Revue belge de philologie et

d'histoire

Research on Roman bathing: old models and new ideas

Sadi Maréchal

Citer ce document / Cite this document :

Maréchal Sadi. Research on Roman bathing: old models and new ideas. In: Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire, tome
90, fasc. 1, 2012. Antiquité - Oudheid. pp. 143-164;

doi : https://doi.org/10.3406/rbph.2012.8393

https://www.persee.fr/doc/rbph_0035-0818_2012_num_90_1_8393

Fichier pdf généré le 18/04/2018

 Research on Roman bathing:
old models and new ideas

Sadi MARÉCHAL›
Ghent University

Like all research concerning the accomplishments of past civilizations,

especially in the Greco-Roman world when dealing with the so-called roots of
western civilization, the study of Roman bath houses has long been influenced
by the dominant scientific climate. Different accents and preferences for
specific models have been put forward according to the nationality of the
scholars, their archaeological or historical school and even the political climate
of their time. The shift from an architectural and art-historical interest to a
more functional, technical and even symbolic approach to Roman baths is an
example of how classical archaeology has freed itself from the old paradigms
put forward by the ‘Altertumswissenschaften’. The aim of this paper is to put
archaeological research on Roman bath houses in its historical perspective,
by re-examining the old models in the light of the new evidence. Thus we
can assess in what way these old theories influenced our current ideas and
knowledge and how they continue to shape the direction of future research.

Old theories, new conclusions

A re-evaluation of former theories enables us to discern not only the

underlying ideological backgrounds and possible shortcomings in these lines
of thought, but also their strong points and undeniable influence on further
research. It is worth remembering that these theories preceded and influenced
all subsequent studies, beginning a process of scientific investigation and
reassessment of the evidence. I will now briefly survey the three main focal
points of past research.

The ‘architectural habit’

It is remarkable how the majority of early works about Roman bathing

habits tend to focus on architectural features, including the adornment of

› I am grateful to prof. dr. F. Vermeulen (Ghent University), prof. Dr. K. Verboven

(Ghent University) and dr. P. Johnson (University of Southampton) for their comments
and corrections.

Revue Belge de Philologie et d’Histoire / Belgisch Tijdschrift voor Filologie en Geschiedenis, 90, 2012, p. 143-164
144 S. MARÉCHAL

the buildings. The works of authors like E. Pfretzschner (1), D. Krencker (2)
– launching his famous typology of ground plans – or G. De Angelis
d’Ossat (3) stressed (even overstressed) the architectural component of the
bathing phenomenon (4). The same tendency, unfortunately, found its way into
the excavation reports, thus steering research along the same old architectural
lane while ignoring, and therefore losing, valuable information about other
aspects of the structure, such as the type of fuel used in the furnaces, the
position of the building within the fabric of the town or reuse in the Late
Antiquity (5).
Moreover, the first half of the 20th century was characterized by a strong
political influence on scientific research. In an era when archaeology was
frequently abused for propaganda purposes, to boost national pride with
indisputable proof of a glorious past, only grand buildings and fine pieces of
art were considered valuable.
On the other hand, there was also the undeniable influence of the
‘Altertumswissenschaft’, strongly based in the classical literary tradition.
Archaeologists turned to ancient Latin texts (especially Vitruvius’ De
Architectura) for interpreting surviving structures, while classical philologists
set out to excavate and find confirmation of their beloved authors (6). The
contributions of these ancient texts to our understanding of the bathing
phenomenon can of course not be neglected. But, a better communication
between archaeologists and philologists could help to resolve some of the
questions for which these disciplines on their own cannot find an answer.
Archaeology, for example, can never fully grasp the atmosphere inside a bath
house while ancient texts do not explain why tubuli were a more cost-effective
heating method than tegulae mammatae.
This strong inclination towards architecture is also mirrored in the type
of bath houses that were considered most interesting. Reading early general
works on Roman baths (7), it soon becomes obvious that the grand imperial
thermae occupied a privileged position in the literature and focus of research
at the time. These ‘palais du peuple’, as P. Gros calls them (8), still occupy
a considerable part in any general monograph on Roman baths or Roman
architecture. This is hardly surprising, considering their enormous impact on
the evolution of bath buildings (9) and on Roman architecture as a whole,

(1) PFRETZSCHNER 1909.

(2) K RENCKER and K RUEGER, 1929.
(3) DE A NGELIS D’OSSAT, 1943.
(4) Even in more recent works on Roman bathing, this architectural concern still
prevails, cf. BRÖDNER, 1983, HEINZ, 1983, NIELSEN, 1993a, although more attention is
being paid to other aspects, see infra.
(5) A concern shared by the vast majority of scholars, cf. DELAINE, 1988, p. 12;
NIELSEN, 1993a, p. 2; FAGAN, 1999, p. 8, 56 or more recently BROISE, 2009, p. 10.
(6) DELAINE, 2007, p. 30.
(7) See for example the works cited under notes 1, 2 and 3.
(8) GROS, 1996, p. 398.
(9) BRÖDNER, 1983, p. 48-74; HEINZ, 1983, p. 61-143; A DAM, 1984, p. 294-99; YEGÜL,
1992, p. 128-83 ; NIELSEN, 1993a, p. 43-59; LENOIR, 1995, p. 68-76; GROS, 1996, p. 394-405;
WEBER ,1996, p. 75-96; FAGAN, 1999, p. 58 and esp. note 61; THÉBERT, 2003, p. 104-08.
 RESEARCH ON ROMAN BATHING: OLD MODELS AND NEW IDEAS 145

especially as a testing ground for new ideas, experimenting with concrete,

vaulting and arches (10).
Luckily, however, scholars in recent decades have also started to pay
attention to the smaller city baths (11), often called balneae (12), revealing
that these ‘edifici termali minori’ were actually the most representative and
also the most frequent forms in which the bathing phenomenon manifested
itself. Thus exaggerated claims, for example that the lack of an imperial type
of ground plan in city baths meant a failure of imperial propaganda and
Romanization, can also be refuted (13). Other types of bath houses such as
private bathing suites in domestic contexts, military baths or thermal spas
have also been gaining more importance in recent studies (14).

Problems of terminology

A problem that has been closely related to this ‘architectural habit’ concerns
the intricate matter of terminology. In particular, a heated debate evolved
around two terms already mentioned above, i.e. thermae and balneae, and
also around the use of proper Latin names to indicate the different rooms.
P. Gros made an important point when he warned against a generalized
use of the word thermae, which ignores the great diversity in Roman
bath buildings (15). A convincing argument can be made that the existence
in antiquity of a wide variety of terms renders it too difficult, and maybe
unnecessary, to establish a strict distinction between the many Latin names
used to indicate bath buildings (16), especially since there is no evidence that
the Romans themselves cared about the differences between or nuances in
the words employed. Moreover, scholars have not always acknowledged the
role of different dialects in Latin, the evolution of the language, and the
dichotomy between written and spoken language, in handling the issue of
terminology. Just as in French, where both ‘piscine’ and ‘bassin de natation’
are used for a swimming pool, Latin probably used different words for
similar buildings (17).

(10) YEGÜL, 1992, p. 2. ‘Since baths were not based on the iteration of an archi-
tectonic unit or formal concept, the whole apparatus of traditional classicism was
fractured.’(M ACDONALD, 1986, p. 217). On the importance of bath buildings in Roman
architecture, see also works cited under n. 9.
(11) On small city baths, see the early work of STACCIOLI 1958 & 1961 and more
recently YEGÜL, 1981a.
(12) On the terminology of bath buildings, see infra.
(13) As proposed by E. Lenoir as late as in 1995 (p. 69)!
(14) On the new research on private and thermal baths, see infra.
(15) GROS, 1996, p. 388.
(16) Besides thermae and baleae, the following terms are also found in Latin texts
and inscriptions: balineae, balneolum(-a), balnearia, lavacra. See GROS, 1996, p. 388-89.
(17) HEINZ, 1982, p. 28. For criticism about our knowledge of the Latin language,
see FAGAN, 1996, p. 63 (esp. on the term ‘pensiles balineae’, also infra) and R EBUFFAT,
1991, p. 7.
146 S. MARÉCHAL

Nevertheless, it seems obvious that at least at some point in Roman

history, a difference was made between thermae and balnea, even if their
meaning has been interpreted in various ways in modern research. A definition
according to the presence of a palaestra (only at thermae) (18) or based on the
symmetry (thermae) or asymmetry (balneae) of the ground plan (19) seems
artificial and, in my view, highly unsatisfactory. Using the scale of the
building as a parameter may seem obvious when comparing the magnificent
palaces of the capital with some small and dark buildings of a provincial
town (20), but the striking variety in surface of some of these smaller buildings
proves otherwise. The most likely hypothesis is that of G. Fagan who claims
that balneae probably meant simple, poorly or undecorated bath houses,
while thermae pointed to the luxurious, state-of-the-art bathing suites (21).
This idea is supported by the fact that the word thermae only appears in the
1st century AD and could thus be a neologism to designate a new way of
bathing inspired by the new grand ‘imperial’ bath houses.
Not only the words thermae and balneae have been the object of discus-
sion. Scholars also found it difficult to come to an agreement about the names
of the separate rooms of the building. Especially the difference between
heated rooms of surviving structures is sometimes hard to translate into
proper terminology. D. Krencker created his own classification for heated
rooms using the Roman numerals I, II & III (22). Other scholars mainly used
the Latin terms tepidarium, laconicum, sudatorium, caldarium, solarium, or
simply described its probable function (23). R. Rebuffat rightly pleaded against
desperately trying to attribute Latin names to these rooms, because not all
characteristic components are always present and different names could be
used to indicate the same rooms (24). Applying the definitions of ancient
writers can be hazardous, as they offer divergent solutions, adding to the
problem that it can be difficult to distinguish the norm from the exception (25).
The best solution seems to be simply to describe the features of the room
(e. g. a room heated with hypocaust system), accompanied by a ground plan
where the features are translated into symbols rather than abbreviations (26).

(18) NIELSEN, 1993a, p. 3.

(19) NIELSEN, 1993a, p. 3 (who specifies nevertheless only the asymmetry of balneae);
BOËTHIUS and WARD-PERKINS, 1970, p. 164.
(20) YEGÜL, 1992, p. 43 (although tending more towards luxury in the concise version
of his work, YEGÜL, 2010, p. 48.
(21) FAGAN, 1999, p. 17-18 (based mainly on literary evidence, esp. Martial).
(22) K RENCKER and K RUEGER, 1929, p. 184-85.
(23) For an overview of the terminology used for the different components of a
Roman bath house, see GINOUVÈS, 1998, p. 100-110.
(24) R EBUFFAT, 1991, p. 6-7.
(25) DELAINE, 1999, p. 10.
(26) For an example of such symbols, see the figures and plates in M ANDERSCHEID,
2009. However, as with the vocabulary, an attempt should be made at standardizing these
symbols. For an English standard terminology on stoke holes and furnaces, see NIELSEN,
1993b, p. 3.
 RESEARCH ON ROMAN BATHING: OLD MODELS AND NEW IDEAS 147

The origins-debate

The debate on the origins of Roman bath houses and by extension the
bathing habits associated with them is one of the most fiercely fought
battles in research. It has been, until this day, mainly inspired by ideological
motives, attributing to such a “peculiarly Roman cultural phenomenon with
few parallels” (27) a ‘foreign’ (i.e. Greek) or ‘local’ (i.e. Italic) origin. The
two main lines of thought that have arisen focus either on Campania and
especially the Phlegreian Fields, or on Greece and Magna Graecia as the
breeding ground for the Roman bathing habit. The moment at which the
hypocaust system was introduced as a new method of heating bathing suites,
plays a central role in this debate.
Not surprisingly, the idea of a local ‘Italian’ origin was put forward in the
early 20th century by Italian scholars such as I. Sgobbo (28), F. Di Capua (29)
and B. Crova (30). They argued that the exceptional natural conditions of the
Campi Flegrei, combined with a favorable location between Rome and the
Hellenized south of the peninsula, were the single most important driving
force behind the development of the Roman bath building (31). In particular
the presence of natural steam and hot water for the development of the
hypocaust system was stressed, not necessarily ignoring or denying influences
from outside Italy (32).
The biggest problem with this theory is the fact that most of the arguments
are based on literary evidence from the imperial age. Without securely dated
archaeological remains Italian researchers found a precious ally in Latin
literature, which names a certain C. Sergius Orata as inventor of pensiles
balineae (33), to confirm that a ‘cittadino romano’(34) was responsible for the
invention that was considered the most important characteristic of Roman
bath houses. Even in recent research Orata’s role as an inventor or more
commonly as the one who introduced, disseminated or improved the system
still finds support (35), despite G. Fagan’s convincing counter-arguments (36).
Following the excavations of some Hellenistic-style bath houses in
Greece, Sicily and even Lazio, criticism of these Campanian origins arose.
Especially important was the work of R. Ginouvès (37) who demonstrated the
existence of a Greek public bathing culture and a primitive form of floor

(27) DELAINE, 1999, p. 7.

(28) SGOBBO, 1929.
(29) DI CAPUA, 1940.
(30) CROVA, 1956.
(31) SGOBBO, 1929, p. 193; DI CAPUA, 1940, p. 93; DE A NGELIS D’OSSAT, 1943, p. 39;
CROVA, 1956, p. 273.
(32) CROVA, 1956, p. 273.
(33) According to Plinius Maior, Hist. Nat. IX, 168. For all the literary testimonia on
Sergius Orata, see the appendix in FAGAN, 1996, p. 64-65.
(34) To quote CROVA, 1956, p. 274 again.
(35) BRÖDNER, 1983, p. 22-23 ; DELAINE,, 1988, p. 15; LAFON, 1991, p. 97; YEGÜL,
1992, p. 379; NIELSEN, 1993a, p. 21; GROS, 1996, p. 392; WIKANDER, 1996, p. 180.
(36) See infra.
(37) GINOUVÈS, 1959 & 1962.
148 S. MARÉCHAL

heating in pre-roman bath houses (38). E. Brödner, concurring with this Greek
connection, also pointed to the influences of other cultures on the (Greek)
bathing habit, in particular concerning the sweat bath (39). Almost all scholars
have since accepted the archaeological evidence confirming the importance of
Greek-style public baths (40), although the chronological framework of some
of these early public baths has recently been questioned. One of the most
important examples is phase IV of the baths in Olympia, long considered to
be a missing link between the Greek and Roman bath house, but now rightly
interpreted as a purely Roman structure (41).
In the last two decades, there has been some well-founded criticism of
both schools of thought concerning the origins of Roman bathing culture.
In a typical Hegelian way, after the thesis (Campanian connection) and
the antithesis (Greek connection), a synthesis has emerged incorporating
elements of both theories.
The uniqueness of the Campanian region and the representational value
of its well-preserved archaeological remains no longer enjoy an almost
untouchable status among scholars. Already F. Yegül had warned for a
one-sided approach of origin-theories, acknowledging the importance of
Campania but seeking other influences as well (42). J. DeLaine (43), G.
Fagan (44) and certainly Y. Thébert (45) all demand caution when attributing a
pioneer role to the region. An important contribution in deconstructing the
Campanian exclusiveness was G. Fagan’s reinterpretation of S. Orata’s role
in the construction and distribution of the hypocaust system. Fagan rightly
contested the meaning of the Latin term pensiles balineae. He interpreted
Orata’s invention as some sort of fish pond rather than heated bathing
facilities, thus putting the whole discussion around Orata’s person into
perspective (46). More recently, the excavation of the bath house in Fregellae
shed a new light on the evolution of the Roman heating technique. It attested a
pillared hypocaust system and a gradation of the heated rooms as early as the
beginning of the 2nd century BC (phase III) and perhaps even the 3rd century
BC (phase II) (47). Even the importance of the Stabian baths in Pompeii, long
seen as the perfect example of the evolution from a Greek to a Roman bath

(38) For a critical summary of most of these sites see BROISE, 1994.
(39) BRÖDNER, 1978, 50. On the primitive forms of bathing in Bronze Age and Iron
Age cultures, see BRÖDNER, 1977; ID. 1983, 2-5. On the importance of the sweat bath, see
ID., 1977, 48-73.
(40) Note, however, the reservations of NIELSEN, 1985, p. 96; YEGÜL, 1992, p. 17-29;
BROISE, 1994, p. 30 ; FAGAN, 1999, p. 76; DELAINE, 1988, p. 15; ID., 1989, p. 113-14.
(41) FAGAN, 2001, p. 407.
(42) YEGÜL, 1992, p. 49-55. An argument repeated in YEGÜL, 2010, p. 85. See also
infra.
(43) DELAINE, 1993, p. 354.
(44) FAGAN, 1999, p. 41.
(45) THÉBERT, 2003, p. 83.
(46) FAGAN, 1996, repeated in FAGAN, 2001, p. 404: ‘In reality, Orata’s contribution
to the developmental process is a moot point’.
(47) The results of the excavations were recently presented by V. Tsiolis and G.
Battaglini at the ‘Tavola Rotanda: L’origine delle Terme. Fregellae e i complessi termali
reppublicani fra Italia e Spagna’ held at the Ecole Française in Rome on 22 February 2011.
The publication of the bath house is forthcoming.
 RESEARCH ON ROMAN BATHING: OLD MODELS AND NEW IDEAS 149

house, has come under scrutiny (48). Especially the chronological framework
for the ‘Greek phases’ of the building (49) seems to be questionable as they are
dated only by the construction technique of the oldest walls (50). Moreover,
the 4th-3rd c. BC date proposed for the waterwheel has been dismissed by
Oleson, claiming that “such an early date is unparalleled elsewhere” (51). It
is clear that if a building which has long been considered as “una testimo-
nianza fondamentale per la nascita dell’edificio termale” (52) appears to need
a closer and more critical examination, the whole theoretical framework that
was constructed around it needs rethinking too.

New ways of thinking and recent developments

The genesis put in a new perspective

Although the introduction of the hypocaust surely remains an interesting

question in unraveling the origins of Roman bathing, it is not the most
important one and certainly not an absolute necessity to understand Roman
bathing habits. The Romans themselves probably did not know or care about
the origins of their heating techniques. So in what way could this fact have
possibly influenced the actual bathing experience? The real importance
of this new heating system lies in similarities with other existing heating
systems in the neighboring regions, and in how the Roman bathing habit
corresponded to or diverted from the Greek or the Carthaginian and how
this was expressed on an architectural and technical level. In other words,
how did the Roman bathing habit in its earliest form fit within a larger
Mediterranean context? Should the introduction of the hypocaust system be
considered as the umpteenth Roman borrowing of a ‘foreign’ invention? In
a more general sense, did the exchange of technical know-how and expertise
between East and West have more influence on different aspects of society
than we previously assumed? Instead of bickering about who was first,
research should rather focus on who contributed what.
As an example of this cultural interaction, E. Brödner pointed out the
possible impact of ‘religiösen Heissluftbäder’ from the Near East on Greek
bathing habits (53). New research also leads towards the Etruscan region and
Northern Africa. Especially for Etruscan culture, however, this seems to be a
difficult task, since Roman occupation ultimately subsumed the pre-existing
cultures in the region, wiping out most traces of earlier buildings. Few bathing
structures pre-dating the Social War have survived in Etruria (54). Concerning
public bath houses, only the case of Musarna seems reliable (55), whereas

(48) Already YEGÜL, 1981b, p. 507 and certainly FAGAN, 2001, p. 408-413.
(49) M AIURI, 1932, esp. p. 511; ESCHEBACH, 1979, esp. p. 51.
(50) Eschebach seems to agree with A. Maiuri’s dating of the 2nd c. BC, based on the
use of ‘tufo’ building stones for his oldest phase (M AIURI, 1932, p. 511).
(51) OLESON, 1984, p. 245.
(52) NIELSEN, 1985, p. 82.
(53) See supra.
(54) BROISE and JOLIVET, 1991.
(55) BARBIERI e.a.,, 1985 ; BROISE and JOLIVET, 1991, p. 92.
150 S. MARÉCHAL

in the case of private bathing facilities it is far from clear whether their
owners were Etruscan or Roman. Broise and Jolivet concluded: “Rien, bien
sûr, dans tout cet appareil balnéaire, qui soit spécifiquement étrusque. “ (56).
However, the particular natural conditions of the region, with plenty of hot
water springs, and the information available on hydraulic and construction
techniques tempts one to believe that the Etruscans could have developed a
bathing habit of some sort, even if the archaeological remains are scarce (57).
While this Etruscan lead has not really been pursued yet, research in
the North African region, although still in its early phases, has begun to
show some interesting results. Especially at the site of Kerkouane in Tunisia
where recent work has shed an interesting new light on private bathing
architecture, with for example the presence of two separate bathing instal-
lations – one large immersion pool and one small bath tub – in the same
house (58), leaving the owner the choice between a privately or communally
enjoyed bath (59). Further research in the Numidian region will surely lead to
a better understanding of local traditions and the reception and adaptation
of Hellenistic bathing customs, contributing also to the understanding of the
early Roman bath house (60).

Renewed interest in private baths

Private bathing facilities have always stood somewhat aside from

mainstream research, since they have more flexible ground plans depending
on the available space and the owner’s personal wealth and preferences (61).
Nonetheless, F. Di Capua already linked the existence of small private
sweat chambers, a primitive laconicum, to the medicinal rural tradition that
prescribed a sweat bath to alleviate rheumatism (62). The idea, according to
Di Capua, would have come from imitating the unique natural conditions in
Campania. On the other hand, a much older tradition of simply washing the
dirt off after a hard day’s work seems to lie at the origin of a small bath room
next to the kitchen, the so-called lavatrina. The Campanian region, boasting
many examples of well-preserved private houses and villas with their own
bathing facilities, either purely hygienic or also therapeutic, again claimed a
prominent position in this early research (63).

(56) BROISE and JOLIVET, 1991, p. 95. As had already been remarked by L. Gasperini
in 1988: ‘E innegabile, però, che … la stessa evidenza archeologica … non illumine,
altro che raramente ed episodicamente – e comunque non a sufficienza –, il momento
pre-romano’ (GASPERINI, 1988, p. 28).
(57) GASPERINI, 1988, p. 27-30.
(58) M AHJOUBI, 1978, p. 76-77 and fig. 5, p. 89.
(59) THÉBERT, 2003, p. 64 (esp. note 74).
(60) THÉBERT, 2003, p. 58.
(61) FABBRICOTTI, 1976, p. 108.
(62) DI CAPUA, 1940, p. 88; FABBRICOTTI, 1976, p. 33.
(63) FABBRICOTTI, 1976 described most of the then known private bathing installations,
distinguishing between hygienic and therapeutic baths.
 RESEARCH ON ROMAN BATHING: OLD MODELS AND NEW IDEAS 151

More recently, F. Yegül reappraised the importance of these private baths

for the genesis of the public bath: a sweat chamber would have necessitated
some kind of anti-chamber, serving as a heat lock, and perhaps even a
changing room. Thus, the basic ground-plan of a Roman bath house, i.e.
apodyterium/frigidarium – tepidarium – caldarium/laconicum, would have
been already present (64). The mutual influences of private and public baths,
and how the rise of the latter affected the former, have been the subject
of new research especially after the discovery of numerous private bathing
suites dated to the turning-point of the 2nd to the 1st c. BC. An example
of the impact of private bathing installations on public facilities may be
the disappearance of individual bath tubs in public bath houses in favor
of communal pools, as the small tubs in private bathrooms would ensure
the hygienic aspect of bathing at home, whereas the communal plunges in
public baths served a purely relaxing pastime to be enjoyed with others. (65).
Although few remains originate from Rome itself (66), the archaeological
remains found in towns such as Vulci (67) or Cosa (68) can help to understand
the situation of the capital. These sites, together with some discoveries in
the country-side surrounding Rome (69), in any case demonstrate that Lazio
in the 2nd c. BC did not have a disadvantage for building bathing facilities
compared to Campania (70).
Although private baths clearly form a separate category within the corpus
of Roman baths, they should not be omitted altogether in studies concerning
the Roman bathing phenomenon. It would be doing a great disservice to
study the bathing habits of Pompeii by only looking at the six public balneae
and neglecting the twenty two private installations. There is still more
research to be done on the interaction between public and private baths on
a functional level (71) but certainly also on the similarities or differences in
the decoration and symbolic power. Did private baths have the same social
function as their public counterparts? In what way could a private bath house
enhance the social status of its owner? Does the building of private baths
coincide with the economic boom of a town or a change in mentality? These
are all interesting questions that are merely touched upon by recent studies
but will need more elaboration in the future.

(64) YEGÜL, 1992, p. 54. Mark however his restraint concerning the role of Campania
(p. 50). See also KOLODZIEJCZYK, 2001, p. 120.
(65) LAFON, 1991, p. 98-99; BROISE, 1994, p. 30 ; GROS, 1996, p. 392; PAPI, 1999, p.
721; THÉBERT, 2003, p. 66-67.
(66) Some important sites, however, are: Via Sistina baths (1st c. BC; PAPI 1999, p.
710), the baths of Palatium and Via Sacra (first half 1st c. BC; CARANDINI and PAPI, 1999,
p. 90-95) and possibly the private baths of the Horti Sallustiani (PAPI 1999, p. 711).
(67) House of the Cryptoporticus (end 2nd c. BC; BROISE and JOLIVET, 1991, p. 86;
THÉBERT, 2003, p. 67).
(68) Several houses dating from 3rd to 1st c. BC (BROISE and JOLIVET, 1991, p. 81).
(69) Such as the Villa Ciampino (2nd - 1st c. BC ?; DE ROSSI, 1979; LAFON, 1991, p.
113), which shows striking resemblances with the Villa Prato in Sperlonga (BROISE and
LAFON, 2001, p. 79-90).
(70) A thesis that had been based on Latin literature, cf. supra. See also THÉBERT,
2003, p. 60.
(71) KOLODZIEJCZYK, 2001 and DE H AAN, 2010 focus mainly on this aspect.
152 S. MARÉCHAL

A change of focus

A more or less parallel development in recent attempts to understand the

Roman bathing habit, is a change in focus of what is considered character-
istically Roman for a bath house. The element that originally found most
support among scholars, was the “gradations of heat in a clear sequence
of rooms” (72), often supplemented by the importance of communal bathing
in heated immersion pools (73). More recently, other aspects of the Roman
bathing culture have been put forward as important markers for Roman
bathing habits.
A popular approach in recent studies has focused on the particular
atmosphere in Roman baths. The functions of Roman bath buildings were not
limited to purely hygienic purposes; they also facilitated relaxation and social
interaction (74). This new social phenomenon habit introduced the concept of
communally enjoyed relaxation through the medium of a communal pool.
It enhanced the social aspect of bathing in a way that had not been possible
in the small Greek facilities with individual bath tubs (75). The ‘physical
environment’, as G. Fagan calls it (76), is a key factor in understanding the
Roman bathing habit. Although the actual experience of bathing has been
studied, little has been said about the non-bathing activities that took place
in and around the bath houses. The various commercial and professional
activities, such as selling food, medical services or prostitution, and personal
pastimes, including gambling or religious practices all contributed to the very
‘Roman’ character of the bathing experience.
An equally important facet of bathing that has received more attention in
recent studies is the symbolic value it had in the eyes of the Romans. Not
only did bath houses represent a certain victory of man over nature, taming
as it were some of the elements – in casu water and fire (77) – but they also
helped to distinguish the Romans from the barbarians, the civilized from the
others: “The body in the Roman world, and bathing as part of its formation,
can thus be seen as a metaphor or symbol of social location and stratification,
marking the individual as civilized, citizen and Roman” (78). From this point
of view, scholars also argued for a greater focus on the role bath houses
played in the processes of Romanization and colonization: as key markers

(72) FAGAN, 2001, p. 403. See also NIELSEN, 1985, p. 85; DELAINE, 1989, p. 114;
YEGÜL, 1992, p. 29; BROISE, 1994, p. 24.
(73) DELAINE, 1988, p. 16; GROS, 1996, p. 392; FAGAN, 2001, p. 404.
(74) YEGÜL, 1992, p. 30-41; FAGAN, 1998, p. 75-78; DELAINE, 1999, p. 8 (esp.
interesting is the comparison of bathing with the modern phenomenon of shopping);
THÉBERT, 2003, p. 58-60. See however TRÏMPER, 2009 who argues that already Greek
style bath building had focused on relaxation (see esp. p. 158).
(75) It should be stressed that this social aspect of Greek bathing has often been
neglected in research.
(76) FAGAN, 1999, p. 176-88. The scientific team that built a fully functional Roman
style bath house in Sardis (Turkey) came to the same conclusion after bathing together in
this building (YEGÜL and COUCH, 2003, p. 168).
(77) ZAJAC, 1999, p. 101; DELAINE, 1999, p. 12.
(78) DELAINE, 1999, p. 13.
 RESEARCH ON ROMAN BATHING: OLD MODELS AND NEW IDEAS 153

of Roman culture ‘par excellence’, bath houses were often the first public
buildings to be erected in newly conquered territories (79).
Lastly, a remark can also be made about the representational ideas behind
bath houses, regarding the apparent equality of citizens inside the building.
Thermae and balneae were some of the few places were the plebs could enjoy
the splendors of the upper class and where they could approach the wealth
and opulence of imperial palaces. However, scholars have recently challenged
the idea that inside the bath house, the plebs mingled with aristocrats as if
they were equals. A crowd of bath attendants or slaves combined with the
splendor of jewelry would have singled out the rich anyhow, shattering the
illusion of baths as ‘social levelers’(80).

Back to basics

A final but possibly the most important development in research of the

last decades concerns the study of the actual functioning of Roman baths.
H. Manderscheid had already expressed his discontent regarding this issue:
“In Vordergrund der Thermenforschung haben lange Zeit architektonische
Probleme gestanden. Ausgrabungen und daran anschlie ende Untersuchungen
konzentrierten sich demgemäơ auf baugeschichtliche Fragestellungen. Die
Technik, ein wesentlicher Bestandteil römischen Badewesens, ist – wenn
überhaupt – häufig nur am Rande behandelt worden” (81). In the second
half of the 20th century, some important studies on the functioning of the
hypocaust system had been undertaken, especially by German scholars (82).
But as F. Kretzschmer rightly started his article with the warning “Ich bin
kein Archäologe”, the cooperation between archaeologists and engineers or
architects has been far from exemplary (83). Recently, the water management
of bath houses finally received the attention it deserves. Thus, the two basic
components of a bath house, water and heating technique, stepped out of the
shadow of the architecture.

The hypocaust system

As a common feature of all Roman bath buildings from the 1st c. BC

onwards, the great monographs on Roman baths have always taken account of
their hypocaust systems, albeit often in a very concise and general manner (84).

(79) DELAINE, 1999, p. 7; NIELSEN, 1999, p. 35. On the specific (imperial) propaganda
hidden in the decorative schemes of bath buildings, see DUNBABIN, 1989, p. 12-32.
(80) FAGAN, 1999, p. 189-215; DELAINE, 1999, p. 13; ZAJAC, 1999, p. 104.
(81) M ANDERSCHEID, 1988, p. 112.
(82) There is of course the article of K RETZSCHMER, 1953, later supplemented by
articles of HÜSER, 1979 and BAATZ, 1979.
(83) See M ANDERSCHEID, 2000a, p. 177 (esp. note 35).
(84) For such general descriptions about the functioning of the hypocaust system, see
K RENCKER and K RUEGER, 1929, p. 332 ; DE A NGELIS D’OSSAT, 1949, p. 39-40 ; FORBES, 1958, p.
38-54; BRÖDNER, 1983, p. 19-21, 108 and esp. p. 155-57; HEINZ, 1983, p. 185-89; YEGÜL, 1992, p.
357-65, 380-85; NIELSEN, 1993a, p. 14-20; WEBER, 1996, p. 47-51, BANSAL, 1999, p. 306-307.
154 S. MARÉCHAL

Scientific experiments, such as that conducted by F. Kretzschmer (85), tried to

recreate the working conditions of an ancient bath house, measuring temper-
atures at floor level, walls and furnace with modern equipment. Following
this example, other experiments and critical analyses of those previously
undertaken, contributed significantly to the debate concerning the functioning
of the hypocaustum (86). Research on the heating techniques in private baths,
especially in Campania (87), also offered interesting new insights on early
hypocaust systems and their relations to other heating devices (88).
Other factors that were important for heating a Roman bath, such as
fuel consumption (89) or the presence of window glass and solar energy (90),
were also taken into account. Not only single articles on specific features,
but whole monographs about the heating technique have now been written,
be it in general (91) or on a specific bath building (92). Gradually, individual
excavation reports are now incorporating detailed information about the
heating system and actual functioning of the hypocaust. This positive
evolution will surely provide crucial information, enabling more complete
studies on this important subject. The only major hiatus in this research,
however, is the lack of information about the service areas themselves and
the task of the slaves who worked there (93).

Water management

There can be no doubt that water is the absolute conditio sine qua non
for any bathing activity. Whilst this may sound like an obvious comment to
make, the supply of water to bathing establishments has often been neglected
in archaeological research on Roman baths. Just as for the hypocaust system,
water management figures in a general and somewhat limited manner in
most monographs (94). Fortunately, since the end of the 1990’s, a new wave
of ‘water frenzy’ hit research thanks to the efforts of individual scholars and
associations. Especially the publications of the ‘Frontinus-Gesellschaft’ and
of the international congresses on the history of water management (‘Cura

(85) K RETZSCHMER, 1953, p. 21-34.

(86) See especially the articles of T. Rook (1978, 1979, 1994) and his own experiment
of described in an article of 1993. The Sardis experiment under the direction of F. Yegül
also had the aim of providing new scientific data concerning the hypocaust system and
especially the role of tubuli (YEGÜL, and COUCH, 2003, p. 169-175).
(87) JORIO, 1981; MISELLI, 2001.
(88) Particularly the link between bread ovens and hypocaust furnaces offers a
refreshing approach; see MISELLI, 2001, p. 232-35.
(89) See PASQUINUCCI, 1987, p. 45-48; BLYTH, 1995, p. 3-4; GROSSMAN, 1994, p. 4;
MCPHARLAND e.a., 2009.
(90) THATCHER, 1956 ; BROISE, 1991; R ING, 1996; WEBER, 1996, p. 52.
(91) See SCHIEBOLD, 2006.
(92) For example M ANDERSCHEID, 1993; ID. 2009.
(93) For a study on these different rooms and corridors in the bath houses of the
Roman capital, see PETTENÒ, 1999, esp. Table II, p. 151.
(94) See DE A NGELIS D’OSSAT, 1943, p. 48-52 ; HEINZ, 1983, p. 189-96; BRÖDNER,
1983, p. 153-154; PASQUINUCCI, 1987, p. 45-48; HODGE, 1992, p. 261-70; YEGÜL, 1992, p.
373-77, 390-95; NIELSEN, 1993a, p. 23-24; WEBER, 1996, p. 41-47.
 RESEARCH ON ROMAN BATHING: OLD MODELS AND NEW IDEAS 155

Aquarum’ series) offer examples of this trend (95). The understanding of water
supply, use and disposal is not only essential for a proper assessment of
Roman bath houses, it can also help to disentangle the difference between
Greek and Roman baths (96). For example, Roman bathers, unlike their Greek
predecessors, saw only the end product of the whole bathing apparatus due
to a strict separation inside the building between operation/service functions
and bathing pleasure (97).
As with the hypocaust system, the water management of private baths
also triggered new and interesting lines of thought, particularly in connection
with the urban water distribution system and the implications of this for the
location of baths within the urban fabric (98). The water disposal in the baths,
often in combination with the flushing of nearby latrines, offers an interesting
example of how the water management of bath houses was integrated in a
city’s water management (99).
Besides the water management for the bath house, water itself has been
the subject of numerous studies, in particular with relation to its healing
proprieties. There is of course the cleansing, hygienic function of water in a
normal bath house, but there are also the therapeutic benefits of natural hot
water sources, already recognized as early as in Paleolithic times (100).
Although the Romans had a different conception about hygiene, cleaning
one’s body remained the starting point of the whole bathing experience.
This was taken for granted in most research until recently (101). In the last
two decades however, scholars have begun to focus more on the importance
of influential physicians like Asclepiades of Prusias ad Mare (1st c. BC) or
Cornelius Celsus (1st c. AD) on the development of the bathing habit (102).
They began to question the romantic image of baths as a healthy
environment (103).
Spas, constituting a separate chapter in most studies, have been integrated
in studies of the origins of bathing and water management. Despite their

(95) GARBRECHT and M ANDERSCHEID, 1994; BOUET, 1997; M ANDERSCHEID, 2000b;

ID., 2009.
(96) M ANDERSCHEID, 2000b, p. 533.
(97) M ANDERSCHEID, 2000b, p. 534.
(98) For a study on the water management of private baths in Pompeii, see de H AAN,
1996; ID., 2001.
(99) JANSEN e.a., 2011, p. 71-90, 113-23.
(100) For instance in Vicarello (Etruria) (GASPERINI, 1988, p. 32).
(101) On the Roman view on the therapeutic and healing effects of water, see DI
CAPUA, 1940, p. 105-15.
(102) For the influence of Asclepiades on the popularity of bathing, see FAGAN, 1999,
p. 93-103. Note however his remark that such a physician was ‘more as a catalyst in a trend
rather than an initiator of it’. For an overview of the different medical treatments involving
bathing in the works of Celsus and Plinius Maior, see FAGAN, 2006, esp. appendix C,
p. 206-7.
(103) SCOBIE, 1986, p. 425-427; JANSEN e.a., 2011, p. 158. See also FAGAN, 1999, p.
181-88, mentioning the remarks made by Roman authors, e. g. emperor Marcus Aurelius
in his Meditations (VIII, 24): Ὁποῖόν σοι φαίνεται τὸ λούεσθαι, – ἔλαιον, ἱδρώς, ῥύπος, ὕδωρ
γλοιῶδες, πάντα σικχαντά, – τοιοῦτον πᾶν µέρος τοῦ βίου καὶ πᾶν ὑποκείµενον. (‘What is bathing
when you think about it: oil, sweat, filth, muddy water, everything repugnant’). See also
FAGAN, 2000, p. 281-85; ID., 2006, p. 199 (esp. note 46) and PAGE, 1993, p. 2-3 on the lack
of disinfectants and possible diseases and bacteria slumbering in the water.
156 S. MARÉCHAL

totally different lay-out and water management requirements, dictated by

local circumstances, thermal baths nevertheless point out the special symbolic
value that Romans could attribute to water. H. Manderscheid rightly argues
for the acknowledgement of special kinds of water use, such as installations
without an obvious purpose, as possible markers for luxury. Especially
complicated features such as a calida piscina or ‘samovar piscina’ that
require an additional financial outlay and extra maintenance, may be seen
as unnecessary and hence luxurious investments (104). Lavishly decorated
nympheae, impressive aqueducts and other water-related structures must have
had a similar impact (105). In the more arid regions such as North Africa,
where different ways of water management were necessary, such features had
perhaps an even greater symbolic value (106). Bath buildings in this part of the
empire may have had an even stronger connotation of Roman supremacy –
over nature and over non-Romans – than anywhere else.

Current research objectives

The research on Roman baths conducted the last two decades has produced
two important trends. Firstly by questioning commonly accepted facts and
broadening the horizons. The ‘idées fixes’ concerned with the person of
Orata, the importance of Campania and the subsidiary role of the capital and
Lazio in the origins-debate have been undermined. Even some archaeological
key sites for the evolution of Roman baths, e. g. the Stabian baths at Pompeii
or phase IV of the baths in Olympia, did not escape re-examination and
re-evaluation. New ways of thinking include evidence from the Near East,
Etruria and even North Africa.
Another important accomplishment of recent scholarship is the shift in
research focus: baths are not only splendid examples of Roman luxury and
architecture, but also of technique and resource management. They have a
strong symbolic value that is not always easy to identify in the archaeological
record. At last, baths are placed in a broader context, functioning as complex
identities in an even more complex urban or rural unit. In this renewed
research, every aspect of a Roman bath house contributes in sketching the
image of the Roman bathing habit.
Although this new attitude is gaining currency among scholars, incorpo-
rating these new ideas in the established theories within the field, nonetheless
remains a slow process. Campania, without a doubt a very important region
for this research, is still too often considered as holy ground, as an indisputable
guide for dating and interpreting the remains. Excavation reports also still
tend to highlight architecture, neglecting the more technical and symbolical
aspects. The bridge between theory and practice remains under construction.

(104) GARBRECHT and M ANDERSCHEID, 1994, p. 44-47; M ANDERSCHEID, 1996, p.

109-113; ID., 2000, p. 514-23.
(105) On the symbolism and aesthetic value of water in general, see TÖLLE-K ASTENBEIN,
1990, p. 187-99.
(106) WILSON, 2001.
 RESEARCH ON ROMAN BATHING: OLD MODELS AND NEW IDEAS 157

Future directions

Research on Roman bathing has certainly evolved greatly since the grand
works of the first half of the 20th century. The foundations have been laid,
important adjustments have been proposed, and now it is time to reassemble
all the pieces of the puzzle. A new integrated approach on Roman bathing
imposes itself. Interaction and communication between archaeologists and
other scientists, but also among archaeologists themselves needs to be
improved. The new questions and focuses of the theoretical framework need
to be translated into the field research, adjusting excavation techniques,
sampling strategy and methods of recording. Only by changing the way of
excavating and eventually publishing Roman baths, can progress in these new
fields of research be achieved.
Thermae and balneae, as scholars agree, are some of the most represen-
tative and intriguing standard-bearers of Roman society. It is therefore only
normal to value them in all their aspects, from their architecture to their
functioning and symbolic value, not only in the theoretical frameworks and
in the field, but also in the manner of their presentation to the public. Why,
for example, not involve the service areas – the beating heart of the baths
– or the atmosphere as experienced by the Roman customers in the on-site
explanation of the archaeological remains?
The accomplishments of earlier research should be acknowledged, but
at the same time the new evidence, propelled by new research methods and
different questions should be embraced. Whereas information on the earlier
bath buildings is now slowly becoming available, our knowledge about bath
complexes in Late Antiquity is still insufficient. Not only public baths, but also
private, military and therapeutic bath-complexes can add valuable elements
to our understanding of the Roman bathing experience. It is important to
understand that bathing in the Roman world was so much more than getting
a decent scrub in a public bath house. It was a social occasion, where all
aspects of daily life converged within a setting that represented the supremacy
of Roman art, architecture and technology. Research into Roman baths and
bathing habits not only tells us more about a typically Roman pastime, it
provides a window on Roman society as a whole, incorporating elements
of the social, economic and ideological aspects of this dynamic society. The
main challenge for future research is to try to approach bath-complexes in
a way of engaging with these issues of social and cultural identity, shared
value systems and the ‘Roman Experience’ for the people who used and
constructed these facilities. There is in fact no better place to submerge
oneself in the Roman culture than in one of their bath houses.

Bibliography

ADAM, 1984 = J. P. ADAM, La construction romaine: matériaux et techniques, Paris,

1984.
ALLEN, 1974 = H. ALLEN, Excavations at Morgantina (Serra Orlando), 1970-1972 :
Preliminary Report XI, in American Journal of Archaeology 78, 1974, p. 361-383.
158 S. MARÉCHAL

AUBERSON and SCHEFOLD, 1972 = P. AUBERSON and K. SCHEFOLD, Führer durch

Eretria, Bern, 1972.
BAATZ, 1979 = D. BAATZ, Heizversuch an einer rekonstruierten Kanalheizung in der
Saalburg, in Saalburg Jahrbuch 36, 1979, p. 31-44.
BANSAL, 1999 = S. BANSAL, Characteristic parameters of hypocaust construction, in
Building and Environment 34, 1999, p. 305-318.
BARBIERI e.a., 1985 = G. BARBIERI, H. BROISE and V. JOLIVET. Musarne I. I bagni
tardorepubblicani, in Bolletino d’Arte 70, 1985, p. 29-38.
BLYTH, 1995 = H. BLYTH, Economics of Public Baths, in Balnea ria 3. 2, 1995,
p. 2-4.
BOËTHIUS and WARD PERKINS 1970 = A. BOËTHIUS and J. B. WARD-PERKINS,
Etruscan and Roman architecture, Harmondsworth, 1970.
BOUET, 1997 = A. BOUET, Les thermes romains : de gros consommateurs d’eau ?
Quelques exemples de Narbonnaise et des provinces voisines, in R. BEDON (ed.), Les
aqueducs de la Gaule romaine et des régions voisines (Actes du colloque de Limoges,
1996), Limoges, 1997, p. 133-60.
BRÖDNER, 1977 = E. BRÖDNER, Zur Entwicklungsgeschichte des Bades. 1. Teil, in
Antike Welt 8, 1977, p. 45-56.
BRÖDNER, 1978 = E. BRÖDNER, Zur Entwicklungsgeschichte des Bades. 2. Teil,
Antike Welt 9, p. 47-57.
BRÖDNER, 1983 = E. BRÖDNER, Die römischen Thermen und das antike Badewesen:
eine kulturhistorische Betrachtung, Darmstadt, 1983.
BROISE, 1991 = H. BROISE, Vitrages et volets des fenêtres thermals à l’époque
imperial, in Les thermes romains (Actes de la table ronde, Rome, 1988), Rome, 1991,
p. 61-78.
BROISE and JOLIVET, 1991 = H. BROISE and V. JOLIVET, Le bain en Etrurie à l’époque
Hellénistique, in Les thermes romains (Actes de la table ronde, Rome, 1988), Rome,
1991, p. 79-95.
BROISE, 1994 = H. BROISE, La pratique du bain chaud par immersion en Sicile
et dans la peninsule italique à l’époque hellénistique, in Xenia Antiqua 3, 1994,
p. 17-32.
BROISE and LAFON, 2001 = H. BROISE and X. LAFON, La villa Prato de Sperlonga
(Collection de l’Ecole Française de Rome 285), Roma, 2001 p. 79-89,
BROISE, 2009 = H. BROISE, Entre continuité et rupture. L’introduction des pratiques
balnéaires grecques et romaine en Egypte, in M. F. BOUSSAC, T. FOURNET and B.
REDON (eds.), Le bain collectif en Egypte: Balaneîa = Thermae = Hammâmât,
Cairo, 2009, p. 9-16. CARANDINI and PAPI, 1999 = A. CARANDINI and E. PAPI (eds.).
Palatium e Sacra Via II. L’età tardo-republicana e la prima età imperiale (fine III
secolo a. C. – 64 d. C.), Bolletino di Archeologia 59-60, p. 90-140.
COARELLI, 1998 = F. COARELLI, La storia e lo scavo, in F. COARELLI, P. G. MONTI and
P. BOILA (eds.), Fregellae 1. Le fonti, la storia, il territorio, Roma, 1998, p. 29-71.
CROVA, 1956 = B. CROVA, Le terme romane nella Campania (Atti dell’ VIII Convegno
Nazionale di Storia dell’Architettura), Caserta 1956, p. 271-88.
 RESEARCH ON ROMAN BATHING: OLD MODELS AND NEW IDEAS 159

CULTRARA, 1938 = G. CULTRARA, Rovine di un anti costabilimento idraulico in

Contrada Zappalà, in Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Notizie degli Scavi
di Antichità 14, 1938, p. 261-301.
DE ANGELIS D’OSSAT, 1943 = G. DE ANGELIS D’OSSAT, Tecnica costruttiva e
impianti delle terme, Roma, 1943.
DE HAAN, 1996 = N. DE HAAN, Die Wasserversorgung der Privatbäder in Pompeji, in
N. DE HAAN and G. C. M. JANSEN (eds.), Cura Aquarum in Campania (Proceedings of
the Ninth International Congress on the History of Water Management and Hydraulic
Engineering in the Mediterranean Region, Pompeii, 1994), Leiden, 1996, p. 59-66.
DE HAAN, 2001 = N. DE HAAN, Si aquae copia patiatur: Pompeian private baths
and the use of water, in A. KOLOSKI-OSTROW (ed.). Water use and hydraulics in the
Roman city, Dubuque, 2001, p. 41-50.
DE HAAN, 2010 = N. DE HAAN, Römische Privatbäder. Entwicklung, Verbreitung,
Struktur und sozialer Status, Frankfurt, 2010.
DELAINE, 1988 = J. DELAINE, Recent Research on Roman Baths, in Journal of
Roman Archaeology 1, 1988, p. 11-31.
DELAINE, 1989 = J. DELAINE, Some observations on the transitions from Greek to
Roman baths in Hellenistic Italy, in Mediterranean Archaeology 2, 1989, p. 111-25.
DELAINE, 1993 = J. DELAINE, Roman Baths and Bathing, in Journal of Roman
Archaeology 6, 1993, p. 348-358.
DELAINE, 1999 = J. DELAINE, Bathing and Society, in J. DELAINE e. a. (eds.), Roman
Baths and Bathing (Journal of Roman Archaeology suppl. 37), Portsmouth, 1999, p.
7-16.
DELAINE, 2007 = J. DELAINE, Historiography. Origins, evolution and convergence, in
M. GUÉRIN-BEAUVOIS and J. -M. MARTIN (eds.), Bains curatifs et bains hygiéniques
en Italie de l’Antiquité au Moyen Âge: (Actes du colloque réuni à Rome les 22 et 23
mars 2004), Rome, 2007, p. 21-35.
DE ROSSI, 1979 = G. M. DE ROSSI, Bovilae (Forma Italiae I, 15), Roma, 1979, p. 65.
DI CAPUA, 1940 = F. DI CAPUA, Appunti sul’ origine e sviluppo delle terme romane,
in Rendi conti della R. Accademia di archeologia, lettere e belle arti, n. s. 20, 1940,
p. 81-160.
DUNBABIN, 1989 = K. M. DUNBABIN, Baiarum grata voluptas. Pleasures and dangers
of the baths, in Papers of the British School at Rome 57, 1989, p. 6-46.
ESCHEBACH, 1979 = H. ESCHEBACH, Die Stabianer Thermen in Pompeji (Denkmäler
Antiker Architectur Band 13), Berlin, 1979.
FABBRICOTTI, 1976 = E. FABBRICOTTI, I bagni nelle prime villeromane, in Cronache
Pompeiane 2, 1976, p. 29-112.
FAGAN, 1996 = G. G. FAGAN, Sergius Orata: Inventor of the Hypocaust?, in Phoenix
50, 1996, p. 56-66.
FAGAN, 1999 = G. G. FAGAN, Bathing in Public in the Roman World, Ann Arbor,
1999.
FAGAN, 2000 = G. G. FAGAN, Hygienic conditions in Roman public baths, in G. C.
M. JANSEN (eds.), Cura Aquarum in Sicilia : proceedings of the tenth International
Congress on the History of Water Management and Hydraulic Engineering in the
Mediterranean Region, Syracuse, 1998), Leiden, 2000, p. 281-87.
160 S. MARÉCHAL

FAGAN, 2001 = G. G. FAGAN, The genesis of the Roman Public Bath, in American
Journal of Archaeology 105, 2001, p. 403-26.
FAGAN, 2006 = G. G. FAGAN, Bathing for health with Celsus and Pliny the Elder, in
The Classical Quarterly 56, 2006, p. 190-207.
FORBES, 1958 = A. J. FORBES, Studies in Ancient Technology. Vol. VI, Leiden, 1958.
GARBRECHT and MANDERSCHEID, 1994 = G. GARBRECHT AND H. MANDERSCHEID,
Die Wasserbewirtschaftung Römischer Thermen. Archäologie und hydrotech-
nische Untersuchungen (Heft A, B und C) (Leichtwei – Institut für Wasserbau der
Technischen Universität Braunschweig. Mitteilungen Heft 118), Braunschweig, 1994.
GASPERINI, 1988 = L. GASPERINI, Gli Etruschi e le sorgenti termali, in Etruria
Meridionale. Conoscenza, conservazione, fruizione (Atti del Convegno, Vitterbo,
1985), Roma, 1988, p. 27-36.
GINOUVÈS, 1955 = R. GINOUVÈS, Gortys d’Arcadie. L’établissement thermal, in
Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 79, 1955, p. 331-34.
GINOUVÈS, 1959 = R. GINOUVÈS, L’établissement thermal de Gortys d’Arcadie
(Etudes Péloponnèsiennes 2, Paris, 1959.
GINOUVÈS, 1962 = R. GINOUVÈS, Balaneutikè; recherches sur le bain dans l’antiquité
grecque (Bibliothèque des Ecoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome. Série 1, 200),
Paris, 1962.
GINOUVÈS, 1998 = R. GINOUVÈS, Dictionnaire méthodique de l’architecture grecque
et romaine III: espaces architecturaux, bâtiments et ensembles (Collection EFR 84),
Rome, 1998.
GROS, 1996 = P. GROS, L’Architecture romaine du début du IIIe siècle av. J. -C. à la
fin du Haut-Empire. 1. Les monuments publics, Paris, 1996.
GROSSMAN, 1994 = H. C. GROSSMAN, Wirkungsweise und Energieverbrauch der
Römischen Thermen in Weissenburg/Bay, in Balnearia 3. 2, 4-7.
HEINZ, 1983 = HEINZ, W. , Römische Thermen: Badewesen und Badeluxus in
Römischen Reich, Munchen, 1983.
HODGE, 1992 = A. T. HODGE, Roman Aqueducts and Water Supply, London, 1992.
HÜSER, 1979 = H. HÜSER, Wärmtechnische Messungen an einer Hypokaustenheizung
in der Saalburg, in Saalburg Jahrbuch 36, 1979, p. 12-30.
JANSEN e.a., 2011 = G. C. M. JANSEN, A. O. KOLOSKI-OSTROW AND E. M.
MOORMANN, Roman toilets: their archaeology and cultural history, Leuven, 2001.
JORIO, 1981 = A. JORIO, Sistema di riscaldamento nelle antiche terme pompeiane, in
Bulletino della Commissione Archeologica 86, 1981, p. 167-89.
KOŁODZIEJCZYK, 2001 = K. KOŁODZIEJCZYK, Caractères généraux des bains privés
romains en Italie (Centre d’Archéologie Méditerranéenne de l’Académie Polonaise
des Sciences, Etudes et Travaux 19), Warschau, 2001, p. 119-125.
KRENCKER and KRUEGER, 1929 = D. KRENCKER and E. KRUEGER, Die Trierer
Kaiserthermen (Trierer Grabungen und Forschungen, Bd. I, 1), Augsburg, 1929.
KRETZSCHMER, 1953 = F. KRETZSCHMER, Hypokausten, in Saalburg Jahrbuch 12,
1953, p. 7-41.
LAFON, 1991 = X. LAFON, Les bains privés dans l’Italie romaine au IIe siècle av.
J. C. , in Les thermes romains (Actes de la table ronde, Rome, 1988), Rome, 1991,
p. 97-114.
 RESEARCH ON ROMAN BATHING: OLD MODELS AND NEW IDEAS 161

LENOIR, 1995 = E. LENOIR, Thermes et palestres à l’époque romaine, in Bulletin de

l’Association Guillaume Budé, 1995, p. 62-76.
MACDONALD, 1986 = W. MACDONALD, The Architecture of the Roman Empire II. An
Urban Appraisal (Yale Publications in the History of Art 35), London, 1986.
MAHJOUBI, 1978 = A. MAHJOUBI, L’architecture domestique à Kerkouane et la
maison de l’«insula 1», in Africa 5-6, 1978, p. 71-94.
MAIURI, 1932 = A. MAIURI, Pompei, Nuovi saggi di esplorazione nelle Terme Stabiane,
in Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Notizie degli Scavi di Antichità 8, 1932,
p. 507-16.
MANDERSCHEID, 1988 = H. MANDERSCHEID, Römische Thermen. Aspekte von
Architektur, Technik und Ausstattung, in Die Wasserversorgung antiker Städte:
Mensch und Wasser, Mitteleuropa, Thermen, Bau-materialien, Hygiene, Mainz, 1988,
p. 99-125.
MANDERSCHEID, 1993 = H. MANDERSCHEID, Bemerkungen zur Wasserbewirtschaftung
der Suburbanen Thermen in Pompei, in Archäologisches Korrespondentzblatt 23,
1993, p. 337-46.
MANDERSCHEID, 1996 = H. MANDERSCHEID, Standard und Luxus in römische
Bädern – Überlegungen aus der Sicht der Hydrotechnik, in N. DE HAAN and G. C.
M. JANSEN (eds.), Cura Aquarum in Campania (Proceedings of the Ninth Interna-
tional Congress on the History of Water Management and Hydraulic Engineering in
the Mediterranean Region, Pompeii, 1994), Leiden, 1996, p. 109-15.
MANDERSCHEID, 2000a = H. MANDERSCHEID, Ohne Wasser kein Bad, in G. C. M.
JANSEN (eds.), Cura Aquarum in Sicilia : proceedings of the tenth International
Congress on the History of Water Management and Hydraulic Engineering in the
Mediterranean Region, Syracuse, 1998), Leiden, 2000, p. 173-80.
MANDERSCHEID, 2000b = H. MANDERSCHEID, The Water Management of Greek
and Roman Baths, in O. WIKANDER (ed.), Handbook of Ancient Water Technology,
Leiden, 2000, p. 467-538.
MANDERSCHEID, 2009 = H. MANDERSCHEID, Dulcissima aequora : Wasserbewirt-
schaftung und Hydrotechnik der Terme suburbane in Pompeii, (BABesch Suppl. 13),
Leuven, 2009.
MC PARLAND, 2009 = L. C. MC PARLAND, How the Romans got themselves into
hot water: temperatures and fuel types used in firing a hypocaust, in Environmental
Archaeology 14, 2009, p. 176-83.
MISELLI, 2001 = M. MISELLI, I forni nelle abitazioni di Pompei, in Orizzonti 2, 2001,
p. 229-41.
NIELSEN, 1985 = I. NIELSEN, Considerazioni sulle prime fasi dell’evoluzione
dell’edificio termale romano, in Analecta Romane Instituti Danici 14, 1985, p. 81-112.
NIELSEN, 1993a = I. NIELSEN, Thermae et balnea . The Architecture and Cultural
History of Roman Public Baths, I: Text, Aarhus, 1993.
NIELSEN, 1993b = I. NIELSEN, The baths: problems of terminology, in Balnea ria 1,
1993, p. 3-4.
NIELSEN, 1999 = I. NIELSEN, Early provincial baths and their relations to early
Italic baths, in J. DELAINE e.a. (eds.), Roman Baths and Bathing (Journal of Roman
Archaeology suppl. 37), Portsmouth, 1999, p. 35-43.
162 S. MARÉCHAL

OLESON, 1984 = J. P. OLESON, Greek and Roman Mechanical Water-Lifting Devices:

The History of a Technology, Toronto, 1984.
ORLANDINI, 1960 = P. ORLANDINI, Gela. Impianto Greco di bagni pubblici presso
l’Ospizio, in Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Notizie degli Scavi di
Antichità 14, 1960, p. 181-202.
PAGE, 1993 = M. J. PAGE, Roman Baths – a Health Warning!, in Balnea ria 1, 1993,
p. 2-3.
PAPI, 1999 = E. PAPI, Il balneum nelle dimore di Roma dall’ età republicana al
I secolo d. C. , in Mélanges de l’Ecole française de Rome. Antiquité. 111, 1999,
p. 695-728.
PASQUINUCCI e.a., 1987 = M. PASQUINUCCI e.a., Terme romane e vita quotidiana,
Modena, 1987.
PETTENÒ, 1999 = E. PETTENÒ, Strutture di servizio degli edifici termali di Roma : un
particolare uso del sottosuolo, in Antenor 1, 1999, p. 121-55.
REBUFFAT, 1991 = R. REBUFFAT, Vocabulaire thermal. Documents sur le bain romains,
in Les thermes romains (Actes de la table ronde, Rome, 1988), Rome, 1991, p. 1-34.
RING, 1996 = J. W. RING, Windows, Baths and Solar Energy in the Roman Empire,
in American Journal of Archeology 100, 1996, p. 717-24.
ROOK, 1978 = T. ROOK, The Development and Operation of Roman Hypocausted
Baths, in Journal of Archaeological Science 5, 1978, p. 269-82.
ROOK, 1979 = T. ROOK, The effect of the evolution of flues upon the development of
architecture (BAR Int. Series. 68), Oxford, 1979, p. 303-8.
ROOK, 1993 = T. ROOK, How to fire a Roman bath, in Current Archaeology 135,
1993, p. 114-17.
ROOK, 1994 = T. ROOK, Thoughts on hypocausts, in Balnea ria 2, 1994, p. 10-11.
SCHIEBOLD, 2006 = H. SCHIEBOLD, Heizung und Wassererwärmung in römischen
Thermen: historische Entwicklung - Nachfolgesysteme – neuzeitliche Betrachtungen
und Untersuchungen (Schriften der Deutschen Wasserhistorischen Gesellschaft,
Sonderband 3), Norderstedt, 2006.
SCOBIE, 1986 = A. SCOBIE, Slums, Sanitation and Mortality in the Roman World, in
Klio 68, 1986, p. 399-433.
SGOBBO, 1929 = I. SGOBBO, Terme flegree ed origine delle terme romane, in Atti del
I° Congresso Nazionale di Studi Romani, Rome, 1929, p. 186-94.
STACCIOLI, 1958 = R. A. STACCIOLI, Sugli edifici terma liminori, in Archeologia
Classica 10, 1958, p. 273-78.
STACCIOLI, 1961 = R. A. STACCIOLI, Terme minori e balnea nella documentazione
della «Forma Urbis», in Archeologia Classica 13, 1961, p. 92-102.
THATCHER, 1956 = E. D. THATCHER, The Open Rooms of the Terme del Foro at Ostia,
in Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 24, 1956, p. 167-264.
THÉBERT, 2003 = Y. THÉBERT, Thermes romains d’Afrique du Nord et leur contexte
méditerranéen: études d’histoire et d’archéologie (Bibliothèque des écoles françaises
d’Athènes et de Rome 315), Rome, 2003.
TÖLLE-KASTENBEIN, 1990 = R. TÖLLE-KASTENBEIN, Antike Wasserkultur, München,
1990.
 RESEARCH ON ROMAN BATHING: OLD MODELS AND NEW IDEAS 163

TRÜMPER, 2009 = M. TRÜMPER, Complex Public Baths Buildings of the Hellenistic

Period. A Case Study in Regional Differences, in M. -F. BOUSSAC, T. FOURNET AND
B. REDON (eds.), Le bain collectif en Egypte: Balaneîa = Thermae = Hammâmât.
(Cairo) 139-79.
TURNER, 1948 = J. H. TURNER, Sergius Orata, Pioneer of Radiant Heating, in The
Classical Journal 43, 1948, p. 486-87.
VALLET, E. A. 1983 = G. F. VALLET, VILLARD AND P. AUBERSON, Megara Hyblaea.
Guida agli scavi. Introduzione alla storia di una città coloniale d’occidente (Ecole
Française de Rome. Mélanges d’Archéologie et d’Histoire. Suppléments 1), Roma,
1983.
WEBER, 1996 = M. Weber, Antike Badekultur, München, 1996.
WILSON, 2001 = A. WILSON, Urban Water Storage, Distribution, and Usage in
Roman North Africa, in A. KOLOSKI-OSTROW (ed.),Water use and hydraulics in the
Roman city (Colloquia and conference papers 3), Dubuque, 2001, p. 83-96.
WIKANDER, 1996 = O. WIKANDER, Senators and Equites VI. Caius Sergius Orata
and the invention of the hypocaust, in Opuscula Romana 20, 1996, p. 177-82.
YEGÜL, 1981a = F. K. YEGÜL, The small city baths in classical antiquity and a
reconstruction study of Lucian’s «Baths of Hippias», in Archeologia Classica 31,
1981, p. 108-31.
YEGÜL, 1981b = F. K. YEGÜL, Book review. Die Stabianer Thermen in Pompeji by
Hans Eschebach, in American Journal of Archaeology 85, 1981, p. 507-8.
YEGÜL, 1992 = F. K. YEGÜL, Baths and bathing in classical antiquity, New York,
1992.
YEGÜL and COUCH, 2003 = F. K. YEGÜL and T. COUCH, Building a Roman bath for
the cameras, in Journal of Roman Archaeology 16, 2003, p. 153-77.
YEGÜL, 2010 = F. K. YEGÜL, Bathing in the Roman World, New York, 2010.
ZAJAC, 1999 = N. ZAJAC, The thermae: a policy of public health or personal legiti-
mation?, in J. DELAINE e.a. (eds.), Roman Baths and Bathing (Journal of Roman
Archaeology suppl. 37), Portsmouth, 1999, p. 99-105.

ABSTRACT

The bathing habit in both public and private bath houses is considered to be one
of the most characteristic social phenomena of Roman society. In the past century,
research into this subject has been imbued with the spirit of the times, riding on
the waves of the current intellectual climate. It is the aim of this paper to look at
the archaeological and historical research on Roman baths and bathing in a wider
historical perspective, pointing out how prevailing theories and models have been
influenced by different schools of taught. It has become clear that research evolved
from a mere architectural and art-historical study of the bath houses in themselves
to a more functional, technical and even symbolical approach of the whole bathing
phenomenon. By providing the latest state of knowledge, it will become clear which
trends and emphasis have been put forward by recent research, how this challenged
the former theories and which new questions this has raised for future studies.
Roman baths – Roman bathing – archaeology and history
164 S. MARÉCHAL

RÉSUMÉ

La pratique balnéaire dans des édifices publics ou privés est considérée comme un
des phénomènes sociaux les plus caractéristiques de la société romaine. Au cours
du dernier siècle, la recherche concernant ce sujet a été contaminée par l’époque,
emportée par le climat dominant intellectuel. Le but de cet article, est de mettre la
recherche archéologique et historique sur les bains romains et la coutume balnéaire
en perspective historique, indiquant comment les théories et modèles prédominants
ont été influencés par différentes pensées académiques. Il est clair que la recherche a
évolué d’une simple étude architecturale se focalisant surtout sur l’histoire de l’art,
à une approche fonctionnelle, technique et même symbolique de toute la pratique
balnéaire. Ce nouvel état de la question permettra aux chercheurs de percevoir les
dernières tendances et accentuations de la recherche récente, comment celles-ci ont
remis en question les théories précédentes et les nouvelles perspectives qu’elles
dégagent pour la recherche à venir.
Bains romains – la pratique balnéaire romaine – archéologie et histoire

SAMENVATTING

Het baden in zowel publieke als private badgebouwen wordt beschouwd als een van
de meest karakteristieke sociale aangelegenheden van de Romeinse samenleving.
In de voorbije eeuw is het onderzoek naar dit onderwerp steeds beïnvloed door de
tijdgeest, kaderend binnen het toenmalige intellectuele klimaat. Het doel van dit
artikel is om het archeologisch en historisch onderzoek naar Romeinse baden en
de badgewoonten in zijn historisch perspectief te plaatsen, met aandacht voor de
verschillende denkwijzen die hebben ingewerkt op de voornaamste theorieën en
modellen. Het onderzoek heeft namelijk een duidelijke evolutie doorgemaakt van
een louter architecturale en kunsthistorische studie, naar een functionele, technische
en zelfs symbolische benadering van het fenomeen van het baden in zijn totaliteit.
Deze nieuwste status quaestionis moet onderzoekers in staat stellen de laatste trends
en nadrukken binnen het onderzoek naar Romeinse baden te ontwaren, waarbij ook
duidelijk moet worden hoe deze nieuwe denkpistes de voorgaande theorieën in vraag
hebben gesteld en welke nieuwe vragen ze hebben opgeworpen voor toekomstige
studies.
Romeinse baden - Romeinse badgewoonten – archeologie en geschiedenis