Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T17:25:20.964Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Terracotta Spacer Pins in Lycian Bath Buildings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

A. Farrington  and
J. J. Coulton
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A puzzling feature of a number of Lycian bath buildings is the array of holes cut in their walls at intervals of about 0·5 × 0·5 m. In size they are often about 0·12 × 0·12 m. × 0·06 m. deep, and so too large for the normal iron spikes which hold marble veneers or other wall facings in place. A chance find made during the course of the survey of Balboura in 1986 provides an explanation for these holes; they were to take spool-headed terracotta spacer pins which in turn held a series of large flat tiles with a space behind for the circulation of hot air from the hypocaust (Fig. 4), so providing the same effect as the better known tubuli and tegulae mammatae.

Type
Research Article
Information
Anatolian Studies , Volume 40 , December 1990 , pp. 55 - 67
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute at Ankara 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The Balboura survey is conducted under the auspices of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, with additional financial support from the British Academy, the Oxford University Craven Committee, Merton College, Oxford, and the Society of Antiquaries of London, and with the kind permission of the Department for the Protection of Cultural and Natural Heritage of the Turkish Ministry of Culture. Preliminary reports appear in AS XXXVI (1986) 7–8Google Scholar, XXXVII (1987) 11–13, XXXVIII (1988) 14–17; and IV Araştırma Sonuçları 1986 (1987) 171–8Google Scholar, V Araştırma Sonuçları 1987 (1988) 205–11Google Scholar, and VI Araştırma Sonuçları 1988 (1989) 225–31Google Scholar.

2 See most recently Adam, J.-P., La construction romaine; matériaux et techniques (1984) 292–3Google Scholar.

3 Redrawn after the survey and plan of the city centre by Dr L. Bier, Brooklyn College, New York. For the location see Bier, L., AS 40 (1990) 71, fig. 1Google Scholar, squares Pn–Qn.

4 IGR III 466Google Scholar; for the location of the aqueduct see Coulton, J. J., IV Araştırma Sonuçları, 172–3Google Scholar.

5 The terminal inscription was re-used as the lintel of a doorway leading into the hillside at the head of the street (Naour, C., Ancient Society IX (1978) 165–70Google Scholar, no. 1; now reburied). Above is a terrace backed by a curved retaining wall, and in front are lying fragments of entablature forming ressauts.

6 The complete pin was deposited in the Fethiye museum.

7 In addition to the thin tile, fragments of tile 0·05–0·07 m. thick could be seen on the spoil; also circular tiles (diam. c. 0·28 m., th. c. 0·08 m.) from the hypocaust pillars.

8 So at Pergamon, Kourion, and Mactaris (n. 38 below).

9 Based on research on Lycian bath buildings by A. Farrington, carried out with the kind permission of the General Directorate of Antiquities and Museums of the Turkish Ministry of Tourism and Culture, and with the assistance of Bay Ramazan Peker of Aydin Museum.

10 The holes at Kadyanda are described by Benndorf, O., Niemann, G., Reisen in Lykien und Karien (1884) 142Google Scholar, and a fragmentary terracotta pin was noted by the baths by Farrington. The imprint of another pin is visible over the west door in Room 2 of the Southwest Baths at Patara.

11 Such ledges are a feature of other wall heating systems also; see Mansel, A. M., Die Ruinen von Side (1963) 145–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar, fig. 119–20.

12 These panels are closed at the top; the projecting ledge at the springing of the vault is bevelled, unlike those mentioned above, so a decorative feature.

13 Harrison, R. M., IX Türk Tarih Kongresi, Ankara, 1981 (1986) 385Google Scholar.

14 Wurster, W. in Metzger, H. (ed.), Actes du colloque sur la Lycie antique (1980) 32Google Scholar, fig. 2; Bean, , LT, 44–5Google Scholar; Bayburtluoǧlu, , Lycie, 83Google Scholar; TAM II, no. 651.

15 Bean, , LT, 109Google Scholar; IGR III, 700Google Scholar.

16 Unpublished.

17 Wurster, W., AA 1974, 262Google Scholar, fig. 3; Ganzert, J., Das Kenotaph für Gaius Caesar (Ist. Forsch. 35, 1984) 4, fig. 2. Beil. 1Google Scholar.

18 Coulton, J. J.Proc. Cambridge Philol. Soc. NS 29 (1983) 8–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 Benndorf-Niemann, op. cit. (n. 10) 148; TAM II, 142–3Google Scholar, no. 396; Archaeology 28 (1975) 202–5Google Scholar; Bean, , LT, 86–8Google Scholar; Bayburtluoǧlu, , Lycie 62Google Scholar.

20 TAM II, 142Google Scholar, Bdg F.

21 TAM II, 142Google Scholar, Bdg E.

22 TAM II, 142Google Scholar, building west of the “saülenreste” near Bdg. F.

23 Schläger, H. et al. , Phaselis, (Ist. Mitt. Beih. 24, 1981) 90–1Google Scholar; Bayburtluoǧlu, C., V Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, 1983 (1984) 185–6Google Scholar.

24 Unpublished.

25 Benndorf, O., Niemann, G., Reisen in Lykien und Karien (1884) 58Google Scholar, fig. 40 (Bdg II), pl. 21 (right); Bean, , LT, 81Google Scholar.

26 Wurster, W., AA 1976, 34Google Scholar, fig. 4; Bayburtluoǧlu, , Lycie, 78–9Google Scholar.

27 This occurs in the Baths of Antoninus at Kyaneai and the Baths of Vespasian at Patara.

28 This occurs in both bath buildings at Kyaneai, the baths at Limyra, and at Patara in the North and Southwest Baths and the Baths of Vespasian.

29 In other cases, as in the western room of the Baths of Vespasian at Patara, unheated walls clearly had veneer attached by iron spikes.

30 TAM II, 651Google Scholar; IGR III, 700Google Scholar; for the date of Proculus' office see Wörrle, M., Stadt und Fest im Kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasien (Vestigia, XXXIX, 1988) 38Google Scholar.

31 TAM II, 396Google Scholar; for the date see Xanthos IX, Balland, A., Les inscriptions de l'époque impériale du Létoon (1981) 2–4Google Scholar, n. 23.

32 It is possible that this phase of reconstruction and enlargement also belongs after the earthquake of AD 141–2.

33 Bayburtluoǧlu, C., IV Kazı Sonuçları Toplantası 1982 (1983) 304Google Scholar; Harrison, R. M., IX Türk Tarih Kongresi, Ankara, 1981 I (1986), 385Google Scholar.

34 A. Farrington, The Roman Baths of Lycia: an Architectural Study (BAR, forthcoming).

35 Exhaust pipes: Rook, T. in McWhirr, A. (ed.), Roman Brick and Tile: Studies in manufacture, distribution and use in the Western Empire (BAR Int. Ser. LXVIII, Oxford, 1979) 304Google Scholar.

36 Similar ledges can be seen in the Hunting Baths at Leptis Magna, where tubuli still survive (Perkins, J. B. Ward, Toynbee, J. M. C., Archaeologia 93 (1949) pl. LI, section F–F)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37 Ling, R. J., AS XXXI (1981) 43–4Google Scholar; the baths are pre-Severan, and probably occupy a platform built in connection with Baths Ml 1; they may be those to which Opramoas contributed (TAM II, 905Google Scholar.XIXB.27–8).

38 Pergamon: Radt, W., AA 1980, 412Google Scholar, fig. 8; Kourion: Scranton, R. L., The Architecture of the Sanctuary of Apollo Hylates at Kourion (TAPS NS LVII.5, 1967) 60–2Google Scholar; Mactaris: Lezine, A., Architecture romaine: recherches et mises au point (1961) 33Google Scholar (references supplied by R. M. Harrison and H. Dodge).

39 Pergamon: Radt, W., AA 1980, 412Google Scholar; Knossos: Hayes, J. W., BSA LXXVIII (1983) 103, 132 nos. 171–2Google Scholar (reference supplied by A. A. M. Peatfield); Gortyn: Hayes, J. W., personal communicationGoogle Scholar; Cherchel and Timgad: Ballu, A., Cagnat, R., Musée de Timgad (1903) 29Google Scholar, n. 2, pl. 11.7; Tehouda: Cagnat, R., Chapot, V., Manuel d'archéologie romaine I (1916) 220–1Google Scholar, fig. 115; Cuicul and Hippo Regius: Brödner, E., Germania XXXVI (1958) 111Google Scholar. There may be other examples in North Africa, but descriptions are not sufficiently precise to be sure. For instance, Lezine, A., Carthage; Utique: études d'architecture et d'urbanisme (1968) 25CrossRefGoogle Scholar, n. 8, writes of rideaux chauffants (with a reference to the Mactaris baths) in the caldarium of the baths of Antoninus at Carthage; but he cites no specific evidence for the use of terracotta spacer pins there.

40 Kourion: Trajanic; Pergamon: late second cent, AD; Knossos: Late Antonine?

41 J. W. Hayes, op. cit. (n. 39) 103.

42 Vitr. 7.4.2.

43 These are the only systems described by Durm, J., Die Baukunst der Etrusker; die Baukunst der Römer (1905) 187–8Google Scholar; Lugli, G., La Tecnica edilizia romana (1957) 550–Google Scholar; Crema, L., L'Architettura romana (1959) 73Google Scholar; J. P. Adam, loc. cit. (n. 2).

44 Scranton, op. cit. (n. 38) 60.

45 Bobbin-shaped spacer pieces from Britain are described by Webster, G., in Mc-Whirr, A. (ed.), Roman Brick and Tile; studies in manufacture, distribution and use in the Western Empire (BAR Int. Ser. LXVIII, 1979) 287–9Google Scholar and T. Rook, ibid., 304–5. Spacer pieces of various shapes occur in the Balkans; Zevgolatio: Charitonides, S., Ginouvès, R., BCH LXXIX (1955) 112Google Scholar fig. 9; Corinth: Pallas, A., PAE 1955 212–16Google Scholar (interpreted as holes for light and air); Biers, J. C., Corinth XVII: The Great Bath on the Lechaion Road (1985) 46, 49, 53, 55, 78 nos. 113–15Google Scholar (reference provided by B. D. Wescoat); Dinogetia: Barnea, I., Dacia XI (1967) 234Google Scholar, fig. 15; Slaveni: Popilian, G., Apulum IX (1971) 632Google Scholar. This system may have developed late as an alternative to tegulae mammatae.

46 Cf. J. C. Biers, op. cit. (n. 45) 46, n. 28.

47 I have been helped here by an investigation by Miss S. Semple of Keble College, Oxford, and by discussion with Dr. D. B. R. Kenning of Lincoln College, Oxford.

48 Practical experiments have been carried out on hypocaust systems at Saalburg (Kretschmer, F., Saalburg Jahrbuch XII (1953) 7–41Google Scholar, W. Huber, ibid., XV (1956) 38–40, H. Hüser, ibid., XXXVI (1979) 12–30, and D. Baatz, ibid., 31–44), and at Welwyn (T. Rook, J. Arch. Science V (1978) 269–82); but there has been no practical comparison of different types of wall heating.

49 It should be emphasised that some tubuli provided a rather narrow cavity; a tubulus illustrated by Durm, op. cit (n. 43) fig. 197 has a cavity of only c. 0·06 m.

50 D. B. R. Kenning suggests that easier cleaning was an additional advantage of tubuli; systematic cleaning of an undivided wall cavity would be hard to achieve.

51 Broneer, O., Corinth I.4Google Scholar; The South Stoa (1954) 145–51Google Scholar; Young, R. S., Hesperia XX (1951) 279–82Google Scholar.