This volume is the outcome of the first conference to take place on the topic of Greek baths and bathing culture,a central but hitherto neglected area in the field of ancient studies. Fifteen papers by an international groupof archaeologists, art historians and ancient historians discuss Greek bathing culture from a socio-historicaland cultural-anthropological perspective, resulting in a comprehensive reassessment that elucidates the sophis-tication of both the architecture and the culture of bathing throughout the Greek world.

Individual papers examine bathing in the context of science, medicine and the cultural discourses coded inimages on vases, while the majority focus on the archaeological evidence itself, as the crucial component inthis reassessment that removes Greek baths from the traditional category of ‘primitive predecessors’ to Romanbaths. From Greece and Egypt in the east, to Sicily, southern Italy and France in the west, new informationfrom recent excavations is brought to bear on a wide range of related issues, including urban contexts, regionalvariations in experimental design and construction, innovations in technology, and the social meaning ofthe rise of bathing culture in the Hellenistic period. This better understanding of Greek baths adds a crucialelement to the much debated question of the relationship between Greek and Roman bathing culture. Thisbook also provides the first comprehensive catalog of all known Greek public baths (balaneia), includingdescriptions, plans and bibliographies, as a major reference tool for future comparative research on ancientbathing culture and beyond. catalog and papers combined make this a rich study of a topic of newly recog-nized significance in the ancient world.

GR

EE

K B

AT

HS

AN

D B

AT

HIN

G c

ul

Tu

RE

Sa

nd

ra K

. lu

core a

nd

Mo

nik

a T

rüm

per

BA

BE

Sc

H S

up

pl

EM

EN

T 23

PEETERS-LEUVEN

GREEK BATHS AND BATHING culTuRE

New Discoveries and Approaches

Edited by

Sandra K. Lucore and Monika Trümper

PEETERS

95951_BabeschSuppl23_COVER_Lucore 31/10/12 14:22 Pagina 1

greek baths and bathing culture

b a b e s c hAnnual Papers on Mediterranean Archaeology

Supplement 23 — 2012

babesch FOundatiOnStichting Bulletin Antieke Beschaving

greek baths and bathing culture

neW discOVeries and aPPrOaches

edited by

sandra k. lucore and Monika trümper

Peeters

leuven - Paris - Walpole, Ma

2013

babesch supplement seriesedited by

g.J. van Wijngaarden

Photo on the cover:Aerial view of the North Baths at Morgantina; (Photo American Excavations at Morgantina)

© 2013 Peeters, bondgenotenlaan 153, b-3000 leuven

All rights reserved, including the right to translate or reproduce this book or parts in any form

isbn 978-90-429-2897-8issn 0165-9367d/2013/0602/XX

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

truemper

Stempel

‘deny to the poor those advantages which arepossessed by the rich and you intensify dis-content. When the poor are so very poor asthey are in our cities and have neither theknowledge nor customs nor initiative to beother than as they are, it is the duty of the pub-lic, as its own government, to educate them outof their condition, to give baths to them thatthey may be fit to associate together and withothers without offense and without danger. aman cannot truly respect himself who is dirty.stimulate the habit of cleanliness and weincrease the safety of our cities. and give theidea that a free bath is any more of a “gratu-ity” than the right to walk in the public streets.’1

When this was written in a new York city news-paper in 1897, public baths were considered to beone of the crucial services that progressive amer -

ican cities must provide for their poorer citizens.Personal cleanliness had become a symbol ofmiddle-class status, good character, self-respect,and membership in a civic community - and ithad become a right of all citizens. this attitude isclearly reflected in the distribution of public bathsin, for example, Manhattan (fig. 1): the public bathswere mostly located in slum neighborhoods, com-monly serving one immigrant group, but werealso situated in vice and entertainment districts.While public baths were usually free, a five-centfee was often charged for soap and water. in addi-tion to the publicly owned and accessible bathsfor lower social classes, there existed a wide vari-ety of domestic bathing facilities in upscale hous-ing, and of privately owned commercial bathsthat were publicly accessible with entrance fees;the latter were often much more lavish and poshthan the public baths for the poor and were catered

33

urban context of greek Public baths

Monika Trümper

Abstract

This paper examines the urban context of 75 Greek public baths. Cross-cultural comparison with 19th centuryNew York reveals the potential significance of the urban context of public baths and relevant criteria for a studyof this topic, which includes distribution, design, decoration, accessibility, patronage, intended user groups, andfunction of public baths. After a brief discussion of the scanty information on patrons and users of Greek baths, the focus is first on thelocation of baths in urban contexts and its development from the Classical through the Late Hellenistic period.In the best-documented example, Athens, baths were from the 5th through 3rd centuries BCE built outside citygates, obviously for socio-cultural reasons and moral concerns; only in the 2nd century BCE was a bath build-ing constructed in the center of the city, close to the Agora. Analysis of a much larger sample shows, however,that Athens was no standard, either in the Classical or in the Hellenistic period, and that the location of bathswithin the city walls or settlements was common in other cities. As a general trend, baths seem to have beenbuilt preferably in high traffic areas such as harbors, edges of settlements, main intersections, and rarely, butprobably most prestigious, city centers, notably agorai. These areas granted optimal visibility and accessibility,and thus maximum profit for the predominantly, if not exclusively, private owners and tenants of baths.Sufficient financial ability to pay entrance fees may have been the only distinctive criterion regarding the clien-tele of public baths, as other potential criteria of user differentiation currently cannot be determined - neitherfrom the archaeological evidence (location, design, bathing programs, and decoration of baths) nor from writtensources (regarding gender, ethnicity, social status, and age of bathers).The second part of this paper focuses on one specific urban context, namely sanctuaries, to assess the muchdebated question of whether baths in this context were specifically constructed for ritual-religious and thera-peutic-curative purposes. Currently, only nine of the 75 public baths can be related with five extraurban andtwo urban/suburban sanctuaries. This small number alone suggests that baths were not central to cult and rit-uals of any deity, and their location - outside the temenos or in secondary areas - as well as bathing programs- comparable to that of ‘profane’ urban baths or gymnasia - confirm this assumption. Instead, baths in thesacred contexts were an extraordinary luxury that a few important sanctuaries provided for the convenience oftheir visitors or for the athletes that participated in games held at these sanctuaries.

34

Fig. 1. New York, Manhattan, 1915: distribution ofpublic baths (Williams 1991, 63).

to the better-off social classes. thus, in late 19th cen-tury america, the distribution, design, decoration,accessibility and (intended) clientele of bathingfacilities clearly reflected the structure, culturalpractices, and norms of urban society.

the well-documented modern case study ofnew York shows that the existence of public bathbuildings is highly significant for a society’s bath -ing culture and related socio-cultural attitudesand concepts, and that the urban context of suchbuildings is revealing for crucial factors such asthe socio-cultural importance, patronage, accessi-bility, intended user groups, and function of pub-lic baths. the aim of this paper is to analyze theurban context of greek public baths in order toassess the aforementioned factors. this topic hasnot yet been systematically examined for greekpublic baths, although its socio-cultural signifi-cance has been recognized and also explored forother monuments such as gymnasia and romanpublic baths.2 this lacuna in research is mostlikely due to the overall scanty evidence: thegreek world provides no cities such as Pompeii,Ostia, ephesos, or timgad that have been exca-vated broadly and include several public baths,nor is the epigraphic evidence as rich and reveal-ing as for roman baths and gymnasia. but basedon the archaeological evidence, which has grownconsiderably since rené ginouvès groundbreak-ing handbook was published in 1962, and hasbeen particularly enriched by the numerousrecent excavations,3 the urban context of greekpublic baths can still be explored fruitfully.

the modern case study of new York serves asa benchmark regarding the parameters that influ-enced the urban significance of public baths andthat ideally should all be taken into account. Whilethe following discussion of the urban context ofgreek public baths attempts to meet this challenge,it is necessarily guided and impeded by muchmore fragmentary evidence. thus, a first part willbriefly define greek public baths and assess thecentral question of patronage of these buildings.the focus will then be on the location of baths inurban contexts and its development from theclassical through the late hellenistic periods.discussion will start with the case study of athens,notably the best documented site, and will thenproceed to analyze a much larger sample in anattempt to reconstruct general trends and patterns.the second part of this paper will focus on onespecific urban context, namely sanctuaries, toassess the much debated question of whether bathsin this context were specifically constructed for rit-ual-religious and healing purposes.

greek Public baths: deFinitiOn and PatrOnage

the definition of ‘public’ in ancient cultures isnotoriously debated and cannot be discussedfully here.4 the case study of new York suggeststhat key factors for an assessment of public bathsare ownership and patronage, accessibility, capac-ity, and intended function and clientele. For rea-sons of simplicity and clarity, public baths aredefined here as publicly accessible, independentbuildings that are not part of a larger ensemblesuch as gymnasia or clubhouses and providebathing facilities for more than one person.Ownership and patronage may, however, vary, aswill be demonstrated shortly.

in the archaeological evidence, greek publicbaths are defined mainly by their inclusion of hip-bathtubs for simple cleansing shower-baths as thepredominant bathing form, as found in 70 exam-ples. Five further baths are identified here as greekby their location in the eastern Mediterranean anda date before the 1st century bce when romanbaths were introduced in the eastern Mediter -ranean.5 the differentiation between greek androman public baths is debated. roman baths arecommonly identified by their conspicuous lack ofhip-bathtubs, their sequence of differently tem-pered bathing rooms, and, above all, their sophis-ticated heating systems. recent research has shown,however, that in the late hellenistic or late re -publican periods the heating systems of romanbaths were not always clearly more sophisticatedthan that of their greek equivalents. Furthermore,roman baths did not yet have a fully developedsequence of differently tempered rooms beforethe introduction of frigidaria during the 1st centurybce; instead, they were provided, like greek baths,with a series of multifunctional rooms (often la -beled apodyterium, tepidarium, caldarium) that couldbe heated with portable heating devices.6 thus,currently the presence or lack of rooms with hip-bathtubs remains the single most important cri-terion to distinguish between greek and romanpublic baths.

in scholarship, greek public baths commonly areidentified as balaneia, although this term some -times also denoted bathing facilities in housesand, from the 1st century bce onwards, in gym-nasia.7 similarly, the term loutron was used inancient texts for a broad variety of bathing facil-ities that were located in houses, sanctuaries, andgymnasia; while loutra mostly seem to have beenintegrated into larger building complexes, somewere obviously independent structures.8 Further -more, both terms did not consistently denote the

35

same bathing forms and bathing programs. Whilebalaneia usually provided bathing forms with hotwater,9 loutra may have included both hot waterand cold water facilities.

in sources from the 5th century bce throughthe hellenistic period some balaneia are followedby a proper name which refers to the privateowner of the building.10 in late hellenistic andimperial sources some balaneia are specified as idio -tika, demosia and demosieuonta, again denoting theprivate versus public ownership of these build-ings.11 thus, while fragmentary, the written evi-dence still suggests that in the 5th to 3rd centuriesbce balaneia were mainly, if not exclusively, pri-vately owned and managed as profitable businessinvestments. Balaneia were obviously not part ofthe poleis’ standard building program such as the-aters, gymnasia, and bouleuteria. Furthermore, theydid not yet figure prominently in the spectrum ofbuildings that generous euergetai preferred todonate to their cities. Only in the late hellenisticperiod and, above all, in the roman imperialperiod, balaneia advanced to respectable targets ofbeneficence and to standard building projects ofcities themselves.12 at this time it may have be -come necessary or desirable to clearly distinguishbalaneia that were owned and possibly also builtby poleis from those that were in private posses-sion, by using the epithets demosios and idiotikosor the name of the owner. Only in three cases,however, the archaeological evidence of baths canbe connected with persons that may temporarilyhave owned, if not built them,13 and not one sin-gle balaneion demosion can be safely identified inthe archaeological record.

thus, the crucial question of patronage of bala -neia cannot be comprehensively assessed. Further -more, only one inscription, a late hellenistic hon-orary decree for uliades from Mylasa, allows someinsights into the process of building a balaneion.the polis of Mylasa had decided by law to build abalaneion. in order to please the god (Zeus oflabraunda), uliades helped to identify a suitablelocation and promised to purchase the selectedland for the balaneion. Whether this balaneion waslocated in the city of Mylasa or rather in the sanc-tuary of Zeus of labraunda, whose superintendent(proestekotos) uliades was, cannot be determined.the construction of the balaneion, which was mostlikely public property, may have been financed bythe city or by another unknown euergetes.14 it isunclear, however, whether and to what extent thecity or public authorities were involved in the con-struction of balaneia that were built and owned byprivate citizens as business investments.

an exception were probably baths in or nearextraurban sanctuaries for which no private ownercan be safely identified.15 the epigraphic recordof various sanctuaries includes references to bal-aneia and loutra, both of which may have beenindependent bathing facilities or integrated intobuildings. in the accounts of the sanctuaries ofasklepios and of apollo Maleatas at epidaurosbalaneia are mentioned several times, suggestingthat they were built and operated by the sacredauthorities and officials.16 another balaneion thatwas probably situated in a temenos of aphroditeat halasarna on cos was obviously under lease.17

an official building contract from the sanctuaryof amphiareios in Oropos includes detailed in -structions for the construction of a sewer thatshould drain water from the men’s loutron effi-ciently all year round.18 thus, the bathing facili-ties of these sanctuaries belonged presumably tothe respective sanctuary and were built and man-aged by the authorities that were responsible forthe administration of the sanctuary. these bathsmay just have been set up as self-financing units,the income covering the operation and mainte-nance costs, but, like the privately owned balaneiain cities, they may also have generated profit forthe benefit of the sacred treasury.

user restrictions, for example according to gen-der, age, ethnicity, socio-economic status, or mem-bership in certain groups, may have applied toboth publicly (cities, sanctuaries) and privatelyowned baths, but such factors rarely leave con-clusive traces in the archaeological record. thus,some general remarks and hypothesis regardingthe possible intended audience and function ofpublic baths as derived from their urban locationmust suffice.

to summarize: in the following, all publicly ac -cessible baths will be referred to as public baths,ownership notwithstanding.19 instead of ancientterms such as balaneion and loutron, which werenot consistently used in ancient texts for exactlythe same type of bath, the more neutral modernterm public bath is used.20 While hip-bathtubswere the predominant common characteristic ofgreek public baths, some hybrid examples with-out hip-bathtubs are also identified as greek pub-lic baths here, based on their date and context.

urban ‘PrOFane’ cOnteXt OF greek Public baths

the process of constructing a balaneion in hel -lenistic Mylasa demonstrates that the choice of anappropriate location was an important part ofthis, but unfortunately the inscription does not

36

mention the criteria that would have influencedthe search. a list of possible reasonable criteriaincludes: the availability of building land; topo-graphical conditions; water management, notablythe availability of water and of sewer systems orother means for the disposal of waste water;accessibility for delivery of fuel and, above all,accessibility in terms of visibility for customersand profitability for owners and managers ofbaths; local or regional socio-cultural conditionssuch as deliberate zoning in urban layouts, spe-cific practices or attitudes, or the desired rela-tionship to specific buildings (sanctuaries, sportsfacilities, etc.) or areas (harbor, residential quar-ters, commercial-industrial installations, etc.).While in some cases central concerns of bathbuilders seem obvious, most notably with viewto water supply,21 most often the hierarchy of cri-teria and thus the major reasons for positioningbaths cannot be reconstructed. this is particularlydue to two facts:

• First, many baths were excavated in isolation,and often neither their immediate urban con-texts nor even the extension and layout of thesettlements to which they belonged are known.Furthermore, many cities and particularly small -er settlements were never surrounded by awall that would have marked physically andsymbolically the boundary of the city and thuswould have allowed for a clear differentiationof intraurban vs. extraurban locations.

• second, only a few cities provide evidence ofmore than one bath building so far, which wouldallow for a comparative assessment of urbancontexts and for the evaluation of local distri-bution patterns. these include, with the excep-tion of athens and Morgantina, only settle-ments in Ptolemaic and roman imperial egypt.22

For many of these cities, the urban layout isinsufficiently known, however, and only thearchaeological evidence of athens is substan-tially supplemented by textual sources.23

that the local domestic bathing standard is alsobarely known in cities with greek baths seems anadditional hindrance, but only if one assumesthat public baths were always used as a substi-tute for lacking domestic bathing facilities. thisis, however, far from clear because public bathsmay have been used for different purposes thandomestic facilities,24 and people who could notafford a bathing room at home may also not havebeen able to pay the entrance fees of public baths.thus, the quality and quantity of domestic bath -

ing facilities in a city may not necessarily haveinfluenced the number, distribution, and compo-sition of the clientele of public baths.25

With view to this state of research, a quantita-tive assessment of the urban context of greekbaths makes little sense. instead, the range of pos-sible locations will be analyzed, based on conclu-sive case studies, starting with the best docu-mented site, notably athens.

Athens

athens provides literary, epigraphic and archae-ological evidence of at least five public baths orbalaneia (fig. 2). none of the four examples thatwere excavated is fully preserved and published,however.

1. the ‘dipylon baths’ are located in the keramei -kos, outside the city walls, near the dipylon(thriasian) gate (iV), and in the midst of tombs.excavated in the 1930s, these baths are com-monly identified with a balaneion that, accordingto isaios, was located near the tomb of anthemo -kritos. While the design and history of the bathscurrently cannot be fully reconstructed, theyincluded a tholos with hip-bathtubs (interiordiam. of about 7.80 m), in which two superim-posed white pebble pavements were found.built in the first half of the 5th century bce, thebaths were already abandoned and overbuilt inthe mid 4th century bce.26 While the owner ofthese baths is not known, kurt gebauer assumedprivate ownership based on a horos stone thatwas found reused as cover slab of a channel andmay have pertained to the baths. this horosstone records the sale of land and of a building(oikia) on this land for 2000 drachmas on con-dition of release.27 While private ownership ofthe bath building is very likely, the connectionbetween the horos stone and the baths mustremain hypothetical and indeed questionable,because the building is referred to as oikia andnot as balaneion.28

2. another bath building is located immediatelyoutside the Piraeus gate (ii), at modern Poulo -poulou street 43.29 Partially excavated in the1960s, it also included a tholos with hip-bath-tubs (interior diam. of about 11.30 m) that wasdecorated with a white pebble pavement. Whilethe construction date of this building is un -known, its plan and decoration are compara-ble to those of the ‘dipylon baths’, suggestinga possible date in the 5th or 4th century bce.according to hellenistic pottery found on the

37

floor, the bath complex was still used in thehellenistic period.

3. a third bath complex is located immediatelyout side the gate of diochares (Viii), at the inter -section of the modern Voulis and apollonosstreets. Partially excavated in the 1980s, thisbuilding also included a tholos with hip-bath-tubs (interior diam. of about 10 m), which wasdecorated with a high-quality, polychrome, fig-ured pebble mosaic. its construction date issolely based on the style of the mosaic, vari-ously dated between the mid 4th and the mid3rd centuries bce.30 although not proposedand recognized so far, it is intriguing to link thearchaeological evidence with an inscriptionfrom 334/333 bce, found in the area of themodern Voulis and apollonos streets, whichmentions the balaneion of diochares outside acity gate. thus, this balaneion belonged to dio -chares, who also gave his name to the city gate.if this inscription and the archaeological remainsdid not belong together, there would have beentwo baths outside this city gate, which seemsrather unlikely. in contrast, if textual and archae-ological evidence coincide, the inscription wouldprovide a terminus ante quem or ad quem for thebath building.31

4. a fourth bath is only known from a decreefrom 418/417 bce that mentions a gate on theroad leading to the balaneion of isthmonikos,which again was privately owned. ioannestravlos identified this gate with the itoniangate (Xi) and located the bath outside this gate.32

5. a fifth bath building is mentioned in a cityproperty inscription from 440-410 bce, whichrecords a gymnasion, an oikia, a bouleuterion, abalaneion and at least three names of personswho were presumably owners of estates orbuildings or renters of public property. Prop -erties listed with personal names served mostlikely as topographical references for publicproperties under lease.33 the fragmentary stateof the inscription does not allow for any con-clusions regarding the location of the balaneion.While gymnasia are commonly located outsidethe city wall in 5th century bce athens, bouleu-teria are rather identified as intramural build-ings. it is unknown, however, whether thisproperty inscription followed any coherenttopographical order and necessarily mentionedconsecutively buildings that were located adja-cent or close together.34

6. the last example is the ‘southwest baths’,which are located to the southwest of the agora,flanked by the Piraeus and areopagus streets.

although they did not open onto the agorasquare proper, they were still situated in theimmediate vicinity of the city’s political center.excavated in the 1960s, they included a tholos(interior diam. of 5.75 m), the original pave-ment and furniture of which are not preserved,but which was most likely provided with hip-bathtubs. diagnostic pottery recovered fromthe footing trench of the building’s enclosurewall dates the construction to the 2nd centurybce. after their destruction, possibly by sulla’sarmy in 86 bce, the ‘southwest baths’ werecompletely remodeled, employing an advancedhypocaust heating system in the tholos. thebaths were continuously modernized and usedthrough the 6th century ce.35

the chances of survival notwithstanding, the evi-dence of public baths or balaneia in athens providesimportant information. First, it reveals an intrigu-ing pattern of urban distribution: before the 2nd cen-tury bce, none of the comparatively numerous(preserved) baths was built within the city. instead,all baths from the 5th through 3rd centuries bcewere located outside the city walls, in the vicinityof gates. it has been suggested that these baths wereconveniently situated to serve weary travelersbefore they entered the city.36 a similar claim hasbeen made for extramural ro man baths, supportedby literary sources, but adding a symbolic to thepractical aspect of this location: such baths wouldhave been ‘symbolical of the civilised, urban con-dition providing relief from the toil, hazards, anduncertainties of travel in the outside world, thewilderness’.37 the roman examples were, however,attached to way-stations and inns and located out-side cities that offered other baths within their citywalls.38 thus, the extramural baths of roman citiesdid not serve as a substitute for, but as a comple-ment to inner-city baths; therefore, the distributionof baths in ro man cities may well have been estab-lished with a view to a differentiated intendedclientele, and one of the distinctive criteria couldhave been the provenance of users.39

in contrast, if the distribution of known baths inathens is conclusive, the city did not provide a dis-tinction between intraurban vs. suburban or extrau-rban baths before the 2nd century bce. literarysources of the 5th and 4th centuries bce, however,clearly testify to the popularity of bala neia inathenian life;40 thus, the baths outside city gateswere most likely not built solely or primarily forthe convenience of travelers, but must also, if notpredominantly, have been frequented by atheniansthemselves. While lack of space may have induced

38

the athenians to build their three large park-likegymnasia outside the city in the 6th century bce,41

this would hardly have applied to bath buildings.Other ‘practical’ reasons such as the availability ofwater supply and fuel, or danger of fire from bathfurnaces may have played a role in positioningbaths, but also do not seem really critical: in theroman imperial period, athens boasted manypublic baths within its city walls, and other citieshad intramural baths al ready in the classical andearly hellenistic periods, as will be shown shortly.thus instead, socio-cultural reasons and practicesmost likely accounted for the conspicuously mar-ginal location of public baths in 5th to 3rd centurybce athens. some texts suggest that balaneia had adubious reputation and that public bathing wassomewhat stigmatized as a questionable activity,involving the dangers of social mixing and ofmixed nude bathing and related pleasures.aristophanes, for example, claims that warm baths(therma loutra) ‘are utterly bad and turn a man intoa coward’,42 and that they would entice young mento spend their days in idle chattering in the bal-

aneion instead of exercising in the palaistra.43 in adiscourse on the decline of morals, athenaios evenmentions that ‘only recently, too, have balaneia beenintroduced, for in the beginning they would noteven allow them within the city limits.’ While thegeographic and chronological context of this state-ment is not clearly specified, it could very well referto clas sical athens, because athenaios substanti-ates his argument with citations from two comicathenian poets of the late 5th and 4th centuries bce,notably antiphanes and hermippos. both poetsbitterly complain about the evil effect of the baths,name ly the hot water.44

Other texts demonstrate, however, that the bal-aneion was a well-known, if not well acceptedplace of public performances in classical athens.When ariston, obviously a member of the weal -thy social elite, had been attacked by konon andhis sons in the agora, he was first brought home,but then immediately to a balaneion in order to be‘thoroughly bathed and shown to the surgeons’.45

While the practical purposes of bathing and med-ical service were obviously important in this sit-

39

Fig. 2. Athens: distribution of Greek public baths (M. Trümper after Travlos 1971, 169 fig. 219).

uation, equally or even more important may havebeen for ariston to demonstrate publicly and ina most effective, theatrical manner his woundsand the received injustice, and to thus ensure wit-nesses for legal and social purposes - even atpotential health risks: ariston made it only withdifficulty to the balaneion in the first place, andafter the treatment he was so weak that he couldnot be carried the long way back home, but hadto stay in the house of Meidias, which was obvi-ously located closer to the balaneion than ariston’sown house.46 While the locations of Meidias’ andariston’s houses and of the balaneion in athensare unknown, the episode may confirm the ab -sence of a dense network of intraurban baths thatwould have allowed ariston to quickly get fromhis house to a nearby balaneion and back.

Public baths obviously played a significant, ifprobably ambiguous role in athenian social life.confined to the boundaries of the city, probablyby law or at least generally accepted practice andfor moral reasons, they may still have symbolizeda certain affluent, refined urban culture and life -style to inhabitants and visitors alike. Whatevervisual and physical impact balaneia had on theurban landscape, this was, however, obviouslyentirely lost on herakleides, who visited athensin the early 3rd century bce. he does not mentionbalaneia at all, although he was traveling as a pri-vate person, interested probably primarily inentertainment and education.47 if herakleides hadvisited the city some 100 years later, he may havenoticed public baths and considered them worthmentioning, because at this time, the socio-cul-tural significance of and attitude towards publicbaths in athens had obviously changed dramati-cally: thus, in the 2nd century bce, a public bathwas - or rather could be - built in the very centerof the city, close to the agora. this trend wouldcontinue in the roman imperial period whenmany public baths were built within the ‘old’ and‘new hadrianic’ city.48

another aspect that is clearly confirmed by theathenian evidence and has been mentioned be -fore is the private ownership of balaneia. in addi-tion to the epigraphically attested examples citedabove, isaios mentions in his speeches two morebalaneia that changed private owners, notably abalaneion sold or mortgaged by dikaiogenes toMikion, and a balaneion at the serangeion in Pi -raeus sold by euktemon to aristolochos.49 in con-trast, the various literary sources cited above suchas aristophanes’ comedies or theophrastos’ char -acters refer to balaneia as a generic term and build-ing and do not specify their ownership or their

location in the city.50 While none of the earlysources, from the 5th and 4th centuries bce, clearlyrefers to or suggests public ownership of a bala -neion, only authors of the imperial period differ-entiate between balaneia idiotika and demosia.51 thedubious reputation of athenian balaneia cannotaccount for the lack of public interest in provid-ing baths, because private ownership of bathsseems to have been standard in the greco-romanworld before the late hellenistic and late repub -lican period,52 while an extraurban position ofbaths was not.

Finally, the archaeological evidence of athenianbaths is not sufficient to determine the intriguingquestion of a differentiation of buildings accord-ing to bathing program, decoration, entrance fees,and ultimately targeted clientele. the three clas -sical baths outside the dipylon, Piraeus, and dio -chares gates allow for the cautious conclusionthat athenian baths were gradually increased insize and decorated more lavishly. the baths at thePiraeus and diochares gates may have been usedcontemporaneously when the ‘dipylon baths’were already abandoned, the extravagantly ap -pointed establishment of diochares possiblycatering to a wealthier, more sophisticated audi-ence than the simply adorned equivalent at thePiraeus gate. While the ‘southwest baths’ nearthe agora were smaller than all baths at gates,probably because real estate in the city center wasmuch more expensive than suburban lots, theycannot be fully assessed in the context of athenianbathing culture, because their bathing programand decoration are largely unknown.

Other Cities

trying to assess whether athens is representativeof the greek world or exceptional in its bathingculture requires a chronological approach, ana-lyzing the location of baths for potential signifi-cant changes between the classical andhellenistic periods.

classical Period

Outside athens, only eight baths have been dis-covered that currently can be dated securely tothe 5th and 4th centuries bce.53

• two of these are located in extraurban sanctu-aries and will be discussed later.54

• two are situated outside the city wall like allcontemporary athenian baths. While the‘serangeion baths’ in Piraeus are not visibly

40

related to a city gate and their accessibility -from a street or quay along the sea, or from thebeach - cannot be reconstructed, the bath build-ing in Hephaistia on Lemnos borders a streetthat led from the harbor to the city and wasmost likely linked to one of the most importantgates of the city (greco and Vitti in this vol-ume, fig. 2). Whether the location of these bathsin presumably high traffic areas was chosenjust for practical reasons, with a view to serv-ing simultaneously citizens, visitors and evensailors that were just passing through, or alsofor socio-cultural reasons, as in athens, mustremain open. both baths have been tentativelyconnected with sanctuaries, seemingly addingan additional reason for the extraurban loca-tion, but conclusive evidence is missing in bothcases so far.55 in contrast, both cities were inti-mately related to and influenced by athens,and this may have motivated a similar mar-ginal location of the ‘dubious public baths’ asin athens.56

• the remaining four baths were positioned in -side cities, in three cases possibly even close toor on the agora and thus in a conspicuouslydifferent location from that of their athenianequivalents. in the well fortified city of Ambrakia bathingbecame popular in the 4th century bce, albeitonly for a short period. a public bath with twolavishly decorated tholoi with hip-bathtubs wasbuilt in the mid 4th century bce over a privatehouse of the 5th century bce, but in turn wasdestroyed for the construction of a bouleuterionalready at the end of the 4th century. While it isobvious that the bath complex was situated inthe center of the city and most likely not faraway from the agora (fig. 3), its precise rela-tionship to the agora currently cannot be safelydetermined.58

the well fortified 4th century bce city ofcolophon included a bath building that waslocated close to the agora, in the midst of a res-idential quarter (fig. 4). While almost nothingis known about this building, it was obviouslywell embedded in the urban fabric and life. the ‘centaur baths’ in fortified Corinth weresituated in the immediate vicinity of a largecentral open space, which under roman ruleserved as the city’s forum (fig. 5). While thefunction of this space in the archaic throughhellenistic periods is debated, it seems mostlikely that this was also the agora of the greekcity, and thus always figured as the politicaland commercial center of the city.60 the

‘centaur baths’, dated to the last quarter of the5th century bce, were most likely not built asa bath but only transformed into one after 320bce. Providing only eight hip-bathtubs in alavishly decorated square room, this buildingpossibly did not serve as a public bath, but asa kind of clubhouse with bathing facilities andandrones.61 thus, while bathing obviously gainedsome importance in late 4th century corinth, itis not clear whether it was really embraced ona public level. the bath building in Marseille was built whenthe archaic city was extended in the mid-4th

century bce to the north. While the archaiccity with its harbor was surrounded with a citywall and included a regular grid plan of insu-lae, the newly developed quarter was betterappointed with larger regularly designed insu-lae and possibly protected with a new city wall.the bath complex was built in an area that wasprobably located immediately outside the ar -chaic city wall and had been used by potters inthe 5th century bce. Occupying a rectangularbuilding lot (ca 22.30 x 17.50-17.75 m) of thenew insula system, the bath building was acces-sible from an important street that may havebeen linked to an archaic city gate (and possi-bly also to one of the later city gates in thenorth). after a relatively brief use of about 100years, the bath building was abandoned in themid-3rd century bce and replaced by a privatehouse. the uncertainties regarding the preciseboundaries (or city walls) of the archaic andhellenistic city notwithstanding, the bath com-plex was obviously part of an important newurban development and lifestyle, convenientlyproviding bathing facilities for the inhabitantsof the large new houses as well as those of thenearby older smaller houses.62

Finally, Delian inscriptions of the early 4th cen-tury bce mention the balaneion of aristonos,which cannot be precisely located, but wasobviously situated in the city and served as awell-known point of reference for locating thehouses that apollo owned and rented.63 sincethe city was never fortified, the location of thebalaneion was not determined by a physicaland symbolic boundary of the city.64

in the 5th and 4th centuries bce, greek cities obvi-ously had different priorities regarding their bath -ing culture, and athenian attitudes and normswere not standard in the greek world, but mayhave been respected in cities under athenian con-trol.

41

42

Fig. 3. Ambrakia: plan of the modern city with ancient remains (Andreou 1993, 98 fig. 9).

Fig. 4. Colophon: plan of the city center in the 4th century BCE (Holland 1944, pl. IX).

1 - temple of apollo

2 - greek baths/bouleuterion

3 - theater

4 - Prytaneion

5 - city wall

6 - nekropolis

43

hellenistic Period

the broad range of locations of baths continuesand even expands in the hellenistic period, whenthe number of excavated baths increased consid-erably.65 a clear-cut classification of locations is dif-ficult or even impossible in many instances for theabove-mentioned reasons, and different classifica-tion criteria may overlap: thus, a bath may be sit-uated at the border of a settlement and also closeto an intraurban sanctuary. even defining what is

‘close to’ (the harbor, the agora, a sanctuary, etc.) ischallenging and cannot be expressed in absolutenumbers (distance in metres), but must rather bedetermined within the local context. For example,the bath building in the theater Quarter of delosis relatively close to the main harbor/coast and thecity center (sanctuary of apollo and various ‘ago-rai’), but this applies to the majority of excavatedbuildings on the small island; therefore, the loca-tion of the bath complex in a densely inhabited res-idential-commercial quar ter seems to be most sig-

44

Fig. 5. Corinth: plan of the city center ca 400 BCE (Williams 1980, 112 fig. 2).

45

Fig. 6: Amathous: plan of the Agora (M. Trümper after Aupert 1996, 73 plan 1).

1 greek baths (hellenistic)2 stoa of Onesicrates

(2nd c. bce)3 West stoa (3rd c. bce)4 Fountain/reservoir

(175-150 bce)5 square monument6 north stoa7 east stoa8 roman baths9 city wall (byzantine)10 terrace wall11 tetragonal square

(sanctuary?)12 temple

7

0 5 10 15 20 m

6

5

9

1

1

11

2

3

11

12

F

t

a

8

10

44

nificant in this case. Finally, as mentioned above,information about the urban context is most oftenfragmentary, preventing full assessment. For exam-ple, a bath building in alexandria was located closeto the major east-west axis of the city (“canopianstreet”) and thus in the center of the city, but itsimmediate surroundings (residential, industrial,sacred, or entertainment structures) are unknown.similarly, for many baths the original positionwithin the urban layout can roughly be determinedwhereas the urban-architectural context cannot.67

With these caveats in mind, some representa-tive locations and some significant factors in theplacement of baths will be analyzed. if numbersare given, they refer first to examples from thehellenistic and later periods, while the total num-ber of baths of all periods is added in brackets,athenian examples included.

• six (eight) baths were built in or close toextraurban sanctuaries, which will be dis-cussed in more detail below.68

• six (eight) baths were built immediately nextto69 or close to70 intraurban or suburban sanc-tuaries and thus often have been identified asspecific sanctuary baths with ritual-cultic-ther-apeutic functions, similar to their equivalentsin extraurban sanctuaries. spatial closenessneed not necessarily go back to an intimatefunctional connection, however, but may havehad other practical reasons, as will be dis-cussed for representative examples in moredetail below. here it shall be mentioned onlythat in two cases, the existence of a nearbysanctuary is not convincingly proven so far,and in a further example, the presumably con-nected sanctuaries cannot be safely located.71

• Five (eight) baths were located in proximity toor immediately on agorai (figs 2, 6). since build-ing land near or on agorai was certainly primereal estate in greek cities, both for symbolicand commercial reasons, the choice of this loca-tion is remarkable, the more so if these bathswere really privately funded and owned.72

such a prominent location was also selected forroman public baths, at least from the 1st cen-tury bce onwards. according to Janet delaine,the ‘Forum baths’ at Pompeii by their size andlocation declared ‘that they had a fundamentalrôle to play in the life of the town.’73 at leastsome of these roman examples, if not all, werebuilt at public expense, however.74

• an extramural location can only be safely iden-tified for one hellenistic example, notably thebath building in thessaloniki (fig. 7). this was

originally built outside the city walls, in a sub-urban industrial quarter, but was later inte-grated into the quickly expanding hellenisticcity, and in the roman imperial period it waseven located (and used for a short period) onthe city’s new Forum.75

• comparable, but still slightly different is thesituation of the bath building in eretria whichwas built over the diateichisma wall of the harbor(fig. 8). this wall had been built as reinforce-ment for the harbor 70 m to the north of theearlier seaside wall, and the terrain betweenthe walls may have been used for trade. there -fore, while strictly speaking located within thecity wall, the bath building was still built in anurban marginal position, albeit in a high traf-fic area close to the harbor and also relativelyclose to the agora, which is not situated in thecenter of the city.76

• While the precise location of baths in relationto a city wall or the boundaries of unfortifiedsettlements can rarely be determined, manybaths were obviously situated at the borders ofsettlements, for example close to or at harbors(figs 7-8),77 or at the edge of residential areas(figs 9-10).78 these were presumably high traf-fic areas that attracted inhabitants as well asvisitors and thus promised high frequentationof the baths and good profit. it is questionable,

46

Fig. 7. Thessaloniki: reconstruction of the city in theEarly Hellenistic and Late Hellenistic periods (M. Trümper after Adam-Veleni 2003, 124).

47

Fig. 8. Eretria: plan of the city (Fachard 2004, 92 fig. 1).

48

Fig. 9. Krokodilopolis/Medinet el-Fayoum: schematic plan of the remains of the ancient city visible in 1887 withlocation of Greek public baths (M. Trümper after Schweinfurth 1887, pl. 2 and google.earth).

however, whether the marginal location was(still) motivated by some kind of social stigmaas in classical athens.

• that baths were well integrated into urban orsuburban residential-industrial quarters cancurrently only be safely determined for 14 (18)examples,79 but seems very likely for all of the

baths that were found in the center of cities.80

• an extra- or intramural position notwithstand -ing, the construction of several baths was inti-mately linked to the extension of cities. in addi-tion to the already mentioned examples inMarseille, thessaloniki, and eretria (figs 7-8),the baths in Syracuse can be cited, which were

49

Fig. 10. Buto/Tell el-Fara’in: topograhical plan of the ancient city with location of Greek public baths (M. Trümper after Hartung et al. 2007, fig. 1).

constructed in the mid-3rd century over andincorporating tombs of a nekropolis (fig. 11).similarly, the baths in Gela were built at theend of the 4th century bce in a newly devel-oped quarter of the city (area of cap soprano),which in its ambitious design and buildingprogram clearly reflects the boost of the cityafter its re-foundation by timoleon in 339bce.82 thus, baths were clearly integrated innew urban programs; they could be affordedwhen new building space became availableand they obviously were a desirable additionto new well-appointed and modern residentialquarters.83

• in the few cities that provide evidence of morethan one bath building, the establishments arecommonly evenly distributed, obviously inorder to avoid close competition and maximizevisits and profit. a well planned network ofbaths would also have guaranteed relativelyshort walking distances to the baths for theinhabitants of different residential quarters.thus, inhabitants and visitors of classical andearly hellenistic athens may have found abath near most or even all of the city gates (fig.2). the situation seems to have been similar inegyptian settlements where baths were locatedat opposite sites (east-west, northwest-south-

50

Greek Baths

Fig. 11. Syracuse: plan of the city (M. Trümper after Mertens 2006, 314 fig. 569).

east, etc.) of the settlement and may have beenlinked to major streets connecting country andsettlement (figs 9-10). it is unknown, however,how these networks developed: whether cen-tral urban authorities enforced some kind ofzoning, or private investors independentlychose a location that seemed to be sufficientlydistant to that of existing baths.the only exception regarding the distributionpattern is hellenistic Morgantina, where twobaths were constructed at the western borderof the built area, but facing each other at thenorth and south of a major intersection (lucorein this volume, figs 4-5). since the urban con-text of these baths is not sufficiently explored,this unique situation cannot yet be fully as -sessed. While one of the baths may have beenentirely independent and publicly accessible,the other could have been related to adjacentbuildings and thus have been used for specificpurposes and restricted to specific groups.84

• even in cities with more than one bath build-

ing, the baths are not sufficiently known todetermine whether and for how long they wereused contemporaneously and whether theywere clearly differentiated, in design, bathingprogram, and decoration, probably with a viewto different intended user groups.85 Whilebaths of the 5th and 4th centuries bce onlyoffered rooms with hip-bathtubs for simplecleansing shower-baths, a variety of innovativerelaxing bathing forms became available in thehellenistic period that were often added laterto improve public baths.86 although these newbathing forms may well have been used to dif-ferentiate public baths within one city, nowhereis the chronology known well enough to recon-struct inner-urban competition.87 size andcapacity may also have mattered, but did notnecessarily have an impact on the overall sta-tus of a bath.88 On the other hand, the frag-mentary state of preservation does not allowfor a full assessment of the development ofdecorative features and the deliberate use of

51

Fig. 12. Cyrene: plan of the northwestern part of the city (M. Trümper after detail of Stucchi 1975, pl. 1).

these features to establish a hierarchy of bathswithin one city or between neighboring cities.based on the best preserved feature, notablypavements, no general obvious trend can beobserved: polychrome figured mosaics werefound in some baths of the 4th century bce, butoverall much more rarely in hellenistic baths.Other decorative features may have been usedfor differentiation, and maybe increasingly soin the hellenistic period, such as stucco deco-ration, architectural elements, furniture, sculp-ture, and vaulting,90 but the significance of thisphenomenon currently cannot be evaluated.

before a final evaluation of the urban context ofpublic baths, one last context deserves a moredetailed discussion, notably the sacred context,which has provoked a vivid debate regarding thefunction of its associated baths.

sacred cOnteXt OF greek Public baths

baths that are located in or close to sanctuariesare often identified as facilities that were built andused for specific ritual-cultic-purifying or thera-peutic-curative purposes. this identification ismainly based on the specific location, but also onbathing programs and finds.91 since this complextopic requires a comprehensive analysis, whichwould by far exceed the purpose and frame ofthis paper,92 the focus will be on a critical assess-ment of the main identifying criterion, notably thespatial relationship between baths and sanctuary.key questions are whether a bath really belongedto a sanctuary, and if so, whether its function canbe more closely determined and with which argu-ments. While in the case of self-contained extra -urban sanctuaries, such as the sanctuaries ofOlympia and epidauros, the respective baths un -questionably belonged to the equipment of thesanctuary,93 reconstructing a spatial and func-tional relationship between baths and intraurbanand suburban sanctuaries is much more chal-lenging. therefore, discussion will start with thelatter category, notably the baths of cyrene,Piraeus, and Messene, and then proceed toextraurban sanctuaries.

Intraurban and Suburban Sanctuaries

the ‘ritual baths’ in Cyrene belong to a group ofthree examples that were cut into the rock andbecause of their mystical cave-like character wereconsidered to have been exemplarily appropriatefor ritual purposes.94 the baths in cyrene were

situated at the northeastern foot of the acropolishill, on a street that ascended from a city gate andthe sanctuary of apollo to the upper city (fig. 12).the northeastern slope of the acropolis hill wasobviously rich in water sources, which emergedat various parts from the rock. therefore, theentire hillside was occupied with different waterinstallations that were partially cut into the rockand partially built in front of the rock. these fea-tures, which are aligned along a northwest-south-east axis of about 250 m in length, have neverbeen fully explored, so their history and precisefunction cannot be fully assessed. inscriptions tes-tify, however, that this area was used well into theroman imperial periods when major changeswere made to assure the continuity of water sup-ply.95 the water installations included at least twocaves with the springs of kyra and apollo thatwere also used as shrines, a complex system ofrock-cult channels and galleries, a large builtbasin for drawing drinking water, a series of rock-cut basins for the same purpose,96 and a series ofcattle troughs.

the ‘ritual baths’ formed the easternmost ofthese water installations, located on the highestlevel. they have been identified with a nym -phaion, notably a sanctuary of the nymphs, thatbelonged to artemis and was mentioned in asacred law of the 4th century bce as a place towhich women descended.97 this identification isquestionable for several reasons. evidence of graf-fiti suggests that the spring of kyra, which islocated over 200 m to the west of the baths,served as the nymphaion.98 the baths are wellseparated from the enclosed temenos of apollo,the 4th century bce propylon of which lies some130 m to the northwest of the baths. there is alsono evidence that the baths were situated withinor linked to a sanctuary of artemis.

the date of the baths is much debated, andwhile their design suggests construction in thehellenistic period, a date in the 4th century bceis by no means certain.99 the original entrance tothe baths is unknown,100 but it could have beenon the same level as the northern adjacent street,whose level was only raised significantly in thehadrianic period when the baths were probablyabandoned;101 thus, it is not clear that ancientusers of the baths ever descended to them likevisitors today.

the fact that the baths were cut into the rock isnot conclusive for determining their function: thismust not have involved considerable work andexpenses solely for the sake of specific religiouspurposes, as assumed by ginouvès.102 instead, the

52

site may simply have been chosen because nat-ural caves could readily be explored and, aboveall, because water was easily available.103 thebathing program does not differ from that of ‘pro-fane’ baths, originally including probably onlyrooms with hip-bathtubs and after remodelingalso some relaxing bathing forms such as an im -mersion bathtub and a round sweat bath. Finally,an inscription in the pavement of room 10 com-memorates most likely the man who owned thebaths at a certain period of their use, Paris sam -maiou.104 While private ownership of ‘profane’urban baths is well attested, as mentioned above,safe evidence for this is lacking from sacred con-texts so far. in sum, nothing suggests a specific rit-ual-sacred function of these baths. convenientlylocated between apollo’s sanctuary and the uppercity, close to one of the city gates and at a majortraffic artery, they may well have served citizensfor daily ‘profane’-social bathing and also thosewho wanted to enter apollo’s sanctuary in aclean state.105

a similar situation can be observed for therock-cut baths at Piraeus that were located be -tween the Mounychia and Zea harbors on a rockycoast with steep cliffs, immediately outside thecity walls and some 12 m below the moderncoastal road (fig. 13). While the ancient entrancewas already destroyed when the building wasexcavated in the 1890s, it must have been in thesoutheast, from an area next to the sea, the an -cient appearance (beach, road, quay, etc.) andimportance of which are unknown.106

based on literary and epigraphic sources, finds,and archaeological evidence in the surroundings,the baths were variously identified as the seran -geion, notably a heroon of the local hero serangosthat also included a bathing facility; as a nym -phaion without bathing facility that was linked toa nearby sanctuary of artemis; as a bathing facilitythat was primarily linked to the nearby sanctuaryof asklepios, but may also have been connected tothe heroon of serangos and nearby sanctuaries ofartemis, Zeus Meilichios and Zeus Philios.107 care -ful analysis of the evidence does not support anobvious connection of the baths with any of thesesanctuaries, however.

• none of the literary sources links the serangei -on balaneion to the heroon of serangos or a sanc-tuary. instead, a certain area in the Piraeus wasobviously referred to as serangeion, which wasalready called like this in 422 bce and in -cluded, among others, a heroon and also an(entirely independent) balaneion. that this bala -

neion was private property, at least around 376bce, speaks clearly against its connection withany sanctuary, as explained above. since theconnection of the references to the serangeionbalaneion with the archaeological evidence seemsvery intriguing, the building cannot only beroughly dated (376 bce as terminus ante quem),but can also be identified as a ‘profane’ bathingfacility in private possession.108

• an altar with a dedication possibly to apollo,discovered probably in tholos r1 of the baths,was obviously not found in situ because sacri-fices would hardly have taken place inside thebarely ventilated tholos with hip-bathtubs. thedate and process of abandonment of the bathsare entirely unknown.

• as far as is known, all sanctuaries to which the‘serangeion’ baths have been connected arelocated inside the city walls.109 no gates wererecorded in the city walls between the Mouny -chia and Zea harbors. thus, it is entirely un -clear how bathers would have accessed thebaths from any of these sanctuaries and howthey could have maintained any state of (phys-ical and symbolical) purity when travelingbetween the baths and the sanctuaries.

• Finally, the bathing program is well compara-ble to that of ‘secular’ urban baths of the 5th

and 4th centuries bce, including one or twotholoi with hip-bathtubs (r1, r2).110

in sum, the location and rock-cut nature of theserangeion baths were not obviously motivated bysome ritual-cultic function, but can be explaineddifferently. the rock could have been exploitedfor the same reasons as in cyrene, notably forconvenience and access to water supply. klaus-Valtin von eickstedt suggested even that an exist-ing cistern system may have been reused for theinstallation of the baths.111 While this seems some-what questionable because of the overall rationaldesign of the baths, round rock-cut cisterns withassociated subterranean channel systems havebeen found in Piraeus.112 Water supply in Piraeuswas mainly provided by cisterns and water chan-nels cut into the limestone rock. thus, local build-ing tradition and geological conditions couldaccount for the rock-cut nature of the baths. inaddition, the strange extramural position of thebaths may have been similarly motivated as inathens, notably required for ideological reasonsby socio-cultural norms and practices and possiblyeven by law. the lavish decoration of the bathswith two figured polychrome pebble mosaic car-pets and the high price that was recorded for a

53

change of owners in 376 bce clearly indicate,however, that the baths were highly profitableand thus must have been easily accessible, at leastfrom the harbors.113 therefore, the baths’ owner

may have chosen the location because the areabe tween the two harbors with its various sanctu-aries generally attracted many people, but hecould hardly have conceived it as a ritual bathing

54

Fig. 13. Piraeus: plan of the city at the Zea and Mounychia harbors (detail of Judeich 1931, pl. III).

55

Fig. 14 Messene: plan of the city center (Themelis 2005 (2006), 43 fig. 36).

facility for a specific sanctuary. ‘Profane’ use ofthe baths is clearly indicated by their likely use inconnection with a dinner party in the 4th centurybce.114

according to the current state of research, ofthe seven baths linked to intraurban or suburbansanctuaries, only one single example had an obvi-ous spatial relationship to a sanctuary, notably thebaths to the south of the sanctuary of asklepiosin Messene (figs 14, 15).115 according to Jürgen

riethmüller, this building unquestionably servedas a specific therapeutic bath and not just for ordi-nary bathing, because of its intraurban positionand an early, revolutionary form of hypocaustheating.116 While this bath building is clearlylocated outside the temenos wall, it was obviouslyplanned and built together with the grandly re -modeled asklepieion complex in the 2nd centurybce for several reasons:117 the sanctuary’s southwall includes a small secondary entrance with a

56

Fig. 15. Messene: plan of the Sanctuary of Asklepios and the Greek Baths (E) (Themelis 2003b, 10 fig. 9).

kind of porch, which is situated opposite thenortheast corner of the baths and may haveserved as a convenient quick connection betweenbaths and sanctuary;118 the sanctuary’s peristylecourtyard is surrounded by rooms on all foursides, but the south side has only a few rooms atthe east and west ends, the baths occupying theterrain of the missing central south rooms; finally,the baths have the same orientation as the 2nd cen-tury sanctuary complex, which differs consider-ably from that of predecessor structures under theperistyle courtyard of the sanctuary. despite thefact that sanctuary and baths obviously be longedto the same building program, it must be empha-sized that the baths were independently accessi-ble and thus could most likely also be used bypeople who did not enter the sanctuary. this isalso suggested, contra riethmüller, by the verycentral urban position of the baths119 and the factthat it is currently the only public bath known inthe large city of Messene and seems to have beenused well into the roman imperial period.

since the bathing program of this building can-not be reconstructed, its alleged specific ritual orhealing function cannot be assessed. While it prob-ably was provided with a round sweat bath withhypocaust, such heated relaxing bathing formswere by no means exclusive of sanctuary baths,but find parallels in contemporary ‘profane’urban baths.120 introduced as a new modern stan-dard of urban living when the asklepieion andthe city were monumentalized and embellished inthe 2nd century bce, the baths could have serveddifferent purposes and groups: those who justwanted an ordinary daily bath, and those whowanted to enter the sanctuary in a physically cleanstate, although they would still have needed toperform cultic purification inside the temenos, forexample in the sacred fountain house (oikos h inthe northeast corner of the temenos).121

Extraurban Sanctuaries

in extraurban sanctuaries, bath buildings musthave been used in connection with sacred life, butnot necessarily for ritual purposes exclusively, orat all. an ambiguous case is the lower sanctuaryof asklepios in Gortys, which was located in im -mediate proximity to several residential quartersand therefore may have been a suburban or evenurban sanctuary (fig. 16). its baths were built mostlikely in the 2nd century bce between an unfin-ished 4th century temple in the north and a smalltemple of unknown date to the south. thus, thebaths may have been located within the temenos,

whose precise confines are nevertheless unknown.similar to the baths at Messene, the baths of gor -tys, because of their prominent location and par-ticularly also their seemingly revolutionary bathingprogram, have been identified as a specific ther-apeutic-curative establishment that may even havesignificantly promoted greek bathing culture withthe introduction of new technologies and bathingforms.122 the suburban or even urban location ofthe baths suggests, however, that they may wellhave had a ‘double’ function, serving for both thesanctuary and the neighboring settlement. Fur -thermore, their bathing program was standard inlate hellenistic greece in ‘sacred’ as well as ‘pro-fane’ contexts and no chronological priority cansafely be determined for the gortys baths over allof their equivalents.123

the extraurban sanctuary of Zeus in Olympiaprovides three different greek baths, which werebuilt and used one after another (fig. 17). the firsttwo baths are in the same location to the west ofthe altis and the third is situated to the north ofthe altis. they are all relatively small, providing11 to 20 hip-bathtubs, and do not differ in theirbathing program from urban ‘profane’ baths. thefirst bath complex was built when the ephemeralfacilities on the ‘Festwiese’ were gradually mon-umentalized and the first permanent structuresemerged around 400 bce.124 integrating an exist-ing large hall with well, this bath complex wassurrounded by a large swimming pool in the westand a building of debated function in the east(‘heroon’) but it did not have any obvious func-tional relationship with either.125

When the ‘Older sitz-bath’ was replaced by theyounger equivalent around 300 bce, the devel-opment of the ‘Festwiese’ was well advanced andan impressive large banquet-building (‘leoni -daion’) had already been built to the south of thebaths; by contrast, the athletic facilities to thenorth of the ‘Younger sitz-bath’ developed slightlylater and slowly, from the first half of the 3rd cen-tury bce until the roman imperial period.126

the location between altis and kladeos riverwas given up when the last greek bath was builtin the second half of the 2nd century bce to thenorth of the altis. this late hellenistic bath build -ing was closely connected with a dining facility,similar to the roman complex (dining pavilionwith bath) that was later erected at this site.127 theclose connection of guest houses and dining facil-ities with baths continued in the late 1st centurybce and roman imperial period when eight morebaths were built outside the altis, mostly in thesouthwestern area of the sanctuary.128

57

58

F ig .

16 .

Go r

t ys :

p la n

of t

h e l o

we r

Sa n

c tu a

r y o

f As k

l e pi o

s ( M

. Tr ü

mp e

r a f

t er

Me t

z ge r

19 5

1 , 1

3 0 f i

g . 2

2 , a

n d G

i no u

v ès

1 95 9

, pl .

I ) .

59

Greek Baths, ca. 400 BCE - 1st c. CE

‘Older/Younger Sitz-Bath’‘Greek Hypocaust Baths’

Late Hellenistic Baths

Roman Baths, from ca. 40 BCE onwards

Late H Hellenistic Baths

‘Greek Hypocaust Baounger Sitz-B‘Older/YY

aths’ Bath’

ca. 40 BCE onwards Roman Baths, from

BCE - 1st c. CEGreek Baths, ca. 400

ca. 40 BCE onwards Roman Baths, from

BCE - 1st c. CEGreek Baths, ca. 400

Fig. 17. Olympia: plan of the Sanctuary of Zeus (M. Trümper after Kyrieleis 2002, Beilage).

since the athletes did not train in Olympia, butin elis, the baths precede the construction of thegymnasion, and, finally, athletes were not supposedto use hot water bathing facilities, the greek bathsin Olympia were hardly conceived for use by ath-letes. instead, the baths were part of the infra-structure that large, important sanctuaries pro-vided for their visitors, and most likely had thesame function as public baths in cities: they mayhave served all those who frequented the sanctu-ary for ‘profane’ cleansing and relaxing purposes.129

since the size and capacity of the greek baths inOlympia was reduced, only a small (elite?) groupof the many visitors that attended the games couldhave indulged into the luxury of a proper hotbath. by contrast, between festivals, access to thebaths may have been much easier (and cheaper?).

the restricted capacity of the baths notwithstand -ing, it must be emphasized that Olympia - the mostrenowned sanctuary in antiquity - was most likely,and not by chance, the first sanctuary to be pro-vided with an independent public bath. and it cer-tainly is the only sanctuary were the bathing facil-ities were constantly refurbished, enlarged, andmodernized to meet changing bathing standards.130

the last case study is the bath complex in thesanctuary of Zeus in nemea that was built in thelast third of the 4th century bce when the nemeangames were revived and the sanctuary experienceda building boom.131 the bath building is locatedwithin the temenos, next to the Xenon, albeit wellseparated from the temple (fig. 18). its bathingprogram with a cold water plunge pool and eightbasins for cold water ablutions differs significant -

60

Fig. 18. Nemea: plan of the Sanctuary of Zeus (Birge 1992, 2 fig. 1).

ly from that of the previously discussed baths. ingreek bathing culture, purpose-built cold waterbathing facilities were an exclusive privilege orrather ideologically motivated obligation of ath-letic bathing facilities, which commonly providedsimple basins and only much more rarely expen-sive immersion pools. therefore, the neman estab -lishment is best identified as a luxurious athleticbath and was most likely conceived for use by theathletes who trained here before their participationin the nemean games every two years. the Xenonhas been identified as a hostel specifically builtfor athletes and the trainers,132 and the adjacentbaths were most likely the corresponding appro-priate bathing facility. Whether the baths werealso open to other persons, during the games orbetween festivals, cannot be safely determined,but they would never have offered the same con-venience and bathing standard which non-athletes could expect from public baths.133 it isstill noteworthy that with nemea, another majorpanhellenic sanctuary with important festivaland games received its own bath building in the4th century bce, albeit one that was clearly dis-tinct in design and function from the baths atOlympia.

in sum, no homogeneous picture emerges forbaths that were built in or near sanctuaries - nei-ther in location, or bathing program, or intendedclientele. the alleged sanctuary baths can be rough -ly subdivided into four groups:

1. baths for which a spatial and functional rela-tionship with a sanctuary currently cannot besafely determined, for lack of sufficient infor-mation134 or lack of convincing evidence.135

2. baths that obviously were somehow connectedto an urban or suburban sanctuary of askle pios,but may have served cities and sanctuaries atthe same time.136 these baths had no particulardesign, bathing program, decoration, or furni-ture, however, which would clearly denote aspecific ritual or healing function.

3. baths that were located outside the temenos oftwo extraurban sanctuaries of Zeus and de -meter and offered the same bathing standardsas ‘profane’ urban baths.137 they served mostlikely for the convenience of visitors and per-sonnel, lacking any conclusive evidence of usefor specific cultic-therapeutic purposes.

4. baths that were located in the secondary areasof extraurban sanctuaries of Zeus and askle -pios and offered the same bathing standard asbathing facilities in palaistrai and gymnasia, thusserving most likely as athletic baths.138

this list yields some intriguing results: overall,only very few (7) greek sanctuaries were pro-vided with a separate bath, among them mostnotably and unsurprisingly large important extra -urban sanctuaries with panhellenic significanceand festivals.139 these sanctuaries were dedicatedto Zeus (3), asklepios (3), and demeter (1), andreceived the baths in a period of bloom and mon-umentalization, either in the 4th and early 3rd or2nd centuries bce.140 geographically, sanctuarybaths are currently confined to attica and Pelopon -nesus, and the athletic baths even to the Pelopon -nesus. the most sophisticated bathing programswere provided by baths in sanctuaries of Zeusand asklepios alike141 and thus were not idio-syncratic to a specific, notably healing, deity. Ofthe 141 sanctuaries of asklepios on the greekmainland, only three included safely identifiableseparate bath buildings, and all of these offereddifferent bathing programs;142 thus, assertions thatan independent bath would be an indispensablepart of an asklepieion are hardly justified.143 itseems also strange that while the asklepieia ingortys and Messene received alleged therapeuticbaths in the hellenistic period, the much moreimportant equivalents in epidauros and kos werenot provided with a similar standard before theroman imperial period. had bathing in hot water,hot air, or steam been a popular therapeutic-cura-tive practice in late hellenistic asklepieia, epi -dauros and kos and many more sanctuaries ofasklepios should have provided evidence ofappropriate bathing facilities.144

these facts and numbers alone suggest thatindependent baths were never a standard of greeksanctuaries, but always an extravagant luxurythat few afforded and established, probably as theresult of a fierce regional competition regardingthe embellishment and monumentalization ofsanctuaries that was started by Olympia. thisresult does not at all question the importance ofwater in sacred life for multiple purposes, but itonly confirms that ritual washing, purification,and bathing did not require separate bath build-ings and specific bathing forms, or warm water;instead, these were performed at basins, fountains,and simple washing facilities, or even in nearbynatural bodies of water, and most often involvedonly partial ablutions of head, hands, and feet,and not washing or immersion of the entire body.thus, all sanctuaries with separate baths also pro-vided facilities for purification at the entrance toand within the temenos.145 central to the cult ofasklepios in the classical and hellenistic periodswere incubation and epiphanies of asklepios in

61

dreams, not hydrotherapies. even in the 2nd cen-tury ce, the numerous (often extreme) instruc-tions that asklepios gave to one of his most faith-ful and devoted followers, aelius aristeides, in-cluded primarily the abstinence of bathing orbathing in cold and even icy water, to be taken innatural bodies of water such as rivers or the sea.146

the argumentation here is confirmed by rebeccaFlemming’s research on the correlation of bathingand medicine. according to her, medicine did notdrive and promote, but only reflected and respon -ded to important changes in bathing culture; thus,in the hellenistic period innovative bathing formswere obviously not invented for (sacred or pro-fane) medical-therapeutic purposes.147

cOnclusiOn

Public baths were never considered to be one ofthe crucial services that greek cities must providefor their citizens, social status notwithstanding,and a public bath most likely never became aright of every greek citizen. Public bathing cul-ture still developed in greek cities from the 5th

century bce onwards. While athens (as so often)probably served as pioneer of this phenomenon,public baths spread gradually in the 4th centurybce, until it became standard of cities in the hel -lenistic period to provide at least one public bath,if not a dense network of such establishments. insome cases, urban authorities may have had someinfluence on the placement of public baths, likein athens, Piraeus and hephaistia, but obviouslyneither city officials nor generous benefactorsengaged in the construction, operation, and main-tenance of these establishments. instead, bathswere predominantly, if not exclusively, privatelyowned and managed as profitable enterprisesthat were accessible to anyone who could affordand was willing to pay entrance fees. sufficientfinancial ability may have been the only distinc-tive criterion regarding the clientele of publicbaths, as other potential criteria of user differen-tiation currently cannot be determined - neitherfrom the archaeological evidence (location, design,bathing programs, and decoration of baths) norfrom written sources (regarding gender, ethnicity,social status, and age of bathers). Public bathingbecame only a concern and target of cities andeuergetai in the late hellenistic period, as is obvi-ous from an intriguing case in 1st century bcePriene. there, the highly merited citizen aulusaemilius Zosimos donated perfumed oil and oint -ment in the gymnasion and balaneion on marketdays and festival days when he was gymnasiar-

chos, and it is emphasized and repeated that allpersons who came specifically for festivals shouldalways benefit from the free oil and ointment inthe balanaion. as stephanephoros, Zosimos pro-vided a free loutron to all citizens, paroikoi, katoikoi,strangers, and romans, and donated oil and oint-ment for the balaneion. the honorary decrees list-ing these benefactions do not make clear, how-ever, whether gymnasion, balaneion, and loutronwere different independent institutions or ratherspatially and functionally related; which bathingforms were provided in the balaneion and loutron;and how Zosimos as stephanephoros could disposeof the loutron.148 these problems notwithstanding,Zosimos’ benefactions obviously centered signif-icantly around bathing, and were specifically tar-geted at a broad audience, notably persons of dif-ferent socio-political status and ethnic provenancewho may otherwise not have had access to suchgratuities and probably to bathing facilities at all.thanks to Zosimos, all inhabitants and visitors ofPriene may have enjoyed the same privileges aspoor citizens in 19th and early 20th century newYork, albeit only temporarily.

the specific patronage and purpose of greekpublic baths may have had significant impact ontheir urban context, notably location. From theclassical period all through the late hellenisticperiod, baths seem to have been preferably built inhigh traffic areas such as harbors, city gates andedges of settlements,149 main intersections, andrarely, but probably most prestigious, city centers,notably agorai. these areas certainly granted opti-mal visibility, accessibility, and profit. apart fromtheir functional-practical and social value, bathsmay also have symbolized a certain urban life -style and refinement that cities may have beeneager to advertize and support, if not financially,with the allocation of appropriate building lots.

While the evidence is too fragmentary to pro-vide comprehensive statistics of the number anddistribution of public baths per city, some siteswith significant remains reveal intriguing differ-ences. hellenistic cities such as delos and Prieneso far have provided only very scanty evidenceof public bathing facilities,150 whereas settlementsin Ptolemaic and roman egypt yielded an aston-ishing number of large public baths.151 if thesepatterns are not entirely due to the chances of sur-vival and excavation, they may reflect crucialregional differences regarding the availability andpopularity of public bathing. even if domesticbathing facilities may to a certain extent have sub-stituted for lacking public baths,152 the latter pro-vided - in the classical period exclusively and in

62

the hellenistic period still predominantly - some-thing that most domestic baths could not offer:bathing as a social event and experience, whichwas significantly amplified and enriched by theintroduction of luxurious relaxing bathing formsin the hellenistic period in more than 60% of allpublic baths.153

Finally, the socio-cultural significance of pub-lic baths is also well illustrated by the few exam-ples that were related to sanctuaries, most notablyextraurban sanctuaries. the rarity of public bathsin the sacred context alone suggests that they werenot central to cult and rituals of any deity, and theirlocation - outside the temenos or in secondary areas- as well as bathing programs - comparable to thatof ‘profane’ urban baths or gymnasia - confirmthis. before the late 1st century bce, baths werean extraordinary, but probably even profitableluxury that some ambitious and important sanc-tuaries in greece provided for their (wealthy?)visitors or for the athletes that participated intheir games.

nOtes

1 brooklyn daily eagle, sept. 12, 1897; cited after Williams1991, 1.

2 Gymnasia: von hesberg 1995, with critical review byvon den hoff 2009. roman public baths: Mar 1990,1991; nielsen 1990, 2: fig. 39; kockel 1992; delaine1999; dickmann 2005, 54-60; koloski-Ostrow 2007; bycontrast, Michael heinzelmann (2002) in his intriguingassessment of Ostia’s development in the 2nd centuryce does not mention baths.

3 ginouvès 1962; for recent fieldwork on greek publicbaths, see the contributions in this volume.

4 For a more detailed discussion of this problem partic-ularly regarding greek baths, see trümper 2012b. seealso trümper 2009.

5 bath buildings in: epidauros: sanctuary of asklepios;Messene: immediately to the south of the sanctuary ofasklepios; Mount lykeion: sanctuary of Zeus; nemea:sanctuary of Zeus; Priene: building on Quellenthor -straße/corner west porticus of the agora. the ‘greekhypocaust baths’ in Olympia, dated to ca 40 bce, arecommonly identified as the first roman bath in greece.statistics of greek baths differ according to definitionand also have to be updated constantly. For this con-tribution, the 70 baths listed in the catalog at the end ofthis volume and the five baths listed above are takeninto account; for differences between this sample andthe list in trümper 2009, 164-168 tables 1-6, see in thisvolume, introduction to catalog, n. 22.

6 trümper 2009, 141; g. greco in this volume; lucore inthis volume; tsiolis in this volume.

7 delorme 1960, 244-250; ginouvès 1962, 179 n. 5, 184 n.1-2. For a more detailed discussion, see trümper 2012b,esp. n. 18, 92-94.

8 delorme 1960, 244-50, 304-11; ginouvès 1962, 129-130n. 7, 179 n. 5, 184 n. 1-2.

9 an exception may have been the ‘greek baths’ in epi -

dauros that are identified here as an athletic bath withcold water facilities; in inscriptions this building prob-ably is referred to as balaneion, however; see infra n. 16.

10 IG 23 84, 418/417 bce; IG 22 2495, 335/334 bce; id 98,b, 33-34, 377/376-374/373 bce; isae., Dikaiogenes 22-24;isae., Philoktemon 33. For Ptolemaic papyri, see Préaux1947, 44.

11 ath. 13,590f; Polyb. 26, 1, 12; Plut. Demetr. 24, 2-3; Plut.Phoc. 4, 2. For the problematic inscriptions IG 12 385/IG13 420 and IG 13 440 that presumably referred to balaneiademosia of 5th century bce athens, see in more detailinfra n. 33, and trümper 2012b, notes 46-49. accordingto Meyer (1994, 277), in egypt demosia balaneia are onlytestified to in the imperial period; cf. also Łukaszewicz1986, 65-72.

12 an inscription from Mylasa, inschriften von Mylasa101, honored uliades for his manifold benefactionstowards the city, which included several activitiesregarding the construction and financing of a balaneion.the inscription dates to the 2nd or early 1st century bce;see below and in more detail trümper 2012b, n. 52. Forinformation regarding this inscription i am muchindebted to Wolfgang blümel, daniel kah, ludwigMeier, and William West. schörner 2000 lists all dedi-cations of baths in hellenistic and imperial greece:with the exception of a loutron that euandros, son ofagathokles, donated to the gymnasion of hypata after168/167 bce (IG 112 31), all other examples date to theimperial period. see also Meier 2012, esp. 141-155; thenumerous inscriptions examined by him that pertain tothe financing of public buildings in hellenist poleis donot include any references to balaneia, but only a few tobathing facilities in gymnasia.

13 athens: baths outside the gate of diochares, owned bydiochares; IG 22 2495, 335/334 bce; Piraeus: ‘seran -geion baths’, sold by euktemon to aristolochos (isae.Dikaiogenes 22-24); cyrene: ‘ritual baths’, owned mostlikely by Paris sammaiou, probably in the augustanperiod (literature see infra n. 95). - in addition, writtenand archaeological sources may be connected for somebathing facilities in/near extraurban sanctuaries; seeinfra n. 16, 18.

14 inschriften von Mylasa 101, see supra n. 12; this inscrip-tion is not included in Meier 2012.

15 For a list of such baths, see infra n. 68-70.16 sanctuary of asklepios, 4th/3rd centuries bce:

• IG 42 103 c: the term balaneion is nowhere fully pre-served, but completed in line 271-272: ba[laneion]; line273: [bal]aneiou; line 286: [balane]iou; line 297: [balaneion].according to burford (1969, 79, 210, 221), this accountregards the construction of a balaneion in the sanctuarythat she identifies with the ‘greek baths’ in the south-ern part of the sanctuary; while the accounts on sidesa and b regarded the tholos and date to ca 365-355bce, the account regarding the balaneion would havebeen added later on side c, around 290-270 bce. roux(1961, 176) and ginouvès (1962, 358 n. 4) doubt that thisinscription refers to a balaneion. While Melfi (2007, 167no 234) accepts burford’s date, she identifies theinscription with roux as ‘rendiconto delle spese per lacostruzione della tholos’.• IG 42 110, ca 320-300 bce: account regarding the con-struction of oikoi opening onto a central court; burford(1969, 77) identifies these oikoi with the katagogeion butdoes not comment upon the balaneion and its watersupply that is mentioned on face c of this inscription;this may again have referred to the independent ‘greek

63

baths’ that are adjacent to the katagogeion, rather thanto a bathing facility included in the oikoi-complex. • IG 42 116, late 4th century bce: according to burford(1969, 76, 83, 209), this inscription ‘refers to water-chan-nels for a bath “along the road to the city”, that is,somewhere in the complex east of the temple of themisand north of the asklepios temple;’ -neion in line 11 iscompleted to [bala]neion in lines 10 and 11.• IG 42 123, 350-300 bc.: healing/miracle report thatmentions a blind man who lost his lekythos in a bal-aneion (line 130), and when he was sleeping in the incu-bation hall, the god told him to look for it in the largeinn where the man saw the lekythos and thus was alsohealed. sanctuary of apollo Maleatas, IG 42 109, ca 290-270 bce:account regarding expenses for construction of the ska -namata; a loutron is mentioned on face a, line 85, and abalaneion and its water supply is mentioned on face c,lines 34, 45. see ginouvès 1962, 358 n. 4; burford 1969,77-8, 210; Melfi 2007, 156-59, 167.

17 Paton and hicks 1891/1990, 260-261 no 369. note thatthis sanctuary has not yet been identified in the archae-ological record. recent excavations have discovered,beneath the akropolis of halasarna, a sanctuary withan early hellenistic temple and several monumentalbuildings; this sanctuary has been identified as that ofhalarsana’s most important deity, apollo Pythaios;kokkorou-alveras et al. 2006, 28-41. the diagramma ofandania, IG 5,1 1390, lines 106-111, dated differently to91/90 bce or the 1st century ce, regulates the operationof bathing facilities in the extramural, rural karneiasionthat were obviously under lease. the agoranomos (of thecity of Messene) surveys the management of bathingfacilities (one? balaneion and an aleipterion), controllingfees and granting minimum bathing standards (suffi-cient warm water, probably for hip-bathtubs and animmersion bathtub/pool, for several hours per dayduring the festival); in contrast, the ‘sacred men’ (hieroi)contract out the supply of wood for the aleipterion. thekarneiasion has not yet been excavated. deshours 2006,90-91; gawlinski 2012, 33-49, 223-226.

18 IG 7 4255; lattermann 1910. this inscription also men-tions a separate women’s loutron. both loutra seem tohave been independent bathing facilities. the correlationof this inscription with the barely published archaeo-logical evidence of two bathing facilities that were iden-tified in the sanctuary is highly problematic. While the‘men’s’ loutron probably resembled the independent‘athletic’ baths in the sanctuaries of epidauros, Mountlykeion, and nemea, the ‘women’s’ loutron was heavilyremodeled in the roman imperial period and its originalstate currently cannot be reconstructed safely; becauseof the fragmentary evidence and the state of publication,both baths are excluded here; for a more detailed dis-cussion, see trümper 2012b, n. 22.

19 a similarly broad definition is made in delaine 1999for roman baths; in the broad group of publicly acces-sible baths, delaine differentiates according to ownerbetween privately owned (‘private-sector’) and pub-licly owned (‘public-sector’) baths.

20 textual sources referring to balaneia and loutra will stillbe taken into account where appropriate. in the fol-lowing, bibliographical references on individual bathswill be kept minimal, in order not to overburden thenotes. For extensive literature on individual baths, seethe tables in trümper 2009, to which will be primarilyreferred here; see also the catalog in this volume, re -

ferred to simply as catalog in the following; for detailedplans of the baths mentioned here and labeling of theirrooms that is referred to in the following, see the plansof the catalog. instead of referring to modern names ofbaths with the addition of ‘so-called’, such names willbe cited in quotation marks: for example, ‘dipylonbaths’, ‘ritual baths’.

21 see, for example, the location of the baths in Velia andgortys close to water courses; greco in this volume;ginouvès 1959, 78-88, 152.

22 cities with more than one large greek public bath(roman baths, small greek baths in egypt, and safelyidentified private domestic baths are not taken intoaccount here); in most cases, currently it cannot bedetermined safely, however, whether the various bathsof these cities and how many of them were used con-temporaneously; for references, see trümper 2009, 164-168, tables 1-6; catalog: • athens (at least five baths; for a detailed discussion,see below)• athribis/tell atrib (two baths)• buto/tell el-Fara’in (four baths)• dionysias/Qasr Qarun (two baths)• euhemeria/Qasr el banat (two baths)• krokodilopolis/kiman Fares (at least four baths)• Morgantina (two baths)• theadelphia/kharabet ihrit (two baths)While the sanctuary of Zeus in Olympia provides evi-dence of three different greek baths, they were all builtand used successively and not contemporaneously(‘Older sitz-bath’; ‘Younger sitz-bath’; late hellenisticbaths; trümper 2009, 164-166 tables 1, 2, 4).

23 egypt provides rich papyrological evidence for bathsthat was studied comprehensively by b. Meyer in heryet unpublished dissertation, Meyer 1982; meanwhile,see e.g. Meyer 1981, 1984, 1989, 1992, 1994. For a com-bination of papyrological and archaeological evidence,see Fournet and redon in this volume; römer in thisvolume. While highly important in many aspects, thepapyrological evidence is overall less revealing for thetopic of this paper than the epigraphic and literarysources from athens.

24 For example, for socializing or enjoying bathing formsthat were not available in domestic facilities.

25 For an assessment of private, in relationship to public,baths, see trümper 2010. domestic bathing facilities arenot taken into account in the following.

26 isae. cited by harpokration, s.v. anthemokritos. Measure -ments for the diameter of the tholos vary in literaturefrom 5.40 m to 8.20 m. although the pavement of thetholos is barely preserved today and thus cannot beevaluated, the published state plan (gebauer 1938, beil.3) suggests that the interior diameter of the tholos wasalways 7.80 m; the two preserved permanent pave-ments had a diameter of 5.40 m, to which must be addeda gap of about 1.20 m between the pavements and thewalls (clearly visible on the state plan) for the placementof hip-bathtubs (trümper 2009, 164, table 1). these bathsmay be referred to in the fragmentary inscriptionkerameikos 46, the exact find spot and date of whichis unknown, however; a blue kioniskos of hymettianmarble, broken on all sides (height: 0.40 m preserved;width 0.24 m preserved) may have recorded the open-ing hours or modalities of the bath building. For dis-cussion of this inscription, i would like to thank Wil -liam West, who also informed me that the two spacesin the second line of this inscription (between prokaiei

64

and org[an - - - - -]) are typical of hellenistic rather thanof classical inscriptions.

27 Found in the area to the west of the baths: gebauer1940, 330, 336 fig. 16; kerameikos iii a 19 (ca 350-300bce); Finley 1985, 28-37 (for the prasis epi lysei transac-tions); 126 no 23. Of 245 horoi marking legal encum-brances, only 26 are dated, from 363/362 bce to184/183 bce; Millett 1985, iX-X.

28 Finley (1985, 60-5) translates oikia with house/personalresidence; in addition, in the case of the kerameikoshoros stone, the house is sold together with land, whichmakes little sense for a suburban balaneion.

29 trümper 2009, 164, table 1.30 tsouklidou and Penna 1987, 28-31; Walter-karydi 1998,

76-78; trümper 2009, 163.31 IG 22 2495; travlos 1971, 159-160, 169 fig. 219, 180.32 IG 22 94, lines 37-38; travlos 1971, 160, 169 fig. 219, 180,

332.33 this inscription was originally published as IG 12 385

with the amendment of balan[eion de]mosi[on - -], sug-gesting the existence of a public (or rather publiclyowned) balaneion. in the revised edition IG 13 420 thishas been changed to balan[eio . . .]iosit[. . . . ], however,suggesting that balaneion was followed by a personalname and thus was private property. the names men-tioned in this inscription are: ΕΡΜΑΓBΡΑΣ, father of-Ι . ΑΓBΡΑΣ; ΜBΡΙΜBΣ; ΦΙΛΩΝ, father of -ΡBΣ.traill 7, 1998, 36 no. 401850; traill 12, 2003, 449 no.658800; traill 18, 2009, 34 no 954030.also, in IG 13 440, 443/432 bce, the preserved lettersΒΑ in line 121 can no longer be completed to balaneion.in more detail, trümper 2012b, n. 46-49. For discussionof these inscriptions i am much indebted to Williambubelis, Werner riess, and William West. For privatebuildings as topographical references in public prop-erty inscriptions, see Walbank 1983a, 197-198.

34 several inscriptions that recorded the leases of sacredproperty in the second half of the 4th century bcelisted, in one and the same text, properties in vastly dif-ferent locations in athens and attica; Walbank 1983b.

35 trümper 2009, 164 table 2.36 travlos 1971, 180.37 delaine 1999, 161.38 delaine (1999, 160) cites the suburban baths of Pom -

peii and herculaneum, both of which overlooked thewaterfront and may have served particularly travelersarriving by sea; both cities, above all the much moreextensively excavated Pompeii, had other baths withinthe city. For an overview, see koloski-Ostrow 2007.

39 the suburban baths of Pompeii and herculaneumwere particularly lavishly decorated and offered extrav-agant bathing programs and gorgeous views of the sea(see dickmann 2005, 60); thus, they may also have beenbuilt primarily for the pleasure of a selected wealthyaudience, provenance (from Pompeii or elsewhere)notwithstanding.

40 For example, ar. Eq. 1060-1061, 1401; ar. Nub. 837, 991,1045; ar. Pl. 952-955; ar. Ran. 708, 1279; dem. AgainstKonon 9-10; theophr. Char. 9, 8; 30, 8.

41 On these three gymnasia, see the summary in Wacker1996, 145-72.

42 ar. Nub. 1046 (transl. J. henderson, cambridge Mass.1998).

43 ar. Nub. 1053-1054: ‘that [arguments about heracles’manliness and his relation to hot baths] is just the sortof thing the teenagers spend day after day chatteringabout, that fills up the bath house (balaneion) and emp-

ties the wrestling schools (palaistra)!’ (transl. J. hender -son, cambridge Mass. 1998). this contrast or at least clearhierarchy between gymnasion and palaistra vs. balaneionis also suggested in Plut. Demetr. 24, 2-3: When the youngbeautiful demokles was pursued by demetrios, he final -ly shunned the palaistrai and gymnasion, which he wassupposed to frequent as a respected athenian citizen, andin his despair and as a last resort went to a privatelyowned (idiotikon) balaneion for his bath, which he shouldhave avoided. When demetrios discovered him eventhere, when the boy was alone, demokles found an un -worthy death (in an ‘unworthy’ location) by jumpinginto the cauldron with boiling water.

44 ath. 1, 18 c. note, however, that antiphanes refers to aloutron, not to a balaneion, and hermippos mentionsonly washing with hot water, but no specific bathingfacility.

45 dem. Against Konon 9-10 (transl. a.t. Murray, cam -bridge Mass. 1939). For discussion and interpretationof this passage i am much indebted to Werner riess.

46 this passage does not allow for any conclusions regard-ing the standard of private domestic bathing culture in4th century bce athens. even if ariston had boastedlavish bathing facilities in his house, after the attack hewas most concerned about public performance andacknowledgment of his injuries, which was only possi-ble in a publicly accessible setting, notably a balaneion.Whether rich athenians in general had bathrooms intheir houses cannot be assessed from the scanty archae-ological evidence or from literary sources. the inter-pretation of ‘Old Oligarch’ 2, 10 is debated: ‘some ofthe rich possess private gymnasia (gymnasia), baths(loutra), and dressing rooms (apodyteria), but the com-mon people build themselves many palaestras (palais-trai), dressing rooms (apodyteria), and public baths(loutrones) for their own use.’ (trans. Osborne 2004, 22).contra Frisch (1942, 257); ginouvès (1962, 145 n. 10, 163n. 5); Marr and rhodes (2008, 115-116); and Weber (2010,118 n. 104), this passage most likely does not contrastthe private domestic bathrooms of the rich with thepublic baths of the demos, but rather in both cases refersto bathing facilities included in the private gymnasia vs.public palaistrai, respectively, as suggested convincinglyby delorme (1960, 301 n. 1).

47 herakleides kritikos 1,1-5; Fittschen 1995, 56-7, 59, 69.among the few buildings of athens that herakleidesmentions are the three extraurban gymnasia. arenz (2006, 27, 56-83) argues, however, that herakleideshad more comprehensive interests, including particular -ly an assessment of athens’ economic situation. he datesthe Periegesis to the period of 279 to 267 bce and em -phasizes that herakleides came to athens from eleusis;thus, he entered the city through the kerameikos, whichprobably included no longer a public bath in the 3rd

century bce; at this time, at least the ‘dipylon baths’were already overbuilt.

48 travlos 1971, 171 fig. 221, 180-181.49 isae. Dikaiogenes 22-24; isae. Philoktemon 33.50 see supra n. 40.51 ath. 13, 590f; Plut. Demetr. 24, 2-3; Plut. Phok. 4, 2. For

a critical assessment of the debated passage ‘OldOligarch’ 2, 10, which sometimes is interpreted as refer-ring to public baths, see supra n. 46. Marr and rhodes(2008, 116) state that ar. Equ. 1060-1061 perhaps impliesthe existence of some public baths, but without givingany arguments. For a more detailed discussion of thesources of the imperial period, see trümper 2012b.

65

52 this holds also true for roman baths in the laterepublican period; see Fagan 1999, 104-175.

53 baths in: ambrakia, colophon, corinth (‘centaur baths’),hephaistia/lemnos, Marseille, nemea, Olympia (‘Oldersitz-bath’), Piraeus (‘serangeion baths’). the ‘greekbaths’ in epidauros cannot be safely dated, but if thisbuilding is identical with the balaneion mentioned in IG42 103 c, 110 c, it should be included here; see supra n.16. the bath building in Mount lykaion can also not bedated securely, but like other buildings recently exca-vated in the lower sanctuary, it could well date to the4th century bce; see romano 2005. although the first phase of the bath building in Pella isdated to the end of the 4th century bce, it is not in -cluded here because its original state cannot be fullyreconstructed and the building was only provided withhip-bathtubs in the second phase, dated to the secondquarter of the 3rd century bce; see lilimpaki-akamatiand akamatis 2010.

54 baths in: nemea, Olympia (‘Older sitz-bath’). the build -ings in epidauros and Mount lykaion would also be -long to this category, see previous note.

55 Piraeus; see in more detail below; hephaistia/lemnos,see greco and Vitti in this volume.

56 an athenian cleruchy was established on lemnos atabout 450 bce.

57 baths in: ambrakia, colophon, corinth, Marseille.58 andreou 1976 (1984), 1983. For a plan of modern arta

with the remains of ancient ambrakia, see andreou1993, 98 fig. 9.

59 ginouvès 1962, 186 n. 7. For the topography of the site,see holland 1944, where the bathing establishment ismentioned on p. 94, referring to its study in a campaignunder the direction of hetty goldman in 1925. thebuilding was completely reburied in 2007, and no doc-umentation of the 1925 fieldwork seems to be stored inthe archives of harvard university; i am much indebtedto susanne ebbinghaus for this information.

60 the debate is summarized by donati (2010, 3-5); heargues convincingly that the greek agora was locatedbeneath the roman forum; cf. similarly kenzler (1999,93-94, 108-109, 150-160), who takes this simply forgranted, however, without critically reassessing the evi-dence and counterarguments.

61 trümper 2009, 164 table 1. the history of this poorlypreserved building cannot yet be fully assessed becauseit has only been published in preliminary reports. theconstruction date of the bathing facility (last quarter of5th century bce or only after 320 bce) notwithstanding,the design of this building is unique among publicbaths of the 5th and 4th centuries, which complicates itsassessment.

62 For the city plan with its different systems of insulae,see tréziny 2001; for the quarter with the bath build-ing, see hermary et al. 1999, 76-79; hesnard et al. 1999,92-96; conche 2001. hermary et al. 1999, 77: ‘il est plusdifficile de décider si ce nouveau quartier a été conçucomme un faubourg à l’extérieur des murailles ou si,comme il semblerait plus probable, il a été d’embléeprotégé par un nouveau rempart dont nous n’avons àce jour aucune trace.’ cf. also conche 2001, 133: ‘... ilest évident qu’un édifice à caractère monumental del’ampleur du balnéaire ne peut se trouver isolé extra-muros. ce qui nous conduit à supposer l’édificationd’un nouveau rempart, sans doute contemporain de laconstruction des bains qui attestent, dès le milieu duiVe s., l’extension de la cité au nord de la ville archaïque.’

hermary et al. (1999, 77) also propose private owner-ship of the bath building, because otherwise it wouldnot be comprehensible that the bath was transformedinto a private house. in contrast, the situation in ambra -kia, where the baths were built over a house but in turnoverbuilt by a bouleuterion, does not allow for any con-clusions regarding the ownership of the baths; if thehouse was private property, the city may have obtainedthe terrain from either the bath owner or already thehouse owner.

63 id 89, l. 10; id 98 b l. 33; id 104-33 a l. 7; hellmann1992, 63-64; chankowski 2008, 294, 362, 421.

64 therefore, athenian control of 4th century delos, mostnotably of the sanctuary of apollo, may not have hadan impact on the placement of baths.

65 Of the 63 or 65 baths that are not securely dated to theclassical period most were built in the hellenisticperiod; some of the egyptian examples were only con-structed in the roman imperial period, however; seesupra n. 53, and catalog.

66 rodziewicz 2009, 195, 199-200 figs 1, 8.67 this holds particularly true for baths in egypt, where the

parts of baths that were made of imperishable material(bathtubs, pavements, reservoirs, drains, etc.) are todayoften the only visible remains in the entirely flat koms,the perishable building material (mud bricks) of whichhas been reused in modern times (extraction of layersof sebakh; see bagnall and rathbone 2004, 129-131). butthis also applies to many other baths, e.g. the examplesin gela, Oiniadai, and syracuse, which were often exca-vated in isolation, as chance finds.

68 eleusis: sanctuary of demeter; epidauros: sanctuary ofasklepios (for the date, see supra n. 53); gortys: sanc -tuary of asklepios (location - intraurban, suburban,extraurban - is debated, however, see infra n. 122);Mount lykaion: sanctuary of Zeus (for the date, seesupra n. 53); Olympia: sanctuary of Zeus (‘Youngersitz-bath’, late hellenistic baths). to these hellenisticexamples can be added the classical baths in Olympia(‘Older sitz-bath’) and nemea, see supra n. 54. ForOlympia, which included only one greek bath at atime, see supra n. 22.

69 Messene: sanctuary of asklepios; Morgantina (southbaths): Western sanctuary of demeter and Persephone.to these hellenistic examples can be added the classicalbaths at hephaistia/lemnos, where the existence anddeity of the sanctuary are not safely determined, how-ever; see greco and Vitti in this volume.

70 cyrene: sanctuary of apollo and sanctuary of artemisand the nymphs; karnak: sanctuary of amun re;taposiris Magna: sanctuary of Osiris; Velia: monu-mental terrace complex to the southwest below the bathbuilding, which currently cannot be safely identified asa sanctuary (of asklepios?), however. to these hellenisticexamples can be added the classical baths at Piraeusthat have been linked to sanctuaries of asklepios, ar -temis, Zeus Meilichios, Zeus Philios, agathe tyche, andthe heros serangos.the position of egyptian sanctuaries (urban, suburban,extraurban) is not always obvious because non-sacredstructures were often not preserved and excavated,among others in the case of the ‘temple-city’ or groupof temple-complexes at karnak; according to Vandorpe(1995, 211-218), the temple of amun re at karnak wassurrounded by residential quarters in the hellenisticand roman periods, and is thus classified as anurban/suburban sanctuary here. i am much indebted

66

to bérangère redon for discussing this problem.71 hephaistia/lemnos, Velia; Piraeus.72 amathous; athens (‘southwest baths’); Marina el-ala -

mein (central city square with porticoes and possibly acivic basilica, could well have served as agora/forumeven if currently not denominated as such in literature);Megara hyblaea; Pergamon. to these hellenistic exam-ples can probably be added the classical baths in am -brakia, corinth, and colophon; see supra n. 57. theownership cannot be safely determined for any of thesebaths, however.

73 delaine 1999, 68-69 n. 8 with list of 12 Forum baths,dating from the early 1st century bce onwards; shestates, however, that some of these baths may simplyreplace earlier structures that could be revealed in exca-vations; for example, the history of the ‘Forum baths’in Pompeii (built before or after 80 bce) is much de -bated; see eschebach 1991. the bath building in Fre -gellae, which is located close to the forum and dates tothe 3rd century bce (first phase), is not included indelaine’s list.

74 delaine 1999, 69 n. 9.75 adam-Veleni in this volume; cf. the situation in Mar -

seille.76 Fachard 2004, 92 fig. 1, 104 n. 97: while the city wall was

built around 400 bce (replacing an archaic predecessor),the diateichisma was built around 300 bce and probablyabandoned already in the early 3rd century bce; the con-struction date of the bath building and thus the centralquestion of whether the construction of the bath com-plex really caused the destruction of the diatei chisma orwhether the abandonment of the diateichisma did notrather make building land available for other purposes,is much debated, however; see trümper 2009, 141 n. 7.

77 classical and hellenistic examples: caulonia (within citywall and close to a city gate and main street; see iannelliand cuteri in this volume); locri (area centocamere,within the city wall and close to a gate in the southerncity wall; near the sea; while the harbor has not yetbeen safely identified, it may have been close to theeastern square corner tower of the city wall, and thusin some distance to the centocamere area; see barrabagnasco 1999; sabbione 2010, esp. 323; in this volume);eretria (see previous note); Oiniadai (within the citywall), hephaistia/lemnos (see supra n. 55), Piraeus(‘serangeion baths’, outside the city wall, see supra n.55 and in more detail below).

78 For example, the baths in Morgantina (south baths,north baths), and particularly baths in egypt, notably inbuto/tell el-Fara’in (north, south, and east baths),dionysias/Qasr Qarun, euhemeria/Qasr el-banat,theadelphia/kharabet ihrit, which are located at theedges of the respective koms that possibly correspondwith the extension of the ancient settlements; see römerin this volume and catalog. this may also apply to kro -kodilopolis/Medinet el-Fayoum (northwest, north, andeast baths, ‘sarapeion’) the original extension of whichcannot be safely determined, however, because the an -cient remains are almost entirely covered by the moderncity. the only available map of the ancient city, designedby g. schweinfurth in 1887 (schweinfurth 1887, pl. 2),shows a group of 11 koms to the north of the then muchsmaller Medinet el-Fayoum. if all of these koms be -longed to the ancient city, at least one of the four identi-fied greek baths would have been located in the centerof the city; see here fig. 9. a similar situation occurred inbuto/tell el-Fara’in (baths near the uadjet temple)

where one bath building was found closer to the centerof the kom/ancient settlement; see here fig. 10.

79 in these cases, adjacent or nearby residential-industrialbuildings have actually been excavated; this includesalmost all of the baths on or close to agorai: athens(‘southwest baths’), caulonia, delos, dionysias/QasrQarun (south baths), euesperides, locri, Marina el-alamein, Megara hyblaea, Pella, Pergamon, taposirisMagna, thessaloniki, tell el-herr, Xois/sakha. to thesehellenistic examples can probably be added the clas -sical baths in athens (‘dipylon baths’), colophon,corinth, and Marseille.

80 For example, the baths in alexandria, amathous,ambrakia, gela, and even hephaistia/lemnos (subur-ban position between harbor and city gate); this is lesscertain for baths in border positions (see above) orremote positions (e.g. Velia).

81 according to cultrera (1938, 300), the date of thenekropolis could not be safely determined, but he cau-tiously proposes installation in the 5th and main use inthe 4th/3rd centuries bce, in comparison to betterknown nekropoleis at syracuse; cf. also guzzardi 2000,99-100. the urban context of the baths also is not suffi-ciently known to assess whether it was located at theedge of the contemporary city or integrated into alarger, loosely or densely built quarter.

82 Panvini 1996, 99-121.83 note, for example, that the baths at taposiris Magna

were located in a luxurious residential quarter; seeFournet and redon in this volume.

84 lucore in this volume, and catalog. the south baths areadjacent to the West sanctuary of demeter and Per -sephone (in the south) and to a north-south oriented road(in the east). east of this road, remains of a large (pub-lic?) building were briefly explored. thus, either thenorth baths or the south baths may have been linkedto the large building; additionally or alternatively, thesouth baths may have been related to the sanctuary. iam much indebted to sandra lucore for informationabout and discussion of this situation.

85 With the possible exception of athens, see above.86 trümper 2009.87 the baths in athribis/tell atrib, buto/tell el-Fara’in,

euhemeria/Qasr el-banat, krokodilopolis/Medinet el-Fayoum, and theadelphia/kharabet ihrit provideample evidence of numerous remodeling and repairphases, which include the modernization of bathingprograms. to what extent these were accomplished tocompete with other baths in the same city currentlycannot be determined, however.

88 in rome, the large imperial baths will have outshonemost of the smaller establishments in size, bathing pro-gram, and decoration, but small baths such as the oneof etruscus (described by Mart. Ep. 9.75, and stat. Silv.1.5.13) could also be exquisitely decorated. similarly, inherculaneum and Pompeii, the small suburban bathswere much better appointed than the larger equivalentsin the centers of the cities. in krokodilopolis/Medinetel-Fayoum, the ‘sarapeion’ seems to have been thelargest of the four preserved baths, but whether it out-ranked the others in more than just in capacity ofbathing forms, must remain open.

89 Of the 11 or 13 baths of the 5th and 4th centuries bce,four had lavish polychrome figured mosaics (ambrakia;athens, baths outside diochares gate; corinth; Piraeus),in comparison to only five of the 63 or 65 hellenisticbaths (diospolis Parva/hu; karnak; kition, baths in the

67

area chrysopolitissa, plot 417; Pergamon; Velia). in ad -dition, some hellenistic baths at least had lavishly dec-orated thresholds or entrance carpets (cyrene; eretria;Megara hyblaea; Morgantina, north baths). Otherwisea broad variety of simple waterproof pavements (de -scribed variously as pebble pavements, opus signinum,cocciopesto, terrazzo, etc.) was used, which could bedifferentiated (e.g. by the use of decorative tesserae) toestablish a clear hierarchy of rooms and decoration pat-terns. For pavements in baths, see guimier-sorbets2009.

90 cf. the particularly well preserved and well appointednorth baths in Morgantina, which give an idea of thepossible decoration repertoire of hellenistic baths; seelucore in this volume.

91 ginouvès 1959; 1962, 234-430. hoffmann’s (1999, 53-55,194-195) assessment of baths in sanctuaries is mainlydescriptive, although she considers a ‘profane’ use ofsome baths. gill 2004 does not specifically address thefunction of baths in sanctuaries. gill 2006 does notexamine in detail independent baths in sanctuaries. Forbaths in sanctuaries of asklepios, see riethmüller 2005,1:378-380; Melfi 2007, 502-503.the topic has also been discussed for roman baths,notably baths in roman and greek sanctuaries of theroman imperial period, albeit with different interpre-tations: for example, scheid (1991) asserts that all publicbaths located in or near extraurban sanctuaries servedfor ritual purification, and that even public baths in citieswhich were situated in the vicinity of sanctuaries couldserve for profane cleansing and ritual purposes alike.Yegül (forthcoming) identifies six different categories ofbathing needs in sanctuaries, including ritual as well asprofane-social aspects: ritual and cultic bathing; bathingas prelude to cult dinner; athletic bathing; bathing ofpilgrims, travelers, local magistrates and visitors; bathingfor suppliants; curative-therapeutic bathing.

92 a more detailed discussion is planned for a separatepublication.

93 scheid 1991; riethmüller 2005, 1:361.94 the other two are in Piraeus and taposiris Magna.

While in the baths of cyrene and taposiris Magna, therock-cut parts were certainly complemented by builtstructures at least at one point in the baths’ history, nobuilt features could be safely identified for the baths atPiraeus.

95 For these features see Wright 1957, 301-307; goodchild1971, 77-79, 91-93; and esp. stucchi 1975, 139-140, 212-214, 581-596, who provides the most detailed assess-ment of the rock-cut features.

96 the ‘Fontana nova’ or ‘aqua augusta’.97 this theory was first proposed by chamoux (1954, 315-

319), who, however, identified the triangular terrace ofthe ‘Fontana nova’/’aqua augusta’ as a sanctuary ofartemis with subterranean baths; this was criticized byWright (1957, 309-310), who argues that chamoux’ ar -guments can better be related to the ‘ritual baths’, al -though he acknowledges that inscriptions mentioninga sanctuary of the nymphs were found only in thespring of kyra, far to the west of the ‘ritual baths’;however, Wright 1955, 113 fig. 10 shows the imaginativereconstruction of a ritual where the priestess of artemispours water over the heads of greek maidens who areseated in hip-bathtubs. the identification of the ‘ritualbaths’ as nymphaion is again embraced by ginouvès(1962, 384-385, with reference to chamoux), and Fournetand redon (2009, 127, n. 71). stucchi (1975, 478-480) does

not mention this theory nor a sanctuary of artemis atall, but assumes that the sanctuary of the nymphs wasfirst located in the cave with the spring of kyra andlater transferred slightly to the east, to the cave with thespring of apollo; goodchild (1971, 93), and hoffmann(1999, 55) are both skeptical regarding a ritual use ofthe greek baths.

98 Wright 1957, 310; goodchild (1971, 77) also mentions asmall shrine situated immediately east of apollo’sfountain where a certain Mego, daughter of theocrestosand kritola, had dedicated an altar to the nymphs ofthe river achelous. see esp. stucchi 1975, 139-140, 581-596, who differentiates between the spring of kyra andthat of apollo, located further east in a separate grotto.

99 date: Wright 1957 (and those identifying the baths asnymphaion): 4th century bce at the latest (accordingthe the sacred law, see n. 97); goodchild 1971, 93:greek; stucchi 1975, 479: ‘datazione molto tarda diquesto impianto, che nulla ha a che fare con riti dell’etàclassica greca’ (because of the wall technique and let-ters of an inscription in the pavement).the baths were certainly remodeled several times; dur-ing the last major remodeling room 10 (for a plan, seecatalog, no 35) with hip-bathtubs was built, probablyin connection with a new water supply from the ‘aquaaugusta’ (augustan period; stucchi 1975, 212-214); atthe same time, this room as well as the major bathingrooms 5 and 7 were probably decorated with a pave-ment type that is only vaguely described by Wright(1957, 309) as ‘tessellated’. since only one small photoof this pavement is published (stucchi 1975, 480 fig.496), the nature of this pavement cannot be fully as -sessed. this photo shows a section of the pavement inroom 10 that includes some decoration made of whitetesserae, described by stucchi (1975, 479): the name ofParis sammaiou and ‘una corona vittata con al centrouna stella ed una tabula ansata bassa e lunghissima.’ ithank ruth Westgate for a discussion of this pavement,which, according to her, could be opus figlinum (largeterracotta tesserae), a pavement type used mainly in the3rd and 2nd centuries bce, particularly in Punic sites innorth africa. if room 10 belonged to a remodeling ofthe augustan period, the potential opus figlinum pave-ment could have been used here relatively late, or thepavement could be of a different type, notably a trueopus tessellatum. the use of the ‘aqua augusta’ watersupply provides, in any case, a terminus ante quem forthe construction of the original baths.

100 in analogy to the better known example in taposirisMagna, it can be assumed that the rock-cut parts of the‘ritual baths’ were complemented by built rooms totheir north (at least in one of their later phases), whichincluded entrance rooms and installations for heatingwater.

101 goodchild (1971, 92) assumes that the baths were nolonger accessible after the elevation of the street,whereas stucchi (1975, 478 n. 2) argues (far less con-vincingly) that the baths were only made after theroman colonnaded street had been built, ‘abbassandoil piano del terreno’.

102 ginouvès 1962, 384-385, comparing these baths to thosein Piraeus and taposiris Magna, the alleged sacred-rit-ual function of which can also not safely be determined,however; see below.

103 Originally, the baths were most likely supplied bywater through installations in rooms 12 and 14, notablya system of subterranean channels and basins, fed from

68

somewhere in the south (spring, or channel from oneof the springs?). during the last remodeling, probablyin the augustan period, rooms 12 and 14 were sepa-rated from the baths, probably because the water sup-ply dried up, which seems to have happened at severalpoints in the water installations of the acropolis hill.instead, reservoir 8 was built in front of the rock-cutrooms, supplied by shaft 16 that was connected to thenewly established ‘aqua augusta’.

104 see supra n. 99. the (honorific or victory?) crown andtabula ansata may allude to specific achievements of thisman.

105 the ‘ritual baths’ may have been used until a romanbath was built in the trajanic period in the northeastcorner of the temenos of apollo; another roman bath wasidentified in the upper city (‘terme centrali di età tarda’);stucchi 1975, 283-286.

106 according to von eickstedt 1991, map 2, the baths werelocated outside the city walls, while hoepfner andschwandner 1986, fig. 8 shows the baths inside the citywalls. the crucial problem of accessibility is completelyignored in literature on these baths; see below.

107 ginouvès 1962, passim (p. 438, index) with previous lit-erature (heroon of serangos); von eickstedt 1991, 116-119,178-179 cat. no 1.99; 224 cat. no iii/2.196 (nymphaion);hoffmann 1999, 170-1, cat.-no 39 (sanctuary of serangos).c. di nicuolo is currently re examining these baths; for hisfirst assessment see the conference abstract: http: //bal-neorient.hypotheses.org/1077 (link predominantly to thesanctuary of asklepios; but he also mentions the heroon ofserangos, the sanctuary of artemis, votive niches, anddedications to Zeus Meilichios and Zeus Philios; further-more, he does not exclude that the baths were built ear-lier than the sanctuary of asklepios, the foundation ofwhich he dates to between 422 and 420/419 bce.); dinicuolo forthcoming was not accessible to me.

108 textual sources, in chronological order: • IG 13 1079: horos stone with the inscription ΗΕΡBΙBΗBΡBΣ. Judeich 1931, 436: ‘Oberhalb des “serangeion”stieß man in der nähe, aber nicht in situ auf einemgrenzstein des 5. Jahrhunderts v. chr.’ • lysias frg. 18 (17s, 19Fi; carey 2007, 319): cf. below,harpokration.• isae. 6,33: a balaneion was sold (or mortgaged?) byeuktemon of kiphissia to aristolochos for 3.000 (drach-mas?) in 376 bce; at the same time, euktemon sold afarm at athmonon for 75 minas (7.500 drachmas) andmortgaged a house in athens for 45 minas (4.500 drach-mas).• IG 22 5009: poros altar with inscription: ΑΠB]ΛΛ[ΩΝBΣ ΑΠB]Τ[ΡBΠ]ΑΙBΥ; hellenistic?; found closeto the skylla mosaic.• alkiphron 43 (2nd century ce, but supposed to referin his fictional letters to 4th century bce athens): τνΣηραγγOmω Sαλανε`ν: Psichoklaustes and the parasitesstruthion and kynaidos took a bath at serangeion andthen hurried to a dinner party.• harpokration (2nd century ce.) s.v. Σηρ?γγι`ν ΛυσOαςν τm κατ’ Αδρ`τOων`ς. iωρO`ν τι τ` Πειραις `Dτωςκαλετ`. µνηµ`νεQει δ’ α"τ` κα Αριστ`φ?νης νΓεωργ`ς (already mentioned in lysias againstandrotionos; chorion in Piraeus is called like this; alsoremembered in aristophanes in the play of the georgoi,which was performed in 422 bce).• hesychius of alexandria (5th century ce) s.v. Σηρ?γ -γει`ν Sαλανε`ν.• Photius (9th century ce) s.v. Σηρ?γγει`ν: iωρO`ν τ`

Πειραις; τPπ`ς τ` Πειραις, κτισθες %π Σηρ?γγ`υκα #ρω`ν ν α"τω (named after a hero serangos whohad his heroon here).• suda (10th century ce) s.v. Σηρ?γγι`ν: iωρO`ν τ`Πειραις (a place in the Piraeus); abridged here fromharpokration.

109 the archaeological evidence of sanctuaries includes, inaddition to the horos stone and altar mentioned in theprevious note:• remains of a sanctuary of asklepios inside the citywalls, in modern serragiou street; von eickstedt 1991, 187cat.-no 1.131; 2001; riethmüller 2005, 2:25-35, cat. no 10.• remains of sanctuaries of artemis inside the citywalls, notably at the west side of the Mounychia har-bor and on top of the Mounychia hill; von eickstedt1991, 176-177 cat.-nos 1.94-1.95.• a grotto and groups of different types of niches (a -mong them one large niche with architectural decora-tion, stylistically dated to the 4th century bce) betweenthe Mounychia and Zea harbors that decorated thesteep walls of an old quarry; the exact location of thesefeatures and their function are, however, debated. theonly documentation of these niches, curtius and kau -pert 1878, blatt Xii, is not really conclusive; only one ofthe three different complexes (blatt Xii,1) clearly seemsto have been located on top of the cliff and thus mostlikely inside the city walls; the other two complexes(blatt Xii, 2-3), clearly former quarries, are also notlocated close to the sea, and thus most likely on top ofthe cliff. Judeich 1931, 435-436 plan iii is the only mapthat shows the approximate location of these niches(‘Votivnischen’) to the east and west of the ‘serangeion?’,but both times inside the city walls (see here fig. 13).neither travlos (1988, 340-363), von eickstedt (1991),riethmüller (2005), nor lalonde (2006), indicate the pre-cise location of the alleged votive niches cut into therock nor give any illustrations, which suggests that theniches were no longer visible when they published theirbooks.While these niches are commonly ascribed to cults ofZeus Meilichios, Zeus Philios, and agathe tyche, rieth -müller (2005, 2:25-35, with previous literature) con-vincingly argues that these gods were most likely ven-erated in or at least in immediate vicinity of the sanc-tuary of asklepios; he locates asklepios’ sanctuaryinside the city walls and close to the Zea harbor, wherenumerous votive reliefs and snake steles were foundthat give evidence of the Zeus Meilichios, Zeus Philios,and agathe tyche cults. this is confirmed by lalonde(2006, 114-117 cat. nos ZM31-ZM45), who lists six cer-tain and nine possible votive reliefs to Zeus Meilichiosthat were found in Piraeus; those with a precise prove-nience seem to come from the area of the sanctuary ofasklepios. lalonde (2006) has identified the sanctuaryof Zeus Meilichios in athens in the rock-cut features onthe hill of the nymphs, that is, close to the Melitidesgate, but inside the city walls.

110 ginouvès (1962, 189 n. 4, 195) identified a cold waterimmersion basin in room b (3.20 x 3.60 m, ca 1 m deep= volume of 11.52 m3), which would have been drainedthrough corridor e (for a plan, see catalog no 28); thatthis is questionable for several reasons, however, can-not be discussed in detail here; note only that the cor-ridor was at least 13 m long, on average 0.90 m wideand 1.90 m high, and included a lamp niche; its startclose to room b was lit by a long chimney-like con-struction cut into the rock; all of this suggests that the

69

corridor was a service entrance rather than just a sim-ple drain. it is also unclear how the door between roomb and the corridor (ca 1.00 m wide, 1.70 m high) wouldhave been efficiently closed to keep the considerableamount of water in the central ‘pool’ in room b. re -search by c. di nicuolo may further elucidate the func-tion of room b with its many strange rock-cut features(multifunctional room for bathers?; service room?; notethat no furnace for heating water could safely be iden-tified so far, but it must have existed somewhere -in/close to corridor e or room b?).

111 von eickstedt 1991, 224 cat. no iii 2.196.112 see esp. the cistern system on the kastella with two

round rooms and long corridors and reservoirs; voneickstedt 1991, 128-129 figs 70-71, 216-217 cat. no iii2.145: here, long shafts in the centers of the conical roofsof the round rooms served not for lighting and venti-lation, but for drawing water from above and foraccessing the cisterns via holes in the shaft walls.

113 the pebble mosaics were found in rooms a (skylla) andc (quadriga), but are both lost today; their date, basedentirely on style, is debated and it is not certain thatthey already decorated the bath building in 376 bce;however, the mosaics are the only archaeological evi-dence that may provide a terminus ad quem or ante quemfor the construction of the baths. donaldson 1965, 88:around 376 bce or shortly afterwards; salzmann 1982,109 cat.-nos 107-8: 360-340 bce; guimier-sorbets 2009,103: 4th century bce. For discussion of these mosaics iam much indebed to ruth Westgate who cautiouslysuggests a date in the late 4th century bce, based on thefew published photos. even if the mosaics had beenadded later this would not reasonably account for theirposition that is strangely skewed with regard to bothspaces and viewers; furthermore, part of the chario-teer’s figure and the left border are missing; see dra -gatsis 1925-1926, 4 fig. 2; ginouvès 1962, pl. lVii;donaldson 1965, pl. 23; salzmann 1982, pl. 25, 1. Forthe decoration of greek baths in general, see supra n.89-90.

114 see alkiphron 43, cited supra n. 108.115 the situation of the rock-cut baths at taposiris Magna

is similar to that at Piraeus and cyrene; the structuresadjacent or close to the baths of hephaistia/lemnosand Velia currently cannot be identified safely as sanc-tuaries, see supra n. 55; the south baths at Morgantinaare currently not known sufficiently to determine theirrelationship to the adjacent sanctuary. Finally, the bathsat caulonia seem to have been transformed into a sanc-tuary in the building’s third phase, when, however, thebathing facilities were no longer used; see iannelli andcuteri in this volume. For the baths in Messene, see thepreliminary reports themelis 1989 (1992), 1990 (1993),2003a, 90-91.

116 riethmüller 2005, 1:379; 2:160, 164-165.117 the date of the baths is debated; themelis (1990 [1993],

66) argues that the baths were built at the end of the 4th

or beginning of the 3rd century bce, followed by Melfi(2007, 257), and Müth (2007, 153-157, 174); rieth müller(2005, 2:160) ascribes the baths to the large remodelingof the asklepieion in the 2nd century bce. that the lat-ter date for many reasons is much more convincingcannot be discussed in detail here.

118 note, however, that themelis (1990 [1993]) reconstructsthe main entrance to the baths in their western façade(room 1); for a direct connection between sanctuary andbaths, the door in the sanctuary’s south wall could have

been placed much farther to the west, in alignmentwith the baths’ west wall. the dissociation of entrancessuggests that a) the baths maybe had another entrancein the east façade (to the peristyle courtyard 8/9); b) thesanctuary entrance was made to serve the baths, andprobably also the ‘heroon’ ∆ to the east of the baths(themelis 2003b, 40-46); since the latter was insertedlater at the expense of two existing south rooms, thesanctuary entrance could also have been opened later.Müth (2007, 174) argues that the bath building wasmainly accessible through rooms X and Y of the as -klepieion, which would have been built some 100 yearsafter the baths. this is, however, not convincing, andthe plan currently available of the city rather suggeststhat the northwest entrance to room 1 was accessiblefrom a major street or even square in the west.

119 riethmüller’s (2005, 1:379) argument cited above is notconvincing because, as shown here, several ‘secular’greek public baths are clearly located in the center ofcities (on or close to the agora).

120 themelis (1990 [1993], 2003a, 90-91) reconstructs animmersion pool in the peristyle courtyard (8/9) and,cautiously, basins or bathtubs in room 17, whereas room15, replaced later by room 18β, would have served asa furnace. both riethmüller (2005, 1:379; 2:360) andMüth (2007, 155, 174), their different dating of the bathsnotwithstanding, argue that this bath building was pro-vided with a revolutionary (early) hypocaust system,and both seem to assume that hot air circulated underthe limestone slab pavements of rooms 11, 13, 14, and17, which rested on a grid-system of poros blocks. thisis, however, impossible because the gaps (‘channels’)between the poros blocks were neither connectedamong each other nor to a firing chamber. a different interpretation is proposed here, albeit with-out extensive reasoning: room 8 served as peristylecourtyard with impluvium; room 15 was a heated roundsweat bath with hypocaust; room 18S was possibly con-temporaneous with room 15 and served as furnace toheat water for bathtubs in room 17 (which have notbeen found, though) and the sweat bath 15. For similarcomplex heating systems with long channels thatheated water and spaces, cf. the baths in various sanc-tuaries and ‘profane’ urban contexts, notably gortys,Olympia (late hellenistic baths), Pella, thessaloniki, andprobably also dilesi. see trümper 2009, and catalog.

121 riethmüller 2005, 2:160, 164-165.122 ginouvès 1959; 1962; 1994; riethmüller 2005, 1:379;

2:197-205; Melfi 2007, 216-221. the function of the structures found to the north andsouth of the sanctuary is debated: ginouvès 1959, 146,155: structures in the south are identified as ‘admirablesmaisons, peut-être hôtelleries destinées aux malades’,whereas those in the north are referred to as ‘quartierd’habitations’. Melfi (2007, 217, 219) interprets thestructures in the south as ‘ostelli per pellegrini’, butargues that of the buildings e, F, g and Fg to the northof the sanctuary, only e with ‘funzione abitativa’ wouldhave belonged to the sanctuary. riethmüller (2005,2:197-199 n. 53-55) assumes (most convincingly) thatthe sanctuary is surrounded by houses of the ancientsettlement in the north and south (‘drei durch das süd -liche rhevma weitgehend zerstörte spätklassische haus -strukturen an seiner südseite’; ‘80 m nördlich des tem -pels reste mehrerer häuser, die ... ein Wohnquartierder stadt bzw. kome darstellen.’).

123 For the debated date of the baths in gortys, cf. trümper

70

2009, 146-147. For the date of similar baths in dilesi,Messene, Olympia (late hellenistic baths), Pella, andthessaloniki, see catalog and above, n. 117.

124 the construction of the ‘Older sitz-bath’ cannot besafely dated, only its remodeling, in which sima frag-ments of the ‘leonidaion’ were reused. While thesesima fragments were dated around 400 b.c.e. by kunzeand schleif (1944, 12-17, 70-71), heiden (1995, 37-44,140) dates them after 325 bce. although the period oftime between construction and remodeling of the bathscannot be determined, it is more likely that the build-ing was erected around 400 bce or even later thanalready in the 5th century bce, as commonly assumed.

125 For the ‘heroon’, which certainly did not serve as asweat bath, as often assumed (e.g. by hoffmann 1999,76-77, 162 cat. no 33), see Wacker 1996, 79-114, whointerprets this as a building for the cultic worship of ahero; cf. similarly sinn 2004, 244.

126 ‘leonideion’: leypold 2008, 104-110 cat. no 26 for theconstruction date (ca 330 bce) and function of the orig-inal building. Gymnasion: Wacker 1996, esp. 56 for asummary of building phases.

127 sinn, leypold, and schauer 2003, 621-623 fig. 9; sinn2005, 46 no 34: an unusually large, deep, and well-madewell was found about 8-9 m to the west of the pre-sumable service area with firing chamber of the bathsand may have served as water supply of the baths;when the well was given up, still during the period ofuse of the baths, a reservoir that was fed by lead pipeswas built immediately to the north of or even in the ser-vice area of the baths.

128 these include the ‘greek hypocaust baths’, built ca 40bce as a typical roman bath, according to the criteriaused here.

129 sinn (2002, 70-76, esp. 75) calls these baths ‘hgyiene -stationen’, which rightly emphasizes their functional-practical character, but possibly slightly underestimatestheir social and relaxing function (at least in the secondphase of the ‘Younger sitz-bath’ and the late hellenis -tic baths; see catalog). sinn (2002, 68) also points outthat some of the infrastructure buildings in Olympia,notably kapeleia (hostels, inns), were leased to privatepersons and yielded considerable revenues for thesanctuary. this practice may also have applied to bal-aneia, although evidence for this is missing here; butcf. supra n. 17 for halasarna and andania..

130 the ‘Older sitz-bath’ was remodeled at least once (inthe ca 100 years of its existence?), most likely to im -prove the installations for heating water; the ‘Youngersitz-bath’ was remodeled at least once (in the ca 120years of its existence?) to include a new modern relax-ing bathing form; the late hellenistic baths were re -modeled at least once (in the ca 150-200 years of theirexistence?), obviously also to improve the heating sys-tem; their use also overlapped with that of the firstroman bath (‘greek hypocaust baths’, built ca 40 bce).

131 For a brief history of nemea, see Miller 1992a: after afirst period of games from 573 to 410 bce, a period ofrevival occurred from ca 330 to ca 270 bce, and allmajor buildings in the sanctuary belong to this period,including the baths; for the baths, see Miller 1992b.

132 Miller et al. 1990, 96-104: this is suggested by finds,notably of a jumping weight in room 12 and strigilselsewhere.

133 in contrast to Olympia, which had a year-round thriv-ing sanctuary life, the sanctuary at nemea seems tohave been mostly deserted outside the games.

134 hephaistia/lemnos, Morgantina (south baths), Velia.135 cyrene, karnak, Piraeus, taposiris Magna. in an

intriguing article, redon (2009, 435-436) links the con-struction of a large greek public bath to the northwestof the first pylon of the temple of amun-re at karnaknot specifically with the sanctuary and its life andrequirements, but rather with the presence of aPtolemaic garrison at the famous temple-city. the bathwould not only have served for the convenience of thesoldiers, but also as a symbol of the new ruling society.built probably at the end of the 3rd or beginning of the2nd century bce, this bath building was systematicallydestroyed (probably as symbol of Ptolemaic oppressionand military life-style) during one of the many revoltsin the 2nd century bce. had the bath building been cen-tral to the functioning of the sanctuary, it would hardlyhave been destroyed, or would at least have beenrebuilt.

136 gortys, Messene.137 Olympia (all three greek baths), eleusis; cf. also the

karnaeiasion of andania, supra n. 17.138 nemea, and most likely also the baths in epidauros

(‘greek baths’) and Mount lykeion (lower sanctuary). epidauros: the unpublished ‘greek baths’ are locatedin the outer secondary area of the sanctuary, close to aguesthouse in the east (katagogeion) and a banquetbuilding in the north (‘gymnasium’). it obviously be -longed to the major development of the sanctuary inthe 4th and early 3rd century bce and included basinson high feet, similar to the ones found in nemea andin many loutra of gymnasia, as well as pools (of the ro -man period?) and cisterns. comprehensive assessmentof the history and bathing program of this buildingmust await full publication; Miller 1992b, 248-249 figs352-353; aslanides and Pinatse 1999. For inscriptionspossibly related to this bath building (balanaion), seesupra n. 16. While epidauros regularly housed gamesat festivals, it is questionable whether this bath build-ing was conceived only for athletes, or also for pilgrims(for example, those residing in the nearby guesthouse).For non-athletes, the bathing standard would have beenunduly ascetic, however, and remained so all throughthe use of the building well into the roman imperialperiod, because the bath building clearly lacked anyheating devices.Mount lykaion: the lower sanctuary that accommo-dated games at least from the 4th century bce onwardsoffered a similar repertoire of buildings as the sanctu-ary in nemea, notably a stoa, xenon, fountain houses,hippodrome, stadion, and baths; see blouet 1833, pls 33-34; romano 2005, 381-396. the baths, which are onlyknown from some illustrations in blouet (1833, pls 33-34) and brief descriptions (see romano 2005, 388-389),occupied a surface of ca 20.00 x at least 22.70 m (cf.nemea baths: 20.00 x 36.65 m) and included stonebasins on high feet as in nemea and epidauros and alarge cistern that was probably an immersion pool.

139 nine of 75 baths, located in/close to seven sanctuaries.140 4th/early 3rd centuries bce: Olympia (‘Older’ and ‘Young -

er sitz-bath’); nemea and most likely also epidaurosand Mount lykeion. not safely dated: eleusis. 2nd cen-tury bce: gortys, Messene, Olympia (late hellenisticbaths).

141 gortys, Olympia (late hellenistic baths); probably alsoin the karneiasion of andania, cf. supra n. 17.

142 epidauros, gortys, and Messene. riethmüller 2005,1:361: of the 141 sanctuaries, 71 can be safely located.

71

Melfi (2007, 12) includes only ten sanctuaries in greecein her study ‘per i quali esistesse una qualche docu-mentazione archeologica che ne consentisse un’inter-pretazione ed una collocazione topografica sicura.’

143 riethmüller 2005, 2:164: ‘Quellhaus für kultische reini -gungen ... und ... badegebäude ..., zwei elemente, diein keinem asklepieion fehlen.’ Melfi (2007, 502-3)assigns bath buildings as common additions to a phaseof expansion in the development of asklepieia, datedafter the early 3rd century bce.

144 to what extent the quality of water - real (mineral orhot springs) or imagined (sacred springs) - influencedthe healing quality of bathing facilities, is much debated(also for roman baths) and cannot be discussed here;in any case, mineral and hot springs seem to have beenonly systematically exploited with/for built bathingfacilities in the roman imperial period. riethmüller2005, 1:378-380; for roman baths: scheid 1991; guérin-beauvois and Martin 2007.

145 this is emphasized by ginouvès 1994 and riethmüller2005. For example, the asklepieion at Messene includeda sacred fountain house (oikos h) within the confines ofthe temenos (see supra n. 121), and in the asklepieia ofepidauros and corinth, the required purification beforethe central ritual of incubation could be performed inimmediate vicinity of the incubation hall; see riethmül -ler 2005, 1:170-174, 285 (hieron loutron in epidauros);2:59 (‘lustralbad’ in corinth), cf. also levine 2008.

146 For use of water in greek sanctuaries in general, seecole 1988. For a comprehensive assessment of ritualwashing and bathing, see ginouvès 1962, 231-428. seealso the contributions in ginouvès et al. 1994.For the iamata of epidauros, see herzog 1931: pp. 11-13, no 7: a man should wash his face at a well to heala mark; pp. 23-25, no 37: a lame man was in his dreamled to a pond with icy cold water that was located out-side the sanctuary, when he woke up he took such abath and was healed; p. 29 no 53: asklepios ordered awounded man, after some treatment with cow’s milkand ointment, to bathe in cold water, which the mandid in a river; p. 33 no 65: a blind man lost his lekythosin a balaneion (see supra n. 16); in this case, the balaneionis obviously only the dramatically staged cause of aproblem, but not at all central to its solution or the heal-ing process. Only an inscription from after 117 ce (IG42,1 126) mentions that Marcus iulius apellas frequenteda balaneion with warm water during a lengthy healingprocess in the asklepieion of epidauros; bathing wasonly a small part of the multi-faceted therapy, however,which included a special light diet, exercise, use of spe-cific ointments, herbs, etc.; see herzog 1931, 43-45 W79. For aelius aristeides, see boudon 1994.

147 Flemming in this volume. the much debated nature of‘temple medicine’ and the difference between ‘Wunder -heilungen’ (miraculous healings) and scientific medi-cine cannot be discussed here, see riethmüller 2005,1:388-392; potential hydrotherapies would, however,have belonged to scientific medical treatments that, atbest, followed the central healing ritual of incubationin sanctuaries of asklepios.

148 inschriften von Priene 112, lines 63-66, 84-91; 113 lines73-78. For a translation of these lines and intensive dis-cussion of these inscriptions i am much indebted todaniel kah. the precise date of the decrees in the 1st

century bce is debated. Loutron could refer here not toa separate bathing facility in a gymnasion, but to theprocedure of bathing, of taking a bath; in this case,

Zosimos may have donated free entrance to a balaneionas well as oil and ointment for a visit to the balaneion.For a more detailed discussion, see trümper 2012b, n.92-95.

149 in settlements without a city wall, a position at the edgeof the settlement and at a major highway is quite sim-ilar to a location at the city gate (position inside or out-side the city gates notwithstanding).

150 in delos, about a quarter of the ancient city (ca 22-24 ofca 95 ha) has been excavated, yielding only a small,probably semi-public bath (in a former house) and oth-erwise bathing facilities in buildings with access restric-tions (sports facilities, ‘agora of the italians’, club houses);see trümper 2008, 225-258; 2012b, n. 102-107. accordingto hoepfner and schwandner (1986, 141, 144), only 40%of Priene’s surface area (15 of 37 ha) could be built;about a third of the usable surface (ca 5 ha) has beenexcavated, yielding only a small public or semi-publicbath with a round sweat bath that was inserted laterinto a house, and bathing facilities in the lower gymna-sion; see supra n. 5; trümper 2012b, n. 89-96 (also for acorrelation of archaeological evidence and the honorarydecrees for aulus aemilius Zosimos).

151 For example, ancient euhemeria with a surface area ofabout 25.85 ha, and ancient theadelphia with a surfacearea of about 32.50 ha, each provided two large baths;see römer in this volume. Ptolemaic and roman butocovered a surface area of at least 100 ha, which, so far,yielded four baths; see catalog. krokodilopolis with atotal surface area of probably about 288 ha providedevidence of at least four large baths that are located inan area of about 50 ha surface; see trümper 2012b, n.97-99; catalog.

152 this was obviously the case in 4th/3rd centuries bcekerkouane, but hardly in hellenistic Priene and delos,and probably also not in other cities; see supra n. 24-25; trümper 2010; 2012b, n. 88-110. Other ‘semi-public’or ‘semi-private’ bathing facilities may have compen-sated for the absence of public baths, but evidence ofsuch facilities is scanty and mainly provided by latehellenistic delos; see supra n. 150.

153 trümper 2009. 154 if baths were leased, thus yielding revenue for the

sacred treasury; see supra n. 17, 129.

72

abd el-Fattah, a./M. seif el-din, with the collaboration ofM. el-amouri, t. Fournet/b. redon, 2009, les bains de‘ezbet Fatḥ allāh (Maréotide). rapport préliminaire –novembre 2007, in M.-F. boussac/t. Fournet/b. redon(eds), Le bain collectif en Égypte (études urbaines 7),cairo, 263-274.

abd el-Maksoud, M. 2007, les bains d’époque ptolé-maïque, in d. Valbelle (ed.) Tell el-Herr. Les niveaux hel-lénistiques et du Haut-Empire, Paris, 104-115.

abd el-rafa Fadl, M./W. ibrahim/g. lecuyot/b. redonforthcoming, a new Ptolemaic bath in buto/tell el-Fara’in – a Preliminary report, in b. redon (ed.),Actualité de la recherche sur les bains en Égypte: découvertesarchéologiques récentes, cairo.

acerbi, F. 2010, Il silenzio delle sirene: la matematica grecaantica, Padua.

adam, P. 1984, La construction romaine. Matériaux et tech-niques, Paris.

adam-Veleni, P. 1989 (1992), Ελληνιστικ? στ`ιiεOα απ`ανασκαWMς στη Θεσσαλ`νOκη, T+ Αρ4αιαλ+γικ 'Εργ+στη Μακεδ+να και Θρκη 3, 227-236.

adam-Veleni, P. 1997 (1999), ΒαλανεO` πρ`γενMστερ` τηςαγ`ρ?ς Θεσαλ`νOκης‚ T+ Αρ4αι+λ+γικ Eργ+ στηΜακεδ+να και Θρκη 11, 351-364.

adam-Veleni, P. 2001a, Η δεκ?iρ`νη π`ρεOα εργασιbνστην αρiαOα αγ`ρ? Θεσσαλ`νOκης, 1989-1999, in P.adam-Veleni (ed.), Αρ4αα αγ+ρ Θεσαλ+νκης 1.Πρακτικ διηµερδας για τις εργασες των ετ-ν 1989-1999, 15-38. thessaloniki.

adam-Veleni, P. 2001b, Θεσσαλ+νκη νραιδα‚ ασιλσσα‚γργ+να: αρ4αι+λ+γικ περιδιαση απ την πρ+ϊ-στ+ρα εως την στερη αρ4αιτητα, thessaloniki.

adam-Veleni, P. 2003, thessaloniki: history and townPlanning, in d.V. grammenos (ed.), Roman Thessaloniki,thessaloniki, 121-176.

adam-Veleni, P. 2009, ΣκυW`ειδMς αγγεO` µε WαλλPσiηµηπρ`i`N‚ in n. stambolides/g. tasoulas (eds) Ερως:απ τη Θε+γ+να τ+υ Ησιδ+υ στην στερη αρ4αιτη -τα‚ 279 no 262, athens.

adam-Veleni, P. 2010, Théâtre et spectacle en Macédoineantique, thessaloniki.

adam-Veleni, P. 2011, thessaloniki, in r. lane Fox (ed.),Brill's Companion to Ancient Macedon, Studies in theArchaeology and History of Macedon, 650 BC - 300 AD,leiden/boston, 545-562.

adam-Veleni, P./P. georgaki/e. Zografou/V. kalavria/k.boli/g. skiadaresis 1996 (1997), ΑρiαOα αγ`ρ? Θεσσα -λ`νOκης. Η στρωµατ`γραWOα και τα κινητ? ευρNµατα,Τ+ Αρ4αι+λ+γικ Εργ+ στη Μακεδ+να και Θρκη 10,501-531.

adam-Veleni, P./e. Zografou/V. kalavria/k. Mavro -michali/a. boli. 1998 (2000), ΑρiαOα αγ`ρ? Θεσ-σαλ`νOκης. Η `ικ`σκευN τ`υ SαλανεO`υ‚ Τ+ Αρ4αι+ -λ+γικ Εργ+ στη Μακεδ+να και Θρκη 12, 85-102.

adam-Veleni, P./P. georgaki/V. kalavria/a. boli 2000,Κλειστ? σQν`λα ελληνιστικbν iρPνων απP την αγ`ρ?της Θεσσαλ`νOκης‚ in Ε Επιστηµ+νικ Συνντηση γιατην Ελληνιστικ Κεραµικ. ρ+ν+λ+γικ πρ+λµατα‚κλειστ σν+λα‚ εργαστµα. Πρακτικ, 275-297,athens.

adam-Veleni, P./e. Marki. 2004, Ιστ+ρα της επι4ειρηµα-τικτητας στη Θεσσαλ+νκη Vol. 1. thessaloniki.

adam-Veleni, P./k. Mavromichali 2010. symposium andluxury in the balneum of thessaloniki, in P. adam-Veleni (ed.) Γυλιν+ς κσµ+ς/Glass cosmos, thessaloniki.

adam-Veleni, P./e. Zografou/d. kalliga. 2005 (2007).Μ`υσει`λ`γικN‚ µ`υσει`γραWικN µελMτη MκθεσηςαρiαOας αγ`ρ?ς Θεσσαλ`νOκης‚ Τ+ Αρ4αι+λ+γικ Εργ+στη Μακεδ+να και Θρκη 19, 97-108.

adriani, a. 1940, Annuaire du Musée gréco-romain (1935-1939), alexandria.

alarcão, J./r. étienne 1977, Fouilles de Conimbriga, Vol. i,L’architecture, Paris.

allen, h.l. 1974, excavations at Morgantina (serra Orlan -do), 1970-1972: Preliminary report Xi, AJA 78.4, 361-383.

ampolo, c. 2001, Da un’antica città di Sicilia. I decreti diEntella e Nakone, Pisa.

andreiomenou, a. 1966. ΑθNναι 18. BδPς Π`υλ`π`Qλ`υ‚ArchDelt 21, 73-74.

andreou, e. 1976 (1984). Αρτα‚ ArchDelt 31, 199-201.andreou, e. 1983, Αρτα‚ Epirotika Chronika 2, 9-23.andreou, e. 1993, ambracie. une ville ancienne se recon-

stitue peu à peu par les recherches, in P. cabanes (ed.)L’Illyrie méridionale et l’Épire dans l’antiquité, 2. Actes duIIe Colloque international de Clermont-Ferrand, 25 - 27 octo-bre 1990, Paris, 91-101.

antonaras, a. 2009, Roman and Early Christian Glassworking,athens.

anzalone, r.M. 2009, gestione delle risorse idriche e de -positi di consacrazione di cisterne. il caso di himera,Workshop di archeologia classica. Paesaggi, costruzioni,reperti 6, 9-51.

arenz, a. 2006, Herakleides Kritikos “Über die Städte in Hellas”:eine Periegese Griechenlands am Vorabend des Chremonide -ischen Krieges, Munich.

ashmawy ali, a. 2006, tell gemaiyemi “gomaimah”.More than 100 Years after griffith’s excavation, in e.Čzerny et al., Timelines. Studies in Honour of ManfredBieta, (Vol. 1, Orientalia lovaniensia analecta 149/1),leuven, 55-64.

ashmawy ali, a. 2009, the Public bath of tell gomaimahand other graeco-roman baths from the eastern delta,in M.-F. boussac/t. Fournet/b. redon (eds), Le bain col-lectif en Égypte (études urbaines 7), cairo, 203-208.

aslanides k./chr. Pinatse. 1999, Tα Ελληνικ? λ`υτρ?‚ inV.k. lambrinoudakis (ed.), Τ+ Ασκληπιε+ της Επιδα -ρ+υ, Marousi, 51-52.

assimakopoulou-atzaka, P. 1998, Σνταγµα των παλαι+ -4ριστιανικ-ν ψη#ιδωτ-ν δαπδων της Ελλλδ+ς iii.Μακεδ+να-Θρκη i. Τα ψη#ιδωτ δπεδα τς Θεσ-σσαλ+νκης‚ thessaloniki.

auberson P./k. schefold 1972, Führer durch Eretria, bern.aupert, P. 1996, Guide d’Amathonte, athens.bagnall r./d. rathbone 2004, Egypt from Alexander to the

Early Christians: an Archaeological and Historical Guide,los angeles.

bagnall, r./P. derow 2004, The Hellenistic Period. HistoricalSources in Translation, Oxford2.

bailey, d.M. 1975, A Catalogue of the Lamps in the BritishMuseum 1. Greek, Hellenistic, and Early Roman PotteryLamps, london.

baldassarre, i. 1994, la decorazione pavimentale. le tipo -logie più antiche e l’introduzione del tessellato, in r.Farioli campanati (ed), Atti del I colloquio dell’associ-

335

bibliography

azione italiana per lo studio e la conservazione del mosaico,29 Aprile-3 Maggio 1993, ravenna, 435-450.

barbieri, g./h. broise/V. Jolivet. 1985, Musarna i. i bagnitardo repubblicani, BdA 29, 29-38.

barra bagnasco, M. 1977a, Ricerche nella zona di Centocamere(locri epizefiri i), Florence.

barra bagnasco, M. 1977b, Problemi di urbanistica locrese,in Locri Epizefirii. Atti del sedicesimo convegno di studisulla Magna Grecia, Taranto 1976, naples, 375-408.

barra bagnasco, M. 1999, strutture esterne alle mura dilocri epizefiri e il problema del porto, in M. barrabagnasco/M.c. conti (eds), Studi di Archeologia Classicadedicati a Giorgio Gullini per i quarant’anni di insegna-mento, alessandria, 1-18.

battaglini, g. 2009, le terme pubbliche di Fregellae: formee funzione degli spazi, in r. Padovano (ed.), Sorgenti eterme della Valle del Sacco, Padua, 345-363.

battaglini, g./g. batocchioni/l. romagnoli 2005, la colo-nia latina di Fregellae. lo scavo e il parco archeologico,in F. Morandini/F. rossi (eds) Domus romane. Dalloscavo alla valorizzazione. Atti del convegno di studi, Milan,275-284.

bell, M. iii 1981, Morgantina Studies i. The TerracottasPrinceton.

bell, M. iii 1999, centro e periferia nel regno siracusano diierone ii, in La colonisation grecque en Méditerranée occi-dentale. Actes de la rencontre scientifique en hommage àGeorges Vallet organisée par le Centre Jean Bérard, l’Écolefrançaise de Rome, l’Istituto Universitario Orientale etl’Università degli Studi di Napoli “Federico II”: Rome-Naples, 15–18 novembre 1995, rome, 255-277.

bell, M. iii 2011, Osservazioni sui mosaici greci della casadi ganimede a Morgantina, in g.F. la torre/M. torelli(eds), Pittura ellenistica in Italia e in Sicilia, linguaggi etradizioni, rome, 105-123.

benedum, J. 1967, die ‘balnea pensilia’ des asklepiadesvon Prusa, Gesnerus 24, 93-107.

bérard, c. 1986. l’impossible femme athlète, AnnArchStorAnt 8, 195-202.

bergmann, M./M. heinzelmann 2009, the bath at schedia,in M.-F. boussac/t. Fournet/b. redon (eds), Le bain col-lectif en Égypte (études urbaines 7), cairo, 87-100.

bernabò brea, l./M. cavalier 2000, Meligunìs Lipára 10.Scoperte e scavi archeologici nell’area urbana e suburbana diLipari, rome.

beschi, l. (ed.) 2001, Della Seta oggi, da Lemno a Casteggio, attidella giornata di studi, Casteggio 21 maggio 1999, Milan.

billows, r. 2003, cities, in a. erskine (ed.), A Companion tothe Hellenistic World, Oxford, 196-215.

birge, d.e. 1992, the sacred square, in d.e. birge/l.h.kraynak/s.g. Miller (eds), Topographical and ArchitecturalStudies: The Sacred Square, The Xenon, and The Bath (ex -cavations at nemea i), berkeley, 1-98.

bittel, k. 1959, acht badehäuser, in g. roeder, Hermopolis1929-1939: Ausgrabungen der deutschen Hermopolis-Expe -dition in Hermopolis, Ober-Ägypten (Pelizaeus-Museumzu hildesheim 4), hildesheim, 129-132.

blouet, a. 1833, Expédition scientifique de Morée ii, Paris.boraik, M. 2009, Ptolemaic baths in front of the temple of

karnak. a brief Preliminary report – november 2007,in M.-F. boussac/t. Fournet/b. redon (eds), Le bain col-lectif en Égypte (études urbaines 7), cairo, 73-86.

boraik, M./s. el-Masekh/a.-M. guimier-sorbets/b.redon forthcoming, Ptolemaic baths in front of thekarnak temples. recent discoveries (season 2009-2010), Cahiers de Karnak 14.

boraik, M./t. Faucher 2010, le trésor des bains de karnak,

Cahiers de Karnak 13, 79-100.bothmer, d. von et al. 1983, Wealth of the Ancient World. The

Nelson Bunker Hunt and William Herbert Hunt Collections,Fort Worth.

bouchaud, c. forthcoming, gestion et utilisation des com-bustibles végétaux dans les structures thermales: unequestion de choix? approche carpologique et anthra-cologique, in M.-F. boussac/s. denoix/t. Fournet/b.redon (eds), Balaneia, thermes et hammams: 25 siècles debain collectif (Proche-Orient, Égypte, péninsule Arabique),cairo.

boudon, V. 1994, le rôle de l’eau dans les prescriptionsmédicales d’asclépios chez galien et aelius aristide,in r. ginouvès/a.-M. guimier-sorbets/J. Jouanna/F.Villard (eds), L’eau, la santé et la maladie dans le mondegrec: actes du colloque organisé à Paris (CNRS et FondationSinger-Polignac) du 25 au 27 novembre 1992 par le Centrede recherche « Archéologie et systèmes d’information » et parl’URA 1255 « Médecine grecque » (bch suppl. 28),athens, 157-168.

bouet, a. 2000, les modèles thermaux et leur diffusion engaule, in c. Fernández Ochoa/V. garcía entero (eds),Termas romanas en el Occidente del Imperio, ii Coloquiointernacional de Arqueología en Gijón, Gijón 1999, gijón35-46.

boussac, M.-F. 2001, deux villes en Maréotide: taposirisMagna et Plinthine, Bulletin de la société française d’égyp-tologie 150, 42-72.

boussac, M.-F. 2009, recherches récentes à taposirisMagna et Plinthine, égypte (1998-2006), CRAI, 445-479.

boussac, M.-F./t. Fournet/b. redon (eds) 2009. Le bain col-lectif en Égypte (études urbaines 7), cairo.

boussac, M.-F./s. denoix/t. Fournet/b. redon (eds) forth-coming, Balaneia, thermes et hammams: 25 siècles de baincollectif (Proche-Orient, Égypte, péninsule Arabique), cairo.

bragantini, i. 1991, Ricerche archeologiche a Napoli. Lo scavodi Palazzo Corigliano 1, naples.

breccia, e. 1914, Alexandria ad Aegyptum: guide de la villeancienne et moderne et du Musée gréco-romain, bergamo.

breccia, e. 1923, di alcuni bagni nei dintorni d’alessandria,Bulletin de la Société archéologique d’Alexandrie 19, 141-151.

breccia, e. 1926, Monuments de l’Égypte gréco-romaine 1,bergamo.

broise, h. 1994, la pratique du bain chaud par immersionen sicile et dans la péninsule italique à l’époque hel-lénistique, Xenia 3, 17-32.

broise, h. 2009, entre continuité et rupture. l’introductiondes pratiques balnéaires grecques et romaines enégypte, in M.-F. boussac/t. Fournet/b. redon (eds), Lebain collectif en Égypte (études urbaines 7), cairo, 9-15.

broise, h./V. Jolivet 1991, le bain en étrurie à l’époquehellénistique, in Les thermes romains. Actes de la tableronde, Rome 11-12 novembre 1988, 79-95 (céFr 142),rome.

broise, h./X. lafon 2001, La villa Prato de Sperlonga (céFr285), rome.

broise, h./V. Jolivet 2004, Musarna 2. Les bains hellénistiques(céFr 344), rome.

burford, a. 1969, The Greek Temple Builders at Epidauros,liverpool.

bürge, M. 2001, das laconicum – eine neubetrachtungnach dem Fund auf dem Monte iato, in s. buzzi et al.(eds), Zona Archeologica. Festschrift für Hans Peter Islerzum 60. Geburtstag, bonn 57-65.

busch, s. 1999. Versus balnearum: die antike Dichtung überBäder und Baden im römischen Reich, stuttgart/leipzig.

byl, s. 1995, l’aire géographique des médecins hippocra-

336

tiques, in P. van der eijk/h.F.J. horstmanshoff/P.h.schrijvers (eds), Ancient Medicine in its Socio-CulturalContext: Papers Read at the Congress held at LeidenUniversity, 13-15 April 1992 1, amsterdam, 225-235.

camilli, a. 1999, Ampullae. Balsamari ceramici di età ellenis-tica e romana, rome.

campagna, l. 2004, architettura e ideologia della basileiaa siracusa nell’età di ierone ii, in M. caccamo calta -biano et al. (eds), Nuove prospettive della ricerca sullaSicilia del III sec. a.C., Messina, 151-191.

carafa, P. 1998, Veio: la villa di campetti e la citta romana,in l. drago troccoli (ed.), Scavi e ricerche archeologichedell’Università di Roma, rome, 148-150.

carandini, a. et al. 1997, la villa dell’auditorium dall’etàarcaica all’età imperiale, RM 104, 117-148.

carey, c. 2007, Lysiae orationes cum fragmentis, Oxford.carrington, r.c. 1931, studies in the campanian ‘Villae

rusticae’, JRS 2, 110-130.castner, c. 1985/1986, difficulties in identifying roman

epicureans: Orata in cicero de fin. 2.22.70, CJ 81, 138-147.celsus 1935, De medicina. translated by W.c. spencer, Vol.

i-iii, cambridge, Ma.chamonard, J. 1922/1924, Le Quartier du théâtre. Étude sur

l’habitation délienne à l’époque hellénistique (explorationarchéologique de délos Viii), Paris.

chamoux, Fr. 1954, Cyrène sous la monarchie des Battiades(béFar 177), Paris.

chang, h.-h. 2005, the cities of the hippocratic doctors,in P. van der eijk (ed.), Hippocrates in Context: Papersread at the XIth International Hippocrates Colloquium,University of Newcastle upon Tyne, 27-31 August 2002(studies in ancient Medicine 31), leiden, 157-171.

chankowski, V. 2008, Athènes et Délos à l’époque classique.Recherches sur l’administration du sanctuaire d’Apollondélien (béFar 331), athens.

charami, a. 1996 (2001), ∆Nλεσι, ArchDelt 51, 279-284.charlesworth, d. 1970, the tell el-Farâ’în excavation, 1969,

JEA 56, 19-28.cicala, l. 2003a, aspetti della cultura abitativa di elea:

Velia in età ellenistica, in e. greco (ed.), Elea-Velia. Lenuove ricerche, Pozzuoli, 101-119.

cicala, l. 2003b, i rinvenimenti degli scavi sestieri nellacd. agorà. Forme di tesaurizzazione a Velia in età impe-riale, in e. greco (ed.), Elea-Velia. Le nuove ricerche,Pozzuoli, 217-236.

cicala, l./l. Vecchio 1999, le indagini stratigrafiche nell’a -rea della cd. agorà di Velia, in F. krinzinger/g. tocco(eds), Neue Forschungen in Velia. Akten des Kongresses “Laricerca archeologica a Velia”, Rom 1. - 2. Juli 1993(denkschrWien 268), Vienna, 67-72.

cifarelli, F.M. 2009, i siti delle antiche terme, in r. Pado -vano (ed.), Sorgenti e terme della Valle del Sacco, Padua,251-275.

clark, r.J. 1999, Peter of eboli and the roman baths atPuteoli, in J. delaine/d.e. Johnston (eds), Roman Bathsand Bathing. Proceedings of the First International Conferenceon Roman Baths held at Bath, England, 30 March – 4 April1992 (Jra suppl. 37), Portsmouth, ri, 247-251.

clarysse, W./d. thompson 2006, Counting the People inHellenistic Egypt, cambridge.

coarelli, F. 1981, Fregellae. La storia e gli scavi, rome.coarelli, F. 2004, le terme di Fregellae, in g. ghini (ed.),

Lazio e Sabina, 2. Secondo incontro di studi sul Lazio e laSabina. Atti del convegno, Roma 7-8 maggio 2003, rome,73-76.

coarelli, F/P.g. Monti 1998, Fregellae i. Le fonti, la storia, ilterritorio, rome.

cole, s.g. 1988, the uses of Water in greek sanctuaries,in r. hägg/n. Mari natos/g.c. nordquist (eds), EarlyGreek Cult Practice. Proceedings of the Fifth InternationalSymposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 26-29 June1986, stockholm, 161-165.

conche, F. 2001, les fouilles du 9 rue Jean-François leca,in M. bouiron/h. tréziny (eds), Marseille. Trames etpaysages urbains de Gyptis au roi René. Actes du colloqueinternational d’archéologie, Marseille 3 - 5 novembre 1999(études massaliètes 7), aix-en-Provence, 131-136.

costamagna, l./c. sabbione 1990, Una città in MagnaGrecia. Locri Epizefiri, reggio calabria.

costamagna, l./P. Visonà 1999, Oppido Mamertina, Calabria,Italia. Ricerche archeologiche nel territorio e in contrada Mella,rome.

craik, e. 1998, Hippocrates: Places in Man, Oxford.crova, b. 1956, le terme romane nella campania, AttiCStR

20, 271-288.cultrera, g. 1938, siracusa – rovine di un antico stabili-

mento idraulico in contrada Zappalà, NSc 6, 14, 261-301.

cuomo, s. 2000, Pappus of Alexandria and the Mathematicsof Late Antiquity, cambridge.

cuomo, s. 2007, Technology and Culture in Greek and RomanAntiquity, cambridge.

curtius, e./J.a. kaupert 1878, Atlas von Athen, berlin.dalcher, k. 1994, Das Peristylhaus 1 von Iaitas: Architektur

und Baugeschichte (studia ietina Vi), Zurich.d’arms, J.h. 1970, Romans on the Bay of Naples, cambridge,

Ma.daśzewski, W.a. 1985, Corpus of Mosaics from Egypt i. Hel -

lenistic and Early Roman Period, Mainz.daśzewski, W.a. 1995, témoignage de l’urbanisation de la

côte méditerranéenne de l’égypte à l’époque hellénisti -que et romaine à la lumière des fouilles de Marina el-alamein, Bulletin de la société française d’égyptologie 132,11-29.

daśzewski, W.a. 2001, Marina el-alamein, Polish Archaeologyin the Mediterranean 13, 73-86.

davoli, P. 1998, L’archeologia urbana nel Fayyum di età ellenis-tica e romana, naples.

davoli, P./M.a. nahla 2006, On some Monuments fromkiman Fares (Medinet el-Fayyum), Studi di Egittologiae di Papirologia 3, 81-109.

de haan, n. 1997, Nam nihil melius esse quam sine turbalavari: Privatbäder in den Vesuvstädten, Mededelingenvan het Nederlands instituut te Rome 56, 205-206.

de haan, n. 2005, Sic calet tamquam furnus. Fornaci eipocausti, in s.t.a.M. Mols/e.M. Moormann (eds),Omni pede stare. Saggi architettonici e circumvesuviani inmemoriam Jos de Waele. Studi della Soprintendenza archeo-logica di Pompei 9, naples, 141-146.

de haan, n. 2010a, domestic Private luxury and PublicPrestige: roman Private baths, in O. hekster/s.t.a.M.Mols (eds), Cultural Messages in the Graeco-Roman World:Acta of the BABesch 80th Anniversary Workshop RadboudUniversity Nijmegen, September 8th 2006, (babeschsuppl. 15), leuven, 67-78.

de haan, n. 2010b, Römische Privatbäder. Entwicklung, Ver -breitung und sozialer Status, Frankfurt a.M.

de rossi, g.M. 1979, Bovillae, Forma Italiae i, 15, Florence.delaine, J. 1988, recent research on roman baths, JRA 1,

11-32.delaine, J. 1989, some Observations on the transition

from greek to roman baths in hellenistic italy, Medit -Arch 2, 111-125.

delaine, J. 1993, roman baths and bathing, JRS 6, 348-358.

337

delaine, J. 1997, The Baths of Caracalla: A Study in the De -sign, Construction, and Economics of Large-scale BuildingProjects in Imperial Rome (Jra suppl. 25), Portsmouth, ri.

delaine, J. 1999, benefactions and urban renewal: bathbuildings in roman italy, in J. delaine/d.e. Johnston(eds), Roman Baths and Bathing. Proceedings of the FirstInternational Conference on Roman Baths held at Bath,England, 30. March – 4. April 1992 (Jra suppl. 37),Portsmouth, ri, 67-74.

delaine, J./d.e. Johnston (eds) 1999, Roman Baths andBathing. Proceedings of the First International Conferenceon Roman Baths held at Bath, England, 30. March – 4. April1992 (Jra suppl. 37), Portsmouth, ri.

della corte, M. 1921, la ‘Villa rustica n. Popidi Flori’, inPisanella, boscoreale, NSc 14, 442-460.

della seta, a. 1927-9, scuola archeologica italiana in atene.atti della scuola, ASAtene 10-12, 711-713.

delorme, J. 1949, étude architecturale sur Vitruve, V.11.2,BCH 73, 398-420.

delorme, J. 1960, Gymnasion. Étude sur les monuments con-sacrés à l’éducation en Grèce (des origines à l’empire romain)(béFar 196), Paris.

deshours, n. 2006, Les mystères d’Andania : étude d’épigra-phie et d’histoire religieuse (scripta antiqua/ausonius 16),bordeaux.

dhennin, s. 2008, an egyptian animal necropolis in agreek town, Egyptian Archaeology 33, 12-14.

di capua, F. 1940a, appunti su l’origine e sviluppo delleterme romane, RendNap 20, 81-160.

di capua, F. 1940b, L’idroterapia ai tempi dell’Impero Romano(Quaderni dell’impero 10-11), rome.

di nicuolo, c. forthcoming, the bath complex of theserangeion in Piraeus. new Perspectives of research,in M.-F. boussac/s. denoix/t. Fournet/b. redon (eds),Balaneia, thermes et hammams: 25 siècles de bain collectif(Proche-Orient, Égypte, péninsule Arabique), cairo.

di Vita, a. 1996-1997 (2000), lemnos, ASAtene 74-75, 469-478.dickmann, J.-a. 2005, Pompeji, Munich.dijksterhuis, e.J. 1956, Archimedes, copenhagen.donaldson, M.k. 1965, a Pebble Mosaic in Peiraeus,

Hesperia 34, 77-88.donati, J.c. 2010, Marks of state Ownership and the greek

agora at corinth, AJA 114.1, 3-26.dragatsis, i. 1925/1926, Τ ν Πειραιε Σηρ?γγι`ν, Arch -

Eph, 1-8.ducrey, P. 2004, Eretria. A Guide to the Ancient City, gollion.dunbabin, k.M.d. 1989, baiarum grata Voluptas: Pleasures

and dangers of the baths, PBSR 57: 6-46.durand, J.-l./F. lissarrague 1980, un lieu d’image?

l’espace du loutérion, Hephaistos 2, 89-106.dyson, l.s. 1976. Cosa. The Utilitarian Pottery (Maar 33),

rome.école française de rome 1991, Les thermes romains. Actes de

la table ronde organisée par l’École française d’Athènes(céFr 142), rome.

edelstein, l. 1967, the dietetics of antiquity, in O. temkin/c.l. temkin (eds), Ancient Medicine. Selected Papers ofLudwig Edelstein, baltimore, 303-316.

edelstein, l. 1972a, galen, OCD, 454.edelstein, l. 1972b, hippocrates, OCD, 518-519.eickstedt, k.-V. von 1991, Beiträge zur Topographie des anti -

ken Piräus, athens.eickstedt, k.-V. von 2001, Das Asklepieion im Piräus, athens.eijk, P. van der 2000, Diocles of Carystus: a Collection of the

Fragments with Translation and Commentary 1 (studies inancient medicine 22), leiden.

eijk, P. van der 2001, Diocles of Carystus: a Collection of the

Fragments with Translation and Commentary 2 (studies inancient medicine 23), leiden.

eleftheratou, s. 2006, Τ+ Μ+υσε+ και η Ανασκα#. Ευρ -µατα απ τ+ν 4-ρ+ ανεγρσης τ+υ N+υ Μ+υσε+υ τηςΑκρπ+λης, athens.

el-khachab, a.e.-M. 1949, Ptolemaic and Roman Baths of Komel-Ahmar (asae suppl. 10), cairo.

el-khachab, a.e.-M. 1956, les hammams de kôm trougah,ASAE 54, 117-140.

el-khachab, a.e.-M. 1978, Ta Sarapeia à Sakha et au Fayoumou les bains thérapeutiques (asae suppl. 25(, cairo.

enciclopedia dell’arte antica, classica e orientale. 1985,Atlante delle forme ceramiche ii. Ceramica fine romana nelbacino mediterraneo (tardo ellenismo e primo impero), rome.

eschebach, h. 1973, “laconicum et destrictarium faciund...locarunt”. untersuchungen in den stabianer thermenzu Pompeji, RM 80: 235-242.

eschebach, h. 1979, Die Stabianer Thermen in Pompeji(denkmäler antiker architektur 13), berlin.

eschebach, l. 1991, die Forumsthermen in Pompeji, regioVii, insula 5, AntW 22, 257-287.

Fabbricotti, e. 1976, i bagni nelle prime ville romane, Cron -Pomp 2, 29-111.

Fachard, s. 2004, l’enceinte urbaine d’erétrie. un état dela question, AntK 47, 91-108.

Fagan, g.g. 1996, sergius Orata: inventor of the hypo -caust?, Phoenix 50, 56-66.

Fagan, g.g. 1999, Bathing in Public in the Roman World, annarbor, Mi.

Fagan, g.g. 2001, the genesis of the roman Public bath:recent approaches and Future directions, AJA 105.3,403-426.

Fagan, g.g. 2006, bathing for health with celsus andPliny the elder, CQ 56, 190-207.

Fantar, M. 1985, Kerkouane, cité punique du Cap Bon (Tunisie)2. Architecture domestique, tunis.

Farrington, a. 1987, imperial bath buildings in south-Westasia Minor, in s. Macready/F.h. thompson (eds), RomanArchitecture in the Greek World (Occasional Papers, newseries 10), london, 50-59.

Fentress, e. 2001, Villas, Wine and kilns: the landscape ofJerba in the late hellenistic Period, JRA 14, 249-268.

Fentress, e. 2003, stately homes: recent Work on Villas initaly, JRA 16, 545-556.

Fentress, e. forthcoming, strangers in the city, in J. Prag/J.Quinn (eds), The Hellenistic West, Oxford.

Fernández Miranda, M. 1977, Arqueología submarina enMenorca, Madrid.

Fernández Ochoa, c./V. garcía entero (eds) 2000, Termasromanas en el Occidente del Imperio, II Coloquio interna-cional de Arqueología en Gijón, Gijón 1999, gijón.

Ferrari, g. 2002, Figures of Speech. Men and Maidens inAncient Greece, chicago.

Ferrari, g. 2003, Myth and genre on athenian Vases,ClAnt 22, 37-54.

Ferreruela, a./J.a. Mínguez 2002, la cabañeta (el burgode ebro, Zaragoza), in J.l. Jiménez salvador/a. riberalacomba (eds), Valencia y las primeras ciudades romanasde Hispania, Valencia, 205-214.

Ferreruela, a./J.a. Mínguez 2003, dos modelos de im -plantación urbana romanorrepublicana en el valle mediodel ebro: las ciudades de la cabañeta y la corona,ArchEspArq 76, 247-262.

Ficuciello, l. 2004, Lemno, studio di topografia storica diun’isola del nord-egeo. Dall’età sub-geometrica alla roman-izzazione (unpublished Ph.d. diss., università deglistudi di napoli l’Orientale).

338

Finley, M.i. 1985, Studies in Land and Credit in AncientAthens, 500-200 B.C. The Horos Inscriptions. reprinteded. with a new introduction by Paul Millett, newbrunswick/Oxford.

Fiorentini, g. 1990, gela, in g. nenci/g. Vallet/g. Panessa(eds), Bibliografia topografica della colonizzazione greca inItalia e nelle isole tirreniche Viii, Pisa, 5-16.

Fiorini, c. 1988, edificio di età repubblicana in Via sistina,QITA 10, 45-57.

Fittschen, k. 1995, eine stadt für schaulustige und Müßig -gänger, in M. Wörrle/P. Zanker (eds), Stadtbild und Bür -gerbild im Hellenismus. Kolloquium, München, 24. bis 26.Juni 1993, Munich, 55-77.

Flemming, r. 2003, empires of knowledge: health andMedicine in the hellenistic World, in a. erskine (ed.),A Companion to the Hellenistic World, Oxford, 449-463.

Flemming, r. 2012, antiochus and asclepiades: Medicaland Philosophical sectarianism at the end of thehellenistic era, in d. sedley (ed.), The Philosophy ofAntiochus, cambridge, 55-79.

Forti, l. 1962, gli unguentari del primo periodo ellenis-tico, RendNap 37, 143-157.

Foss, c. 1975, ΑλειπτNρι`ν, GRBS 16, 217-226.Fournet, t. 2011, trois curiosités architecturales des bains

de taposiris Magna (égypte): voûte à crossettes, radia-teurs et dalle clavée, Revue archéologique 52, 323-347.

Fournet, t. 2012, the ancient baths of southern syria intheir near eastern context, in ralf kreiner/Wolframletzner (eds), SANITAS PER AQUAM. Proceedings of theInternational Frontinus-Symposium on Technical and Cul -tural History of Ancient Thermal Springs, Aachen, March18-22, 2009 (babesch suppl. 21), leuven, 327-336.

Fournet, t./b. redon 2007, tell el-herr, taposiris Magnaet les bains de l’égypte gréco-romaine, in d. Valbelle(ed.), Tell el-Herr. Les niveaux hellénistiques et du Haut-Empire, Paris 116-127.

Fournet, t./b. redon 2009, les bains souterrains de tapo -siris Magna et le bain de tradition hellénistique enégypte, in M.-F. boussac/t. Fournet/b. redon (eds), Lebain collectif en Égypte (études urbaines 7), cairo, 113-137.

Franciosi, g. 1976, in La Magna Grecia nell’età romana: attidel quindicesimo convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia,Taranto, 5-10 ottobre 1975, naples, 469-470.

Freeth, t. 2009, decoding an ancient computer, ScientificAmerican 301, 76-83.

Fried, M.n./s. unguru 2001, Apollonius of Perga’s Conica:Text, Context, Subtext, leiden.

Frisch, h. 1942, The Constitution of the Athenians. APhilological-Historical Analysis of Pseudo-Xenofon’s TreatiseDe Re Publica Atheniensium, copenhagen.

Frontisi-ducroux, F./F. lissarrague 1998, signe, objet, sup-port: regard privé, regard public, Ktema 23, 137-143.

Fuchs, J. 1997, das Peristylhaus 2 von iaitas, in h.P.isler/d. käch (eds), Wohnbauforschung in Zentral- undWestsizilien, Kongress Zürich 1996, Zurich, 45-48.

Furtwängler, a/k. reichhold 1909, Griechische Vasenmalerei.Auswahl hervorragender Vasenbilder ii, Munich.

Fusco, u. 2001, nuovi reperti dall’area archeologica dicampetti a Vei, ArchCl 52, 255-278.

Fusco, u. 2008-2009, iscrizioni votive ad ercole, alle Fontie diana dal sito campetti a Veio: ulteriori elementi perl’interpretazione archeologica, RendPontAcc 81: 443-500.

gaggiotti, M. 1987, Pavimenta poenica marmore numidicoconstrata, in a. Mastino (ed.), L’Africa Romana. Atti delV convegno di studio Sassari, 11-13 dicembre 198, sassari,215-228.

galen. 1821-1823 (1965 reprint). Opera omnia, X. 481. c.g.

kühn, trans. and ed., hildesheim.gallo, g. 1966, i bolli sui mattoni di Velia, PP 21, 366-377.gamba, e./V. Montbelli/P. Piccinetti 2006, la matematica

di Piero della Francesca, Lettera matematica pristem 59,49-59.

garbrecht, g./h. Manderscheid 1994, Die Wasserbewirt -schaftung römischer Thermen. Archäologie und hydrotechni -sche Untersuchungen (leichtweiß-institut für Wasserbauder technischen universität braunschweig heft 118,3 vols), braunschweig.

gawlinski, l. 2012, The Sacred Law of Andania. A New Textwith Commentary, berlin/boston.

garcía entero, V. 2005, Los Balnea domésticos ámbito rural yurbano, en la Hispania romana, Madrid.

gebauer, k. 1938, ausgrabungen im kerameikos, AA, 607-616.

gebauer, k. 1940, ausgrabungen im kerameikos, AA, 308-362.

gebauer, k./h. Johannes 1936, ausgrabungen im kera -meikos, AA, 208-214.

gebauer, k./h. Johannes 1937, ausgrabungen im kera -meikos, AA, 184-203.

georgaki, P./e. Zografou 2001, Η στρωµατ`γραWOα τηςπλατεOας και τ`υ ν`τι`ανατ`λικ`Q τ`µMα, in P. adam-Veleni (ed.), Αρ4αα αγ+ρ Θεσσαλ+νκης 1. Πρακτικδιηµερδας για τις εργασες των ετ-ν 1989 - 1999,thessaloniki, 65-104, 327-328.

gerner hansen, c. 2002, A Roman Bath in Carthage. AnArchitectural Description and Evaluation of a BuildingExcavated by the Swedish Mission to Carthage, stockholm.

gill, a.a. 2004, Balaneia. A Sourcebook for the Greek Bath fromthe Archaic through the Hellenistic Periods (Ph.d. diss.,university of Memphis).

gill, a.a. 2006, Mediating difference in classical antiq -uity. the greek sanctuary bath, Southeastern College ArtConference Review 15.1, 16-22.

ginouvès, r. 1952, une salle de bains hellénistique àdelphes, BCH 76, 541-561.

ginouvès, r. 1955, sur un aspect de l’évolution des bainsen grèce vers le iV siècle de notre ère, BCH 79, 135-152.

ginouvès, r. 1959, L’établissement thermal de Gortys d’Ar -cadie (études péloponnésiennes 22), Paris.

ginouvès, r. 1962, Balaneutikè. Recherches sur le bain dansl’antiquité grecque (béFar 200), Paris.

ginouvès, r. 1994, l’eau dans les sanctuaires médicaux, inr. ginouvès/a.-M. guimier-sorbets/J. Jouanna/l.Villard (eds), L’eau, la santé et la maladie dans le mondegrec: actes du colloque organisé à Paris (CNRS et FondationSinger-Polignac) du 25 au 27 novembre 1992 par le Centrede recherche « Archéologie et systèmes d’information » et parl’URA 1255 « Médecine grecque » (bch suppl. 28),athens, 237-246.

ginouvès, r./a.-M. guimier-sorbets/J. Jouanna/l. Villard(eds) 1994, L’eau, la santé et la maladie dans le monde grec:actes du colloque organisé à Paris (CNRS et FondationSinger-Polignac) du 25 au 27 novembre 1992 par le Centrede recherche « Archéologie et systèmes d’information » et parl’URA 1255 « Médecine grecque » (bch suppl. 28), athens.

ginouvès, r./r. Martin 1985, Dictionnaire méthodique del’architecture grecque et romaine i, Paris.

giusti, e. 1999, Ipotesi sulla natura degli oggetti matematici,turin.

goodchild, g. 1971, Kyrene und Apollonia, Zurich.gräzer, a. 2009, hygiène et sécurité dans l’habitat égyptien

d’époque pharaonique, in M.-F. boussac/t. Fournet/ b.redon (eds), Le bain collectif en Égypte (études urbaines7), cairo, 33-63.

339

grammenos, d.V. 2003, Roman Thessaloniki, thessaloniki.greco, e. 2001, hephaistia, ASAtene 79, 382-405.greco, e. 2002, hephaistia, ASAtene 80, 967-1013.greco, e. 2003 (2005), hephaistia, ASAtene 81, 1023-1099.greco, e./d. theodorescu 1983, Poseidonia-Paestum 2.

L’agorà (céFr 42), rome.greco, e./d. theodorescu 1987, Poseidonia-Paestum 3.

Forum Nord (céFr 42), rome.greco, g. 1999, Velia. città delle acque, in F. krinzinger/g.

tocco (eds), Neue Forschungen in Velia. Akten des Kon -gresses “La ricerca archeologica a Velia”, Rom, 1-2 Juli 1993,DenkschrWien 268, Vienna, 73-83.

greco, g. 2005a, elea. la forma della città, in M. bugno(ed.), Senofane ed Elea tra Ionia e Magna Grecia, naples,149-172.

greco, g. 2005b, Paestum ed elea tra Magna grecia eroma, in Tramonto della Magna Grecia. MagnamqueGraeciam, quae nunc quidem deleta est (Cic., Laelius de am.,4,13). Atti del quarantaquattresimo convegno di studi sullaMagna Grecia. Taranto 24 - 28 settembre 2004, tarantum,577-641.

greco, g./a. Pontrandolfo 1990, Fratte. Un insediamentoetrusco-campano, Modena.

greene, k. 2000, technological innovation and economicProgress in the ancient World: M.i. Finley reconsidered,Economic History Review 53, 29-59.

greene, k. 2008, historiography and theoretical ap -proaches, in J.P. Oleson (ed.), The Oxford Handbook ofEngineering and Technology in the Classical World, Oxford,62-90.

gros, P. 1996, L’architecture romaine du début du IIIe siècle av.J.-C. à la fin du Haut-Empire 1. Les monuments publics,Paris.

grossmann, P. 2009, badeeinrichtungen in ägyptischenfrühchristlichen klöstern, in M.-F. boussac/t. Fournet/b. redon (eds), Le bain collectif en Égypte (étudesurbaines 7), cairo, 287-295.

gruen, e.s. 1986, The Hellenistic World and the Coming ofRome, berkeley.

gualandi, M.l. 2001, un nuovo mosaico dall’acropoli diPopulonia (Piombino - li), in F. guidobaldi/a. Paribeni(eds), Atti dell’VIII colloquio dell’associazione italiana per lostudio e la conservazione del mosaico i, Florence, 259-270.

gualandi, M.l. 2002, il mosaico dell’esedra con raffigura -zione di negri, in F. cambi/d. Manacorda (eds), Materialiper Populonia 1 (Quaderni del dipartimento di archeolo -gia e storia delle arti. sezione archeologica, universitàdi siena 55), Florence, 155-166.

gualtieri, M./h. Fracchia 1990, Roccagloriosa 1. L’abitato.Scavo e ricognizione topografica, 1976-1986 (bibliothèquede l’institut français de naples, série 2. 8), naples.

gualtieri, M./h. Fracchia 2002, Roccagloriosa 2. L’oppidumlucano e il territorio (collection du centre Jean bérard20), naples.

guérin-beauvois, M./J.-M. Martin (eds) 2007, Bains cura -tifs et bains hygiéniques en Italie de l’antiquité au MoyenÂge (céFr 383), rome.

guido, M. 1967, Sicily: An Archaeological Guide, new York.guimier-sorbets, a.-M. 2009, technique et décor des sols

dans les bains du monde grec classique et hellénistique,in M.-F. boussac/t. Fournet/b. redon (eds), Le bain col-lectif en Égypte (études urbaines 7), cairo, 101-111.

guitart duran, J. 1976, Baetulo. Topografía, arqueología,urbanismo e historia, badalona.

guitart duran, J./P. Padrós 1990, baetulo. cronología ysignificación de sus monumentos, in W. trillmich/P.Zanker (eds), Stadtbild und Ideologie. Die Monumentali -

sierung hispanischer Städte zwischen Republik und Kaiser -zeit. Kolloquium in Madrid vom 19. bis 23. Oktober 1987,Munich, 165-175.

guzzardi, l. 2000, il complesso di viale scala greca el’acquedotto del Paradiso a siracusa, in g.c.M. Jansen(ed.), Cura Aquarum in Sicilia. Proceedings of the TenthInternational Congress on the History of Water Managementand Hydraulic Engineering in the Mediterranean Region,Syracuse, May 16 - 22, 1998 (babesch suppl. 6), leuven,97-101.

hadjidaki, e. 1994-1996, Phalasarna, Kretike Estia 5, 230-236.hadjidaki, e. 1996, the hellenistic harbor of Phalasarna

in Western crete: a comparison with the hellenisticinner harbor of straton’s tower, in a. raban/k.g.holum (eds), Caesarea Maritima. A Retrospective after TwoMillennia, leiden, 53-64.

hadji-Minaglou, g. 2009, l’établissement thermal de teb -tynis (Fayoum), in M.-F. boussac/t. Fournet/b. redon(eds), Le bain collectif en Égypte (études urbaines 7),cairo, 181-190.

hartung, u. et al. 2007, tell el-Fara‘in – buto. 9. Vorbericht,MDIK 63, 69-165.

hawass, Z./F. goddio 2010, Cleopatra: The Search for theLast Queen of Egypt, Washington d.c.

heath, t.l. 2002, The Works of Archimedes. Edited in ModernNotation with introductory chapters by t.l. heath;with a supplement, the Method of archimedes, recent -ly discovered by heiberg, new York.

hedinger, b. 1999, Die frühe Terra sigillata vom Monte Iato,Sizilien (Ausgrabungen 1971-1988) und frühkaiserzeitlicheFundkomplexe aus dem Peristylhaus 1 (studia ietina Viii),lausanne.

hedreen, g. 2001, Capturing Troy. The Narrative Functionsof Landscape in Archaic and Early Classical Greek Art, annarbor, Mi.

heiden, a. 1995, Die Tondächer von Olympia (OlympischeForschungen 24), berlin.

heinz, W. 1983, Römische Thermen. Badewesen und Badeluxusim römischen Reich, Munich.

heinzelmann, M. 2002, bauboom und urbanistischedefizite. Zur städtebaulichen entwicklung Ostias im 2.Jh., in c. bruun/a.g. Zevi (eds), Ostia e Portus nelle lororelazioni con Roma. Atti del convegno all’InstitutumRomanum Finlandiae, 3 e 4 dicembre 1999, rome, 103-121.

helal s.M.M. 2009-2010 (2012), notizia degli scavi di komel khamsin (febbraio-giugno 1999), Analecta Papyrologica21-22, 207-236.

hellmann, M.-c. 1992, Recherches sur le vocabulaire de l’archi -tecture grecque, d’après les inscriptions de Délos (béFar278), Paris.

hermary, a./a. hesnard/h. tréziny 1999, Marseille grecque.600-49 av. J.-C. La cité phocéenne, Paris.

herzog, r. 1931, Die Wunderheilungen von Epidauros. EinBeitrag zur Geschichte der Medizin und der Religion (Phi -lologus suppl. 22 heft 3), leipzig.

hesberg, h. von 1995, das griechische gymnasion im 2.Jh. v.chr., in M. Wörrle/P. Zanker (eds), Stadtbild undBürgerbild im Hellenismus. Kolloquium, München 24. bis26. Juni 1993, Munich, 13-27.

hesnard, a./M. Moliner/F. conche/M. bouiron 1999,Parcours de villes. Marseille: 10 ans d’archéologie, 2600 ansd’histoire, aix-en-Provence.

hoepfner, W./e.-l. schwandner 1986, Haus und Stadt imklassischen Griechenland (Wohnen in der klassischenPolis i), Munich.

hoff, r. von den 2009, hellenistische gymnasia. raumge -staltung und raumfunktionen, in a. Matthaei/M.

340

Zimmermann (eds), Stadtbilder im Hellenismus (die hel-lenistische Polis als lebensform 1), berlin, 245-275.

hoff, r. von den/s. schmidt (eds) 2001, Konstruktionen vonWirklichkeit. Bilder im Griechenland des 5. und 4. Jhs.v.Chr.,stuttgart.

hoffmann, M. 1999, Griechische Bäder, Munich.hohlwein, n. 1949, evhéméria du Fayoum, JJurP 3, 63-99.hohlwein, n. 1957, le vétéran lucius bellienus gemellus,

gentleman-farmer au Fayoum, ÉtPap 8, 69-91.holland, l. b. 1944, colophon, Hesperia 13, 91-171.hölscher, u. 1954, The Excavation of Medinet Habu V: Post-

Ramessid Remains (university of chicago Orientalinstitute Publications 66), chicago.

hoss, s. 2005, Baths and Bathing: The Culture of Bathing andthe Baths and Thermae in Palestine from the Hasmoneans tothe Moslem Conquest, with an Appendix on Jewish RitualsBaths (Miqva’ot) (bar-is 1346), Oxford.

howland, r.h. 1958, Greek lamps and their survivals (theathenian agora iV), Princeton, n.J.

huber, k. 1999, Le ceramiche attiche a figure rosse (gravisca6), bari.

iannelli, M.t. 2005, caulonia. note di topografia urbana,in r. belli Pasqua/r. spadea (eds), Kroton e il suo territo-rio tra VI e V secolo a. C. Aggiornamenti e nuove ricerche(Atti del convegno di studi, Crotone, 3-5 marzo 2000),croton, 223-243.

iannelli, M.t. 2010, Monasterace. le case sul fronte a mare.l’abitazione nei pressi della casamatta. la residenza, ilculto, in l. lepore/P. turi (eds), Caulonia tra Crotone eLocri (Atti del convegno internazionale, Firenze, 30 maggio-1 giugno 2007), Florence, 135-151.

iannelli, M.t./s. rizzi 1985, kaulonia: indagini ed ipotesisull’impianto urbano di età ellenistica, alla luce dellepiù recenti campagne di scavo, Rivista Storia Calabrese6, 281-316.

isler, h.P. 2000, Monte Iato. Guida archeologica, Palermo.isler, h.P. 2001, Monte iato: neues zur hellenistischen Wohn -

architektur, in r. Frei-stolba/k. gex (eds), Recherchesrécentes sur le monde hellénistique. Actes du colloque inter-national organisé à l’occasion du 60e anniversaire de PierreDucrey, Lausanne 1998, bern, 259-267.

isler, h.P. 2004a, grabungen auf dem Monte iato 2003,AntK 47, 72-84.

isler, h.P. 2004b, Monte iato: la trentatreesima campagnadi scavo, SicArch 37.102, 5-33.

isler, h.P. 2006, Monte iato: la trentacinquesima campagnadi scavo, SicArch 39.104, 5-32.

isler, h.P. 2009, grabungen auf dem Monte iato im herbst2007 und im Jahr 2008, AntK 52, 95-109.

isler, h.P. 2010, hellenistische Wohnkultur in sizilien, ins. ladstätter/V. scheibelreiter (eds), Städtisches Wohnenim östlichen Mittelmeerraum. 4. Jh. v. Chr.-1. Jh. n. Chr.,Akten des Internationalen Kolloquiums vom 24.-27. Oktober2007 an der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften,Vienna, 313-331.

Jackson, r. 1990, Waters and spas in the classical World,in r. Porter (ed.), The Medical History of Waters and Spas,london, 1-13.

Jackson, r. 1999, spas, Waters, and hydrotherapy in theroman World, in J. delaine/d.e. Johnston (eds), RomanBaths and Bathing. Proceedings of the First International Con -ference on Roman Baths held at Bath, England, 30 March –4 April 1992 (Jra suppl. 37), Portsmouth, ri, 107-116.

Jeffreys, d.g. 1985, The Survey of Memphis 1 (egyptexploration society Occasional Publications 3), london.

Johannowsky, W. 1982, considerazioni sullo sviluppourbano e la cultura materiale di Velia, PP 37, 225-246.

Johannowsky, W. 1984, Velia (Post scriptum), in Crotone.Atti del ventitreesimo convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia,Taranto 7-10 ottobre 1983, taranto, 426-427.

Johannowsky, W. 1997, Osservazioni sui mosaici a tesseree sui cocciopisti con tessere più antichi, in r.M. carrabonacasa/F. guidobaldi (eds), Atti del IV colloquio dell’as -sociazione italiana per lo studio e la conservazione delmosaico, Palermo 9 - 13 dicembre 1996, ravenna, 581-594.

Joly, e. 1997, il signino in sicilia. una revisione, in r.M.carra bonacasa/F. guidobaldi (eds), Atti del IV colloquiodell’associazione italiana per lo studio e la conservazione delmosaico, Palermo 9 - 13 dicembre 1996, ravenna, 33-38.

Joly, r. (ed. and trans.) 1972, Hippocrate. Tome 6. 2e partie.Du régime des maladies aigues. Appendice. De l’ailment. Del’usage des liquids, Paris.

Joly, r. (ed., trans., and comm.) with s. byl 2003, Hippo -cratis De Diaeta (corpus Medicorum graecorum 1 2,4),berlin.

Jones, W.h.s. (trans.) 1959, Hippocrates IV, cambridge, Ma.Jouanna, J. (ed. and trans.) 1983, Hippocrate. Tome 10. 2e par-

tie, Maladies II, Paris.Jouanna, J. (ed. and trans.) 1990, Hippocrate. Tome 2. 1re par-

tie, De l’ancienne médecine, Paris.Jouanna, J. 1999, Hippocrates, translated by M. debevoise,

baltimore, Md.Jouanna, J. (ed. and trans.) 2000, Hippocrate. Tome 4. 3e par-

tie, Ḗpidémies V et VII, Paris.Jouanna, J. (ed., trans., and comm.) 2002, Hippocratis De

Natura Hominis (corpus Medicorum graecorum 1 1,3),berlin.

Judeich, W. 1931, Topographie von Athen (hda 3,2,2), Munich.kaenel, r. 2000, ein etruskisch-italischer telamon in genf,

AntK 45, 152-160.kalavria, V./a. boli 2001, Η στρωµατ`γραWOα της ανατ` -

λικNς πτMρυγας‚ in P. adam-Veleni (ed.), Αρ4αα αγ+ρΘεσσαλ+νκης 1. Πρακτικ διηµερδας για τις εργασεςτων ετ-ν 1989 - 1999, thessaloniki, 39-64, 326-327.

kalliga, d. 2001, ΤεiνικMς τ`ιi`π`ιlας στα κτNρια τηςΑρiαOας Αγ`ρ?ς, in P. adam-Veleni (ed.), Αρ4ααΑγ+ρ Θεσσαλ+νκης 1. Πρακτικ διηµερδας για τιςεργασες των ετ-ν 1989 - 1999, thessaloniki, 105-117.

karageorghis, V. 1960a, chronique des fouilles à chypre,BCH 84, 242-299.

karageorghis, V. 1960b, Fouilles de kition 1959, BCH 84,504-588.

karageorghis, V. 1966, Fouilles de kition, BCH 90, 362-365.karageorghis, V. 2005, The Phoenician and Later Levels, Part i

(excavations at kition Vi), nicosia.kauffmann, c.M. 1959, The Baths of Pozzuoli, Oxford.kenawi, M. forthcoming-a, the tholos bath at kom Wasit,

in b. redon (ed.), Actualité de la recherche sur les bains enÉgypte: découvertes archéologiques récentes, cairo.

kenawi, M. forthcoming-b, the tholos bath near the diony -sias’ roman fortress, in b. redon (ed.) Actualité de larecherche sur les bains en Égypte: découvertes archéologiquesrécentes, cairo.

kenzler, u. 1999, Studien zur Entwicklung und Struktur dergriechischen Agora in archaischer und klassischer Zeit,Frankfurt a. M.

keuls, e.c. 1985, The Reign of the Phallus. Sexual Politics inAncient Athens, new York.

knigge, u. 1988, Der Kerameikos von Athen, athens.knorr, W.r. 1986, The Ancient Tradition of Geometric Problems,

boston, reprint 1993.kockel, V. 1992, Ostia im 2. Jahrhundert n.chr. beobach -

tungen zum Wandel eines stadtbilds, in h.-J. schalles/h. von hesberg/P. Zanker (eds), Die römische Stadt im

341

2. Jahrhundert n.Chr. Der Funktionswandel des öffentlichenRaumes. Kolloquium in Xanten vom 2. bis 4. Mai 1990,cologne, 99-117.

kokkorou-alveras, g./s. kalopissi-Verti/M. Panagyotidi-kesisoglou 2006, The Sanctuary of Apollo and the EarlyChristian Settlement at Kardamaina (Ancient Halasarna) onthe Island of Kos, athens.

koloski-Ostrow, a. 2007, the city baths of Pompeii andherculaneum, in J.J. dobbins/P.W. Foss (eds), TheWorld of Pompeii, london, 224-256.

kosmides, e./t. safetes 2001, ΜελMτη συντNρησης‚απ`κατ?στασης και πρ`στσOας των ψηWιδωτbνδαπMδων, in P. adam-Veleni (ed.), Αρ4αα αγ+ρ Θεσ-σαλ+νκης 1. Πρακτικ διηµερδας για τις εργασες τωνετ-ν 1989 - 1999, thessaloniki, 167-181.

kreilinger, u. 2006, to be or not to be a hetaira: Femalenudity in classical athens, in s. schroer (ed.), Imagesand Gender. Contributions to the Hermeneutics of ReadingAncient Art, göttingen, 111-120.

kreilinger, u. 2007, Anständige Nacktheit. Körperpflege, Reini -gungsriten und das Phänomen weiblicher Nacktheit imarchaisch-klassischen Athen, rahden/Westf.

kreiner, r./W. letzner 2012, SANITAS PER AQUAM.Proceedings of the International Frontinus-Symposium onthe Technical and Cultural History of Ancient Baths.Aachen, March 18-22, 2009 (babesch suppl. 21), leuven.

krinzinger, F. 1994, intorno alla pianta di Velia, in g. greco/F. krinzinger (eds), Velia. Studi e ricerche, Modena, 19-54.

krinzinger, F. 2006, Velia. architettura e urbanistica, inVelia: atti del quarantacinquesimo convegno di studi sullaMagna Grecia: Taranto, Marina di Ascea, 21-25 settembre2005,taranto, 157-192.

kunze, e./h. schleif 1944, Bericht über die Ausgrabungen inOlympia iV, berlin.

kyrieleis, h. (ed.) 2002, Olympia 1875-2000: 125 Jahre deutscheAusgrabungen. Internationales Symposion, Berlin 9.-11. No -vember 2000, Mainz.

ladstätter, g. 1993, Balaneion. Untersuchungen zur Form,Funktion und Entwicklung der griechischen öffentlichenBadeanlagen vom. V. bis in das II./I. Jh. v. Chr. (unpub-lished Ph.d. diss., university of innsbruck).

lafon, X. 1991, les bains privés dans l’italie romaine auiie siècle av. J.-c., in Les thermes romains. Actes de la tableronde, Rome 11-12 novembre 1988 (céFr 142), rome, 97-114.

lafon, X. 2001, Villa maritima. Recherches sur les villas litto -rales de l’Italie romaine (céFr 307), rome.

lalonde, g.V. 2006, Horos Dios. An Athenian Shrine and Cultof Zeus, leiden.

langslow, d.r. 2000, Medical Latin in the Roman Empire(Oxford classical Monographs), Oxford.

lattermann, h. 1910, Zur topographie des amphiareionsbei Oropos, AM 35, 81-102.

lazarides, P. 1966, ΑνασκαWαO NMας Αγiι?λ`υ, Prakt, 8-23.lazarides, P. 1968, ΑνασκαWαO NMας Αγiι?λ`υ, Prakt, 31-41.lazarides, P. 1972, ΑνασκαWαO NMας Αγiι?λ`υ, Prakt, 12-48.lazarides, P. 1987, ΑνασκαWαO NMας Αγiι?λ`υ, Prakt, 108-117.leclant, J. 1967, Fouilles et travaux en égypte et au

soudan, 1965-1966, Orientalia 36, 191-227.lecuyot, g./b. redon 2011, le secteur P10: des bains grecs

aux thermes romains, in P. ballet et al. (eds), Et la Boutotardive? (biFaO 111), cairo.

lecuyot, g./b. redon forthcoming, les bains de bouto/tell el-Fara’in, in M.-F. boussac/s. denoix/t. Fournet/b. redon (eds), Balaneia, thermes et hammams: 25 sièclesde bain collectif (Proche-Orient, Égypte, péninsuleArabique), cairo.

lehmler, c. 2005, Syrakus unter Agathokles und Hieron II.Die Verbindung von Kultur und Macht in einer hellenistis-chen Metropole, Frankfurt am Main.

leith, d. 2009, the Qualitative status of the onkoi inasclepiades’ theory of Matter, OSAP 36, 283-320.

lemerle, P. 1937, chronique des fouilles et découvertesarchéologiques en grèce, BCH 61, 441-76.

lenormant, ch./J. de Witte 1861, Élite des monumentscéramographiques. Matériaux pour l'histoire des religions etdes moeurs de l'antiquité ii, Paris.

lepore, l. 2010, gli scavi in località s. Marco nord-est.dall’oikos arcaico alla sistemazione ellenistica, in l.lepore/P. turi (eds), Caulonia tra Crotone e Locri: atti delconvegno internazionale, Firenze, 30 maggio-1 giugno 2007,Florence, 81-113.

levine, r.J. 2008, Dreaming the Divine: Ritual and Architec -ture at Ancient Greek Healing Sanctuaries of Asklepios(Ph.d. diss., university of toronto).

lewis, n. 1986, Greeks in Ptolemaic Egypt, Oxford.lewis, s. 1997, shifting images: athenian Women in etruria,

in t. cornell/k. lomas (eds), Gender and Ethnicity inAncient Italy, london, 141-154.

lewis, s. 2002, The Athenian Woman. An IconographicHandbook, london.

leypold, c. 2008, Bankettgebäude in griechischen Heiligtümern,Wiesbaden.

lienau, c. (ed., trans., and comm.) 1973, Hippocratis DeSuperfetatione (corpus Medicorum graecorum 1 2,2),berlin.

lilimpaki-akamati, M. 1997 (1999), Συγκρ`τNµατα εργα-στηρOων και λ`υτρbν στην ΠMλλα‚ T+ Αρ4αι+λ+γικΕργ+ στη Μακεδ+να και Θρκη 11, 193-203.

lilimpaki-akamati, M. 2011, Λ`υτρικMς εγκαταστ?σειςστην ΠMλλα, in s. Pingiatoglu (ed.), Nµατα. Tιµητικςτµ+ς για τ+ν καθηγητ ∆ηµτρι+ Παντερµαλ, thes -saloniki, 395-409.

lilimpaki-akamati, M./n. akamatis 2007 (2010), Tα δη -µPσια λ`υτρ? της ΠMλλας: ανασκαWικN περO`δ`ς 2007,T+ Αρ4αι+λ+γικ Εργ+ στη Μακεδ+να και Θρκη 21,99-108.

lissarrague, F. 1991, Femmes au figuré, in P. schmitt-Pantel (ed.), L’antiquité (histoire des femmes en occi-dent 1), Paris, 159-251.

lissi, e. 1961, gli scavi della scuola nazionale di archeo -logia a locri epizefiri (anni 1950-1956), Atti del settimocongresso internazionale di archeologia classica, Roma -Napoli 1958, rome, 109-115.

littré, e. (ed. and trans.) 1839-1861, Oeuvres complètesd’Hippocrate, 10 vols, Paris.

lloyd, g.e.r. (ed.) 1978, Hippocratic Writings, translated byJ. chadwick/W.n. Mann, new York.

lucore, s.k. 2007a, the hellenistic baths at Morgantina,KODAI 13-14, 2003-2004, 209-215.

lucore, s.k. 2007b, The Balaneion in Magna Graecia: Traditionand Innovation in Western Greek Baths (unpublished Ph.d.diss., bryn Mawr college).

lucore, s.k. 2009a, archimedes, the north baths at Mor -gantina and early developments in Vaulted construc -tion, in c. kosso/a. scott (eds), The Nature and Functionof Water, Baths, Bathing and Hygiene from Antiquity throughthe Renaissance (technology and change in history 11),leiden, 43-59.

lucore, s.k. 2009b, baths, in M. gagarin (ed.), Encyclopediaof Ancient Greece and Rome, Oxford, 374-376.

lucore, s.k. forthcoming-a, baths, in M.M. Miles (ed.), ACompanion to Greek Architecture, hoboken.

lucore, s.k. forthcoming-b, The North Baths at Morgantina.

342

lucore, s.k. forthcoming-c, the north baths at Morgantinaand the technology of greek baths, in F. coarelli/g.battaglini/V. tsiolis (eds), L’origine delle Terme. Fregellaee i complessi termali repubblicani fra Italia e Spagna (Jrasupplement).

Łukaszewicz, a. 1986, Les édifices publics dans les villes del’Égypte romaine, Warszawa.

luts, k. 2005-2006, Griekse publieke baden. Chronologischeontwikkeling, typologie en functie. scriptie voorgelegd aande Faculteit letteren en Wijsbegeerte, voor het behalenvan de graad van licentiaat in de archeologie,university of leuven.

Macalister, r.a.s. 1910, The Excavation of Gezer 1902-1905and 1907-1909 i, london.

Makaronas, c./e. giuri 1989, ι ικες αρπαγς τηςΕλνης και ∆ι+νσ+υ της Πλλας, athens.

Mallwitz, a. 1972, Olympia und seine Bauten, Munich.Manakidou, e. 1992-93, athenerinnen in schwarzfigurigen

brunnenhausszenen, Hephaistos 11-12, 51-91.Manderscheid, h. 1981, Die Skulpturenausstattung der kaiser -

zeitlichen Thermenanlagen, berlin.Manderscheid, h. 1988, Bibliographie zum römischen

Badewesen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung deröffentlichen Thermen, berlin.

Manderscheid, h. 2000, the water management of greekand roman baths, in ö. Wikander (ed.), Handbook ofAncient Water Technology, leiden, 467-535.

Manderscheid, h. 2004, Ancient Baths and Bathing: ABibliography for the Years 1988-2001 (Jra suppl. 55),Portsmouth, ri.

Manderscheid, h. 2009, Dulcissma aequora. Wasserbewirt -schaftung und Hydrotechnik der Terme Suburbane inPompeii (babesch suppl. 13), leuven.

Manfrini-aragno, i. 1992, Femmes à la fontaine: réalité etimaginaire, in c. bron/e. kassapoglou (eds), L’image enjeu de l’antiquité à Paul Klee, lausanne/dorigny, 127-148.

Mar, r. 1990, las termas de tipo medio de Ostia y su inser-ción en el espacio urbano. estudio preliminar, Italica 18,31-63.

Mar, r. 1991, la formazione dello spazio urbano nella cittàdi Ostia, RM 98, 81-109.

Marchant, J. 2009, Decoding the Heavens, cambridge, Ma.Marr J.l./P.J. rhodes 2008, The ‘Old Oligarch’. The Con -

stitution of the Athenians attributed to Xenophon, Oxford.Martín, a. 2000, las termas republicanas de cabrera del

Mar (Maresme, barcelona), in c. Fernández Ochoa/V.garcía entero (eds), Termas romanas en el Occidente delImperio, II Coloquio internacional de Arqueología en Gijón,Gijón 1999, gijón, 157-163.

Martín, a. 2002, el conjunt arqueològic de ca l’arnau(cabrera de Mar, Maresme): un assentament romano-republicà, Tribuna d’arqueologia 1998-1999, 211-228.

Martín Jordá, c./a. ribera i lacomba 1999, Las termasromanas de l’Almoina (Quaderns de difusió arqueològ-ica 3), Valencia.

Martín Jordá, c./a. ribera i lacomba 2000, un caso pre-coz de edificio termal: los baños republicanos deValentia, in c. Fernández Ochoa/V. garcía entero (eds),Termas romanas en el Occidente del Imperio, II Coloquiointernacional de Arqueología en Gijón, Gijón 1999, gijón,151-156.

Martín Jordá, c./a. ribera i lacomba 2010, Las termas dela época romana republicana de l’Almoina (Valencia) (Qua -derns de difusió arqueològica 7), Valencia.

Marzano, a. 2007, Roman Villas in Central Italy: a Social andEconomic History, leiden.

Marzolff, P. 1994, antiker städtebau und architektur in

thessalien, in La Thessalie. Quinze années de recherchesarchéologiques, 1975 - 1990. Bilans et perspectives. Actes ducolloque international, Lyon 17 - 22 avril 1990, B, 255-76,athens.

Massar, n. 2005, Soigner et servir: histoire sociale et culturellede la médecine grecque à l’époque hellénistique, Paris.

Mavromichali, a. 2001, Tα γυ?λινα ευρNµατα τ`υ Sαλα -νεO`υ, in P. adam-Veleni (ed.), Αρ4αα αγ+ρ Θεσσα -λ+νκης 1. Πρακτικ διηµερδας για τις εργασες τωνετ-ν 1989 - 1999, thessaloniki, 131-145.

Meier, l. 2012, Die Finanzierung öffentlicher Bauten in derhellenistischen Polis (die hellenistische Polis als lebens -form 3), Mainz.

Melfi, M. 2007, I santuari di Asclepio in Grecia (studia ar -chaeologica 157), rome.

Mentzos, a. 1997 (1999), ΠρPταση για την ερµηνεOα τωνΕιδbλων (incantadas) της Θεσσαλ`νOκης µε αW`ρµNνεPτερα ευρNµατα, T+ Αρ4αι+λ+γικ Εργ+ στη Μακε -δ+να και Θρκη 11, 379-392.

Merten, e.W. 1983, Bäder und Badegepflogenheiten in derDarstellung der Historia Augusta, bonn.

Mertens, d. 2006, Städte und Bauten der Westgriechen, Munich.Messineo, g. (ed.) 2001, Efestia. Scavi Adriani 1928-1930,

Padua.Messineo, g./a. Pellegrino 2001, l’impianto termale, in g.

Messineo (ed.), Efestia. Scavi Adriani 1928-1930 Padua,387-416.

Metzger, h. 1951, travaux de l’école française. gortysd’arcadie, BCH 75, 130-133.

Meyer, b. 1981, Λ`Qειν – λ`σις dans le vocabulaire desbains (Papyrus et inscriptions), in r. bagnall (ed.),Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Congress ofPapyrology, New York 24 - 31 July 1980, chico, ca, 209-214.

Meyer, b. 1982, Balaneia: recherches sur les bains publics enÉgypte d’après les papyrus (unpublished Ph.d. diss.,sorbonne, Paris).

Meyer, b. 1984, HαλκO`ν‚ iαλκO`ν µ`λυSδ`ν et iαλκO`νiαλκ`ν, in Atti del XVII congresso internazionale di papi -rologia, Napoli 19 - 26 maggio 1983, naples, 1303-1308.

Meyer, b. 1989, Problèmes du combustible dans les bainspublics de l’égypte grecque et romaine, in l. criscuolo/g. geraci (eds), Egitto e storia antica dall’ellenismo all’etàaraba. Bilancio di un confronto. Atti del colloquio inter-nazionale, Bologna 31 agosto -2 settembre 1987, bologna,565-571.

Meyer, b. 1992, les femmes et les bains publics dansl’égypte grecque, romaine et byzantine, in Proceedingsof the XIXth International Congress of Papyrology, Cairo1982, cairo, 51-60.

Meyer, b. 1994, l’eau et les bains publics dans l’égypteptolémaïque, romaine et byzantine, in b. Menu (ed.),Les problèmes institutionnels de l’eau en Égypte ancienne etdans l’antiquité méditerranéenne. Actes du 2ème colloqueAIDEA 1992, cairo, 273-279..

Meyer, b. 1997, gymnase et thermes dans l’égypte romaineet byzantine, in b. kramer (ed.), Akten des 21. Internatio -nalen Papyrologenkongresses, Berlin 13.-19.8.1995, stuttgart,691-695.

Meyer, b. 2001, Magie et bains publics, in i. andorlini(ed.), Atti del XXII congresso internazionale di papirologia,Firenze 23 - 29 agosto 1998, Florence, 937-942.

Michaelides, d. 1992, Cypriot Mosaics, nicosia.Michalowski, k. 1937, le kôm central. b. époque romaine.

1. les bains, in b. bruyère/J. Manteufel/k. Michalowski/J. sainte Fare garnot (eds), Tell Edfou 1937 (FouillesFranco-Polonaises, rapports i), cairo, 65-82.

343

Michalowski, k. 1961, les fouilles polonaises à tell atriben 1960, ASAE 57, 67-77.

Miller, stella g. 1993, The Tomb of Lyson and Kallikles, Mainz.Miller, stephen g. (ed.) 1990, Nemea. A Guide to the Site and

the Museum, berkeley.Miller, stephen g. 1992a, introduction, in d.e. birge/l.h.

kraynak/s.g. Miller (eds), Topographical and ArchitecturalStudies: The Sacred Square, The Xenon, and The Bath(excavations at nemea i), berkeley, XXiX-XXX.

Miller, stephen g. 1992b, the bath, in d.e. birge/l.h.kraynak/s.g. Miller (eds), Topographical and ArchitecturalStudies: The Sacred Square, The Xenon, and The Bath (ex -cavations at nemea i), berkeley, 188-262.

Millett, P. 1985, introduction to the transaction edition, inM.i. Finley, Studies in Land and Credit in Ancient Athens,500-200 B.C. The Horos Inscriptions. reprinted ed. witha new introduction by Paul Millett, new brunswick/Oxford, Vii-XViii.

Morel, J.P. 1976, in La Magna Grecia nell’età romana: atti delquindicesimo convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia, Taranto,5-10 ottobre 1975, naples, 478.

Morena, M./d. counord 1994, Antipolis municipe romain.Catalogue de l’exposition. Musée d’histoire et d’archéologie.Bastion Saint-André. Antibes, antibes.

Musti, d. 1966, le fonti per la storia di Velia, PP 21, 318-335.Müth, s. 2007, Eigene Wege. Topographie und Stadtplan von

Messene in spätklassisch-hellenistischer Zeit (internationalearchäologie 99), rahden/Westf.

napoli, M. 1966, la ricerca archeologica a Velia, PP 21, 191-226.

napolitani, P.d. 2001, Archimede. Alle radici della scienzamoderna, rome.

netz, r./W. noel 2007, The Archimedes Codex: How aMedieval Prayer Book is Revealing the True Genius ofAntiquity’s Greatest Scientist, Philadelphia.

netz, r./W. noel/n. tchernetska/n. Wilson (eds) 2011,The Archimedes Palimpsest, 2 vols, cambridge.

netzer, e. 1999, herodian bath houses, in J. delaine/d.e.Johnston (eds), Roman Baths and Bathing. Proceedings ofthe First International Conference on Roman Baths held atBath, England, 30 March – 4 April 1992 (Jra suppl. 37),Portsmouth, 45-55.

nicolaou, k. 1976, The Historical Topography of Kition(studies in Mediterranean archaeology 43), göteborg.

nielsen, i. 1985, considerazioni sulle prime fasi dell’evolu -zione dell’edificio termale romane, AnalRom 14, 81-112.

nielsen, i. 1990, Thermae et Balnea: the Architecture andCultural History of Roman Public Baths, 2 vols, aarhus.

nolla, J.M. 2000, las termas republicanas en hispania, inc. Fernández Ochoa/V. garcía entero (eds), Termasromanas en el Occidente del Imperio, II Coloquio interna-cional de Arqueología en Gijón, Gijón 1999, gijón, 47-57.

nutton, V. 2004, Ancient Medicine, london.Olcese, g. 1993, Le ceramiche comuni di Albintimilium.

Indagine archeologica e archeometrica sui materiali dell’areadel Cardine, Florence.

Oettel, a. 1996, Fundkontexte römischer Vesuvvillen im Gebietum Pompeji: die Grabungen von 1894 bis 1908, Mainz.

Orlandini, P. 1960, gela. nuovi scavi: l’impianto greco dibagni pubblici presso l’ospizio, NSc 14, 181-211.

Orsi, P. 1911, croton. Prima campagna di scavo al santu-ario di hera lacinia, nsc suppl., 77-124.

Orsi, P. 1916, caulonia. campagne archeologiche del 1912,1913 e 1915, MemLinc 23 (1914), 2° installment 1916,685-698.

Orsi, P. 1924, caulonia ii. Memoria, MemLinc 29 (1923), 2°installment 1924, 409-492.

Ortolani, F. 1999, evoluzione geologica dell’area archeo-logica di Velia, in F. krinzinger/g. tocco (eds), NeueForschungen in Velia. Akten des Kongresses “La ricercaarcheologica a Velia”, Rom, 1-2 Juli 1993 (denkschrWien268), Vienna, 125-138.

Osanna, M./M. sica 2005, Torre di Satriano 1. Il santuario lucano(Quaderni di archeologia e storia antica 11), Venosa.

Osborne, r. 20042, The Old Oligarch. Pseudo-Xenophon’sConstitution of the Athenians, london.

Panvini, r. 1996, Gelas. Storia e archeologia dell’antica Gela,turin.

Pappalardo, u./h. Manderscheid 1998, le terme subur -bane di ercolano. architettura, gestione idrica e sistemadi riscaldamento, RStPomp 9, 173-192.

Papi, e. 2007, bagni etruschi a Musarna, JRA 20, 397-398.Paribeni, e. (ed.) 1980, Fiesole. Collezione Costantini 1.

Corpus Vasorum Antiqorum. Italia 57, rome.Paton, W.r./e.l. hicks 1990, The Inscriptions of Cos, re -

printed ed., new York. Peek, W. 1941, Inschriften, Ostraka, Fluchtafeln (kerameikos

iii), berlin.Pesando, F. 2002-2003, le terme repubblicane di Pompei:

cronologia e funzione, AnnArchStorAnt n9-10, 221-243. Pfisterer-haas, s. 2002, Mädchen und Frauen am Wasser.

brunnenhaus und louterion als Orte der Frauengemein -schaft und der möglichen begegnung mit einem Mann,JdI 117, 1-79.

Phillips, e.d. 1973, Greek Medicine. Philosophy and Medicinefrom Alcmaeon to the Alexandrians, london.

Pilo, c. 2006, la Villa di capo soprano e gela, in M.Osanna/M. torelli (eds), Sicilia ellenistica, consuetudoitalica. Alle origini dell’architettura ellenistica d’Occidente.Spoleto, complesso monumentale di S. Nicolo 5-7 novembre2004, rome, 153-166.

Pimpl, h. 1997, Perirrhanteria und Louteria, berlin.Pleket, h.W. 1983, arts en maatschapij in het oude grie -

kenland. de sociale status van de arts, Tijdschrift voorGeschiedenis 96, 325-347.

Pont, a.V. 2008, to aleipterion dans les inscriptions d’épo -que impériale, RÉA 110, 151-174.

Portale, e.c. 2004, Euergetikotatos… kai philodoxotatos eistous Hellenas. riflessioni sui rapporti fra ierone ii e ilmondo greco, in M. caltabiano/l. campagna/a. Pin -zone (eds), Nuove prospettive della ricerca sulla Sicilia delIII sec. a.C.: Archeologia, Numismatica, Storia. Atti dell’In -contro di Studio, Messina 4-5 luglio 2002, Pelorias, Messina,229-264.

Potter, P. (ed., trans., and comm.) 1980, Hippocratis DeMorbis III (corpus Medicorum graecorum 1 2,3), berlin.

Potter, P. (trans.) 1988a, Hippocrates V: Affections, Diseases i& ii, cambridge, Ma.

Potter, P. (trans.) 1988b, Hippocrates VI: Diseases iii, InternalInfections, Regimen in Acute Diseases, cambridge, Ma.

Poulkou, M. 2008, Mänade bei der körperpflege. eineschale in gravisca, in c. Franek et al. (eds), Thiasos.Festschrift für Erwin Pochmarski zum 65. Geburtstag,Vienna, 773-780.

Préaux, c. 1947, Les Grecs en Égypte d’après les archives deZénon, brussels.

Prête, J.-P. 2004, Évolution de l’espace urbain des Lagides à lafin de l’Empire: le cas de l’agora d’Amathonte de Chypre (un -published Ph.d. diss., university of aix-en-Provence).

Prête, J.-P. 2007, topographie du centre monumentald’amathonte à l’époque hellénistique, in P. Flourentzos(ed.), From Evagoras I to the Ptolemies. The Transition fromthe Classical to the Hellenistic Period in Cyprus. Nicosia 29-10 November 2002, nicosia, 115-129.

344

Prête, J.-P./i. tassignon/t. kozelj/M. Wurch-kozelj 2002,amathonte. travaux de l’école française d’athènes en2002. a. l’agora, BCH 11, 551-571.

Price, d. de s. 1974, gears from the greeks: the antiky -thera Mechanism. a calendar computer from about 80b.c., TAPS new ser. 64, 7, 1-70.

rabinowitz, n.s. 2002, excavating Women’s homoero -ticism in ancient greece. the evidence from attic VasePainting, in n.s. rabinowitz/l. auanger (eds), AmongWomen. From the Homosocial to the Homoerotic in theAncient World, austin, 106-166.

radt, W. 1982, Pergamon. Vorbericht über die kampagne1981, AA, 521-561.

radt, W. 1999, Pergamon, darmstadt.rathbone, d. 1991, Economic Rationalism and Rural Society

in Third-Century AD Egypt, cambridge.rawson, r. 1988, the life and death of asclepiades of

bithynia, CQ 32, 358-370.reber, k. 1998, Die klassischen und hellenistischen Wohnhäuser

im Westquartier. (eretria. ausgrabungen und Forschungen10), lausanne.

redon, b. 2009a, l’armée et les bains en égypte hellénis-tique et romaine, BIFAO 109, 407-450.

redon, b. 2009b, review of Die ‚Agora des Italiens’ in Delos.Baugeschichte, Architektur, Ausstattung und Funktion einerspäthellenistischen Porticus-Anlage, by M. trümper, Topoi16, 495-502.

redon, b. (ed.) forthcoming-a, Current Research on Baths inEgypt: New Archaeological Discoveries, cairo.

redon, b. forthcoming-b, les bains de l’égypte hellénis-tique et romaine, in P. ballet (ed.), Grecs et Romains enÉgypte. Territoires, espaces de la vie et de la mort, objets deprestige et du quotidien, Actes du colloque international dela société française d’archéologie classique.

reekmans, t. 1978, reconstitution d’une éphéméride deZénon, ChrÉg 53, 329-344.

rendini, P./M. Firmati 2010, le case di ghiaccio Forte,centro fortificato etrusco nella Valle dell’albegna, in M.benz/c. reusser (eds), Etruskisch-Italische und römisch-republikanische Häuser (studien zur antiken stadt 9),Wiesbaden, 183-191.

reusser, c./M. Mohr/c. russenberger/e. Mango 2010,Forschungen auf dem Monte iato 2009, AntK 53, 114-138.

reusser, c./l. cappuccini/M. Mohr/c. russenberger/e.Mango 2011, Forschungen auf dem Monte iato 2010,AntK 54, 71-104.

riad, h. 1975, anciens bains d’alexandrie, Bulletin de laSociété archéologique d’Alexandrie 43, 113-122.

ribera i lacomba, a. 1998, La fundació de València. La ciu-tat a l’època romanorepublicana (segles II-I a.C.) (estudiosuniversitarios 71), Valencia.

richardson, l., Jr. 1988, Pompeii: An Architectural History,baltimore.

riethmüller, J.W. 2005, Asklepios. Heiligtümer und Kulte, 2vols (studien zu antiken heiligtümern 2), heidelberg.

riley, J.a. 1979, the coarse Pottery from berenice, in Ex -cavations at Sidi Khrebish, Benghazi (Berenice) 2, tripoli,91-467.

rodziewicz, M. 2009, ancient baths in alexandria, in M.-F. boussac/t. Fournet/b. redon (eds), Le bain collectifen Égypte (études urbaines 7), cairo, 191-201.

roeder, g. (ed.) 1959, Hermopolis 1929-1939: Ausgrabungender deutschen Hermopolis-Expedition in Hermopolis, Ober-Ägypten (Pelizaeus-Museum zu hildesheim 4),hildesheim.

romano, d.g. 2005, a new topographical and architectural

survey of the sanctuary of Zeus at Mount lykaion, ine. Ostby (ed.), Ancient Arcadia. Papers from the ThirdInternational Seminar on Ancient Arcadia, held at theNorwegian Institute at Athens, 7-10 May 2002, athens,381-396.

römer, c. 2004, Philoteris in the themistou Meris: reporton the archaeological survey carried out as a Part ofthe Fayoum survey Project, ZPE 147, 281-305.

römer, c. forthcoming, the greek bath houses in theFayum. Who attended them?, in b. redon (ed.), CurrentResearch on Baths in Egypt: New Archaeological Dis -coveries, cairo.

rook, t. 1978, the development and Operation of romanhypocausted baths, JAS 5, 269-82.

rotroff, s.i. 1997, Hellenistic Pottery: Athenian and ImportedWheelmade Table Ware and Related Material (the athenianagora XXiX), Princeton, n.J.

rotroff, s.i. 2006, Hellenistic Pottery. The Plain Wares (theathenian agora XXXiii), Princeton, n.J.

roux, g. 1961, L’architecture de l’Argolide aux IVe et IIIe siè-cles avant J.-C. (béFar 199), Paris.

rowland, i.d./t.n. howe (eds) 1999, Vitruvius. Ten Bookson Architecture, cambridge.

rowlandson, J. 1998, Women and Society in Greek and RomanEgypt, cambridge.

ruga, a. 2006, le terme, in r. spadea (ed.), Ricerche nelsantuario di Hera Lacinia a Capo Colonna di Crotone.Risultati e prospettive, rome, 67-80.

russenberger, c. 2010, Monte iato (Pa): ultime testimoni-anze di una cultura indigena attorno al 300 a.c., in M.dalla riva (ed.), Meetings between Cultures in the AncientMediterranean. Proceedings of the 17th InternationalCongress of Classical Archaeology, Rom 2008, 12-22.bolletino di archeologia online. http://151.12.58.75/archeologia/bao_document/articoli/2_russen-berger.pdf.

russo tagliente, a. 1992, Edilizia domestica in Apulia eLucania. Ellenizzazione e società nella tipologia abitativaindigena tra VIII e III secolo A.C., rome.

sabbione, c. 2010, nuovi dati e riflessioni sull’organiz-zazione urbana a locri epizefiri, in l. lepore/P. turi,Caulonia tra Crotone e Locri: atti del convegno inter-nazionale, Firenze, 30 maggio-1 giugno 2007, Florence, 307-330.

salzmann, d. 1982, Untersuchungen zu den antiken Kiesel -mosaiken von den Anfängen bis zum Beginn der Tessera -technik, berlin.

scanlon, t.F. 2002, Eros and Greek Athletics, Oxford.schauer, chr. 2006 (2008), das neugefundene hellenistis-

che bad in Olympia. datierende keramik aus bauzeit,umbau- und Zerstörungsschicht, RCRFActa 40, 227-235.

scheibler, i. 1976, Griechische Lampen (kerameikos Xi),berlin.

scheid, J. 1991, sanctuaires et thermes sous l’empire, in Lesthermes romains. Actes de la table ronde, Rome 11-12novembre 1988 (céFr 142), rome, 205-216.

schleif, h. 1943, Die neuen Ausgrabungen in Olympia und ihrebisherigen Ergebnisse für die antike Bauforschung, berlin.

schmidt, s. 2005, Rhetorische Bilder auf attischen Vasen,berlin.

schnurr-redford, c. 1996, Frauen im klassischen Athen.Sozialer Raum und reale Bewegungsfreiheit, berlin.

schörner, g. 2000, stiftungen von badeanlagen im hel-lenistischen und kaiserzeitlichen griechenland, in k.M.cialowicz (ed.), Les civilisations du bassin méditerranéen.Hommage à J. Sliwa, krakow, 307-3315.

schröder, n. 2009, Porträts in römischen Thermenanlagen.

345

Kontexte – Formen – Funktion (unpublished Ph.d. diss.,university of Freiburg).

schwartz, J./h. Wild 1950, Qasr Qarun/Dionysias 1948(Fouilles Franco-suisses, rapports 1), cairo.

schwartz, J./h. Wild 1969, Qasr Qarun/Dionysias 1950(Fouilles Franco-suisses, rapports 2), cairo.

schweinfurth, g. 1887, Zur topographie der ruinenstättedes alten schet (krokodilopolis-arsinoë), Zeitschrift derGesellschaft für Erdkunde zu Berlin 22, 54-88.

sears, J.M.J. 1904, a greek bath, AJA 8.2, 216-26.sedky, k. 1968, Ptolemaic baths of kom ganady, ASAE 60,

221-225.seiler, F. 1986, Die griechische Tholos. Untersuchungen zur

Entwicklung, Typologie und Funktion kunstmässiger Rund -bauten, Mainz.

seton-Williams, M. V. 1966, the tell el-Farâ’în expedition,1966, JEA 52, 163-171.

serrati, J. 2000, garrisons and grain: sicily between thePunic Wars, in c. smith/J. serrati (eds), Sicily fromAeneas to Augustus, edinburgh, 115-133.

shapiro, h.a. 2003, brief encounters: Women and Men atthe Fountain house, in b. schmaltz/M. söldner (eds),Griechische Keramik im kulturellen Kontext, Münster, 96-98.

shear t.l. Jr. 1969. the athenian agora: excavations of1968, Hesperia 38, 382-417.

simm, J.h. 1996, rutilius claudius namantianus, OCD 3,1339-1340.

sinn, u. 2002, Olympia. Kult, Sport und Fest in der Antike,Munich.

sinn, u. 2004, Das antike Olympia. Götter, Spiel und Kunst,Munich.

sinn, u. 2005, hestiatorion, Thesaurus Cultus et RituumAntiquorum iV, los angeles 38-46.

sinn, u./c. leypold/c. schauer 2003, Olympia – einespitzenstellung nicht nur im sport. eine neuentdecktebadeanlage der hellenistischen Zeit, AntW 34, 617-623.

sjöqvist, e. 1962, excavations at Morgantina (serra Or -lando) 1961. Preliminary report Vi, AJA 66.2, 135-143.

slane, k.W./a. berlin 1997, Tel Anafa ii. The Hellenistic andRoman Pottery. The Plain Wares. The Fine Wares (Jrasuppl. 10.2.1), ann arbor, Mi.

smith, W.d. 1989, generic form in epidemics i to Vii, ing. baader/r. Winau (eds), Die hippokratischen Epidemien.Theorie – Praxis – Tradition. 5 Colloque international hip-pocratique, stuttgart, 144-158.

smith, W.d. (trans.) 1994, hippocrates, vol Vii, cambridge,Ma.

stähli, a. 2005, die konstruktion sozialer räume vonFrauen und Männern in bildern, in h. harich-schwarz -bauer/t. späth (eds), Gender Studies in den Altertums -wissenschaften: Räume und Geschlechter in der Antike,trier, 83-110.

stähli, a. 2008, nacktheit und körperinszenierung in bil -dern der griechischen antike, in s. schroer (ed.), Imagesand Gender. Contributions to the Hermeneutics of ReadingAncient Art, göttingen, 209-227.

stähli, a. 2009, nackte Frauen, in s. schmidt/J.h. Oakley(eds), Hermeneutik der Bilder. Beiträge zur Ikonographie undInterpretation griechischer Vasenmalerei (beihefte zum cor -pus Vasorum antiquorum deutschland 4), Munich, 43-51.

stanley, J.d. 2010, archaeological Vestiges submerged offlocri and kaulonia, italy, by tectonically-controlledcoastline displacement during and after greek time,in l. lepore/P. turi (eds), Caulonia tra Crotone e Locri:atti del convegno internazionale, Firenze, 30 maggio-1giugno 2007, Florence, 17-30.

stanley, J.d./M.P.e. bernasconi/t. toth/s. Mariottini/M.t.iannelli 2007, kaulonia (calabria, italia): sommersione,migrazione laterale e suo sfruttamento come fonte dimateriale da costruzione, in M.c. Parra (ed.), Kaulonia,Caulonia, Stilida (e oltre), Pisa, 605-619.

steskal, M./M. la torre 2008, Das Vediusgymnasium inEphesos. Archäologie und Baubefund (Forschungen inephesos 14), Vienna.

stewart, a. 1997, Art, Desire, and the Body in Ancient Greece,cambridge.

stucchi, s. 1975, Architettura cirenaica, rome.sutton, r.F. 2009a, Female bathers and the emergence of

the Female nude in greek art, in c. kosso/a. scott(eds), The Nature and Function of Water, Baths, Bathingand Hygiene from Antiquity through the Renaissance(technology and change in history 11), leiden 61–86.

sutton, r.F. 2009b, the invention of the Female nude:Zeuxis, Vase-Painting, and the kneeling bather, in J.h.Oakley/O. Palagia (eds), Athenian Potters and Paintersii, Oxford, 270-279.

sydow, W. von 1984, die hellenistischen gebälke insizilien, RM 91, 239-358.

taylor, J.d.P./e. Macnamara/J.b. Ward-Perkins 1983, theexcavations at cozzo Presepe, 1969-1972, NSc 31, 191-406.

terrenato, n. 2001, the auditorium site in rome and theOrigins of the Villa, JRA 14, 5-32.

thébert, Y. 2003, Thermes romains d’Afrique du nord et leurcontexte méditerranéen. Études d’histoire et d’archéologie(béFar 315), Paris.

themelis, P. 1989 (1992), ΑνασκαWN ΜεσσNνης, Prakt, 77-91.themelis, P. 1990 (1993). ΑνασκαWN ΜεσσNνης, Prakt, 62-69.themelis, P. 2003a, Ancient Messene, athens.themelis, P. 2003b, Heroes at Ancient Messene, athens.themelis, P. 2005 (2006), ΜεσσNνη, Ergon 52, 41-48.titone, e. 1964, Civiltà di Motya, trapani.tiverios, M. 2005, Zur ikonographie der weiblichen Welt

im Zeitalter des Perikles, in t. ganschow/M. steinhart/d. berges (eds), Otium. Festschrift für Volker MichaelStrocka, remshalden, 381-390.

tocco, g. 1999, spazi pubblici a Velia: l’agorà o un santu-ario?, in F. krinzinger/g. tocco (eds), Neue Forschungenin Velia. Akten des Kongresses “La ricerca archeologica aVelia”, Rom, 1-2 Juli 1993 (denkschrWien 268), Vienna,61-65.

tocco, g. 2006, elea/Velia. Venti anni di attività dallaricerca alla valorizzazione. Metodologia di un inter-vento, in Velia: atti del quarantacinquesimo convegno distudi sulla Magna Grecia: Taranto, Marina di Ascea, 21-25settembre 2005, naples, 117-135.

tölle-kastenbein, r. 1994, Das archaische Wasserleitungsnetzfür Athen und seine späteren Bauphasen (antike Welt:sondernummer), Mainz.

tomasello, F. 2005, Volte “leggere” a tubi fittili. tra siciliae africa, Sicilia Antiqua 2, 145-155.

traill, J.s. 1994-2010, Persons of ancient Athens 1-19, toronto.travlos, J. 1971, Bildlexikon zur Topographie des antiken

Athen, tübingen.travlos, J. 1988, Bildlexikon zur Topographie des antiken Attika,

tübingen.tréziny, h. 1989, Kaulonia i. Sondages sur la fortification nord

(1982-1985), naples.tréziny, h. 2001, trames et orientations dans la ville

antique: lots et îlots, in M. bouiron/h. tréziny (eds),Marseille. Trames et paysages urbains de Gyptis au roi René.Actes du colloque international d’archéologie, Marseille 3 - 5novembre 1999 (études massaliètes 7), aix-en-Provence,137-145.

346

trümper, M. 1998, Wohnen in Delos. Eine baugeschichtlicheUntersuchung zum Wandel der Wohnkultur in hellenistischerZeit (internationale archäologie 46), rahden/Westf.

trümper, M. 2002, grobschlächtige arbeiter oder durch-trainierte athleten, AA 2, 45-64.

trümper, M. 2006, baden im späthellenistischen delos i:die öffentliche badeanlage im Quartier du théâtre,BCH 130, 143-229.

trümper, M. 2008, Die ‚Agora des Italiens’ in Delos. Bau -geschichte, Architektur, Ausstattung und Funktion einerspät hellenistischen Porticus-Anlage (internationale archä -ologie 104), rahden/Westf.

trümper, M. 2009, complex Public bath buildings of thehellenistic Period. a case-study in regional differences,in M.-F. boussac/t. Fournet/b. redon (eds), Le bain col-lectif en Égypte (études urbaines 7), cairo, 139-179.

trümper, M. 2010, bathing culture in hellenistic domesticarchitecture, in s. ladstätter/V. scheibelreiter (eds),Städtisches Wohnen im östlichen Mittelmeerraum. 4. Jh. v.Chr.-1. Jh. n. Chr., Akten des Internationalen Kolloquiumsvom 24.-27. Oktober 2007 an der Österreichischen Akademieder Wissenschaften, Vienna, 529-572.

trümper, M. 2012a, gender differentiation in greek Publicbaths, in r. kreiner/W. letzner (eds), SANITAS PERAQUAM. Proceedings of the International Frontinus-Sym posium on the Technical and Cultural History of AncientBaths. Aachen, March 18-22, 2009 (babesch suppl. 21),leuven, 37-45.

trümper, M. 2012b, Privat versus öffentlich in hellenistis-chen bädern, in a. Matthaei/M. Zimmermann (eds),Stadtkultur im Hellenismus (die hellenistische Polis alslebensform 4), Mainz, 1-44.

trümper, M. 2013, Modernization and change of Functionof hellenistic gymnasia in the imperial Period: case-studies Pergamon, Miletus, and Priene, in W. haber -mann/P. scholz/d. Wiegandt (eds), Das KaiserzeitlicheGymnasium (Wissenskultur und gesellschaftlicher Wandel34), berlin.

trümper, M. forthcoming-a, greek baths and bathingculture, in Springer Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology.

trümper, M. forthcoming-b, LACONICUM. A Reassessmentof Graeco-Roman Sweat Baths from a Cross-culturalPerspective.

tsakirgis, b. 1989, the decorated Pavements of Morgan -tina, 1. the Mosaics, AJA 93.3, 395-416.

tsakirgis, b. 2009, the greek house in sicily: influence andinnovation in the hellenistic Period, in d.b. counts/a. tuck (eds), Koine. Mediterranean Studies in Honor ofR. Ross Holloway, Oxford, 110-121.

tsimbidou-avloniti, M. 2007, les peintures funérairesd’aghios athanassios, in s. descamps-lequime (ed.),Peinture e couleur dans le monde grec antique, Paris, 57-67.

tsiolis, V. 2001, las termas de Fregellae. arquitectura, tec-nología y cultura balnear en el lacio durante los siglosiii y ii a.c, Cuadernos de prehistoria y arqueología 27, 85-114.

tsiolis, V. 2006, Fregellae: il complesso termale e le originidegli edifici balneari urbani nel mondo romano, in M.Osanna/M. torelli (eds), Sicilia ellenistica, consuetudoitalica. Alle origini dell’architettura ellenistica d’occidente.Spoleto, Complesso monumentale di S. Nicolo 5-7 novembre2004, roma, 243-255.

tsiolis, V. 2008a, el modelo balnear republicano entre italiae hispania, in J. uroz/J.M. noguera/F. coarelli (eds),Iberia e Italia. Modelos romanos de integración territorial,Murcia, 285-306.

tsiolis, V. 2008b, Modelli di convivenza urbana. Fregellaee la questione dell’introduzione delle pratiche termale

nel lazio meridionale, in c. corsi/e. Polito (eds), Dallesorgenti alla foce. Il bacino del Liri-Garigliano nell’antichità.Culture, contatti, scambi. Atti del convegno, Frosinone -Formia, 10 - 12 novembre, rome, 133-143.

tsouklidou, d./V. Penna 1979 (1987), BδPς Β`υλNς 31-33και ΑπPλλων`ς, ArchDelt 34, 28-31.

tybjerg, k. 2004, hero of alexandria’s Mechanical geometry,in P. lang (ed.), Re-Inventions: Essays on Hellenistic andEarly Roman Science (apeiron 37, 4), kelowna, b.c., 29-56.

Valentini, V. 1993, Le ceramiche a vernice nera (gravisca 9),bari.

Vallance, J.t. 1990, The Lost Theory of Asclepiades of Bithynia,new York.

Vallet, g./F. Villard 1966, Mégara Hyblaea 4. Le temple duIVe siècle, Paris.

Vallet, g./F. Villard/P. auberson 1976, Mégara hyblaea 1.Le quartier de l’agora archaïque, Paris.

Vallet, g./F. Villard/P. auberson 1983, Mégara Hyblaea 3Guide des fouilles ( MéFr suppl. 1), Paris.

Vandermersch, c. 1995, Vins et amphores de grande Grèce etde Sicile IVe-IIIe siècles avant J.C. (centre Jean bérardétudes 1), naples.

Vandorpe, k. 1995, city of Many a gate, harbour for Manya rebel, in s.P. Vleeming (ed.), Hundred-Gated Thebes.Acts of a Colloquium on Thebes and the Theban Area in theGraeco-Roman Period, leiden, 203-240.

Vassal, V. 2006, Les pavements d’opus signinum. Technique,décor, fonction architecturale, Oxford.

Vecchio, l. 2003, eleati a delo, in g. greco (ed.), Elea-Velia.Le nuove ricerche, Pozzuoli, 121-150.

Velenis, g. 1990-1995 (1996), ΑρiαOα αγ`ρ? Θεσσαλ`νOκης,AAA 23-28, 129-141.

Velenis, g. 1996 (1997), Π`λε`δ`µικ? Θεσσαλ`νOκης, T+Αρ4αι+λ+γικ Εργ+ στη Μακε δ+να και Θρκη 10,491-498.

Veuve, s. 1987, Le Gymnase (Fouilles d’aï khanoum Vi),Paris.

Villard, l. 1994, le bain dans la médecine hippocratique,in r. ginouvès/a.-M. guimier-sorbets/J. Jouanna/l.Villard (eds), L’eau, la santé et la maladie dans le mondegrec: actes du colloque organisé à Paris (CNRS et FondationSinger-Polignac) du 25 au 27 novembre 1992 par le Centrede recherche « Archéologie et systèmes d’information » et parl’URA 1255 « Médecine grecque » (bch suppl. 28),athens, 41-60.

Vincenti, V. 2008, Pavimenti dalla prima fase delle termedi Fregellae. cenni preliminari, in c. angelelli/F.rinaldi (eds), Atti del XIII colloquio dell’associazione ital-iana per lo studio e la conservazione del mosaico. Canosa diPuglia, 21-24 febbraio 2007, tivoli, 408-416.

Volpicella, d. 2006-2007, cuma. le terme centrali. un pre-liminare inquadramento cronologico delle fasi edilizie,AnnArchStorAnt n13-14, 197-220.

Wacker, c. 1996, Das Gymnasion in Olympia. Geschichte undFunktion, Würzburg.

Walbank, M.b. 1983a, leases of sacred Properties in attica,Part ii, Hesperia 52, 177-199.

Walbank, M.b. 1983b, leases of sacred Properties in attica,Part iV, Hesperia 52, 207-231.

Walter-karydi, e. 1998, The Greek House. The Rise of NobleHouses in Late Classical Times, athens.

Ward-Perkins, J.b. 1976, architettura e urbanistica, in LaMagna Grecia nell’età romana: atti del quindicesimo con-vegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia, Taranto, 5-10 ottobre1975, naples, 243-262.

Ward-Perkins, J.b. 1981, Roman Imperial Architecture,Middlesex.

347

Weber, g. 2010, Die Verfassung der Athener, darmstadt.Weikart, s. 2002, Griechische Bauopferrituale. Intention und

Konvention von rituellen Handlungen im griechischenBauwesen, berlin.

White, k.d. 1970, Roman Farming, ithaca, nY.Wikander, ö. 1996, senators and equites Vi: caius sergius

Orata and the invention of the hypocaust, OpRom 20,177-182.

Williams ii, c.k. 1977, corinth 1976: Forum southwest,Hesperia 46, 40-81.

Williams ii, c.k. 1980, corinth excavations, 1979, Hesperia49, 107-134.

Williams ii, c.k./J.e. Fisher 1976, corinth 1975: Forumsouthwest, Hesperia 45, 99-162.

Williams ii, c.k./O.h. Zervos 1991, corinth, 1990: south -east corner of temenos e, Hesperia 60, 1-58.

Williams, M. thornton 1991, Washing “The Great Unwashed”.Public Baths in Urban America 1840-1920, columbus.

Wilson, a. et al. 2006, euesperides 2006: Preliminary reporton the spring 2006 season, LibSt 37, 117-157.

Wilson, P. 2006, The Survey of Saïs (Sa el-Hagar) 1997-2002,london.

Wilson, r.J.a. 2000, aqueducts and Water supply in greekand roman sicily: the Present status Quaestionis, ing.c.M. Jansen (ed.), Cura Aquarum in Sicilia. Proceedingsof the Tenth International Congress on the History of WaterManagement and Hydraulic Engineering in the Mediter -ranean Region, Syracuse, May 16 - 22, 1998, (babeschsuppl. 6), leuven, 5-36.

Wright, g.r.h. 1955, Where the Maidens of cyrene soughtthe aid of artemis in ritual baths, The LondonIllustrated News July 16: 111-113.

Wright, g.r.h. 1957, cyrene: a survey of certain rock-cut Features to the south of the sanctuary of apollo,JHS 77, 301-310.

Wünsche, r./F. knauß (eds) 2004, Lockender Lorbeer. Sportund Spiel in der Antike, Munich.

Yegül, F. 1981, review of Die Stabianer Thermen in Pompeji,by h. eschebach, AJA 85.4, 506-507.

Yegül, F. 1992, Baths and Bathing in Classical Antiquity, newYork.

Yegül, F. 1996, the thermo-Mineral complex at baiae andthe de balneis Puteolanis, ArtB 78.1, 137-162.

Yegül, F. 2010, Bathing in the Roman World, cambridge.Yegül, F. forthcoming, roman baths in isthmia and

sanctuary baths in greece, in t.e. gregory/e. gebhard(eds), Half a century on the Isthmus, (hesperia suppl.).

Yeivin, s. 1930, the Ptolemaic system of Water supply inthe Fayyûm, ASAE 30, 27-30.

348

349

adaM-Veleni, POlYXeni director, archaeological Museum in thessaloniki pveleni@culture.gr

cuteri, FrancescO a. Professor of Medieval archaeology, Mediterrane-francesco.cuteri@libero.it an university of reggio calabria

di nicuOlO, carMelO archaeologist and Phd candidate, italian school ofcarmelo.dinicuolo@beniculturali.it archaeology at athens

FleMMing, rebecca university senior lecturer in ancient history andref33@cam.ac.uk Fellow of Jesus college, university of cambridge

FOurnet, thibaud architect and researcher ir2 cnrs; director Frenchthibaud.fournet@gmail.com institute of the near east, amman

grecO, eManuele director, italian school of archaeology at athensdirettore@scuoladiatene.it

grecO, giOVanna Professor, scuola di specializzazione in archeolo-giogreco@unina.it gia, university of naples

iannelli, Maria teresa director of archaeology, soprintendenza per iiannellis@libero.it beni archeologici della calabria

lucOre, sandra k. independent scholar, Ph.d. from bryn Mawr col-sandra_lucore@yahoo.com lege

naPOlitani, Pier daniele Professor, department of Mathematics, university,napolita@dm.unipi.it of Pisa

redOn, bérangère scientific Member of the French institute of Orien-berangere.redon@gmail.com tal archaeology, cairo

röMer, cOrnelia Professor, german archaeological institute, cairocorneliaromer@rocketmail.com

russenberger, christian researcher and lecturer, archaeological insti-russenberger@archinst.uzh.ch tute, university of Zurich

sabbiOne, claudiO independent scholar, formerly director, nationalc.sabbione@virgilio.it archaeological Museum of locri

saitO, ken Professor, school of humanities and social sciences,ken.saito@hs.osakafu-u.ac.jp Osaka Prefecture university

stähli, adrian Professor, department of classics, harvard uni-staehli@fas.harvard.edu versity

trüMPer, MOnika associate Professor, department of classics, uni-truemper@email.unc.edu versity of north carolina at chapel hill

list of contributors

350

tsiOlis, Vassilis Professor, department of history, university oftsiolis@uclm.es castilla-la Mancha

Vitti, PaOlO architect and researcher, italian school of archae-pauvitti@gmail.com ology at athens

Yegül, Fikret Professor, department of history of art and archi-fyegul@gmail.com tecture, university of california santa barbara