Professional Documents
Culture Documents
This paper is a synthesis of the most relevant data regarding the archaeological research of small Roman period
bathhouses (balnea) situated along the military frontiers of the Roman province of Dacia. Although, the
emphasis was put on the bathhouses that functioned next to the auxiliary camps, for a better understanding of
the construction and operation of these buildings, we also have found it useful to present an introduction into
the topic of Roman baths found in other parts of the Dacian province.
After the end of the Dacian War of Emperor Trajan, the Roman province of Dacia was founded mainly as part
of the North-Danubian region (incorporating Transylvania, part of Banat, Oltenia and a small part of today's
Wallachia). During the period of Roman occupation, almost a century and a half border defense constituted an
exceptional challenge for the Roman Empire. The fortification system of Dacia needed to deal with several
problems like the pressures exerted by areas outside of the Empire and the impressive length of the border
area itself. Dacia therefore displays an atypical provincial fortification system, being a true outpost in the
northern regions of the Danube area.
In the Roman world, the latin term limes was understood as the summation of a linear fortification system, forts
of different dimensions and functions. It also signified the border road, stacked with small fortifications (burgs,
phrurias), watchtowers as well as the nearby civilian settlements (which provided soldiers and civilians with
numerous administrative, recreational or religious facilities). Taken together, all these form a valuable
assemblage of architectural and culture heritage.
With the exception of the spectacular Roman heritage located in the Mediterranean region, the exploration of
Roman remains in the rest of Europe functions differently and generates the use of different archaeological
research methods. As a consequence of the colder climate Roman structures have disappeared over time,
although being partly visible during the medieval age until the 18th-19th centuries. Much of the building
material has been reused by locals over time. With rare exceptions in some parts of central Europe, the legacy
of Roman civilization can be identified as a buried heritage.
This work was written in order to provide a brief description of an essential component of Roman civilization,
featured in the border areas of Dacia in its most remarkable expressions: public baths (in lat. balnea and
thermae). These buildings, which housed various social activities, are testimonies of Roman engineering and
conception, considered a symbol of Roman society.
Ancient written sources offer a variety of information about imperial public baths, which represent an
institution with an important role both in private and public sectors. Nonetheless bathhouses are not a Roman
invention, there were already widespread in ancient Greece represented by a small space and serving practical
purposes, namely maintaining hygiene. After assimilating older bathing habits, Roman society succeeded in
generating a new architectural genre. According to ancient sources, the use of private and public heated
bathrooms with hot water becomes a common practice in the time of Cicero. Roman baths differ from Greek
baths, being they have features beyond the purely functional by way of their architectural dimension, the
diversity of edifices and the assignment of new spaces with values of social interaction, used for recreational
activities and cultural education.
Baths were an integral part of the Roman urban fabric, as well as the daily life of Roman soldiers, living in the
camps located on the border sections of a province. For many Roman citizens throughout the Empire, a visit to
the baths was part of the daily ritual of maintaining public and social relations. Typical edifices of every military
camp include the base commander's headquarters, the commander's home, the soldiers' barracks, the store
house for grains, and of course the baths. (Tabl. 4.) When it comes to the military training of soldiers, military
exercises represent the most important part: acquiring proper physical qualities, starting with gymnastics.
These activities, routines tied in with gymnasiums, took place in special areas located next to or in the baths
(e.g. palaestra, eleothasium and sudatorium or laconicum etc.). Physical exercise followed some complex rules
according to the Roman bathing routine involving the application of nutritional oils to the skin, exercise and /
or steam bath followed by bathing at different temperatures for toning and relaxing the muscles.
The name given by the Romans to these bath structures differs in time, sometimes inconsistencies appear even
in the texts of contemporary ancient authors. The Latin term thermae is a conversion of the Greek thermos,
meaning "warm". The name balneum was also common, used as a transliteration of the Greek word balaneion,
the small public bath. The difference between balneum and thermae is difficult to understand from epigraphic
sources, as these inscriptions have often been recovered from private collections, and cannot be associated
with the buildings in which they were placed during antiquity. The commonly used terms are hard to establish
with certainty, considering a clear distinction seemingly wasn’t made by the Romans themselves.
Recent research draws a line between the category of thermae, regarded as legionary fortress baths and balnea,
established as baths which belonged to auxiliary forts. Epigraphic evidence uses this terms when refrencing the
thermae maiores located at Aquincum and at Lancaster. In former Roman Dacia some written ancient sources
also mention the existence of balnea at Micia. We also observe a certain model being more widespread among
the provinces, namely the small bathhouse with two rows of rooms: a vestibulum, and an apodyterium (often a
single area), the frigidarium, two or three tepidaria (some with special functions) and a caldarium.
The research of provincial Roman baths represents an autonomous topic. Recent studies highlighting the
differences between bathhouses located in Italy and bath existing in the Roman provinces, thus spiking
significantly the interest for the study of provincial baths. There are specific topics concerning the regional
aspects of Roman baths: attributions of the bathing space in a private, public and military context, the
delimitation between private and public space, local tradition and the understanding of new Roman models.
Considering that provincial Roman architecture in a military environment is largely based on defensive
structures, the topic of baths situated in this environment raises new questions. Who used these baths?
Soldiers, civilians, soldiers and civilians, in what order? To what extent did women have access to these
facilities? What is the significance of their location in accordance with the location of the garrison or of the
civilian settlement? Interesting details are gained when considering the construction process of these facilities:
natural resources and geographic conditions, the builders and their mobility, the relation between the baths
and the stationing troop and the provenance of the soldiers from said regiment. (Table 2)
The research of provincial baths in Roman Dacia began in the middle of the 19th century and differed in measure
from one region to another. In several cases, archaeological research is limited to simply locating a site or
excavating a small surface. At the half of the next century, several systematic excavations were carried out in
order to discover as much of the entire surface of these edifices as possible. The publication methods vary from
excavation reports, subchapters in articles to monographic studies - if we consider the Western and Northern
Limes sectors. In general one may observe the lack of a synthesis and detailed studies. In the current state of
things, the precarity with which the components of the archaeologically researched edifices were identified is
obvious. There are three habitual approaches to identifying the function of an area: a. Using the general
information obtained from ancient literary sources (these references are valid only for the Mediterranean area)
b. By analogies with typologies established for other geographical regions (the data is not suitable for a border
province) or by corroborating room function in relation to the entire heating system (mainly by reference to
the combustion source). Due to the partial research prevalent in the study of several bathhouses, the process
of reconfiguration of function and spaces, changes occured over time cannot be interpreted properly.
Documenting and understanding these underlying changes or rebuilds can be a very important source for the
theoretical understanding of changing architectural sequences and implicitly for establishing a typology of these
structures.
LITERATURE: S. Marechal, Lavacrum: just another word for baths? How the terminology of
baths may have reflected changes in bathing habits, Revue belge de philologie et d’histoire,
tome 93, fasc. 1, 2015, 140-141; D. Krencker, E. Krüger, Die Trierer Kaiserthermen: mit einer
Übersicht über die wichtigsten Thermenanlagen des Römischen Reiches, Augsburg 1929;
Inge Nielsen, Thermae and Balnae. The Architecture and Cultural History of public Baths.
Arhus 1993, 257-275; J. DeLaine, New models, old modes: continuity and change in the
design of public baths, Der römische Stadt im 2 Jahrhundert n. Chr. Der Funktionswandel des
offentlichen Raumes. Cologne (ed. H. J. Schalles, P. Zanker), 1992, 257–275; J. DeLaine, D.
E. Johnston, Roman Baths and Bathing, Proceedings of the First International Conference on
Roman Baths, held at Bath, England, 30 March-4 April 1992, Vol. 1–2. Journal of Roman
Archaeology, 1999; O. Țentea O., Balnea în Dacia – câteva comentarii, In memoriam
Alexandri V. Matei. Local and regional cultural identities in European context, Cluj-Napoca,
2010, 455–458
(Tabl. 1)
Balnea located on the borders of the Dacia
1) Mehadia, Caraș-Severin
2) Tibiscum - Jupa, Caraș-Severin
3) Zăvoi, Caraș-Severin
4) Micia – Mintia, com. Vețel, Hunedoara
5) Călugăreni, Mureș
6) Odorheiu Secuiesc, Harghita
7) Inlăceni, Harghita
8) Resculum – Bologa, Cluj
9) Buciumi, Sălaj
10) Certiae – Romita, Sălaj
11) Arcobadara - Ilișua, Bistrița-Năsăud
12) Orheiul Bistriței, Bistrița Năsăud
13) Brețcu, Covasna
14) Cumidava – Râșnov, Brașov
15) Caput Stenarum – Boița, Sibiu
16) Săpata de Jos, Argeș
17) Sucidava – Celei, Olt
18) Slăveni, Olt
19) Copăceni, Vâlcea
20) Buridava – Stolniceni, Vâlcea
21) Arutela – Cozia (fosta Bivolari), Vâlcea
22) Rădăcinești, Vâlcea
23) Bumbești-Jiu, Gorj
24) Cătunele, Gorj
***
VII) Alburnus Maior – Roșia Montană, Alba
VIII ) Șibot, Alba
Glossary
Alveus The warm water basin in the caldarium, where more people bathed at the same
time.
Apodyterium Dressing room. It is a medium temperature room. Most of the time there is no
underunderfloor heating.
Balneum The basic meaning of the word is private bathroom. However, in ancient sources
the term is also common in public baths, while balneum in specialised literature
is used for the baths of auxiliary troops, and thermae for baths of legionary
Roman troops - or, as the case may be, for public baths in settlements (vicus,
canabae )
Caldarium Room with one or more hot water pools. The room was generally equipped with
a pool sunked in the floor. In some cases, the laconicum was in the adjacent
area. In the plan of a bath it is distinguished by a semi-circular apse on one side.
Frigidarium The coldest of the rooms equipped with the cold water basin. Occasionally, the
apodyteria were adapted as frigidaria. Situations can be observed where a cold
water tub was situated inside the room.
Palaestra Wide area designed for training, like a Greek gymnasium, also called a peristyl.
Praefurnium The room where the heating of the bathhouse took place.
Laconicum Heated room, dry sauna.
Lavacrum The bathing area with hot water arranged in private houses, see also: labrum
(synonyms alveus, piscina kalida or solium) bathing space sometimes bathtub
when the room did not require a pool.
Sudatorium Hot "wet" room, wet sauna, steam room.
(sudatio)
Tepidarium A passage room (for preparation before bathing) without a pool and direct
heating. Ex. the tepidarium and elaeothesium were designed for guests walking
from a cold bath to a warm one.
Tabl. 3.
B ALNEA LOCATED ON THE BORDERS OF THE D ACIA
DACIA SUPERIOR
1) Mehadia, Caraș-Severin
The Roman ruins of Mehadia are located about 3 km north of the settlement Mehadia, on the toponymic point
named by locals "La Zidine". The first systematic excavation took place in the fort (the area of the gates, corner
towers and the median area or latus praetori). M. Macrea along with M. Moga undertook the majority of
excavations as well as researched the baths in 1946. The bathing facility is located in the settlement situated
100 m east from the fort, on the banks of the river Belareca. The edifice was almost entirely excavated. The
plan shows that bathing area are arranged in two parallel axes: A - a large, rectangular room on the northern
side (probably the palaestra); five areas with hypocaust heating on the south side, B-E of which C and E had a
semi-circular termination to the south, like a "vitruvian" caldarium. Another interesting element of the bathing
facility is the space with a circular plan - room 2, respectively another with a semi-circular area, adjacent to
the western side of area A, marked with 1. on the published plan. (Figures 1.1 and 1.2)
3) Zăvoi, Caraș-Severin
The ruins of the Roman military camp were identified at the western edge of the village, near the Bistra
River.Our first data regarding the site originates from A. Marsigli, who at the end of the 18th century made a
short description and a sketch of the fort. Recent research has revealed the bathhouse, identifying different
areas designed for bathing: A - praefurnium; B - room with pool, heated; C - alveus, heated; D, F - apodyterium,
E - caldarium, H - praefurnium. (Figure 3)
Literature: A. Ardeț, D. N. Negrei, Lavinia Grumeza, Considerazioni preliminari sulla ricerca
archeologica da Zăvoi – Cimitirul Ortodox, (Contea Caraș-Severin, România) negli anni 2009-2013,
Tibiscum Serie Nouă 5, 2015, 235-260
More recently researchers have identified the so called Ae building, another bathing facility located closest to
the military camp with a specific arrangement of rooms. In terms of planimetry and dimension of components
it is similar to Thermae II. This structure is considered to be a civilian bathing structure, built after the
Marcomanic wars. The published plan shows an edifice with its bathing areas arranged on a linear axis, at the
northern end with a "vitruvian" apse. The certainty of the existence of a fourth bathhouse in Micia makes this
ensemble one of the most interesting archaeological objectives to date in Roman Dacia. (Figures 4.1 and 4.2).
Literature: Lucia Marinescu, Anișoara Sion, L. Petculescu, I. Andritoiu, Valeria Edith, I. Rusu, Maria
Brăileanu, Șantierul Arheologic Micia (Com. Vețel, Jud. Hunedoara), Cercetări Arheologice 3, 1979,
105-127; Lucia Marinescu, Anișoara Sion, I. Andrițoiu, Raport asupra campaniei de săpături
arheologice din anul 1983 de la Micia (com. Vețel, Jud. Hunedoare) sector therme, Cercetări
Arheologice 8, 1986, 53-58
5) Călugăreni, Mureș
The Roman site is located on the southwestern periphery of the village, near the left bank of the Niraj River.
The place of the fortress and the surrounding ruins lie at a place called Óvár and Sztrázsaház. In 1870, Orbán
Balázs offers a detailed communication of the Roman fortress, mentioning the location of the baths. The bath
is located southwest of the fortress, along the road, at the toponymic point called Palota (trans. Palace). At
present, excavations are carried out by the County Museum of Mureș; the results are published in preliminary
reports. It is too early to conclude a coherent plan of the bath, but we may assume a ring type baths. (Figure 5)
Literature: D. Protase, Castrul roman de la Călugăreni, Acta Musei Napocensis 2, 1965, 209-214;
Nicoleta Man, Sz. Pánczél, D. Cioată, Coralia Crișan, Călugăreni, jud. Mureş Punct: Vicusul castrului
roman de la Călugăreni, Cronica cercetărilor arheologice din România, Campania 2013 (2014), 37-38
Literature: G. Téglás, A székely-udvarhelyi római castrum és annak katonai fürdője, Erdélyi Múzeum,
14. köt. 5. füzet, 1897; Zagreanu, Nyárádi, New Data about the Roman Settlement from Odorheiu
Secuiesc, Marisia 31, 2011, 221-274 (271); Zs. Nyárádi, Város a város alatt. Fejezetek Székelyudvarhely
római kori történetéből, Székelyudvarhely 2011, 227-228
7) Inlăceni, Harghita
The archaeological site is located on the hillside of Firtus Hill, on the north-eastern outskirts of Inlăceni village.
Orbán Balázs recorded the location of the baths southwest of the fortress, 60 meters away in a place called
Palotakútja or Várkert, meaning “Garden of the fortress”. The structure is seemingly a ring type bath, research
the main areas identified: the "vitruvian" caldarium, with apse, apodyterium, tepidarium and laconicum.
However, in this case archaeological evidence suggests that the room with an apse did not have underfloor
heating, at least in the last phase of construction. (Figures 7.1 and 7.2)
Literature: N. Gudea, Castrul roman de la Inlănceni, Acta Musei Porolissensis 3, 1979, 149-273 (168-
170); Zs. Visy, Régészeti kutatások Dacia superior keleti határán, (szerk. Körösfői, Zs.) Kutatások a
Nagy-Küküllő felső folyása mentén, 2001, 107–115
DACIA POROLISSENSIS
Literature: E. Chirilă, N. Gudea, Şantierul arheologic Bologa (jud. Cluj), Materiale 10, 1973, 115-123;
N.Gudea, Das Römergrenzkastell von Bologa-Resculum / Castrul roman de la Bologa-Resculum, Zalău
1997
9) Buciumi, Sălaj
The archaeological site is located on the Grădişte terrace, at the intersection of Lupului Valley with Mihăiesei
Valley on the bank of the Crasna River, north of Buciumi. Systematic research in the fort began in 1963,
supervised by Eugen Chirilă, which led to the discovery of buildings 1, 2, 4 and 5 in the praetentura (inside the
fort, the area “stretching to the front”). The bathing structure was believed to be L-shaped, with the bathing
areas arranged on a linear axis. Initial research identified 5 areas: a-d, and a semi-circular area (cause for
interpretation as a balneum), respectively areas f-g, which seem to come from the final phase of the building;
another area built on the via sagularis (intervallum road). According to present research it is considered that
the edifice was categorized erroneously a balneum, and in fact it is associated with the commander's
headquerters (lat. praetorium), which in turn has also several heated rooms. (Figure 9) The position of the
bathhouse in relation to the fort was assumed on the basis of the field surveys and the small scale excavation
carried out in 1966, 150 meters East at the point Fântânita Betii. K. Torma signaled a quadrilateral building in
this place, and some water pipe fragments.
Literature: E. Chirilă, N. Gudea, V. Lucăcel, C. Pop, Castrul roman de la Buciumi, Cluj 1972; N. Gudea,
Das Römergrenzkastell von Buciumi/Castrul roman de la Buciumi, Zalău, 1997; F. Marcu,
Organizarea internă a castrelor din Dacia, Cluj-Napoca 2009, 51-52
Literature: Al. V. Matei, I. Bajusz, Das Römergrenzkastell von Romita-Certiae / Castrul roman de la
Romita-Certiae, Zalău 1997; P. Franzen, Al. V. Matei, F. Marcu, The Roman fort at Romita (Dacia).
Results of the geophysical survey, Acta Musei Napocensis 41–42/I, 2007, 161-177
11) Arcobadara - Ilișua, Bistrița-Năsăud
600 meters from Ilişua, near the village of Orăşel, on the left bank of the river Ilişua at the bottom of the hill
called Măgura lies the Roman fortress of Arcobadara. Archaeological research was carried out first by Károly
Torma, in the second half of the 19th century. Thanks to the extensive research carried out during the last
decades we know much more about the site. Since the second half of the 19th century beside the auxiliary camp,
research signalled the place of three bathhouse buildings. Károly Torma identified two baths, named bath A and
B in specialised literature, and another building registered, circ. 7 meter from bath B, in the dircetion of the fort.
All three belong to the category of ring type baths. The so-called small bath, bath A had an apodyterium,
frigidarium, 2 tepidaria and a caldarium. The larger building of bath B includes an apodyterium, an elaeothesium,
a tepidarium, a caldarium and a frigidarium, a room with unclear function (probably for staff), and other 2 rooms
with uncertain function. Another building recently discovered at a distance of 130 meters from the fort has an
uncertain function, although it was hypothesized that it belonged to the regiment that built the first fort here
(a small earth and timber fort). The results of the excavations show that this building had a total of 12 rooms,
although we can assign a function only to a quarter there of: c - apodyterium, b - tepidarium and g – caldarium.
It is possible that one of the buildings was merely misinterpreted as a bath, and it is an annex-building or
valetudinarium (hospital). The plan of the small bath, building A, does not show any typical characteristics, when
we take into consideration the lack of a caldarium and heating elements. (Figure 11)
Literature: N., Gudea, Castrul roman de la Breţcu, Acta Musei Porolissensis 4, 1980, 255-365; M.
Macrea, L. Buzdugan, G. Ferenczi, K., Horedt, I., Popescu, I. I, Russu, Despre rezultatele cercetărilor
întreprinse de şantierul arheologic Sf. Gheorghe – Breţcu, Studii și Cercetări de Istorie Veche 2/1, 1951,
285-311 (288-292)
Literature: Gh. Popilian, Thermele de la Slăveni, Apulum 9, 1971, 627-40; D. Tudor, Oltenia romană,
ed., 4., București 1976, 324-325
Literature: D. Tudor, Oltenia romană, ed. 4., București 1976, 316, 324
Literature : Tudor D., Oltenia Romană, ed. 2., 1958, 17-29; Bichir Gh., Cercetările arheologice de la
Stolniceni-Râmnicu Vâlcea, Buridava, Studii şi materiale, 4, 1982, 43-54.
Literature: Ex. Bujor, Așezarea romană de la Bumbești-Jiu, Jud. Dolj, Materiale și Cercetări Arheologice
10, 1973, 107-115 (107-110); D. Tudor, Oltenia Romană, ed. 4, 1976, 315-316
24. Cătunele, Gorj
The archaeological site is situated 500 m north of the village, between the left bank of the Motru River and the
right bank of the Gura Chivadarului Stream. We dispose of very little information concerning the bathhouse: it
is located 100 m east from the north-eastern corner of the fortification. The surface investigated by
archaeologists showed signs that the bath was indeed equipped with elements of underfloor heating.
Literature: Gr. Tocilescu, Fouilles et recherches arhéologique en Roumanie, Bucureşti 1900, 132; D.
Tudor, M. Davidescu M., Săpăturile arheologice din castrul roman de la Cătunele, jud. Dolj. Drobeta 2,
1976, 62-80; D. Tudor, Oltenia romană, ed. 4., București 1976, 361 fig. 96 (2)
Teh bathing facility discovered during excavations carried out recently (2008- 2010), is base upon Roman mliatry
brick stamps is presumed to have been built by the Legion VII Claudia. The bath building lies within the camp,
in the north-western corner which is understandable, considering it was built relatively late during the 3rd
century. The systematically researched area shows it bared 5 rooms arranged on parallel axes: a "large hall" on
the western side with semi-circular termination and underfloor heating - probably a "vitruvian" caldarium To
the east of this area research identified an apodyterium, and other three rectangular areas, without any certain
function. (Figure 25)
Literature: D. Bondoc, Cioroiu Nou. 100 de descoperiri / One hundred archaeological dicoveries,
Craiova, 2010; D. Bondoc, Toilet and cosmetic objects discovered inside the baths of Legio VII Claudia
of Cioroiu Nou, Tibiscum, Serie Nouă, 1, 2011, 107-116
BALNEA FROM SOUTHEAST DACIA DURING THE REIGN OF
EMPEROR TRAJAN
Literature: D. Tudor D., Considerații asupra unor cercetări arheologice făcute pe limes transalutanus,
Studii si cercetări de Istorie Veche, 1-2, 1955, 87-97 (92)
Literature : Al. Bărcăcilă, Raport asupra cercetărilor de la Drajna de Sus , Prahova, Anuarul
Comisiunii Monumentelor Istorice din 1942, Bucureşti, 1943, 106-110; Zahariade 1995, 211-213; M.
Zahariade, T. Dvorski, The Lower Moesian Army in Northern Walachia (A.D. 101-118). An Epigraphical
and Historical Study on The Brick and Tile Stamps Found in The Drajna de Sus Roman Fort, Bucureşti
1997; M. Zahariade, Marinela Peneş, T. Dvorski; L. M. Mureşean; Ioana Creţulescu; Fl.
Topoleanu, Drajna de Sus, com. Drajna, jud. Prahova Punct: Castru roman, Cronica Cercetărilor
Arheologice din România, Campania 2014 (2015), 48-49
29. Mălăiești, Prahova
The Roman fort and bath from Mălăieşti, as called by specialised literature, is another example of a Roman site
that has functioned for a relatively short time in the northwest area of Muntenia. The archaeological ite is
located near Sfârleanca village in Dumbrăveşti county. The Roman baths are 50 meters northwest of the military
camp, at the foot of the plateau housing the garrison - located on a former terrace of the Vărbilău River, which
provided water supply and waste drainage possibility.
The plan of the bath was first documented by Constantin Zagorit in 1940, as well as another layout was drawn
up by Dan Lichiardopol in 1979. The bathhouse of Mălăieşti offers the image of a bath prototype, which despite
of the short functioning period has undergone several changes, but no major changes that would burden
identifying layout and planimetry. Research results show that the bath belongs to the widespread category of
ring type baths. The excavations brought about the discovery of the bath in its entirety, including the related
spaces. Archaeologists identified 5 areas A - D, B1 of which A, B, D with underfloor heating. The results of the
excavation show that the bath had all the typical rooms of a Roman balneum: A - apodyterium, B - tepidarium,
B1 - frigidarium, C - caldarium rectangular and D - laconium or sudatorium. (Figures 29.1 and 29.2)
In the northern area the first praefurnium (P1) was located in the vicinity of a podium that sustained a water
tank, collecting water. From this, the water was distributed to the cold water basin, respectively to the boilers.
With the extension of the bath, a praefurnium (P2) was built in the southern part. The waste water was drained
on the eastern side, where the site was supposed to be latrines.(Figures 29.1 and 29.2)
Literature : O. Țentea, Al. Raţiu, A. Frânculeasa, Bianca Preda, Raluca Bătrânoiu, C. Coatu, N. Szeredai,
Imola Boda, Sfârleanca, com. Dumbrăveşti, jud. Prahova [castrul Mălăieşti], Cronica Cercetărilor
Arheologice, campania 2012 (2013), p. 117-118; O. Țentea, Al. Rațiu, A. Frînculeasa, Bianca Preda, A.
Cîmpeanu, N. Szeredai, T. Nica, Sfârleanca, com. Dumbrăveşti, jud. Prahova [castrul și băile romane de
la Mălăieşti], Cronica Cercetărilor Arheologice, campania 2013 (2014), p. 126-127; O. Țentea, Al. Rațiu,
A. Cîmpeanu, Bianca Preda, N. Szeredai, Sfârleanca, com. Dumbrăveşti, jud. Prahova [castrul și băile
romane de la Mălăieşti], Cronica Cercetărilor Arheologice, campania 2014 (2015), 102-103; O. Țentea,
Al. Rațiu, A. Cîmpeanu, Sfârleanca, com. Dumbrăveşti, jud. Prahova [castrul și băile romane de la
Mălăieşti], Cronica Cercetărilor Arheologice, campania 2015 (2016), 84-85
Literature: A. Măgureanu, B. Ciupercă, C. Constantin, A. Anton, The Roman Baths in Târgșoru Vechi,
Caiete ARA, 8, 2017, 103-117; Magda Tzony, Gh. Diaconu, Raport asupra cercetărilor arheologice de la
Tîrgşoru Vechi, Materiale 13, 1979, 263-264
Literature: Tzony Magda Tzony, Termele de la Pietroasele, Materiale și Cercetări Arheologice, 14,
1980, 348-351; Monica Mărgineanu-Cârstoiu, Un balneum à Pietroasele, Caiete ARA - Asociaţia
Arhitectură. Restaurare. Arheologie 6, 2015, 91-120
THERMAE TYPE BATHS
Literature: Bărbulescu, M., Ana Cătinaş, Claudia Luca, A. Husar, P. Husarik, M. Grec, Cornelia
Bărbulescu, The Baths of the Legionary Fortress of Potaissa, Proceedings of the XVIIth International
Congress of Roman Frontier Studies, Zalău, 1997, 14; Cornelia Bărbulescu, Arhitectura militară și
tehnica de construcție la romani: castrul de la Potaissa, Cluj-Napoca 2004
Urban Thermae
I) Colonia Aurelia Apulensis - Alba Iulia, Alba
Located in the valley of Mures, under the current town of Alba Iulia, near the gold mines of Alburnus Maior
(Rosia Montana), the urban center of Apulum represents the largest settlement in Roman Dacia. The Roman
cities, formed around the XIII Gemina Legion, will become one of the most significant expressions of Northern
Danubian Roman culture and civilization. Colonia Aurelia Apulensis developed in the vicnity of the present
Partoş district, while the citizens of the second Roman town municipium Septimium Apulense (which later
became Colonia Nova Apulensis) settled in the area called Furcilor Hill, on the territory of the current city of
Alba Iulia. The excavations carried out in 1888-1908 in Colonia Apulensis targeted one of the most interesting
archaeological objectives, the Palace of consular governor of the three Dacian provinces, the praetorium
consularis, located east-south-east of the fort of the XIII Gemina legion (today south eastern corner of the city).
Through these excavations, several structures have been discovered considered as a bathing facility and named
by Béla Cserni “large thermae”, bu also known as the Bath of the Governor's Palace. Subsequent excavations
observed that the area was infact a complicated structure and belonged to the praetorium. (Fig. II.1. și II.2.)
***
Varia
VII)Alburnus Maior – Roșia Montană, Alba
Situated in the central area of Roşia Montană, on Carpeni Hill, the site provided over time a series of
archaeological finds, inscriptions as well as fragments of building materials (ex. military bricks stampes) which
connected the site to the XIII Gemina legion. During the archaeological campaings between 2001-2003, two
buildings with underfloor heating were excavated: E1 – at Tomus and E2 – at Bisericuță,, which could have
functioned as a bathhouse. The layout shows the building is comprised of five areas: A, D - hot water basin, B,
B' and I - cold water basin or frigidarium, as well as a service area called C – a basin with hot water / maybe
sudatorium. The building had two construction. In a final phase the bath was extended towards west and north,
making the functionality uncertain, and left open to interpretations. Following recent mineralogical analysis,
the origin of the ceramic material found in the two buildings is established to be Apulum. Both E1 and E2 were
produced ceramic brick material marked with the stamp of the XIII Gemina legion. (Figure VII)
When building baths and bathhouses the Romans used almost all tools and features of the technology
availablein their time. Military baths located in the provinces differ in many respects from the big public bathing
structures found in Rome. Architecturally they represent some of the oldest military structures and their
category includes a manifold of public and private buildings alike. This aspect is also reflected in the realities of
Roman Dacia. Bathing itself was a public activity involving a large number of people who swam, relaxed, had a
sauna after exercises and, above all, socialized with friends.
Among the differences registered between the legionary troop baths and the auxiliary garrison’s baths, the
most important seems to be their location, namely the legionary baths (thermae legionis) were built inside the
camp and were free of charge, whilst the baths to which the auxiliary regiment had access to (balnea) were
built outside of the fort, and bathing was done by paying a toll. This is explained by the fact that the attendance
of public baths by auxiliary soldiers was only generalized starting with the second half of the 1st century (the
Flavian age), so it comes that the internal layout of forts didn’t even considered the placement of a bathhouse.
Later, as use of baths spreas on to the category of the auxiliary garrisons, the baths that served such purposes
would be placed siply outside the camp, since at that time the inner space of the fortifications was insufficient,
and the rules of arrangement regarding interior buildings was habitual, utilized in a widespread manner.
Most of the bath buildings found in Dacia are located near the auxiliary forts, respectively in the civil
settlements, situated in their vicinity. Determining the use of these baths is difficult. Higher ranking categories
of the regiment were customarily supposed to have enjoyed private baths, inside the camp.
In light of these aspects, the social component of the baths correlated with the different chronological phases
of Romanization in a provincial context can help identify the problems of localization of bathing facilities in
future studies. There is no evidence to be found on the border areas of the Dacian province , which show
defining or exceptional topographic factors, as is the case for example of Moesia Superior - where it appears
that early baths are located near auxiliary fortifications and important mining areas. As far as the baths of Dacia
are concerned – concerning the current state of research - we can profess that most of them are located outside
the forts, about 50 meters or more away and in the vicinity of a waterway.
These baths retain their main features, dimensions and shape throughout the entire Roman occupation period.
Since most of the sites were considered for the smaller number of soldiers of the auxiliary regiments, the
bathing facilities of Dacia can be classified as a cluster of modest structures (with a few exceptions, of course).
Unfortunately, in many cases the data for the part-and-parcel identification of all bathing areas is lacking, which
prevents a thorough understanding of the situation. Thus, as I have already mentioned, one can not reconstruct
a very elaborate image of the phenomenon that are the baths and bathhouses of Dacia.
The edifices had cold and hot bathing areas, and one-quarter of them were equipped with areas for social
interaction without an apparent correlation with the stationing military regiment. In the case of small
bathhouses, similar to other western provinces, some prototypes can be identified. The phenomenon is a result
of the act of adapting and reconditioning of various structures which belong to legionary bath architecture, but
also by the increasing demand of the auxiliary regiments. The acknowledgment of a proliferation of several
prototypes in certain areas of Dacia is a theory which holds water.