late hellenistic baths in palestine author(s): david

Late Hellenistic Baths in PalestineAuthor(s): David B. SmallSource: Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 266 (May, 1987), pp. 59-74Published by: The American Schools of Oriental ResearchStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1356931 .

Accessed: 01/08/2014 14:35

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The American Schools of Oriental Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.180.2.168 on Fri, 1 Aug 2014 14:35:16 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asor

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1356931?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Late Hellenistic Baths in Palestine

DAVID B. SMALL Department of Classical Studies

University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1003

This paperfocuses on the assertion that Roman baths diffused into late Hellenistic and early Roman period Palestine. Its analysis begins with a division offeatures of Palestinian baths into builder and user categories. Correlations between these features and the people of ancient Palestine are expressed. In the builder category all the features correlate to building techniques specific to the Near East. In the user category spatial analyses unveil two cultural models of the Palestinian bathing regime. These models are differentfrom those of contemporary Roman/Italian baths and militate against hypotheses of Roman/Italian diffusion. A final note examines the ramifications of this conclusion to the issue of Roman acculturation in Palestine, and its integration into future work on Roman-Palestinian provincial control.

INTRODUCTION

E xcavation in recent years has uncovered a large and still growing number of baths from the late Hellenistic period in Palestine.

The material is now so abundant that Palestine challenges Italy as the most fruitful area for the study of late Hellenistic baths. Many of these baths superficially resemble their Italian counterparts and current opinion is that they were the result of Rome's early influence in Palestine (Gichon 1978: 37-53; Tzafrir 1982: 120-45).

Such an important hypothesis warrants investi- gation. If the baths were the result of Roman acculturation, the question of this acculturation must figure prominently in future study on the increasing body of late Hellenistic material from Palestine. Moreover, the broader implications of this acculturation are crucial to constructing models for Rome's early domination of Palestine. The degree of acculturation to a dominant group is often correlated to that group's colonial or imperialistic control (Horvath 1972: 45-57).

To determine if these baths were the products of Roman acculturation selected characteristics of late Hellenistic baths in Palestine will be examined. This study will focus on two themes: the features that are more closely correlated with the builders of the baths, and the features that are culturally

correlated more closely with the users. In the first group, construction features, the search is for correlations that would permit a judgment on whether the architects, artisans, or workmen were using Roman or Palestinian methods and designs. In the second, functional features are investigated in an attempt to construct models of the Pales- tinian bathing regime. To gauge whether or not the regime is Roman, these models are studied in light of the larger Hellenistic bathing regime and com- pared to those of contemporary Italy specifically. A final note shows how some of these conclusions can be utilized in future Palestinian studies.

THE MATERIAL

Close analysis of architectural features requires detailed archaeological information and our sam- ple here is limited to baths that fit this requirement. The study group consists of the upper and lower baths at Kypros (Netzer 1975b: 59); the baths from Wadi Qelt Jericho-an independent (Netzer 1982b: 112), the one in the "twin palace" (Netzer 1982a: 23, Netzer and Meyers 1977), that in the "first palace" (Pritchard 1958: pl. 66), that in the "second palace" (not fully published), and the baths in the "third palace" (Netzer 1975a: fig. 3); the baths in the fortress at Herodion (Corbo 1963: 239-56; Netzer 1981b: fig. 107); those at Machaerus

59



DAVID B. SMALL

i----- ;i 1 .1 ?r~~ -

t ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1' r~~C~~t~Z~ c

I - - .

i~~~~~~~~~~~ I .-

0 10 20 OPUS RETICULATUM I1I iM I J MUD BRICK

Fig. 1. Third palace, Jericho, adapted from Netzer 1975: fig. 3.

(Corbo 1980: pi. 71); and four from Masada-that on the lowest terrace, (Yadin 1965: 1-64; Avi- Yonah 1957: fig. 13), an independent (Yadin's Roman baths, 1966: 81), an unpublished bath near the north tower, and the one in the western palace (not fully published).

Specifications on these baths that have not been adequately published were obtained through personal observation. It would have been ideal to have included contemporary baths recently excavated in the upper city in Jerusalem (Avigad 1983), but they await detailed publication and, having been re- buried, cannot be inspected. Admittedly the group is limited, but the observations are applicable to the fuller archaeological context.

The baths in the third palace at Jericho (fig. 1) are intentionally omitted from this group. They offer enough detail to be included, but are unique because of their role in an important controversy. The early excavators identified the opus reticulatum section (that of the baths) in the palace as a separate building phase, a later repair to an earlier building. According to Kelso, this repair belongs to Archelaus, the son of Herod the Great (Kelso and Baramki 1955: 10-11). On the other hand, the current excavator claims that the opus reticulatum is not separate, but part of a larger building program that mixed ashlar, mudbrick, and opus reticulatum in the same building (Netzer 1975a: 89-100). He attributes the entire palace to Herod

the Great. It is hoped that by drawing upon the conclusion of the baths to be examined, it will be possible to clarify the character of the baths at Jericho and perhaps even aid in solving the controversy.

Unfortunately, most of the baths are of uncertain date. It is impossible to attribute the baths on the plateau of Masada to a specific ruler, although it has been argued recently that some of the buildings are Hasmonean (Netzer 1982a: 22- 28). The situation is the same at Jericho and Kypros. Although currently attributed to Herod the Great (Netzer 1975a: 89-100; 1975b: 55-61; 1977: 1-15; 1981a: 7-8; 1982a: 22-28), Herod's authorship for the baths cannot be archaeologi- cally ascertained. (For the sake of consistency however, Netzer's terminology, which labels the palaces at Jericho as Herod's first, second, and third, is being employed.)

Only a few baths can be closely dated, those most probably built by Herod the Great. One is on the lowest terrace of the northern palace on Masada, attributable to Herod by its singularity of construction and close fit to Josephus' description (JW 7.8.3 ?289-91). The other two are in the palaces at Herodion (fig. 2: XXVII-XXX) and Machaerus (fig. 3). Like Masada, the construction phases of each palace fit well with Josephus' accounts (Herodion: Ant 15.9.4: ?232-24; Machae- rus: JW 7.6.2-3: ?171-89).

BASOR 266 60



61 HELLENISTIC BATHS IN PALESTINE

0 5 101.

Fig. 2. Upper palace, Herodion, from Netzer 1981a: fig. 107.

Constructional Features

Constructional features cover a wide spectrum. To provide some order, they are divided into four groups: basic construction, order, floor decoration, and wall decoration. In each category those features are selected that reveal something of the methods and choices made by the architects, workmen, or artists.

Basic Construction. The basic characteristics of construction are rough-hewn stone construction, ashlar stone construction, vaults, thickened walls, stone suspensura supports, and brick suspensura supports (Table 1). Grouping the baths according to these characteristics yields some immediate observations. For example, the first five baths on table 1, those which did not employ hypocaust heating, are distinguished by the single characteris- tic of rough hewn stone construction. The last

1987



DAVID B. SMALL

TABLE 1. Basic Construction Features

Rough-hewn Ashlar Vaults Thickened Stone Brick stone wall supports supports

Western palace baths, Masada X North tower baths, Masada X

Independent bath, Jericho X Second palace baths, Jericho X First palace baths, Jericho X X X Lower slope baths, Kypros X X X X

Upper slope baths, Kypros X X X X X

Independent bath, Masada X X X X X Lowest terrace baths, Masada X X X Machaerus X X X Herodion X X X X X

seven baths, those that did use hypocaust heating, are distinguished by a varying feature of ashlar stone construction (predominant), rough-hewn stone construction, vaults, thickened walls, and brick or stone suspensura supports.1

Except for brick supports, none of these features

appears to be the product of nonregional architecture. For example, the two kinds of wall construction link with numerous contemporary buildings in Palestine (e.g., Negev 1976: 349; de Vaux 1953:

pl. 2:B); and examples of vaulted construction are numerous in Palestine in the late independent and Roman domination periods (e.g., Avigad: 1983:

84, pl. 61). The presence of similar features in Palestinian

architecture suggests that these features are correlated to a wider group of constructional principles for the area. The first principle is that local ceramic

production did not include the manufacture of architectural ceramics. The limited presence of brick suspensura supports-often in combination with stone supports-and a lack of ceramic roof tile in late Hellenistic Palestinian sites argue for this. The source of these ceramic suspensura supports is not definite, but the Roman army is a

possible candidate. Permanently stationed in nearby Roman Syria, army potters would have been manu-

facturing architectural material. Baths where the brick and stone supports were used in combination were not uncommon, and the source or means of

transport might not have been able to provide enough ceramics to completely replace the stone.

The second principle is that a method of sup- plying resistance to the lateral thrust of a voussoir vault was by the use of a thickened wall. Table 1 shows that the thickened wall appears in association with a vault, and on-site observation reveals that it served as a support wall in cases where additional rooms did not border that side of the vault.

It is therefore arguable that for architectural material where the ceiling material is no longer present, a thickened wall would suggest a barrel- vaulted room. Its presence in the east wall of the

large southeast room at Machaerus (fig. 3), where little is left above the foundations, would indicate that the room carried a barrel vault. In this case the architect apparently thought that similar thicken-

ing of the west wall was not necessary because the counter-thrust of the west room supplied sufficient resistance to the vault's thrust (a similar case occurs in the synagogue at Khirbet Susiya, Gut- man 1981: 123).

Characteristics of Order. The independent bath at Masada supplies the few elements that help explain the order probably used in several of the baths. They are the lower half of a Nabataean

capital (fig. 4), found in the courtyard, and the frieze blocks (fig. 5), found in a later repair of the furnace.

The artistic attributes of the frieze are seen in the

triglyph ratios; the rosette, used as a metope decoration; and a disk and star, serving as a

metope decoration. The two upper fasciae and

BASOR 266 62



HELLENISTIC BATHS IN PALESTINE

0 5 10

Fig. 3. Machaerus, baths, from Corbo 1980: pl. 71.

insecting groove of the capital identify this as the lower half of a Nabataean capital, produced on a lathe.2

Lathe-working was probably an important pro- cess in Palestinian architectural production. This is evidenced by the use of full columns instead of half columns in walls, such as in the eastern peristyle wall at Herodion and in the inner wall of the dining hall on the lowest terrace of the northern palace at Masada. This may reflect an effort to save time and labor, since it might have been quicker and easier to turn a full column or capital on a lathe than to produce their half column or capital counterparts.

Additionally, contemporary Palestinian sites have yielded a surprisingly large number of lathe- worked stone bowls and jars (Avigad 1983: 174- 82). The quantity of this material far exceeds that found elsewhere. It might be suggested that the importance of lathe work in architecture and the unusual number of lathe-worked stone vessels stemmed from the organization of Palestinian craft production. Perhaps the bowls and capitals came from the same workshops.

The frieze attributes are regionally identified. One attribute, the ratio of height to width in the triglyphs, is ca. 1:1. This ratio is common to Palestine and neighboring regions, coming close to or matching other examples of contemporary Doric frieze proportions and differing from the narrow triglyphs popular with contemporary architects in the west.3 The rosette, actually a combination of smaller attributes, is also a common local

I 1 I cm

Fig. 4. Profile of Nabataean lower half capital from independent baths, Masada.

design. It appears in many artistic media, including mosaics and contemporary ossuaries (Reich and Geva 1975: 67-69).

Another attribute combination, the star, is an unusual decoration. Its position on the upper segment of a disk in one metope (fig. 6) would argue that it was a finial to whatever was carved in the lower part of the disk. Only one parallel exists, a similar star in a similar position on a relief of a cap and star, possibly from the temple of Kore in Samaria (Crowfoot, Kenyon, and Sukenik 1942: 62-67, figs. 29-31, pl. 60:2). Sukenik attributed this cap and star to the Dioskuroi and, although no specific connection between these gods and bathing has been established, the possible parallel composition in the baths might suggest their presence on Masada.

Floor Decoration. Two types of floor decoration are in evidence, mosaic and opus sectile. The design elements of the mosaics, when put into a matrix (Table 2), fall into two pattern groups. The

63 1987



DAVID B. SMALL

Fig. 5. Frieze blocks reused in repair of furnace, independent baths, Masada.

Fig. 6. Star as metope decoration, independent baths, Masada.

configuration of the first group consists of a rosette centerpiece, a circular decorative band, a plain field, possible wave or crowstep bands, and a straight edging band. That of the second group consists of a central geometric pattern (here a configuration of interlocked circles or hexagons), an inner border band, a plain field, and an outer border band. The frequency with which similar mosaics are found in contemporary Palestinian sites argues that these two patterns were popular with regional craftsmen of the period (Avigad

1983: 153-60). The patterns themselves are dis- tinctly eastern Hellenistic (Joyce 1979: 253-63).

An example of opus sectile was found by Netzer in the upper bath at Kypros (Netzer 1975b: 58). Although better attested in the west, a few earlier Hellenistic examples do exist (Doerpfeld 1907: 167-99). It appeared in late Hellenistic and early Roman contexts in Palestine, such as the repaved opus sectile floor in the reception hall of the third palace at Jericho and the opus sectile pavements found in excavation of the upper city in Jerusalem.

BASOR 266 64




TABLE 2. Floor Mosaic Design Elements

(Position in mosaic, starting from center) 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th

Herodion, entrance room ? 5* 4 5

Independent bath, Masada, entrance room 2 5 4 5

Lower baths, Kypros, northern room 2 5 4 5

Lower baths, Kypros, middle room - ? 4 5

Western palace baths, Masada, tub room - 5 4 5

Western palace baths, Masada, entrance room 1 4 3 4 5 7 5 6 5

Herodion, open area before entrance 1 4 3 4 5

* Element codes: 1: rosette; 2: geometric field; 3: circular band; 4: plain field; 5: rectangular band; 6: crowstep; 7: wave.

This western bias in material might stem from the greater number of late rather than early Hellenistic sites excavated in the east.

WallDecoration. Sections of fresco were found in some of the baths. Their designs consist of a solid string panel; a string panel of mixed headers and stretchers; orthostat panels, generally of a uniform width, but with smaller rectangular inserts and a border divided into four L-shaped panels; painted bands between the panels; and a single faunal specimen, an aquatic bird, painted in the insert of the orthostat panels at Herodion.

The design pattern, i.e., the string courses for a dado, the orthostat panels in the orthostat course, and a string course above that, is common through- out the Mediterranean. Its presence in Palestine is the result of an earlier diffusion of a composition originating in classical Greece.

These Palestinian frescoes include additional elements stemming from local adaptation, including the narrow and wide paneled orthostat and string course, the painted bands between the panels, and the orthostat panels with rectangular inserts. Their regional counterparts are notable. Narrow and wide panels in plaster-drafted masonry decorate the walls of the gates and the western palace on Masada and the "mansion" in the upper city of Jerusalem. Remains from the "mansion" also include plaster fragments with bands between

panels and orthostat panels with rectangular inserts (Avigad 1983: 99, fig. 86; 102, fig. 90).

In sum, the construction features show that the baths were built according to Palestinian principles of construction and design. While we may never know who the architects, workmen, or artists were, the consistent presence of these features in the architecture and their correlation with Palestinian building principles argues that these people were indigenous and not of foreign origin.

SPATIAL ANALYSES

Although the baths were constructed according to Palestinian principles, were they built to house a bathing regime that came from Roman Italy or one more indigenous? To arrive at a cultural identification of this regime, the baths are examined by spatial analyses.

The first type of analysis seeks to identify activity sequence. Each bath contains several activity areas, i.e., units of space in which either a single activity or a combination of activities was performed. The boundaries of the activity area are marked by walls, setbacks, surface changes, or level changes. The areas thus defined would include entrance areas, rooms, and set back areas for stepped pools. Additionally, features such as doors, tubs, etc., make it possible to suggest a single activity and

65 1987



DAVID B. SMALL

0 6

Fig. 7. Lower slope baths, Kypros, from Netzer 1975b: 59.

sometimes multiple activities for most areas. The

activity areas and their probable activities are as follows:

1. Room with more than two doors leading to other areas in the baths. Activity: traffic to and from other areas in the baths focusing in this area. 2. Room with tub. Activity: Sitting immersion

bathing (often warm, with water heated by a furnace in all but the twin palaces at Jericho). The additional feature of a brazier stand in this area in the western palace on Masada argues that there the area was heated. 3. Room with suspensurafloor and varying features of wall flues, apses (in all except the first

palace at Jericho and Machaerus) and rectangular niches (in all except the first and second palaces at

Jericho). Although postoccupational transforma- tion has not left tubs in every niche, their presence in the niches at Kypros and the independent bath at Masada argues that a function of the niche was to house such a tub. Additionally, pieces of a labrum in this room in the independent bath at Masada argue that the apses were to accommo- date labra, a common association, seen in rooms in other baths in the Mediterranean. Activities:

immersion bathing in warm water (often hot, due to the proximity of the tub niche to the furnace) and standing washing at a labrum; both activities conducted in a heated area. 4. Area with stepped pool. Activities: immersion bathing. Depth of pool makes standing immersion often possible. Specific attributes of the stepped pools in the independent bath and in the western palace bath at Masada argue that these pools were miqvaot or ritual baths. In both examples channels in the walls above the stepped pools led to a basin against the exterior face of the buildings, which in the western palace was destroyed by the construction of the northeastern block of the

palace. These basins were C6sdr6t, which collected rain water from the roof. According to the tractate Miqvaot, this pure rain water, when mingled with the water in the miqveh, made that water pure as well (Miq 6.1.3,7). Although such channels are absent in the stepped pools in the other baths, these pools might have been miqvaot as well. Present knowledge of the requirements of the

miqvaot in the second temple period is slim and it is probable that there were different regulations that those later written in the Mishnah and the Babylonian Talmud. 5. Room with suspensura floor, area of room smaller than Room 4 above, seen at Kypros (fig. 7:A) and Machaerus (fig. 3:A), where it has an individual furnace. Activity: probably sweating bathing, as argued by its small size and proximity to the furnace. 6. Room with suspensura floor and wall flues, found at Machaerus (fig. 3, no. 6). Its distance from the furnace and relative size would argue that it was a room whose temperature was between that of the heated large room and small room. A possible tepidarium. Activity: uncertain, possible traffic focusing. 7. Room with only two doors, no additional features that would identify an activity.

Spatial matrices for these baths are obtained by linking together the areas that connect through doors or openings (fig. 8). These matrices are also models of activity sequence. They chart the primary route of the bather as he proceeds from the entrance and therefore the overlying sequence and/or alternative choices of activities in his

bathing regime. Most baths show two alternative

sequences: the activities in Area 1 preceding those in Area 4 (1-4), or those in Area 1 preceding those in Area 3 or 2 (1-3) (1-2).

There are also two elaborations in these se-

quences. The first, sequence 1-7-2/3, involves the

BASOR 266 66




4i3

Lowest Terrace, Masada Upper Bath, Kypros

North Tower Bath, Masada Independent Bath, Jericho

1

4 3

First Palace, Jericho Independent Bath, Masada Herodeion

Twin Palace, Jerico Western Palace, Masada

R

Lower Baths, Kypros

Fig. 8. Spatial models of Palestinian baths, second palace baths, Jericho, not included.

addition of an intermediate area (7) and its unknown activity(s) as in the twin palaces at Jericho. The second, sequence 7-1-3/4/5/6, is the inclusion of an intermediate area (1) whose only known activity is that of a traffic focus. The independent bath at Masada is an example.

Several characteristics are brought out by this type of modeling. Because it shows that the miqvaot and the bathroom areas were not linked sequentially, but were offered as choices to the bather, both areas were apparently free to operate independently. It was not necessary to use a miqveh when taking a bath. Alternatively, this left the miqveh open for ritual bathing without having to involve oneself in a larger bathing regime.

This analysis additionally suggests possible activities for areas of unknown activity. The entrance Areas 1 and 7, because they were foci for miqvaot and bathroom areas, must have had dressing and undressing as one of their activities.

The second spatial approach focuses on the weighting of the activities in the different areas. While the specific activities or the specific importance placed on the activities in the different areas may never be known, the activities of each must have been correlated in some measure to both functional and ideational systems. It should there-

fore be possible to identify a cultural trait of the baths by isolating a consistent relationship in size between different rooms of a bath, distributed among several examples.

As a caveat, there are activity areas whose sizes might not show a great degree of variability. The miqvaot do not vary in size to a great degree because the minimum amount of water was fixed by religious prescriptions. The sweating bath would also not be as size-variable as the other areas, because it would be advantageous to keep the area small to facilitate its being heated to a high temperature.

But it is possible to judge the relationship between the activities in other areas. Figure 9 shows that the areas with the greatest dimensions tend to be the entrance areas, 1 and 7, and the bathroom areas, 2 and 3. It should be here that the greatest number, more complex, or perhaps more strongly ideationally-emphasized activities are localized, as suggested by the activity area model as well. On the other end of the scale, the intermedite areas, 1, 7, 6, tend to be smaller than the entrance and bathroom areas and would have fewer and less complex activities, and probably less ideational emphasis. This unequal weighting was fundamental to the identification of the Palestinian bathing regime for

Machaerus

67 1987



68 DAVID B. SMALL BASOR 266

134 13 4

Lowest Upper Terrace Bath Masada Kypros

1 24 7 12 4 247

Twin Independent Western Palace Bath Palace

Jericho Jericho Masada

3 7

First ndependent Palace Bath

Jericho Masada

Fig. 9. Relative sizes of areas in Palestinian baths. ? = undefined areas. Lower baths at Kypros were not included because of incomplete excavation; north tower baths at Masada were not included because of addition of a later wall in the entrance.

it was inherent not only in the basic activity area sequence but also in both types of elaboration.

THE PALESTINIAN REGIME IN THE LARGER HELLENISTIC CULTURE GROUP

Some of the activities identified in our models of the Palestinian bathing regime argue that it was a mixture of local activities and activities stemming from a larger Hellenistic culture group. The local activity, ritual bathing, is grounded in Palestine (Reich 1981: 48-52). But the ancestry of the other activities is found in the earlier Hellenistic period outside Palestine's borders. For example, the third century B.C. baths at Gortys in Arcadia supplied the bather with hot immersion bathing; bathing in gradations of temperature, i.e., using a hot room and an intermediate warm room; sweating bathing; and standing washing (Ginouves 1962: pls. 53-55). At Gortys these activities are distributed among different areas, but the late second century B.C. baths at Olympia offered hot immersion bathing and a standing wash in a single hypocaust heated activity area (Kunze and Scheif 1944: 51-57, pl. 19).

Except for ritual bathing, the earlier history of these activities in Palestine is not certain. Our earliest examples of those in Area 2 do not appear until the Maccabean or early Hasmonean periods (Sellers 1933: 16-19, pl. 2; Macalister 1912: 223- 28, figs. 110-13). There is less documentation for the activities in Area 3, where only one example is known. With its hot tub for immersion bathing in a hypocaust heated room, the domestic bath at Tel Anafa (ca. 125 B.C.) lacks only a standing wash to be the first example of this activity in Area 3, in Palestine.

A predominance of Area 3 in the baths attributable to Herod the Great might argue that its activities were adopted by the Jewish royalty after that of Area 2. If so, then our spatial model shows that these new activities were replacing those of Area 2 in the earlier regime.

The regional character of the Palestinian bathing regime is underscored by a comparison of our activity area models and size graphs to those of baths in contemporary Italy. Contrary to current opinion, although they share some activities, both the Palestinian and Italian bathing regimes are different. The overlying activity sequence of the

70_

< 60-

..v . I 50_ _J

I 40 u. 0

cm 30- ,--

z U

2U 20-

10-

0- 341 7 3 41 3 4 7 7

Herodion

7 3 4T16 Second Pa I ace

Jericho

Machaerus

I II

BASOR 266 68 DAVID B. SMALL

1 1




0 'I (

7> 6

Forum Baths, Herculaneum - Women's Forum Baths, Pompeii - Women's Stabian Baths, Pompeii - Women's House of Diomedes House of the Citharist House of the Silver Wedding

Forum Baths, Herculaneum - Men's

3

Central Baths, Pompeii

6

8) 3

Stabian Baths, Pompeii - Men's Villa Rustica House of Emperor Joseph II

Fig. 10. Spatial models of Italian baths. Additional entrance areas in women's section, forum baths, Herculaneum were not included.

Italian baths is based on a 7-6-3 progression (fig. 10). The round frigidarium, Area 8, an exclusive Italian feature, except for its presence in the baths in the third palace at Jericho, often serves as an alternative to the warm rooms.

A comparison of activity area sizes shows a rough equality among the three principal areas (fig. 11). Like the size relationships of the Palestinian baths, this parity is common to most Italian baths and should be correlated to functional and/or ideational systems.4 This equality in size is in direct contrast to the unequal weighting in the Palestinian regime.

In sum, the fundamental similarities of the Pales- tinian and Italian regimes, i.e., their shared activities, have been traced to their Hellenistic ancestry. But the differences in the organization and weighting of these activities must reflect cultural adapta- tions of this antecdent.

RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER ARCHITECTURE

If the Palestinian royal families were bathing in a locally developed Hellenistic regime, the question arises as to the nature of their other domestic

habits. Casting our architectural observations beyond the baths, it is possible to argue that, from an architectural analysis, the royal elite was an independent group that had adopted some of the habits of the larger Hellenistic culture group but had not undergone significant Roman acculturation. With the exception of the opus reticulatum section of the third palace at Jericho, their domestic architecture was a mixture of activity areas that contained regional and larger Hellenistic activities.5

Two examples will elucidate the point. The area of the private suite in the western palace on Masada (fig. 12) housed a local activity (or activities). The suite did not open onto the central court. Thus the activities in the suite were not tied to those of the court, as often seen in other domestic sites in the Hellenistic world. In the second example (fig. 2:XV), the Cyzicene dining hall in the palace at Herodion housed a group of activities that were part of the larger Hellenistic culture group. It was designed to facilitate viewing a garden through low windows and a central door. Popular in the east, this hall is seldom seen in the west. Even Vitruvius mentions that it was not common in Italy, but in the Greek east (Vitr 6.6.1).

69 1987



600 CC

o

40_ U.

30_ -

= 20- - -

10__

o 763 7638 763 763 1638 7638 7763 763 7638 163 1 6387- 77637 7637?

House House of House House Villa Central Stabian Stabian Forum Forum Forum Forum Suburban of the Emperor of the of Rustica Baths Baths Baths Baths Baths Bas B Baths Baths

Citharist Joseph II Silver Diomedes Pompeii Men's Women's Pompeii Pompeii Herculaneum Herculaneum Men's Women s Men's Women's

Fig. 11. Relative sizes of areas in Italian baths. ? = undefined area.

0

Ot

ON




Fig. 13. Spatial model of third palace baths, Jericho.

N

I ASHLAR

RUBBLE

Fig. 12. Western palace, Masada.

40_

30_

20_

The observations gained from these analyses help solve the question of the patronship of the omitted baths in the third palace at Jericho (fig. 1). The construction features of the Jericho baths include opus reticulatum wall construction and vaulting without the presence of thickened walls. These were popular building techniques specific to Roman Italy and signal that the architect was building with Roman-Italian techniques; perhaps the architect himself was Roman. Furthermore, spatial analysis shows that the patron was bathing according to a Roman regime. The activity area model of the baths shows two sequences, 1-6-3 alternating with 1-7-8 (fig. 13). Neither matches the primary patterns of the other royal baths, but rather that of the men's baths in the Forum Baths in Herculaneum. These baths also contain a nonregional activity area, 8, the frigidarium, and lack the traditional activity area, 4, the miqveh. Addi- tionally, the size relationships among the three major activity areas of the two sequences do not parallel those of the other royal baths, but again the Italian (fig. 14). The monarch using these baths had become heavily Roman acculturated, to the point that his daily domestic-religious activities differed from those of other Jewish rulers.

If the royal baths and associated royal domestic architecture argue that the Jewish elite was not adopting Roman customs, then this monarch was

10_

0-

Fig. 14. Relative Jericho.

163 87

sizes of areas in third palace baths,

probably acculturated elsewhere. It is unlikely that he was Herod the Great as argued by Netzer (1975). Herod did travel to Italy, but his recog- nizable domestic architecture shows no signs of Roman acculturation. More suitable candidates are Archelaus and Agrippa I. Schooled in Rome, they probably returned to Palestine with adopted Roman customs.

The case for Archelaus is the stronger. Josephus documents that he rebuilt part of the palaces at Jericho after their vandalism by the rebel leader Simon (Ant 17.13.1 ?340; JW2.18.6 ?484). Further- more, the use of opus reticulatum was more fre- quent in the Augustan period than in that of Agrippa I (A.D. 37-44), when opus tLstaceum was more fashionable.

PROSPECTUS

The conclusions of this paper have a direct bearing upon future research into Palestine's role

71 1987

, 1 t 3 4

nrfH~~~~~~~~~~~~~\i



DAVID B. SMALL

as a province in the Roman empire. A suitable focus for future research would be whether Rome's control of Palestine was imperialistic-that is, working through a local elite power structure-or colonial-operating through the introduction of a foreign elite group. The architectural evidence argues that the relationship between the royal elite of Judaea and that of Rome in this period did not include an acculturation of the Jewish elite to Roman customs. This hypothesis underscores the client position of its kings and argues for early imperialistic control where one would not expect to see forms of acculturation brought about by indigenous copying of customs of foreign officials (Horvath 1972). Roman provincial study argues that it might be more profitable to look for changes in Judaea's economic system instead (Bartel 1980: 11-26).

The subsequent question is what type of control Rome exerted after the death of Archelaus, when Judaea was made a province. It is here that the material to be published from the upper city in Jerusalem may prove extremely important. A close examination of the activities in the houses, destroyed by the Roman army in A.D. 70, might tell us if the Jerusalem elite had adopted Roman customs and answer the question of whether Rome's domination of Judaea had turned to colonial control. The fact that Agrippa I was to assume the throne after a period of provincial administra-

tion might, a priori, argue that the control was still imperialistic.

CONCLUSION

Although they might superficially resemble baths in late Hellenistic Italy, the Palestinian baths were the products of Palestinian architectural and artistic conception. More important, they represent an independent Hellenistic bathing tradition, an attested counterpart to the Italian.

In this paper spatial analysis has been successful in moving architectural archaeology a step beyond the material and into the culture of the people. In respect to ancient Palestine, it can generate profitable questions for future archaeological research. It is hoped that classical and Near Eastern architectural archaeology will employ this and other similar types of analyses in the future.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This paper was inspired by work in progress on a general introduction to Hellenistic and Roman architecture in Palestine. My gratitude to the Dorot Foundation, who have generously helped to fund the project and without whose support this paper would not have been possible. While writing this paper I was aided by helpful comments from Aileen Baron, Seymour Gitin, and James Coulton.

NOTES

'The remains of the lower slope baths on Kypros (fig. 7) have both ashlar and rough-hewn stone walls. The reason for this mix is that these baths are one or more transformations of an earlier building. The inner dividing walls and the wall used to block the eastern door to the northern stepped pool are of ashlar construction, while the remaining walls (with the possible exception of the round room) are of rough-hewn stone. The identical ashlar composition of the blocked door and the inner walls indicated that the room divisions and the blockage of the door postdate the present exterior walls. The round room on the west is also late. All the openings in the exterior walls are edged with quoins, except for the round room. Since its door is not of the same design as the others, it was probably built after the exterior walls.

2Two additional capitals from Masada and Herodion show that this Nabataean capital was actually a roughed-

out Corinthian capital. For example, the capitals at Herodion have two profiles. One side resembles a Nabataean capital and the other side is a finished Corinthian capital. The upper and lower lobes of the acanthus leaves on the Corinthian side correspond to the upper and lower fasciae on the Nabataean side. The fasciae were roughed-out planes into which the acanthus was carved. It was apparently decided to finish only one side of the capital for they were inserted in the eastern peristyle wall at Herodion and only half of the capital was visible.

3Approximate ratios for other regional Doric friezes (width:height)

Frieze Tomb of Absalom Beni Hezir Tomb Araq el-Emir

Metope 1:0.9 1:0.9

Triglyph 1:0.7 1:0.9

1:1 1:0.9

BASOR 266 72



73 HELLENISTIC BATHS IN PALESTINE

Tomb of Hammrath 1:0.7 1:0.7 Tomb of the Kings 1:1 1:1.8 Umm el-Amed 1:1 1:1.5 Basilica on Temple Mount 1:1 1:1.2

(B. Mazar, personal communication) Pavilion at Jericho 1:1.3 1:1

4There is an overlap of features in some Italian baths: benches, tubs, seen most often in Areas 7 and 3, appear as well in Area 6. This argues that the activities of Area 6 were at least multiple and sometimes similar to those in 7 and 3.

5Segal (1973: 27-29) proposed that the Mausoleum of Augustus was an antecedent for Herodion, but his

argument is unsubstantiated. For example he notes, "We shall not discuss here the architectural aspects of these two buildings, even though the ways in which they were constructed shows an amazing similarity in some details." Yet he does not refer to his "details," but only to pls. 15:b,c, which show the arches in the entrances of each building. His photographic comparison is decep- tive, showing superimposed arches in the walls of the mausoleum, which in the two dimensional photograph look similar to the corridor arches at Herodion. Fur-

thermore, I fail to see how his additional arguments, the choice of the areas and of the name Herodion, specify that the mound itself looks to Augustus's mausoleum for a model.

In design the site recalls the unique hierothesia of the earlier Commagene kings and is the only example of such work outside their kingdom. An artificial mound, built in an open setting, Herodion copies closely the hierothesia of Nimroud Dagh, Kara-Kouch, and Sesonk. With its platform on the north slope, Herodion parallels Nimroud Dagh and Kara-Kouch specifically.

There are those who do not share my opinion. Netzer

(1981a: 100) argues that, with a palace in the Herodian

design, the function of Herodion was different from that of the Commagene mounds. Vardaman (1964: 66) thinks a comparison is "far-fetched" but offers no further comment. While I agree with Netzer that the addition of

palatial buildings at Herodion does argue that a functional comparison to the Commagene mounds is nebu- lous, I find the uniqueness of the formal similarity strong evidence that whatever new functions the Herodion mound served, the antecedent of much of its design can only be the Commagene hierothesia.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Avigad, N. 1983 Discovering Jerusalem. New York: Thomas

Nelson.

Avi-Yonah, M. 1957 The Archaeological Survey of Masada, 1955-

1956. Israel Exploration Journal 7:1-60.

Bartel, B. 1980

Corbo, V.

Colonialism and Cultural Responses: Prob- lems Related to Roman Provincial Analysis. World Archaeology 12: 11-26.

1963 L'Herodeion di Giabal Fureidis. Liber Annuus 13: 239-56.

1980 La Fortezza di Macheronte (Al Mishnaqa). Liber Annuus 30: 365-76.

Crowfoot, G.; Kenyon, K.; and Sukenik, E. 1942 The Buildings at Samaria. London: Palestine

Exploration Fund.

Doerpfeld, W. 1907 Pergamon. Mitteilungen des deutschen Ar-

chdologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung 20:167-99.

Gichon, M. 1978 Roman Bathhouses in Eretz Israel. Qad-

moniot 11: 37-53

Ginouves, R. 1962 Balaneutike: Recherches sur le Bain dans

L'Antiquite Grecque. Paris: de Boccard. Gutman, S.; Yeivin, Z.; and Netzer, E.

1981 Excavations in the Synagogue at Horvat Susiya. Pp. 123-28 in Ancient Synagogues Revealed, ed. L. Levine. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

Horvath, R. 1972 A Definition of Colonialism. Current Anthro-

pology 13: 45-57. Joyce, H.

1979 Form, Function and Technique in the Pave- ments of Delos and Pompeii. American Journal of Archaeology 83: 253-63.

Kelso, J., and Baramki, D. 1955 Excavations at New Testament Jericho and

Khirbet En-nitla. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research, Vol. 29-30. New Haven, CT: American Schools of Orien- tal Research.

Kunze, E., and Scheif, H. 1944 Olympia. Bericht 4: 51-57.

Macalister, R. 1912 The Excavations of Gezer. Vol. 1. London:

Murray.

1987



DAVID B. SMALL

1982b Ancient Ritual Baths (Miqvaot) in Jericho. Pp. 106-119 in The Jerusalem Cathedra: Studies in the History, Archaeology, Geog- raphy, and Ethnography of the Land of Israel, Vol, 1, ed. L. Levine, Detroit, MI: Wayne State University.

Negev, A. 1976

Netzer, E.

Eboda. Pp. 345-55 in Encyclopedia of Archae- ological Excavations in the Holy Land. Vol. 2, ed. M. Avi-Yonah. London: Oxford Uni-

versity.

1975a The Hasmonean and Herodian Winter Pal- aces at Jericho. Israel Exploration Journal 25: 89-100.

1975b Cypros. Qadmoniot 8: 55-61. 1977 The Winter Palaces of the Judean Kings at

the End of the Second Temple Period. Bulle- tin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 228: 1-15.

1981a Le Palais a Jericho. Le Monde de la Bible 17: 7-8.

1981b Greater Herodium. Jerusalem: Institute of

Archaeology, the Hebrew University of Jeru- salem.

1982a Recent Discoveries in the Winter Palaces of the Second Temple Times at Jericho. Qad- moniot 15: 22-28.

1982b Ancient Ritual Baths (Miqvaot) in Jericho.

Pp. 106-119 in The Jerusalem Cathedra: Studies in the History, Archaeology, Geog- raphy, and Ethnography of the Land of Israel, Vol, 1, ed. L. Levine, Detroit, MI: Wayne State University.

Netzer, E., and Meyers, E. 1977 Preliminary Report on the Joint Jericho

Excavation Project. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 228: 15-29.

Pritchard, J. 1958 The Excavation at Herodian Jericho, 1951.

Annual of the American Schools of Oriental

Research. Vol. 32-33. New Haven, CT: American Schools of Oriental Rsearch.

Reich, R. 1981 Archaeological Evidence of the Jewish Popu-

lation of Hasmonean Gezer. Israel Explora- tion Journal 31: 48-52.

Reich, R., and Geva, H. 1975 Five Jewish Burial-Caves on Mount Scopus.

Pp. 67-69 in Jerusalem Revealed, ed. Y. Yadin. New Haven, CT: Yale University.

Reisner, G.; Fisher, C.; and Lyon, D. 1924 Harvard Excavations at Samaria 1908-1910.

Vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Segal, A.

1973 Herodium. Israel Exploration Journal 23: 27-29.

Sellers, O. 1933 The Citadel of Beth-Zur. Philadelphia: West-

minster. Tzafrir, Y.

1982 The Desert Fortresses of Judea in the Second

Temple Period. Pp. 120-45, in The Jerusalem Cathedra; Studies in the History, Archae-

ology, Geography, and Ethnography of the Land of Israel, Vol. 1, ed. L. Levine. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University.

Vardaman, E. 1964 History of Herodium. Pp. 58-81 in The

Teacher's Yoke: Studies in Memory of Henry Trantham, eds. E. Vardaman and J. Garrett Jr. Waco, TX: Baylor University.

de Vaux, R. 1953 Fouilles de Khirbet Qumran. Revue Biblique

60: 83-106. Yadin, Y.

1965 Excavation of Masada 1963/64, Preliminary Report. Israel Exploration Journal 15: 1-64.

1966 Masada: Herod's Fortress and the Zea- lot's Last Stand. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.

74 BASOR 266



late hellenistic baths in palestine author(s): david

Documents