chapter 4 Continuity and Change in Late Antique Public Baths and Bathing Habits

Architecture (chapter 2). Authors such as Ammianus Marcellinus, the Scriptores Historia Augusta, Ausonius (all 4th c.) or Plans of the Baths Olympiodorus (5th c.) mention the limited construction Even if there existed certain common characteristics in in the Urbs at the beginning of 4th c. and the subsequent the layout, architecture and technical aspects of Roman restorations of existing buildings later that century. The bathhouses all over the empire (see chapter 1), modern inscriptions pertaining to imperial type baths (e.g. EI-2; scholars have discerned certain regional characteristics 45; 46) also commemorate restorations, and not a funda- of baths.1 There is no reason to assume that for Late mentis building for that matter. Antiquity, with its divergent historical trajectories for The situation is very similar for other regions. There each region, these characteristic features disappeared in are no new imperial type baths built in North Africa. favour of a standard type of ‘late antique bathhouse’. If The so-called Unfinished Baths at Leptis Magna may we want to study the architecture—and indeed all other have been an exceptional attempt, but as their name in- aspects—of late antique baths, it is first necessary to dicates, the project was never completed. In Carthage, look at the remains on a regional level, before attempt- the Antonine Baths were kept in use (EA-31). The ing to distil any conclusions on an empire-wide level. Thermae Maximianae mentioned by Jerome,2 inau- Furthermore, we should not forget the chronological gurated in the same year as the Baths of Diocletian in evolution within each regional dataset when comparing Rome (AD 302), might have pertained to restoration the remains. works on the Antonine Baths. If this passage refers to a new bathhouse, the fact that they were commissioned Imperial Type by Maximianus, an Augustus during the Tetrarchy, does The so-called ‘imperial type’ bathhouse, not to be con- not necessarily imply that the layout was of the imperial fused with imperially funded baths (which in theory type. The same can be said for the several attestations could have any type of layout), was only built in the larg- of imperially funded baths found in the written sources est cities of the empire. For the Italian Peninsula, their (literature, laws and inscriptions). The numerous baths construction was also restricted to the early decades built by Justinian in the reconquered territories—as of the 4th c., when the emperors still resided there. It recounted by Procopius (see chapter 2)—could hardly is hardly surprising that cities of imperial residence have been of the imperial type. In none of the archaeo- such as Rome (C21, C22), Aquileia (C1) and Milan (C5) logical sites mentioned by Procopius have imperial type were equipped with new ‘palaces of the people’. One baths of the 6th c. been found. can speculate if such baths were also constructed in In Cyrenaica, there are no examples of imperial type Ravenna once it became the new administrative capital bathhouses, not even for the High Empire. Even in larg- in the early 5th c., or if an existing bathhouse was re- er cities such as Cyrene and Ptolemais, the late antique stored or perhaps enlarged. The same question can be bloom did not result in the construction of imperial type asked for the reign of Theoderic in the first half of the baths. In Palestina, the late antique ‘monumentalisation’ 6th c. The construction of several modest bathhouses of Caesarea Maritima did not entail the construction of (C18, C19, C20) demonstrates that the bathing habit was imperial type baths. However, with the construction of far from extinguished at this time, yet it remains doubt- the Western Baths (C115) in Scythopolis, at least one new ful whether the construction of a new imperial bath imperial type bathhouse was built in this prosperous re- was financially possible or even advisable. Considering gion. We should nevertheless note that with its 3,200 m2, the modest size of the population and the continued the Western Baths could not compete with the sump- existence of several earlier baths, a restoration and em- tuous double symmetrical thermae found in Rome or bellishment programme may have sufficed to gain the Carthage. It is also good to remember that the imperial favour of the people. Such a programme seems to have type was the exception rather than the rule, even during been enacted in other large cities such as Rome and the High Empire. The historical trajectory of Cyrenaica, Ostia. This is confirmed not only by the archaeological Egypt and Palestina, in particular the impact of Roman remains, but also by the literary and epigraphic evidence urban concepts, may partially explain the small number

1 See for example Brödner (1983), Nielsen (1993a) or Yegül (1992). 2 Jer. Ab Abr. 2317.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��20 | doi:��.��63/9789004419421_006 184 chapter 4 of imperial type thermae in these rather prosperous abandonment of the imperial baths followed a more regions.3 The long urban history that preceded Roman general decline of the urban fabric. rule may have made it more difficult for Roman urban concepts, and especially baths as a Roman flagship, to be Row Type and Ring Type embraced.4 However, it is possible that an imperial type The row type was the most common choice in each of bath may still lie buried underneath the streets of mod- the discussed regions. The popularity for this linear suc- ern Jerusalem or Benghazi. The texts of John Malalas cession of the main bathing rooms lay in its simplicity (chapter 2, p. 61–63) remind us that emperors still saw and its adaptability to the spatial constraint imposed the upkeep and restoration of (large) baths as an impor- by the surrounding urban fabric. The application of tant aspect of their benevolence, especially in the larger this type goes back to the oldest Republican examples.6 cities such as Antioch and Alexandria. Indeed, for many baths that were inserted in an existing In Egypt, the only imperial type bath built in Late insula, the linear (or axial) layout of the rooms offered Antiquity was located in Alexandria (C77). This pros- an obvious solution for fitting all of the rooms into a pre- perous harbour town was the central hub for trade in defined space (e.g. C3, C11, C23, C35, C57, C67). The paral- Egyptian grain. The Kom al-Dikka baths were possi- lel row type was especially suited for rectangular spaces bly not the only imperial type baths in the city (C78?), (e.g. C16, C41, C86). It had the advantage over the ring but so far the examples of the High Empire remain to type that it did not need an exit-tepidarium between the be found. Two more imperial type baths were found in caldarium and the frigidarium. In the eastern regions, Egypt, one in Thebes (near the temple of Karnak) and the linear arrangement of the rooms was combined with one in Antinopolis (now vanished). The baths in Thebes a square or rectangular courtyard to form a specific ‘east- were only abandoned in the late 4th c., when the entire ern’ layout (e.g. C65, C73, C89, C98, C109). The fact that neighbourhood was in decline. Other cities in Egypt may the row types could be heated by a single furnace, placed also have had imperial types, although, in the so-called in the axis of the rooms, was an additional advantage. extinct cities where much of the city fabric has been This was especially useful in regions with a limited fuel mapped, such as Hermopolis Magna, no large structures supply and for small and fortress baths (e.g. C74, C100, that may be interpreted as imperial type thermae have C101, C106, fortress baths in Taucheira and Yotvata). come to light. Papyrological evidence mentions several The ring type became popular from the second half baths named after an emperor in Oxyrhynchus (see P-2; of the 1st c. AD onwards, probably to improve the cir- 10) and possibly Panopolis (see P-18), yet there is no way culation within the baths, by adding an exit-tepidarium of knowing whether these had an imperial type layout. between the caldarium and the frigidarium.7 It was Even if the construction of imperial type baths with- often used when there was a large building plot avail- ered after the 4th c., it would be wrong to assume that in- able. This type of layout was especially popular in habitants of the late antique city did not bathe in these North Africa, where they were often constructed in new luxurious thermae any more. On the contrary, in impor- neighbourhoods created during the Roman ‘monumen- tant cities (administrative capitals, regional centres), the talisation’ of a city.8 The type was rather uncommon in imperial baths, often prestige projects financed by the the rest of the Roman West.9 This trend continued in emperors themselves, had a better chance of being re- Late Antiquity. The number of ring types in the Italian stored by the grace of the emperors than the more mod- Peninsula is very low (C32?), even if some baths from the est neighbourhood baths (see the epigraphic evidence). High Empire might still have been in use (e.g. Curinga, Furthermore, large cities could also afford to send en- Misterbianco). In North Africa, Cyrenaica and Egypt, the voys to the emperor asking to repair or built baths. The type is more common (C36, C37, C49, C59). Sometimes construction and subsequent restoration of the impe- this layout was even chosen when the available building rial type can be seen in Aquileia, Milan, Ostia, Rome, space was rather restricted and a row type might have several North African cities, Alexandria, Scythopolis been the more sensible choice (e.g. C61, C64). In Egypt, and even further east in Syria, Lebanon5 and of course several baths were transformed from a ring or row type Constantinople (see the evidence of the Zeuxippos in a double (angular) row type (C75A to C75B–C, C91, Baths in chapter 2). In each of these cases, the eventual C92). Such double baths, which could be double from the start (C76, C89, C90, C95), seems to be an original

3 Only three in Egypt (see below) and only two in Palestina (Western and Eastern Baths in Scythopolis). 6 Staccioli (1958) 273–74; Yegül (1981) 109–110. 4 For Egypt see Redon (2017b); for Palestina see Hoss (2005) 92–99; 7 Thébert (2003) 121. for the Middle East in general see Fournet (2012b). 8 Nielsen (1993a) 90–91; Thébert (2003) 355–57. 5 See Fournet (2012b). 9 Thébert (2003) 358.