Thermae et Balnea: The Architecture and Cultural History of Roman Public Baths by Inge

Nielsen
Review by: Fikret K. Yegül
American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 97, No. 1 (Jan., 1993), pp. 185-186
Published by: Archaeological Institute of America
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/505860 .
Accessed: 06/08/2014 16:16

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 support@jstor.org.

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 134.76.63.66 on Wed, 6 Aug 2014 16:16:22 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 1993] BOOKREVIEWS
analysison the evidence for export wine production,Arthur
appears to have overlooked a great deal that his data have
to tell us. In particular,it can be argued that he accords
insufficientattention to an analysisof the evidence for the
region's internal market. With the results of the Monte
Massicosurvey,the areaof northernCampaniaand southern
Latiummust now be regarded as the portion of the Italian
peninsula that offers the most comprehensivebody of evi-
dence regardingthe organizationof internalmarkets,a topic
long overdue for serious consideration by historians and
archaeologists.For, in addition to the evidence for rural
settlementand craft productionbroughtto light by Arthur's
fieldwork,we also enjoy unusually rich documentationre-
garding the configurationof the regional road networkand
the locationof marketcenters- this lastcircumstanceowing
to the unparalleledgroup of indicesnundinarii(marketcal-
endars) availablefor the region (II 13.2 299-313). It seems
a pity, then, that the author did not take full advantageof
this situation,in no small part the result of his own labors,
to effect a ground-breakinganalysisof the regional market
systemin northern Campania,advancingthe archaeological
discoursefor Roman Italy beyond the agenda of the 1980s.
J. THEODORE PE&A
PROGRAM IN MEDITERRANEAN ARCHAEOLOGY
THE UNIVERSITY AT ALBANY
STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
ALBANY, NEW YORK 12222
THERMAE ET BALNEA: THE ARCHITECTURE AND
CULTURAL HISTORY OF ROMAN PUBLIC BATHS,
by Inge Nielsen. I: Text, pp. 194, appendix 1; II:
Catalogue and Plates, pp. 212, figs. 260. Aarhus
University Press, Aarhus 1990. ISBN 87-7288-
212-3.
I have alwaysbelieved that there is a need for methodical
and regional studies on Roman baths and alleged that, be-
cause of their very large numbers, no single scholar or
volume could or should undertake such a responsibility.In
her monumental two-volume work, covering 387 baths in
the text and catalogue (and many others mentioned briefly
in the notes), Inge Nielsen proves me wrong-almost. Ther-
mae et Balnea is a tour de force of research. Arguably the
mostcomprehensivetreatmentof the subjectto date,it offers
a formidablewealth of archaeologicaland epigraphicalin-
formationon Roman baths and bathing across three conti-
nents. The undeniable strengths of such an approach also
beget undeniable weaknesses:with the exception of a few
large thermae, few baths enjoy full architecturaldiscussion,
interpretation,and analysis;the great majorityof the build-
ings are merely mentioned as comparable examples of a
particulartype or usage. Fresh and significantobservations,
for which she deserves admirationand credit, are drowned
in a mass of antiquariandetail.
Volume I is divided into three large sections:the firsttwo,
the originsand the developmentof bathsin Italyand Rome,
and a general survey of baths in the provinces,are archae-
ologicaland architecturalin content. The third sectiondeals
with social, economic, and cultural aspects of bathing, and,
This content downloaded from 134.76.63.66 on Wed, 6 Aug 2014 16:16:22 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
185
as to be expected, relies heavilyand competentlyon literary
and epigraphicalsources. An appendix on the individual
elementsof baths(likean extended glossary)providesuseful
informationon the etymologyof their names and architec-
tural function, and gives primaryancient and modern bib-
liographical sources. The second volume is reserved for
illustrations(copious,but almost entirely plans) and a "cat-
alogue"of baths.Architectureis difficult to express as cata-
logue entries; this one is no exception. Each entry consists
of a brief list of factual and bibliographicinformation on
the buildingand assignsit (some ratheruncomfortably)to a
"plantype."Of the 387 baths included in the catalogue,211
are illustratedby plans,but the plans do not accompanythe
"entries."
Nielsen considers the Greek public bath (PLXcavetvov) as
the immediateforerunnerof Romanbalneaand thermaein
Italy while she regards the classicalgymnasiumas the insti-
tution that specificallyinfluencedthe thermae.She links the
early development of baths to advances made in heating
technologyand providesan excellent accountof the origins
of the hypocaustsystem.She emphasizesthe role of Sergius
Orata (a Campanianentrepreneur active during the early
first century B.C.), and of Italy in the creation of the true
hypocaust, and cautions against accepting uncriticallythe
Greek Baths IV at Olympiaas the earliest hypocaust. Her
point is an importantone since the suggested dating of this
structureto ca. 100 B.C. is grounded on weakarchaeological
evidence as she has convincinglyshown in an earlier study
("Considerazionisulle prime fasi dell'evoluzionedell'edificio
termale romano,"AnalRom14 [1985] 81-112). Basing her
sequence mostly on Hans Eschebach'sclassic study of the
Stabian Baths in Pompeii (Die Stabianer Thermen in Pompeji,
Berlin 1979),and severalother earlyCampanianbaths,Niel-
sen offers a plausiblebut overcomplicatedchronicle of the
developmentof the thermae and balnea in Italy,with seven
periods for the thermae and three for the balnea, all over-
lapping.
Indeed, Nielsen's attempt to define and distinguish be-
tween a "balneum"and "thermae,"which inspired the title
of the book, is troublesome. Balnea are essentially small
baths, with or without exercise grounds, and often incor-
porated into the city fabric; thermae are very large bath
complexes, normallywith elaborateexercise grounds, often
symmetricallyplanned,and sometimesowned and operated
by the city or the state. Already in her IntroductionNielsen
rules that "thermaedesignatesa public institutionwhich has
a palaestra[sportsground],"and balneum "signifiesa public
bath without a sports area"(p. 3). This forced and artificial
distinction,which has no ancient authority,crops up again
and againthroughoutthe book, confuses the reader and the
author herself, and forces her to devise awkward exceptions
and provisions. Many of the small and medium-sized baths
(balnea), such as the 800-odd examples in Rome recorded
in the Regionaries Catalogues, must have had small exercise
courts. The proof of this comes in the BAL(neum) SVRAE,
a small bath whose name and plan are recorded in the Forma
Urbis. Elsewhere in the Roman world (especially in Asia
Minor), scores of small baths with palaestrae did exist. These,
Nielsen admits, "are called thermae merely because they
have palaestra, otherwise they would have been assigned to
the balnea group" (p. 113). Attempts to create definitions
and "clarify" the various pluralized Latin forms of the sin-
186 BOOK REVIEWS
gular balneum-balnea, balneae-further contributeto the
confusion: "balneaeis used only if the baths have separate
facilitiesfor men and women, balneumonly of privatebath-
rooms, if not referring directly to a written source"(p. 3).
There are many other instancesof overconfidencein defin-
ing terminologyand identifying spaces associatedwith Ro-
man baths.Perhaps,in a studyrepresentingsuch monumen-
tal effort, the authorcould not acceptthat some of the pieces
of the puzzle must remain unfilled. The truth is, antiquity
itself was neither restrictingnor consistent with the termi-
nology of baths. Terms overlapped, meanings varied over
time and across geographicalboundaries. To seek for and
assignpreciseand consistentmeaningsto wordsthatdescribe
Roman baths and their elements appears pseudo-scientific
and invites trouble.
Nielsen provides a fine and informativediscussionof the
architectureand developmentof the great imperialthermae
of Rome. In this discussion,an old controversyconcerning
the roofingof their "palaestrae" comes up: Werethese large,
internalizedperistylesroofed over, and did they constitute
whatsome inscriptionsrefer to as basilicathermarum, or were
they open to the sky? Nielsen offers a redacted and biased
versionof the argument,and opts for the basilicathermarum
theory initiated by Daniel Krencker,and later followed by
his student, Erica Br6dner. The great majorityof scholars
who have written on the subject, including this reviewer,
rejects this theory (A. von Gerkan, Gnomon8 [1932] 45ff.,
BJb 151 [1953] 132-35; J.B. Ward-Perkins,JRS 43 [1953]
210-12; A. L6zine, "Palestresou basiliques?"RA 49 [1957]
98-99; L. Crema,Palladio2 [1952] 94-95. See also F. Yeguil,
Baths and Bathing in Classical Antiquity [New York 1992]
160-62). There are many good architecturalreasons why
these "palaestrae"should be consideredopen to the sky,but
one of the most obviousis the structuralproblemof placing,
at a great height, a wooden-trussedroof over spansreaching
22-25 m.
In section 2, "ProvincialBaths," Nielsen carefully and
sensitivelyconsiders the issue of Romanizationand demon-
strates how public baths reflect the degree and manner of
this complex cultural adaptationby local populaces. Inter-
estingly, many of the baths in the western and northern
provincesare early (most are first-centuryA.C., some even
first-centuryB.C.) and display direct Italian influences by
their simple, row-type plans. Some, however, such as the
LegionaryBaths at Vindonissa(Windisch)or those at Caer-
leon (Isca), are among the earliest experiments in symmet-
rical bath planning anywhere. The author's strength and
expertise lie in these European provinces;the nature and
the peculiar problems of North African and Asia Minor
baths appears to be less central to her interests. The bath-
gymnasium complex is a new architectural type developed
in Asia Minor under the Empire combining a vaulted Roman
bath with a Greek/Hellenistic gymnasium. Although the in-
stitutional origins of this new type are recognized, the im-
portant social, cultural, and physical relationship among its
components lacks depth and richness. Another critical flaw
is the author's conception (and hard definition) of the bath-
gymnasium complex as a building type that requires bilateral
symmetry. What makes a bath-gymnasium is not the formal
characteristics of its plan, but its social and functional inten-
tion as expressed through integrated (or, at least, combined)
This content downloaded from 134.76.63.66 on Wed, 6 Aug 2014 16:16:22 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[AJA 97
elements representingthe bath and the gymnasium.Impor-
tant bath-gymnasiasuch as the FaustinaBathsin Miletus,or
the South Gate Baths in Perge, do not have symmetrical
layouts.
Like most translated books, Thermaeet Balnea lays no
claims for distinguished literary style. Contorted and un-
happyEnglishstructures,repeatedmisspellings("therm"for
thermae; "suburbanebaths"for suburban baths), cavalier
and inconsistenteditorialconventions,are all too noticeable.
The extraordinarilyrich collection of bath plans, most of
them partiallyredrawn and adapted from previous publi-
cations, are commendable-except for their outrageous
north arrows, and their lack of graphic scales. One would
have wished to see some of the plans showing their urban
context. Also, why are only the catalogue numbers, instead
of the figure numbers,given next to the text discussionof a
building?For most of the baths the reader has to go to the
"catalogueentry"(in the separate volume) in order to find
the proper figure number accompanyingthe discussion.
Thermaeet Balnea is a serious, comprehensive, and au-
thoritativesourcebookon Romanbaths. It is a book to own.
Its strengthis more archaeologicalthan interpretive.There
are manyexcellentsequencesof learned discussionbasedon
impeccablescholarshipand fine, hypotheticaljudgment-
such as the superb section on fuels used in Roman baths
(pp. 19-20). The reader who seeks thematicoverviewsand
criticalanalysesof batharchitecture(or Romanarchitecture,
in general) may be disappointed. Such analyses, when of-
fered, appear flat, mechanicaland derivative-all the more
a pity because Roman baths were among the most creative
and imaginativeproducts of imperial Roman architecture
and civilization.
FIKRET K. YEGUL
ART HISTORY DEPARTMENT
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA 93io6
THREE SOUTH ETRURIAN CHURCHES: SANTA COR-
NELIA, SANTA RUFINA AND SAN LIBERATO, edited
by Neil Christie(Archaeological Monographs of
the British School at Rome 4.) Pp. 374, figs. 109,
pls. 94. The British School at Rome, London
1991. ?55. ISBN 0-904152-17-0.
This volume derives in the first instance from fieldwork
performed in the 1960s by a variety of scholarsunder the
dynamicleadershipof Bryan Ward-Perkins,and in the sec-
ond from a careful and systematic review of the results
carried out in the 1980s, with Neil Christie assuming re-
sponsibilityfor editing the entire volume. Each of the three
sites publishedhere was discoveredand studied in the con-
text of a long-term (1950-1975), detailed archaeological
survey of the region of South Etruria carried out by the
British School at Rome, a fact that should remind us that
the value of such institutions to innovative research can
hardly be overstated.This is particularlyclear with the ap-
pearanceof an excellent study like this one, the product of
a collaborativeeffort by a score of contributors,with histor-
ical focus ably maintainedby the editor.