The northeast bath

The “Aquae” bath building has been identified after an inscription found in the Sanctuary¹²⁰and must belong to the buildings financed by Antoninus be‐

cause of the many stamped tiles bearing the inscrip‐

tion ANTΩNEINOY¹²¹which are also similar to the ones found in the Sanctuary of Apollo Maleatas¹²² (fig. 3.117). R. Ginouvés has highlighted two build‐

ing phases¹²³: the first dates to the 2^ndcentury, the second to the end of the 4^thcentury‐early 5^th. The plan of the first‐phase building is preserved almost in its entirety (fig. 3.118) and has the apsed rooms typical for calidaria which we find also in other baths in the Peloponnese, such as those in Thouria (see §3.8.1).

The rooms described here (fig. 3.119) are (F1) and (B2) (after Ginouvès numbering, see fig. 3.118).

They provide interesting examples of pitched‐brick vaulting, used in three different forms of vaults: a sail vault, a barrel vault and a half‐dome.

Roman vaulting and construction in the Peloponnese: case studies 111

Chapter 3

112

Room (F1)

The 3.23x3.90 m rectangular room of this frigidar- ium(fig. 3.120), housed a pool for bathing. For the construction of the sail vault covering the room, the two ends of the rooms had two 30 cm thick arches, in order to create a square in plan area¹²⁴. The en‐

trance had a wide opening in the 44 cm thick wall.

The opposite wall, facing south, was built against the terrace on which the sanctuary of Epidotai gods rose. It had a circular niche opening at its centre (fig.

3.120‐A). The two side walls were 60 cm thick. The west wall was built in opus testaceumup to height of the impost of the end arches and in mortared rub‐

ble above it. The opposite wall was in opus mixtum.

The reason for this difference could be the fact that the opus testaceumwall separated room (F1) from the water reservoir of the baths, and thus was built differently. Bricks (22x22x3,5 cm) were cut in trian‐

gular shape in the wall. The brick facing had 3 cm mortar joints (M=63.5‐64 cm). Above the opus tes- taceumwas a rubble wall made of local stone laid in horizontal courses (fig. 3.121). The opus mixtum was made with five brick courses separating a rub‐

ble masonry facing.

End-arches. These arches were made of triangular cut bricks. The two legs of the triangle were placed one on the intrados and one against the wall, in order that the hypotenuse faced the centre of the room and it provided an inclined surface on which to lay the bricks of the sail vault (fig. 3.122)

Sail vault. The vault covering the pool differed from those in the adjacent rooms, in order to emphasize the function through a distinct architectural layout.

The bricks were laid uncut on the inclined surface provided by the triangular end‐arches and the top of the rubble stone walls, expressly built in order to have an inclined surface towards the centre of the room on which to lay the bricks. The courses of in‐

clined bricks interlocked in the diagonals (fig. 4.7).

For remarks on this vault see the equivalent sail vault of RG5 in Troezen (§ 3.2.7).

Half-dome niche. The niche was faced with bricks and was positioned in the opus mixtumsection of

Fig. 3.119 Sanctuary of Asklepios (Epidaurus). View of the northeast baths from north. The higher walls belong to room (F1) anf (B2)

Fig. 3.120 Sanctuary of Asklepios (Epidaurus). Sketch with construction details of room (F1) in the northeast baths

Roman vaulting and construction in the Peloponnese: case studies 113

the end wall. Its impost was at the same height as the impost of the end‐arches (fig. 3.121). The brick courses of the opus mixtumwere laid beneath the niche and under the impost of the half‐dome. For the construction of the half‐dome the pitched tech‐

nique was also used.

The inclined surfaced for the pitched bricks was created by the first three courses of the brick facing of the niche (fig. 3.120). The pitched construction proceeded from the centre of the niche outwards, in order that the bricks meet in the centre creating

a herring bone bond (fig. 3.123). This technique al‐

lowed for a construction without centering, facili‐

tating the building process, since for such small‐sized half‐domes the cutting of boards for centering was a major issue.

Room (B2)

This room is adjacent to (F1) and had similar in di‐

mensions. It was covered by a solid‐brick barrel vault. The first section of the vault from the impost to the haunches was made with radially‐laid bricks.

Chapter 3

114

The second section was made with pitched‐bricks, laid inclined against the end wall. The impost of the vault was higher than the impost of room (F1). As a result the crowning was at the same height in both vaults (fig. 3.121).

Remarks on the pitched-brick vaults

All three of the preserved vaults of this bath com‐

plex use the pitched‐brick technique, different from the vertical‐brick technique, because of the inclined positioning of the bricks. Laying the bricks inclined instead of vertical had the major advantage that

each course of bricks did not need a formwork. Un‐

fortunately the decayed condition of the surfaces makes it impossible to ascertain whether the cen‐

tering was used or not. However, in the case of the niche the pitched‐brick technique was particularly effective in permitting a construction without cen‐

tering, because of the small span of the half‐dome.

The overall impression is that the quality of this con‐

struction was high, with not only skilled workmen being employed for the vaults, but also for the use of different techniques for the masonries of the walls, depending on the structural needs of each

Fig. 3.121 Sanctuary of Asklepios (Epidaurus). Sketch with construction details. Above: rooms (F1) and (B2) in the northeast baths.

Below: opus mixtumwall of the Odeon

Fig. 3.122 Sanctuary of Asklepios (Epidaurus). De‐

tail of the and arch in room (F1) in the northeast baths

Roman vaulting and construction in the Peloponnese: case studies 115

Fig. 3.123 Sanctuary of Asklepios (Epidaurus). Northeast baths. Detail of the pitched brick vault of the niche in room (F1)

Chapter 3

116

part of the building.

Caesar’s intention in founding the colony was to re‐

qualify the city as the trade hub of the region¹²⁵. The new layout of the re‐newed city had an unusually large forum – 15,300m²‐ by the standards of Greek cities in the Peloponnese. It was surrounded by buildings which emphasized its commercial and po‐

litical importance. The transformation in the city went hand‐in‐hand with activity to measure and di‐

vide the land. Three distinct phases have been high‐

lighted: the limitatiofollowing the destruction of the city in 146 BCE; the first centuriatiodelimiting the Caesarian colony (44 BCE); the Flavian refounda‐

tion, dating to the 70’s. If the plan of the city and Forum date to the first colonial phase, the Flavian developments are probably to be associated with the creation of an harbor inland from the Lechaion¹²⁶. In the city, probably under Domitian and following the 77 earthquake, important public

works were undertaken, including the odeon, the re‐

building of the theatre and the expansion of the tem‐

ple E, on the west side of the Forum. The building material used in Corinth was the local porosstone, an easy material to work. From the Domitian era on‐

wards, along with the opus quadratum, which con‐

tinued to be the most widely‐used technique, opus testaceumbecame fairly common. Many bath com‐

plexes were built all over the city, from the 1^stto the 6^thcentury using this technique¹²⁷. The vaults were built according to different techniques, including the opus quadratum, as for example in the central vault of the tabernaeto the northwest of the agora¹²⁸, solid brick vaults and radial rubble vaults. Concrete vaults are found in the bath complex along the road to the Lechaion. The vaults of the odeon and the tabernae¹²⁹have both radial or horizontally laid rub‐

ble. Concrete faced with ashlars was used for the podia of the forum temples (fig. 3.124).