The Genesis of the Roman Public Bath: Recent Approaches and Future Directions Author(S): Garrett G

The Genesis of the Roman Public Bath: Recent Approaches and Future Directions Author(s): Garrett G. Fagan Source: American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 105, No. 3 (Jul., 2001), pp. 403-426 Published by: Archaeological Institute of America Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/507363 . Accessed: 20/03/2013 21:46 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Archaeological Institute of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Journal of Archaeology. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 132.206.27.25 on Wed, 20 Mar 2013 21:46:17 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The Genesis of the Roman Public Bath: Recent Approaches and Future Directions GARRETT G. FAGAN Abstract strengths and weaknesses but also future directions The problem of the origins and early development of for further research. the Roman public bath has proven an intractableone for Before proceeding, it must be appreciated that classical In the absence of hard ancient archaeologists. the main problem facing an investigation into the evidence, modern have been for- many propositions put of Roman baths is the of source ward to explain the process of development. In this pa- early history sparsity per, the six most influential of these approaches are pre- material, so that a handful of available archaeologi- sented and critiqued for their strengths and weaknesses. cal sites has tended to be used as a basis for extrap- It is found that none is in to sufficient itself explain the olating general schemes of early development. The of the bath but that most ad- appearance Roman-style issue of typicality has usually not been seriously vance the analysis in some measure. Consideration of considered.2 either has the often bypassed literary and epigraphic material is Similarly, literary testimony also included to help identify the third and second cen- been glossed over or addressed only in the most turyB.C. as the crucial period in the historyof this build- general fashion.3 The epigraphic evidence, which evolution. it is that the case for ing type's Finally, argued derives from a period when bathing culture appears Campania remains the strongest, but not (as often well entrenched in Roman life, is largely uninfor- claimed) as the where Roman baths place exclusively mative as to but offers docu- evolved. Rather, Campania provided an apt context for origins contemporary the final appearance of an architectural genre that had mentary evidence as to use and construction from demonstrable roots extending farther afield and deeper the late second century B.C. onward. Overall, these into the directions for future research past. Throughout, difficulties inherent in the early evidence have re- are suggested.* sulted in a greater latitude for varied modern in- terpretations. In the recent surge of work on Roman baths, the In any investigation, it is essential to be clear what problem of origins and early development ranks one is looking for. The truly vital question, there- high among the most contentious and insoluble fore, is what constituted a Roman-style public bath issues.' In the absence of a consensus, a variety of in contrast to, for example, a Greek one. Two fea- propositions has been advanced to explain the tures define the Roman bath: first, it comprises gra- unusual form of the typical Roman bath, with its dations of heat in a clear sequence of rooms (usual- system of variously heated rooms and communal ly termed in modern studies frigidarium, tepidari- bathing pools. It is the purpose of this paper to um, caldarium) that channels the bather purpose- collate, present, and analyze these propositions, fully from one room to the next; second, the Ro- and thereby help identify not only their individual man-style bath features heated communal bathing *I would like to thank the Researchand GraduateStudies en 1993; Pasquinucci1987; Weber 1996;Yegul 1992. There Office and the Institutefor the Artsand HumanisticStudies at have also been numerous articles on the subject, especially Penn StateUniversity for supportingthe researchfor thispaper those byDeLaine 1988, 1989,1992,1993,1999. (Mostof these with substantialfunding in the summer of 1998. Partsof this worksfeature discussions of the problemof originsand willbe paper were deliveredorally at variousinstitutions and profes- referred to in more detail below.) In 1993 the International sional meetings, and I thank all the commentatorsfor their Associationfor the StudyofAncient Baths was established, and input.Various colleagues read earlierversions of the paper (or two international conferences on Roman baths have been partsof it) and offered insightfuland substantialcomments, staged in 1992 and 1996. DeLaine (1988, 14; 1993, 354-5) notablyP.B. HarveyJr.,RJ.A. Wilson, and the editor and two has briefly surveyedthe disagreement over the question of anonymousreferees of the AJA.My thanks also go to A.I. Wil- origins. 2 son, N. DeHaan, H. Manderscheid,and A.O. Koloski-Ostrow For a lengthier discussionof the evidence for the baths for assistancewith bibliography,illustrations, and other mat- and the difficultiesof interpretingit, see Fagan 1999b. ters. None of the above, naturally,are responsiblefor any er- 3E.g.,Yegul (1992, 48-91) verybriefly surveys the testimo- rorsthat remain. ny of Plautus,Varro, Livy, and otherswho allude to earlybath- 'The mainworks are: Brodner 1992; DeLaine 1997; DeLaine ing conditions (infra,pp. 419-21). In contrast,Nielsen (1993, andJohnston 1999; Ecole francaise de Rome 1991; Fagan 1:6-36, esp. 1:28-30) addressesthis evidence more fully but 1999a;Heinz 1984;Manderschied 1988; Merten 1983;Niels- withoutclose criticalanalysis. 403 AmericanJournal ofArchaeology105 (2001) 403-26 This content downloaded from 132.206.27.25 on Wed, 20 Mar 2013 21:46:17 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 404 GARRETT G. FAGAN [AJA 105 pools (termed solia or alvei).4 It would be fair to say that a truly Roman bath cannot be identified unless both of these elements are present in conjunction. The search for origins must not therefore become sidetracked by optional secondary features that came to be associated with Roman baths as they developed, such as exercise grounds, (palaestrae), sweat baths (sudatoria or laconica), strigiling rooms (destrictaria), ball courts (sphaeristeria), or open-air pools (natationes or piscinae). All of these elements are indeed found in Roman baths, but they are not in themselves defining features of those baths. What is characteristic of Roman practice is communal bathing in heated pools deployed in a sequential arrangement of heated rooms. For the proper func- tioning of this sort of bathing establishment, the underfloor heating technique called the hypocaust (termed suspensura)5 proved to be particularly ef- fective. The suspensura raised the entire floor on pillars and, in a subsequent development, rendered 0 10_ the walls hollow to produce rooms all but lined with _j - surfaces radiating heat. So many Roman baths fea- mnn ture a version of the that the first suspensura ap- 1. of the "ThermalEstablishment." of the has been considered Fig. Gortys.Groundplan pearance hypocaust by (After Ginouves 1959, fig. 187) many researchers as synonymous with the genesis of the Roman-style bath itself. This is certainly the nored the question of the hypocaust in the Stabian case with those who propose Sergius Orata or the Baths.8 In reality, Orata's contribution to the devel- Greeks as the progenitors of the form. opmental process is a moot point: a full suspensura has been identified in the Stabian Baths well be- THE HYPOCAUST, SERGIUS ORATA, AND THE fore Orata; the physical evidence from Greek sites GREEK CONNECTION demonstrates that a form of the hypocaust existed Until quite recently, the issue of the origins of up to 150 years before his activities; and there is Roman baths did not appear to be an issue at all. underlying uncertainty in identifying Orata's pen- Ancient literary notices about a certain Sergius siles balineae with the hypocaust in the first place. Orata seemed conclusive: Orata, living near Baiae Indeed, there is reason to suspect that Orata's de- in Campania in the early first century B.C., is re- vice had nothing to do with human bathing at all.9 ported to have invented pensiles balineae (literally, The greatest challenge to Orata's central role in "hanging baths") which he fitted into villas to great developing the hypocaust came from R. Ginouves, profit.6 In the minds of many the pensiles balineae who, in two influential studies, argued that the were none other than the hypocaust, leading to the Greeks had created the hypocaust and, along with conclusion that Roman baths must have appeared it, the style of bathing commonly ascribed to the in Campania after Sergius Orata.7 The Stabian Baths Romans. On this view, the Romans, as in so many at Pompeii, with their second-century B.C. hypoc- other cultural respects, merely took over a form from aust predating Orata, generally did not feature in the Greeks, elaborated it, and built on a larger the discussion. The literary sources seemed clear scale.'? For Ginouves, Orata did no more than in- enough, and some proponents of Orata's role ig- troduce this heating system to the Romans, or tam- 4See DeLaine1988, 15-6; Heinz 1984,51;Yegul 1992, 33-5. detailsare unclear. 5See Sen. Ep.90.25; Vitr. De arch.5.10.2.

Load more