarely in winter). The information to be gained by both the epigraphic and the literary sources is unfortunately quite inaccurate, so that usually no conclusions to the function of a certain bath can be drawn. In some cases, the function as winter or summer bath can be clarified by an inscription. This is the case in Thuburbo Maius (Tunisia), where the small winter bath and the larger summer bath are quite near to each other and both built in the 2nd century CE.76 Martial describes certain baths, in which women bathed particularly frequently, these may be considered woman’s baths.77 Ovid also alludes to women’s baths, into which men were not admitted: A husband assigns a servant to watch his wife in order to prevent adultery. She goes into a bath, where the servant was not allowed to follow, a women’s bath.78

few pictorial sources giving information about clothing or nakedness in the baths. A mosaic from the Villa in Piazza Amerina on Sicily, frequently mentioned in this connection, shows girls playing ball and wearing a bikini-like top and pants.80 The scene does seem to be set in the open and there is no reference to it being set in a bath. Thus it cannot be considered as proof for such clothing within a bath. Many representations of women with chest bands show, that this seems to have been the normal everyday underwear of women. In an epigram, Martial speaks of a loincloth, covering the private parts of a woman.81 This loincloth (subligar) was mainly worn by men and was considered underwear. Martial seems to have used this garment in his epigram to demonstrate the chastity of the woman. Such a loincloth was “a usual or possible garment” in the bath.82 Both the written sources and the representations agree that men seem to have always bathed naked, meaning they were naked in the palaestra and in the whole bath. It must be assumed, that this rule could be adapted depending upon national custom, perhaps also depending upon personal taste. Many written sources speak of “bathing tunics”, which may have been special clothing for the (public) bath or a description of clothes worn after the bath. In many baths, mosaics were found near the entrance, on which sandals or soles were depicted. This seems to have been a request to take off the street shoes or sandals and put on this footwear at or near this point. In Sabratha (Libya) two of such mosaics were found next to each. One carries the inscription “bene lava” beside a picture of soles pointing into the bath, the other “salvom lavisse” beside another picture showing the soles pointing outwards.83 The Greek equivalents of these “bath greetings” were “kalos lousai” and “kalos elouson”, probably standardised forms of politeness that were always exchanged.84 The wooden sandals are also known from literary and archaeological sources.85 They were called solea balnearis.86 Slippers or sandals are still in use in today’s Turkish baths for hygienic reasons and they also prevent slipping on the wet floors.87 The sandals belonged to the so-called instrumentum balnei, the “bathing equipment”. This also consisted of bathing

5. Bathing customs and regulations Bathing times Men and women seem to have bathed at separate times. Since the sources (with one exception) refer only to the men, we do know at which times they bathed. If the bathing times recorded in the lex metalli Vipascensis are to be applicable to Rome as well, women seem to have bathed in the morning and men in the afternoon. This only applies to baths, which had no separate areas for women. In addition, women could also bathe together with the men in the afternoon (see below). The most popular bathing time for men seems not to have changed during the whole Imperial period. Their daily routine consisted of an early breakfast, then work, followed by a midday lunch and a siesta. After this, one enjoyed a prolonged bath, meeting friends and perhaps snacking and drinking – generally winding down. This was followed by the main meal of the day, dinner (cena). The opening times of the baths mostly ran from noon to dusk at least. Some baths already opened in the morning or stayed open well into the night. The baths remained closed at the death of the emperor; they could also be closed as a sanction.79

80

Carandini et al, Piazza Amerina, Abb. 72-75. Mart., Epigr., 3, 87. 82 Busch, Versus Balnearum, 497. 83 Mosaics in the entrance of baths of Antiocheia (Turkey), Brixia (Italy), Leptis Magna, Sabratha (both Libya) and Kerkouane (Tunesia) see Nielsen, Thermae, 141, note 18 – 21. – Timgad (Algeria), Chania / Crete, El Hinjal near Merida (Spain) see Dunbabin, Pleasures, 41. 84 Dunbabin, Pleasures, 18. 85 Finds of bathing-sandals were made in the Saalburg (Germany), Toulouse, Compierre, Matres-de-Veyre (all France), Larino (Italy) and Vindolanda (Great Britain). See: Bouet, Gaule Narbonnaise, 281-283, pl. 232-233. 86 Dunbabin, Pleasures, 41. 87 Nielsen, Thermae, 142. 81

Clothing in the baths In difference to Greek art, bathing was depicted very rarely in the Roman culture. Considering the position bathing had in Roman daily life and society, this fact is particularly remarkable. Nevertheless, there are a 75

Merten, Badegepflogenheiten, 34. Nielsen, Thermae, 140. 77 Mart. 11, 47 - Busch, Versus Balnearum, 492. 78 Ovid, Ars, 3, 639. 79 Nielsen, Thermae 136. 76

22

ROMAN TRADITION oils or perfumes in flasks (of glass, ceramic or bronze), bronze strigiles for scraping off the oil, soda 88 and linen towels. All these things could be either brought along from home or bought or hired for a small charge at the bath. Cloths, which may have been used as towels for drying, were found in Coptic graves in Egypt. One example is a towel of linen and wool with a large multicoloured check design, conserved in its original size (49 by 92 cm).89 The jugs used to pour water over the body seem to have belonged to the bath.90 A mosaic of the mansion of Piazza Amerina depicts the walk to the bath: A woman visits the bath in the company of her sons and two servants.91 One of the servants carries a box with a tunic with stripes, another carries a small metal-studded box on two chains. Perhaps it contained perfumes and oils or was used as jewel-box for rings and jewellery during bathing as mentioned by Martial.92

reactions to male co-bathers. These cover the whole spectrum from outright disapproval over indifference to the making of advances and confirm that completely average women bathed together with men.96 Busch argues that there were baths reserved to women in the larger cities. In smaller cities the separation seems to have been arranged by a separation of the bathing times, as the lex metalli Vipascensis shows. Women could choose to visit baths, which were not exclusively for women. The choice of the bath was just as much a thing of personal preference as the way in which the woman presented herself in those mixed baths. She might be dressed or she might just wrap herself in towels when not in a pool. The sources agree, that the mixed bathing of men and women began in the course of the 1st century CE, became common at the beginning of the 2nd century CE, and remained so up to the end of the 4th century CE.97 Most sources describe the conditions in Rome or Italy, leaving open the question whether the same conditions are applicable to all the provinces of the Empire. Fagan suggests an analogy to nudism today.98 In some countries, sometimes also only in certain regions or at certain beaches naked bathing is permitted, at others forbidden. The morals on nudism also underwent a complete change in the last hundred years (at least in northern Europe). In addition, there is sometimes a separation into nudism beaches for men and for women. More accurate statements about mixed bathing can only be made after detailed investigations into the conditions in the individual provinces, since there, Roman mores met with the native traditions. In some provinces (e.g. Syria, Judaea) it is only conceivable with difficulty that the attitude to balnea mixta was changed by Romanisation in such a manner that it became generally accepted.

Balnea Mixta In the Greek balneion men and women bathed separately, either in baths with two similar series of rooms or at separate times. The first public baths in Rome also had two sets of rooms, explains Varro, which is the reason for the name balneae, which is a plural.93 In the 1st century CE, the separate bath tracts start to disappear in newly erected baths. At the same time, the literary sources start hinting at men and women bathing together. Pliny the Elder explicitly mentions mixed bathing, but it is already alluded to by Ovid and Nicarchus during the reign of Augustus and Nero.94 Quintillian (c. 30-100 CE) confirms, that the baths were visited (while men were bathing) not only by prostitutes and loose women, but also by quite respectable average women. He states, that a mere visit of the baths by a woman cannot be considered as an indicator for adultery. He is relating to the lex Iulia de adulteriis, which only applied to women with conubium, excluding “immoral” women such as actresses, prostitutes or slaves.95 This is an indication, that in his time, mixed bathing seems to have been quite normal in Rome, done by both respectable married women and – of course – less respectable women as well. Martial at various times mentions women bathing together with men and their

Social classes of the visitors The baths were visited by visitors of all social classes. While emperors used the public baths only rarely and usually with the opportunistic motive of gaining in popularity, senators were regular guests of the public baths.99 All sources report the presence of senators and other high-ranking members of the elite in the baths completely unimpressed, it seems to have even been expected by them.100 Those members of the elite did not only use the large and well equipped luxury baths in Rome: Pliny the Younger (62-113 C E), a senator of consular rank, wrote, if he unexpectedly returned to his mansion and the time did not suffice to heat his

88 Soda was imported from Egypt and could be replaced by potash. Together with the oil rubbed into the skin, it formed a soap-like substance on the skin. Berger, Bad, 140. 89 The piece is from the Schnuetgen museum Cologne (Coptic, 5.-7. c. A. D.). A. Paetz gen. Schieck Spätantik-ägyptische Textilien. Untersuchungen auf der Materialbasis unpublizierter Museumsbestände in Nordrhein-Westfalen. Unpublished Dissertation, University of Cologne 2002 90 Nielsen, Thermae, 142. 91 Carandini et al, Piazza Amerina, Abb. 200 92 Mart. Epigr. 11, 59 - Busch, Versus Balnearum, 467. 93 Varro, Ling. 9.68. 94 Ward, Women, 134. 95 Quintilian, Inst. Orat.5.9.14 – Ward, Women, 135.

96

Busch, Versus Balnearum, 491-92. Ward, Women, 146. 98 Fagan, Studies, 297. 99 Fagan, Studies, 257-85. 100 Fagan, Studies, 259. 97

23

ROMAN TRADITION own bath, he would use one of the three (public, but privately operated) baths in the nearby town of Vicus Augustanus.101 The use of the baths by the plebs and slaves is substantially more difficult to prove. Some scattered sources, among them graffiti in the baths themselves, show that also poorer people could regularly afford the visit to the baths. It was usual to go bathing with the whole family. Two burial inscriptions from Ostia and Lugdunum mention that the wives honoured in the inscriptions regularly went to the baths with their husbands. The mourning spouse from Lugdunum indicates his occupation as a plasterer, not a socially high standing profession.102 Children were also taken to the baths, as is confirmed by another burial inscription, mourning a son of eight years drowned in the baths of Mars.103 The presence of slaves in the baths can also be proven by many sources, although usually serving their owners. In this function they were probably also allowed to bathe.104 Martial writes about slaves serving their female owners in the baths.105 Trusted slaves of higher status might also visit the baths, but had to pay out of their own money.106 The slaves and freedmen of the procurator of the mine in Vipasca could visit the bath there for free, other slaves could probably also use the bath, but had to pay.107 Baths wanting to attract an exclusive and wealthy clientele could discourage less wealthy customers by high prices. A guard at the entrance could guarantee that no unwanted elements entered the bath. Smaller baths probably specialised in regular customers from their own neighbourhood. The large central baths of the cities were openly to all, though. The examples in Rome show, that their entrances lay into the direction of wealthy quarters, and poorer quarters alike.108 These descriptions of the social composition in the baths all come from urban contexts. The situation in the countryside was probably quite different: It is hardly conceivable that other slaves than those serving the owners were allowed to use the bath of a mansion. For the other slaves, bathing was probably dependant on “the degree of enlightenment or fastidiousness of the master”.109 Sometimes, two separate bathing suites were found in large mansions. If they existed at the same time, which can not always be established with any degree of certainty, the second one seems to have been for the steward, as it Welwyn (England), not for the ordinary household or agricultural slaves. Perhaps they used the room

equipped for washing or bathing found sometimes beside the kitchen. Columella recommends bathing for the servants, but warns that too many baths are “not conductive to physical vigour”.110 The social mixture in the baths did not lead to a social equalisation within the baths. Although one was naked, one still was surrounded by status symbols, making one’s own rank quite visible for those present. If necessary, one could take a large group of slaves to the baths, to keep the masses at bay. The decoration and quality of the instrumentum balnei could also distinguish rich from poor. The metal of the strigil, the material of the oil container as well as the preciousness of its contents and the cloth of the bathtowels could make quite clear who was poor and who was rich. This even led to excesses, which Martial and Juvenal caricature. Both describe men, who ruin themselves to seem wealthy at the baths. They are surrounded by slaves or carry, like Juvenal’s Tongilius, an excessively large and extravagant container, the horn of a rhino, with expensive bathing oil.111 It seems that all social classes visited the baths and were not formally separated there, but the distance between the classes remained. Compared with the reserved seats in the theatre, assigned exactly in accordance with rank, the arrangements in the baths seem rather informal. The situation was probably rather similar to the forums, roads, markets and other public places, at which all Romans converged. All classes were there; nevertheless a separation between them existed.112 Additional functions of baths In addition to the main function, baths were used for a number of social functions as well. Besides gossiping with friends and the “see and be seen” game, one could hear a lecture in special rooms, read a book in the libraries, play a ball game or do other athletics at the palaestra. Beggars would gather in the parts of the baths that could be entered without admission fee to beg or at the furnace to warm up. These functions were of course available in the larger baths only and can be traced back to the Greek forerunner of the Roman bath, the gymnasion. The palaestra was a relict of these times and stayed an important feature of baths in the east, long after it had gone out of vogue in the west of the Empire.113 In contrast to the gymnasia, the palaestra in a bath usually was a courtyard in which several athletic disciplines could be practised such as boxing, wrestling or weightlifting. Sometimes a so-called sphaeristerium for ball games was adjoined, which could be either another open courtyard, but also a large, closed room. These –

101 Plinius Ep., 2. 26. 27 (Translation W. Melmoth, Vol. I, London 1961). 102 ILS 8158 (Lugdunum), AE 1987.179 (Ostia). 103 ILS 8518, see also the similar text: CIL 9, 6318. 104 Fagan, Studies, 269. 105 Mart. 7, 35 and 11, 75 - Busch, Versus Balnearum, 497-99. 106 Fagan, Studies, 269-271. 107 CIL II 5181 – Flach, Vipasca, 411. 108 Fagan, Studies, 277. 109 Rook 2002, 36.

110

Columella 1.6., 19-20. Mart., Epigr., 12. 70 - Juv., Sat., 7, 130-131. 112 Fagan, Studies, 281. 113 Yegül, Baths, 250. 111

24

ROMAN TRADITION mainly male - athletic activities took place E. before the bath.114 The intellectual activities that took place in a Greek gymnasion seem to have found their way into the Roman baths only by the time of Nero. Musical performances, lectures and readings took place in special rooms designed for the purpose. In addition, the baths also had the function of a modern museum: They housed many works of art of all periods, most of them statues. Enjoying the fine arts was considered an essential part of an enjoyable afternoon in the baths.115 Besides statues as works of art, honorary statues were also placed at the baths, for the reigning emperor, his family and distinguished citizen of the city.116 While these functions remained limited to the larger establishments, even small baths could (and would) cater to more essential needs. Something to eat or drink was fetched in most baths from a nearby tavern or popina (bar), or sold by hawkers. Installations for a more permanent point of sale for food and drinks (like a stove) have nor been found in a bath as yet.117 Sometimes, taverns next to larger baths opened a window or passage to the bath, to ease the selling of food or drinks, but the main entrance was always to the street, showing that most customers seem to have been expected from this direction.118 It was customary to eat a little snack after bathing, before going home (or being invited) to the main meal of the day, the cena. Another custom was drinking wine after the bath, often excessively.119 The sexual appetite of the customers could likewise be satisfied. Prostitutes of both sexes frequented the baths and sometimes employees of the bath doubled as prostitutes or as pimps. Although prostitution was quite normal in and around baths, it is unlikely that there was a regular and institutionalised symbiosis of baths and prostitution, as postulated by Nielsen.120

aspect of the medicine of antiquity. The use of thermal and mineral springs was also recommended by the medicinal theories of that time and was very popular. As the healing capacity of both the thermal and the “normal” water was seen as effected by divine powers, these gods were worshipped in most baths and often baths were named after them. Statues set up in the baths seem to have been regarded more as a decoration of the bath; they were generally not worshipped. Baths often were donations and could be owned by the state or a city. On the other hand, they also could be business investments and thus private property. Private donations were still usual in the first two centuries CE, but from the second half of the 3rd century CE the restoration and maintenance increasingly fell into the responsibility of the emperors and the state. The luxurious equipment and furnishing of the baths is emphasised in all sources and is often recognisable even in the ruined remains of Roman baths. On the other hand, the conditions in the baths were not always hygienic or pleasant. Sometimes smoke, dirt and dirty water would rather dampen the pleasure of bathing. Bathing occasionally also was dangerous. Drowning, illness and being scalded by hot water were recognised as dangers, but demons also threatened in the baths. The Romans tried to turn these dangers away with magic practices and apotropaic signs. The personnel in the large establishments were a large, strongly specialised team. In the smaller baths, only a few people were employed, every one performing several tasks. Bathing times for men were the early afternoon, after the day's work and before the main meal of the day. Because of the minimal admission fee, all social classes could visit the baths, but this did not lead to social mixing. A distance between the rich and the poorer was maintained with the help of status symbols such as slaves. In the course of the 1st century CE, mixed bathing of men and women became usual. After some time, decent women also used mixed baths, although one apparently bathed naked. One could either take one’s own instrumentum balnei into the baths, or get the necessary implements in the bath for a small fee. Bathing sandals, oil, strigiles and towels were the essentials needed at the baths. Apart from the main function – bathing – the baths also fulfilled other functions: One could do sports in them, listen to lectures or poetry readings, eat and drink or have sex. The literature that developed around the bath can be regarded as further proof for the central place baths and bathing took in a Roman’s life. This “bathing literature” includes building inscriptions with epigrams praising the beauty of the newly-constructed bath, but also plays, novels and essays with a setting

Summary The popularity of bathing in Rome grew in the 1st century CE and bathing remained one of the most popular pastimes into Late Antiquity. The conditions in Rome at that time played an important role in this abrupt increase of popularity. The spread of medical theories, recommending bathing as health promoting was the most important factor, though. These theories had originally been developed in Greece and started to spread in Rome during the 1st century CE. A correct diet, exercise, baths and massages were important methods for the preservation of health, the central 114

Nielsen, Thermae, 144. Dunbabin, Pleasures, 9. 116 Nielsen, Thermae, 145. 117 Fagan, Studies, 294. 118 Fagan, Studies, 294. 119 Nielsen, Thermae, 145 – Fagan, Studies, 295. 120 Nielsen, Thermae, 145 – Busch, Versus Balnearum 505. 115

25

ROMAN TRADITION in the bath and moral treatises condemning the luxury life in the baths.121 Seneca paints a vivid picture of a public bath of his time: “I’m in the midst of a roaring Babel! My lodgings are over the baths! Imagine every possible outcry to shatter your eardrums. When the more athletic bathers swing their dumbbells, I can hear them grunt as they strain, or pretend to, and hissing and gasping as they expel the breath after holding it. There’s a lazy chap happy with a cheap massage: I hear the smack of the hand on his shoulders, the sound varying with whether it strikes flat or cupped. If an umpire comes to keep score at the ball game, counting the tosses, it’s all up with me! Now add the argumentative noisy pickpocket caught in the act and the sound of the man who loves to hear the sound of his own voice in the bath. After that, the people who jump into the pool with an almighty splash, besides those with raucous voices. You have to imagine the depilator giving his falsetto shriek to advertise his presence and never silent, except when making somebody else scream by plucking hair from his armpits. There’s the refreshment man with his wide range of cries, the sausage vendor, the confectioner, the men from the places of refreshment shouting their wares, each with his own vendor’s cry.” 122 These were the effects of the intensive social life in the baths: Here, one met friends, found guests for the dinner or was invited, defeated opponents in sporting or board games and exchanged the newest gossip: Business was done, marriages were arranged and political moves planned. In brief, a substantial part of the social life of a city or - in the case of a smaller bath - a neighbourhood took place here.

121 122

See: Dunbabin, Pleasures, 12. Seneca, Epist., 86, 4-8 S. 311-313.

26

3. THE DEVELOPMENT OF BATH BUILDING TYPES: ARCHITECTURE AND DECORATION After having described the traditions of bathing and the Roman „bathing life“, this chapter is concerned with the development of the baths as buildings. Here, as in the preceding chapter, the development shall be summarised, as the source books by Inge Nielsen and Fikret Yegül contain all the relevant information and in addition an extensive bibliography. Unfortunately, both works are only concerned with public bathhouses. The private baths have hitherto not been the subject of comparative studies. Lately, two studies were published, which include both the public and the private baths of two very different provinces of the Roman Empire.1

In Gela (Sicily), the bath had two distinctive groups of bathing tubs. Both were sitz-baths with a seat and a bowlshaped depression for the feet, which also simplified emptying. One group (group A) was made of terracotta and the seat was added later in cement. The other group was build up from rubble and terracotta shards and coated with plaster. Hoffmann believes the terracotta examples to be older.7 Mobile terracotta bathing-tubs are known from the Mycenaean culture of Crete and from Greek private baths of the Archaic and Classical Periods. The question of the origin of the bathing-tub is still disputed. Some indicators seem to point to a – broadly speaking - eastern origin, where bathing tubs have been found in palaces.8 Although the balneion was not as common as the gymnasion, it was quite widespread in the Hellenistic communities outside Greece (Cyprus, Egypt, Asia Minor, Cyrenaica, Magna Graecia and Sicily).9 Both balneia owned by the polis and others obviously belonging to private individuals are known. Some baths are classified “public”, but whether this meant that the bath was owned by the polis or that it could be frequented by everyone, is not always clear. Other questions can seldom be answered with certainty. Among them is the question which areas of the bath were open to the public or whether women and children, xenoi (visitors to the city) and slaves could also use the public baths. Pictures on vases seem to suggest that women also used the baths. The establishment of two hot rooms in many baths are usually interpreted as hot rooms for men and women. Both sexes seem to have bathed naked.10 In the GreekHellenistic balneion, one bathed in individual tubs. The bathers sat in a tub and had warm water poured over them by a servant. These tubs were sometimes suitable for complete immersion (as modern tubs are), but sittingbaths were more common. These tubs have a narrow foot part, widening towards the part where one sat. They were better adapted to the form of the humane body and used up less space and water then tubs with straight sides. Inside the tubs there were seats of terracotta, stone or wood on one side and a round hollow up to 30 cm deep on the other, to facilitate emptying the tub. At the sittingend of the tub, the sides of the tubs frequently were higher than at the other end, so one could lean back. The tubs are divided by Hoffmann into three types, differing mainly in the tub bottom: The floor can be flat (type I), with a hollow at the foot end (type II) and with a hollow

1. The Forerunners of the Roman Baths The Greek antecedents of the Roman thermae were two institutions, the gymnasion and the balneion. The combination of aspects of both institutions developed into the Roman establishment of the thermae. This development took place from the 5th -4th century BCE to the 1st century BCE in the Magna Graecia, the southern, Greek influenced part of Italy.2 Hellenistic Greek Baths The first public Greek bathhouses known were built in the 5th century BCE (Aigina, Olympia, Pompeii3). Before that, one probably only had washing-basins and wells in the public sphere, as frequently pictured on Greek vases. Such pictures also prove that the Greeks also had installations in which water flowed from overhead spouts, used like modern showers.4 In the Late Classic and Hellenistic periods, bathing rooms with tubs were widespread, for instance in Delos and Olynthos: In a middle class neighbourhood of the early 4th century BCE, bathing rooms with cement floors were found with a tub sunk into the floor in one corner. The tubs were so-called Sitzbäder (sitting –baths)5 made from terracotta. The room was usually next to the kitchen. From there it was supplied with hot water (most likely by carrying it in containers) and with some warmth as well, if only through an open door.6

1

Farrington, Lycia and Bouet, Gaule Narbonnaise. Nielsen, Thermae, 6. 3 Hoffmann, Griechische Bäder 15. 4 Hoffmann, Griechische Bäder, 8, 196. 5 „Sitzbad“, a tub of the approximate length of a persons legs, in which one sat on a small built-in step.( Hoffmann Griechische Bäder, 8. 6 D. M. Robinson, Architecture and Sculpture (Excavations at Olynthus Part III), Baltimore (USA), 1930 – D. M. Robinson, Domestic and Public Architecture (Excavations at Olynthus Part XII), Baltimore (USA), 1946 – D. M. Robinson, J. W. Graham, The Hellenistic House. A Study of the Houses found at Olynthus with a detailed Account of 2

those excavated in 1931 and 1934 (Excavations at Olyntus Part VIII), London 1938. 7 Hoffmann, Griechische Bäder, 72. 8 Ginouvès, Balaneutikè, 29-32. 9 Nielsen, Thermae, 6. 10 Hoffmann, Griechische Bäder, 97.

27

DEVELOPMENT OF BUILDING TYPES and a seat (type III).11 Since the 3rd century BCE the sittting-baths often were arranged in radial fashion along the wall of a room, which was practical because of their ovoid shape. The tubs usually stood with their “head end” along the walls, sometimes the head end was additionally placed in a small niche. This arrangement led to the rooms being circular (tholos), which became typical for Greek baths. Apart from the maximum use of space a circular room provides, it also makes the most of the heat. Despite those facts, rectangular rooms were still used. Above the tubs were small niches, in which the clothes and bathing equipment could be stored. Within a balneion, several rectangular or irregularly formed rooms usually surrounded several tholoi. These were used for maintenance, as dressing rooms, for washing and getting oiled or other activities. Tholoi were mainly used for warm bathing and heated by the steam of the hot water and by charcoal braziers. The heating system of the Hellenistic baths was very simple up until the 1st century BCE, since the steam and the charcoal braziers were sufficient to heat the low, small and windowless bathing rooms. The bath in Olympia from the middle of the 4th century BCE (Phase III) already has a combination of heating and boiler, to be heated from the outside and providing heat to the room and hot water for the twenty-one sitz-baths. The water was probably transported in jugs to the tubs and then poured over the bathers.12 The second phase of the bath of Gortys in Arcadia from the first half of the 3rd century BCE not only has heating channels under the floor, it is also one of the prototypes for the layout plan of the baths: Two large round rooms for hot bathing were surrounded by different rooms for other purposes (dressing, entrance, waiting room) and the maintenance of the bath. All of these rooms were set inside a rectangular brick structure. A third tholos perhaps served as sweating bath.13 In Oiniadai (Arcania) there was a rectangular room with basins next to two tholoi with tubs. While the smaller of the tholoi with only seven round basins is interpreted as warm room, the second contained twenty five closely placed basins and was probably used for steam baths and hot bathing. Particularly interesting is the rectangular room, containing a large, angular water basin. This seems to have been used as a kind simple frigidarium, in whose basin one could completely immerse.14 From the 3rd century BCE onwards, baths are no longer individual rooms in a building, which only serve bathing, but the establishments are conceived as complete buildings with a multiplicity of rooms, which made an individual organisation of bathing possible. The aesthetic claims on bathing were also increasingly considered. The first finds of half columns (Syracuse), coloured painting (a dome in Morgantina) and mosaics (Megara Hyblaia)

Gymnasia In the Classical period the Greek gymnasion had been a place of physical training and paramilitary exercises. In the Hellenistic period it developed into an institution serving the education of the youth more then its military training. The free-born young men of the polis were taught basic knowledge of the arts, literature and rhetoric. The institution of the gymnasion itself was frequently donated by a wealthy citizen or a king, but it was usually administered by the polis. The schooling could last between three and eight years and the boys were separated according to age groups. In addition to teaching, the gymnasion always had a religious aspect. The traditional gods of the gymnasion were Hermes and Heracles. In addition the Muses or the Heros of the polis could be worshipped in the gymnasion and have an altar there. In the Hellenistic period, the gymnasion took over a comprehensive cultural and social function in many cities of the Mediterranean: Both the athletic training of the youth and its education took place here. Lectures were held, exhibitions and readings organised. The gymnasion was the central institution of Greek culture; here the values of the Greek society were imparted.16 Up to the end of the 3rd century BCE, the gymnasion had been located outside of the cities in garden-like districts, in which there was enough space for athletic exercises. From the 3rd century BCE onwards, the gymnasion was increasingly placed inside the cities and built in stone. A gymnasion contained a palaestra, an open space set at one or two sides with rooms and colonnades, as well as open and roofed racetracks, often in connection with gardens. The rooms were used for dressing, oiling before and washing after the sport, as well as for several kinds of athletics. Sometimes there was also a pool or a sweating bath. For the intellectual part of the education, rooms with benches running along the walls, as well as lecture rooms and libraries were used. Not every gymnasion had all of these, the most important elements being the athletic grounds, the dressing room (apodyterium) and the room with the washing basin. Those basins, called loutra, initially were placed in the open next to the athletic ground. Later, low rectangular basins were set up in separated, rectangular rooms along one or several walls, with water flowing from fountains in the wall over the basin. Most of theses room had flagstone floors.17 Sweating baths were also sometimes erected as circular rooms with a dome, in whose centre a hole, provided with a metal lid was used for the adjustment of the heat. The rooms were heated with a charcoal brazier set up in the centre.

11

15

show the attempts to make the visit in the baths as pleasant as possible.15

Hoffmann, Griechische Bäder. 73-76. Hoffmann, Griechische Bäder, 8. 13 Hoffmann, Griechische Bäder, 76. 14 Hoffmann, Griechische Bäder, Kat. Nr. 30, 155.

Hoffmann, Griechische Bäder, 31. I. Hadot, Gymnasion. In: H. Cancik, H. Schneider (ed.), Der neue Pauly. Enzyklopädie der Antike, Stuttgart 1998, 23-27. 17 Hoffmann, Griechische Bäder, 210.

12

16

28.

DEVELOPMENT OF BUILDING TYPES The context of the Greek public baths is often not known, since many excavation reports concentrate on the baths and do not mention the surroundings. From the 50 baths examined by Hoffman, eight baths were in residential zones, five at the edge of the city, five can be attributed to a gymnasion and another five were in the proximity of important buildings, while the rest could not be determined.18 During the last hundred years of the Roman republic, the gymnasion was transformed in the Greek-speaking regions by the introduction of hot baths and the extension of the washing areas. At the same time, a fusion of some aspects of the palaestra and indigenous hot baths took place in the Magna Graecia of Italy.19 After establishing the elements of the Greek baths incorporated into the Roman thermae, it is also important to determine which elements of the Greek baths were not integrated. Those include the installation of baths in caves (Cyrene) and the ritual function of the baths in the ritual cleansing of visitors to sacred sites. In addition, individual bathing-tubs were not used in Roman thermae and larger pools and the fountains for showering, which were so popular in Greece, are missing as well. Large roofed-over swimming-pools were not favoured; the natationes of the thermae were outside, in the open air.20

In Campania, the tradition of bathing in the water of hot sources, which spring up around Vesuvius in large numbers, probably provided another impetus. Since the beginning of the 2nd century BCE, the cities next to the hot springs had developed into the most popular bathing spas of the Roman upper class. Many favourable natural conditions contributed to the development of the Roman baths in this landscape. The invention of the opus caementitum, the Roman cement, was possible only here, since the so-called pozzolana was used for it, pumice sandstone from Puteoli, which, when mixed with water and lime, becomes a weather-resistant cement. Thus hitherto unknown structural possibilities were opened, in particular aches and vaults. The earliest examples of vaults and opus incertum are known from Campania. The earliest excavated thermae were found in this area, which may be attributed to the proximity of them to the therapeutic baths with the hot sources, inspiring the population of Campania to use baths.24 On the other hand, the baths of the Vesuvius district remained almost complete due to the volcanic eruption of 79 CE, which covered them. They were not torn down or built over with other buildings like other and probably similar baths. A further component in the development of the Roman baths is a group of baths of some mansions in mid-Italy. According to the study of Fabricotti, these baths can be divided on purely technical considerations into three types 25: Type I consisted of a cold washing room and an attached sweating bath for medical purposes, it is dated from the 3rd century BCE to the middle of the 1st century BCE. The types II and III developed after the invention of the hypocaust around 100 BCE and were in use until the eruption of Vesuvius 79 CE. Type I and II were placed beside the kitchen and shared their heating system with it, while type III was independent of the kitchen and had its own heating system, and so represents the beginning of a new development. The types II and III already show the organisation into three rooms: apodyterium (and sometimes also frigidarium), tepidarium and caldarium. The rectangular caldarium often had an apse with a labrum (washing basin) on one of its short sides. Yegül considers the baths of type III to be the forerunners of the architecturally highly developed baths of the private mansions of the Imperial period.26 These examples clearly show the strong influence of the architecture of the private baths in the Magna Graecia on the early development of the thermae.27 The spatial relationship between the bath complex and the peristyle in some of the mansions is comparable to the relationship between the bath complex and palaestra of the thermae.28

Baths in Magna Graecia Besides the Greek baths in Greece and the Magna Graecia, the native Italic forerunners also played a role in the development of the Roman bath. Written sources are the only information about them. These describe conditions in Rome and Latium only, and are frequently influenced by criticism of luxuria, condemning frequent and hot bathing. This criticism, influenced by the developing bathing culture of the 1st century BCE, tried to contrast the “softening” of the present age against the simple life of the ancestors. It is safe to assume that bathing in natural bodies of water (rivers, lakes, springs and the sea) took place as well as bathing in the home. Yegül maintains that a tradition of “sweating out” seasonal diseases such as colds or rheumatism before the kitchen fire had built, which then continued to develop into hot bathing.21 For this, a room conveniently placed next to the kitchen could be used, which was supplied with heat and hot water by a pipe. According to Nielsen large wash basins rather than bathing tubs were used in these rooms.22 In many private baths moderately heated secondary rooms were also found, which could protect against a cold draught and additionally used as passage, changing room and – fitted with a washing basin – serve as a cold washing room.23 18

24

Hoffmann, Griechische Bäder, 86. Yegül, Baths, 57. 20 Hoffmann, Griechische Bäder, 210. 21 Yegül, Baths, 50. 22 Nielsen, Thermae, 13. 23 Yegül, Baths, 5.

Nielsen, Thermae, 22. E. Fabricotti, I bagni nelle prime ville romane. In: Cronache Pompaiane 2, 1979, 29-111. 26 Yegül, Baths, 50. 27 Yegül, Baths, 54. 28 Yegül, Baths, 63.

19

25

29.

DEVELOPMENT OF BUILDING TYPES thermae, but a difference of quality existed. Since the balnearia were private investments, they could not offer all the amenities of the grander thermae, due to a shortage of capital and space. Thus rooms taking up a lot of space like the palaestra or rooms for cultural meetings were usually not available in balnearia. The bathing rooms of the balnearia and the thermae in principle underwent the same development, the balnearia being smaller and usually less lavishly decorated.32 A balnearium with a caldarium with a hypocaust, a laconicum, and a tepidarium heated by charcoal braziers was found in Cumae (unpublished).33 In my opinion, the analysis of the subsequent development of the baths was for a long time influenced too much by schematic thinking in types. DeLaine argues that this viewpoint ignores the differences in dimensions and the similarities in utilization possibilities. She suggests considering the proportional distribution of the rooms reserved for different activities instead. The relationship of the size of the hot water basins as condition of the “washing potential” of a bath compared to the size of the space used for other, secondary activities not related to “getting clean” can be employed as an indicator of development of the baths better than a schematic type system. During this development, particularly in the 1st and 2nd centuries CE, an increase in voluptas may be determined by this method: the space used for secondary activities increased precipitously in this time.34 Comparisons of whole thermae are rarely possible by pressing spatial arrangements into type patterns. However, individual architectural or decorative elements of the thermae and baths can very well be compared. Such elements were often combined to make each bath architecturally and decoratively as varied as possible. They were subjected to a period taste, permitting a classification into different eras.

2. Roman Baths Republican Baths The development of the early thermae can be reconstructed on the basis of the thermae in Pompeii. 29 They are both well preserved and quite well excavated and documented. In addition, they probably were in a central area of the development of Roman thermae. These four thermae all took up a whole insula of the city, had a row of shops facing the road at one or more sides and were separated into two parts with differing functions: On one side was a palaestra with side rooms and an exedra, on the other side a bath complex with rooms lying next to each other and a maintenance sector for the bath. The bath complex consisted of a row of individually vaulted rectangular rooms parallel to each other. A round and domed room, which at first was used as laconicum, was near these rooms. There were doorways from the palaestra and from the road. All thermae had two separate bathing complexes for men and women, except the Central thermae in Regio IX. The bathing complexes for the women were distinguished from those of the men by their lack of an entrance from the palaestra. This was not needed, as women did not use the palaestra at that time. In addition, the niches for the changing room were built into the wall rather lower than in the men’s section, the women being presumably less tall. The whole complex was not built in an axis. The organisation of the east wing of the thermae at the neighbouring town of Stabiae is a significant starting point in the planning of the thermae: For the first time the rooms were arranged in a functional row, corresponding to the path of the bather from the unheated rooms to the lukewarm and hot rooms and back. This type, the „axial row type“, represents a type of design employed until Late Antiquity. This is certainly due to its efficient functionality, both in use and maintenance, since water supply and the heating of the rooms could be served from a passage along one side of the entire bath at the narrow sides of the rooms.30 By the middle of the 1st century BCE, the thermae had established as a distinct form in Pompeii at least. They consisted of a frigidarium with a cold water basin, a lukewarm tepidarium and a hot caldarium with a hot water basin (alveus) and a washing basin (labrum), often in an apse. suspensura, tubulation and several praefurnia were used, in order to achieve the desired temperatures. With the connection to an aqueduct and the secure supply of large quantities of water, it became common to also include a pool in the palaestra.31 The development of the balnearia was parallel to the development of the bathing parts in the thermae. No structural difference divided the balnearia from the

Baths of the 1st century CE In general, the row type is a characteristic of the baths of the early Imperial period. Among them, the axial row type seems to have been the most popular type. The asymmetrical row type, in which the rooms were placed next to each other, but not in a single axis, was also used, if somewhat more rarely. In the second half of the first century CE, several new plans for thermae were developed, influenced by the principles of axiality and symmetry. One of them is the ring type. In this type, the rooms are arranged in a circle according to their place in the bathing sequence, so that the bather will be arriving at the apodyterium again after having completed his bathing routine instead of having to turn around in the hot room and retrace his steps to the apodyterium. The duplication of this type uniting two

29

Republican Therme: Regio VIII, ca. 100-80 BCE. - Stabian Therme: Regio VII, ca. 2nd century CE- Forum Thermae: Regio VII, ca. 80 BCE. – Central Thermae: Regio IX, 79 CE incomplete. 30 Yegül, Baths, 61. 31 Nielsen, Thermae, 35.

32 33 34

30.

Yegül, Baths, 66. Nielsen, Thermae, 34. DeLaine, New Models, 261.

DEVELOPMENT OF BUILDING TYPES symmetrical ring types around the hot rooms is called the Imperial type.35 In this period, a new interest in the interior organisation and decoration of the baths developed. Walls were broken up by large windows and niches with statues, the rooms were enlarged and the ceilings built higher. All this was made possible by improving the technique of building with opus caementitum and the opportunity to glaze large windows afforded by new glassblowing techniques.36 Institutions for the cult of the imperial family became quite frequent in the baths of this time. They consisted of an exedra or a hall with a statue of the emperor or a member of the imperial family. Here, ceremonies and sacrifices could be held.37 The models of the thermae of Rome exerted a large influence on the building of thermae in the provinces. Although lack of space and/or money sometimes also determined the architecture of the provincial baths, nevertheless an effort to built particularly modern and beautiful thermae can be discerned.

monumental, placing them on par with temples, fora and palaces.41 In the third century, the building activity seems to generally decline, but especially the building of complex and expensive thermae is particularly rare. This has often been explained with the economic crisis of the Roman Empire, and an additional reason may be the existence of many large thermae in the cities of the empire: The demand had already been satisfied by the buildings of the previous centuries, new bath buildings were therefore quite often not really necessary, and the preservation of the existing thermae already required a large financial expenditure. The architecture does not seem to have changed much in the 3rd century CE and the baths are very similar to the baths of the 2nd century CE.42 Baths of the 4th century CE The fourth century is mainly characterised by the reduction of baths and the frequent restoration of old baths. The reduction usually concerned the heated rooms and the hot water basins, whose maintenance became too expensive. Additionally, many baths were divided up into individual departments for the sexes. The division of the baths for the use of both sexes is to be seen in connection with Christianisation. The church disapproved of mixed bathing and tried to abolish it (see also chapter 8). A similar measure could have been the assignment of individual bathhouses in a city to each sex. Here, the use of smaller baths by women, while the men used the large thermae can be discerned from some sources. The influence of the church is also to be seen in the gradual closure of the existing palaestrae and the absence of such rooms in new baths. The interest in athletics waned – perhaps influenced by the changed ideals of a religion rather opposed to the body. Under the Tetrarchs new magnificent bath buildings were established in Rome (Thermae of Diocletian and of Constantine), they are however rather the exception than the rule. Small, modest baths with many apses and curves in the hot rooms and cold rooms arranged in a large block were the standard.43 In the following centuries, more and more baths were given up. In particular the large thermae establishments suffered from the reduction of the population in the cities, from interruptions of the aqueducts guaranteeing the water supply and from absence of heating material due to shortage of money. Due to their smaller demands on heating and water supply and their mostly private ownership, the smaller baths seem to have been in use a little longer.

Baths of the 2nd and 3rd century CE The Trajanic and Hadrianic periods were characterised by a construction boom, in particular a boom of bath construction. One reason for this was clearly the flourishing economy - the necessary funds for grand building projects were available. Another reason quite as important must have been that bathing as a leisure activity had been accepted - often enthusiastically - by almost all provinces and peoples in the empire.38 The Thermae Traiani, the largest thermae built up to then, were the first bath building to be set in the centre of a complex of gardens and rooms for different events, all surrounded by a wall. They became the model for the later imperial thermae. Traianic and Hadrianic architecture began to play with the plans of the baths, trying various different designs for each room and using the element of surprise.39 In the 2nd century CE apse and rotunda were forms used more frequently in thermal architecture as well as walls structured by niches. The latter were particularly frequent in the frigidaria, where sometimes whole walls were broken up by niches.40 The baths – at least the large ones – quite often had two frigidaria. The proportional distribution of the rooms in the thermae is one characteristic of the period. Another is the enlargement of the whole construction on a monumental scale. The Forum baths in Pompeii still had “human dimensions” and were comparable in size to the surrounding buildings. The Therme Traiani are

Thermal baths Three developmental stages can be differentiated in most thermal and mineral baths. The oldest stage corresponds to the use of the source in its natural state or with only a

35

Yegül, Baths, 81. D. Baatz, Fensterglastypen, Glasfenster und Architektur. In: A. Hoffmann, E.-L. Schwandner, W. Hoepfner, G. Brands, Bautechnik der Antike. Internationales Kolloquium Berlin 1990. Mainz 1991, 4-13 – T E. Haevernick, Römische Fensterscheiben. In: T. E. Haevernick, Beiträge zur Glasforschung, Mainz 1981, 24-27. 37 Yegül, Baths, 68. 38 Nielsen, Thermae, 59. 39 Nielsen, Thermae, 58. 40 Nielsen, Thermae, 52. 36

41 42 43

31.

DeLaine, New Models, 261. Nielsen, Thermae, 55. Nielsen, Thermae, 59.

DEVELOPMENT OF BUILDING TYPES minimal architectural setting. This usually consisted of a rudimentary improvement of the source by the building of open basins fed by the source and perhaps also some simple shelters.44 The second stage of development is marked by the building of a closed hall with a large basin fed by the source. These halls often were large and rectangular, with a flat ceiling. The basin took up almost the whole floor. The halls were heated only by the hot thermal water and its steam. Such halls existed in simple establishments standing alone and as parts of a complex with several buildings, e.g. in Aquae Helveticae (Baden/ Switzerland).45 A further stage of the development is represented by the combination of a bath heated only by the water from the hot source with an artificially heated bath. The degree of the integration of these two components was very varied. In Aquae Sulis (Bath/Great Britain) they are independent units at both ends of the bath complex, in Civitaveccia (Italy) they were interlocked. Both parts could always function independently. The introduction of artificially heated bathing rooms in therapeutic baths can perhaps be attributed to a preference of higher temperatures in the bath in the early 2nd century CE.46 Contrary to the conventional Roman baths asymmetrical, but functional plans were preferred in the thermal baths.47 Some installations are exclusive to thermal baths, for instance the arrangement of several basins in order to let the water flow from one into the other – a simple method to ensure a gradual cooling of the hot thermal water. The addition of fresh water was another method to cool the hot thermal water to suitable temperatures for bathing. The bathing process also was quite opposite to the process in an conventional Roman bath: The first basin to be used by the bathers was as hot as an alveus in a caldarium, the temperature falling with each basin until it reached the temperatures of the piscina of a frigidarium. In addition, basins for single persons and flat basins to walk around in (as in the modern “Kneipp” method) were built. As the thermal water was supplied in continuous quantity and temperature, it could be used wastefully, which did not apply to the fresh water. This was used for the supply of the conventional bathing tract, the cooling of the thermal water and for use in the other establishments (lodgings, etc.). In towns with therapeutic baths there must have existed buildings for the accommodation of the bathers, their provision with food and other amenities and their amusement, considering that they usually stayed several days at least. Such establishments are not proven so far, but their existence can be deduced from the written sources.48 The building technique of the thermal baths can be summarised as follows: The early baths of the 2nd – 1st

century BCE were built in opus incertum, the later baths were built in opus quasireticulatum, reticulatum, vittatum or mixtum. Since the second half of the 1st century CE brick was used extensively in the whole bath. In the 2nd century CE opus testaceum had become the dominating technology. The roofs were built with opus caementitum from the middle of the 1st century BCE onwards as vaults or domes.49 Summary The Roman baths are a fusion of certain aspects of the Greek establishments of the balneion and the gymnasion with simple mid-Italian baths in mansions and some aspects of the Italian thermal baths. This fusion of the gymnasion with the Greek and mid-Italian bath traditions probably took place in Magna Graecia in Italy. It seems likely that the Romans learned to appreciate these forms of bathing in Campania and Sicily, since many wealthy Romans used the thermal baths or had villas there. After the combination of palaestra and hot bath to something new, the thermae, the general development can be characterised by the extension of the bath rooms at the expense of the palaestra. The basis of this development was the introduction of the hypocaust, which made a refinement of the bathing practices possible. It was now possible to achieve the different temperatures characteristic for Roman bathing. A further change was the change from individual tubs to pools used by everybody. The reasons for this change might be technical, but it represented a break with everything considered decent until that time. The “invention” of new types also partially rose from technical requirements e.g. the duplication of identical rooms on a central axis. Other characteristics, like the duplication of heated rooms in different forms seem to have developed rather from a desire for novelty. Not all baths did follow this development, however. Most baths were built with the simple, but effective plans of the row type or the block type. The large thermae represented only one of the two “layers” of bath distribution of a city. Next to the palacelike large thermae there were many smaller baths of a more modest size, also visited by many customers.50 The construction boom and the diversification of plans of the baths in the 2nd and 3rd century CE shows the increased value given to the many activities taking place in a bath – of which bathing was but one. This is even clearer, if one considers that most of the large thermae were built in this time. These “palaces for the people” display a new self-understanding of the inhabitants of a city, defining themselves no more by their participation in the democratic processes of their city, but by their leisure activities.

44

Yegül, Baths, 110. Yegül, Baths, 110. 46 Yegül, Baths, 116. 47 Yegül, Baths, 119. 48 Garbrecht, Wasserversorgung, 83. 45

49 50

32.

Nielsen, Thermae, 41. DeLaine, New Models, 261.

4. THE TWO MAIN TECHNICAL SYSTEMS OF A ROMAN BATH: HEATING AND WATER SUPPLY In this chapter the two main technical systems of Roman baths shall be briefly described. Detailed descriptions may be found in F. Yegül’s book, where a whole chapter deals with the development of the two systems. The book of Garbrecht on the water supply of the thermae is also indispensable, since it explains the technical mechanisms of the water supply of thermae in full detail from the point of view of an engineer and clears up some ambiguities, which have been handed down for a long time.1

was the basis for the hypocaust as found in Pompeii. Other comparable baths were found in Syracuse and Megara Hybleia in Sicily as well as in Velia in Southern Italy. DeLaine concludes that the early forms of the Roman hypocaust can be found in the Greek west, from whence they were imported into the east.5 Until the discovery of further links the question of the origins of the hypocaust will probably not be finally solved. A possible definition for a hypocaust is that small pillars supported the floor of the room to be heated while the area thus formed was heated by the hot gases coming from a furnace served from the outside. There was no fire in the area under the heated room, nor was the hot air led by pipes into the room to be heated, both ideas being misconceptions of the system formed in later times. Some variants of the classical hypocaust have low, wide walls in the suspensura (the space under the floor of the room to be heated). These sometimes ran across the whole room, leading to an uneven distribution of the heat. In other cases they were built underneath the basins, giving them extra stability.6 The use of arches for the same reason - extra stability - is also known. This method of building enjoyed particular popularity in late antiquity and was probably meant to provide additional security in seismic zones. It was also used in combination with normal hypocaust pillars, in order to support particularly endangered portions of the floor, e.g. under the pools.7 The floor of the suspensura usually was paved and set with pillars in regular intervals. These were built up by particularly formed flat bricks, either round (disc-shaped) or rectangular, one on top of the other. The pillars could also be hewn in one piece from stone, which then had to be able to withstand great heat (e.g. basalt). The height of the pillars was between 60 cm and 1 m. On top of them, a floor of large flat rectangular tiles was laid, one pillar always supporting the corners of four tiles. On this floor a concrete floor was poured approx. 20 cm thick. After it had set, the final mosaic or marble slab floor was put on top. The basins were built from the same concrete mixture used for the floor and covered with water resistant plaster. In order to ensure the drawing of the furnace, a chimney had to be installed. Usually some round or angular clay tube tiles (tubuli) were placed next to each other in such a way as to form a vertical pipe let in into the wall. Angular or triangular holes on the outside of the springing of the

1. Heating The hypocaust is a heating system, which in antiquity found its most widespread application in the heating of Roman baths, but was also used to heat houses, particularly in the colder provinces of the Roman Empire. The first predecessors of this under-floor heating system were built from the 5th century BCE onwards in the whole Eastern Mediterranean. The earliest preserved examples of the fully developed hypocaust were found in the Stabian thermae in Pompeii (phase IV, late 2nd century BCE) and the Greek bath in Olympia (phase IV, around 100 BCE). The functioning of the system was described some 60-80 years later by the Roman architect Vitruvius.2 According to the literary sources, a certain Sergius Orata, an oyster-cultivator (a sought-after delicacy of the time) on Lake Lucrinus in the Phlegraean Fields in Campania invented the hypocaust.3 He is said to have discovered how to heat his artificial oyster beds with water from thermal springs and to have used a furnace when no thermal spring was near. The system was then transferred to bathing rooms. Thus, leading hot water (later steam) into baths, might have led to the invention of the hypocaust. The medicine of the time considered dry heat better for the constitution than steam. So instead of letting steam into the room, it was led into the room under the floor and thus heated the rooms. The transfer of heating with the help of volcanic steam to heating with a furnace is only a small step.4 In contrast to this theory, DeLaine assumes the development of the hypocaust to have taken place in Sicily and Southern Italy. The bath of Gela in Sicily seems to her very similar to the early phases of the Stabian and Republican thermae in Pompeii: In Gela, a number of parallel heating channels were found, which could have been the starting point of a development that

5

J. DeLaine, Some Observations on the Transition from Greek to Roman Baths in Hellenistic Italy. In: Mediterranean Archaeology 2, 1989, 111-125, here 120. 6 Yegül, Baths, 361. 7 Yegül, Baths, 357.

1

Yegül, Baths and Garbrecht, Wasserversorgung (see Bibliography). 2 Yegül. Baths, 357. 3 Plinius, Nat. Hist. 9, 168. 4 Nielsen, Thermae, 21.

33

HEATING AND WATER SUPPLY ceiling vault of some baths show that the outlets for these tubes were there.8 The extension of the under-floor heating by the introduction of wall heating, lead to a substantially more effective use of the hot air and a better heating of the rooms. It was probably introduced in the early 1st century BCE. Seneca (died 65 CE) mentions it among the inventions during his lifetime, but he may have been referring to the introduction of this invention in Rome. This is supported by the evidence from the Stabian and Forum Baths in Pompeii, where such tubes were installed into the tepidarium and the caldaria during restoration work in the early 1st century BCE.9 Tubuli (round or square clay pipes approx. 20 cm long and 10 cm wide) were set in regular intervals onto the wall. They were placed in such a way as to just reach into the suspensura. On these tube sections, others were set touching each other until the vault or the ceiling was reached. The clay pipe sections thus formed a continuous pipe from the suspensura area under the floor to the ceiling. Finally, the wall was covered with plaster, making the tubes disappear completely. On this plaster, the decoration (wall painting or stucco) was applied. Only few of the tubuli tubes were used as chimneys, since a few chimney tubes were sufficient to guarantee the necessary draw.10 A variant of this technology was the use of the so-called tegulae mammatae, large square bricks having projections of 4-5 cm at each corner and fixed to the wall with nails or clamps with this side. The same effect of creating “two” walls and a room in between, which was connected with the suspensura, was achieved with flat bricks and small clay spacers, which were nailed on with special T-shaped nails having a bar instead of a head.11 The walls were then covered in plaster and painted as well. With this new technology, it was possible to get an enormous increase in surface radiating heat. This made the large hall-like caldaria of the later thermae possible, and the large windows lighting these halls. With the modification of the heated wall areas by the installation of tubuli at intervals, side by side or by omitting whole walls, the heat within a room could be controlled with relative accuracy.12 In addition, the heated walls remained free of condensing water (which ruins stucco and wall painting), even if the air was very humid. Even if the hot air inside the tubuli was no longer very hot, it still could keep the wall at body temperature or at least isolate it.13 In some cases the vaults of the rooms were also heated. A system of pipes similar to the tubuli was then set into the plaster of the ceiling. The pipe sections were shorter, in

order to be able to adapt to the curvature. The system communicated with the wall heating system. At the apex of the vault, holes were let into the pipes with a short pipe leading the hot air outside and providing the chimney effect.14 The heart of this system was a furnace, called praefurnium. This was quite simple and consisted of a low arch, usually made of brick, which was open at the rear to the suspensura. Roman furnaces did not have metal grates; the fire was ignited directly on the floor, in the arch or between low walls. These walls sometimes reached into the suspensura, probably to intensify the draw.15 This was almost regularly the place of the hot water pool or alveus. The alveus received its hot water from a boiler situated on top of the furnace. Furthermore, the water in the pool could best profit from the additional heat of the floor in this hottest place of the hypocaust. Therefore the tongue walls could have also had a supporting function in this endangered place. The firing material was mostly wood; in rare instances charcoal was also used. In Northern Europe (especially in England), peat has been found as heating material in baths as well. In the bath of Gadara (Cat. No. 36, Umm Queis/Jordan) a large quantity of burned kernels of olives was found in the bath furnace, suggesting that the waste of the olive oil production (broken off branches and the remainders of the pressed olives) were burned there. Particularly the latter must have burned very well considering the oil residues still contained in them.16 The calculations of Grassmann concerning the heating of the large thermae in Weissenburg (Bavaria) show that for these mid-sized thermae about 251 cubic meters of mixed wood were needed annually, that is about 203,588 kg. 17 The temperatures reached in the baths were probably not very high, since the Roman heating system relied on constant heating at relatively low temperatures.18 Thus the heating up of a bath needed some time, as can be concluded from one of the letters of Pliny the Younger (62-113 CE). He wrote that if he came to his villa in the country unexpectedly, he had to visit the public bath of a nearby town. It can be concluded that he had to announce his visits to the housekeeper, in order for the bath to be pre-heated for several days.19 Modern experiments with the heating of rebuilt baths with hypocausts have likewise shown that it needed substantially more heating material and time to bring the temperature within a room with a hypocaust to a certain degree than to keep it.20 It can be assumed that the heating-up took at least several days, in some cases even up to two weeks. When the bath was heated up too fast,

8

Yegül, Baths, 357. G. Broadribb, Roman Brick and Tile, London 1987, 71. 10 Yegül, Baths, 363. 11 Yegül, Baths, 363. – W. H. Manning, Catalogue of the RomanoBritish Ironwork in the Museum of Antiquities Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne 1976, 40, 157-163 (with literature). 12 Yegül, Baths, 363. 13 Yegül, Baths, 365. 9

14

Yegül, Baths, 365. Yegül, Baths, 368. Nielsen, Thermae, 19. 17 Grassmann, Energieverbrauch, 319. 18 Yegül, Baths, 368. 19 Plinius, Ep., 2. 26. 27. 20 Grassmann, Energieverbrauch, 311. 15 16

34.

HEATING AND WATER SUPPLY the plaster in the rooms cracked and smoke from the tubulation penetrated into the rooms.21 Other experiments suggest that once initial heating is over, the hypocaust with tubulation can be heated up from a relatively low temperature to a higher one quite quickly. Hüser measured the surface temperature of the walls of a room with hypocaust and tubulation in a height of 1 m 24 hours after the initial lighting of the praefurnium from the moment of intensive heating on. He found that temperatures started to rise considerable after just half an hour.22 In order to have an idea of the temperatures in the different rooms of a Roman bath, E. Brödner took the temperatures in several rooms of the Turkish bath Incirli Hamam in Bursa (Pursa ad Olympum), which stands on Roman remains and is still in use today. The outside temperature being +5°C, the temperature in the apodyterium was 17°C with normal humidity. The tepidarium had 23-25°C with 90-95% humidity. In the caldarium with a humidity of 100 % and many steam clouds, approx. 32-33°C were measured, while in the high middle section of the sudatorium (the hottest place) the temperature was 37°C. The hot water had a temperature of 48°C in the caldarium and was cooled to 40° C by mixing it with cold water before pouring it over the body. In Turkish baths the large hot water pools (alvei) are not existent, since in the Islamic tradition only running water is allowed for the cleaning of the body.23 The calculations of Grassmann show that even with a high firing temperature in the furnace, the floor temperature amounted only to approx. 35°C because of the thick insulating layer over the suspensura. Even in the hotter areas directly over the tongue walls of the furnace one could walk barefoot, without burning oneself.24 To heat a large bathing complex with a complete set of hot and warm rooms, a battery of furnaces was needed. Some of these were also equipped with boilers for heating water. Both types usually were served together from a common maintenance passage. For convenience, this was often lower than the remainder of the bath, the furnaces having to lie below the floor level of the bathing rooms in order to reach into the suspensura. These corridors frequently had vaults or half-vaults. In smaller establishments, the same purpose was served by an open yard or a small passage. In larger baths, the amount of staff and heating material was so large that the entire side of a bath was often planned as one long underground maintenance passage.25

The reconstructions of the water heating system are usually based on the description given by Vitruv and by system of the Stabian and the Forum thermae in Pompeii as well as the bath of the villa “La Pisanella” in Boscoreale. Some problems with these reconstructions result from the fact that the heating system described by Vitruv seems to have been rather the exception than the rule. Two other authors, Cetius Faventius and Palladius, describe other, simpler systems of water heating necessitating fewer boilers.26 In the reconstruction suggested by Gabrecht, an intermediate vessel, standing elevated near the boiler, was fed with water by the central supply. This in turn fed the boiler, standing on a lower level on the furnace, which heated the hypocaust of the room. The boilers found up to now are without exception made of lead, encased in bronze sheeting at their lower end, to insulate them against fire. This corresponds to the informations given by Cetius Faventius and Palladius. All boilers were encased to their full height - either in plaster or with a brick mantle (for isolation). For the larger boilers the encasement probably also had a supporting function.27 A round terracotta disk was found in Boscoreale and interpreted by Gabrecht as a boiler’s lid. A pipe in the lower range of the boiler probably was used for the complete emptying of the boiler.28 Before the hot water reached the pool, cold water was added from another pipe and the temperature thus lowered. Gabrecht assumes the different basins of a caldarium to have had had different water temperatures.29 The second system, testudo alveii30 was a method to keep the water in the alveus hot. It was a semicircular bronze container, which sat between the alveus and the wall. It was situated under the alveus on the tongue walls of the furnace and was thus in direct contact with the fire. The container was open at one end, which was turned to the basin. The water circulated between the alveus and the lower testudo and thus remained hot. Such a mechanism was neither present in every bath, nor was it unusual. The earliest evidence of the system was found in the Stabian thermae in Pompeii.31 The mouths of the water pipes were usually put into the walls and embellished decoratively with relief. Sometimes, even freestanding sculptures were used. These were mostly made of metal, although examples of stone are more often found, as they were not reused and molten down. With the stone sculptures, the pipe usually ended in the basis, rather than the statue itself, since it is more difficult to bore a hole for the pipe into the statue or an object it was holding (e. g. a shell) than into the basis.

21

Result of several heating experiments in the bath at the mansio in the Archäologischer Park in Xanten. Oral Communication Th. Fischer. 22 H. Hüser, Wärmetechnische Messungen an einer Hypokaustenheizung in der Saalburg. Saalburg-Jahrbuch 36, 1979, 12-30. 23 E. Brödner, Die römischen Thermen und das antike Badewesen. Eine kulturhistorische Betrachtung. Darmstadt 1983, S. 108. 24 Grassmann, Energieverbrauch, 317. 25 Yegül, Baths, 371.

26

Garbrecht, Wasserversorgung, 28. Garbrecht, Wasserversorgung, 34. Garbrecht, Wasserversorgung, 36. 29 Garbrecht, Wasserversorgung, note 150. 30 “testudo” literally means tortoise and seems to allude to its shape resembling a tortoise. 31 Yegül, Baths, 374 - Garbrecht, Wasserversorgung, 37. 27 28

35.

HEATING AND WATER SUPPLY The decorative embellishment of the drain also was the rule.32 In the washing basins (labri or loutroi) cold water (or sometimes lukewarm water) was used for washing. The labri were flat stone bowls of different size on columns either build up from bricks or made from one piece. If a labrum was to contain warm water, the column was connected to a heating channel, so that the water was lukewarm.33 Vitruv mentions that both the hot water pools and the washing basins should be accommodated in niches, for the better use of the basins. In the form that became canonical for baths, the rectangular caldarium had on one of its narrow sides a rectangular niche with an alveus and on the other an apsis with a labrum, called Schola labri.34

decorative water use from the water supply. Gabrecht assumes that subsequently the cold water basins with their high water demand were closed and in the end the hot water basins.37 The pools, washing basins, foot washing basins, and drinking water fountains were the principal consumers of water. Besides those features existing in all thermae and serving their principal purpose, secondary uses for water existed. The regular cleaning of the bath is one of those secondary uses. Large quantities of water were needed for it and in some cases used water was employed. The latrines were also supplied with used water, usually from the frigidarium pools. This can be concluded from the fact that the latrines, although being placed rather far away from the bath proper (because of the smell), still usually are in relative proximity to the frigidaria, whose large pools could supply a large amount of overflow water and were constantly supplied with fresh water themselves.38 Water was needed in the latrines for the toilets and for a canal running in front of the toilet seats round the room, in which sponges fastened to sticks used for the cleaning of the body could be washed out. Basins for washing the hands were also placed in the latrines. Both were fed with fresh water.39 The decorative water plays and nymphaioi (fountains) liked in the thermae were also big consumers of fresh water. The water in the warm pools was probably changed completely on a daily basis, since chemical additives keeping the water clean were unknown. In addition to that, the water lost by evaporating and overflowing had to be refilled, probably once a day during the midday customer changes (see chapter 2).40

2. Water supply and wastewater disposal Before aqueducts became common, wells, cisterns and roof reservoirs were the water suppliers of the thermae. In many smaller establishments they remained in use. Quite early, the wells were equipped with mechanical buckets to lift the water into roof cisterns. With the intensified water demand after the remodelling in the second half of the 3rd century CE, the Stabian thermae acquired an advanced mechanical device for the lifting of water from the well into a large reservoir occupying the roof of the entire north wing. It operated with a large treadmill next to the well room, and was run by slaves. From the reservoir on the roof, pipes led the water to the boilers and into the frigidarium.35 But the most effective and reliable method of water supply was an aqueduct. Only a connection to an aqueduct made the establishment of large basins and thus the enlargement of the thermae as a whole possible. For large establishments such a connection was essential. Frontius names three clearly separated groups of water users supplied by the water distribution tanks (Singular: castellum aquae) at the end of the aqueducts: The group whose mains were placed highest and whose water supply therefore failed first at a water shortage were the private users; private houses and industries. The mains in the middle went to theatres, nymphaioi, military and other public establishments. The group supplied longest with water by mains placed at the bottom of the castella were the public wells and selected public baths, which had been accorded special privileges by the emperor.36 Within the baths there were of course also possibilities of closing individual water pipelines. This was necessary for maintenance and repair purposes. Besides that, the closing of individual pipes could be used in times of water shortage, to exclude the “superfluous” purely

The wastewater disposal required an elaborate and efficient sewer net, particularly considering the utilisation of used water. The smaller basins emptied on the level of the basin floor with the help of a lead pipe, whose mouth was embedded in the plaster layer of the basin floor. Large channels that had to be led through the suspensura emptied both the large basins for warm and for cold water.41 The drains were stopped either with wooden plugs (though none have been found yet) or by a lid. The latter consisted of a cylinder with a collar edge, at which a hinge was soldered on, which held the mobile cover and was provided with an eye. All finds were made of bronze and soldered on to the lead pipe, which they locked. They were probably attached horizontally in the basin and served by means of a cord or a chain led through the eye. As these finds seem to be limited to the Germanic and Gallic provinces, Garbrecht assumes an invention and production in this area.42 37

Garbrecht, Wasserversorgung, 72. Garbrecht, Wasserversorgung, 66. 39 Garbrecht, Wasserversorgung, 25. 40 Garbrecht, Wasserversorgung, 74. 41 Garbrecht, Wasserversorgung, 60. 42 Garbrecht, Wasserversorgung, 61.

32

38

Garbrecht, Wasserversorgung, 78. 33 Yegül, Baths, 376. 34 Yegül, Baths, 376. 35 Yegül, Baths, 390. 36 Yegül, Baths, 394.

36.

HEATING AND WATER SUPPLY The cold-water pools, which are in part provided with decoratively embellished overflows, and the piscinae of the thermal baths did not need a drain, they drained to the floors of the rooms by their overflows.43 The floors of the rooms usually were slightly sloping, leading the water constantly overflowing from the basins and pools into drains in the floor. These were commonly placed in the centre of the room and closed with drain covers with ornamental embellishments. The water was led into sewers under the room. The individual underground channel strands from the basins and rooms united to a main line, which was in some cases built as a ring channel and ran under the whole building or under specified parts.44 The main drainage channel led into the nearest urban sewer or – if the bath was conveniently in the proximity of a river or the sea - directly into these. The methods of the heating and water supply summarised here are mainly descriptions of the mechanisms of larger establishments. The developments of the systems were also not described in full. They cannot be pressed into a pattern of ever further developed refinement and final decay. In many baths - particularly in small baths individual and often creative solutions were found, in order to harmonise the demands of the bathers with the technical and financial possibilities.

43 44

Garbrecht, Wasserversorgung, 64. Garbrecht, Wasserversorgung, 65.

37.

5. ANALYSIS OF THE HELLENISTIC, ROMAN AND BYZANTINE BATH BUILDINGS IN PALESTINE This method is particularly important concerning smaller baths, which frequently had to adapt to existing conditions and for this reason do not easily fall into type categories. Elements and motives of the architecture and decoration built at the same time in the large thermae were often integrated and so make a comparison possible. In this analysis, the individual architectural and decorative components of the baths as well as the technology, the equipment and the context shall be compared to one another and to other baths outside of Palestine. Unfortunately, a statistic evaluation of the components of the baths is not possible, since not enough data is available about the baths and not enough baths are excavated and published in detail to be able to make reliable statements. The dating of the thermae and baths is taken from the available data of the publishers, but discrepancies are noted.

Introduction In this analysis, only such baths and thermae will be examined, whose condition and state of publication does permit statements about their original appearance. In the catalogue, I have tried to include all baths published up to January 1, 2004. Even the discovery of hypocaust tiles, proving only the presence of a bath near the site, was included in the catalogue. The baths are arranged according to their date. Their use as public baths or private baths will be determined wherever possible. In the first category, all baths are summarised which were accessible to the public. These are often divided up by the literature into thermae and balneia, according to whether they were large, publicly financed establishments or privately operated smaller baths. Their common denominator is that everyone could use them against a certain fee. The private baths make up the second category. Baths in palaces are classified as private, since they were reserved to the owners of the palaces and their guests. Most of the baths in Palestine are relatively small and simple. In nearly all studies on baths, the smaller baths – and the private baths in particular - are dealt with only in passing. This makes it much more difficult to find comparisons for those baths than for the larger establishments. Up to now, small baths belonging to rural villas or small towns have been investigated best in the northwestern provinces of the Roman Empire, where a whole number of such baths has been excavated and published. Unfortunately, the systematic analysis of the smaller baths of a certain region is still a desideratum in many regions. Two newer studies are exceptions, as they include both the public and the private baths of two very different provinces of the Roman Empire, southern Gaul and Lycia.1 Simple thermae and baths also existed in Northern Africa and in the east of the Empire. Here, the publication situation at present does not permit comprehensive comparisons.

1. Hellenistic Period (150 – 36 BCE). As already stated in chapter 3, a Hellenistic private bath consists of an area with a floor made waterproof by plaster, tiles or mosaic with a tub and sometimes also a washing basin. The room often was next to the kitchen, in the so-called oecus unit, receiving hot water (and some warmth) from the kitchen. In later examples, a furnace for the heating of the bathing water was in the vicinity of this room. The bathing routine that took place in this room was probably as follows: The bather sat or squatted in the tub and had warm water poured over the body. A further means of cleaning was washing oneself with cold water at a basin. After this, the body could be rubbed with oil either by the bather himself or a servant. This simple bath could be extended by further rooms for undressing, for the washing basins or for the heating of the water, later also the heating of the room. The first forerunners of the hypocaust also belong to the Hellenistic bath.

As comparisons of whole thermae complexes are only possible in rare cases, it seems more feasible to compare individual architectural or decorative elements of the thermae and baths. These elements could be combined relatively freely, so that in a certain thermae, the frigidarium might have had another model as the caldarium. Especially in the large thermae, the aim often seems to have been a building as varied in architecture and decoration as possible. The motives of the architecture and decoration were nevertheless subject to the taste of the time, which permits a temporal and perhaps sometimes also a spatial classification.

The modest bathing room in Beth Yerah consisted only of a tub in a narrow, rectangular room.2 Just as simple, but additionally equipped with a washing basin was the bathing room in the Hellenistic settlement on Mount Gerizim, north of Nablus.3 In Ramat Ha-Nadiv (Horbat ‘Aqav) the badly preserved remainders of a sitz-bath (sitting-bath) were discovered during the excavation.4 Since it is within an otherwise 2 3

1

4

Farrington, Lycia and Bouet, Gaule Narbonnaise.

38

Cat. No 23. Cat. No 53. Cat. No 120.

ANALYSIS rather humble farmstead, it is probable that the remaining equipment of the bathing room was not particularly lavish either. Near the sitz-bath, a miqveh was discovered, which suggests that the owners of the farm were Jews adhering to the purity requirements.5 In the nearby tetrapyrgion (towered manor house) of Ramat Ha-Nadiv (Horbat ‘Eleq), a room with a bathing tub separated into two compartments was excavated.6 The room was within the tower. Since no door opening was found, the excavator Hirschfeld assumes that the room was entered with the help of a ladder by a trapdoor in the ceiling. This is a singular arrangement; all other bathing rooms have an entrance at ground level. It might mean, that this room was used for something else. The separation of the tub into two separated units is also very unusual. Hirschfeld suggests that the eastern and larger of the two basins with a low seat on the eastern side was used as a sitz-bath, while the smaller of the two units perhaps served as a hot water supply basin.7 The tub was probably used for a different purpose later, since during the excavation the bottoms of several storage jars were found in the bath. This assumption is supported by the discovery of an Early Roman bathhouse belonging to the tetrapyrgion, which might have made the bath in the tower redundant.8 Another simple bath was discovered in the south-western tower of the fort of Horvath Ma’agura, where a room in the second floor was plastered up to a height of 1.5 m with hydraulic plaster and contained a bathing tub with an outlet, a bench and a furnace for the heating of both the room and the water.9 The bathhouses of Gezer and Beth-Zur represent exceptions among the Hellenistic baths in Palestine. The bathhouse in Gezer, excavated at the beginning of the 20th century CE, is free standing, a self-contained unit with seven rooms. Three of them had two tubs each. One of the tubs was a sitz-bath, since it had the typical seating pedestal. In one of the three rooms stood a basin hewn from a single stone and without an outlet; in another a stone and plaster bench. The remaining four rooms served as passages or were empty. One room was interpreted by the excavator Macalister as praefurnium.10 Since the stratigraphy is not mentioned in the description of Macalister and the drawings are rather sketchy, the rooms remain difficult to interpret. One possibility is an interpretation as a Hellenistic public bath (balneion). This would explain the comparatively large quantity of tubs. The other rooms may then have contained transportable (perhaps wooden) benches and storage facilities for clothes or transportable basins for washing.

Although smaller, the bath of Beth-Zur may have looked similar.11 It consisted of a room with two bathing tubs, a sitz-bath and a basin. An even stronger resemblance to a balneion (as known from Greece) can be claimed by another bath in Beth-Zur. According to the excavator Sellers, three sitz-baths were found let into a plastered floor next to each other at the excavation. An exact documentation is could not be made, since the tubs had been destroyed on the following day by vandalism.12 Twelve further sitz-baths were found in Beth-Zur. Whether they were located in similar baths, or belonged to simple establishments with only one sitz-bath, cannot be ascertained any longer. The sitz-baths are all rectangular in their external dimensions, have a small seat and some of them have outlets. At least one of the tubs has a small round recess on the upper edge (to the right hand of the bather) called a “soap dish” by the excavators. It has a hole at its bottom connected with the tub.13 Its purpose remains unclear. A bath with three rooms was installed into the eastern wing of a large mansion, the so-called “Stuccoed Building” in Tel Anafa.14 Two of the rooms had blackand-white mosaic floors and stucco ornamentation imitating marble on the walls. One of them (the northern) contained no installations, but it may nevertheless have been used for undressing (as the excavator suggests), or perhaps fitted out with a transportable washing basin and used as a simple cold water washing room.15 In the central room, a large, plastered bathtub was installed. In addition, this room seems to have been provided with a simple under-floor heating system with mud brick columns. It was heated from the furnace in the room to the south, which probably also served to heat the water. All floors sloped towards the south, to facilitate the water running off into the interconnecting drainage system. Surprisingly, no traces of doors connecting the rooms were found. To reach one room from the other, one had to step out into the courtyard. While this seems reasonable in the case of the southern maintenance room, where a hatch (as suggested by the excavator) would suffice to transport the hot water in jugs into the central room, it is unexpected that no door connects the “undressing room” with the bathing room proper. This would imply a different use for this room, while the mosaic floor with its slanting surface indicates a use in connection with water. The bath is dated by the co-excavator Herbert into the time from the late 2nd century BCE to the first half of the 1st century BCE. The baths of the Hasmonean palaces in Jericho consisted of a set of rooms: A changing room led into a narrow passage leading into the actual bathing room with a plastered bathtub. Nearby was a small maintenance room with a furnace for heating the bathing water. From the

5

See Appendix Miqva’ot, Cat. No 33. Cat. No 121. 7 Hirschfeld, Ramat Hanadiv, 252. 8 Cat. No. 122. 9 Cat. No. 92. 10 Cat. No 54. 6

11

Cat. No 25. Sellers, et al, Beth-Zur, 21-22, Pl. 7b. 13 Cat. No 24. 14 Cat. No 2. 15 Herbert, Tell Anafa, 62-72. 12

39.

ANALYSIS changing room one could also reach a miqveh by a passage.16 This amazingly homogeneous picture is not only presented by all the baths of the Hasmonean palaces in Jericho, but also in other royal palaces of the same period.17 Two of the baths in Masada have a similar layout (in the Nucleus of the Western Palace and in the Storeroom Complex).18 A further similarity between the bath in the nucleus of the Western Palace and baths of the Hasmonean palaces in Jericho is a small groove painted red and running around the whole room at a height of ca. 1.8 m, whose use remains unknown.19 Netzer dates the baths of the Hasmonean palaces in Jericho into a period from the last quarter of the 2nd century BCE to the middle of the 1st century BCE. The magnificent ornamental mosaic floors of the bath in the nucleus of the Western palace are an indicator that this bath is to be dated slightly later, into the third decade of the 1st century BCE. According to Netzer, the installation of two plastered bathtubs into a room with a cistern in the Eastern Service Wing of the Western Palace (last quarter of the 1st century BCE) took place during in the Zealot occupation phase. Perhaps the Zealots wanted to take advantage of the cistern already existing in this room and use this room as a modest bath.20 The baths in the so-called “Herodian Quarter” in Jerusalem (a part of the Jewish quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem) are Hellenistic baths, although they were probably built in the Early Roman Period. The bathing suites contained a room with a bathtub and a mosaic floor, some of them also had an anteroom with a mosaic floor.21 A miqveh was in the vicinity of four of the seven baths.22 In one case, in the so-called “Palatial Mansion”, the bath did not have a bathtub, but a stepped pool.23 The room was provided with a mosaic floor and a plastered bench along a wall. Similar embellishments are missing in other stepped pools known to have been miqva’ot, probably due to the different use of both kinds of pools.24 This indicates that the stepped pool was not a miqveh, but a bath. The houses were destroyed during the conquest and subsequent fire of Jerusalem in the year 70 CE. The excavator Avigad has dated these installations into the early Herodian Period, the last third of the 1st century BCE.25 Next to the temple of Augustus on the acropolis of Samaria, a mansion with a peristyle included a room with

a bathtub on the eastern side, decorated with frescoes and a black-and-white mosaic.26 To the south of this was a building with four plastered basins, three of them stepped (similar to miqva’ot). The bath is dated into the Herodian or Early Roman Period. The bath in the so-called “House of the DionysosMosaic” in Sepphoris had two unpretentious rooms one with a bathtub and one with a basin. It remained unchanged (and presumably used) until its destruction in an earthquake in 363 CE. The house is otherwise rather large and lavishly decorated; it is named a “palatial mansion” by the excavators and has both a triclinium and a peristyle.27 Bath Components A statistic evaluation of the bath components is not possible, since only 23 baths of Hellenistic type are known in Palestine (excluding the 12 tubs in Beth Zur, which cannot be assigned to baths). In addition, two thirds of the Hellenistic baths are from two large complexes (the baths in the Hasmonean palaces in Jericho and those in “Herodian Quarter” in Jerusalem). These distort the picture, hardly to be called statistic, since they necessarily resemble each other. The following can only be rated as a trend. Floors Approximately the same number of floors is plastered or has an unknown sealing compared to the mosaic floors. It is interesting to note that not all lavish mansions or palaces have mosaic floors. They seem to appear only in the later baths starting from the middle of the 1st century BCE onwards, particularly those mosaic floors with ornamentation as opposed to simple monochromatic floors. The plastered floors are either from houses dated early or from rather modest houses. Bathtubs Disregarding the finds of Beth Zur, the overwhelming majority of the tubs are not sitz-baths. Just three of the remaining tubs are sitz-baths.28 In Beth Zur, more than a dozen sitz-baths were found. The genuine bathtubs are usually suitable for sitting in them with more or less outstretched legs (with a body height of around 1.75 m). Two are described as very flat; five have outlets for emptying at the bottom.29 It has to be born in mind that these tubs quite possibly may have also had a small low seat that was perhaps transportable or made from perishable material. Then all tubs would have been used as sitz-baths. Several tubs in one room were found in just three cases: in the baths of Gezer and Beth Zur and in the bath in the

16

Cat. No. 67, 68, 69, 70. Netzer, Herodian bath-houses, 48. Cat. No. 96, 99. 19 Netzer, Paläste, 25. 20 Cat. No. 100. 21 as Cat. No 76. 22 Cat. No 74, 75, 77, 80. 23 Cat. No 74. 24 While the regulations about the use of a miqveh suggest that a complete but short immersion into the pool fulfils the requirements of purity, one would expect a longer sojourn in a pleasure bath. See Part II Miqva’ot. 25 Avigad, Discovering Jerusalem. 17 18

26

Cat. No 129. Cat. No 131. 28 Cat. No 23, 120, 121. 29 Flat: Cat. No. 2, 92 - Outlets: Cat. No 54, 67, 99, 100 (2 examples). 27

40.

ANALYSIS Service Wing of the Western Palace in Masada. The two first findings were already dealt with (see above); they can only be interpreted with difficulty. The room in Masada can be interpreted as a result of the lack of space during the Zealot occupation.

house. This is related to their frequent connection to kitchens, which did not lie in the representative part of the houses. Placing the bath in the service wing had practical reasons and the appropriateness of placing it near the kitchen is easy to see: Bath and kitchen could share a furnace. Baths were only equipped with their own furnaces in very wealthy houses. But even in these mansions and palaces the baths were placed at a rather secluded part of the house. An exception is the bath connected to a complex with swimming pools in Jericho.34

Other installations Approximately a third of the baths have a furnace in a room in the direct vicinity of the bath, so that it may be assumed that the bathing water was heated here. Indications of loutroi were only found in four baths.30 But transportable basins could also fulfil this function could and leave no traces. In somewhat less than half of the baths, a miqveh was in the direct vicinity. Of these, only three baths did not belong to the Hasmonean palaces in Jericho or the baths in “Herodian Quarter” in Jerusalem.31 These two large complexes substantially distort the picture. The accumulation of miqva’ot in the Hasmonean palaces in Jericho is usually explained with the function of the Hasmoneans as High Priests. The High Priests of Israel had to meet special requirements concerning ritual purity. These could be fulfilled with the assistance of miqva’ot (see Part II Miqva’ot). The discovery of a weight bearing an inscription with a name is recognized by many archaeologists as a hint towards the possible identification of the owners of the houses. The name mentioned belongs to a priestly family known from literary sources. This might mean that at least one of the houses in the “Herodian Quarter” was owned by a priestly family serving in the Temple. For them, the regulations concerning ritual purity were almost as strict as for the high priests; consequently a large amount of miqva’ot would not be surprising.32 Because of the uncertainty concerning the connection between the inscription and the ownership of the weight, this identification is still disputed among scholars. It remains to be noted that the combination of a Hellenistic bath and a miqveh can be considered typical for Jewish houses in Palestine. All known examples (with one exception) are from the State of Israel and the territories of the Palestinian Authority.33 The combination is however not a regular find in Israel.

Dating, development and typology Hellenistic baths were not unusual in Palestine. Their expansion begins in the 2nd century BCE in the Hellenistic settlements (Beth Yerah, Beth Zur, Gerizim and Gezer), the royal palaces (Jericho) and the houses of the wealthy (Anafa and Ramat Ha-Nadiv Hobat Eleq). This is not surprising, since several other indicators of the material culture of Hellenism increase in the same places during this time, for example the stamped handles of Rhodian wine amphorae indicating the consumption of imported luxury goods.35 The method of bathing was known from pre-Hellenistic times and bathing rooms with tubs exist from both the Bronze and the Iron Age (see chapter 1). But the installation of rooms equipped with tubs built from stones and plaster in the Hellenistic period was a step that gave bathing a new scope. Not only were a few palaces in some urban settlements provided with this amenity, but quite many houses, some of them not really wealthy. This form of the bath was used and built longer in Palestine than in other places. Hellenistic baths were built and used in Palestine well into the Herodian and Early Roman period, one seemingly up to the 3rd century CE. For this, two reasons may be assumed. The first is of a practical nature: A Hellenistic bath was comparatively simple and thus fairly cheap to build. They could be built from local material and with the help of local craftsmen, or perhaps even by the owner himself, as seems probable in Ramat Ha-Nadiv Horbat Aqav. The necessary building techniques were not difficult to master and in principle already well known. The second reason could lie in the fact that the bathing procedure in these baths was not considered offensive, as was the Roman bathing procedure later. At least no sources condemning the Hellenistic bathing procedure are known. This may be an accident of tradition, but I rather think that no condemnation was necessary, as the people were already familiar with the procedure. The bathing procedure was virtually the same in the pre-Hellenistic

Context Except for two examples, all baths belonged to houses or palaces, and thus were private baths. The exceptions are Gezer and Beth Zur, which may have been small commercial Greek-style baths (balneia). Approximately half of the baths had only one room. The other half had several rooms. The baths in Jerusalem and Jericho, nearly all of who have several rooms, particularly distorts the statistics here. The location of the baths within the houses was nearly always in the private or service part of the 30

Cat. No. 53, 67, 99. 100. Cat. No. 120, 129, 131. 32 Netzer, Ritual Baths,114. – Avigad, Wohl Museum, 75. 33 The exception is Machairos, Cat. No. 94.

34

Cat. No. 69. D. T. Areil , G Finkielsztejn, Stamped Amphora Handles (with a bibliography of the relevant literature) In: Sh. Herbert, Tel Anafa I, i, Ann Abor, USA, 1994, 183-240.

31

35

41.

ANALYSIS the development of the Hellenistic baths, the latter group following a more developed model of the Hellenistic bath. Neither the number of rooms, nor the form of the tub, or the presence of either a furnace or a miqveh in the vicinity can be used as a dating criterion. On the contrary, the earliest baths in Jericho already have several rooms, just as the late bath in the Nucleus of the Western Palace at Masada.37 Simple baths with one room were built during the whole time as well, but only in modest houses. The form of the tubs is also relatively uniform, since only two were sitz-baths (with the exception of the tubs of Beth Zur). The flat tubs and those with an outlet are evenly distributed during the whole period, so that these technical details cannot form a reference point for dating. Furnaces for the heating of water were both present in the early baths of Anafa and Jericho and in the late bath of the Nucleus of the Western Palace at Masada. Miqva’ot also are known from the earliest baths in Jericho and from the late baths in the “Herodian Quarter” in Jerusalem, as well as from the farmstead of Ramat HaNadiv Horbat Aqav’, destroyed by the first Jewish war. Neither the appearance of furnaces nor of miqva’ot can be used for dating. The existence of mosaic floors with ornamental designs is the only fact indicating a comparatively late date, the Herodian or Early Roman period (middle of the 1st century BCE to the middle of the 1st century CE) This does not mean that a bath without a mosaic floor is to be dated early. Simple baths usually had just a plastered floor.

period. The only difference existed in the firm installation of the individual elements (tub, washing basin and furnace). Therefore it is not to be expected that such Hellenistic baths were considered offensive. It may have been for those reasons that the owners of the houses in the “Herodian Quarter” in Jerusalem, who were quite wealthy and could afford lavish stucco decoration and capitals for their houses (one even had a peristyle), decided to refrain from having a Roman bath built into the house. They continued using a bath in the Hellenistic style, contrary to their king Herod the Great, who had Roman style baths built into almost all of his palaces. This hypothesis is confirmed by the circumstance that other types of Hellenistic baths are virtually unknown in Palestine: The Greek public bath (balneion)36, the Gymnasion with its attached bathing rooms and the sanctuary bath. The institution of the Gymnasion was not as common in Hellenistic Palestine as in the remaining Hellenistic world, and it seems to have encountered the vehement opposition of some Jewish groups, as is demonstrated in the first book of Macabees (Macc 1, 14). The sanctuary baths connected to Greek sanctuaries are different from the ritual baths of the Jewish sanctuary, the Temple. In the Jewish religion, complete submerging of the body is necessary to effect ritual purity. In the Greek religion, a pouring of water over the body in a sitz-bath (that is, taking a “normal” bath) is sufficient to effect the necessary purity before entering a sanctuary. For this reason, Greek sanctuary baths were very similar to other baths accessible to the public and can only be discerned from them by their location near a sanctuary and their unusually large size. In contrast to them, the Jews developed a distinctive type for their ritual baths, the miqveh (see Part II). The exceptionally late bath of Hellenistic type from Sepphoris shows that this simple form of the bath continued to be in use. This cannot have been due to the limited financial possibilities of the owners, since the house is large and lavishly decorated.

Comparisons The sitz-bath tubs found in Palestine correspond to Hellenistic sitz-baths in Greece, Asia Minor and Magna Grecia, as examples from Athens, Olynthos (Macedonia), Delphi, Istanbul and Syracuse and Gela show.38 The spatial arrangements of the simple baths can be compared with a number of Greek baths in Greece and Asia Minor, which mainly date from the late Classical to the Early Hellenistic Period. This is demonstrated by examples from Olynthos (Classical Period), Delphi, Tarsos, and Priene (all 3rd – 2nd century BCE).39 An example of a simple bath was excavated on the agora in Athens: In a small room only a simple tub was located.40 A number of baths excavated on Delos were just as simply equipped. Six of the baths were very small dimensioned, but often attached to a room next to the kitchen.41 Another bath in Priene was likewise very

One can assign the baths into three different groups, with each of those groups showing only insignificant variations of the individual baths: Simple, one-room baths form one group; larger, more complex establishments with several rooms a second group and the third group is formed by the two baths in Gezer and Beth Zur, which can perhaps be characterised as balneia. Among the second group of more complex establishments, the differences between the group of baths in the Hasmonean palaces in Jericho and Masada and the group of baths in the “Herodian Quarter” in Jerusalem are most noticeable. They mainly depend on

37 For example Cat. No 67, dated by Netzer into the reign of Alexander Jannai (103-76 v. Chr.). Netzer, Jericho, 33-38. - Cat. No 96, dated by Netzer ca. 37-30 v. Chr. Netzer, Masada, 251-63. 38 Ginouvès, Balaneutikè, 174-176, Fig. 9-26. 39 Ginouvès, Balaneutikè, 174-176. 40 Ginouvès, Balaneutikè, 175. 41 Trümper, Delos, 64, Footnote 345.

36 The baths in Gezer and Beth Zur are the only ones known to me that might have been balneia, this interpretation is however far from sure.

42.

ANALYSIS Kerkouané. Fantar dates these into the 4th or the early 3rd century BCE. The tubs were separated into a basin with a seat, clearly recognisable as sitz-bath, and another, smaller basin, which in some cases was connected to the sitz-bath by means of a lead pipe. Fantar interprets the smaller basins as both washing basins and water supply of the bath tub.49 Direct comparisons to the more complex bathing suites in Palestine can be found only if one excludes the miqva’ot. This combination is limited to Palestine because of its dependence on Jewish ritual practices. It seems more feasible to compare the individual architectural or decorative elements of the baths. One of those is the “Maison de l’Hermès” on Delos. Here, a bath with an anteroom was next to the kitchen. In the actual bathing room, the marble feet of a bench and a marble basis of a loutron (washing basin) were discovered next to a terracotta sitz-bath let into the floor and covered with waterproof plaster. The bath is smaller dimensioned than the baths in Jericho, which could be to due to the scarcity of building ground on the island.50 A bath very similar to the one in Tell Anafa was discovered in the 3rd phase of House 1 in the west quarter of Eretria (Euboea/Greece). A room with a tub, heated by a furnace on the wall between the bath and the kitchen was found. The walls are preserved to a height that made it possible to reconstruct a hatch from the bath to the kitchen (which was the model for the reconstruction of a hatch in Tel Anafa). This probably served the comfortable transport of the hot water for the tub. Reber dates this bathing room into the middle 2nd century BCE.51 On Monte Iato in Sicily, a bath was excavated in the socalled “Peristyle Mansion 1” which is comparable to the baths in Jericho and particularly to the bath of Tell Anafa by its dimensions. It had a spring with a lion-headed spout next to a bath tub below a semicircular niche in the northern wall. It seems probable that the tub had originally stood there. After a renovation and the installation of a tub at the western wall, the water was led to the tub by a lead pipe. A leaden outlet pipe also exists, draining the water onto the floor, which is slanting slightly to the south. The excavator Dalcher thinks that the space under the bottom of the tub was connected with a secondary room as an early kind of hypocaust. The space apparently did only heat the tub, which is highly unusual. He dates the house around 300 BCE and the rebuilding of the bath about hundred years later.52 In Morgantina on Sicily, the “House with the Arched Cistern” had a bath built into the south-western corner in

small, as it consisted of a single room of 1.82 m x 1.06 m with a narrow doorway. The floor of this room was almost completely filled by a terracotta bathing tub.42 In Olynthos, at least one third of the excavated houses had a bathing room. The typical form was a rectangular room of century 2.20 m x 1.50 m (on the average) with plastered walls and a tub in a corner of the plastered floor. They usually were connected to the kitchen, from which the hot water supply came. In one house, the plaster of the walls was painted, in another the floor had been replaced by a simple pebble mosaic, in a third house it had been replaced by stone slabs. The typical sitz-baths were made of terracotta, with an indentation at the footend and a low seat at the other end. The tubs were approximately 1-1.25 m long, 0.70-0.75 m wide and 0.40 m high.43 The “House of Dionysos” in Pella from the late Classical Period had a bath next to the kitchen in the oikos part of the double house. House I (late Classical Period) in Orraon demonstrates the same pattern, as does House IV in Kallipolis, in which a bathroom with a pebble mosaic floor and bath tub was found.44 The baths in Gezer and Beth Zur with their combination of sitz-baths with large bath tubs can best be compared to several baths in Ptolemaic and Early Roman Egypt. In Edfu, a small bathing room with two sitz-baths and a large bath tub was found. The room had been made waterproof with reddish plaster on the walls and had niches over the tubs, perhaps for lamps. The bath is dated to the end of the 1st century CE. 45 In Karnak, a comparable bath with two sitz-baths and a bath tub was found attributed to the beginning of the 1st century CE.46 Further examples, some of them still used in Roman time, are listed by Ginouvès.47 Towered manor houses (tetrapyrgia) and farmsteads are known in Greece, Asia Minor and Palestine from the Hellenistic period (e.g. in Diocaesarea in Asia Minor, Pyrgos Chimarrou on Naxos and in Archelais and Sha’ar ha-‘Amaqim in Palestine), but to my knowledge, no bathing rooms were found in them so far.48 Tubs with two basins resembling the tub in the tower bath of Ramat Ha-Nadiv were excavated in the Punic city of 42

In the house east of No. XIX, Th. Wiegand, H. Schrader, Priene, Berlin 1904, 292, Fig. 308. 43 D. M. Robinson, Excavations at Olynthos VIII: The Hellenistic House, Baltimore 1939, 199-201, Pl. 49, 53, 54. 44 W. Hoepfner et al, Die Epoche der Griechen. In: Hoepfner, Wohnen, 401, 432. 45 Bruyere et al, Tell Edfou 1937-8 (Fouilles Franco-Polonaises I) Cairo 1937, 68, Fig. 30, 31, Pl. VII. 46 M. Pillet, Rapport sur les Traveaux de Karnak (1922-1923) ASAE 23, 107-110, Pl. 1. 47 Borg el-Ramleh, Kom Trougah und Kom el-Ahmar, in: Ginouvès, Balaneutikè, 175-176. 48 A. W. McNicoll, Hellenistic Fortifications from the Aegean to the Euphrates, Oxford 1997, 178-81 – L. Haselberger, Der Pyrgos Chimarrou. In: AA 87, 1972, 431-37 – H. Hizmi, Archelais: The Village of Archelaus, JSRS 2, 1992, 185-213 (Hebrew) – A. Segal, Y. Naor, Sha’ar Ha’amaqim, NEAHEL IV, 1339-40 – Hoepfner, Wohnen 401432.

49 Fantar, Kerkouané, maison 4, rue de l’Apotropaïon S. 312, Pl. IX; maison 2, rue des Artisans, S. 325, Pl. XXVIII; Haus 8, rue de Collecteur (two pools), S. 330, Pl. XXXIV; maison 1, rue du Sphinx (two pools) , S. 331, Pl. XXXV; 312. 50 Trümper, Delos, Cat. No 35, 63-65; 234-236. 51 Karl Reber, Eretria X. Die klassischen und hellenistischen Wohhäuser im Westquartier, Lausanne 1988. 52 K. Dalcher, Das Peristylhaus 1 von Iaitas: Architektur und Baugeschichte. Studia Ietina VI, Zürich 1994, 160.

43.

ANALYSIS its second building phase. A room was divided by a thin wall and probably served as bathing room, since a platform for a (terracotta) bathing tub was found there. The other room had a furnace for water heating. The remodelling of the bath probably dates into the late 2nd century BCE.53 The best comparisons to the baths in Jericho and in the “Herodian quarter” in Jerusalem might be the baths in the Villa Prato in Sperlonga (Latium) and in the Villa of Ciampino near Rome.54 The bath in the Villa Prato consisted of two rooms, designated as apodyterium, tepidarium and caldarium by Lafon. In the first of the two rooms accessible from the courtyard, the traces of a nearly square basin were found in the southern corner, while in the northern corner, the trace of the round foot of a labrum (diam. 0.7 m) was discernible by the lowering of the mosaic floor there. In the second room, the bathing tub ensemble took up the entire north-eastern wall. It was integrated into a platform with a step running the whole length of the wall. The ensemble consisted of two tubs, the northern, oval one of them being suitable for sitting with outstretched legs. The second, eastern tub was made from terracotta and set into the podium in an angle of 90° to the first. This tub was a sitz-bath (without a permanent seat), whose lower part was closed and was continued within the podium. The water could be let off from the lower part by means of a pipe.55 The landing and the walls of the room were decorated with black and white incrustations in a chequered pattern, forming a geometrical design on the podium. Both rooms had mosaic floors. The floor of the first room was black with individual white stones set in at regular intervals; the second room had a simple white mosaic. According to Lafon the Villa was built in the third quarter of the 2nd century BCE and was given up in the years 60-40 BCE. The tub in the bath of the Villa of Ciampino is very similar to the tub ensemble in the Villa Prato. The bathing room had a rectangular tub let into a podium taking up an entire wall and having a step running through the whole length. An outlet in the step, only a few centimetres above the floor of small terracotta tiles, was used for the disposal of waste-water. The decoration of the podium, the step and the walls with their incrustations in geometrical patterns correspond to those of the bath in the Villa Prato.

Summary The diffusion of the Hellenistic baths in Palestine seems to have begun in the middle 2nd century BCE in the Hellenistic settlements, royal palaces, and the houses of the wealthy. Here, other indicators of the Hellenistic material culture also appear during this period. The Hellenistic baths flourished in the 1st century BCE in Palestine, typically consisting of a room with a tub and a floor of plaster, tile or mosaic. In the vicinity of this room, a furnace was often set up, in order to heat the bathing water. In modest baths, the bathing room was next to the kitchen. In several examples, Hellenistic baths were combined with miqva’ot. This combination occurs only in houses whose owners were Jews adhering to the purity requirements. Typological developments can be determined only with difficulty; the baths are more easily classified according to the lavishness of their decoration. While early lavish baths may have several rooms, a furnace, mosaic floors and several basins, a modest but late bath may have none of these amenities. A typological dating with the help of the components of the bath (tub, basin, mosaic, multiroomed) is therefore almost impossible. Only those baths with patterned mosaic floors can with some certainty be said to date from the middle of the 1st century BCE. Even though the method of bathing by pouring water over a bather sitting in a tub or by washing the individual parts of the body successively at washing basins was already known from pre-Hellenistic times and bathing rooms were known both in the Bronze and Iron ages, the installation of bathing rooms with permanent bathing tubs reached new dimensions during the Hellenistic Period. Not only singular palaces in some urban centres were equipped with this amenity, but quite many households, some of them not at all wealthy. In the Hellenistic period, bathing in Palestine was infused with new meaning; the baths demonstrate a re-evaluation of this activity. In principle, one still bathed similar to the procedure in pre-Hellenistic times, but the installation of a room reserved for this occupation indicates a development to a more elevated standard of living.56 The definition of certain rooms for individual activities (working, eating, bathing, cooking) shows a differentiation of living space according to use. This differentiation can be seen in connection with the “Nobilitierung” (Walter-Karydi: “the heightening of the status”) of houses, changing in particular the representative rooms, but obviously also leaving traces in the less representative rooms.”57

53

B. Tsakirgis, The domestic architecture of Morgantina in the Hellenistic and Roman periods (Diss. Princeton 1984) 125-130. 54 X. Lafon, Les Bain privés dans l’Italie romaine au IIe siècle av. J.-C. In : Les Thermes romaines. Actes de la table ronde organisée par l’Ecole francaise de Rome, Collection de l’Ecole francaise de Rome 142, Rom 1991, 97-114. 55 Lafon calls the tub “baignoire-botte” (“boot-bath”), which aptly describes the boot-like form. X. Lafon, Les Bain privés dans l’Italie romaine au IIe siècle av. J.-C. In : Les Thermes romaines. Actes de la table ronde organisée par l’Ecole francaise de Rome, Collection de l’Ecole francaise de Rome 142, Rom 1991, 110.

56

Trümper, Delos, 65 und 67. E. Walter-Karydi, Die Nobilitierung des griechischen Wohnhauses in der spätklassischen Zeit. In: W. Hoepfner, G. Brands (Hgs.), Basileia. Die Paläste der hellenistischen Könige. Mainz 1996, 56-61. 57

44.

ANALYSIS This development is continued in the replacement of the purely “cleaning baths” by “recreational baths”.58 That is, the sitz-bath was replaced by the tub, in which one could lie outstretched in hot water. Certainly the bath procedures also changed and one spend more time in the tub. This hypothesis is supported by the emergence of systems for the heating of the tub and the bathing room.

Among the Roman private baths in Palestine, the baths in the Herodian palaces can be classified as a group on its own.61 This applies to twelve baths in five palaces in Palestine (the so-called Promontory Palace in Casarea Maritima, Cypros, Herodion, Jericho, Machairos and Masada).62 The baths are relatively similar, their main element being a caldarium with an apse and an alveus. This was combined with a tepidarium and an apodyterium (and in some cases also a laconicum). The rooms were in the sequence characteristic for the row or block type baths. One characteristic feature makes these baths stand out from other Early Roman baths. In Herod’s baths there was always at least one stepped pool.63 In some baths even two such stepped pools were built in different rooms. The pools all have the same form as the miqva’ot.64 Since the classical Roman-style frigidarium is always absent in Herod’s baths, it may be assumed that some of the pools were used as frigidaria. If two pools are present, is to be assumed it that one was used as a miqveh and the other one as frigidarium (see below)?65 The large, free-standing bathhouses (Herodion, Masada) also have a courtyard on one side.66 The materials and techniques used in the baths of Herod correspond to the most modern standards of the time: opus incertum, opus reticulatum, tubulation and the comparatively frequent use of bricks, were just as modern as the decoration with decorative stucco of the walls and mosaics and opus sectile for the floors. The two baths in Masada, the large free-standing bathhouse and the small bath in northern palace (under the lowest terrace) probably are the best preserved Herodian baths.67 In addition, the three baths in Jericho (two in the Second and one in the Third Palace of Herod the Great) are rather well preserved, just as the three baths in Herodium: One bath in the Palace-Fortress on the summit and two in the palace of Lower Herodium. In the large, free-standing bathhouse of Lower Herodium, a fragment of a loutron (washing basin) with the sculpted head of a Silen was found.68 It was probably imported from Greece. In the northern wing of the Palace at Lower Herodium, a rather modest bath was discovered. This was probably used by a higher official of Herod, perhaps the palace manager or the administrator of the toparchy, as Netzer assumes.69 The two baths at Cypros also are in two palaces, one built on the summit of the mountain, one on a lower plateau. They are quite badly preserved, but in the caldarium of the bath in the Summit Palace, a marble bathing tub and a fragment of a marble loutron (1.2 m

2. Early Roman Period (37 BCE – 70 CE) In Khirbet el-Mûraq, a large mansion was excavated, the so-called “Palace of Hilkiya”, which in its first phase was furnished with a multi-roomed bath with a hypocaust. Of the caldarium, only the hypocaust hewn into the rock was preserved. The walls still had the recesses for round and square tubuli. In the tepidarium, the remains of a white mosaic floor were found, while a stepped pool was discovered in the frigidarium.59 Another private but free-standing bathhouse was discovered in Ramat Ha-Nadiv (Horbat ‘Eleq). The water for the bathhouse was brought from a nearby spring by an underground tunnel with a length of 47 m and an aqueduct of the same length connected to it. The water was led into a large pool next to the bath, which might have been used as a swimming pool (natatio). The bathhouse itself had three rooms and was entered from a courtyard by stairs leading into the apodyterium. At a later time this room also served as frigidarium, as is indicated by the additional installation of a small coldwater pool in a corner between the stairs and the wall. The room was paved with stone slabs. Four columns supported the roof of the room; it was perhaps open in the centre in the manner of an atrium roof, as suggested by the excavator Hischfeld. The tepidarium had a white mosaic floor. The caldarium had both an apse on the western wall and a rectangular niche with a hot water pool (alveus) on the southern wall. The hypocaust columns were made of stone, the walls had tubuli and the room was roofed with a barrel-vault. South of the caldarium was the two-storied praefurnium. Below the level of the caldarium, the channel of the furnace led the hot air under the pool into the hypocaust. Above the furnace, the remains of an arch were found, which probably supported a ceiling, on top of which the boiler for heating the water was installed. Remnants of marble slabs and of a labrum demonstrate the lavish furnishing of this bath. It belonged to the large towered mansion nearby, perhaps the mansion of an aristocrat of the court of Herod the Great, as Hischfeld proposes. The excavator dates the bath into the Herodian period (37 BCE -70 CE).60

61

Netzer, Herodian bath-houses, 48-49. Cat. No. 26, 27, 32, 33, 61, 62, 63, 71, 72, 73, 94, 97, 98. with exception of the badly preserved Cat. No. 27. 64 Cat. No. 26, 32, 33, 62, 63, 97. See also Catalogue Miqva’ot Cat. No 1, 11 27. 65 Cat. No 26, 62,63, 71, 72, 73, 97, 98. 66 Cat. No 62, 97. 67 Cat. No 97, 98. 68 Cat. No 62 – Netzer, Paläste, S. 105, Fig. 148. 69 Cat. No 63 - Netzer, Herodium 47-49. 62 63

58 H. Broise, La pratique du bain chaud par immersion en Sicile et dans la péninsule italique à l’époque hellénistique. In: Xenia Antiqua III, 1994, 17-32. 59 Cat. No 106. 60 Cat. No 122.

45.

ANALYSIS diameter) was discovered. The two baths in the Palace on the Cliff in Casarea Maritima are in a very bad condition, since the sea washed most of the palace away. The bath in Machairos seems to have been destroyed in equal amounts by the Zealot occupation (and their rebuilding and use of the rooms), by the Roman conquest and by time.

Rooms In six of the baths, the existence of a courtyard could be proven that perhaps served as a palaestra for athletic activities.74 Six had a stepped pool, and four of these pools cannot have been frigidaria, since the actual bathing-suite had another stepped pool serving as a frigidarium – accordingly they must have been miqva’ot.75 Stepped pools, which are likely to have been used as frigidaria were found in nine of the baths.76 Sixteen baths had a caldarium, seven of which had one or more niches and a rectangular niche for the alveus, thus confirming to the “classical” type of the early caldarium.77 Laconica were included in three of the baths.78

A small thermae of the row-type was discovered within the settlement of Capernaum. As it could not be completely excavated and is published only in preliminary reports, only some very marginal comments can be made. The rooms published in the plans are supposedly an apodyterium, frigidarium, tepidarium and caldarium, the latter with an apse in the north. No description was published and no reason given for the dating into the 1st century CE.70 The purpose of the seemingly rather large bath on the colonnaded street next to the monumental gateway in Petra has been disputed by scholars. As only two domed rooms have been partially cleared, its function, as a bath is not proven yet. From the temenos of the great temple near the colonnaded street, a vestibule leads to a columned hall. West of this room are two domed rooms with circular windows at the top and a staircase. One room is square, the dome being intact and showing traces of stucco. The neighbouring room is circular and has four semicircular niches with conches in the corners. The circular room has eight half columns with Attic bases and Corinthian floral capitels as well as stucco decoration, and traces of wall-painting in red and yellow. With the help of the stucco decoration, the bath has been dated either to the last quarter of 1st century BCE or the 1st century CE.71 It has been considered to be part of the royal residence, a ritual temple bath or in another function in connection with propylon of the Temple.72

Engineering All caldaria had hypocaust columns of stone. In two of the Herodian baths, tile columns replaced the stone columns in front of the channel from the praefurnium, probably because of their better resistance to heat.79 In one case, the hypocaust was hewn from the bedrock.80 Tubuli were discovered in eight baths.81 The bath in the palace-fortress of Herodium had slots hewn into the walls, which might have served as tubulation. It is however more likely, that they acted as chimneys and supplied the necessary draw.82 Chimneys were also found in the caldarium in the Large Bath in Masada, but for technical reasons it is safe to assume that all rooms with a hypocaust had a chimney (see chapter 4).83 Five baths had barrel-vaulted rooms, in the caldarium of the Large Bath in Masada, parts of the stucco ornamentation of the ceiling were found, showing that it was ribbed. Three domed rooms were found in two baths, two of them circular, one square. In all cases the dome of stone blocks was still intact and had a circular window at the top, in one case remains of the decoration of painted stucco was visible.84 Decoration In four baths, remains of stucco were found, in five baths opus sectile, and in eight baths wall painting.85 Mosaics were found in the majority of the baths.86 In two baths, the remainders of a bathing tub were discovered.87 The

Components of the baths Since the group of the Early Roman period private baths is mainly made up of the palace baths of Herod the Great, the significance of this evaluation of components is of course fairly limited. But we have to consider that the baths built during Herod the Great’s long reign also were subject to developments. These developments might become clearer with the help of an evaluation. Of the 19 baths altogether, eight are of the row type.73

74

Cat. No 33, 62, 63, 73, 97, 122. Cat. No 26, 32, 62, 63, 97. 76 Cat. No 32, 33, 61, 62, 71, 72, 73, 97, 98. 77 Cat. No 33, 61, 62 , 71, 73, 97, 122. 78 Cat. No 32, 62, 73. 79 Cat. No 63, 71, 113, 114. 80 Cat. No 106. 81 Cat. No 32, 62, 71, 73, 97, 106, 113, 122. 82 Cat. No 61, 112. 83 See also Foerster, Masada, 198-199. 84 Cat. No. 61, 112. 85 Stucco decoration: Cat. No 32, 97, 112, 113 – Opus sectile: Cat. No 33, 73, 97, 122 – Wall painting: Cat. No 32, 33, 61, 62, 71, 73, 97, 112, 11. 86 Cat. No 32, 33, 61, 62, 63, 69, 71, 72, 97, 106, 122. 87 Cat. No 33, 71. 75

70

Cat. No 31. Cat. No. 112. 72 R. Wenning, B. Kolb, L. Nehmé Vom Zeltlager zur Stadt. In: Th. Weber, R. Wennig, Petra: Antike Felsstadt zwischen arabischer Tradidtion und griechischer Norm, Mainz 1997, 59-60. – K. St. Freyberger, M. S. Joukowski, Blattranken, Greifen und Elefanten. In: Th. Weber, R. Wennig, Petra: Antike Felsstadt zwischen arabischer Tradidtion und griechischer Norm, Mainz 1997, 82. 73 Cat. No 33, 63, 71, 72, 73, 106, 122. 71

46.

ANALYSIS remains of a labrum were excavated in three baths, one of which was decorated with the head of a Silen.88

whether other reasons (e.g. a later renovation phase) are responsible. The discovery of tubulation makes at least the dating of the bath in the “palace of Hilkiya” in Khirbet el-Mûraq possible. It appears probable that the bath was built in the first half of the 1st century BCE. In all baths, the mosaics, opus sectile floors, stucco decoration and wall painting (which also are dating criteria) correspond in most points to the decorations in Roman villas of the same time. Exceptional is just the fact that in the Herodian realm, all representations of animals and humans were avoided.94 In their place, geometric patterns (frequently rosettes) were preferred. The wall paintings were limited to marble imitations or the representation of garden landscapes without animals. This was most likely caused by the adherence to the Jewish prohibition on representational art.95 In some Herodian baths, stepped pools were discovered. They have the form of miqva’ot (see Part II Miqva’ot). Some baths had only one stepped pool, others two. Among scholars, two explanations for these pools exist: One group sees all stepped pools as being used as miqva’ot, another concludes that they are an autochthonous variation of the frigidarium pool, piscina. The Roman bathing routine included cooling down in a cold-water pool after sweating in the caldarium. The piscinae of the Herodian baths are not built according to the Roman model, which consists of a pool placed on the floor of the frigidarium, rather like the hot water pools, with one or two steps going up to the pool on the outside and the same amount leading into it on the inside, while the main part of the pool’s bottom is flat. The Herodian piscina are quite different as they consist of pools built into the floor, with many steps leading into them on the inside and almost no space left at the bottom. The rooms in which they were placed are filled out almost completely by the pools, often leaving only a ledge of a few centimetres running around the pool. These pools and the rooms surrounding them look exactly the same as miqva’ot. Obviously an autochthonous and quite widespread form of pool – the stepped pool - was used instead of the Roman model. Foerster contests this conclusion and stresses the fact that frigidaria are very rare in the private baths of Pompeii. He compares the Herodian piscinae and frigidaria with some similar pools in the Villa San Marco in Stabiae and the Villa Horatius in Linceza.96 The piscinae in these frigidaria are large and have steps on the outside, leading up to the edge of the pool and the steps on the inside do not take up almost the whole pool. The piscinae are

Context All baths, except two (the bath in Capernaum and perhaps the bath next to the monumental gate in Petra), were private baths and belonged to palaces. Of these, all but four were built by Herod the Great. The other baths are also associated with wealthy houses or palaces.89 Three of the baths are free-standing bathhouses, but two of them can be connected to palaces by their environment90. The other baths are integrated into the living part of the houses, but – as so far as is known – neither in a particularly representative place nor in the service wings. Dating, development and typology All baths were built during a relatively short period, the Early Roman Period. This is called “Herodian Period” in Israel (37 BCE to 70 CE). Accordingly, a development is only discernible with difficulty. The presence of tubuli is generally considered a criterion for the dating and typology of early baths. Finds of tubuli, on the other hand, depend on the preservation conditions and the later use of the rooms. In some baths, tubuli might originally have been present and not preserved or they might have been built in during a later renovation phase. Additionally, the development of the wall heating system with tubuli is dated to the early 1st century BCE in Italy. Assuming that the builders of the baths were up to date, the usage of this technique can hardly serve as dating criterion here.91 Such a criterion could be the presence of a hypocaust in the tepidarium. In the thermae of the Vesuvius region (the best known examples of early bath technology), the tepidaria acquired a hypocaust only in the second half of the 1st century BCE.92 In Palestine, none of the Early Roman period baths had a tepidarium with a hypocaust. One can either assume that this innovation had not yet become generally accepted, or that in Palestine it was sufficient to heat the tepidaria with charcoal basins. A proof to the contrary is the bath in the palace-fortress of Machairos, which has a tepidarium with a hypocaust.93 The palace-fortress has so far been only vaguely dated into the time between 30 BCE - 72 CE. The development phase of the other palaces is generally dated in the years between 30 and 15 CE. Due to the limitations of the publication it remains unclear whether the bath in Machairos had a tepidarium with a hypocaust because it dates into a later phase than the other Herodian baths, or

94

An exception is the loutron from the Large Bath in Lower Herodion, which has the head of a Silen carved into the bowl. - Fittschen, Wall Decorations in Herod's Kingdom: Their relationship with wall decorations in Greece and Italy. In: K. Fittschen, G. Foerster, Judea and the Greco-Roman world in the time of Herod.. Symposium Jerusalem 1988, 55-72 - Foerster, Masada, 195. 95 P. Prigent, Le Judaisme et l’image. Texte und Studien zum Antike Judentum 24, Tübingen 1990, 6. 96 Foerster, Masada 195 - Fabricotti, 96-99, Abb 43, 43a.

88

Cat. No 33, 62 (labrum with Silen), 122. Cat. No 106, 113, 114, 122. 90 Cat. No 97, 122. 91 Yegül, Baths, 363, see also chapter V. 92 Nielsen, Thermae, 33. 93 Cat. No. 94. 89

47.

ANALYSIS placed in large rooms, which they do not fill out, contrary to the frigidaria discussed here. Therefore, one can exclude a direct correlation of the Herodian pool form to the Roman piscine. On the contrary a connection to the form of the miqveh is very likely. Some scholars, among them Nielsen, suggest an alternating use of the immersion pools as piscina and as ritual bath.97 Although from the Jewish religious-legal point of view it is possible to use a miqveh also for a “normal” bath without making it invalid for ritual use, I this is highly improbable. From the sociological point of view, it is a general tendency of humans to separate everyday actions from ritual-religious ones. Additionally from the architect’s view, there is a tendency in the Herodian baths to build only one room for each stop in the Roman bathing routine. But some of the baths have two stepped pools.98 One of these rooms was always separate from the actual bath and could be entered only from the entrance room, as the spatial analysis of Small shows.99 In my opinion, the stepped pools within the actual baths were the variation of the piscina with autochthonous techniques and the immersion pools only accessible from the entrance room were miqva’ot used for ritual purposes. The results of this spatial analysis can be transferred to those baths, where only one pool was found, and help to determine the use of this pool. It can be assumed that those stepped pools within the actual bath and thus integrated into the Roman bathing routine were used as piscinae.100 In the bath of the Summit Palace of Cypros it may be safely presumed that the stepped pools acts as a miqveh, since the room with the immersion pool was only accessible from the courtyard.101 The stepped pool in the bath of the third Herodian palace in Jericho is accessible from the apodyterium and thus is open to both possibilities.102 This form of the piscina and frigidarium is unique to the Herodian baths and was neither found in other baths of the same time nor in later baths.

“Villa Arianna” in Varano and the “Villa Pisanella” were in the service wing of the houses: They consisted of three rooms arranged in a row: apodyterium, frigidarium and caldarium with an apsis on one and an alveus at the other side. From the apodyterium, a laconicum could be entered.104 The caldaria of the Herodian baths may be compared with caldaria in the “Casa di Labirinto”, the “Casa di Julia Felix”, and the “Villa Suburbana di Diomede” in Pompeii, as well as a Villa in Vulci. The baths were built between the end of the second and the first quarter of the first century BCE.105 The spatial arrangement of the bath in the third palace of Herod the Great in Jericho with its possibility of walking from the apodyterium either into the caldarium or the laconicum is the same as in the “Casa di Fusco” or the “Casa dell’Imperatore Giuseppe II” in Pompeii.106 The Herodian baths can be compared in their structure and the engineering with the Forum thermae and the Stabian thermae in Pompeii as well as with the Forum thermae in Herculaneum.107 In these baths, the spatial arrangement corresponds to the classical sequence of three rooms in the row type and both the engineering and the decorations used resemble those of the Herodian baths. The “Great Bath” in Masada is comparable to the bath in Glanum (St.-Rémy-de-Provence, around 40 BCE).108 This bath is comparable to the Herodian baths not only in its spatial sequence of rooms, and its technology and decoration, but – together with the Forum thermae in Pompeii - also the best example of the gardens, porticoes and palaestrae attached to the Herodian baths. The bath in Glanum has both porticoes and a palaestra, the Forum thermae have a garden with porticoes. In both examples, the porticoes and palaestrae are at least twice as large as in Masada, but they are at the same place in the spatial arrangement of the rooms (near the entrance). All of the mentioned public baths of Pompeii have a laconicum, later converted to a frigidarium, whose form is comparable to the laconicum in the bath in the third palace of Herod’ the Great in Jericho.109 I am of the opinion that the laconicum in Jericho was still used as a room for sweating, because in the room in Jericho the typical pools of frigidaria, which had been added into the Pompeiian laconica, are missing. The room would thus correspond to the original laconica of the Pompeiian baths. In Pompeii, the alteration of the use of the rooms

Comparisons The best comparisons to Early Roman baths in Palestine can be found in the Villas of the Roman upper class and the emperors, as well as the early thermae of the Vesuvius region. In the “Casa del Fauno” in Pompeii, the bath incorporated a caldarium with an apse, a rectangular niche for the alveus and a hypocaust. A tepidarium and an apodyterium were attached to the caldarium. The bath was in the service wing of the house and the caldarium was heated from the kitchen.103 Both the baths of the

104

Fabricotti, Bagni 63, Fig. 26, 66-71, Fig. 29c. Fabricotti, Bagni, 71-72, Fig. 30; 93-94, Fig. 41, 41a; 78-80, Fig. 34, 34a. - A. Carandini, La romanizzazione dell’Etruria: il territorio di Vulci, Catalogue exhibition Ortebello 24th May – 20th October 1985, Milano 1985 , 65, Fig. 51, 69-70, Fig. 61, 62. 106 Jericho: Cat. No 73. – Pompeii: Fabricotti, Bagni, 76-78, Fig. 33a. 107 Nielsen, Thermae, 103. - Yegül, Baths, 64. – Foerster, Masada, 204205. 108 Nielsen, Thermae, 103. - Yegül, Baths, 64. – Foerster, Masada, 204205. 109 Cat. No 73. Another laconicum is in the Lower Palace of Cypros, Cat. No 32. 105

97

Nielsen, Thermae, 104. Cat. No 32, 62, 63, 97. Small, "Late Hellenistic baths in Palestine" BASOR 266, 1987, 59-74. 100 Cat. No 61, 71, 72, 73, 97. 101 Cat. No 33. 102 Cat. No 73. 103 Yegül, Baths, 51, Fig. 47. 98 99

48.

ANALYSIS was perhaps occasioned by the installation of tubuli in the caldaria, which made them so hot that a further room for sweating became redundant.110 The technology of the Herodian baths, in particular the tubulation and the vaulted ceilings with stucco decoration, was the most modern of the period. Foerster claims that the opus sectile floor slabs and the tubuli for the Herodian baths were imported directly from Rome, just like the building master and experienced workers. The rectangular tubuli are very similar within the Herodian baths and correspond exactly to the recommendations of Vitruvius. Commenting on the large bathhouse in Masada, Foerster states that the barrel-vaults and the tubulation “can serve as a chronological key for the appearance of these features in baths in Italy”.111 The introduction of this technology may be dated with the help of the Herodian baths into the early Augustean Period, around 30 BCE. The small bathhouse in Caparnaum is also best compared with the public thermae of the Vesuvius region and the bath in Glanum because of its spatial arrangement.112 A further comparison is the so-called “Reticulata thermae” in Elaeussa Sebaste, dated according to its building technique (opus reticulatum) into the Augustean Period. In the first building phase, this bath consisted of a rectangular frigidarium, a (rectangular) tepidarium and a caldarium with niches to the west.113 The row type with its arrangement of three rooms remained popular into Late Antiquity, so that on the basis of this design alone, no statements can be made. The very short description of the thermae of Capernaum does not permit a more exact analysis. The baths of Petra are also difficult to analyse: The large bathhouse near the monumental gateway does not offer enough material for an analysis, as it has been only partly excavated. The existence of domes in both rooms and their decoration cannot be used in the evaluation, as they are both the reason for the assumption that this is indeed a bath and the only dating criteria up to now.

formed by the addition of the miqveh to the bath and the replacement of the Roman frigidarium with piscina of the native form of a stepped pool resembling a miqveh. With one exception, the decoration of the baths in the Herodian kingdom show no representations of human or animal figures, geometric or floral patterns being preferred in concurrence with the Jewish ban on representational art. The one notable exception is a fragment of a loutron (probably imported from Greece) with the sculpted head of a Silen, discovered in the bathhouse at Lower Herodium. This has been much discussed, one of the reasons for its existence being seen in the fact that Herodium was fairly far removed from the main Jewish settlement areas in Antiquity. The bath in Ramat Ha-Nadiv and perhaps also the small thermae in Caparnaum are more modest in the materials, the techniques and in the decoration. They represent modifications of the same principle that governed the baths of Herod. The bath in Khirbet el-Muraq seems to be either an example of a not yet fully developed Roman bath or - more likely - an attempt to build a Roman bath with substantially more simple means and perhaps only native builders. If the bathhouse near the monumental gateway in Petra was indeed a public bath and the dating (1st century CE) is correct, it might be the earliest Roman public bath in Palestine.

3. Imperial Period (70 – 324 CE) From the Imperial Period, ten baths, four of them private are known in Palestine. One of the largest of these is the so-called “Eastern Bathhouse” of Beth-She’an-Skyhtopolis, whose first building phase, almost obliterated by later rebuilding, is dated to the first century CE.114 The bathhouse was in the centre of the city, on one of the main streets. Its exact dimensions are not known, but it must have been at least 70 x 70 m. Two halls are dated into the 2nd century CE. One of them had an apsis flanked by entrances and is therefore held by the excavators to have been the caldarium. The bathhouse of En-Gedi on the shore of the Dead Sea is of the row type. It consisted of six rooms: Three anterooms were lying in a row from north to south. South of them was the frigidarium with a large exit with stairs on the west side leading to a large square basin in the courtyard. The frigidarium was followed by a tepidarium and a caldarium to the south, both rectangular. The bath, published only in short reports, is dated into the time between 70 and 132 CE.115 It is interesting to note that En Gedi seems to have been a royal estate and according to

Summary Of the Early Roman private baths, the Herodian baths are built almost completely after the Italian model, in a form that was in use simultaneously in Campania. Both the engineering and the decoration correspond to the Italic baths of the time. Some details like the rectangular tubuli, the vaulted caldaria and the domed rooms can be found here in rather closely dated buildings for the first time. Since it is very probable that these techniques were also imported from Italy, a terminus ante quem may be set for the first occurrence of these techniques in Italy. A complete exception from all other known Roman baths is 110

Nielsen, Thermae, 32-34. Foerster, Masada 205. 112 Yegül, Baths, 61- 64, Fig. 59, 63, 65, 66 und 68 Fig. 76. 113 Farrington, Lycia, 31, Cat. No 83, Fig. 60. 111

114 115

49.

Cat. No. 19. Cat. No. 41.

ANALYSIS papyrus Yadin 19, a Roman camp was situated in En Gedi in 124 CE. 116 In Mo’a in the central Negev, a bathhouse connected to a Roman fort was found.117 It was situated in the south and west wings of a large building in excavation area A. The westernmost room of the south wing was furnished with four stone columns and a stone bank along the east wall. It is interpreted by the excavator as apodyterium. The other rooms were found on the western side of the building and are not described in the preliminary report. Two building phases were identified, dated into the end of the 1st century CE and the beginning of the 2nd century CE. Another bathhouse connected to a Roman fort was built into an already existing Nabatean house in Humeima, south of Petra.118 In the first phase, the entrance room and apodyterium were in the north-east. To the west of them was either the frigidarium or the tepidarium, containing a small basin and a square built-in table. The laconicum to the south of it had a low plastered bench on the western wall and a channel across the floor, leading wastewater from the caldarium through the room. The caldarium had a small alveus on the northern wall, which because of its small size is supposed to have been used for dousing the body with water rather than sitting in it. The bathhouse had a hypocaust and tubuli in the caldarium, while the tepidarium probably had no tubulation and no chimneys at all, thus no direct heating was possible. In the course of two expansions, the bathhouse acquired a new room on the northern wall furnished with plastered benches serving as both apodyterium and entrance room. From there, the bather passed on to the former tepidarium, whose hypocaust had been filled in and which was now used as frigidarium. The other room on the northern wall was accessible only from the outside and is interpreted as latrine or fuel store. In Sepphoris south of the decumanus and east of the cardo a bathhouse of the 1st or early 2nd century CE was excavated, published only in short preliminary reports. Rooms only partly preserved surrounded a long, narrow caldarium. Small fragments of mosaic floors and a basin with steps (identical to a miqveh) were found in the vicinity. Weiss and Netzer state that the bath is similar to the Herodian baths.119 It seems possible that this bath was built before the planned development of the east quarter of Sepphoris.

established the plan, this was a large hall divided into three bays by heavy pilasters, which probably supported a vaulted ceiling. A domed caldarium with tubuli in situ is located on the western side and several smaller rooms are to the north and south. The building has additional side rooms to the north and south of the frigidarium, whose ceilings are supported by piers. It is dated by Harrison to the second half of the 2nd century CE with the help of parallels in the plan to bathhouses at Timgad and Cyrene in Northern Africa. Four of the excavated baths from the Imperial Period can be considered to have been private. Three of them belonged to villas in the vicinity of Jerusalem, one villa perhaps even having two baths. In the bath of Ramat Rachel, near the road from Jerusalem to Bethlehem, three rectangular rooms with mosaics were found.121 The southern was a caldarium with a hypocaust and tubuli and had a small rectangular basin in the south-western corner. The floor of the hypocaust and the hypocaust columns consisted of tiles with the stamp of the Legio X Fretensis. According to Aharoni, the bath was built in the second half of the 3rd century CE. It was used and altered several times until the Byzantine Period. The two baths of the villa of En Ya’el stood on terraces. From the upper bath, only two rooms have been preserved, but their walls are conserved to the beginning of the ceiling. Both were rectangular, the northern room (caldarium) covered with a dome and the remains of tubulation prove that it had a hypocaust. The southern room (tepidarium) was vaulted and had a hypocaust with arches. On the lower terrace was another bath or perhaps the remaining rooms of the same bath. Of these, two rectangular rooms and a round room are preserved. Both rectangular rooms had a hypocaust, the southern also showing traces of tubulation and a rectangular niche, which suggests a basin placed there. Next to the northern room, another room was located. It was rectangular on the outside and circular on the inside and decorated with wall-painting and a magnificent mosaic. The mosaic depicts a double twisted rope, forming a hexagram or Magen David (Star or Shield of David). Tiles with the stamp of the tenth Legion were used in the building of the villa of En Ya’el. According to the excavator Edelstein, both baths (or the two parts of a single bath) were built at the end of the 2nd century CE and used as baths until the middle of the 3rd century CE. They were converted and used differently several times in Byzantine and Early Arab periods.122 The bath in the village of Shiloh, 30 km north of Jerusalem, was placed within a private house. From a large courtyard in the south-east of the house an entrance led into the bath. Andersen interprets the main room, which has a bench running along the northern wall as an apodyterium. To me it seems more probable that the room was used as a tepidarium. This would correspond to

The Western Bathhouse of Gerasa, situated between the northern tetrapylon and the Chrysorhoas river, is dated to the 2nd century CE, although is has not been excavated yet.120 All entrances to the bathhouse lead from the east into the frigidarium. According to Harrison, who 116 J. Pastor, Land and Economy in Ancient Palestine, London 1997, 162, 166. 117 Cat. No. 104. 118 Cat. No. 65. 119 Cat. No 132. 120 Cat. No. 52.

121 122

50.

Cat. No 123. Cat. No. 42, 43.

ANALYSIS the usual sequence of the rooms, and an apodyterium was not really necessary in a private bath. The function could be fulfilled by any room, in which a possibility to undress and keep the clothes was created. A wooden bench or several chairs could certainly serve the simple needs created by the users of a private bath. The function of the northern room with plastered walls and floor and a step 35 cm high in the south-western corner is unclear. Andersen suggests that a basin originally stood on the step and the room was used as frigidarium. The southern room was the caldarium with both hypocaust and tubuli.123

Decoration The decoration of floors with mosaics is referred to in passing in the publication of the Sepphoris thermae. This bathhouse also had a stepped pool in the vicinity, which was similar to a miqveh according to Weiss and Netzer. Three of the private baths were decorated with mosaics, whose quality varied. The mosaics in Ramat Rachel are relatively simple, while the mosaics in En Ya’el are of outstanding quality. In En Ya‘el, wall-painting could be excavated up to 1,5 m high. Context While two of the bathhouses are undoubtedly Roman public baths situated in the centre of larger cities, another two were near a fort. The bath of En Gedi might belong in an intermediate category, as it was situated in a town that seems to have had a Roman fort. Three of the private baths are free-standing and belonged to villas in the countryside surrounding Jerusalem. One bath was integrated into a house.

Components of the baths and thermae Except for the baths of En Gedi, which are of the row type, all baths that are well enough preserved to allow conclusions on their plan are of the so-called block type. Rooms The apodyterium is known in three of the six public bathhouses, while the tepidaria are only known in the bathhouse of Humeima and in the private baths of En Gedi and Shilo.124 Frigidaria are known from three public baths.125 Caldaria are known from all baths (excepting Mo’a), one of them having an apsis.126 The interpretation of this room as caldarium seems to depend on this apsis, since in the (preliminary) publication a hypocaust is not mentioned. Giving the apsis a typological significance in determining the use of the room would turn the argument full circle, so it has to be left undecided. In the same bathhouse, a particularly large frigidarium allows a cautious typological classification. In the private baths, the hot rooms were mostly excavated and identified. Two caldaria and one frigidarium had rectangular niches, which suggest pools or basins placed there, one caldarium still retained its basin.127 Neither miqva’ot nor frigidaria in the form of stepped pools were found.

Dating, development and typology The bathhouse of En Gedi is of the simple row type. The presence of a palaestra or at least a peristyle courtyard on the west side can be assumed, since the piscina of the frigidarium was placed there. The bathhouse in Humeima is of the block type, probably occasioned by the fact that an existing building was remodelled into a bathhouse. The plans of the other bathhouses cannot be ascertained, as the remains known from them do not permit exact statements. Of the (perhaps) two baths in En Ya’el, the upper one hardly can be evaluated, since the existing building and the preliminary publication do not permit more exact statements. The crucial element of the lower bath seems to be the round room, probably the laconicum, since it could only be entered by a heated room. The mosaics seem to be the best dating criteria of the private baths. The bath of the villa at Ramat Rachel seems to have been converted several times, the mosaics being replaced as well. Therefore the mosaic corresponds with the last phase of use and cannot date the first phase of the building. The mosaics of the bath (and the villa) of En Ya’el can be compared very well to other mosaics of the second half of the 2nd century CE.

Engineering In the publication of the public baths, hypocausts are not mentioned for any of them, except En Gedi. As the other bathhouses seem to have been rather large establishments, it is to be assumed they all had hypocausts and the excavators failed to mention them. In the description of the private baths, hypocausts and tubulation are mentioned for all of them. Several of the hypocaust rooms had brick arches instead of tile columns.128

Comparisons The bathhouse of En-Gedi is comparable to the thermae of Sillyon, which had a gymnasion according to Farrington. Perhaps a courtyard was also situated on the entrance side in En-Gedi. Farrington dates the thermae of Sillyon into the 2nd or 3rd century CE.129

123

Cat. No. 135. Apodyterium: Cat. No. 41, 65, 104. 125 Cat. No. 41, 42, 65. 126 Apsis Cat. No. 19. 127 Cat. No. 43, 65, 123 (pool of the frigidarium), 132. 128 Cat. No. 42, 123. 124

129

51.

Farrington, Lykia, Cat. No 196, Fig. 62, 64, 179, 180, 198.

ANALYSIS The private baths are difficult to compare with other baths, since they are only partly preserved. The round laconicum of the lower bath of En Ya’el might be compared to a set of baths with round laconica, most of them being large city thermae: The large city thermae of Cambodunum/Kempten (South-western Germany),130 from the middle of the 2nd century CE had a round sudatorium, accessible from the tepidarium. The sudatorium of the thermae of Divona (Cahors/Southern France, probably 2nd century CE) was arranged in the same way. The sudatorium of the thermae of Lugdunum Convenarum (St.-Bertrand-de-Comminges, Pyrenees) was also round and accessed from the tepidarium. The bathhouse was built in the 1st century CE, but later remodelled.131 The sudatorium of the bath of Dchar Jdid (Morocco) was likewise entered from the tepidarium. The bath was built in the Flavian Period and converted and made smaller around the turn from the 2nd to the 3rd century CE.132 The Flavian thermae of Conimbriga (Portugal) had two round rooms east and west of the tepidarium, of which one is called a sudatorium by Nielsen.133 They were structured by four niches, similar to the arrangement of the sudatorium in the Central thermae of Pompeii or to the original laconicum (later converted to a frigidarium) in the Pompeiian thermae.134 The best and geographically nearest comparison seems to be the bath in the Lower Palace at Cypros (Cat. No. 32), which had a round laconicum or sudatorium, accessed by a warm room (tepidarium). A further comparison to the lower bath of En Ya’el can be made with the help of the mosaics. In one of the houses in Volubilis (Morocco), a bath with a similar mosaic was excavated. The so-called “House of the Venus-Mosaic” in the north-western quarter had a bath in the rear part of the house.135 From a rectangular apodyterium in the north, one entered a rectangular frigidarium with a large pool, taking up half of the room. Several steps as wide as the pool led into it. From this room, one could enter a tepidarium, which had entrances to two caldaria. Thouvenot describes the rooms as one dry and one humid hot room. The southern of the two rooms had a basin and a small niche on the southern side. South of the two caldaria was the praefurnium. Many mosaics were found in the Villa besides the one giving the house its name. Among them were two mosaics with guilloche motives. In one of these, the guilloche is formed into four hexagrams, in whose centres medallions of Bacchus and the seasons are placed. This is similar to the mosaic in the lower bath of the villa of En Ya’el. The

bath belonged to a later remodelling phase of the house. Thouvenot dates the house itself to the end of the reign of Marc Aurel or the reign of Commodus (2nd century CE) Summary A close study of the three large city bathhouses cannot be carried out, because of the state of excavation, preservation and publication. Nevertheless, their sheer existence proves that Roman public bathhouses existed in Palestine in the 2nd century C. E and that they were comparable in their decoration to the thermae of other provinces. The smaller establishments of Mo’a and En Gedi can be compared with simpler thermae in forts and towns within the Empire. The number of private baths declined sharply in this period compared to the preceding. This is not surprising, since most of the private baths had been built for the royal family of Judea in their palaces and Judea by now was no longer a kingdom, but a Roman province. The baths are built in the row or block types. Their spatial order of three bathing units and corresponding rooms, pools in the cold and hot rooms and their decoration with mosaics and wall-painting concurs with the Roman private baths of the Imperial Period in the rest of the Empire.

4. Late Antiquity (180-324 CE) The large bathhouse of Beth Guvrin was located in an urban context, next to the amphitheatre on the northwestern part of the city. It was converted several times; unfortunately the plans of the individual phases cannot be determined exactly. The building was supported by substructions with arches, which according to the coexcavator Cohen were of Severan ashlar masonry. An open courtyard led to the neighbouring amphitheatre. Cohen interprets the western portion of the preserved part of the bath as basilica. North of it was a latrine. A long room in the east is has been identified as palaestra by him. The sequence of rooms west of it is identified as a frigidarium with piscina and two unctoria at the north and south ends. Because of the intensive Byzantine remodelling, the exact form of the frigidarium cannot to be determined any longer. In the western part of the bath, the hot rooms were placed in a row: The caldarium had three alvei in rectangular niches on the northern, the western and the southern walls; a vaulted ceiling was in the centre. East of the room was the tepidarium. The two rooms each to the north and south of the caldarium are identified as caldaria and sudatoria. Remainders of clamps testify to the original facing of the walls with

130

Nielsen, Thermae, Cat. No C 198, 199, Fig. 170, 171. Nielsen, Thermae, Cat. No C 74, Fig. 94, C 76, Fig. 96. 132 Nielsen, Thermae, Cat. No C 124, Fig. 127. 133 Nielsen, Thermae, Cat. No C116, Fig. 121. 134 Republican and Stabian Baths in Pompeii, Forum Baths in Herculaneum. 135 R. Thouvenot, Maisons de Volubilis, Publications du Service des Antiquités du Maroc 12, Rabat, 1958, 57-59, Fig. 9, Pl. XV, XVII. 131

52.

ANALYSIS marble slabs. The thermae probably was built at the turn from the 2nd to the 3rd century CE.136 The bathhouse of Emmaus in Judaea is dated by Gichon into the 2nd or 3rd century CE. Unfortunately, a stratigraphy could not be ascertained on the inside because of the intensive remodelling in later periods. Excavations outside of the bathhouse were not possible, since it is surrounded by a Muslim cemetery. In antiquity, the bathhouse was in an urban context. Emmaus is known as settlement of an urban character from written sources; a villa and a church with baptisterium were excavated here. The bathhouse building is preserved up to the top of the domes, partly in the original material. The building today consists of four rooms, the westernmost being a later addition. In the initial phase, further rooms were probably in the north and south. The eastern rectangular room with an entrance in the north-eastern corner was in its last phase a frigidarium. Initially, the room had perhaps been a hot room, since a heating channel was under the floor. A dome, supported by arches on two sides, crowned the room. These formed niches, in which perhaps bathing-tub-sized pools or basins were located. The room to the west of it is named the caldarium by Gichon, perhaps because of its hypocaust. In my opinion it is more likely to have been a tepidarium with a hypocaust. Such rooms are rare in the Near East, but baths with the usual three room sequence of frigidarium, tepidarium and caldarium are substantially more frequent than baths with two caldaria, but no tepidarium. This room had two niches, the southern of the two having three square windows. Under the (later) floor, the remainders of a hypocaust were found. The walls spring back 20 cm at the door jambs and under the beginning of the vault, which points to a facing of the wall with tubuli. Some tubuli were found under the collapsed floor. The next room to the west was probably a caldarium. It also had two niches and an additional rectangular niche. The hypocaust did not consist of individual columns, but of a series of arches, on which the hot water pools probably were placed.137 The small bathhouse of Hazeva belonged to a roadstation with a fort and an inn in the central Negev. One first entered a vestibule and from this room a courtyard with a pool on one side. The water of the pool was led into the latrine in the south. This could be entered from the bathing rooms east of the courtyard. From the courtyard, one first accessed the frigidarium, going on through the tepidarium to the caldarium, which had a rectangular niche with an alveus in the wall shared with the praefurnium. South of the caldarium was the sudatorium. All warm and hot rooms had both a hypocaust and tubuli. According to the excavators, the bathhouse was built in the 3rd century CE and converted in the 4th century CE.138 136 137 138

The bath of Yotvata, 40 km north of Aila/Elat in the Negev belonged to a fort. Three rooms were preserved. The western room was a tepidarium; most of it is unfortunately destroyed. East of it was the rectangular caldarium with both a hypocaust and tubuli. The bath is dated into the time of Diocletian (284-305 CE).139 The large bathhouse south of the decumanus and west of the cardo in Sepphoris has only been published in preliminary reports. According to them, it was built in the 3rd or 4th century CE. The main entrance was to northwest, to the cardo. The rooms were aligned on two crossing axes. Along the east- western axis were three caldaria, the westernmost of them being octagonal. The north-southern axis cut the central courtyard, the tepidarium and the middle caldarium. On both sides of the tepidarium were two frigidaria with small pools. Many of the rooms had mosaic floors with geometrical patterns.140 The thermo-mineral bath in Hammat Gader is the largest bathhouse of the Late Roman Period in Palestine. An inscription with a poem of the empress Eudokia and other finds make it probable that the first building phase dates into the reign of Antoninus Pius (138-161 CE), around 150 CE. The thermo-mineral source was probably used earlier. The first reference to the thermo-mineral bathhouse is made by Origen in the middle of the 3rd century CE. Three donative inscriptions in one of the main rooms certify to the use of the bathhouse in Late Antiquity and in the Early Islamic Period, a further reports a larger renovation under the founder of the Umayyad dynasty, Mu-awijjah around 663 CE. The poem of the empress Eudokia mentions the names of two mythological figures, Hygieia, daughter of Asclepios and divine personification of health (and in this function worshiped at many thermo-mineral sources) and Galateia, who as a nymph was responsibly for sources and waterways.141 It is not improbable that both were worshipped in Hammat Gader. Further indications for the worship of deities at the source are hundreds of clay lamps, most of them without traces of use, which were found in two pools. The excavator stresses that no references of the worship of the three graces were found at the source. This was occasionally assumed, as some Rabbinic writings claim it and because some rings and coins representing the three graces were found in the main city Gadera.142 The bathhouse was in the centre of the town. Since the main source ‘Ain Maqla has a temperature of 51°C, none of its rooms had to be artificially heated. Five large and two small rooms were placed parallel or at right angles to 139

Cat. No 146. Cat. No 133. 141 J. Green , Y. Tsafrir, Greek Inscriptions from Hammat Gader: A Poem by the Empress Eudocia and Two Building Inscriptions. In. IEJ 32, 1982, 77-96, Fig. 9, 10. – E. Habas (Rubin), A Poem by the Empress Eudocia. A Note on the Patriarch. In: IEJ 46, 1996, 108-119. 142 Hischfeld, Hammat Gader, 477. – E. Dvorjetzki, Medicinal Hot Springs in Eretz-Israel during the Period of the Second Temple, the Mishna and the Talmud. Vol. I-II, Jerusalem 1992 (Hebrew). 140

Cat. No 18. Cat. No 40. Cat. No 59.

53.

ANALYSIS each other; they all were connected to each other and had large pools. The eastern part of the bath is not preserved. The entire south-western side of the external wall had large windows, supplying the bathhouse with light and air. This direction was selected intentionally, since the sun thus shone into the rooms in the afternoon hours, the main bathing time. From the entrance one reached a long passage. Three parallel rooms could be entered from here. A portal with columns and Corinthian capitels (an addition of the 4th century CE) separated the passage from the south-western room (“Pilaster Hall”). In the middle of this rectangular room and almost filling it was a rectangular pool. Rectangular pools stood in four of the niches formed by the pilasters on the western and eastern side of the room. Statues stood in the niches in the southern wall. The central room was also rectangular, with a pool in the south; the remainder of the floor was paved with marble slabs. In this room, which probably corresponded to the tepidarium of ordinary thermae, numerous inscriptions were found. Two smaller rooms connected this room with an oval hall. In one of them, a pool was installed in front of a window. It is called “Leper’s Pool”. From written sources, the waters of Hammat Gader are known to have been used as a cure for leprosy, but as the separation of the lepers from the healthy was very strict in Judaism for religious reasons, it is assumed that there existed a pool for their use only. This seems quite probable, even though it must not necessarily have been this pool. South of this room is the so-called “Oval Hall”, with a large oval pool and four semicircular bathing niches with pools in the corners. This room was nearest to the hot sources and may have been an equivalent of the caldarium. South of it were two more rectangular rooms, one with a round and one with an oval pool. Along the entire eastern side of the complex ran the “Fountain Hall”. Rectangular and semicircular niches were placed along the long and short sides of the hall and at both ends the hall and the pool narrowed, creating a telescope-like optical effect. A number of marble fountains in the form of altars stood on both sides of the pool, spouting water from lion’s heads and other figured spouts. This hall was furthest from the hot sources, as proven by the water distribution channels discovered. It probably served as a kind of frigidarium. The walls in all rooms were faced with marble or limestone slabs. The decoration of the rooms consisted of marble elements, wall mosaics, various fountains and statues. The bath was converted several times during the long time of its use (see above).143 The so- called “Herakleides” bathhouse in the northwestern quarter of Gadara (Umm Qais) has only been excavated in parts. The excavation was caused by the chance discovery of a mosaic floor and three rooms were unearthed, one of them not completely. The mosaic was in a large, rectangular room, on whose south and east sides were smaller, square rooms, separated by two 143

columns or pilasters and several steps from the large room. The walls and columns or pilasters were faced with marble slabs and the floor was covered with geometric mosaics in several fields. Even the narrow water channels found along some of the walls were covered in mosaic. In two rooms, mosaic inscriptions were found, wishing health to the builder Herakleides and all bathing guests. The bath has been dated with the help of the mosaics into the “Late Roman-Byzantine Period”.144 Components of the baths Rooms In six of the seven thermae, the frigidaria, tepidaria and caldaria were identified. Even though the rooms in the thermae of Hammat Gader did not have to be heated because of the hot sources, the rooms can be classified into the different functions of the cold, warm, and hot rooms. In Yotvata, the frigidarium is not preserved, but it may be assumed that it originally existed. Four frigidaria and five caldaria had pools, in two cases they were in rectangular niches. Two of the other pools had different forms: One pool had been fitted into a semicircular niche and another had an octagonal form. The thermae of Hammat Gader had both rooms with pools in semicircular niches and rooms, in which pools were in rectangular niches. Two thermae had latrines.145 Engineering Except for the bathhouse of Hammat Gader, all thermae had a hypocaust and (with exception of the thermae of Beth Guvrin) also tubuli. In Beth-Guvrin, the system of tubulation may have been destroyed by the subsequent changes. It is not known yet, whether the bathhouse of Sepphoris had a hypocaust or tubuli, but considering the size and date as well as the described decoration of the establishment, it is to be expected. A hypocaust with arches instead of columns was found in Emmaus. Decoration Only three of the bathhouses are known to have had the walls faced with marble slabs.146 The decoration of the thermae of Emmaus can be assumed to belong to its last period, and the thermae of Hazeva is preserved only in the lower part of the hypocaust. Both might originally have had limestone or marble wall facing. Mosaics are known from four thermae, from one of them even wall mosaics147. Context Five of the thermae come from an urban context, and two belong to road stations with forts in the Negev.

144

Cat. No. 47. Cat. No 18, 59. 146 Cat. No 18, 47, 56. 147 Floor Mosaic: Cat. No. 47, 56, 132; Wall Mosaic: Cat. No. 56. 145

Cat. No 56.

54.

ANALYSIS the narrow sides containing pools arranged at a right angle to the caldaria. Between the frigidarium and the row of caldaria, two round tepidaria were placed.152 A long room was behind the frigidarium in Beth Guvrin, interpreted as gallery or basilica. Yegül recognises the long gallery as an individual element of thermal architecture, more frequent in Asia Minor than in the eastern part of the empire. He names the Baths of Faustina in Miletus, the Eastern Baths in Pergamon, the Bath-Gymnasion and the Legionary Baths in Magnesia on the Maeander, the harbour Bath-Gymnasion at Ephesos, the thermae of Caracalla in Ankara and the Bath-Gymnasion of Termessos.153 Similar in structure and also belonging to the “double core” type (bathing rooms in a row beside a large courtyard) are the thermae of Midjleyya, Serdjila and Babiska.154. All three thermae are dated later than the bath of Beth Guvrin: The bath in Serdjila was donated 473 CE by a Julianos and his wife Julia Domna, the bath of Midjleyya is dated into the 6th century CE and the bath of Babiska is dated according to an inscription with the date 480 on a door lintel into the late 5th century CE. Several of these Syrian baths, among them also the baths of Serdjila and Babiska, were probably attached to an inn.155 The northern bathhouse in Banasa (Sidi Ali Bou Djenoum/Morocco) seems comparable to the bathhouse of Hazeva. The small bathhouse in Morocco also was of the block type with a courtyard. In Banasa, two cold water pools were placed in the courtyard. The bath is dated in the 2nd century CE.156 The small central thermae in Timgad (Algeria) from the 2nd century CE are also composed in approximately the same way, since the courtyard was used here as frigidarium and contained a large piscine.157 The caldarium of the thermae of Hazeva has structural similarities with caldaria known from Northern Africa. Yegül names several thermae, whose caldaria were rather small, square rooms with “projecting arms”. Into these “arms”, the alvei were placed.158 Smaller bathhouses from the north-western provinces are also a good comparison to these baths. A bathhouse discovered in 1933 in Heilbronn (Southern Germany), which is clearly smaller than the bath of Hazeva, had nearly the same form. The rooms, except one, were arranged in a row, and the caldarium had a rectangular niche with a pool sharing a common wall with the praefurnium.159

Dating, development and typology The thermae of Beth Guvrin, Emmaus and Hazeva have an open courtyard with deep, shady porticoes in the place of a palaestra. In the bathhouse of Hazeva, only a small room could be identified serving both as apodyterium and frigidarium. It seems that the courtyard with the large pool took over the functions of apodyterium and caldarium, if the weather permitted (which it must have most of the year, since Hazeva is in the Negev desert). The thermae of Sepphoris seems to correspond to a layout typical for Late Antiquity, a plan of two intersecting axes. The thermae of Beth Guvrin, with the bathing rooms in a row next to a large courtyard, seem to correspond to the layout called “double-core arrangement” by Yegül.148 The thermae of Beth Guvrin, Beth Yerah and Hazeva have rectangular niches instead of semicircular niches. The thermae of Emmaus use semicircular niches on both short sides of the room, a typical arrangement of the bath architecture of Late Antiquity. The thermae of Hammat Gader use both forms of niches for alvei in different rooms, to archive the greatest possible variation in the form of the rooms. Yegül describes the plan of Hammat Gader as conventional. Two rooms challenge this judgement: The “Oval Hall”, whose unusual form is further enhanced by the conches in the corners and the “Fountain Hall”, creating a telescopic effect with the narrowing of the room and pool.149 Comparisons The thermae of Beth Guvrin belong to a group of baths, in which the hot rooms were arranged in a row and a row of frigidaria was placed at right angle to them. The thermae of Aphrodisias and the Bath-Gymnasion of Aizanoi also belong to this group.150 Here, the caldaria were also placed into the middle of the row of hot rooms and enlarged in comparison to other rooms. Another representative of this group are the Roman baths in Dura Europos, dated into the 3rd century CE. In all three of them (C-3, E-3, M-7), the hot rooms were arranged in a row. On the narrow sides of these rectangular rooms, the rectangular frigidaria were placed with their long side. They had rectangular cold water pools. Next to the rooms was a courtyard.151 In Shachba-Philippopolis (Syria) the three caldaria were placed side by side, with the frigidarium with niches on

152

Nielsen, Thermae, Cat. No C 383, Fig. 259. Yegül, Baths, 414 – 416, Fig. 501. 154 Yegül Baths, 329-334, Fig. 417- 421. 155 Yegül, Baths, 329, 334. 156 Nielsen, Thermae, Cat. No C 121, Fig. 124. 157 Nielsen, Thermae, Cat. No C 241, Fig. 201. 158 Yegül, Baths 409-411, Fig. 498: Large Baths, Madaurus, Small Baths Thenae, Winter Baths Thuburbo Maius, Baths of Regio VII, Sabratha. 159 Ph. Filzinger, D. Planck, B. Cämmerer, Die Römer in BadenWürttemberg, Stuttgart 31986, 331, Fig. 159. O. Paret, Fundberichte aus Schwaben, Neue Folge 8, 1935, 104 ff. 153

148

Yegül Baths, 333. Yegül, Baths, 121-124, Fig.136-139. Nielsen, Thermae, Cat. No C 293, Fig. 220. – Cat. No C 290, Fig. 219. 151 S. B. Downey, The Transformation of Seleucid Dura-Europos. In: E. Fentress, (Hrsg.), Romanization and the City. Creation, Transformation and Failures. Proceedings of a conference held at the American Academy in Rome to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the excavations at Cosa, 14-16 May 1998, JRA Supplementary Series 38, Portsmouth, (Rhode Island, USA) 2000, 154-172, Fig.13 (S. 167). 149 150

55.

ANALYSIS Both baths must have been built according to a common model.

while in Brad a rectangular room with a niche on the short side was placed at right angles to these rooms.169 Two of the rooms in Brad were vaulted; the caldarium in the north was domed. It is quite possible that the thermae in Emmaus originally also had a courtyard with porticoes along one of the long sides, like the bath in Brad had. The thermae of Brad are dated into the 3rd century CE. Another very similar bathhouse may be found outside of the Roman Empire, in the eastern part of Georgia. While western Georgia along the shore of the Black Sea belonged to the Roman Empire and had several coastal garrisons, the kingdom Iberien-Kartli in what is today eastern Georgia, remained formally independently as a clientele kingdom. The bathhouse mentioned stands in today’s village of Dzalisa, c. 60 km northwest of Tblissi. The bathhouse is of the row type with three rooms with niches at the short sides, resembling the arrangement of rooms in Emmaus. The western room seems to have been the frigidarium; in its northern niche was a semicircular basin. Here, remains of a mosaic were found depicting nautical motives (fish, dolphin, cancers, and nets) within a chessboard border. East of it was the tepidarium and the caldarium. The bath probably belonged to a residential complex, with a mosaic of Dionysos of outstanding quality, which is evidence for the strong connection of this complex to Syria. The complex is dated according to Plontke-Lüning to the 3rd century CE.170 Smaller baths in Asia Minor, but also in the western part of the Empire, are frequently characterised by rectangular rooms with niches on the short sides according to Yegül. He cites examples from Anemurion (Bath II-1 1 B and III-2B), Aspendos (Small Bath), Iotape (Bath 5b) and Perge, as well as many cities in Lykia (Oinoanda, Kadyanda, Pinara, Tlos, Arykanda and Patara).171 The baths mentioned by him usually had rooms with only one niche on a short side; the duplication of the motive seems to be relatively rare. The thermae of Sepphoris with their arrangement of the rooms along two crossing axles corresponded to the models of imperial thermae, but also to large thermae in nearby cities. An example is the southern thermae in Bosra, whose rooms are also placed along two axes crossing at the tepidarium.172 Three of the large halls of the thermo-mineral baths of Hammat Gader (Hall of Pilasters, Oval Hall, and Fountain Hall) are comparable to typical frigidaria of thermae in Asia Minor. These have long rectangular halls with pilasters and rectangular or oval cold-water pools almost filling out the rooms. Good examples of these frigidaria were found in Ephesos (the harbour thermae, the thermae of Vedius and the East thermae) as well as in

The caldarium and tepidarium of Emmaus had a similar plan. The short ends of the rectangular rooms terminated in niches, in which semicircular alvei were placed. Comparisons can also be found in Northern Africa, for instance the Small Baths in Lambaesis.160 Here, the niches are not only projecting from the short sides, but also from the long sides of the room. The “Balneion of the brotherhood of the Avales” in Rome, used between 240 and 340 CE had the same form, but only one alveus in the caldarum.161 The tepidarium of the villa in Piazza Amerina/Sicily also had short ends terminating in niches. It is dated into the middle of the 4th century CE.162 The bathhouse on the Lechion road in Korinth (second phase) had both a caldarium and a tepidarium with niches at the short ends, partially filled by semicircular pools. It was built in the late 2nd or early 3rd century CE and had rebuilding phases in the 3rd century, around 400 and in the early 6th century CE.163 Several bathhouses from the 2nd century CE belonging to forts in Germany resemble the bathhouse in Emmaus: They are likewise of the row type and had a caldarium with two niches, mostly filled with alvei. All of them had another rectangular alveus on a long side of the room.164 Several caldaria of other bathhouses can be considered to belong to the same type. Among them are the Hadrianic bathhouse in Greatchesters (Great Britain), the thermae of Verde (France) from the 2nd century CE and the undated eastern bathhouse in Antiphellos (whose identification as a bath is however uncertain according to Farrington).165 In place of a rectangular alveus at one long side of the caldarium, the Terme di Via delle Foce in Ostia had a round alveus, and additionally two semicircular alvei in niches at the short sides. The bath is dated into the 4th century CE.166 The caldarium of the Bathhouse II in Rottenburg on the Neckar (Southern Germany) had two niches opposite each other on the long sides and another one on the short side towards the praefurnium. In all likelihood, all three niches were filled with alve.i.167 One of the best comparisons for the thermae of Emmaus is the thermae of Brad in Syria. They also had two rectangular hot rooms with niches on the short sides.168 In Emmaus, another rectangular room was next to them, 160

Yegül, Baths, 247, Fig. 296. Nielsen, Thermae Cat. No C 9, Fig. 54. 162 Nielsen, Thermae Cat. No C 65, Fig. 87. 163 Nielsen, Thermae Cat. No C 261, Fig. 210. 164 Saalburg (Nielsen, Thermae, Cat. No C 173, Fig. 156), Stockstadt (Nielsen, Thermae, Cat. No C 176, Fig. 158), Welzheim (Nielsen, Thermae Cat. No C 179, Fig. 159), Stadtthermen Xanten (Nielsen, Thermae, Cat. No C 153, Fig. 144). 165 Nielsen, Thermae Cat. No C 136, Fig. 135 and C 95 Fig. 107 Farrington, Lykia, Cat. No 5, Fig. 27. 166 Nielsen, Thermae, Cat. No C 30, Fig. 72. 167 Ph. Filzinger, D. Planck, B. Cämmerer, Die Römer in BadenWürttemberg, Stuttgart 31986, 513-515, Fig. 330, 331. 168 Nielsen, Thermae, Cat. No C 381, Fig. 258. 161

169

Yegül, Baths, 334-338, Fig. 422. A. Plontke-Lüning, Römische Wohnkultur in Georgien. In: B. Kühnert, V. Riedel, R. Gordesiani, Prinzipat und Kultur im 1. und 2. Jahrhundert. Tagung Jena 27.-30. 10. 1992, Bonn, 1995, 319-20, Fig. 9. 171 Yegül, Baths, 299-301. 172 Yegül, Baths, Fig. 415. 170

56.

ANALYSIS the Imperial thermae of Sardis and the thermae of Caracalla in Ankara.173 Other aspects of the three halls in Hammat Gader can be compared with examples of caldaria from the Near East. These caldaria are characterised by rectangular and semicircular niches, articulating the walls. The may contain pools, statues or windows. These niches can have two different construction principles: a wall of slightly protruding pilasters (as the Pilaster Hall in Hammat Gader) or a wall with deep niches (as the Fountain Hall in Hammat Gader). Yegül mentions examples in Ephesus (Harbour thermae, thermae of Vedius, East thermae), the Imperial thermae in Sardis, the thermae in Alexander Troas and the Harbour thermae in Kaunos (all with protruding pilasters).174 As examples of the second type he cites the thermae of Hierapolis, the thermae of Hadrian in Aphrodisias, the CG thermae in Sardis and the Roman bath on Samos.175 In the Fountain Hall in Hammat Gader, semicircular niches flank a rectangular niche in the centre of the wall. This can be compared to the arrangement in the thermae in Miletus (thermae of Capito and thermae of Faustina), the theatre thermae in Ephesus, the eastern thermae in Pergamon and the upper thermae in Priene.176

west of the excavated area, a niche (diameter: 8 m) was excavated. The niche and its direct surroundings were covered with white mosaic. North of the niche, the remains of a hypocaust were found under a floor of horizontally placed sherds. In the 5th –6th century CE, the floor level was raised and paved with opus sectile. West of the niche was a large area paved in white tesserae with a plastered pool. Originally, a canopy carried by four heart-shaped columns had been standing over the pool. A tabula ansata was found on the exterior western side of the basin. It carried a Greek inscription, translated by V. Tsaferis as “Enter and enjoy... “. The pool had originally been larger. It had a white mosaic floor with a black bordered tabula ansata and inscription in it that was no longer readable. In a large drainage channel underneath the bathhouse, the complete skeletons of nearly 100 newborn children were found. Since baby bones are very thin and break easily if the skeletons are moved and most of the bones were intact, the excavators assume that the children were deposited in the channel briefly after their death. The development of the children points to a killing right after birth.177 A private bath was also excavated in Ashkelon. It had a particularly large frigidarium, with semicircular pools in niches at both short sides of the room. The hot rooms were accessed through a passage. Both rooms had a hypocaust; the tepidarium was rectangular, while the caldarium had niches on the short sides of the room. North the bath was a small latrine.178 The thermae of Beth Guvrin was rebuilt and remodelled after being destroyed (probable by the earthquake in 363 CE), but the layout did not greatly change. The former frigidarium was converted into a square room, whose ceiling was carried by four pilasters in the corners. In its centre was an almost oval pool, paved with white mosaic and having two steps on its northern and southern side leading into the pool. North and south of the pool were the remains of a multicoloured mosaic floor. East of this room, the palaestra was converted into a peristyle. The changes also affected the large caldarium and the tepidarium, which were obviously not used any longer. The rooms in the south were also used differently, since they were joined into one room. Just the small caldaria seem to have retained their function.179 The “Eastern Bathhouse” of Beth-She’an-Skythopolis was also converted in the Byzantine Period. A portico with a fountain in an apse enhanced the two entrances of the bath. The frigidarium also originated from this period. It was a hall with four large limestone pilasters in the corners, carrying a dome of limestone. Between the pilasters, large pools were located on three walls. Marble slabs covered the walls of the pools, the pilasters and the floor. Round and rectangular niches with statues alternated on the walls. On the south-western wall was an

Summary The building of large and complex thermae in medium sized cities and the building of a second bathhouse in Sepphoris show the increasing urbanisation of the region and perhaps also the increasing popularity of Roman bathing in the population. The monumental development of the sources of Hammat Gader also belongs to this rise of bathing. The sources themselves had probably already been used earlier, but their monumental development began only in the 2nd century CE. The building of baths near forts also fits into this picture. The luxury of a refreshing bath after a long and probably dusty day became so important that even a fort and road station in the Negev offered it to soldiers of the fort and travellers alike. The plans of all the baths can be compared to other Roman baths of this time, although the first examples of an individual type, particularly adapted to the climatic conditions in southern Palestine seem to appear (see Plan Types 3).

5. Byzantine Period (324-640 CE) In Ashkelon, in a quarter at the edge of the city and next to a church, a thermae was discovered, dating (according to the excavators) to the Byzantine Period. In the south173

Yegül, Baths, 416-18, Fig. 503. Yegül, Baths, 418-19, Fig. 504-505. 175 Yegül, Baths, 419-22, Fig. 506 A. 176 Yegül, Baths, 422. 174

177 178 179

57.

Cat. No 6. Cat. No 7. Cat. No 18.

ANALYSIS apse with a fountain. In the vicinity, some statues were found in a pit. They represented Leda and the swan, Heracles, Apollo, Aphrodite and Hermes and perhaps originally stood in frigidarium. South of this room was a narrow hall, probably a passage from which two entrances led into the caldarium in the south. It had a vaulted ceiling, two windows and two entrances on the south-western wall. At the south-eastern end of the room, a furnace of limestone was found. A passage south-west of the Pilaster Hall also was structured by pilasters and paved with basalt and limestone slabs. The entrances to the Pilaster Hall and to the latrine point to a use as passage. The latrine of the bathhouse is the largest yet discovered in Beth-She’an. It was built as a peristyle courtyard, the courtyard paved with mosaics and the floor in the portico with limestone slabs. The latrine consists mostly of reused material, as can be seen in the marble slabs being used for the 57 toilet seats. In the west, narrow stairs with a parapet wall of limestone allowed entrance to the latrine from the direction of the theatre place. The building was converted at the beginning of the 6th century CE and served other public functions, which are at present unknown.180 The so-called Western Bathhouse of Beth She’anSkythopolis was in an urban context, in the Roman centre of the city, in the vicinity of the theatre. The bath is 95 m long and about 60 m wide. Five of the eight rooms in the main building were aligned along a north-south axis, three more on an east-west axis, together resembling the letter T. In Roman times, the entrance led from the street through a propylaeum into a palaestra with porticoes on three sides. Directly in front of an entrance into the bathhouse was a piscina. The actual entrances into the bathhouse were on the north and south sides of the apodyterium, a hall structured by pilasters. East of the apodyterium was an oval room with a hypocaust, east of which followed a square room with hypocaust, both perhaps tepidaria. From the square tepidarium two entrances led into a long room, at whose south side was another room and at whose north side were two further rooms. Three of the rooms had pools, the northern a rectangular pool on the eastern side and a semicircular pool in a niche on the north side. The two southern rooms each had a pool on the eastern side, one a semicircular, the other one a rectangular pool. The bathhouse was surrounded at three sides by a courtyard, along which were rooms for different uses and a latrine in the south. A maintenance passage was on the eastern side of the bathhouse. In the courtyard, pools were placed in pairs into the corners formed by the T, some of them enhanced by porticoes. In the 6th century CE, the bathhouse was converted: The piscina was paved with a multi-coloured mosaic and transformed into a portico and the entrance in the west front was walled up. To the north side of the courtyard, another latrine was built. On the west side a hall was erected, resembling a basilica with an niche on

its the northern end. It was open to the courtyard on the eastern side, with only a row of columns separating the hall and the courtyard. The basilica had a mosaic floor of three geometrical fields with an inscription and the walls of the niche were decorated with a mosaic of glass tessarae. The western side of the courtyard between the basilica and the converted piscina also was paved with mosaic.181 Only three rooms were preserved of the bathhouse of Beth Yerah, on the southern banks of the Sea of Galilee. The frigidarium was nearly square, with a main entrance in the west. Another entrance was near the south-western corner of the room, and in the eastern wall, a marble threshold was found, pointing to a further entrance, which was closed later. According to the excavators, the layout suggests a further entrance connecting the room with the hypocaust with the frigidarium. Along the southern and western wall of the frigidarium, plastered benches were placed. In the middle of the frigidarium, a bench surrounded a round and shallow basin (c. 2 m in diameter). The basin, the bench and the floor had originally been faced with marble slabs. A semicircular wall around the basin might have protected the bathers from draft and viewers from the door. The remains of four pillars stood around the basin. Between them, narrow columns appear to have been placed. It seems that they formed the lower part of a kind of domed pavilion, decorated with multicoloured and gilded mosaic. The second preserved part of the bath is the L-shaped room with a hypocaust. It was divided into two rooms by large stone pillars. The smaller room in the north was probably the caldarium; the western room with a pool in the northwestern corner perhaps was the tepidarium. Remains of tubuli were found on the walls. The layout of the caldarium makes it possible that alveii stood in the rectangular niches at the northern and southern side of the room. The excavators date the thermae into the Late Roman period, but Nielsen dates it into the Byzantine Period (4th-5th century CE).182 A small but public bath was built into an insula in the large coastal city of Caesarea Maritima. Form the main entrance one probably was led through a limestone-paved courtyard into a vestibule and from this into a passage, which connected the marble-paved and columned palaestra in the north with the bathing rooms in the south. South of the passage was a hall with a niche and south of that the frigidarium area. This is described by Porath as a set of rooms to the south and west of a small courtyard. The rooms were paved with white mosaic and had benches along the walls. Both the courtyard and the rooms had basins, whose water supply channels are preserve in situ, in one case even a sculpted outlet. In the south-west of the cold rooms was a small latrine, receiving the waste water of the cold rooms. The area of the hot rooms consisted of nine rooms with hypocaust. 181

180

182

Cat. No 19.

58.

Cat. No 21. Cat. No 22.

ANALYSIS The rooms were decorated with marble floors and marble slabs facing the walls, benches and basins, with frescoes preserved in part and wall mosaics. The bath was built according to Porath in the 4th century CE and fell into disuse shortly before the end of the Byzantine Period.183 A private bath was in the so-called “Procurator’s Palace” in Caesarea Maritima, of which only the frigidarium was excavated.184 From the northern wing of the palace one reached the bath by a staircase to a lower level, entering into a round anteroom and from there into the rectangular frigidarium. This was decorated with marble slabs facing the floor and walls and a bench on the southern wall. The room had two sources of water, on the south-eastern wall a simple outlet and in the centre of the room an octagonal basin with a fountain. A passage led into a small room decorated with a mosaic. In the north-west and south-east the remains of rooms with hypocausts were found. Next to the round anteroom, a water tank was discovered, whose volume points to the fact that his must have been a larger bath, not surprising in a palace of this size. About 1 km north of the city walls of Caesarea Maritima, a small thermae was excavated. From a courtyard to the south of the complex one reached the apodyterium, paved with a geometrical mosaic and with a latrine to the west of it. To the east of the apodyterium was the frigidarium, paved with marble slabs and with a large round basin in the centre and a smaller basin (called a footbath by Horton) in the south-eastern corner of the room. East of this room was an almost square room, also paved in marble, serving as unctorium according to Horton, since it had benches on three walls. This is more typical of an apodyterium or tepidarium, though. Perhaps the bath had two rooms for one of these functions. North of the frigidarium was a small passage paved with marble, with a small basin on the western side. It led to the rectangular tepidarium, whose walls were decorated with two frescoes, a “Tree of Life”-motive and a cross. East of the tepidarium was an ornamental pool of approximately 53 sqm. The installation of ceramic containers into the plaster of the pool’s walls and finds of a large number of fish bones in the vicinity seem to point to the raising of fish in this pool. To the west of the tepidarium was the caldarium, a rectangular room, with semicircular basins in niches in the north and south. To the west of the caldarium were the praefurnium and a maintenance yard. The bath is dated into the late 6th century CE and seems to have been in use until shortly after 640 CE.185 Because of the small caldarium, the excavators suppose that the bath was a private bath belonging to the villa suburbana of a rich citizen of Caesarea. Horton on the other hand believes that the large basin in the frigidarium points to

its use as a small commercial bath, a balneion. The distinction between both is difficult to make, since the other examples from Caesarea Maritima show that the size and the decoration of the bath allow both possibilities. Until further finds of richly decorated private Byzantine baths from the suburban area of Caesarea Maritima, I think it more likely that this bath was a balneion, a commercial bath. In Banias (Casarea Philippi) in the in Late Roman or Byzantine Period a bath was built into the existing rooms of the palace built by Herod the Great, of which only the hypocaust is preserved.186 The thermae of Emmaus was converted and made substantially smaller after destruction by an earthquake (probably in 498 CE). The eastern room was used as a frigidarium in this last phase. The floor originally was paved in marble and on the walls, traces of painting were found. To the west of it was the tepidarium. After the collapse of the floor and the destruction of the hypocaust, it was probably only heated by charcoal basins. West of it, the caldarium seems not to have been changed. The room added in the west seems to have been a sudatorium according to its placement directly above the praefurnium.187 In the city centre of Gadara, a thermae was built in the 4th century CE, occupying a whole insula on the decumanus maximus.188 The southern part was built on an artificial terrace, while the northern part was hewn into the bedrock. Two periods can be discerned, period one being separable from period two by the destruction of an earthquake. The northern room, only partly excavated, seems to have been both the apodyterium and the frigidarium, as it had neither hypocaust nor tubulation, but an apsidal piscina in the northern part. The room to the south of it probably was the main tepidarium, having both a hypocaust and tubulation. The barrel-vaulted room opened to a room in the south by a large arch and to another room in the west by a doorway. The barrelvaulted room to the south of it served as the main caldarium in both periods, having a large alveus the entire length of the eastern wall and both a hypocaust and tubulation. It also had two large arches to the north and to the south to another caldarium with granite columns with Corinthian capitels in white marble in each corner. The room had a large semicircular alveus and was heated by a hypocaust from a praefurnium on the east. Several chimneys had been set into the walls, but no traces of tubulation were found. To the east and west of these large main rooms were smaller rooms making up auxiliary bathing rooms, either having the same use as the large rooms or being used slightly differently (as the sudatoria next to the caldarium). All hypocaust pillars were made of basalt. The earthquake seems to have affected the southern part of the bath more severely and the bath was

183

Cat. No 29. Cat. No 28. – For the designation as “palace of the procurator” see J. Patrich et al., The Warehouse Complex and Governor’s Palace (Areas KK, CC and NN, May 1993-December 1995). In: K. G. Holum, A. Raban, J. Patrich (Hg.) Caesarea Papers 2, JRA Suppl. Ser. 35, 1999, 99-107. 185 Cat. No 30. 184

186 187 188

59.

Cat. No 10. Cat. No. 40. Cat. No. 46.

ANALYSIS accordingly downsized mainly in this part in the second period. Several rooms were closed or given another use (e. g. as praefurnium) In the ashes found in the praefurnia, thousands of olive seeds were found, indicating a burning of the waste of the olive oil production such as branches and the pressed-out “cakes”. After some use as a habitation, the bath was finally destroyed in the earthquake of 746 CE. In Gerasa, between the temenos of the Temple of Artemis and the Church of St. Theodore and north of the Fountain Court, a bathhouse belonging to the ecclesiastical complex was built in 454/455 CE. It has 830 sqm. The rooms, which are relatively small, are ranged around two courtyards, used as atrium and an open courtyard with a natatio. An inscription found in the atrium names the builder a certain Placcus or Flaccus and dates the building of the baths into 545-455 and a renovation into the year 584 CE. In the Jewish quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem (near Plugat ha-Kotel), a bath from the Byzantine Period was excavated. It had a large paved courtyard, the preserved part of the building consisting of three rooms with a hypocaust, arranged in a row from north to south. The hypocaust had brick arches and tubuli were found in situ. The caldarium had benches along the walls and around the square basin. The benches, basins and the floor were all faced with marble.189 Another thermae was found between Jaffa Gate and Jaffa Road, underneath the Ayyubid city wall in Jerusalem. The bath consisted of several rooms, one room having doorways in all four walls. Two of the doors led into rooms under the Jaffa Gate. In the west, the doorway led into a room with a completely preserved hypocaust, paved with stones. In the north, a passage led to caldarium, whose hypocaust pillars was also preserved. One of the rooms contained a bath tub; another in the north was paved with a mosaic floor of simple floral and geometrical motives. This floor continued to the east under the Ayyubid city wall.190 On the eastern side of Mount Scopus (Har HaZofim), a bath belonging to a monastery was excavated. Since it is only partly preserved, it is impossible to reconstruct the complete plan. A rectangular room separated the southern wing of the monastery from the actual bath, but it is so badly preserved that its function cannot be ascertained. South of it was the apodyterium, a rectangular room paved a multicoloured geometric mosaic and with a small basin in the south-western corner. A doorway in the middle of the west wall led into a small square room, paved with a white mosaic and with a plastered bench running round the three remaining walls. The hot rooms consisted of three interconnected small rooms in a row, of which only the hypocaust with brick arches is preserved.191

The remains of the bath excavated in the vicinity of the north-western corner of the Old City of Jerusalem likewise belonged to a monastery (Notre Dame). The stones were completely robbed, only the foundation wall trenches were visible during the excavation. The entrance probably was in the north, where fragments of an arch were found. The rectangular rooms were arranged in a row from north to south. In the north was the frigidarium, next to it the tepidarium and in the south the nearly square caldarium. On the eastern side, a small plastered basin was found on the outside wall. The hypocaust of the caldarium was built into a recess partially hewn into the rock. This was lined with the same tiles used to build the 20 hypocaust pillars. The hypocaust of the tepidarium consisted of arches. The bath was paved with marble slabs192. The thermae in the Martyrios monastery in Ma’ale Adumim (east of Jerusalem) was in the centre of the western wing of the monastery. It was divided into three parts. A narrow, rectangular room with a mosaic floor led to caldarium. East of this room was a basin. The caldarium (6 x 2 m) had an apse in the eastern part of the room and a hypocaust.193 Several thermae belonging whose layouts classify them into a group were excavated in different towns in the Negev: In the vicinity of the city walls of Kurnub (Mampsis, central Negev), a small bathhouse was discovered. An entrance in the west of the bath led into a courtyard probably serving as apodyterium and taking up the southern side of the bath. The bathing complex was on the northern side of the courtyard: In the east was a frigidarium with a niche with a semicircular pool on the eastern side. A second pool, which was octagonal on the inside, was set into a rectangular block in the northwestern corner of the room. To the west of it was a tepidarium with water-resistant plaster on the walls and floor. From there, one could go into the two caldaria on the north side of the bathing complex. The hypocaust pillars and some the hypocaust arches were found in situ, some tubuli in the debris.194 The bathhouse of Oboda in the Negev also had a large courtyard. The frigidarium with a basin was on the west side of the bathing complex. In the west, one first gained access to the apodyterium with three stone banks. South of it was the small tepidarium, leading to a square caldarium. From this, an entrance in the western side led into a cross-shaped caldarium. Both caldaria had a hypocaust and slits hewn into the wall may have had the function of tubuli or may have been chimneys.195 The third bathhouse in the Negev was discovered and investigated at the beginning of the 20th century by Musil. It was located outside of Rehovot, in the vicinity of the city wall. The bathhouse had four rooms. The entrance 192

Cat. No 85. Cat. No 93. 194 Cat. No 89. 195 Cat. No 108.

189

193

Cat. No 81. 190 Cat. No 83. 191 Cat. No 84.

60.

ANALYSIS room was T-shaped. The two niches, which were formed by the two sides of the T, had benches running round the walls, which still had traces of marble facing. The entrance into the bath was between the niches, and the room was domed. The room north of it originally had had cross-vault and a floor paved with marble slabs. To the west of it was a further room with a barrel vault. To the north of this room was another room with a hypocaust, tubulation and two large, semicircular pools in the east and the west and a small basin in the south.196 In the vicinity of Gezer, a bathhouse excavated at the beginning of the 20th century. He dates it very inexactly into the Roman Period. It probably stood within a settlement, since the building’s outer walls follow the curve of a road on the western side. In the south was a courtyard with a geometrical mosaic in black, red and white. On its north-eastern side were the rectangular apodyterium and tepidarium, both paved with a white mosaic. Only the hypocaust of the hot rooms is preserved, consisting of arches with tubuli among the debris. The fragments of marble slab found show that the bath’s wall or floors were at lest partly faced and paved with marble. Northwest of the hot rooms was a room divided into several small rooms, through which a channel ran. Macalister identifies it erroneously as a latrine197. East of this room was a room with a basin with mosaic floor and a bank running along on two sides of the room, maybe the frigidarium.198 In Qalandia, about 12 km north of Jerusalem, a badly preserved bathhouse from the Byzantine Period was discovered. The rooms of the bath were rebuilt and remodelled so much that their original use is almost indiscernible. They are arranged in two groups. Group I consisted of three rooms in a row, all of them with mosaic floors. The northern room, perhaps the caldarium, had a furnace on the eastern side. The southern room (the frigidarium?) had a stepped pool with five steps in the western part of the room and a round basin in the eastern part of the room. Group II originally consisted of four small rooms, among them the original caldarium. Baramki interprets the rooms as a bath with two phases.199 The context of the well preserved thermae of Rama in Galilaea is unknown. One probably entered the bath from the east into a rectangular courtyard taking up the entire eastern side of the building and having a large natatio on its northern side. The floor of the pool and also the courtyard floor were paved with white mosaic. Three niches were placed in the wall behind the basin. Three entrances led from the courtyard into the bath building. Two entrances in the south lead into the apodyterium and the one in the north into the frigidarium. The latter had two basins in niches on the northern wall and was

decorated with wall-painting and a mosaic floor with a central, carpet-like panel. The rectangular apodyterium was south of the frigidarium. An entrance in the western wall of the apodyterium led to the tepidarium, whose monochrome mosaic floor was still partly intact above the hypocaust. The entire south-western side was taken up by the caldarium, of whose floor a small fragment with a geometrical design in black and red was preserved above the hypocaust.200 According to Hischfeld, the thermae of Tiberias next to the central market of the city on the cardo, were built in the 4th century CE. They were divided into two wings. In the eastern wing, dressing rooms and rooms for various purposes were excavated, some of them still containing well-preserved mosaics. About 3 m under the floor-level of a room was a pool surrounded by short columns supporting the basalt ceiling. The pool’s water supply was by an underground channel from the west, while the waste water ran off by a channel in the south-eastern corner of the basin. Hirschfeld interprets the pool as a miqveh, but judging by the description (no plans or photos have been published yet), I disagree, since neither steps are mentioned to get into the pool nor does the water supply accord with the usual method of supplying water to a miqveh (which is necessary to make the miqveh ritually fit. See part II). The decoration of a miqveh with columns would also be highly unusual. Bathing rooms of different size, some of them with a hypocaust were excavated in the western wing. The caldaria were placed in the centre of the thermae between two pairs of solid basalt columns supporting the ceiling. Next to the caldaria were other rooms with marble-faced pools. Three other pools in the west were provided with water heating installations and niches.201 In Umm el-Hajar, south of Gaza, a large thermae of the 5th to 6th century CE was discovered during a salvage excavation. The building had five rooms with mosaic floors, pools and hypocausts. In the centre of the bath was a large rectangular room with a mosaic floor, in the centre of which a medallion contained remains of a Greek inscription.202 During a settlement excavation in Zikhrin, about 6 km south-east of from Antipatris-Aphek, a number of Byzantine baths were discovered. Next to an inn in excavation area C was a small thermae, of which only the hypocaust of the tepidarium and the caldarium were preserved. In the debris, many tubuli were found. North of the caldarium was the praefurnium.203 In the southeastern part of a of a city quarter with a church, houses and workshops in excavation area F was another thermae. The rectangular frigidarium was decorated with a plastered basin and mosaics. The caldarium was crossshaped; the hypocaust was unusually high (1,5 m) and

196

Cat. No 125. Roman latrines consisted of a large room with benches with holes around the walls, not of several small rooms. 198 Cat. No 55. 199 Cat. No 116. 197

200

Cat. No 119. Cat. No 140. 202 Cat. No 142. 203 Cat. No 147. 201

61.

ANALYSIS multicoloured217. Wall-painting was preserved in three thermae.218 Besides the baths mentioned, the remains of Byzantine baths in Khirbet ed-Dura, Geliot, Qalandia and Umm elHadjar are included, of which little is known excepting their decorations with marble and mosaic.219

still had some tubuli in situ. In both the apodyterium and frigidarium, mosaics were found.204 Only the caldarium with the suspensura and tubuli in situ and another room with a mosaic floor were preserved of the private bath in a house in excavation area E in Zikhrin, which is next to the road from Jerusalem to Caesarea Maritima.205

Context Of the thermae, 15 may be called urban, three as belonging to smaller settlements and three more as belonging to monasteries. 220 One of the private baths belonged to an agricultural estate, another to a private house, and two belonged to a palace.

Components of the baths Rooms Several thermae have frigidaria with hitherto unusual basin forms: four thermae have oval or octagonal basins, two thermae basins with a canopy on columns.206 A group of baths either had no apodyterium or frigidarium, or it was very small, being partly replaced by a large courtyard207. The caldaria of two thermae have niches, two more caldaria are cruciform.208 The structure of the frigidarium and of the caldarium in the balneion in Caesarea Maritima is unusual: Both consist not of an individual room, but of a seemingly coincidental arrangement of several rooms.209 Two of the private baths have caldaria with niches, one of them with an alveus.210 A particular large frigidarium with cold water pools was found in two baths.211

Dating, development and typology The baths of Mampsis, Oboda and Gezer form a group. They are very similar to each other, since all three bathhouses are of the block type and are combined with a courtyard. Inside the building, the two cold and the two hot rooms are located in a row each, with a doorway at which the bather had to turn by 180° between them in order to create a draught barrier. The courtyards, which probably had porticoes creating a shady area, allowed access into a frigidarium with a pool. From there one reached a room without installations but with a hypocaust, which is either addressed as frigidarium or tepidarium by the excavators. Turning round, the bather accessed the hot rooms, identified either as tepidarium and caldarium or as caldarium and sudatorium. While the use of these rooms cannot be ascertained with accuracy, it is safe to assume that they functioned as hot rooms. The bathhouse in Rama had a similar layout. The frigidarium is relatively large here, and in addition had two decorative basins. The warm rooms are not as strictly defined here as in the rest of the group. Moreover the wall to the rear of the natatio in the courtyard is decorated with three apses. This could be a modest version of the decoration of the natationes of large thermae with a wall resembling a Nymphaeum.221 The baths of this group have an open courtyard with deep, shady porticoes in place of a palaestra. With its cold water pool, the courtyard probably was used in good weather as frigidarium, perhaps also as apodyterium. Most of the bathhouses of this “Southern Type” are in the south of Palestine, at least two of them are still unpublished.222

Engineering All the hot rooms of thermae seem to have had a hypocaust (in Qalandia, nothing seems to be preserved), and in three cases, the hypocaust consisted of arches.212 Tubuli were mentioned only in eight of the thermae, but were found in all of the private baths213 Three of the private baths had a hypocaust, one of them also a tepidarium with a hypocaust.214 Decoration The bathhouses were decorated with marble slabs for the facing of walls and basins or the paving of floors in 15 cases215. Opus sectile was found only once.216 25 thermae and private baths had mosaics, most of them

204

Cat. No 149. Cat. No. 148 206 Oval or octagonal basins: Cat. No 18, 30, 89. Canopies: Cat. No 6, 22. 207 Cat. No 19, 55, 89, 108,119. 208 Apsis: Cat. No 7, 125 – Cruciform: Cat. No 108, 149. 209 Cat. No. 29. 210 Cat. No 7, 148. 211 Cat. No 7, 28. 212 Cat. No 55, 84, 89. 213 Thermae: Cat. No 21, 22, 55, 89, 107, 125, 147, 149. - Private baths: Cat. No. 7, 28, 148. 214 Cat. No. 7, 28, 148. 215 Cat. No 6, 18, 19, 22, 28, 29, 30, 50, 55, 81, 85, 125, 140, 147, 149. 216 Cat. No 6. 205

217

Cat. No 6, 18, 19, 21, 22, 28, 29, 30, 38, 49, 55, 56, 83, 84, 85, 93, 116, 119, 123, 132, 133, 140, 142, 148, 149. 218 Cat. No 29, 30, 119. 219 Cat. No 38, 49, 116, 142. 220 City: Cat. No 6, 7, 18, 19, 21, 22, 29, 40, 83, 89, 108, 140. – Settlement: Cat. No 55, 147, 149. – Monastery. Cat. No 84, 85, 93. 221 Nielsen, Thermae 155. 222 Oral Communication B. Zissu.

62.

ANALYSIS installation.225 The caldarium and tepidarium of the thermae of Beth Yerah, the caldarium of the bathhouse in the Notre Dame monastery in Jerusalem and the caldarium of the bath in area F in Zikhrin have structural similarities to caldaria known from Northern Africa. Yegül names a group of bathhouses having cruciform caldaria: An originally square room had a rectangular niche with an alveus on each wall, so that the room became cruciform in design.226 The caldarium with neighbouring hot rooms in the western bathhouse of Beth-She’an can be compared with the thermae in Miletus, which also had three rectangular hot rooms in a row. In Miletus, these had rectangular and semicircular niches for alvei, though. In Miletus, one gained access to the middle room by the two outer ones, in the western bathhouse of Beth-She’an it seems that the entrance to the outer rooms was through the middle room.227 The caldaria of the bathhouse of Philippopolis/Shachbah (Syria) were also arranged in a row, but they had rectangular alvei on their southern ends.228 The motive of three caldaria in a row is also represented the baths of Piazza Amerina, Alexandria Kôm el Dikka and Sofia. In the latter two, the middle rooms are oval or round and the outer rooms have niches on the short sides.229 The bathhouses are dated into the 2nd half of the 2nd to the middle of the 4th century CE. The so-called Pilaster Hall of the western bathhouse of Beth-She’an is comparable to other halls with pilasters in bathhouses of the region. Yegül lists some of them. He characterises them as a room placed between the palaestra and the heated part of the bath, fulfilling the functions of entrance hall, apodyterium and lounge for resting, promenading and chatting, but also sitting down for a drink or a snack. These galleries are more frequent in Asia Minor than in the east according to Yegül. He names the Baths of Faustina in Miletus, the East Baths of Pergamon, the Gymnasion Baths of Magnesia on the Maeander, the harbour Baths in Ephesos, the Baths of Caracalla in Ankara and the Gymnasion Baths in Termessos.230 The caldaria in the baths in Ashkelon and the suburban bath in Caesarea Maritima may be compared to the caldarium of the small bath in Thebai Phthiotides (Nea Anghialos in Greece) as they all have semicircular alvei in niches.231 The bath in the famous villa of Piazza Amerina (Sicily) from the end of the 2nd to the beginning of the 3rd century CE, takes up the motive of the caldarium or frigidarium with semicircular niches with alveii on the short sides, albeit on a much more

The bathhouse of Flaccus in Gerasa might also have belonged into this group. The description speaks of two courtyards, one of them with a natatio, the other one an atrium. In Byzantine baths, the frigidarium often is replaced in favour of a room taking up the function of both apodyterium and frigidarium. This room frequently has a decorative basin or fountain as a remnant of the frigidarium pool.223 This is true of the bathhouses of Mampsis and Gezer and the private bath in the Procurator’s Palace in Caesarea Maritima, whose frigidarium basin had more of a decorative character instead of providing the possibility for a cooling bath. The architectural motive of a pool under a canopy is shared by the two thermae of Ashkelon and Beth Yerah. They also belong into the category of decorative basins, although it was also possible to take a bath in them. The suburban bathhouse in Caesarea Maritima has an unusual frigidarium with a large round basin reminiscent of the frigidaria converted from laconica in the thermae of the Vesuvius region much earlier. The hot rooms of the suburban bathhouse in Caesarea Maritima and of the private bath in Ashkelon are comparable. They both consist of a narrow, rectangular tepidarium and a caldarium with semicircular niches filled with pools on both short sides. Both probably had another, rectangular alveus on the wall shared with the praefurnium. The frigidaria of the two bathhouses have completely different forms, however. The frigidarium in the bathhouse in Ashkelon is rectangular with semicircular pools on the short sides, while the above mentioned frigidarium of the suburban bathhouse in Caesarea Maritima was a room dominated by a large round pool. It is interesting to note that in the vicinity of both bathhouses artificial fish ponds were found. Perhaps they used the waste water of the bathhouse.224 Cruciform caldaria have been discovered in the bath in area F of Zikhrin and the bathhouse in Oboda. This form is quite common in Late Antiquity, since it could accommodate four alvei in the “arms” of the cross. Comparisons The frigidarium of the bathhouse of Beth Yerah is comparable to the (substantially larger) Byzantine bathhouse of Ptolemais (Libya), whose courtyard functioned not only as palaestra, but also as frigidarium and had a large octagonal pool in the middle. Nielsen dates the bathhouse into the Constantinian Period; with a second phase around 400 CE. The pool is a later

225

Nielsen, Thermae, Cat. No C 330, Fig. 237. Yegül, Baths 409-411, Fig. 498: Large Baths, Madaurus, Small Baths Thenae, Winterbaths Thuburbo Maius, Baths of Regio VII, Sabratha. 227 Nielsen, Thermae, Cat. No C 305, Fig. 230. 228 Nielsen, Thermae, C 383, Fig. 259. 229 Nielsen Thermae, (Piazza Amerina) C 65, Fig. 87 (Kôm el-Dikka) C 208, Fig. 217, (Sofia) C 206, Fig. 173. 230 Yegül, Baths, 414 – 416, Fig. 501. 231 Nielsen, Thermae, Cat. No C 358, Fig. 246. 226

223

Yegül, Baths, 326-329. Y. Israel, Ashqelon. In: HA 100, 1992 = ESI 13, 1993, 104 -105. - F. L. Horton, A Sixth-Century Bath in Caesarea’s Suburbs and the Transformation of Bathing Culture in Late Antiquity. In: A. Raban, K. G. Holum, Caesarea Maritima. A Retrospective after two Millennia. Leiden 1996, 189. 224

63.

ANALYSIS magnificent scale. A frigidarium with niches on the short sides with semicircular cold water pools was also built into the “balneion” of the Fratres Arvales in Rome (used 240-340 CE) and the so-called “Baptisterium Bath” in Rome (Severan Period) as well as in the Baths of Constantin in Arles (Southern France).232 The bath in the monastery on the Mount Scopus (Har haZofim) with its three simple hot rooms next to the frigidarium seems very similar to the thermae of Beth Guvrin. Both are comparable to the baths in Dura Europos (3rd century CE) and other examples in Asia Minor, in which a frigidarium was placed on the short side of several hot rooms in a row and had a rectangular niche for a cold water pool. Frequently a courtyard or an elongated room was on its other side.233 Not many of the larger baths mentioned in most publications are comparable to the group of the baths of the “Southern Type” in Gezer, Mampsis, Oboda and perhaps also in Rama. Larger baths and thermae were rarely built as block types. Most baths of the block type are simple and small and usually belong to rural villas or towns. These have been investigated most thoroughly in the north-western provinces, where a whole number of such baths is known. The bath of the fort of Bumbeşti (Romania), dated into the year 201 CE is of the block type. Here, the rooms are also arranged in two sets of cold and hot rooms side by side, so that one had to turn a corner to go from the cold to the hot zone, thus creating a heat buffer.234 The same arrangement is used by the bath in the sanctuary of Gennes (France) and the baths in Brad / Syria (3rd century CE) and in Nora / Sicily (4th century C.E.).235 The small bath in Aspendos consisting of four small barrel- or cross-vaulted rooms is perhaps the best comparison to the bath in Rehovot in the Negev. The arrangement of the three semicircular basins resembles the caldarium of the Imperial thermae of Trier.236

Typical architectural motives of the Late Roman and Byzantine Periods are frigidaria and caldaria with two niches on opposite ends of the room and a basin in frigidarium that was more decorative and no longer really usable as a pool. The decoration with mosaics and marble facing is also typical for Late Roman and Byzantine Periods. A slight increase may be stated in the number of private baths, but this may be due to the state of research. The difference in layout and decoration between the simple bath in a private house as in Zikhrin and the bath in the Procurator’s Palace in Caesarea Maritima quite clear, which is only to be expected, the architecture of the palace being more varied and the decoration more expensive.

6. Summary: The development, dating and typology of the baths and thermae in Roman Palestine According to the finds in Palestine, Hellenistic baths were built since the middle of the 2nd century BCE in the Hellenistic settlements and the palaces of the rich, flourishing in the 1st century BCE. The typical Hellenistic bath consisted of a room with a plastered or a mosaic floor and a tub. In modest baths, this room was next to the kitchen. More complex baths had their own furnace for heating water in the vicinity of the bathing room. In a group of Hellenistic baths, these rooms were found in combination with miqva’ot. This combination hints to the fact that the owners of the houses were Jews adhering to the purity requirements. The classification among Hellenistic baths can be made rather between the different levels of decoration of the bath than in typological developments. An exception is the occurrence of baths with mosaic floors showing designs, which appear only from the middle of the 1st century BCE onwards. This form of the bath was used in Palestine well into the Herodian and Early Roman Period (37 BCE to 70 CE). This might be because of the simplicity of the architecture, making it also possible for native craftsmen to build such a bath without much training. On the other hand it may be connected with the bathing method practised in those baths. The same method had been common in Palestine for a long time before the firm installation of the bathing elements (washing basin, bathing tub) and the definition of a room for bathing. Almost all of the baths of the Early Roman period are private and except for two they were built for Herod the Great, so that barely any development is discernible. The Herodian baths were built after the Italian model and the architecture, the engineering and decoration were the same as in baths from the same period in Campania. Rectangular tubuli and barrel-vaulted caldaria were found in Palestine for the first time in firmly dated buildings. But Herodian baths also had characteristics separating

Summary Two specific types of baths arise in the Byzantine Period: on the one hand the bath with a row of hot rooms, on the short sides of which rectangular frigidaria are set at right angles, as is demonstrated by the thermae of Beth Guvrin in Late Antiquity. The other group uses the block type of the simple baths combined with a large shady courtyard, taking up the functions of apodyterium and/or frigidarium. These baths seem to be more frequent in the south of Palestine. 232

Nielsen, Thermae (Piazza Amerina) Cat. No C 65, Fig. 87 – (Balneion of the brotherhood of Arvals) Cat. No 9, Fig. 54 – (Baptisterium Bath) C 7, Fig. 50 – Yegül, Fig. 411. 233 Yegül, Baths, 414 – 416, Fig. 501. 234 Nielsen, Thermae, Cat. No C 149, Fig. 142. 235 Nielsen, Thermae, Cat. No C 89, Fig. 100. - Cat. No C 381, Fig. 258 – Cat. No C 133, Fig. 13. 236 Yegül, Baths, 291, Fig. 380.

64.

ANALYSIS architecture of the large thermae reveal that layouts were preferred, which were en vogue in the whole Empire in this time, as the cruciform layout with two axes of hot and cold rooms or the “double core” plan of Yegül. Sometimes, the layouts played with existing forms, in order to attain diversity in the spatial image. The Oval hall and the Hall of Fountains in Hammat Gader are good examples of this architectural diversity. Even the smaller establishments used modern elements of thermae architecture like the rectangular room with niches on the short sides. In addition, the first examples of an individual type particularly adapted to the climate can be recognised (Hazeva). Instead of a palaestra, they have an open courtyard with deep, shady porticoes, with a large pool taking over the functions of apodyterium and caldarium, if the weather permitted. Within this bath type adapted excellently to desert conditions, only or two small rooms were used as apodyterium and frigidarium – probably only in extremely bad weather. After the Early Roman Period, the baths no longer have a palaestra in the classical sense. Yegül attributes this to the lack at interest in the exercises taking place in the palaestra that became apparent early in the eastern provinces. The place of the palaestra was frequently taken up by the courtyard (as described), perhaps because it was more appropriate for the climate. In Palestine, this courtyard was combined several times with a free standing bathhouse of the block type, a combination particularly well adapted to the dominant climatic conditions. Several times, the rooms were arranged in two groups, placing the two cold and hot rooms in rows to create a thermal barrier and avoid draft. A group of baths from the Byzantine Period, located mainly in the Negev belong to this “Southern Type”. In this type, the frigidarium disappears in favour of a room functioning as apodyterium and frigidarium at the same time. This frequently has a decorative basin or fountain, a remnant of the frigidarium, as Yegül writes.237 Some halls in larger thermae were used as apodyterium, frigidarium and lounge for resting, promenading and chatting at the same time. They may be compared to similar halls in the region. It seems that the courtyards of the larger thermae also were used as frigidarium and apodyterium and the two functions were not strictly separated. Since this seems to be a characteristic of the whole region, it is probably due to the climate. Such influence is not unusual. In the north-western provinces, the prevailing climate led to the development of heated apodyteria. The architectural motive of several rooms in a row with a frigidarium at right angles to the short sides of the hot rooms (Beth Guvrin and Mount Scopus) was quite popular in the thermae of Late Antiquity and Byzantine Period. Perhaps this was the case because it allowed for different degrees of heat in the hot rooms, while giving the possibility to quickly reach the frigidarium, thus

them from the rest of the Roman private baths. These are the combination of the miqveh with the baths and the replacement of the Roman frigidarium by the native form of the immersion pool. The mosaics, opus sectile floors, stucco decorations and wall-painting preserved in these baths correspond to the decorations known from Roman villas of the same time. The avoidance of the representation of animals and humans, replaced by geometrical designs and garden landscapes without animals, are another characteristic of Herodian baths. This is probably due to the observance of the Jewish ban on representations. The baths in Petra show the quick adaptation of the Roman method of bathing, complete with the necessary engineering and decoration techniques by the Nabateans. If the bathhouse near the monumental gateway in Petra was indeed a public bath and its dating to the 1st century CE is correct, it might be the earliest Roman public bath in Palestine. In their choice of motives for decoration, the Nabateans were not restricted to geometrical and floral art, as can be seen by the reconstructed fragments of wallpainting from the bathhouse near the monumental gateway in Petra. According to the evidence of ez-Zantur, bathing the Roman way seems to have found its way into the houses of some of the wealthy quite soon after the its introduction into the Nabatean realm. This is contrary to the findings in Judea, where the Roman style baths all belong to palaces of Herod or his retinue (Ramat HaNadiv and Hilkiya Palace). From the Imperial Period, ten baths (four of them private) are known in Palestine. The development seems to shift into the cities, where the first public thermae of Palestine are built. The bathhouses in the larger cities cannot be closely studied, because of the state of excavation, preservation and publication. They nevertheless prove that Roman public bathhouses comparable to the thermae of other provinces existed in Palestine in the 2nd century CE. The smaller establishments of Mo’a and En Gedi can be likewise compared with simpler thermae in forts and towns within the Empire, especially in the north-western provinces. The number of private baths declines in this period, since the royal family, in whose palaces most of the private baths of the former periods were built, did no longer exist. The villa baths, in particular the two baths of the villa of En Ya’el, point to the cautious development of the villa culture, as it is known from the provinces to the north of the Mediterranean. The baths are built in the row or block types. Their spatial order of three bathing units and corresponding rooms, pools in the cold and hot rooms and their decoration with mosaics and wall-painting concurs with the Roman private baths of the Imperial Period in the rest of the Empire. Palestine experienced a flourishing of the culture of bathing from the 2nd century CE onwards, which can clearly be seen in the number of baths. Quite ordinary cities now built their first bathhouse, while bigger cities often built even a second thermae during this time. The

237

65.

Yegül, Baths, 326-329.

ANALYSIS accommodating the tastes of all patrons. Frigidaria and caldaria with two niches on the opposite short sides of the room (often with semicircular pools) were a popular architectural motive in the Byzantine Period, popular within Palestine as in the whole Empire, just like the cruciform caldarium. In the Byzantine Period, a further increase in the quantity of thermae and private baths seems to point to an unusual flourishing of the bathing culture, also expressed in the manifold forms and decorations of the baths. After the Arab conquest, most bathhouses remained in use, some being restored and rebuilt, while at the same time new baths were constructed.238

238

M. Dow, The Islamic Baths of Palestine. British Academy Monographs in Archaeology 7, 1996.

66.

6. THE JEWISH BATHING LIFE ACCORDING TO THE JEWISH LITERARY EVIDENCE. The literary sources describing the Roman baths and thermae as well as the bathing life in Palestine in the centuries after Christ may be divided into the Jewish, Christian and Pagan sources. This chapter will be dealing with the Jewish sources, while the following chapter will be concerned with the remaining two kinds. The Jewish literature of the time after the destruction of the Temple consists mainly of four works, all of which are compilations of teachings and discussions of Rabbis: The earliest is the Mishnah (m), a codex trying to regulate all matters Jewish after the destruction of the Temple. Its final editorship took place around 200 CE. The next one, the Tosefta (t) was completed about 300 CE. It is an extended commentary on the Mishnah. With the completion of the Gemara, a commentary on both the Mishnah and the Tosefta, the creation of the Talmud (consisting of the Tosefta and the Gemara) was completed. The Talmud is the most influential Jewish legal code after the Torah. Two versions of the Talmud, differing slightly, were compiled in the two main Jewish intellectual centres of the period, Palestine and Babylon. The completion of the Palestine version, the Talmud Yerushalmi (yT, also known as Palestinian Talmud) is supposed to have been around 400 CE that of the Babylonian Talmud (bT, Talmud Bavli) around the turn of the 6th to the 7th century CE. The latter version is larger and has since its completion been the authoritative legal comment on the Torah. Despite this, I have (with a few exceptions) preferred to use the the Palestinian Talmud as a source for the Jewish bathing life in Palestine, since it was not only edited earlier then the Babylonian Talmud, but developed in Palestine and might thus better reflect the conditions in that country. In my opinion, all of the above mentioned sources can only be perceived as products of the time of their final edition and their editors (see discussion at the beginning of chapter 1). The anecdotes told in the Talmud Yerushalmi are particularly unreliable for discerning specific detail, while being very revealing for the general attitude.1 Usually the stories do not reflect what actually took place at a certain time in a certain bath (though they may), but rather what people thought could have happened. The anecdotes must be read in this spirit and it must be kept in mind that these anecdotes were written during a time when most of the readers would know at least one Roman bath from personal experience. It must also be remembered, that the names of the baths or of the persons

playing a role in these anecdotes are often only used to bestow authenticity to the tale. Because of their bearing on the acceptance of the Roman culture, the Jewish sources on Roman bath and bathing in the Roman and Byzantine periods have been the subject of many studies. Apart from Preuss and Krauss (already mentioned in chapter 2), whose works date to the beginning of the 20th century, the subject has since been studied extensively by several scholars. Martin Jacobs has made a very thorough investigation of most referrals to the bathing life mentioned in the Talmud. Daniel Sperber, M. R. Hanoue and E. Dvorjetski in their works are interested in selected aspects of the thermae and Seth Schwartz concentrates on the discussion of the decoration of thermae with representational art.2 1. Health and Hygienic considerations “>What are things which belong to that town?< > For example, the town square, the bath house, the synagogue, [... ] How fine are the works of this people! They have made streets, they have built bridges and they have erected baths< [...] R. Shimon b Yohai answered and said: > All what they made they made for themselves; they built marketplaces to set harlots in them; baths, to rejuvenate themselves; bridges, to levy tolls for themleave a place where we can practice idolatry and where we can

2

Jacobs, Thermenkultur – Sperber, Bathhouse – Schwartz, Gamaliel – Dvorjetski, Medicinal Baths - M. R. Hanoune, Thermes Romaines et Talmud. In: R. Chevalier, Colloque Histoire et Historiographe CLIO, Paris 1980, 255-262. 3 m, Ned 5,5 (4g), Translation Neusner. 4 bT Shab 33b, Translation Epstein, p. 156.

1

R. Saller, Anecdotes as historical evidence for the Principate. G & R 27, 1980, 69-83.

67

JEWISH BATHING LIFE hide prostitution< the result is that their credit is their discredit” 5 The bathhouses themselves are seen positively, but idolatry and prostitution were seen as integral parts of the bathhouse and as reprehensible. Other homilies show the good grasp the rabbis had of the political implications of baths: “By four methods heathen states devour [their inhabitants]: by their taxes, bath-houses, theatres and annual levies”6 The placing of bathhouses in the city centre of larger cities may be demonstrated by the following: “Like unto a servant whose master said to him But he did not tell him where [exactly] he should wait [...] near the basilica or near the bathhouse [...] or near the theatre...” 7 The terminus ‫( ינלב‬balnei) used most frequent for the Roman bath is derived from the Greek word balneion, which is no surprise, as Greek was the lingua franca of the eastern part of the Empire. Other words describing private bathhouses used against a fee (balneae privatae in Latin) were derived from the Hebrew (like ‫ )ץחרמ‬or from the Latin (‫ = הטבירפ‬privata)8

“Said R. Yonathan: > The biceps of Jacob were like the two columns in the public bath in Tiberiasthe place of the bath manager is sold, and the place of the bathing attendant is not sold. If [the seller] says to [the buyer]: “the [bathhouse] and everything that is therein [I sell to you”, everything is sold]. Even if [the seller] says to [the buyer]”the [ bath ] and everything that is therein”, in no case he sells the water reservoirs used in the summer or in the rainy season, and not the firewood depot [ If the seller] says to [the buyer] “I sell to you [the bathhouse] and all its [installations for] use” they are all sold.indefinite things are in honour of the emperor. < The Rabbis however say: >indefinite things are an adornment of the city.