| 3 Roman Baths: an Alternate Mode of Viewing the Evidence
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Roman Baths: An Alternate Mode of Viewing the Evidence Tanya Henderson, University of Alberta Roman baths are an important component in furthering our knowl- edge of Roman social life. They functioned as more than just a locus for cleansing the body. Currently, the literary sources provide the | 3 most details about the various social activities that occurred in the baths. However, where these activities took place within the com- plexes remains unclear. Archaeological reports do not adequately address how the rooms functioned. The argument presented here outlines some of the problems with the current methodology for ex- amining room function in room baths. Then, using the site of Ham- mat Gader in Israel, introduces a different mode of viewing the evi- dence. The activities that occurred in Roman baths are significant in under- standing Roman social life. The baths were the setting for more than just cleansing the body and a variety of ball games, wrestling, eating and other social activities took place within the baths.1 Literary sources, such as Pliny the Younger, Martial and Juvenal, all provide us with accounts of life at the baths.2 Yet, while there is an abun- 1 For ball games see: Petronius, Sat., 27; Mart., Epig. 14.47 and 7.32. For wrestling see Juv., 6.422-423. For eating see Sen., Ep. 56.2. 2 For a complete list of literary sources that mention the baths and to realize the sheer volume of literary evidence see I. Nielsen, Thermae et Balnea (Aarhus, Den- Past Imperfect 13 (2007) | © | ISSN 1192-1315 dance of literary evidence that provides a general idea as to what these activities were, it is still unclear as to where these activities took place within the bath complex. These sources also focus on the elite in Rome and do not inform about practices in other parts of the empire, such as North Africa, the western provinces or the eastern provinces. 4 | Analyses using the physical evidence, which can provide in- formation on the function of various rooms within the complex, tend to focus on the specialized features of the baths, such as the hypo- caust system to determine room function based on the relative posi- tion of the rooms to a heat source. They do not examine the artefact assemblage. Once labels, such as caldarium, tepidarium, and frigi- darium are applied, based on the rooms’ location with respect to the primary source of heat for heating the baths, room function is as- sumed and not explored further. These labels do not offer an ade- quate representation of what activities took place within these rooms but presume that the application of ancient terminology is sufficient to explain how the rooms functioned. One of the problems with ap- plying ancient terminology is that our current understanding of these terms is not equivalent to the ancient Roman’s concept of these terms. Caution must be applied when using these terms and a clear description of what these terms constitutes delineated in order to fa- cilitate a modern conception of these terms in respect to room func- tion. In order to arrive at a better understanding of how the baths were used I propose to outline an alternate mode of viewing the ma- terial evidence that will take into consideration more than just the architecture to provide a more complete understanding of the social mark: Aarhus University Press, 1990), I:195-203 and G.G. Fagan, Bathing in Public in the Roman World (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1999), 413-430. Past Imperfect 13 (2007) | © | ISSN 1192-1315 activities that took place in Roman baths. I have chosen the site of Hammat Gader, in Israel, as the case study for my argument. The excavation report on Hammat Gader, excavated by a team of archae- ologists supervised by Yizhar Hirschfeld includes the artefact as- semblage with provenance of finds recorded by rooms. Unfortu- nately, there is no comparative data with which to compare the site, as many bath publications do not include the artefact assemblages | 5 and instead focus on the architecture. The purpose of this study is to challenge scholars in the field to look at the physical evidence, rather than the literature to determine what activities took place in the baths. The choice of Hammat Gader, a site far from Rome and in a periphery province that did not easily succumb to the trappings of Roman culture, provides an excellent opportunity to determine if there were any regional variations in the use of bath complexes across the Roman empire. What would further facilitate this study is the existence of a similar study of baths in Rome itself, as such a study does not currently exist, the premise behind my argument will be that the literary accounts, focused on Rome, provide an accurate representation of the bathing culture in Rome. I will examine the physical evidence from Hammat Gader to see if there are any simi- larities or differences in the use of the structure as compared to a so- called “typical” Roman bath. First, how room function is currently approached in baths in the Roman world will be summarized with specific attention to how the archaeological evidence is used to assign labels to the various rooms. What is the process by which the various activities that oc- curred within the baths get assigned to specific rooms in the com- plex? Is there a process? Defining this process is a crucial component of the study presented here. Is the current approach adequate to an- swer specific questions, such as was the consumption of food limited Past Imperfect 13 (2007) | © | ISSN 1192-1315 to certain areas or were there only certain rooms in which the patrons could apply special oils and unguents? Is more than one approach used to determine room function? What are the limitations of these approaches? Once these questions have been addressed I will apply a new mode of viewing the evidence, using the bath complex at Ham- mat Gader as an example. I hope that this will add to the current un- 6 | derstanding of room function in Roman baths. There are two types of evidence used to determine room function in Roman baths: the ancient sources, which include both literary works and epigraphic material; and the material remains, which include the architecture, decoration and artefact assemblages. The literary evidence receives more consideration than the archaeo- logical evidence in determining what activities occurred in the baths.3 Therefore, I will address the literary evidence first. The Literary Evidence The literary evidence provides information not possible to arrive at from the physical remains of the structures themselves. Authors such as Martial, Seneca and Pliny the Younger as well as graffiti allow us glimpses not only of daily habits in the baths, but also of some of the more sinister elements associated with the baths such as violence, prostitution and over indulgence in food and drink. 4 Our concept of the standard bathing routine developed from the sources. This is the all too familiar traditional order described in a number of handbooks 3 See for example Fagan, Bathing in Public, 12-39. Fagan relies only upon the liter- ary evidence to answer the sociohistorical questions he raises, see Fagan, Bathing in Public, 10. 4 On violence see Pliny, Ep. 3.14. For prostitution see CIL 4.10675, 4.10676, 4.10677 and 4.10678. For over indulgence of food see Mart., Epig. 12.19. For drunken behaviour see Mart., Epig. 12.70; Sen., Ep.122.6; Pliny, NH. 14.139; and Quint., Inst. 1.6.44. Past Imperfect 13 (2007) | © | ISSN 1192-1315 on Roman daily and social life.5 First, the bather works up a sweat either by exercising or by sitting in one of the hot steam rooms. Then, an oil is applied and strigilled off. Finally, the bather takes a dip in a cold-water pool to tone the body, finishing off the bathing experience.6 Although the literary sources mention a number of dif- ferent activities that occurred within the baths7 these do not factor into the custom of bathing but remain subsidiary to the above- | 7 mentioned routine. Indeed, it is only J. Carcopino, who cites an al- ternate Lacedaemonian bathing routine mentioned but not described by Martial.8 Medical authors, such as Celsus and Galen, suggest various therapeutic hydrotherapies that also do not follow the ‘traditional’ order of bathing.9 Are these other routines not a part of the whole experience? Are the subsidiary activities, such as ball games, eating, drinking and fornicating not a part of the experience? Would the per- formance of these activities obstruct the regular sequence of bathing? Where did these activities occur? At any point in time, there could be any number of patrons utilizing the baths in any number of ways. Yet no study addresses the flow and movement of the people in the baths. Studies on the experience of the bathers remove the bathers from the 5 See for example J. Carcopino, Daily Life in Ancient Rome, trans. E. O. Lorimer (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1940) 260-1; J.P.V.D. Balsdon, Life and Lei- sure in Ancient Rome (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1969), 29; and F. Dupont, Daily Life in Ancient Rome, trans. C. Woodall (Oxford: Blackwell, 1992), 264. In which, only Carcopino cites Martial as evidence for alternate bathing routes, see Mart., Epig. 5.42. 6 This traditional method of bathing developed from the following sources: Pliny, NH 28.55; Petronius, Sat. 28; and Mart., Epig. 5.42. 7 See for example, Lib., Or.