greek baths and bathing culture

neW discOVeries and aPPrOaches

edited by

sandra k. lucore and Monika trümper

Peeters

leuven - Paris - Walpole, Ma

2013

cOntents

sandra k. lucOre and MOnika trüMPeracknowledgments

MOnika trüMPerintroduction

adrian stähliWomen bathingDisplaying Female Attractiveness on Greek Vases

rebecca FleMMingbaths and bathing in greek Medicine

MOnika trüMPerurban context of greek Public baths

Fikret k. Yegülthermal Matters: intersected legacies of the greek and roman baths and bathing culture

Vassilis tsiOlisthe baths at Fregellae and the transition from Balaneion to Balneum

giOVanna grecO and carMelO di nicuOlOthe hellenistic baths at Velia

Maria teresa iannelli and FrancescO cutericaulonia – Monasterace Marina: hellenistic baths in the building near the ‘casamatta’

claudiO sabbiOnea newly identified greek bath building at locri epizefiri

sandra k. lucOrebathing in hieronian sicily

daniele naPOlitani and ken saitOarchimedes and the baths: not Only One eureka

christian russenbergera new bathtub with hypocaust in Peristyle house 2 at Monte iato

POlYxeni adaM-Velenithe hellenistic Balaneion at the roman Forum of thessaloniki

eManuele grecO and PaOlO Vittithe bath complex in hephaistia (lemnos)

cOrnelia röMerthe greek baths in the Fayum at euhemeria and theadelphia: a Preliminary report

Vii

1

11

23

33

73

89

113

131

143

151

181

189

201

211

229

thibaud FOurnet and bérangère redOnheating systems of greek bathsNew Evidence from Egypt

thibaud FOurnetMap: location of greek Public baths

MOnika trüMPercatalog of greek bathsIntroduction

thibaud FOurnet, sandra k. lucOre, bérangère redOn, MOnika trüMPercatalog

bibliography

list of contributors

239

264

265

269

335

349

The thermal complex at Velia1 was discovered in1982 during an extensive reclamation project inthe Frittolo Valley. This work was undertakenwith the purpose of controlling and draining bothspring water and rainwater that were the causeof regular and devastating landslides. The firstcampaign of excavations thus was started on thehighest terrace of the valley, near a spring, in anarea that had been cultivated as an orange grovebetween the end of the 19th and the first half of the20th centuries. These first investigations broughtto light a few rooms of this bath complex, and theresults were published in brief reports.2

In 2001 the Soprintendenza Archeologica diSalerno began a project of restoration and exca-vation under the direction of the University ofNaples Federico II, whose aims included deter-mining the chronology of the building, definingthe plan, and identifying the functional spaces ofthis bathing establishment. The overall goal wasto restore the baths and to make the monumentand the surrounding area accessible to the pub-lic.3 This research was carried out in two subse-quent seasons of excavation, which allowed us toinvestigate almost the entire building; a third sea-son was intended to restore both the structureand the associated finds, but this part of the pro-ject remains, unfortunately, incomplete.4

TOPOGRAPHY

The area occupied by the baths is from a strate-gic point of view particularly important for thelife of the ancient city.5 The building is located onthe highest of a series of three terraces, adjacentto a deep natural cut in the hillside known locallyas the ‘Vallone del Frittolo’ (Frittolo Valley).This marks a sort of division between the areasoutheast of the Acropolis and the hill at thenortheast where the fortification walls weredeveloped to reach the easternmost point of theridge, the so-called ‘Castelluccio’ (figs 1, 2). Thisvalley, with its steep and rugged slopes, is a sortof hinge be tween the hills and the areas in theplain facing the coast, and it always created sig-nificant problems for the life of the city. The flowfrom rainwater and from a natural spring locatedup in the valley, which is still active today, is oftentorrential, and because of the steep slopes causescontinuous landslides. The spring, identified asthe famous Hyele mentioned in the historicalsources,6 creates a stream that flows through thenarrow gorge of the valley, frequently turninginto a precipitous torrent that brought damageand destruction to the city, forcing inhabitantsto continuously rebuild and elevate the walkinglevels.7

113

The Hellenistic Baths at Velia

Giovanna Greco and Carmelo Di Nicuolo

Abstract

The Hellenistic balaneion at Velia (ancient Elea) was discovered in 1982, but the investigation of the complexwas never completed. The excavations of the University of Naples Federico II undertaken in 2000-2002 havemade it possible to define the plan of this important monument and to answer several questions about its chronol-ogy and technical aspects through stratigraphic soundings. This paper is a preliminary study of the bath com-plex with the aim of illustrating its main architectonic and functional features, while work is still in progresson the full publication. The Hellenistic bath at Velia is an innovative example within the general panorama ofall the balaneia dating between the Late Classical and the Hellenistic periods. It is a highly developed exampleof a Greek public bath, and may have been a prototype for the first Roman thermal baths, such as the one recentlydiscovered at Fregellae.This article is articulated in two sections. The first, after discussing the topography of the area, is centered ona detailed analysis and description of each of the rooms of the balaneion and attempts to create a reference out-line for comparisons with well-known balaneia of Sicily. The second part focuses on the ceramic evidence andsuggests a possible sequence of phases through the study of some diagnostic sherds in relation to their strati-graphic contexts. This research establishes that the balaneion at Velia was built in the second half of the 3rd

century BCE and that at the end of the following century it was already in a state of total abandonment.Noteworthy also is that in this period the city was particularly famous as a thermal center, as Plutarch statesin his report on Lucius Aemilius Paulus’stay in Elea sometime in the first half of the 2nd century BCE.

114

Fig. 1. Velia: site plan with location of the bath complex in the Frittolo Valley; (C. La Torre; Soprintendenza Archeologica di Salerno).

The arrangement of the three terraces repre-sents one of the most impressive works of urbanreorganization undertaken by the local commu-nity during the Hellenistic period.8 The need tocontrol the flow of water, beyond that from thespring, was paramount, in order to avoid theeffects of torrential flooding in the lower habitationzones. The three terraces thus were reinforcedand supported by a system of monumental sub-structures that represent several facilities of dif-ferent, but still closely correlated, types. Thespring water was piped into a large channel thattraverses the three natural and artificially rein-forced terraces and reached the lowest level,where the water was diverted to a monumentalfountain, tanks and wells (fig. 3).

The highest terrace, the one closest to the spring,was intended to accommodate the bath building;the middle one is characterized by the presenceof a scenographic structure, perhaps a nymphaeum;while the lowest terrace is reinforced by retainingwalls with water channels that follow the line ofthe walls that surround a large square portico.This area was identified in the 1960s as the agoraof Elea, and recently as a cult place dedicated toAsklepios,9 but its function is still a matter of dis-pute. A monumental fountain with a rectangularbasin and porch marks the façade of the complexon the lowest terrace.10 This fountain collected thewater carried by the large drainage channel thatrepresents one of the most impressive publicworks in Velia.

115

Fig. 2. Velia: plan of the Hellenistic city (drawing M. Trümper after F. Krinzinger and G. Tocco (eds) 1999, Beilage without number).

The construction of this channel is part of thelarger system created in the Hellenistic period forcontrolling the excessive water flow in the FrittoloValley. This large channel that begins at the highpoint of the spring was built entirely with dry-laid sandstone blocks, and was covered through-out its entire length by blocks set together to forma gabled roof, or blocks laid horizontally at thetop of the channel. In some sections the interiorof the channel is lined with Velia bricks. Thisimposing structure crosses all three of the terracesand terminates in the southern quarter. Along thecourse of the channel are numerous structuresnecessary to reduce the flow and velocity of thewater: settling basins, cisterns, small channels andmonumental fountains. The steepest part of thelarge channel ends at the monumental fountain,after having negotiated the successive drop in ele-vation of the three terraces. Thus, regardless of thedebated function of the structures on the differ-ent terraces, water use and management playeda central role in the design and function of the ter-race complex. The bathing complex belongs tothis broader context of urban development of theHellenistic city, and from a functional point ofview is part of the related project of the reorgani-zation of the Frittolo Valley.

The extension of the terrace where the bathswere established measures, at present, about 325m2. Since the highest terrace was the closest to thespring, it has suffered worse damage from run-off and progressive erosion than the two lowerterraces. Furthermore, the area was affected byintensive agricultural activities in the 19th century,having been used primarily for the cultivation of

citrus fruits. The traces of extensive cultivationare clearly identifiable in the pits for planting,which disturb in several places the ancient stratig-raphy and have caused the destruction of severalfloor pavements. In order to reinforce the steepslopes, the orchard was surrounded by walls madeof reused materials, predominantly bricks andstones clearly derived from the ancient bath build -ing. The central space of the terrace was dominatedby a 19th-century farmhouse, whose ruins weredestroyed during the excavation campaign of 1982.

The connection to the narrow and steep terracebelow, occupied by a monumental structure whosefunction is still to be verified, is today completelydifferent than it was in ancient times. In fact, themodern road system and access, along with thecreation of the 19th-century orchard itself, havesignificantly modified the original topography ofthe area. Explorations have shown that the bathsterrace originally was closely linked with both ofthe lower terraces and the spring.

The route to the terrace with the baths wasprobably located to the southwest, following themain street of the city, the so-called Via di PortaRosa, which linked the southern district of thecity to the northern area (fig. 2).11 Access to thebathing complex was located precisely at a cross-roads, where a bifurcation in the main road turnswest and climbs towards the Acropolis, while themain road continues north towards the PortaRosa and another bifurcation turns east to thebaths terrace.

THE BATH BUILDING

The baths (fig. 4) feature a roughly rectangularplan, measuring 30 m in length and 17 m in width.It has been severely damaged by natural phe-nomena, and also by the impact of the activitiesthat occurred in the area in the past two centuries.However, it has been possible, through a carefuland complex excavation, to understand the gen-eral organization of the rooms of the baths, alongwith some technical aspects of both the system ofwater management and the heating system.12

The walls of the complex are constructed usingthe peculiar building technique a scacchiera (checker -board) introduced in Elea only during the Helle -nistic period (fig. 5); this is characterized by theuse of squared sandstone blocks alternating withsquares of small limestone blocks of differentsizes.13 Only the northeast perimeter wall has adouble face. The entire structure uses in its con-struction the distinctive type of brick of local pro-duction (‘mattoni velini’) in its various forms: both

116

Fig. 3. Velia: detail of the large drainage channel run-ning through the three terraces of the ancient town;from southwest; (photo C. Di Nicuolo).

rectangular with a single flute (0.38 x 0.22 x 0.10 m);and square or rectangular and of larger dimen-sions, with two flutes (0.56 x 0.38 x 0.10 m).14

The production of these characteristic Velia bricksis remarkable both for their shape, as well asfor the frequent presence of the brick stamps. Useof these bricks begins in the middle of theHellenistic period and is, together with the build-ing technique a scacchiera, one of the main tech-nical innovations introduced in Elea at that time.

Excavations of the baths revealed 10 rooms thatcan be grouped into two distinct functional areas:a reception area with rooms equipped with all thefacilities for bathers in the west wing; and a ser-vice area on the east side with rooms for the staffand the operation of the complex.

The entrance (fig. 4: a) is located on the south-west side of the complex. It has been damaged inmodern times and today very little remains of theoriginal structure. Nevertheless, the archaeologi-cal evidence allows for the reconstruction of amonumental porch with a hallway, flanked by

117

Fig. 4. Velia Baths: partially reconstructed plan of the Hellenistic bath complex (C. La Torre; Soprintendenza Archeologica di Salerno).

Fig. 5. Velia Baths: detail of the Hellenistic buildingtechnique a scacchiera (checkerboard); Room q; fromsouthwest (photo C. Di Nicuolo).

small rooms of uncertain function. Traces of theporch are clearly preserved in a wall that runsparallel to the southwest wall of Room b. Betweenthese two walls is a hollow space of the samelength as the southwest front of the baths (17.00m) and which measures about 1.32 m in width.Within this hollow space, and laid under the pave-ment, a channel was built entirely of Velia bricks.The water used in the baths flowed through thisdrain to the exterior of the building, where somewells and a large drain made of sandstone blocksare located. An identical arrangement is found atthe back of the building, on the northeast side. Awall 0.50 m thick runs parallel to the northeastwall of Rooms l and m and presents the samemasonry technique. In the hollow space betweenthe two walls runs another channel (fig. 4: n), ofwhich only the sloping surface made of localbricks is still preserved (fig. 6).

Room b (fig. 4: b) is a vestibule whose originalfeatures were significantly obscured by the addi-tion of the small adjacent rooms at the southwestduring the last phase of the building. This roomgives access to Room c, the waiting/changing

area (apodyterion). The rectangular space measures15.0 x 7.5 m, and the room is characterized by thepresence of a bench on the northeast wall (fig. 4:d), 3.0 m long and 0.50 m wide; the bench is con-structed entirely of Velia bricks and was coveredwith stucco painted red, traces of which are stillpreserved. More benches may have existed alongthe other walls of the room. Room c had a refinedpavement, partially preserved, consisting of hexag -onal terracotta tiles with square holes for the inser-tion of pieces of different material, probably smallcubes of white limestone, thus creating the impres-sion of a multi-colored pavement (fig. 7). The pave -ment is laid on a high loose foundation made ofVelia bricks, which have been set with their smoothsurface up and fluted side down so that theyformed a more uniform preparation surface for the

118

Fig. 6. Velia Baths: pavement made in Velia bricks(mattoni velini); north side of building; from south

(photo C. Di Nicuolo).

Fig. 7. Velia Baths: Room c; floor with hexagonal ter-racotta tiles; from southeast (photo C. Di Nicuolo).

Fig. 8. Velia Baths: Room k (tholos); from southwest(photo C. Di Nicuolo).

hexagonal tiles. The apodyterion is of a certain re -finement, seen in the complex flooring, where dif-ferent varieties of bricks were used for the foun-dation and hexagonal tiles were used for the uppersurface. The decoration of this room was mostlikely completed by painted stucco on the walls.Room c communicates directly with the two roomswith bathing facilities (fig. 4 : k, e), and is also con-nected to the area of the furnace (j). Its functionas an apodyterion is clear: the position next to thevestibule b, the bench, the fine pavement andwall decoration are all elements that find signifi-cant comparisons in similar rooms of other bala -neia. At Megara Hyblaea, for example, Room c ischaracterized by the presence of an opus signinumpavement and a masonry bench along the wall.15

The bath complex at Gortys in Arcadia also has aplan and general layout that are closely compa-rable to that of the balaneion at Elea; its central dis-tributive Room C can be compared to Room c inthe Elean baths.16

Room k presents an almost square plan (6.75 x5.50 m), and traces of the socle of the tholos, whoseinterior diameter is approximately 3.70 m, are stillwell preserved. In the northeastern and south-western sections of the circle, remains of at leastfive terracotta hip-bathtubs are preserved in situ.The bathtubs would have been arranged radiallyaround the circumference (fig. 8). These hip-bath-tubs (1.00 x 0.60 m) are of the standard type foundin all Greek balaneia, and here the hemisphericallower cavity at the front of the tub was coated witha surface of lead.

While hip-bathtubs are not preserved at thenorthwestern side of Room k due to later remod-eling, they can be reconstructed from scanty re -mains and gaps in the pavement and are thusrestored on the plan (fig. 4). In contrast, the north-east area of Room k had no hip-bathtubs, which isobvious from the fully preserved pavement; herethe floor slopes slightly towards the west. Calcu -lating the dimensions of each hip-bathtub, andconsidering the necessary free space for the en -trance to the room, we can reconstruct about 18-20hip-bathtubs in Room k, along all of its wallsexcept for the eastern corner (fig. 4). Thus, theentrance to Room k is reconstructed in the eastcorner, where it could be reached proceeding fromRoom c through a corridor-like space in the north -western part of Room j. The pavement is com-posed of Velia bricks put in place upside down,with the fluted surface at the bottom, and was laidon a preparation level also made of bricks andcompacted earth mixed with stones and clay. Thefloor is perfectly tiled and slopes slightly from

southeast to northwest (0.23 m) towards the exte-rior drainage channel on the northwest side thatcollected the used bath water. Overall, this room,which was used for bathing with hot water inindividual hip-bathtubs, is characterized by arefined construction that is comparable to what isfound in many balaneia. Greek baths were frequent -ly equipped with two tholoi, to separate use of thebaths by men and women.18 The bathing complexat Elea, with its reduced dimensions, belongs tothe category of balaneia that were equipped withonly one tholos, which was probably open towomen on different days or at different hours, inorder to maintain segregated bathing.19

Room c communicates directly with Room e,the central space of the entire building. Room emeasures 11.75 x 8.25 m and reveals particularcare and refinement in the construction and dec-oration of the pavement and colored stucco of thewalls. It included a communal heated im mersionpool (h) and a smaller basin (i) along its south-eastern wall, a bench made of fragments of lime-stone and sandstone in the north corner (f), andthe sandstone base of a louterion (g) for cold waterablutions on the northeastern side.

Great care was given to the construction of thefloor, where different facing techniques wereused. Running along the perimeter of the room isa continuous band of opus signinum decoratedwith inlaid square tesserae set in a regular pat-tern. For the most part the tesserae are no longerpreserved and leave the imprints of where theyhad originally been inserted into the pavement.This elegant opus signinum band framed a centralmosaic carpet of 4.20 x 2.95 m. The mosaic ismade of a combination of dark gray limestoneand reddish clay tesserae, set in a rectangular

119

Fig. 9. Velia Baths: Room e; detail of the mosaicfloor; from north (photo C. Di Nicuolo).

background of white tesserae. This central areawas bordered by a frame filled with a wave pat-tern, with vegetal motifs at each of the four cor-ners. The center of the mosaic carpet is decoratedwith an emblem representing a small six-petalrosette set in a diamond inscribed within a square(fig. 9). Outside the frame with the wave pattern,on the northeastern side of the room, runs a banddecorated with converging dolphins.

The technique used here is opus tessellatum withboth stone and clay tesserae that are square shapedand rather irregular, yet well interconnected. Themosaic was laid on top of a preparatory surfacemade of tiny fragments of bricks and roof tilesmixed into a kind of compact binder mortar thatwas then covered with a thin layer of stucco. Allof the elements are perfectly in phase with eachother and are chronologically contemporaneous.The mosaic has parallels in some of the Hellenistichouses in the southern section of Elea.20 The char-acteristic insertion of tessellatum carpets in an opussigninum floor is widely adopted for the decora-tion of elite houses. The best comparison, however,for the mixing of techniques and the iconographyis provided by the refined houses of HellenisticMorgantina. Nevertheless, this kind of floor dec-oration is widely documented throughout theHellenistic world between the end of the 4th andthe beginning of the 3rd centuries BCE.21

The large communal immersion pool (h) forcollective bathing (5.00 x 1.50 m) and the adjacentbasin (i) occupy the entire southeastern wall ofRoom e. The interior surface of the pool is cov-ered in opus signinum. This immersion pool wasbuilt above its own heating system. The hypocaustis constructed on small pillars of brick (height

0.50 m, width 0.40 m) arranged in two rows setsideways, forming a herringbone pattern, whichwould not have been optimal for the diffusion ofthe heat. The firing chamber for feeding this heat-ing channel has been identified to the northeastof the pool in a space at a lower level (q) that gaveaccess also to the firing chamber for the large cen-tral furnace (j). Remains of the sandstone base of alouterion (g) for cold water ablutions are still pre-served in situ in Room e. This is positioned direct -ly in front of the immersion pool but not alignedwith its center. The centrality and importance ofRoom e are emphasized by the care and refine-ment of the decorated surfaces. The presence ofthe louterion for cold water washing beside theheated pool suggests that this room functioned inmuch the same way as the calidarium of Roman-style baths.22 It should be stressed, however, thatin Room e of the balaneion at Elea there is no sub-floor or wall heating system for achieving thehigh temperatures that these features producedin the calidaria of Roman baths. The temperatureof Room e must have been at best lukewarm, asthe heat simply spread from the adjacent furnace(j) and hypocaust (under h) that framed this spaceat the east and south sides of the room. A moreappropriate (because these innovative heatingsystems appear to have originated in Sicily) andconvincing comparison, however, can be madewith the balaneia of the Hellenistic period in Sicily,notably those at Syracuse,23 Megara Hyblaea24 andMorgantina.25

While the western part of the building includedthe main rooms open to bathers, the eastern partis taken up by a series of spaces of different dimen-sions (j, m, q) that were intended for the operationof the bathing complex. The sequential buildingand remodeling phases in some instances obscurethe original plan of the rooms and their functions.Adjacent to Room e is the great central Room j,which gave access both to Room k (tholos) andRoom c. This is a large rectangular room (9.00 x6.30 m) paved with Velia bricks and which wasconnected to a cistern (m) built in the northeastcorner. Room j underwent significant alterations,the most important of which was a cut in thesouthern area of the floor for the installation in alater phase of a large, ‘bottle-shaped’ furnace (6.36x 4.13 m). This is a very common feature of theHellenistic balaneia in Sicily, with specific paral-lels found at Megara Hyblaea, Syracuse andMorgantina. Along the southwest edge of the fur-nace, sections of the opus signinum surface of thecovering over the furnace still survive. The fur-nace presents two rows of small brick pillars made

120

Fig. 10. Velia Baths: Room j; aerial view of the bottle-shaped furnace (photo C. Di Nicuolo).

of Velia bricks that project from the long sides.The bricks were trimmed to give the pillars amore oval shape, perhaps to promote the circula-tion of the heat. These are actually six suspen-surae made entirely of bricks and are a ratherexceptional Eleatic experiment, at least because ofthe large dimensions.

It is very likely that the opus signinum surfacementioned above represents the remains of alarge basin or boiler installed over the furnace,whose function it was to provide a steady supplyof hot water for bathing in the tholos (k). The hy -pothesis by Inge Nielsen that these rooms (includ-ing the example at Elea) equipped with furnacesbelow the floors must have been intended forheating the water to be used in the tholoi, ‘boilerrooms’ so to speak, finds convincing evidence inthe balaneion at Elea.26 Furthermore, the ‘bottle-shaped’ furnaces of Syracuse, Megara Hyblaeaand Morgantina, similar to that at Elea, arelocated in a nearly identical position, adjacent tothe tholos, and were built in order primarily tosupply hot water for use in the hip-bathtubs.

Room m (3.42 x 1.36 m) is a large cistern thatwould have been connected to the main systemof water supply. This is the only room in the com-plex not completely excavated, since it had beenpartially obliterated by a thick alluvial layer, ontop of which another cistern (3.44 x 2.00 m) wasconstructed in a later period. Water from thespring was transported by a channel made of ter-racotta pipes and reached the baths at the north-east side, exactly next to Room m, thus indicatingthat m was the main cistern of the complex.

Room l, rectangular in plan and measuring 6.00x 3.15 m, was originally paved entirely with Veliabricks, most of which are now missing. It is con-nected with the service area via a narrow corri-dor, and with the tholos, but there is no evidencethat explains its precise function. It certainly func-tioned in relation to the large Room j, and withthe overall infrastructure for the provision anddrainage of water. The close spatial relationshipwith the tholos (k) suggests a function more direct -ly related to the bathing activities in that room. Ameaningful comparison could perhaps be estab-lished once again with the baths at Syracuse,Megara Hyblaea and Morgantina, where roomsadjacent to the tholos were equipped with masonrybenches and have been interpreted as waiting/changing rooms.

The heating system consisted of a praefurniumarea (q) situated at a level below the level of thefloors of the complex. It was where the fires weretended for both the hypocaust under the immer-

sion pool (h) and the later ‘bottle-shaped’ furnaceunder the floor of Room j. The pattern of heat dis-tribution closely resembles that at the bath com-plexes at Megara Hyblaea, Syracuse and Morgan -tina.

CHRONOLOGY

A few test trenches have revealed an intact strati-graphic sequence that allows us to reconstructfairly accurately the various phases of the baths.A first phase of activity, dated to around the mid-dle of the 3rd century BCE, has been documentedby the stratigraphic examination. Preliminaryworks prior to the construction of the buildinghave been identified; these were undertaken withregard to control of water in relation to the func-tioning of the building. They are quite complexfeatures that affected the organization of the en -tire Frittolo Valley, and include an imposing ter-race near the spring upstream of the area wherethe balaneion would be built. At the same time, avery large channel originating from the springwas constructed by making deep cuts in the rock,into which the sandstone walls of the channel wereset. The channel was covered with gabled or flatblocks and runs downhill across the three terracesof the valley in a northeast-southwest direction.27

Along its entire length the channel is interruptedby a series of small tanks and low partition blocksto limit the speed of the water. From this mainchannel radiates a network of secondary channels,both under and above the ground, whose purposewas twofold: to control the water flow, and tofunction as subterranean drainage channels. Oneof the secondary outlets was located close to thewall of the main channel.

A small stratigraphic sounding28 revealed a sec-tion of these channels beneath the pavement ofRoom k (tholos). This small channel, which servedall of the rooms of the building, came in from thenorthwest, towards the monumental channel run-ning along the exterior of the northwest side ofthe building; its outlet on the opposite side of thebuilding has been identified by the winding chan-nel along the south-southeast side of the baths.This was originally covered by a level of pave-ment, which unfortunately was removed duringthe excavation campaign of 1982. The creation ofa foundation platform, made of a thick fill ofsandstone fragments (US 270) and still visiblebeneath the communal immersion pool (h), iscontemporaneous with the construction of thissystem of below-ground channels that regulatedthe water.

121

A valid chronological marker for these workspreliminary to the construction of the baths wasfound near the southwest exterior corner of thebuilding, next to the entrance. Here a small squarebasin (0.94 x 0.94 m) with walls made of sandstoneblocks (238-241 USM) was dug to a depth of 0.60m. Inside was found a lamp, an unguentarium, asmall jug and an olla, together with a fill of ashesand some traces of burning. This material likelyrepresents a votive or foundation deposit, and isdated by the materials used for the ceremony tothe mid-3rd century BCE, which provides the ter-minus post quem for the construction of the baths.29

Once the underground channels, pipes andfoundation level were completed, the constructionof the complex began, reasonably dated to aroundthe middle of the 3rd century BCE. The use of thebuilding technique a scacchiera (checkerboard) forthe walls, together with the well-known Veliabricks of local production, also confirms this chro -nology.30 The formal and stylistic analysis of thecentral mosaic, perfectly in phase with the outerwalls, which were set on the same foundationlevel, provides further confirmation of the chro -nology suggested by the votive deposit found insitu. The technique of inserting a mosaic carpet inopus tessellatum into a floor of opus signinum findsseveral parallels, in Elea as well as in many othercities of the Hellenistic period between the end ofthe 4th and approximately the middle of the 3rd

centuries BCE. Moreover, the combined use of ter-racotta and limestone tesserae is a particular fea-ture of the mosaic production of many Mediterra -nean centers during the 3rd century BCE.31

The baths at Elea were therefore most likelyconstructed around the mid-3rd century BCE andincluded from the beginning the clear organizationof rooms, the tholos, and the communal immersionpool. It is still unclear, however, how the waterfor bathing in the hip-bathtubs of the tholos washeated during this first phase. The first of manyinterventions that modified the original structureof the building was the cutting of the pavement ofRoom j for the installation of the ‘bottle-shaped’furnace that heated a steady supply of water foruse in the hip-bathtubs of Room k. During thislater phase renovations are attested in the build-ing, especially in a new system of channels and theraising of the floor levels that affected primarilythe eastern side of the complex. These were allinterventions to improve the water supply anddrainage systems and to make the heating systemmore efficient by narrowing the entrance of thebottle-shaped hypocaust, probably in order tosecure the combustion chamber. The renovations

to the hydraulic system were also measures takento counteract the flooding, even if modest, thatwould soon begin to damage the structure. Thebuilding was fully operational in the final decadesof the 3rd and throughout the first half of the 2nd

century BCE, as is well documented by the mate-rials found in the levels of use. The first evidenceof destruction in the building dates to the secondhalf of the 2nd century BCE, when alluvial layersbegan to cover the floors.

The total abandonment of the baths is markedby the creation of a new system of water channels,such as the long stone channel (length 11.80 m)that was superimposed at the northwest on theperimeter wall, by this time out of use, and by achannel made of terracotta tubes that ran parallelto this long channel, across the floor of Room k.The installation of this channel implies that thedismantling of part of the floor covering of hexag-onal tiles in Room c (apodyterion) began as earlyas the first decades of the 1st century BCE.

To this phase of reorganization, when, however,the building had lost its original function, belongsome new structures identified at the southwest,outside the bathing complex. These consist offour rooms, whose purpose cannot be identified.The presence of channels, drains, wells and col-lecting basins suggest a complex and articulatesystem for controlling both the spring water andrainwater that continuously damaged and under-mined the structures and the monuments.

From a morphological point of view the bala -neion at Elea fits perfectly a type of building wellattested in the Hellenistic period. The divisioninto two sectors, western and eastern, highlightsthe centrality of the room equipped with the com-munal immersion pool (e), the importance of whichis also emphasized by the mosaic and wall deco-ration. The highlighted role of relaxation bathingprovided by the pool in Room e is evidence of arenewal of Greek bathing culture, when the prac-tice of bathing strictly for personal hygienic pur-poses in individual hip-bathtubs, which is char-acteristic of the Classical period, is joined with thenew form of relaxation bathing in communalheated immersion pools.32 The Elea Baths revealseveral specific features that define clearly itsmorphological type: the large central room (e)that opens directly onto Room c (apodyterion), andwhich is characterized by the collective heatedimmersion pool, the decentralization of the tholoswith adjacent furnace, and the separation of bath -ing and service spaces. The comparisons are notnumerous but are clear and convincing. The bathcomplex at Gortys, dated between the late 4th and

122

early 3rd centuries BCE, while presenting a plani-metric rather than centripetal organization, isorganized with the same functional division ofspaces seen in the baths at Elea.33 It is, however,in Sicily where the most significant and informa-tive parallels are found, especially in regard to theconcept of space, and both formal and technicalsolutions. The bath complex at Megara Hyblaea,with its compact and elongated plan with roomsarranged sequentially, is comparable to the spa-tial organization of the baths at Elea. Even moreconvincing is the comparison with the thermalcomplex at Syracuse, which is characterized by amonumental hall with heated collective immer-sion pool and a tholos equipped with the usualhip-bathtubs.

The typical bottle-shaped heating system, withthe same design for the circulation of heat, isfound in all of the Greek baths of Sicily. The excep-tional nature of the hypocaust in the Elea Baths isdue to its size (6.36 x 4.13 m), its excellent state ofpreservation, and the use of the local Velia bricksto construct the six suspensurae with roundededges, which are, at the moment, unique in thethermal architecture of the Hellenistic period.34

The Elea Baths feature only one tholos for indi-vidual bathing, while there are many contempo-rary baths with two tholoi, or other spaces forindividual tub bathing, as for example at Gela,Eretria and Eleusis. Again, the most cogent com-parisons are found in Sicily, where the balaneia atSyracuse, Megara Hyblaea and Morgantina, likethe baths at Elea, include just one tholos for cleans-ing bathing with a similar capacity as that calcu-lated for Elea.35 The Elea bathing complex certain -ly represents a major architectural undertakingwithin the wider context of the urban develop-ment in the city. In the present state of archaeo-logical research, the balaneion at Elea is one of thefew documented public baths in southern Italy ofthe Hellenistic period,36 and it is interesting tonote that this architectural model, only a fewdecades later, would find its own developmentand formulations in Campania.

The bathing establishment at Elea, with a roomused for the practice of individual cleansing bath -ing, and an elaborate space provided with a col-lective heated pool, and especially with the exper-imental hypocaust system used to heat the waterin the communal pool, could have provided aprototype of reference for the development of newtypes of buildings which would become typicalof Roman culture. This evidence from Elea givessupport to the hypothesis of John Bryan Ward-Perkins concerning the singular role of Campania

in the experimentation and formulation of a newarchitectural model.37 In this context, the discoveryof the thermal complex at Fregellae is extremelyinteresting; it is one of the oldest examples of apublic ‘italic-style’ thermal establishment, andreveals many constructional elements that clearlyderive from the Hellenistic balaneia.38

THE URBAN CONTEXT

The configuration of Elea in the Archaic and Clas -sical periods changes considerably between theend of the 4th and the first decades of the 3rd cen-turies BCE.39 This break is clearly marked in thestratigraphy throughout the city by a very exten-sive fill layer mixed with debris and mud that hasbeen interpreted by geologists as evidence of anatural catastrophic event, which, in addition tothe gradual silting up of the ports, resulted in acomplete urban renovation of the city. For Elea,this was a period of affluence and vitality, duringwhich Elea projected itself towards both the east-ern Mediterranean and the world of Rome.40 Inthe early decades of the 3rd century BCE Eleaestablished the foedus with Rome that allowed thecity to maintain its role as a commercial centerand to increase its network of commercial activi-ties. This could explain the presence of a greaternumber of its citizens active in Delos, one of themain commercial centers of the Mediterraneanfrom the mid-2nd to mid-1st centuries BCE.41

During the 2nd century BCE Elea was alreadyfamous in Rome for its thermal treatments. Thus,Plutarch reports that Lucius Aemilius Paulus wasadvised by doctors to try the thermal treatmentsat Elea, which provided curative practices differ-ent from those offered at the better-known thermalspas at Baiae. Aemilius Paulus’ stay would havetaken place roughly between 197 BCE, when he re -turned from Greece, and 160 BCE, when he died.42

Elea was therefore not only a pleasant place, quietand with good air, but was already a medical cen-ter with a reputation such that induced AemiliusPaulus to undertake the long sea voyage.

The broader Mediterranean orientation of thecity is documented also by the visit of a delega-tion of priests sent from the sanctuary of Askle -pios at Cos in 242 BCE; the only other cities in thewest that were visited by the delegation wereCamarina and Gela in Sicily, and Neapolis in Italy.The wider extent of Elea’s international networkof relations during the Hellenistic period, andespecially the prestige the city enjoyed, is con-firmed by the presence in the lists of proxenoi atDelphi of the names of many citizens of Elea be -

123

tween the years 187 and 178 BCE. Eleates are doc-umented as present in various other cities in theMediterranean as well, most notably Epidaurus,Athens, Delos and Alexandria in Egypt. The rela-tionships with Delos are particularly intense andcontinuous: citizens of Elea traded oil and per-fume, but even more striking are the many simi-larities in the material culture of the two cities,most particularly in their domestic and publicarchitecture.43 Together, all of this emphasizes thefull participation of the citizens of Elea in thebroader Mediterranean world of the Hellenisticperiod. The urban renewal of Elea at this time,including the spectacular organization of publicspaces, the arrangement of terraces, the plans ofhouses and public buildings with their mosaicand painted decoration, as well as the first bath -ing complex, all find their frame of reference inthis general network of international relations ona Mediterranean-wide scale throughout the Hel -lenistic period.

GG

CERAMIC EVIDENCE AND CHRONOLOGY

The excavation of the Hellenistic baths at Eleaprovided an undisturbed stratigraphic sequence,44

which allowed for the reconstruction of a relativelyreliable chronology. The analysis of the ceramicevidence permitted the identification, with somedegree of precision, of the levels of the founda-tion, the use, and the progressive disuse, aban-donment and obliteration of the balaneion and thesurrounding area.

Based on the stratigraphic excavation data andceramic documentation, three main periods couldbe distinguished, two of which included severalphases. The chronological range is relativelyshort, extending from the mid-3rd century BCE(preparatory works for the construction of thebaths) to the late 2nd or early 1st century BCE(phase of the final abandonment and progressiveobliteration of the area).

Regarding the phases immediately precedingthe installation of the building (Period 1, Phases1-2, about mid-3rd century BCE), the discovery ofa quadrangular basin (0.94 x 0.94 m, 0.60 mdeep)45 is of particular interest. It was found out-side the baths and very close to the entrance, andwas sealed by a layer rich in sand and ceramicfragments containing a high concentration of ashand charcoal. This basin appears to be contem-poraneous with both the cuts in the bedrock forhousing the foundation walls and the early worksof canalization underneath the floors of the bath

complex. While it cannot be securely determinedhow much time exactly (probably very little)elapsed between the construction of the basin andthe construction of the walls of the baths, it isclear that the channel system was established forthe baths, notably for drainage purposes. Allchannels discharge into the Great Drain that wasbuilt in the first half of the 3rd century BCE.

The fill of the basin yielded some intentionallyburied objects: a black glaze lamp of the ‘Tinten -faß-Lampen’ type,46 a small unguentarium per-taining to the group of the ‘Gray Unguentaria’ ofAthenian production,47 a chytra,48 and a coarseware jug (fig. 11, nos 1-4).49 The lamp and theunguentarium are completely preserved, while thechytra and the jug are fragmentary.50

The circumstances of the discovery and thetypology of the deposited material suggest thatthe basin was a foundation deposit, the result ofa religious practice connected with the consecra-tion of the place where the new building wouldbe constructed. Furthermore, the area chosen forthe deposition of the ritual objects was close tothe entrance of the balaneion and in direct contactwith its outer wall; thus, the deposition took placein a crucial space of the building, suggesting thatthis was an engainion, a foundation sacrifice.51 Theceramic material is datable to the mid-3rd centuryBCE, providing a terminus post quem for the inau-guration of the building.

After some bricks of the pavement in Room khad been removed, a test trench opened thererevealed almost horizontal and compact layers ofleveling, which provided some pottery fragmentsdating to the second half of the 3rd century BCE(Period 1, Phase 3). All of the main rooms of thebuilding, both those already identified in 198252

and those investigated in recent years by theUniversity of Naples Federico II, seem to belongto this phase. Thus, at the end of the 3rd centuryBCE Rooms c, e, and k, as well as the large Roomj and the cistern m, were completed in their def-inite designs. Thus, some time could have passedbetween the foundation sacrifice, the start of theconstruction and the completion of the baths.While the pavements of Rooms j and k are cer-tainly contemporaneous, the furnace in Room jwas certainly installed later, by cutting throughthe original pavement.

Among the diagnostic fragments, which datethe construction of the balaneion to the second halfof the 3rd century BCE, particularly significant area rim of a black glaze cup of the Morel Species2980,53 a rim of a lopas,54 and two rims of Greco-Italic amphoras of types common during the sec-

124

ond half of the 3rd century BCE (fig. 11: nos 5-8).55

Shortly after the completion of the baths, thesouthern part of Room j was remodeled (Period1, Phase 4). By cutting through the original pave-ment, a ‘bottle-shaped’ furnace was installed thatwas larger than the older hypocaust under thecollective immersion pool h of Room e. A termi-nus ante quem for the construction of the newhypocaust is provided by different floor-levelsthat were found in the eastern sector (US 71, 177,77) and in the south corner of Room j, betweenthe hypocaust and the pavement (US 278). Threesuperimposed floor levels were recognized (USM72, 90, 94) that were interspersed with thin layersof muddy nature (US 77, 102, 177). These floor

levels give evidence of modest floods that peri-odically affected the building and eventuallycaused its disuse and abandonment (Period 1,Phase 5). To what extent the building still func-tioned as a bath with any of these three floor lev-els is currently unknown, however.

The earliest of these alluvial levels (US 77) isrelatively thin and characterized by a high con-centration of charcoal. It included a rim fragmentof a black glaze bowl of Morel Series 2984 (fig. 12,no 9), dated to the second half of the 2nd centuryBCE. In the latest floor level of Room j (US 71) aconsiderable number of sherds was recovered,including a rim fragment of a black glaze bowl ofMorel Type 2984b 1 (fig. 12, no 10) and a rim frag-

125

Fig. 11. Velia Baths: diagnostic pottery (drawing C. Di Nicuolo).

ment of a Dressel 1 A amphora (fig. 12, no 11),which are the latest finds that date the abandon-ment of the building between the end of the 2nd

and the beginning of the 1st century BCE.Almost contemporaneously with the last floor

level of Room j began presumably the spoliationof the thermal complex (end of the 2nd/early 1st

century BCE; Period 2, Phase 1). To this phase canbe ascribed a significant intervention, which in -volved the demolition of both the outer and thepartition walls of the rooms, razed almost to the

level of the foundation. A terminus ante quem forthis intervention is provided by the installationof a new system of canalization of spring water.This consists of two parallel canals: first amasonry canal 11.80 m in length that ran in anortheast-southwest direction and was superim-posed over the northwestern outer wall of Room k,and second a conduit of terracotta pipes that waslaid out on the pavement of Room k and causedthe partial destruction of the pavement of Room c.The terracotta pipe was embedded in a layer

126

Fig. 12: Velia Baths: diagnostic pottery (drawing C. Di Nicuolo).

composed of mortar, clay and crushed sandstone(US 55), which included some pottery. A rim frag-ment of an amphora Dressel Type C dates thisphase between the end of the 2nd and the begin-ning of the 1st century BCE. Noteworthy is theabsence of any kind of furnishings, as well as theaccumulation of reused building material in thecenter of Room k that served as a bedding levelfor the conduit of terracotta pipes.56

Contemporaneous with the dismantling of thebaths, four rooms of uncertain function were builtalong the southwest outer wall. These had thinwalls that were made out of reused material andare preserved only at the foundation level. Onlythe easternmost room provided diagnostic findsfrom the layer under its floor (US 119),57 whichdate these rooms not earlier than the beginningof the 1st century BCE. The final abandonment ofthe bath complex in the early 1st century BCE isconfirmed by the construction of a small roomthat was located at the edge of the southwestouter wall of the baths and was filled with a nat-ural and compact accumulation of mud (US 126).A vast quantity of pottery (870 sherds) of severalfabrics and different chronology was found there,dating from the second half of the 4th to the early1st centuries BCE, when the filling process tookplace.

The best represented ceramics are coarse ware(39%), amphorae (38%), cooking pots (14%) andblack glaze pottery (8%), while only a few sherdsof Italian terra sigillata (1%) were found. Amongthe hundreds of fragments recovered, only 34 arepreserved well enough to allow for an analysisand typological study of the artefacts, and only afew of these 34 fragments can be used to date US126: three rims of black glaze bowls of differenttypes, but all dating to around the mid-2nd cen-tury BCE.58 (fig. 12, nos 13-15); a bifid rim of a pandating to the beginning of the 1st century BCE (fig.

12, no 16);59 two rim fragments of lids, relevantfor types common between the 2nd and the end ofthe 1st centuries BCE (fig. 12, nos 17-18);60 and onerim of a terra sigillata plate (fig. 12, no 19).61 To thisphase also belong several layers of debris fromthe collapse of part of the structures and the firststrata of abandonment that were found betweenRoom q and the drainage system along the south-east side of the baths. The stratigraphy yielded achronological frame for the formation of thesestrata which occurred between two extremes: theprogressive disuse of the bath complex, whichbegan at the end of the 2nd or the beginning of the1st centuries BCE (US 71), and the general oblit-eration of all structures on the terrace, includingthe small rooms built outside the baths. Thesehad already been partially covered by a filling ofmud (US 126), dated to the beginning of the 1st

century BCE, when a later and violent alluvialincident entirely covered the baths and the sur-rounding structures during the first half of the 1st

century BCE (US 8 = US 128; Period 2, Phases 2-3).Following this event, the area remained un -

used until the beginning of the 19th century, whenit became a garden and was equipped with alarge tub, built close to the water collection chan-nel that crosses the whole valley towards thesouthern district (Period 3).

The chronology is summarized in the follow-ing table. Most significant for the history of Greekbathing culture is that the Elean baths were builtin the second half of the 3rd century BCE andalready abandoned in the second half of the 2nd

century BCE. This relatively short period of use(of about 100 years or less) included at least onemajor remodelling, notably the construction ofthe bottle-shaped furnace in Room j, which, how-ever, cannot be dated more precisely.

CDN

127

Phase Date

Period 1, Phases 1-2: foundation sacrifice for baths mid-3rd century BCEPeriod 1, Phase 3: construction and completion of baths second half of 3rd century BCE

Period 1, Phase 4: construction of bottle-shaped furnace inRoom j

before second half of 2nd century BCE

Period 1, Phase 5: gradual abandonment of baths (alluviallayers of floods)

second half of 2nd century BCE

Period 2, Phase 1: spoliation of baths; channel system overpavements of Rooms c and k; rooms built along southwestwall of baths

end of 2nd/early 1st century BCE

Period 2, Phases 2-3: terrace with baths and later structuresentirely covered by alluvial layers

first half of 1st century BCE

Period 3: garden 19th century

NOTES

1 This article is a summary report on the results of recentexcavations and investigations of the baths at Velia. Acomprehensive study of the bathing complex, includingcomplete graphic documentation, is in progress by theauthor.

2 Johannowsky 1982, 1984.3 We would like to thank Giuliana Tocco Sciarelli,

Superintendent at the time, for her generosity in en -trusting the University of Naples Federico II with thetask of exploring the bath complex. We would espe-cially like to remember Antonella Fiammenghi, whoseenthusiasm, and friendly, open and warm cooperationallowed our research to be carried on with great seren-ity and cheerfulness. We dedicate this work to her.

4 The excavations took place under the direction of theauthor in collaboration with Luigi Cicala. The restora-tion project is directed by the architect Carlo La Torre,who has also provided the graphic documentation ofthe baths. We offer our heartfelt gratitude to the entirestaff of the Archaeological Area of Velia and to its cur-rent manager, Dr. Bisogno, for their kindness and sup-port regarding all operational and logistical issues. Apreliminary analysis of the excavations and the objectsdiscovered was the subject of a 2006-2007 degree thesisby Carmelo Di Nicuolo in the field of Archaeology andAntiquities of Magna Graecia, which was completed inthe Faculty of Arts at the University of Naples FedericoII; cf. infra.

5 Greco 1999, 2005a.6 Hdt. 1.167; Strabo 6.1.1.7 Ortolani 1999; Krinzinger 2006, 182-185.8 Greco 2005b, 597-641.9 Tocco 1999.10 Cicala and Vecchio 1999, 67-72.11 Krinzinger 1994; 2006, 157-185.12 Greco 2005b, 601-605.13 Napoli 1966.14 Gallo 1966; Franciosi 1976; Morel 1976.15 Vallet et al. 1983, 52.16 Ginouvès 1959, 19-20.17 Ginouvès 1962, 51.18 Ginouvès 1962, 183-229; Trümper 2012a.19 See bibliography in Manderscheid 1988, 2004.20 Cicala 2003a.21 Tsakirgis 1989.22 On the ongoing discussion concerning the nature of

rooms heated with below-floor heating systems, seeYegül 1992, 356-89, and Tsiolis in this volume.

23 Cultrera 1938.24 Vallet et al. 1983, 49-60.25 Lucore 2009a, and in this volume.26 Nielsen 1990, 1:8 n. 31.27 Cicala 2003b.28 Saggio 1 (USM) 271, 272, 273).29 Cf. infra, Di Nicuolo.30 Napoli 1966, 221 fig. 6.31 Baldassarre 1994.32 Ginouvès 1955; 1962, 183-224; DeLaine 1989; Broise

1994; Lucore 2009a, and in this volume; Trümper 2009.33 Ginouvès 1959, 58-78.34 Compare, however, the furnaces at Caulonia and Locri;

for Caulonia see Iannelli and Cuteri in this volume; forLocri see Sabbione in this volume.

35 For capacities of Greek baths, see Trümper 2009, 155-

156. The tholos in Gortys included only nine hip-bath-tubs; the tholoi in Megara Hyblaea and Syracuse offeredspace for about 20 or more hip-bathtubs; according tothe number and size of preserved niches, the tholos inthe North Baths of Morgantina also could have accom-modated about 15-17 hip-bathtubs; baths with twotholoi in Egypt provided up to 52 hip-bathtubs. In addi-tion to hip-bathtubs, many baths offered additionalbathing facilities and many multifunctional rooms, andthus an overall higher capacity than is suggested bytaking only hip-bathtubs into account.

36 Another bath complex, dating to the end of the 3rd cen-tury BCE, has been found at Capua (this bath has notbeen published. We have just been informed of its exis-tence by Valeria Sampaolo during a conference). Foranother example in Caulonia, also dated to the 3rd cen-tury BCE, see Iannelli 2010; Iannelli and Cuteri in thisvolume.

37 Ward-Perkins 1976.38 Tsiolis 2001, 2006, 2008a, 2008b, and in this volume.39 Greco 2005a.40 Greco 2005b, 598-608.41 Vecchio 2003.42 Musti 1966, 333.43 The relevant inscriptions are enumerated in Musti 1966;

Greco 2005b; Vecchio 2003.44 During the excavations carried out in 2000/2002, it was

possible to complete the extensive investigation of theentire bath complex and to open some stratigraphicsoundings in areas relevant to understanding the his-tory of the building. The Units of Stratification (US)considered here are those identified in some specificareas of the balaneion, whose stratigraphy was intact orjust disturbed, in some cases, by the first explorationsin this area in 1982.

45 Cf. supra Giovanna Greco.46 TE.152.2: it has an almost globular body, flat-topped

nozzle, smooth disc slightly sloping towards the filling-hole, hollow and thick base, pierced lug added. Typicalfabric common between the end of the 4th and the mid-3rd century BCE; see Howland 1958, 73, type 25 B, n.308, pl. 38; Bailey 1975, type Q 88, p. 56, pl. 16-17;Scheibler 1976, 37-39, DSL 2, n. 181, pl. 32-33; 32-33,DSL 3, n. 194, pl. 34-35.

47 TE.152.3: see Rotroff 2006, Category 3. In detail thisshape shows morphologic features strongly resemblingthe types Forti 1962, IIIa and Camilli 1999, Form A-Series 23.15, n. 2 and 8, pl. 12. It seems to be datablewithin the first half of the 3rd century BCE.

48 TE.152.1: it has a flaring rim with a quadrangular pro-file, datable between the end of the 4th and the mid-3rd

century BCE; see Dyson 1976, 27, fig. 3, CF 37; Tayloret al. 1983, 374-375, fig. 145, n. 449 (Cozzo Presepe); Gual -tieri and Fracchia 2002, 25, fig. 13, DBS 4 (Roccaglo -riosa); Osanna and Sica 2005, 224-25, type 4, 51, pl. 23.

49 TE.152.4: slightly flaring lip with flat rim; high cylin-drical neck; vertical strap. While there are no close par-allels, it could be related to some types of miniaturisticjugs, found at Roccagloriosa, belonging to 4th centuryBCE productions; see in detail Gualtieri and Fracchia1990, 122, fig. 120, V124. See also Osanna and Sica 2005,231, tipo 4, 116, pl. 28, dating to the 3rd century BCE.

50 Since the broken surfaces of the chytra and the jug thatwere probably crushed already during the ritual arealmost completely washed, no graphical restitution ofthe entire pieces can be provided.

51 An engainion sacrifice was performed in order to grant

128

the stability and good functioning of buildings underconstruction. This ritual is well known from literarysources. For example, Aristophanes (Peace 924 and Plut.1197-1198) at the end of the 5th century BCE describesceremonial acts with similar purposes, which alwaysinvolve the use of chytrai. Recent research has yieldedincreasing evidence of intentional depositions of pot-tery and other objects for propitiatory acts related toconstruction processes; see Eleftheratou 2006, 52-57,with previous bibliography for 32 engainia of differentperiods, which date from the mid-5th century BCE tothe 6th century CE and mostly relate to the constructionof houses and shops, documented during excavationsfor the construction of the new Acropolis Museum inAthens. S. Weikart (2002, with bibliography organizedby regions, cities, and single contexts) provides a care-ful examination of all Greek contexts recognizable asvotive foundation deposits. For a more direct compar-ison with the Eleatic context and thus with votive foun-dation deposits linked to hydraulic constructions ingeneral, cf. two deposits found in Himera that wererelated to the construction of wells/tanks and date tothe end of the 5th century BCE; see Anzalone 2009.

52 Johannowsky 1982.53 TE.169.4: because of its blurred surface, no convincing

comparisons for this cup could be found. Nevertheless,the general morphological characteristics are similar tothose of Morel Species 2980, which covers a rather widechronological range, from the first half of the 3rd to thebeginning of the 1st centuries BCE. See, however, frag-ments published in Osanna and Sica 2005, 277, 259, pl.40 that are considered to relate to Morel Series 2985 andare dated to the end of the 4th century BCE. The typerepresented in the Velia fragment TE.169.4 could comefrom very well known local productions of Paestum,attested to from the second half of the 4th century BCEonwards; see Greco and Theodorescu 1987, 135, fig. 90,n. 448, end of the 4th/early 3rd century BCE.

54 TE.248.10: forked rim with rounded surface. See Grecoand Theodorescu 1983, 183-185, fig. 66 (Paestum);Taylor et al. 1983, 376-337, fig. 147, n. 462-467; Gualtieri

and Fracchia 1990, 264, fig. 185, n. 246 (Roccagloriosa,within the 3rd century BCE).

55 TE.48.2: Fernández Miranda 1977, fig. 26, n. 2, fromCala Coves (late 3rd/early 2nd century BCE); Vander -mersch 1995, 81-87, MGS VI, dated between 260 and210 BCE; Costamagna and Visonà 1999, 301, fig. 309, n.574, 301 (Oppido Mamertina). TE.248.11: Greco andPontrandolfo 1990, fig. 261, n. 32 (Fratte): datable be -tween the end of the third and the early second cen-turies BCE; Vandermersch 1995, 81-87, MGS VI.

56 This accumulation included some typical bricks of localproduction (mattoni velini) and fragments of the hip-bathtubs that were removed from their original place,crushed, and piled up in the center of Room k.

57 Esp. several fragments of lids of cooking pots, the bestpreserved of which (TE.119.16) is of a very well knowntype common between the end of the 2nd and the firsthalf of the 1st centuries BCE (fig. 12, n. 12). See Olcese1993, fig. 54, n. 171, 244; Bernabò Brea and Cavalier2000, 329, A, fig. 16.

58 TE.126.31: Morel Species 2820 (generally dated betweenthe end of the 3rd and the early 1st centuries BCE, butwith a peak value during the 2nd century BCE). TE.126.32: Morel Series 2614. See Valentini 1993, type 44, sub-type 253, pl. 25, (first half of the 2nd century BCE).TE.126.285: Morel Series 2788 (mid-2nd century B.C.E.).Cf. Rotroff 1997, type 1021, fig. 63, pl. 77 (mid-2nd cen-tury BCE).

59 TE.126.18: see Dyson 1976, 69, fig. 18, V-D7 (Cosa);Riley 1979, 247-249, fig. 100, n. 448 (Berenice); Bragan -tini 1991, 77, fig. 36, n. 357-410; Olcese 1993, 223-225,fig. 45, n. 115-116; Slane and Berlin 1997, i, PW 279, pl.32 (Tel Anafa).

60 TE.126.63: Dyson 1976, 30-31, fig. 4, CF59-60, (Cosa,dating from the 2nd century BCE to the early 2nd cen-tury CE); Olcese 1993, fig. 55, n. 179; Bernabò Brea andCavalier 2000, ‘f’ fig. 25. TE.126.81: see Bragantini 1991,fig. 31, 73, n. 233-245 (attested from the end of the 2nd

century BCE to the early 1st century CE); Broise andJolivet 2004, 206, fig. 175, n. 553.

61 TE.126.146: Atlante II, pl. CXXI, 10.

129