A. Haug/D. Steuernagel (Hrsg.), Hellenistische Häuser und ihre Funktionen

Hellenistische Häuserund ihre Funktionen

herausgegeben vonAnnette Haug

Dirk Steuernagel

Verlag Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH · Bonn 2014

Internationale Tagung Kiel, 4. bis 6. April 2013

Gedruckt mit Unterstützungder Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) und

der Freunde der Antike Kiel e. V.

Umschlag: Unter Verwendung einer Zeichnung von Andreas Rumpf,Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 50, 1935, S. 7 Abb. 2.

Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie. Detailliertere bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über <http://dnb.d-nb.de> abrufbar.

© 2014 by Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, BonnDas Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt.

Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Dies gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigung, Übersetzung, Mikroverfilmung und die

Speicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen.

Redaktion: A. Haug (Kiel), D. Steuernagel (Regensburg)Satz: S. Biegert (Bonn)

Druck: Beltz Bad Langensalza GmbH

ISBN 978-3-7749-3759-8

Das Internationale Kolloquium „Hellenistische Häuser und ihre Funktionen“, das vom 4. bis 6. April 2013 in der Antikensammlung Kiel stattfand, eröffnete eine Vielzahl unterschiedlicher Perspektiven auf das gemeinsame Thema und erlaubte es so, verschiedene Zugänge zur funktionalen Definition hellenistischer Häuser vorzustellen und zuweilen durchaus kontrovers zu diskutieren. Neben den Autoren, die im vorliegenden Band ihre Studien und Positionen präsentieren, haben auch Jens-Arne Dickmann, Jörn Lang, Katherina Lorenz, Fanny Opdenhoff, Barbara Tsakirgis und Markus Wolf das Kolloquium durch Referate bereichert. Ihnen allen danken wir sehr für ihre wertvollen Beiträge. Für die Übernahme der Diskussionsleitung während der Tage in Kiel danken wir Silvia Balatti, Sara Boysen, Georg Gerleigner, Philipp Kobusch, Nadine Krüger und Jessica Krause.

Hilfskräfte des Instituts für Klassische Altertumskunde / Klassische Archäologie der Christian-Albrechts-Universität Kiel sowie des Instituts für Klassische Archäologie der Universität Regensburg haben das Kolloquium sowie verschiedene Prozesse der Drucklegung mit großem Einsatz begleitet. Unser besonderer Dank gilt hier Lisa Felsing, Sebastian Förster, Marlene Klages, Sonja Konrad, Stefan Langer, Julia Pygoch und Inga Quandel. Für die große organisatorische Hilfe „im Hintergrund“ sei den Mitarbeitern der Kieler Klassischen Archäologie, Georg Gerleigner, Philipp Kobusch und Joachim Raeder, sehr herzlich gedankt.

Die Finanzierung des Kolloquiums haben die Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, die Kieler Graduiertens-chule „Human Development in Landscapes“ sowie der Freundeskreis des Antikenmuseums, die „Freunde der Antike Kiel e. V.“ übernommen. Die Drucklegung wurde durch die Zuschüsse der Deutschen Forschungsge-meinschaft sowie von den „Freunde der Antike“ möglich gemacht. Den Geldgebern sei an dieser Stelle unser herzlichster Dank ausgesprochen.

Dem Habelt Verlag gebührt unser Dank für die Aufnahme unseres Buches in das Verlagsprogramm, insbe-sondere aber Susanne Biegert für die reibungslose Zusammenarbeit.

Annette HaugDirk Steuernagel

Danksagung der Herausgeber

1 – 6

9 – 2425 – 34

37 – 56

57 – 84

87 – 102103 – 122

125 – 142143 – 160

163 – 176177 – 196

199 – 216

Annette Haug – Dirk Steuernagel, Zur Einführung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Der soziale und ökonomische Kontext des hellenistischen Wohnens

Winfried Schmitz, Haus- und Familienstrukturen in klassischer und hellenistischer Zeit. Althistorische Perspektiven . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Bradley Allen Ault, Assessing the Economic Life of the Greek Oikos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Die räumliche Strukturierung des Wohnens: Fallbeispiele

Annette Haug – Dirk Steuernagel, The Maison 49,19 (XV B) in Megara Hyblaia and the Problem of Functional Differentiation in Relation to Hellenistic Double-Courtyard Houses . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Christian Russenberger, 200 Jahre Wohnen im Peristylhaus 2 auf dem Monte Iato: Materialien für eine Analyse der Raumfunktionen und der Raumhierarchien . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Spezifische Funktionsbereiche in Häusern: Baden und Opfern

Monika Trümper, Sanitary Installations in Hellenistic Houses of Sicily. A Critical Reassessment . . . . .Elisa Chiara Portale, Himera: pratiche cultuali nell’abitato . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Raumausstattungen und Kleinfunde als Indikatoren von Raumfunktionen?

Claudia Mächler, Die Wanddekorationen des Peristylhauses 2 auf dem Monte Iato. Die Stuckprofile des Andron der nördlichen Raumzeile sowie seiner hofseitigen Fassade . . . . . . . .Frank Rumscheid, Die hellenistischen Wohnhäuser von Priene. Befunde, Funde und Raumfunktionen

Wohnen als urbanes Phänomen

Frédéric Mège, Features of Hellenistic Housing at Megara Hyblaia. Insights into Recent Works on Early Excavations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sandro De Maria – Sidi Gorica, Edilizia domestica di età ellenistica in Epiro e Illiria meridionale . . .

Die Chronologie des sizilischen Wohnens

Caterina Greco, Pavimenti e decorazione parietale a Solunto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Inhaltsverzeichnis

87

In Graeco-Roman houses with their multitude of mul-tifunctional rooms, bathing facilities and latrines com-monly rank among the few purpose-built, function-specific rooms that are seemingly easily recognizable. While sanitary facilities thus are rewarding targets for functional analyses of ancient houses, they rarely re-ceive more detailed attention, and their precise func-tion often is not questioned. It is the aim of this paper to show that close reading of these mundane structures elucidates two main questions: first of all, the safe iden-tification of sanitary installations; and second, the as-sessment of their standard, including the location and accessibility within a house, which all may throw light on the socio-cultural significance and main function of these facilities. A brief discussion of criteria for the identification of sanitary facilities will serve as basis for the following investigation of nine examples. In accordance with the focus of this conference, examples include only Hellenistic houses in the western Medi-terranean, notably Sicily, in which sanitary facilities recently have been identified. While discussion is fo-cused on nitty-gritty details of archaeological evidence and is, indeed, based on recent fieldwork1, this paper also is conceived as a methodological contribution to the overarching problem of the functional analysis of ancient domestic architecture: it proposes and at-tempts to revise the evaluation and weighing of iden-tifying criteria, and to significantly expand the con-textualization of sanitary facilities, within the history and design of houses, as well as the local and regional context and beyond. It also will become obvious that, even if clear answers are desirable—this is a latrine, this is a not a bathing facility, etc.—thorough investigation cannot always provide them, which should be clearly acknowledged.

Terminology of sanitary facilities varies in different cultures. In order to avoid confusion particularly with modern concepts and practices2, here the word latrine is used for rooms that include a toilet, whereas bath-ing facility, bath, or bathroom is used for rooms with installations for bathing and washing. While toilets and bathing installations are often combined in one and the same room in modern houses, this was not common practice in Graeco-Roman domestic archi-tecture3.

Criteria for the identification of purpose-built baths4 include conclusive fixed features such as in situ bath-tubs or gaps for tubs in the floor; heating installations (praefurnia/furnaces/hypocausts); waterproof deco-ration of walls and, above all, floors; drainage; small doorways to prevent loss of heat and grant privacy; and access to water supply and heating facilities. Based on criteria such as location, size, decoration, costs for op-eration and maintenance and connotation of bathing forms, a classification and hierarchy can be fairly well reconstructed. Hip-bathtubs for individual cleansing shower baths with warm water are the basic standard; these were installed in separate bathrooms, often re-motely located within the house, at least from the 5th century BC onwards around the entire Mediterranean, and have also been found, in situ, in multifunctional rooms that, without waterproof decoration and drains, do not qualify as purpose-built bathrooms. More lav-ish and extravagant relaxing bathing forms were intro-duced in the Hellenistic period, including immersion bathtubs with or without hypocausts and round sweat baths. These were commonly part of larger bath suites that were accessible from the most lavishly endowed parts of houses, such as peristyle courtyards and richly decorated rooms; these bathing facilities could be used

Sanitary Installations in Hellenistic Houses of SicilyA Critical Reassessment

Monika Trümper

88

Monika Trümper

collectively, for example during social events such as the reception of guests. In both cases, ‘intimate’ private ‘family’ bathroom (for use by household members) and large bath suite (for possible use by outsiders), access to water supply and particularly heating commonly led to a close connection with ‘service’ quarters, notably the kitchen5.

The most significant element of purpose-built la-trines is a channel, pipe, or pit that connects to a cess-pit or sewer leading to the exterior6. Thus, latrines are commonly located close to streets or open areas. More debated, but central to their convenient physical use by both genders for urination and defecation, is the existence of wooden or stone seats. Seats were probably the distinctive feature to clearly differentiate between a service room with multifunctional channels or drains that served to flush any household waste, including that of chamber pots, and purpose-built latrines that served primarily (or exclusively) for the activity of uri-

nation and defecation. Waterproof decoration, water supply for flushing, basins for washing, and restricted visibility may further characterize purpose-built la-trines. Capacities are commonly calculated based on the length of channels or number of preserved (or hy-pothetically reconstructed) seats. While no issue with public latrines, collective use of domestic latrines is consistently ignored, although several sites provide un-deniable evidence of this practice. Whether communal use of latrines was a mere practicality and necessity or also a conscious social practice and convivial activity, must remain open. The location of many latrines next to entrances was certainly motivated by the proximity to streets, but may also have facilitated use by outsiders of the household.

While all of these criteria were taken into account in the assessment of the following nine case-studies, for lack of space, they are not consistently discussed in the same detail and order in the text.

Fig. 1: Morgantina, House of the Doric Capital: Schematic plan (last phase of use)

89

Sanitary Installations in Hellenistic Houses of Sicily. A Critical Reassessment

Morgantina

Excavations at Morgantina yielded an impressive num-ber of terracotta hip-bathtubs, which are displayed in the museum and storerooms of Aidone and attest to a certain bathing standard in the ancient city. These tubs, however, either were not found in situ or their findspots are unknown today, although the site includes 13 more or less fully excavated Hellenistic houses and two Hel-lenistic public baths7. The portability and flexible use of terracotta hip-bathtubs is often overestimated, not so much because of the significant weight, but because of the commonly stepped bottom, which required a substantial built support or insertion into the floor8. This suggests that these bathtubs were ripped out of their original context, found in inconclusive contexts such as multifunctional rooms without waterproof decoration or other typical features, or in secondary uses. The houses include, however, some structures identified as remains of sanitary installations. Some of them have been safely evaluated in date and function: two relaxing bathing facilities installed in the House of the Doric Capital and the House of the Arched Cistern after 211 BC, when Morgantina was conquered by the Romans and settled with Spanish mercenaries, whereas the houses themselves, like most others, had already been built during Morgantina’s heyday in the 3rd cen-tury BC9. Other structures require a reassessment.

The House of the Doric Capital includes a group of rooms, recognized by Barbara Tsakirgis as a sanitary complex, which would have formed the—strangely ir-regular—southern border of the original 3rd century BC house (fig. 1). Room 12 (2.32 × 3.75 m) with a deco-rated opus signinum floor and a drain in its southwest corner would have served for bathing, the tiny space 12a (0.83-0.88 × 2.07 m) probably for changing, and the platform 12b (1.21 × 1.58 m, 0.92 m high) with an opus signinum surface possibly for placing a bathtub. Waste water would have drained from the southwest corner of 12 into the adjacent latrine 16, which would have been provided with a trench along the east wall that emptied into an open channel in the south. The latrine would have been accessible from the courtyard via the lavishly decorated room 15, whereas the main entrance to the house presumably was in the west10.

The currently visible remains suggest a revised read-ing, however. The platform 12b is inconveniently high for a bathtub, and tubs found in situ were indeed never

placed on platforms at all. Instead, room 12a is the ideal location for a bathtub because it (and not room 12) has a lead pipe drain in its northwest corner and is entirely paved with opus signinum that forms a slightly raised lid in the east, obviously in order to prevent wa-ter from running out through the door (fig. 2). Thus, a fairly large bathtub (e.g., 1.40 × 0.60 m) with a flat bottom could have been set up along the south wall of this room, well protected from view and draughts and conveniently emptied (by hand?) via the drain in the northwest corner. Room 12 with its inviting pavement inscription ΕΥΕΧΕΙ could have served for changing, waiting, and relaxing, while the platform 12b may have accommodated clothes or, more likely, a vessel, from which servants or bathers could easily take water for the bathtub. Water may have been heated in one of the nearby service rooms such as room 14, identified as a kitchen11.

Fig. 2: Morgantina, House of the Doric Capital: view of room 12a from east

90

Monika Trümper

The latrine (3.20 × 0.75 m) includes a large built channel along its west wall that is entirely covered with stones (0.35-0.50 m wide) 12, except possibly for the currently half-buried southern end (fig. 3). While its provenance (probably the southwest corner of the peristyle courtyard) has never been investigated, the channel emptied into a well-built open channel that ran along the west façade of the service section of the house (13, 17, 21, 22) 13. This west façade runs through without any joints (between rooms 12 and 13) and was protected against humidity by a low battered wall, like other parts of the original house, suggesting that the service section belonged to the first phase of this resi-dence14. The lead pipe from room 12a emptied into the south end of room 16, but where and how precisely is not clear. There is no evidence of a typical open latrine channel along the east wall (next to the fully closed channel). If this room really served as latrine, however,

there must have been some open trench or pit, presum-ably at the south wall, thus potentially leaving space for only a single seat along this wall; given the length of the room, which would easily have allowed for multiple seats and collective use with a different drainage arrange-ment, this seems as strange (‘substandard’) as the lack of consistent waterproof decoration for a purpose-built la-trine. A single southern seat would, however, have been well protected from view through the centrally placed opening between the latrine (0.70 m wide, threshold made of two bricks) and room 15.

While the western half of room 15 and the entire southwest part of the house have been destroyed by landslides, one may still hypothesize that the main en-trance and vestibule of the house was room 15, with a (probably partially preserved) door in its south wall, rather than some makeshift construction in the west15. As argued here, this locally high-ranking house would, from its construction in the 3rd century BC, have com-prised the peristyle complex and a separate service section in the south. At the intersection of these two sections were located the sanitary facilities, supplied by the service rooms, but accessible from the peristyle courtyard; the latrine 16 next to the main vestibule 15, accessible to household members and guests alike; and the bath suite 12/12a/12b that—because of its loca-tion, accessibility, and decoration—was not a simple intimate ‘family’ bathroom, but suited for use by guests. These facilities were presumably continuously used without visible changes after 211 BC, when the bath-ing program was modernized with the installation of a large round sweat bath in the service section (21-22)16.

The nearby House of Ganymede also contained a large vestibule (21) with an adjacent room, identified by Tsakirgis as a latrine (22) that belonged to the original 3rd century BC house (fig. 4)17. While the identifica-tion is generally convincing, the precise functioning of this latrine requires further discussion. The large rec-tangular peristyle courtyard was, from the beginning, drained by two installations: a terracotta pipe that ran from the northwest corner through room 20, and a terracotta pipe that started near the southwest corner, leading under the pavement of the west porticus to a presumably open channel in room 22. The bottom and walls of this channel, 0.30 m deep below the earth floor of the room, were covered with opus signinum and plaster; it runs obliquely in a distance of 0.33 to

Fig. 3 : Morgantina, House of the Doric Capital: view of room 16 from south; photo M. Trümper

91

Sanitary Installations in Hellenistic Houses of Sicily. A Critical Reassessment

0.45 m from the south wall of room 22 and varies in width from 0.31 m in the east, a maximum of 0.64 m in the center, to 0.28 m in the west (fig. 5). While the varying width may have served to accommodate larger amounts of water (flash floods after downpours or poured out water), this feature as well as the strange location of the channel prevent a standard reconstruc-tion of seats along the walls (here the south wall). The length of the entirely open channel allows for collective use of this facility. A large purpose-built latrine room without seats and consistent waterproof decoration seems strange, but recalls the similarly ‘substandard’ equivalent in the House of the Doric Capital. While again the room itself provides no evidence of changes (modernization), remodeling of the house after 211 BC significantly improved at least the water supply of the channel, suggesting that the latrine was continu-ously used in its original function. In addition to rain

water collected in the impluvium, two terracotta pipes from unknown provenances in the eastern part of the house, one of them maybe coming from some bathing facility in rooms 6-8, fed the latrine channel18. Thus, this latrine, like the one in the House of the Doric Capital, presumably worked, even if both structures do not fulfill all standard requirements of purpose-built latrines. A certain experimental, ‘non-standard’ design may be ascribed to their comparatively early date. In any case, within the local and regional Sicilian context these two latrines are quite revolutionary and do not have many comparisons19.

Another bathroom was identified by Tsakirgis in the House of the Official, belonging to a post-211 BC remodeling when the large 3rd century BC house pre-sumably was subdivided into two separate units. The large room 10 (4.70 × 3.10 m) would have been pro-

Fig. 4: Morgantina, House of the Ganymede: Schematic plan (last phase of use)

92

Monika Trümper

vided with an opus signinum pavement, a drain in the southwest corner to the adjacent ambitus, and a low platform (1.30 × 3.10 m) at the south wall (fig. 6). The floor, only visible and described at the time of excava-tion, would have had an upward facing lip close to the door to prevent water from washing into the courtyard. The room was found filled with broken pottery and animals bones20. No traces of a drain and pavement are visible today, but both features also do not appear on the published state plan21; opus signinum floors, how-ever, commonly do not entirely disappear in Morgan-tina, even if badly preserved at excavation, calling into question whether any ever existed here. The platform and remains of some east-west oriented stone structure at the west wall are on a significantly lower level than the threshold to the courtyard, challenging the notion that water could ever have run out of the northeast corner of this room. Finally, the platform is a badly pre-served or defined rubble construction of significantly varying height, with stones projecting up to 0.60 m above the floor and without any traces of waterproof decoration22. Thus, there are no conclusive features that would support the identification of room 10 as a bathroom. The finds are highly unusual for a bathing facility and suggest instead that this room was used for the preparation and possibly consumption of food. If at all, room 22 that is provided with an opus signinum pavement and a terracotta pipe in the northwest corner would qualify for a sanitary facility, but it is situated on a significantly higher level than other rooms of the House of the Official and opened to an adjacent living unit in the north.

Solunto

In Solunto several elongated, narrow rooms included in the mezzanine hillside stories of multi-storied hous-es have been interpreted as bathrooms, conveniently grouped with other service rooms. On first sight, this seems to be confirmed by the only safely identifiable and classifiable bathing facility in houses of Solunto, a round sweat bath in the Casa a vano circolare that was proba-bly built in the 2nd century BC23. Assessment of the other examples is more challenging, however, at least regarding their classification and precise functioning. The Casa del deposito a volta includes a long narrow room (2 × 5 m) on the western side of the peristyle courtyard; accessible via four steps (0.76 m above courtyard) and presumably fully visible from the courtyard, it includes in its back part a bedrock-platform of 1.30-1.70 m depth and 0.57 m height (fig. 7). This platform and the lower part of the walls are covered with waterproof plaster and opus signinum (fig. 8). Markus Wolf observed a drainage hole in the platform under restoration with modern cement and assumed that the platform was used for a bathtub and also as a latrine. But the platform, which gives no evidence of convenient access, is subdivided by a kind of low balustrade or wall, made of four blocks, c. 0.20 m high, leaving spaces of only 0.50 m to the east and west; between the balustrade and adjacent walls are consider-able gaps of 0.15 (south) and 0.07 m (north), and the northernmost block has a kind of channel on top.

While the “Guida di Solunto” calls this room vano-bagno, it is still identified as a latrine, because a wooden board with holes is reconstructed above the “vasca di

Fig. 5: Morgantina, House of Ganymede:view of room 22 from east

Fig. 6: Morgantina, House of the Official:platform in room 10 from northwest

93

Sanitary Installations in Hellenistic Houses of Sicily. A Critical Reassessment

raccolta dei liquami”24. Easy identification of this room as a latrine, bathing facility, or both is clearly impeded by the lack of conclusive finds and parallels. Use as a latrine is questionable because a simple drainage hole into the bedrock seems insufficient for the efficient evacuation of urine and feces, and the ‘balustrade’ with ‘overflow’ does not form a fully closed and imperme-able vasca or channel. Use of the vasca as an immersion bathtub seems unlikely for the same reason and also because the balustrade is far too low (0.20 m instead of the standard 0.50 m). Space for setting up a port-able bathtub25 is strangely restricted by the balustrade, which also makes little sense for this purpose. Finally, the high platform with its inconvenient accessibility would have made water supply by hand, for bathing or flushing a latrine, unnecessarily difficult. Set on the pavement of the platform, the balustrade could be secondary, but even without its existence most of the problems outlined would remain. Thus, while the wa-terproof decoration clearly suggests use of water, and water could have been provided from the large cistern in room HG5, the precise use of ZG1 (drainage, bath-ing form) currently cannot be determined and sanitary standards of this house cannot be classified. Finally, no installation for heating water was found in the house. Remarkable, however, are the curved northwest and southwest corner of the room, the slightly inwards inclined walls, and the duplication of the west wall, all features that point to a vaulted room with specific function and seem, indeed, appropriate for a bathroom.

Local comparisons do not really help to elucidate the situation. The Casa di Arpocrate comprises a room of similar location and design (ZG1 3.05 × 1.05 m), fully visible and accessible via a staircase from the peri-style courtyard (fig. 9). A well-made platform in the back is 0.44 m high and 0.72-0.80 m deep, is entirely covered with gray plaster, and is framed by gaps in the north and south wall, which probably housed some wooden frame or structure. Wolf suggests that this gap results from a transformation of the former bathing platform into a closet, but it is questionable whether this was ever used as a bathing facility at all26. As in the previous house, the platform is inconvenient and rather restricted in size for placement of a bathtub, and the lack of drainage, hydraulic plaster, and privacy does not support the notion of a purpose-built bathing facil-ity. A better suited candidate for sanitary installations may be room SG4 of this house (2.10 m north-south,

east-west extension unknown), which gives evidence of two superimposed opus signinum pavements and three terracotta pipes on different levels, belonging to at least two different phases: a terracotta downpipe in the southwest corner, a terracotta drainage pipe in the south wall to the adjacent ambitus, and a terra-cotta pipe on a much lower level in the north wall (fig. 10). Access via a narrow corridor from the courtyard granted privacy, the adjacent service room SG 3 with its cistern may have provided water and possibly even some heating installation, and the location right next to the most lavish room of the house (HG4) may have been chosen with a view to collective use during con-vivial events. Since the entire eastern row of rooms, SG1-4, originally included substantial fills, which are lost today, the design and function of SG 4 can no longer be safely reconstructed, however.

Finally, two rooms in the hillside mezzanine of the Casa di Leda (ZG3-4)27 have been identified as a

Fig. 7: Solunto, Casa del deposito a volta: plan

94

Monika Trümper

Fig. 9: Solunto, Casa di Arpocrate: plan

Fig. 8: Solunto, Casa del deposito a volta: view of ZG1 from east

95

Sanitary Installations in Hellenistic Houses of Sicily. A Critical Reassessment

kitchen-bath complex: room ZG4 was provided with opus signinum pavement, a cistern, a staircase from the courtyard and later another staircase to an upper story; room ZG3 also had an opus signinum floor and housed an oven that cannot be assessed, since no drawings or photos have been published, and it is entirely covered with a modern roof today. The multifunctional service room ZG4 could have included a bathing facility, al-though conclusive evidence (drain, bathtub) is con-spicuously absent, and the room was obviously neither an intimate purpose-built family bathroom nor a lavish bathing suite for collective use. At an unknown date, the staircase to the complex ZG3/4 was blocked, suggesting that whatever had been performed there was no long considered crucial to the functioning of the household.

The examples from Solunto presented here either chal-lenge the typology of bathing facilities known so far or suggest that the assessment of sanitary installations in Solunto should be revised. Purpose-built sanitary facilities may not be recognizable with available criteria or may indeed have been largely absent in the about 32 larger excavated houses. This absence could go back to many reasons, such as the date of the houses, the specif-ic local urban water management or local practices and

customs. The construction date of the houses is much debated, ranging from the early 3rd to the 2nd century BC28; while an early construction date could account for poorly developed sanitary standards, it would still remain strange that sanitary standards were not more systematically improved later although the houses were continuously embellished and remodeled until the Im-perial period. Public facilities known so far comprise a round sweat bath in the gymnasion, not built before the 2nd century BC, and two small thermal buildings, constructed presumably in the late Hellenistic and early Imperial period29.

Megara Hyblaea

Recently, Frédéric Mège identified five sanitary facili-ties in the Hellenistic remains of Megara Hyblaea, four of which are still visible today. House 49,19 included in the southeast corner of its peristyle courtyard section an L-shaped room (B 18) that resulted from a second-ary subdivision of a large rectangular room into a small rectangular room (B 19) and the L-shaped room (see article Haug – Steuernagel, this volume, fig. 1,). At the same time, the level of the new rooms (B 18, B 19)

Fig. 10: Solunto, Casa di Arpocrate: view of room SG4 with two pavements of opus signinum andthree terracotta pipes, from east

96

Monika Trümper

tween this wall and the northwest corner of room 2, only a narrow (0.37 m) oblique opening granted access to the latrine. Mège identifies the structure in the north-west corner as a furnace for heating water, although con-clusive features such as traces of burning are absent; nonetheless, the western branch of room B 18 would have served as bathroom with its floor inclined towards north to flush the latrine30. The dubious furnace theory and the lack of any convincing evidence (esp. bathtub) left aside, the western part of room 1 was an entirely inappropriate place for bathing and the placement of a bathtub because it obviously functioned as a highly frequented and highly visible passage room, connect-ing four different spaces (latrine, courtyard, rooms B 19 and D 2). When the large double-courtyard house 49,19 was reorganized at an unknown period, a new, probably double-storied living unit was created in the southeast31 that was also provided with a latrine, obvi-ously considered an improvement. While possibly re-motely located in this living unit, the latrine was placed next to a passage area and a street, granting sufficient accessibility and proper function. The ‘structure’ in the northwest corner of room 1 may indeed have served as a kind of screen to give users sufficient privacy or may have housed some accessories such as a washbasin.

Complex 41,6, which at some point of its use housed one workshop or several workshops, included a long room on its east side with a separate street en-trance and a staircase, consisting of three stone steps along the east wall (fig. 11 room 7) 32. The staircase partially blocks the door and must have been inserted later, when room 7 and its upper story probably served as an independent living unit. The corridor to the west of the staircase (0.77-1.06 × 2 m) was paved with opus signinum that is bordered by upright standing tiles in the south and stones in the north and is inclined to the north; it leads to a small space under the staircase massif that has a clearly defined entrance with stuc-coed door jambs (fig. 12). A cesspit was found in the adjacent street. Mège identifies the space with opus signinum as the platform for a bathtub, with reference to room 10 in the House of Official in Morgantina, “où une petite pièce dotée d’une plateforme en béton de tuileaux, probablement située sous un escalier et équipée d’une evacuation vers l’ambitus adjacent, a été interprétée comme une salle de bains”33.

Apart from the fact that this reference seems to be based on some misunderstandings34 and that the identi-

Fig. 11: Megara Hyblaea, Complex 41,6: Schematic plan

was raised and they were connected with rooms on the terrain of the southern neighbor (notably room D 2); this is suggested by the fact that the thresholds between rooms B 18 and B 19, as well as rooms B 18 and D 2 and rooms D 2 and B 19, are clearly distinguished from other thresholds in the house; they are all made of the same conspicuous material (white-blue limestone) and are situated on the same elevated level.

The northern part of the L-shaped room is paved with opus signinum that is inclined towards the center and to the east to facilitate the evacuation of water. A construction at the east wall is easily recognizable as a latrine with one built seat over a channel that emptied into a cesspit in the adjacent street. The western branch of the room shows traces of some poorly preserved wa-terproof (opus signinum?) pavement at the southern end. A wall in the northwest corner, of which only three stones survive, delineated a space of 0.66 m north-south by 0.90 m east-west that was probably not paved. Be-

97

Sanitary Installations in Hellenistic Houses of Sicily. A Critical Reassessment

Fig. 12: Megara Hyblaea, Complex 41,6: view of room 7 from southeast

Fig. 13: Megara Hyblaea, House 13,22: plan

98

Monika Trümper

fication of room 10 in Morgantina has been challenged here, Mège’s interpretation of the remains in Megara Hyblaea is problematic. The paved area again is a pas-sage space (and not a platform), clearly visible from the entrance area, and is not obviously connected to a drain. If anything, the remotely located space under the staircase massif could have housed some sanitary facil-ity, although rather a latrine than a bathroom, as sug-gested by the location and the proximity to a cesspit35. While latrines are found in simple mixed complexes for working and living, serving customers and inhabit-ants alike, one wonders whether such a modest com-plex would have afforded a purpose-built bathroom36. Finally, lack of easily accessible water supply37 would have been crucial for regular bathing, much more so than for some trench that may have needed no more than occasional flushing into a nearby cesspit.

House 13,22 includes, for once, a safely identifi-able bath suite, whose assessment and contextualization still provide intriguing challenges (fig. 13). The bath suite occupies the southwest corner of a relatively small courtyard house (c. 220 m2) and originally included two rooms: a large room with benches along the north and west wall that was accessible from the street and was later subdivided into rooms h and i; and the bath-ing room proper (g) with a built bathtub in its south-west corner (j) that could be reached via a corridor from room h/i, a door from the courtyard of the house, and a narrow door from some unexplored space in the south (fig. 14). Waste water from room h/i was drained to the northeast into a reused pithos, placed next to the en-trance to the house, and waste water from room g into

a reused hip-bathtub, set up in the courtyard next to the entrance to room g. Hierarchy is expressed in the deco-ration, ranking room g with a decorated opus signinum pavement higher than room h/i with its simple opus signinum. The bathtub (1.05 × 1.40 m) is an intriguing hybrid: built with inbuilt backrest and drainage hole in the northeast corner, probably imitating the immer-sion pool in the local Greek public bath, but without hypocaust and convenient access steps, it would still have provided sufficient space for one or two persons to immerse in – probably very shallow – water38. Acces-sibility suggests that this bath suite was a semi-public bath, usable by the members of the household and, most likely for fees, by outsiders. The south entrance to room g may have been a service entrance, used for supplying warm water by hand, although water supply and heating installations have not yet been identified.

While the date and socio-cultural context of this well-organized complex are debated, a date after 213 BC when Megara Hyblaea was conquered by the Ro-mans currently seems most convincing39. This is sug-gested by the urban development – the bath suite in-vades the street along the Hellenistic (pre-213 BC) city wall –, the relative chronology of the house, and an inscription found in the pavement of room i: Gnaiou Modiou, a typical owner’s inscription, here of some un-known Roman or Italian expressing himself in Greek. The history of the house, ignored in scholarship so far, is revealing. The original house only included room g, which may already have housed some bathing facility, for example the terracotta hip-bathtub later reused for the collection of waste water in the courtyard40. Room h/i and the room to its south were added later, when the bath was built or transformed from a simple do-mestic bath into a more extended semi-public facility. While the bath could be used collectively by several persons at a time, who relaxed on the benches in h/i and waited for their turn in the bathtub, the program was overall modest: in the 3rd century BC, the bath suite could hardly have competed with the nearby so-phisticated public bath, which included a collective immersion pool heated with a hypocaust and a tholos with hip-bathtubs. But in the 2nd century BC, when the public bath was presumably abandoned, Modius’ small, rather old-fashioned bath may have filled a se-rious gap and served a dire need in a city no longer generously endowed with public (and private?) sani-tary installations, although his bath complex could

Fig. 14: Megara Hyblaea, House 13,22: view of bathtub in room g, from northeast

99

Sanitary Installations in Hellenistic Houses of Sicily. A Critical Reassessment

not compete with the fashionable relaxing facilities in upscale houses of other cities such Monte Iato and Morgantina. Since no public baths from the 2nd and 1st century BC have been found in Sicily so far, it is im-possible to evaluate the standard of public versus pri-vate bathing facilities and to provide more arguments for a date and closer assessment of Modius’ modest establishment, which may well belong to a period of transition and local attrition.

Conclusion

The balance of the case-studies discussed here seems disillusioning on first sight. For the eight bathing facili-ties, identification was challenged in five cases; read-ing of three others was revised, in one case even quite critically; but one new identification was cautiously proposed. Regarding the three latrines, the functioning of only one could be satisfyingly reconstructed, where-as the other two do not fulfill all standard criteria. A fourth potential example was recognized. The most obvious criteria, notably clear evidence of a bathtub or a trench with seat installation, was only present in one bath suite (Megara Hyblaea 13,22) and one latrine (Megara Hyblaea 49,19).

While no clear hierarchy of the other identifying criteria can be established, some rules can still be for-mulated. A waterproof pavement alone does not allow for safe identification of sanitary installations; platforms (particularly high ones) are not obvious places for bath-tubs and thus no identifiers for bathrooms; pavements in connection with drains are a strong argument, but no proof for use of a room for bathing; lack of water supply and heating installations is a serious problem for baths, but the surroundings of bathing facilities are not always sufficiently well explored; heating may have hap-pened on portable stoves, and more significant distances may have been covered (by servants) for the operation of baths than seem reasonable today; in contrast, water supply is less problematic for latrines because waste wa-ter could be used and poured out manually whenever needed; finally, immediate architectural and functional context of sanitary facilities matters and must be taken into account: presumable bathing installations in un-usual spaces such as open courtyards, passage rooms, or shops hardly qualify as a purpose-built facilities, if they ever served for bathing at all (strongly questioned

here); furthermore, there is currently no evidence in the Graeco-Roman world that latrines and bathing facilities were installed in one and the same room41.

Similarly, contextualization of sanitary facilities on a local and regional level turned out to be crucial. Con-struction date and history still are particularly debated for the houses of Megara Hyblaea and Solunto and pre-vent full assessment. Assigning remains in Morgantina to before or after the crucial historically known date of 211 BC seems well investigated overall, but revisions regarding the original concept and continuous use of sanitary facilities also were proposed here. While the re-lationship between public and private bathing facilities is, in general, difficult to evaluate42, it should be pointed out that Morgantina and Megara Hyblaea were provid-ed with innovative public baths in the 3rd century BC, which included heated collective immersions pools and which went out of use towards the end of this century; in both cities, contemporary houses may have includ-ed bathing facilities, most notably hip-bathtubs set up in multifunctional rooms, but evidence of innovative heated relaxing bathing forms in domestic architecture is conspicuously absent before the 2nd century BC. To what extent the development in public bathing culture influenced and promoted that in private houses, must remain open for now: lavish new private baths were also found in cities, where so far no public facilities of the 3rd century BC have been discovered, including, for example, Solunto and particularly Monte Iato. Con-versely, sophisticated bathing culture and practices were obviously not continued in Megara Hyblaea after the end of the 3rd century BC: the simple hybrid in 13,22 currently constitutes the only safely identified private/semi-public bath that was presumably built after 213 BC43. The situation is further complicated by the fact that, as mentioned above, Sicily so far has not yielded a single public bath that can safely be dated to the Late Hellenistic period (2nd/1st century BC).

While increasingly more Hellenistic latrines are found and identified, dating from the 3rd century BC onwards, they cannot yet compete in numbers with purpose-built bathing facilities. This may well reflect ancient reality, suggesting that the purpose-built la-trine, in both private and public contexts, was devel-oped later than the purpose-built bathing facility44. The overall scanty and scattered evidence of sanitary installations cautions against comprehensive quantita-tive assessments, but it is still noteworthy that in the

100

Monika Trümper

two sufficiently amply excavated Late Hellenistic/early Imperial sites of Delos and Pompeii, many, if not most houses included a purpose-built latrine, whereas only few boasted a separate bathroom.

Against this background, and taking even examples outside Sicily into account, the sanitary installations in Morgantina stand out, especially those in the House of the Doric Capital: the house owners installed an inno-vative bath suite (12-12b), currently one of the earliest examples that no longer qualifies as a private remote bathroom but as a larger complex assigned to the well-endowed lavishly decorated area of house, which was suitable for the reception of guests. This suggests that the adjacent room 16 was part of the same ambitious functional concept and was indeed conceived as a la-trine, even if its precise use remains enigmatic today. This sanitary complex reflects a crucial conceptual change in domestic bathing culture, endorsing the idea of collective personal hygiene that would become more widespread in the Mediterranean only from the 2nd cen-

Notes

1 First of all, I would like to thank the conference organizers for inviting me to this very stimulating and interesting conference and for their hospitality. For generous discussion and informa-tion, I am much indebted to Jens-Arne Dickmann, Annette Haug, Frédéric Mège, Dirk Steuernagel, Barbara Tsakirgis, and Markus Wolf; I have profited greatly from their various inspi-ring comments and publications, and I hope that my occasio-nal dissent with some of their ideas is taken as an expression of vivid interest in the matter, meant to contribute to an ongoing collegial discourse. Finally, I owe particular thanks to Sandra Lucore for investigating and discussing facilities on sites with me in the summer of 2013, especially those in Morgantina. Her contributions and insights have much inspired and im-proved this paper. All errors remain my own.

I have revisited all sites in the summer of 2013.2 For example, in American English, bathroom is used (euphe-

mistically) for rooms that only include a toilet as well as rooms with bathtubs and showers.

3 This is an intriguing cultural difference, which merits further investigation but is beyond the scope of this paper.

4 Portable items such as basins and vessels that could be used for personal hygiene and flexibly be set up anywhere are not taken into account here.

5 For a more detailed assessment of these three standard forms, Trümper 2010; ibid 533–534 for a brief discussion of hybrid and unusual forms that escape safe classification. Focus is here on facilities from the 5th to 1st centuries BC.

tury BC onwards. The patron of the adjacent House of Ganymede embraced the same notions and ambitions, albeit on a more modest level, contenting himself with a purpose-built collective latrine. In both houses, sanitary installations survived crucial socio-historical changes and were even expanded, improved, and modernized during their use periods of about 100-200 years.

Such a concern with providing and maintaining sanitary facilities clearly never became standard in the local and regional context or beyond. Reasons for vast discrepancies of sanitary standards between houses of one and the same site or of different cities are numer-ous and cannot be discussed in detail here, including geological and topographical, socio-cultural, and eco-nomic factors, urban design and development, and individual preferences and norms. It is obvious, how-ever, that domestic sanitary installations deserve a close reading, particularly in a methodological approach that investigates the—physical and socio-cultural—functions of ancient houses.

6 Flexible alternatives such as chamber pots and vessels or eva-cuation through multifunctional drains (e.g. in courtyards) are not taken into account here, and focus is again on the 5th to 1st centuries BC; cf. Owens – Zuchtriegel 2011; Trümper 2011.

7 Precise numbers cannot be given, as most of these tubs are not published; Crouch 1993, 228. Henry K. Sharp kindly infor-med me that a hip-bathtub was found in situ in recent, yet unpublished excavations of a house on Papa Hill. This was obviously uncovered in a multifunctional room without wa-terproof decoration.

8 Crouch 1993, 327 fig. 22.8 assumes metal stands, but none have been found, and they seem unlikely for such a simple feature.

9 Trümper 2010, 536–540.10 Tsakirgis 1984, 47–62. 382; the revised version of this dis-

sertation, now submitted for publication in the Morgantina Studies but not yet accessible to me, may include a significant reassessment of the remains. Cf. also Wolf 2003, 90–91.

11 For a different reading that was not based on fieldwork, how-ever, see Trümper 2010, 540 n. 42.

12 The exact depth and width of the channel cannot be measured, and the nature of its bottom and walls cannot be evaluated.

13 This channel had been fully exposed at the time of excavation, but is no longer visible, except for its opening in the south wall of room 16; cf. Tsakirgis 1984, pl. 68, which clearly shows the open channel and the adjacent battered protection wall.

14 Contra Tsakirgis 1984, 46–70, although 57 she elaborates the sophisticated protection of external walls; for more arguments

101

Sanitary Installations in Hellenistic Houses of Sicily. A Critical Reassessment

that the service section belongs to the first phase, Trümper 2010, 540 n. 42.

15 Tsakirgis 1984, 47–55 proposes a) a staircase leading without vestibule into the west porticus of the courtyard, acknowledging that precise reconstruction is difficult; b) room C as vestibule, although it is located on a much lower level than the peristyle courtyard, the door in its west wall was only 0.70 m wide, and the 0.85 m wide door in its east wall was found blocked.

16 Trümper 2010, 540.17 Tsakirgis 1984, 71–72. 383; for the date of the house Bell 2011.18 Depiction of the drainage system is incomplete on published

state and reconstructed plans, Tsakirgis 1984, pls. 6, 8-8bis: Two terracotta pipes lie next to each other in corridor 4, emer-ging from under the pavement with terracotta pieces in room 5; while the southern vanishes under the partition wall of the courtyard and was probably abandoned when this wall was built, the northern leads along this partition wall and then along the west stylobate to the latrine pipe. Another terracotta pipe of unknown provenance runs along the west wall of room 2 and then turns west to lead under the pavement of the cour-tyard into the latrine pipe. According to Tsakirgis 1984, 406 n. 50, these pipes drained water from the gutters of the roof, but their course challenges this idea.

19 See below, and for Hellenistic latrines in general, Trümper 2011.20 Tsakirgis 1984, 219. 295–296. 21 Tsakirgis 1984, pl. 23. The plan shows at best a small piece of

pavement (1.80 × 1.80 m) at the west wall.22 Cf., in contrast, the platform at the south wall of room 10 of

the House of Ganymede (2.90 × 1.20 m, 0.36 m high), entirely covered with well-preserved opus signinum, but interpreted as the place for a bed; Tsakirgis 1984, 79.

23 Trümper 2010, 539.24 Wolf 2003, 62. Beil. 59, fig. 2 does not show the hole in floor,

and I did not see it because the space was filled with debris and earth in 2003 and 2013; Cutroni Tusa et al. 1994, 56.

25 A terracotta bathtub with flat bottom is displayed in the Anti-quarium of Solunto, but its precise provenance is not indicated.

26 Wolf 2003, 56. 27 Medeksza 1990, 107; Wolf 2003, 66; Cutroni Tusa et al. 1994,

62–63 plan 16 do not include the oven at all in the description and on the plan.

28 Portale 2006, arguing convincingly for a later date.29 Cutroni Tusa et al. 1994, 43–47. 73. 77–79. It cannot be dis-

cussed in more detail that the so-called Edificio sacro a labirinto also included two sanitary facilities, both installed later (proba-bly in the Late Hellenistic period): a small round sweat bath and a small (‘one-seat’) latrine. While the function of this building is much debated, it was most likely neither a private house nor a public building/bath, but probably a semi-public complex such as the clubhouse of an association; Trümper 2008, 262.

30 Mège 2013, 210. Annette Haug and Dirk Steuernagel in their yet unpublished final report propose that the wall in the northwest corner may have served to separate the latrine from a small an-teroom; I am much indebted to the authors for this information.

31 For the complex history of this house, see Haug’s and Steuernagel’s forthcoming final report.

32 Mège 2013, 206–210; Mégara Hyblaea 3, 32–39 with state plan fig. 27 and reconstructed plan fig. 30: the complex is still

identified as a sanctuary with workshop. D. Steuernagel kindly pointed out to me that, after recent study of this complex, H. Tréziny has abandoned the sanctuary theory, identifying all remains as part of a workshop. Ultimately, the identifica-tion – sanctuary and/or workshop/s – does not matter for the argumentation here, but a workshop only context seems more appropriate for the interpretation of room 7 as an independent double-storied living unit (with a potential latrine).

33 Mège 2013, 210.34 Cf. Tsakirgis 1984, 219–220, who does not describe a platform

with a pavement of terracotta fragments and identifies room 13 as a staircase.

35 Today, the space under the staircase is full of debris. The state plan (taken from the Atlas Mégara Hyblaea 1) does not show any pa-vement or other features, but the Atlas plans do not consistently depict clearly visible drains and channels for other buildings as well; at the level of potential drains, the east façade of room 7 con-sists of modern cement. Thus, it is conceivable, even if currently not provable, that the space under the staircase originally had a channel or trench with connection to the cesspit in the street.

36 In his assessment, Mège 2013, 210 does not take the context into consideration.

37 There seems to have been a cistern or well in room b of the workshop complex, which had no door to room 7, however.

38 The north wall of the tub is preserved in a height of 0.50 m above the floor of room g, and 0.30 m above the bottom of the bathtub; while its original height is unknown, convenient access from room g to the tub will not have allowed for a much higher wall.

39 Manni Piraino 1975: 2nd/1st century BC; Mégara Hyblaea 3, 13–16, and Mégara Hyblaea 5, 393: 3rd/4th century AD; Torelli 2007: mid-3rd century BC; Mège 2013, 211, n. 13: after 213 BC.

40 Contra Mège 2013, 211 the hip-bathtub in its secondary placement in the courtyard was certainly never used for the “bain de propreté” in order to complement the “bain de de-lassement” performed in the built bathtub of room g: such a cleansing bath would have been carried out in full view in the open courtyard, using cold waste water coming from the floor and built bathtub of room g!

41 As suggested by Mège 2013 for room 1 of house 49,19 in Megara Hyblaea; see also above. A notable exception may have been rooms 22 and 23 in the original 5th century BC Palace of Vouni, which each included a separate toilet-installation at the western end (and exterior wall), but may also have served for bathing although no evidence except for waterproof decoration and drain survives. A much more extended and better endowed bath suite (rooms 40, 42, 84, 85) and a separate latrine (91) were later added to the palace, reflecting perhaps a conceptual change in bathing culture; Gjerstad 1932, 147; Gjerstad et al. 1937, 187–229.

42 See in detail Trümper 2010; 2013.43 Precise dating of Hellenistic remains in Megara Hyblaea is still

a problem that prevents full assessment of domestic sanitary standards and their development, but not a single innovative relaxing bathing form was found in any domestic context here. Mège 2013 identifies two more bathrooms not discussed here, one of which is no longer visible today. In both cases, the (architectural and historical) context is problematic, especially

102

Monika Trümper, Sanitary Installations in Hellenistic Houses of Sicily. A Critical Reassessment

Bibliography

Bell 2011: M. Bell, Osservazioni sui mosaici greci della casa di Ganimede a Morgantina, in: F. La Torre – M. Torelli (Hrsg.), Pittura ellenistica in Italia e in Sicilia. Linguaggi e tradizioni. Atti del Convegno di studi, Messina 24–25 settembre 2009 (Roma 2011) 105–123

Clarke at al. 2006. G. W. Clarke et al., Jebel Khalid on the Euphra-tes. Report on Excavations 1986-1996, Bd. 1 (Sydney 2006)

Crouch 1993: D. P. Crouch, Water Management in Ancient Greek Cities (Oxford 1993)

Cutroni Tusa et al. 1994: A. Cutroni Tusa – A. Italia – D. Lima – V. Tusa, Solunto (Rom 1994)

Gjerstad 1932: E. Gjerstad, The Palace at Vouni. A Study in Archi-tectural History, in: Corolla archaeologica. Prinicipi hereditario regni Sueciae Gustavo Adolpho dedicata (Lund 1932) 145–171

Gjerstadt et al. 1937: E. Gjerstad – J. Lindros – E. Sjöqvist – A. Westholm, The Swedish Cyprus Expedition. Finds and Results of the Excavations in Cyprus 1927-1931, 3 (Stockholm 1937)

Steuernagel – Haug: D. Steuernagel – A. Haug, Mégara Hyblaea 2010, Maison 49,19, MEFRA 123, 2011, 327–328

Manni Piraino 1975: M. T. Manni Piraino, Koiné alfabetica tra Sira-cusa, Megara Hyblaea e Selinunte?, Kokalos 21, 1975, 121–153

Medeksza 1990 : S. Medeksza, Problèmes d’urbanisme et d’archi-tecture de l’habitat hellénistique à Solunte, EtTrav 14, 1990, 91–130

Mégara Hyblaea 1  : G. Vallet – F. Villard – P. Auberson, Mégara Hyblaea 1. Le Quartier de l’agora archaïque. École française de Rome. Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire. Suppl. 1 (Paris 1976)

Mégara Hyblaea 3 : G. Vallet – F. Villard – P. Auberson, Mégara Hyblaea 3. Guide des fouilles. Introduction à l’histoire d’une

Figures

Fig. 1: M. Trümper after Tsakirgis 1990, 426, fig. 1. – Fig. 2–3. 5–6. 8. 10. 12. 14: photo M. Trümper. – Fig. 4: M. Trümper after Tsa-kirgis 1990, 428, fig. 6. – Fig. 7: Wolf 2003, 60 fig. 13. – Fig. 9: Wolf 2003, Beil. 52. – Fig. 11: Mégara Hyblaea 3, 37 fig. 30. – Fig. 13: Mégara Hyblaea 3, 14 fig. 13.

Monika Trümper, Freie Universität Berlinmonika.truemper@fu-berlin.de

cité coloniale d’occident. École française de Rome. Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire. Suppl. 1 (Paris 1983)

Mégara Hyblaea 5 : M. Gras – H. Tréziny – H. Broise, Mégara Hy-blaea 5. La ville archaïque. L’espace urbain d’une cité grecque de Sicile orientale (Paris 2004)

Mège 2013: F. Mège, Bain et hygiène en contexte privé à Mégara Hyblaea: quelques exemples de salles de bain, in: S. Bouffier – A. Hermary (Hrsg.), L’Occident grec de Marseille à Mégara Hyblaea. Hommages à Henri Tréziny, Bibliothèque d’Archéo-logie Méditerranéenne et Africaine 13 (Arles 2013) 203–213

Owens – Zuchtriegel 2011: E. Owens – G. Zuchtriegel, Greek Toi-lets and Waste Management, in: G. Jansen – A. Koloski-Ostrow – E. Moormann (Hrsg.), Roman Toilets. Their Archaeology and Cultural History, BABESCH Suppl. 19 (Leuven 2011) 25–33

Portale 2006: E. C. Portale, Problemi dell’archeologia della Sicilia el-lenistico-romana. Il caso di Solunto, ArchCl 57, 2006, 49–114

Schazmann 1912: P. Schazmann, Die Arbeiten zu Pergamon 1910-1911. IV. Untersuchung auf dem Kaleh Agili 1911, AM 37, 1912, 331–340

Torelli 2007 : M. Torelli, Un italico nel regno di Ierone II: Cn. Mo-dius e il suo balneum di Megara Iblea, SicA 4, 2007, 99–104

Trümper 2008: M. Trümper, Die ‚Agora des Italiens’ in Delos. Baugeschichte, Architektur, Ausstattung und Funktion einer späthellenistischen Porticus-Anlage, Internationale Archäolo-gie 104 (Rahden/Westf. 2008)

Trümper 2010: M. Trümper, Bathing Culture in Hellenistic Domestic Architecture, in: S. Ladstätter – V. Scheibelreiter (Hrsg.), Städtisches Wohnen im östlichen Mittelmeer. 4. Jh. v. Chr. – 1. Jh. n. Chr. Akten des Internationalen Kolloquiums vom 24.-27. Oktober 2007 an der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Wien 2010) 529–572

Trümper 2011: M. Trümper, Hellenistic Latrines (3rd-1st century B.C.), in: G. Jansen – A. Koloski-Ostrow – E. Moormann (Hrsg.), Roman Toilets. Their Archaeology and Cultural Hi-story, BABESCH Suppl. 19 (Leuven 2011) 33–42

Trümper 2013: M. Trümper, Privat versus Öffentlich in helleni-stischen Bädern, in: A. Matthaei – M. Zimmermann (Hrsg.), Stadtkultur im Hellenismus, Die hellenistische Polis als Le-bensform 4 (Mainz 2013) 204–247

Tsakirgis 1984: B. Tsakirgis, The Domestic Architecture of Mor-gantina in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods. (Diss. Prince-ton, 1984)

Tsakirgis 1990: B. Tsakirgis, The Decorated Pavements of Morgan-tina II: The Opus Signinum, AJA 94, 1990, 425–443

Wolf 2003: M. Wolf, Die Häuser von Solunt und die hellenistische Wohnarchitektur (Mainz 2003)

in 41,78, where a hip-bathtub was found, presumably in situ; no photo or drawing of the original find situation is provided, however, and the currently visible remains rather suggest later reuse: a negligently, hastily, and strangely inhomogeneously made pedestal with at least three different ‘pavements’ is set up on a very high level in a passage room along the main street.

44 After publication of Trümper 2011, two more latrines, presu-mably dating to the 3rd century BC, were kindly brought to my attention by G.W. Clarke and A. Matthaei: in the Palace of the Syrian governor in Jebel Kahlid, room 14; Clarke et al. 2006, 40; and in a building of unknown function in Atarneus; Schazmann 1912, 332 fig. 16.