The bath on the Pamisos valley

Chapter 3

174

The bath building is situated in the Pamisos river valley, some 10 km from the sea and ca. 30 km from Messene. The site is downhill from the Classical and Hellenistic settlement of Thouria. Pausanias wrote that the city was transferred to the plain in Roman times²⁶⁴, but up to date it has not been identified.

The only remains are the Roman bath and a ruined apse, probably belonging to the same complex, since it is only 25 m away (fig. 3.214‐L).

The structure of this bath is in excellent condition though still unpublished. It was surveyed in 2006‐

2008 as part of a research partnership between the Scuola Archeologica Italiana di Atene and the LH’

Eforia Proistorikon kai Klassikon Archaiotiton²⁶⁵. Most of the vaults are still preserved, with the ex‐

ception of the south wing, which has partially col‐

lapsed. The lower part of the building is still buried under ca. 2 m of alluvial sediments deposited during flooding from the river.

A general description of the architectural layout fol‐

lows as an introduction to discussion of the building techniques.

Description of the building

The bath complex covered a surface of ca. 550 m². The rooms were organized along a central axis, in‐

clined westwards. The building (fig. tth55) had an extension of ca. 31x22.5 m. The entrance was from the south side, with two rooms (A1) and (A2) serv‐

ing probably as apodyteriaand anointing rooms²⁶⁶. The rooms were all of the same height except the frigidarium, covered by a cross vault which was ca.

2.25 m higher. Like the northeast baths in Epidaurus (see §3.3.3), the façade of the bath was shaped with a curved layout, resulting both from the curved plan of the end walls and the curved extrados of the roof (plate 9). Each curved end was crowned with a brick cornice, only partially preserved (fig. 3.216‐d).

The functional plan was designed according to the so‐called axial row type²⁶⁷. The cold rooms were clearly separated from the heated ones by a wall, which roughly divided the complex into two halves.

The frigidarium was a rectangular room (F1) 6.66x8.94 m, covered by a groin vault (fig. 3.217), square in plan with two extensions to the north and south. On the east and west side there were two rec‐

tangular rooms, (F2) e (F3), with curved outer façades and covered by lower vaults. The barrel vaults spanned 5.44 m. Two pilasters 1.17x1.05 m reduced the openings of the two rooms towards the main central hall (F1) and were necessary to sup‐

port the groin vault. Light came through a window

covered by a segmental arch (span: 1.8 m), placed at the centre of the curved walls and covered by a structural system composed of a flat arches and a relieving arch above it (fig. 3.221). All the other win‐

dows of the bath complex were similar, except the windows of the central hall of the frigidarium(F1) which had two clerestory windows above the two lower‐side rooms. These windows were 1.05x1.80 m (fig. 3.216‐a).

Two doors connected the frigidarium with the heated sector: one towards (D), 1.20 m wide, and one towards (T), 1.04 m wide.

Room (D) was a corridorwhich provided access to most of the heated rooms. It was lower than the

Roman vaulting and construction in the Peloponnese: case studies 175

Fig. 3.215 Bath on the Pamisos valley (Thouria): restored plan

Chapter 3

176

Fig. 3.216 Bath on the Pamisos valley (Thouria). Detail of the west elevation of the frigidarium: a) clerestory window of the room (1); b) groin vault partially collapsed; c) brick courses in the exterior wall of the main hall; d) arched cornice of the curved exterior façade

Fig. 3.217 Bath on the Pamisos valley (Thouria). View of the partially collapsed groin vault of the frigidarium(F1)

Fig. 3.218 Bath on the Pamisos valley (Thouria). Detail of the brick facing

Roman vaulting and construction in the Peloponnese: case studies 177

other rooms and measured 2.50x5.03 m (fig. 3.220).

This room was heated, since under the impost of the vault opened four rectangular 22x40 cm holes con‐

nected to vents made of ø15 cm terracotta pipes (fig.

3.221). These vents were embedded in the walls, as the downpipes for the rain water, which were how‐

ever, smaller (ca. ø10 cm).

The tepidarium(T) was the only rectangular room (6.07x5.03 m) without a curved façade. It is covered by a barrel vault. Vents opened only in the south wall, showing that the room was not heated to high temperatures.

The caldarium(C1) was a central hall 6.18x5.00 m with two niches, (C1.1) and (C1.2), where the two alvea(hot pools) must have been situated. C1 was covered by a groin vault while the two niches were covered by two barrel vaults (fig. 3.222), spanning 4.12 m. Vents were similar to those in room (D), but in rooms (C1.1) and (C1.2) pipes were ø14 cm, while

the others were ø20 cm. On the partition wall with room (C2) single vents were connected to both rooms.

Rooms (C2) and (C3) were nearly square in plan (C1: 5.10x5.00 m; C2: 4.95x5.00 m) and faced east, with wide windows similar to the ones described (fig. 3.223). They are covered by barrel vaults.

Room (B) was not directly connected to the hot rooms. The plan of the room with a curved wall, as in the other rooms, suggests it was used by bathers, though a very low opening on the east side shows which the passageway was located at a different level from the others used by the public.

Description of the building techniques

The walls. The opus testaceumwalls (0.75 m thick) were made with triangular bricks, cut from 30x30x3.5 cm pedales(figs. 3.218 and 3.224) which had grooves along the diagonals to facilitate cutting

Chapter 3

178

process. Bricks were cut with a saw (fig. 3.225).

Mortar joints have an average thickness of 2.5‐2.7 cm and were smoothed with a trowel, angled in order to create a small indentation above the upper edge of the bricks. The modulus of 10 bricks is vari‐

able: in room (F) it is 59 cm; in room (C1) 62‐64 cm;

in room (F) 56‐62 cm. Concrete was made of cal‐

careous 8‐11 cm caementa laid in horizontal courses and tamped and was regularly divided by bipedalisbonding courses. Putlog holes were 9x9 cm and were 1.30‐1.50 m apart vertically.

Arches. Doors and windows had flat arches with re‐

lieving arches above them (fig. 3.226). They were made with concrete and faced with bipedales, some of them extended to all the thickness of the arch, to form voussoirs of concrete. In the arches brick cae- mentawere used (fig. 3.227). For the facing of the arch voussoir bipedaleswere also used (th: max 3.5‐

4.5 cm, min 2‐3 cm). The arches of room (C1.2) and (C1.3) facing room (C1) were made with sesquipedales(44cm).

Two niches in rooms (F1) and (C1) had a facing made of 31‐32 cm square bricks (fig. 3.219), some with voussoir shape to reduce the mortar joint (th:

max 4 cm; min 2‐2.5 cm).

Vaults. The vaults were made with concrete, laid on formwork (fig. 3.228). The wooden boards have left imprints on the concrete ca. 27‐30 cm wide. The boards of the formwork were laid on the top of the end walls on a recess of ca. 10 cm, visible in room (B), where the vault is missing .

Most of the barrel vaults had a 5.00 m span, except the rooms (F2) e (F3), which had a 5.50 m span.

Concrete was laid in horizontal courses with cal‐

careous caementa. Barrel vaults had a curved extra‐

dos above the haunches (fig. 3.223) and were waterproofed with crushed‐brick mortar. The groin vault of room (1) that rose higher than the other vaults, had a gabled extrados.

The most peculiar characteristic of the vaults lies in

Fig. 3.219 Bath on the Pamisos valley (Thouria). Niche in the north wall of room (F1)

Fig. 3.220 Bath on the Pamisos valley (Thouria). Room D. Dot‐

ted line marks the flat arch lintel and the above relieving arch.

Broken lines highlight the imprints of the formwork

Roman vaulting and construction in the Peloponnese: case studies 179

Fig. 3.222 Bath on the Pamisos valley (Thouria). View of the caldarium (C1) from east Fig. 3.221 Bath on the Pamisos valley (Thouria). Restored sections of the bath