The Genesis of the Roman Public Bath: Recent Approaches and Future Directions

The problem of the origins and early development of the Roman public bath has proven an intractable one for classical archaeologists. In the absence of hard ancient evidence, many modern propositions have been put forward to explain the process of development. In this paper, the six most influential of these approaches are presented and critiqued for their strengths and weaknesses. It is found that none is sufficient in itself to explain the appearance of the Roman-style bath but that most advance the analysis in some measure. Consideration of the often bypassed literary and epigraphic material is also included to help identify the third and second century B.C. as the crucial period in the history of this building type's evolution. Finally, it is argued that the case for Campania remains the strongest, but not (as often claimed) as the place where Roman baths exclusively evolved. Rather, Campania provided an apt context for the final appearance of an architectural genre that had demonstrable roots extending farther afield and deeper into the past. Throughout, directions for future research are suggested.* In the recent surge of work on Roman baths, the problem of origins and early development ranks high among the most contentious and insoluble issues.' In the absence of a consensus, a variety of propositions has been advanced to explain the unusual form of the typical Roman bath, with its system of variously heated rooms and communal bathing pools. It is the purpose of this paper to collate, present, and analyze these propositions, and thereby help identify not only their individual *I would like to thank the Research and Graduate Studies Office and the Institute for the Arts and Humanistic Studies at Penn State University for supporting the research for this paper with substantial funding in the summer of 1998. Parts of this paper were delivered orally at various institutions and professional meetings, and I thank all the commentators for their input. Various colleagues read earlierversions of the paper (or parts of it) and offered insightful and substantial comments, notably P.B. HarveyJr., RJ.A. Wilson, and the editor and two anonymous referees of the AJA. My thanks also go to A.I. Wilson, N. DeHaan, H. Manderscheid, and A.O. Koloski-Ostrow for assistance with bibliography, illustrations, and other matters. None of the above, naturally, are responsible for any errors that remain. 'The main works are: Brodner 1992; DeLaine 1997; DeLaine andJohnston 1999; Ecole francaise de Rome 1991; Fagan 1999a; Heinz 1984; Manderschied 1988; Merten 1983; Nielsstrengths and weaknesses but also future directions for further research. Before proceeding, it must be appreciated that the main problem facing an investigation into the early history of Roman baths is the sparsity of source material, so that a handful of available archaeological sites has tended to be used as a basis for extrapolating general schemes of early development. The issue of typicality has usually not been seriously considered.2 Similarly, literary testimony either has been glossed over or addressed only in the most general fashion.3 The epigraphic evidence, which derives from a period when bathing culture appears well entrenched in Roman life, is largely uninformative as to origins but offers contemporary documentary evidence as to use and construction from the late second century B.C. onward. Overall, these difficulties inherent in the early evidence have resulted in a greater latitude for varied modern in-