Understanding The Structures of Early CH

AUTHOR’S COPY | AUTORENEXEMPLAR
Understanding the Structures of

Early Christian Baptisteries
Olof Brandt
1. Introduction
A baptistery is a physical structure created as a setting for the celebration of
Christian baptism. his category of buildings may seem rather obvious but re-
ally is not. Particularly diicult to understand are, on one hand, the relationship
between the earliest monumental baptisteries and the context of late antique ar-
chitecture in the same period, and on the other hand, what really was the reason
behind the choice of the form of the buildings. he following pages intend both
to give a short overview of the material, concentrating more on the structures,
on the buildings themselves, than on their decoration, and to discuss fruitful and
fruitless approaches to the study of the material.
For the irst two centuries, the celebration of Christian baptism seems not to
have let any physical traces in particular structures or architectural settings for
the celebration. he available evidence makes it reasonable to believe that up to
the third century, the rite of Christian baptism was celebrated in settings which
were not deined in the irst hand as a baptismal place. Probably the celebra-
tion took place outdoors. he earliest known baptistery or architectural setting
for baptism is from the 240s: a rectangular basin in a private house adapted to
community centre, in Dura Europos in today’s Syria1 (treated elsewhere in this
publication by Korol), but monumental baptisteries are known only from the
fourth century onwards; many belong to the ith and sixth centuries.2 hese
Early Christian baptisteries were designed especially for the baptism of adults,
and thus belong to the phase of expansion of Christianity in the Late Antique
and Early Medieval world. he Early Christian baptisteries consisted of a basin
or font, in which the baptized person was immersed in water, surrounded by
a room or a monumental building which deined the space for the celebration
around the font, which was usually placed at the centre of the room while a
1 Dura Europos Final Report. he Christian Building, 20–28, 39.

2 he following general studies of Early Christian baptisteries are fundamental: H. Leclercq,
“Baptistère”; F. W. Deichmann, “Baptisterium”; A. Khatchatrian, Les baptistères paléochré-
tiens; M. Falla Castelfranchi, “Battistero”; S. Ristow, Frühchristliche Baptisterien; S. De
Blaauw, “Kultgebäude”, 336–343.

1588 Olof Brandt
more or less circular corridor usually was let free all around the font. Both
basin and building could have various shapes in diferent periods and diferent
regions, but what they all have in common is, on one hand, that they always
belong to a church, and, on the other hand, that they are always separated from
the church, i.e. the room where Eucharist was celebrated. his relects the ini-
tiatory character of Early Christian baptism and the strong separation between
the baptized and the non baptized.
It may seem strange that a baptismal architecture evolved so late. Also when
monumental churches were built in the fourth century, oten their baptisteries
were built in a later moment. It seems that a special kind of building was not
necessary for the celebration of the baptismal rite, perhaps less necessary than
the huge basilicas which became of essential importance when Christianity
expanded and more and more people gathered for the celebrations. he crea-
tion of monumental baptisteries seems to have been more a result of a wish to
monumentalize and create a propaganda architecture.
2. Terminology: a Particular Kind of Bath Building

Many terms were used for these buildings, and it is important to stress that few
among them were exclusively Christian. It was common to use terms for basins
in general; as a matter of fact, for a long time the word “baptistery” did not nec-
essarily indicate a Christian building, but rather that particular kind of building
which, while it had other possible uses, could also be built close to a Christian
church for the celebration of Christian baptism. he Greek word βαπτιστήριον,
transcribed in Latin as baptisterium, indicates simply a place where you can take
a dip, βαπτίζειν. It was synonymous with piscina and natatio in the Roman baths.
he word was common from the irst century AD (Plin., Ep., 2,17,11 and 5,6,25
to 5th C. Sid. Apoll., Ep., 2,2,8). It seems to have been used rather late for Chris-
tian baptisteries (386 AD: Ambr., Ep., 76, 4 baptisterii basilica). Another word
with the same general meaning of “basin” was the Greek κολυμβήθρα (ca 440
AD, Socr, H.E. 7,4), which corresponded to the Latin fons. In a Christian context,
the latter word could indicate both basin and building, like in the Constantinian
documents included in the Roman sixth century Liber Pontiicalis. A less speciic
term for baths like the Greek loutrón, also used for baptism itself (Just., 1 Apol.,
61) was parallelled by the Latin expressions lavacrum and balneus etc.
he word balneus is used in a particularly interesting way in the short
“Itinerarium” attributed to an anonymous pilgrim from Bordeaux, who visited
the Holy Land in 333.3 While later Latin sources, like the sixth-century Liber
Pontiicalis, usually distinguish very clearly between balnea and baptisteries,
this early text never uses the word baptisterium, uses once the word fons and
3 Itinerarium Burdigalense, 1–26.

Understanding the Structures of Early Christian Baptisteries 1589
twice balneus/um. he pilgrim talks about his visits to three baptismal plac-
es, and describes thus the baptistery of the basilica of the Holy Sepulchre in
Jerusalem: Basilica … mirae pulchritudinis habens ad latus excepturia, unde
aqua levatur, et balneum a tergo, ubi infantes lavantur. he author also men-
tions the fons, in quo Philippus eunuchum baptizavit. Earlier in the same text,
however, the author mentions a private bath in Caesarea, venerated as the place
of the baptism of Cornelius: Ibi est balneus Cornelii centurionis, qui multas
elymosynas faciebat. his last balneus is clearly a private bath, and it is interest-
ing that in the irst half of the fourth century it was possible to present a bath as
a place for baptism. Anyhow, it seems probable that still in the Constantinian
period, standard Latin expressions would have been fons and balneum rather
than baptisterium.
All these expressions indicated buildings and structures for bath and did
not express the meaning attributed to the bath itself: if it was normal every-
day cleansing of the body, or ritual initiation to the Christian community. Of
course, baptisteries built close to the cathedrals could not be used as baths, but
they were indeed a particular group in the bigger ield of bath buildings.
One of the few new and exclusively Christian expressions was the Greek
φωτιστήριον (Socr. H.E. 7,4), house of enlightenment, oten found in Eastern
sixth century inscriptions, from φωτισμός, illumination = baptism (cfr. Just.,
1 Apol., 61).
3. Origin: from Rivers to Private Baths

When Christian baptisteries were built, they were not the irst rooms built for rit-
ual baths in Antiquity. Mikva’ot, basins for Jewish ritual baths, were created many
centuries before and have been found in many excavations, in Jerusalem, Naza-
reth and Qumran – occasionally, they have even been interpreted as Christian
baptisteries. Except for the baptistery built in the 240s in the house-church of
Dura Europos, we don’t know if there were special places or rooms for Christian
baptism during the irst three centuries. In the middle of the second century AD,
Justin writes about a place of baptism which seems to be distant from the place
where the Eucharist was celebrated immediately aterwards: “We lead them to
a place, where there is water”, 1 Apol., 61, and later: “We lead them to the place
where the brothers (…) are reunited”, 1 Apol., 65. “A place, where there is water”
can hardly indicate a building built as a Christian baptistery. he earliest sources
indicate that rivers were used. Acts mentions the celebration of baptism in rivers;
Didaché (irst century AD) emphasizes how important it is to have running wa-
ter, and states that a river is preferable; Tertullian still mentions rivers.4 But surely
private baths could also be used, at least in Late Antiquity, as indicated by the
4 Th. Klauser, “Taufet in lebendigem Wasser!”.

1590 Olof Brandt
above-mentioned reference in the early fourth century Itinerarium Burdigalense,

which conirms that in the early fourth century it was not at all impossible to cel-
ebrate baptism in a private bath. It is possible to imagine a period in the irst half
of the fourth century when church building preceded the building of baptisteries.
Interestingly, recent research shows that in Rome, the Lateran basilica was built
before the Lateran baptistery (Fig. 27): while the basilica was built soon ater
312,5 the baptistery probably belongs to the late Constantinian period.6 On the
site where the baptistery later was built, a domus with a private bath was recon-
structed at the same moment when the basilica was built: although impossible
to prove, these private baths may be where baptism was celebrated until twenty
years ater the basilica was built.
Although perhaps somewhat later than the Christian basilica, it was in the
fourth century that the classical form of baptistery was created. It is perhaps
no coincidence that this is also the period when creating architectural settings
for running water in baths and nymphaea (fountains) became so popular. Any
student of Ancient Rome and Ostia knows how many of the important baths
and nymphaea in those two cities were built in the third and early fourth cen-
turies. he irst fourth century baptisteries actually have a lot in common with
this kind of architecture.7 Some of the most important early baptisteries, like
those of Rome and Milan, were dominated by running water, just like late Ro-
man fountains.
4. History of Research: From Badly Illustrated

Catalogues to New Methods
More than 700 Early Christian baptisteries are known today: uncertain identi-
ication in some cases, and multiple phases in other make it impossible to give
the exact number. During the last century, several global studies have been made
of this impressive material, especially in encyclopedias, beginning with the fun-
damental and richly illustrated article “Baptistère” by Henri Leclercq in his Dic-
tionnaire d’archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie,8 which presented more or less all
the known evidence in 1925, dividing it into regions, with a detailed discussion
of Early Christian sources but little attention to contemporary late Roman archi-
tecture. A more recent discussion of the material, shorter and with no illustra-
tions, was made in 1950 by F. W. Deichmann in the Reallexikon für Antike und
5 R. Krautheimer/S. Corbett/A. K. Frazer, Corpus basilicarum christianarum Romae believe

that the construction of the Lateran basilica began in 313 and that it may have been consecrated
in 318.
6 O. Brandt/F. Guidobaldi, “Il Battistero Lateranense”, 273–274.
7 P. Styger, “Nymphäen, Mausoleen, Baptisterien”.
8 Leclercq, “Baptistère”.

Christentum.9 A new catalogue, this time illustrated by simpliied plans in the

same scale, was published by Armen Khatchatrian in 1962 (Fig. 28).10 he most
recent global study of some length is the catalogue of all known early Christian
baptisteries was published in 1998 by Sebastian Ristow,11 but while the list of
baptisteries is rather complete, it does not give plans for all baptisteries. he
most recent general update is a section about “Baptisterium” in a longer article
on “Kultgebäude” in the Reallexikon by Sible De Blaauw.
Any efort to draw general conclusions about all Early Christian baptisteries
is made diicult by several factors: it is oten diicult to determine whether an
ancient building is a baptistery or not; most baptisteries can not be dated with
precision; they oten have had two or more phases of reconstruction, oten dif-
icult to understand and to date; and, last but not least, it is diicult to illustrate
such studies in a suicient way, because baptisteries are examples of very com-
plex architecture, and a general study would need detailed plans and sections,
all in the same scale, which is almost impossible. he result is that today the
most complete collection of plans of baptisteries is still that of Khatchatrian
from 1962, making it an oten necessary reference, although his plans are ex-
tremely simpliied and would not be accepted by any serious archaeological
publication today.
In spite of the diiculty in making satisfying global studies, much is going
on in the study of early Christian baptisteries; many new baptisteries have been
discovered, new excavations are made in already known baptisteries, new re-
constructions or the original phases are presented. Also methods are develop-
ing. A particularly promising ield is that of stratigraphic analysis of the walls
of standing buildings, which is developing some twenty years ater the develop-
ment of the stratigraphic method for archaeological excavations. his method
has so far spread more in medieval than in early Christian archeology, but it
has been used in the study of some particularly important and well-preserved
baptisteries in Italy like Albenga (Fig. 29)12 and the Lateran in Rome (Fig. 27)13.
9 Deichmann, “Baptisterium”.
10 Khatchatrian, Les baptistères paléochrétiens. Plans, notices et bibliographies. Khatchatrian
died in 1967, but a volume with updates and general considerations by the author was pub-
lished 15 years ater his death: Khatchatrian, Origine et typologie des baptistères paléochré-
tiens.
11 Ristow, Frühchristliche Baptisterien.
12 T. Mannoni/A. Cagnana, “Archeologia dei monumenti. L’analisi stratigraica del battistero
paleocristiano di Albenga (SV)”.
13 Brandt/Guidobaldi, “Il Battistero Lateranense”.

1592 Olof Brandt
5. A Survey of Forms and Decoration
5.1. Forms
Also several important regional studies have been made in the last decades, cov-
ering regions like Italy,14 Palestine15 or France16, outlining great regional difer-
ences between baptisteries in diferent parts of the Late Antique world between
the third and the sixth century. On the other hand, some of these regional difer-
ences may depend largely on diferences in date, which is largely unknown due
to the fact that many monuments were excavated without modern stratigraphic
method, making it almost impossible to understand the pattern of difusion of
these diferences. An example: many important baptisteries in Italy and France
are independent buildings and have broad fonts, but they are generally quite
early, from the fourth or ith century: smaller, incorporated baptisteries with
narrower and deeper fonts are typical of North Africa, Spain and the East, but
also of the sixth century.
When trying to understand ancient architecture, it is useful to distinguish
between structure (the walls) and decoration. A survey of the structures of an-
cient baptisteries must of course begin with the oldest known baptistery, found
in Dura Europos: a small rectangular font built against one of the short walls
of a rectangular room and covered by a canopy on two columns. here are
some similarities with later Syrian baptisteries where the font is at one end of
the room, also in monumental baptisteries like the late ith century complex
of Qal’at Sem’an (Syria) (Fig. 30). he mainstream of baptistery architecture
develops in another direction. From the early fourth century, the font is usually
placed at the centre of the room (Fig. 31), which has a square or central plan,
circular or polygonal. he choice of the central plan was probably natural when
the growing number of people who assisted at the celebration made it essential
to build big halls around the font: that is, in the irst place, in the crowded ca-
thedrals. hese important monumental baptisteries should however not make
us forget that most baptisteries are quite modest square or rectangular rooms.
hey oten have a small apse, and are incorporated into the same complex as the
church, oten with at least one access from one of the aisles.
From the fourth century, many important baptisteries in Central and North
Italy, South France and in the East are built on a central plan, oten octagonal.
14 L’ediicio battesimale in Italia. Aspetti e problemi. Atti dell’VIII Congresso Nazionale di Archeolo-
gia Cristiana.
15 B. Bagatti, “I battisteri della Palestina”; Falla Castelfranchi, ΒΑΠΤΙΣΤΗΡΙΑ. Intorno ai
più noti battisteri dell’Oriente; M. Ben Pechat, “he Paleochristian Baptismal Fonts in the Holy
Land. Formal and Functional Study”.
16 J. Guyon, “Baptistères et groupes épiscopaux de Provence. Élaboration, difusion et devenir
d’un type architectural”; Guyon, Le premiers baptistères des Gaules (IVe – VIIIe siècles).

he earliest known central-plan baptistery is the thin-walled octagonal hall of

the Lateran baptistery (Fig. 27)17 built at the middle of the fourth century.
he octagonal design may have spread irst from the Lateran (Fig. 27) to
Milan and North Italy, where one might mention the baptisteries of Ravenna,
Albenga (Fig. 31), Aquileia (Fig. 32) etc. In that region, in the second half of the
fourth century, there developed a form close to contemporary imperial mauso-
lea: internally and externally octagonal buildings with thick walls, containing
semicircular and rectangular niches or apses, which indicate the presence of a
dome. An internally octagonal baptistery but inscribed in an externally square
building was developed in Constantinople where the octagonal baptistery of
Haya Sophia18 dates from the early ith century, and spread to Provence, where
these baptisteries oten belong to the cathedral, like in Fréjus, Marseille, Aix-
en-Provence.19 At the same time, they also spread from Constantinople to some
important martyr churches in the East. he ith century baptistery of St. John
at Ephesus, the late ith century baptistery of Qal’at Sim’an in North Syria (Fig.
30), and the late ith century baptistery of St. Menas (Abu Mina) in Egypt (Fig.
33) all seem to follow a standard imperial model.20
he regional diferences in the shape of the font, on the other hand, relect
those of contemporary nymphaea.21 An example is the presence of multilobed
fonts in both baptisteries and nymphaea in North Africa and the East, and
the predominance of fonts and nymphaea clad with white marble slabs in Italy,
while both baptismal fonts and fountains in North Africa oten are clad with
mosaics.
Generally, the fonts were broad and shallow in the fourth century. his may
have depended on the large number of adults who were baptized each time, or
relect the fact that also the celebrant (priest or bishop) entered the font. But
from the ith century, the fonts tend to get smaller, narrower and deeper. From
the sixth century, they are oten cross-shaped in an evident symbolism. With
time, the diminishing size leads to the development of monolithic fonts in
marble. hey are usually internally cross-shaped or quadrilobed, especially in
Greece and Palestine. hese monolithic fonts are high and stand above loor
17 G. Pelliccioni, Le nuove scoperte sulle origini del battistero lateranense. O. Brandt, “Il
Il bat-
tistero lateranense da Costantino a Ilaro. Un riesame degli scavi”; Brandt/Guidobaldi, “Il
Battistero Lateranense”.
18 S. Eyice, “Le baptistère de Ste Sophie d’Istanbul”.
19 Guyon, “Baptistères et groupes épiscopaux de Provence. Élaboration, difusion et devenir d’un
type architectural”; Guyon, Le premiers baptistères des Gaules (IVe – VIIIe siècles).
20 Falla Castelfranchi, Baptisteria. Intorno ai più noti battisteri dell’Oriente.
21 Cf. the development of the forms of basins in fountains and nymphaea in N. Neuerburg,
L’architettura delle fontane e dei ninfei nell’Italia antica; W. Letzner, Römische Brunnen und
Nymphaeen in der westlichen Reichshälte; L. Farrar, Gardens of Italy and the Western Prov-
inces of the Roman Empire 4th century BC-4th century AD.

1594 Olof Brandt
level, making it diicult for an adult person to enter them. Probably this relects
a majority of baptisms of children: they were held above the high but narrow
font, which had developed gradually from the broader basins of the fourth cen-
tury to a shape quite similar to medieval and modern Christian fonts.
5.2. Decoration
As so oten in ancient architecture, the meaning of the actions performed in a

building was not expressed or illustrated by the shape of the structure but rather
by the decoration. Structure and decoration were two completely diferent levels:
the dedicatory inscription of the Diocletian’s baths in Rome22 distinguishes clear-
ly between the construction (“thermas disposuit ac ieri iussit”) and the decora-
tion (“omni cultu perfectas”), using a word for decoration, cultus, which was also
used for women’s makeup. In the case of a building, this “makeup” could consist
in marble slabs on the walls, mosaics on the loor, inscriptions and statues. In
this decoration, human and animal igures and the texts of inscriptions in mo-
saic or marble, as in the Lateran23 and in Milan24, could explicit the meaning of
what was going on in the building.25
22 D(omini) n(ostri) Diocletianus et Maximianus invicti

seniores Aug(usti), patres imp(eratorum) et Caes(arum), et
D(omini) n(ostri) Constantius et Maximianus invicti Aug(usti), et
Severus et Maximinus nobilissimi Caesares
thermas felices Diocletianas, quas
Maximianus Aug(ustus) rediens ex Africa
praesentia maiestatis disposuit ac
ieri iussit et Diocletiani Aug(gusti) fratris sui
nomine consecravit, coemptis aediiciis
pro tanti operis magnitudine omni cultu
perfectas Romanis suis dedicaverunt (CIL VI, 1130 = 31242; ILS 646).
A translation of this highly interesting text could be:
Having bought up the buildings for an enterprise of such size,
our lords Diocletian and Maximian the unconquered senior Augusti [Maximian had abdicated
on 1 May 305], fathers of the emperors and Caesars,
and our lords Constantius [Chlorus, +25 July 306) and Maximian [Galerius Maximianus,
known as Galerius] the unconquered Augusti,
and Severus and Maximinus the most noble Caesars,
dedicated to their Roman people the fortunate Baths of Diocletian ater having completed them
with all decoration,
baths which on his return from Africa [autumn 298] in the presence of his majesty Maximinian
Augustus arranged and ordered to be built
and consecrated to the name of his brother the Augustus Diocletian.
23 ILCV, 1513.
24 F. Bücheler (ed.), Carmina Latina Epigraphica, 908.
25 See the recent study of baptismal inscriptions in Italy by G. Cuscito, “Epigrai di apparato nei
battisteri paleocristiani d’Italia”.

Partially, the decoration26 of early baptisteries was related to the decoration

of baths and nymphaea with statues and water jets in the shape of animals
(Sid. Apoll., Epist., 2,2,8), like water spouting silver deers in Roman baptister-
ies: the Lateran (early 4th century, Liber Pontiicalis I, 174), San Vitale (401–417,
Liber Pontiicalis I, 220) and Santa Maria Maggiore (432–440, Liber Pontiicalis
I, 233). Fonts, like in contemporary nymphaea, could be clad with monochrome
or polychrome marble (West) or mosaics with symbols, oten birds (e.g. pea-
cocks drinking from a vase), inscriptions mentioning donors (also anonymous)
and theological formulas and geometric and loreal patterns (East and North
Africa).
Walls could be decorated with pictures, painted or in mosaics, or clad with
polychrome marble (opus sectile). No baptistery decoration is preserved be-
tween Dura Europos (240s) and Naples (ca 400), but they have common ele-
ments: sky with stars; Good Shepherd; women at the tomb; walking on water;
Samarian woman at the well; the paralytic. At Dura we also ind St. Peter walk-
ing on the water.
From the ith century, mosaics in domes or apses are known in Italy, like
the Orthodox baptistery in Ravenna, Napoli (Fig. 34) and Albenga (Fig. 35).
Centre of the decoration was oten the baptism of Christ (Ravenna) or the Chi-
Rho symbol of Christ (Naples, Albenga). Around it, in Ravenna and Naples
apostles and martyrs carry their martyr crowns to the throne of Christ. he
cross became important during the ith century, as the connection Cross-Holy
Spirit-Pentecost was underlined by contemporary patristic texts. In the same
period the bishop oten gave the chrism, sacrament of the Holy Spirit which
completed baptism, in a separate liturgy. In the vestibule added in the ith
century to the Lateran baptistery, crosses appear in one of the apse mosaics.
In North Africa crosses oten appear in the bottom font mosaics in the sixth
century.
6. Understanding Structure
6.1. Understanding Structure: Typology
his is more or less the material; something has been said also about methods.
But what about theory? Early Christian archaeology is not a tradition where ex-
plicit discussion of theory is frequent, but many important studies in the ield
of baptisteries continue to search, with little success, for answers to the same
questions, showing that the research oten is guided by implicit theoretical ap-
proaches in the eforts of inding a pattern in diferences, difusion and distribu-
26 L. De Bruyne, “La décoration des baptistères paléochrétiens”; F. Bisconti, “L’iconograia dei

battisteri paleocristiani in Italia”.

1596 Olof Brandt
tion. It may be useful to dedicate some attention in this paper to approaches and
questions which seem to have been particularly unsuccessful.
A particularly frequent approach towards the middle of the last century
could be deined typological or genealogical, in a kind of research of the Typus,
as if the group had a metaphysical reality on its own. his approach has been
used by De Angelis D’Ossat27 and especially by Khatchatrian, whose studies
can be considered the most explicit expression of this typological-genealogical
approach:28 Khatchatrian’s approach can be translated as: “this is done because
someone has already done it before”.
Also Ristow shows in his volume of 1998 that he is related to this genealogic
tradition of German-speaking scholars like Dölger and Deichmann, when he
accepts that the Roman baths can have been a model for the baptisteries. But
Ristow is very prudent and states, quite correctly, that it is not possible to show
that the baptisteries “come” from a particular model.29 Ristow’s approach is de-
scriptive and prudent but still signed by the research for the origin of the Typus.
he typological approach depends on the Darwinistic belief that it is pos-
sible to reconstruct the genealogy of any artistic or technological expression;
that is, that the shape of a building depends more on its parents than on the
aim for which that individual building was made. For Dölger, model for the
irst baptisteries, and especially for the octagonal ones, were the Roman baths,
especially the frigidarium30. he statement is not groundless, but is in some way
the answer to a non-existing question. he Christian baptistery does not “come”
from the baths, because it is one of them; if the word baptisterium could mean
frigidarium, it means that a baptisterium was a structure where you could im-
merge in water. Whether the baptisterium was a bath or a room for Christian
initiation was oten not expressed by terminology or the form of the structure
but rather by the context and the decoration. It is preferable to think that the
form of a building is not only some dead weight which it has taken over from
its parents, but rather that it is in some way perfect for its aim, even if our un-
derstanding of this aim may be imperfect. Also in other ields of the study of
ancient technology, the genealogic approach is more and more abandoned. 31
27 G. De Angelis D’Ossat, “Tipologia architettonica dei battisteri paleocristiani”.

28 Khatchatrian, Les baptistères paléochrétiens. Plans, notices et bibliographies; Khatchatrian,
Origine et typologie des baptistères paleochrétiens.
29 Ristow, Frühchristliche Baptisterien, 21.
30 F. J. Dölger, “Zur Symbolik des altchristlichen Tauhauses”, 184 and 187.
31 See the recent study S. Cuomo, Technology and Culture in Greek and Roman Antiquity, second
chapter.

6.2. Understanding Structure: Topography
Another rather fruitless approach which has been used more recently can be de-
ined topographic. According to this approach, it is possible to ind rules which
determine the position of the baptistery compared to that of the basilica or of
the city. However, the result of this approach is mostly negative. he relationship
between the baptistery and the episcopal complex was the object of a keynote
speech at the eleventh International Congress of Christian Archaeology in 1986
by Pere De Palol, who was forced to conclude simply that “No existen regolas
ijas para la disposiciòn de los baptisterios en relaciòn al templo”.32 his has not
stopped scholars from continuing to ask the same question, like in an impor-
tant contribution at the eight Italian Congress of Christian Archaeology in 1998,
which, again, lead to the conclusion that “Nemmeno la posizione del battistero
nei confronti della chiesa sembra rispondere a regole vincolanti.”33 Another pa-
per at the same conference concluded that “la posizione topograica del luogo
dove si praticava il battesimo nei confronti … di un ediicio di culto ci sembra
problema di grande interesse ma al momento scarsamente modellabile, se non
in una mera elencazione di casistiche talmente ampie da risultare scarsamente
signiicative su un piano generale”.34
he research for topographic rules thus seems to have come to an end, and
it is improbable that new studies will be able to demonstrate the existence of a
rule which has been overlooked so far, except for the fundamental rule that, as
far as we know, no baptistery was ever built alone but always close to a church.
In the fourth century it was natural to build them close to the bishop’s church
in the towns, because at this period baptism was normally celebrated by the
bishop during the Vigils of Easter and Pentecost (letters of several 4th and 5th
C. Popes: in 385 Siricius, Ep. 1; in 447 Leo I, Ep. 16; in the 490s Gelasius, Ep. 14).
From the late fourth century, in some places such as Gaul, Spain, South Italy
and the East, baptism was celebrated also on other occasions: such as Christ-
mas and Epiphany on 6th January. On the latter date, in the late sixth century
the church of Jerusalem commemorated the baptism of Christ with baptisms in
the river Jordan. In these regions, baptism could also be celebrated on the anni-
versaries of important martyrs. his may help to explain why many monumen-
tal baptisteries in the East from the ith century onward are found in martyrs’
32 P. De Palol, “El baptisterio en el ámbito arquitectónico de los conjuntos episcopales urbanos”,

577.
33 G. Cantino Wataghin/M. Cechelli/L. Pani Ermini, “L’ediicio battesimale nel tessuto della
città tardo antica”, 238.
34 V. Fiocchi Nicolai/S. Gelichi, “Battisteri e chiese rurali (IV-VII secolo)”, 315.

1598 Olof Brandt
sanctuaries outside the towns.35 Most famous are those of St John at Ephesus,36
Abu Menas in Egypt,37 and Qal’at Sim’an in Syria38. It is possible that they were
used for the baptism of pilgrims during the martyr’s feast-day, but we cannot
exclude the possibility that they were simply used for the celebration of Easter
baptism for the surrounding community. he baptisteries in the sanctuaries
of the Roman martyrs Peter, Paul and Lawrence were used in exactly that way
from the middle of the ith century (Liber Pontiicalis I, 249).
However, the presence of a baptistery in a church dedicated to a martyr
doesn’t necessarily imply that it was used during the feast of the martyr and not
during the celebration of Easter. During the entire ith century Rome stuck to
the tradition of restricting the celebration of baptism to Easter and Pentecost.
Easter baptism always remained the most important, and if there are important
baptisteries in some martyrs’ churches, this may also be explained by the fact
that some of these churches were used as cathedrals; the baptism celebrated in
these baptisteries would then again be that of Easter and Pentecost. Also in ith
century Rome, baptisteries in the martyrs’ sanctuaries close to the catacombs
outside the walls were used for Easter baptism, celebrated by priests, while the
bishop led the most solemn celebration in the baptistery of the Lateran cathe-
dral (Fig. 27). From the fourth century onwards, however, baptisteries where
the celebration was led by priests can be found also in rural churches39 and
from the early ith century in parish churches in bigger cities such as Rome
and Constantinople. From the sixth century, it is common to ind more than
one baptistery in a town (in Italy Rome and Milan, in North Africa Timgad,
Carthage, Sbeitla, Sabratha and Lepcis Magna). his does not necessarily imply
the presence of two bishops and schismatic communities, as has oten been said,
but perhaps rather merely that many people were baptized on Easter in parallel
celebrations, held under the supervision of the bishop. his may be conirmed
by the occasional presence of two baptisteries in the same cathedral complex
in some big towns such as Milan, although some scholars imagine that one of
these double baptisteries was used for women.
he growing autonomy of the priests in the celebration of baptism from the
fourth century onwards led to the construction of smaller baptisteries in parish
churches both in the countryside and in bigger towns. hese baptisteries are
rarely separate buildings. In the towns, these secondary baptisteries have so
35 P.-A. Février, “Baptistères, martyrs et reliques”; Falla Castelfranchi, “Battisteri

Battisteri e pellegri-
naggi”; Falla Castelfranchi, ΒΑΠΤΙΣΤΗΡΙΑ. Intorno ai più noti battisteri dell’Oriente.
36 M. Büyükkolanci, “Zwei
Zwei neugefundene Bauten der Johannes-Kirche von Ephesos: Baptisteri-
um und Skeuophylakion”; A. Thiel, Die Johanneskirche in Ephesos, 66–84.
37 P. Grossmann, “Neue frühchristliche Funde aus Ägypten”, 1850–1853; Grossmann, “Die
durch liturgische Änderungen veranlassten Umbauten im Baptisterium von Abū Mīnā”.
38 J.-P. Sodini, “Qal’at Sem’an: Quelques données nouvelles”.
39 S. Episcopo, “L’ecclesia baptismalis nel suburbio di Roma”.

far been found only in Rome, in the churches of Santa Cecilia in Trastevere,40
San Clemente,41 San Crisogono,42 Santa Croce in Gerusalemme,43 San Lorenzo
in Lucina,44 San Marcello al Corso45 and San Marco.46 However, the same de-
velopment seems to have taken place in Constantinople, because in 404 it was
reported that the Easter baptism was being celebrated in several churches. New
archaeological discoveries may add much to our knowledge of the baptisteries
of Constantinople and other great cities such as Antioch.
Every baptistery was built with some relationship to a church, but this re-
lationship could take many forms. he baptistery could be placed in a separate
building or in a simpler annex to the church. Most baptisteries are in rooms
annexed to the church, while independent baptisteries are common in some
regions and periods, especially in North Italy and South France. Famous ex-
amples are the fourth century Lateran baptistery in Rome (Fig. 27), S. Giovanni
alle fonti in Milan, and the ith century “Orthodox” baptistery in Ravenna, all
octagonal. Baptisteries incorporated into churches are common from the ith
century in North Africa and Asia Minor. In these regions, important baptister-
ies are also united with the church architectonically through corridors or other
solutions. Some baptisteries were placed in front of the facade of the church,
united with it by an atrium or similar structures, as in the case of the Basilica
Eufrasiana in Poreč, Croatia (Fig. 39), or the external baptistery of the cathe-
dral of Aquileia, Italy (Fig. 32). A common solution is to place an incorporated
baptistery behind the apse of the basilica between other rooms, which could be
reached from doors at the end of the aisles. Many baptisteries were surrounded
by other rooms, and it is tempting but diicult to identify one of them as the
consignatorium, where baptism was completed with the holy unction.
6.3. Understanding Structure: Symbolism

6.3.1. Understanding Structure: he Symbolic Approach
A common opinion is that the architecture of early Christian baptisteries was

supposed to express a symbolic meaning, or rather, that the architectonic form
was chosen to express a symbolism. his opinion was expressed with force by
Dölger in 1934, in a paper which begins with a quotation from the Syriac text
40 N. Parmegiani/A. Pronti, S. Cecilia in Trastevere. Nuovi scavi e ricerche, 87–96.

41 F. Guidobaldi, “San Clemente. Gli scavi più recenti (1992–2000)”.
42 B. M. Apollonj Ghetti, “Nuove considerazioni sulla chiesa inferiore di S. Crisogono”.
43 S. Argentini/M. Ricciardi, “Il
Il complesso di S. Croce in Gerusalemme in Roma: nuove acqui-
sizioni ed ipotesi”.
44 O. Brandt, “Scavi e ricerche dell’Istituto Svedese a San Lorenzo in Lucina”.
45 A. Nestori, “Il battistero paleocristiano di S. Marcello. Nuove scoperte”.
46 M. Cechelli, “San Marco”.

1600 Olof Brandt
Testamentum Domini nostri Jesu Christi, which describes a symbolism where the
measures of the baptistery recall the numbers of the prophets and the apostles.
Dölger concludes that there was a “klar ausgesprochene(n) Absicht, beim Bau
eines Tauhauses eine Symbolik zur Ausfuerhung zu bringen”,47 although he
himself observes that the measures mentioned in the text cannot be found in
any known building. his observation is enough to show that also the symbolic
approach is a failure. Texts are texts, and structures are structures. A symbolic
reading could be done a posteriori or talk about buildings which did not exist. It
is something completely diferent to understand which factors really determined
the shape of a real building during the preparation of its building. Probably there
oten was no wish to create a symbolism “beim Bau” but rather during the use of
the building. Gerard Lukken and Mark Searle made a useful distinction in their
study of the semiotics of church architecture from 1993: “Architecture is the re-
sult of two processes: irst there is the process whereby the building comes into
existence, and second there is the process whereby the meaning of the building
is altered by the many uses to which it is put in day-to-day living”.48
In spite of these recent, useful distinctions, the symbolic approach is still
frequent and popular and is oten treated as obvious. In his introduction to
the proceedings of a recent conference on “Architektur und Liturgie”, Andreas
Odenthal states that “Die
Die Bedeutung des liturgischen Raumes geht nicht in sei-
ner Funktionalität für das Ritual auf. Wie in den Kirchweihriten deutlich wird,
drückt der Kirchenbau aus, was theologisch über die in ihm versammelte Ge-
meinde, die Kirche, zu sagen ist.”49 Fortunately, other scholars are abandoning
this approach: Sible De Blaauw recently made the welcome statement that it was
not the symbolism but rather the nature and Verlauf of the baptismal liturgy
which determined the choice of the shape of the baptistery.50 De Blaauw does
not deny that there may have been a wish for symbolism, but he stresses that
the form of the baptistery must most of all be itting for the rites, and inds the
reason behind the choice of the shape in the space needed for the celebration.
6.3.2. Understanding Structure: Is the Octagonal Shape Symbolic?
he most well-known example of the discussion about the symbolism of the ar-
chitecture of early Christian baptisteries concerns the octagonal plan, frequent
among monumental baptisteries especially in north Italy and south France.
Dölger believed that the octagonal shape was chosen because of the symbolic
interpretations of the number eight, mentioned by St. Ambrose in an inscrip-
47 Dölger, “Zur Symbolik des altchristlichen Tauhauses”, 154.

48 G. Lukken/M. Searle, Semiotics and Church Architecture, 13.
49 A. Odenthal, “Raum
Raum und Ritual. Liturgietheologische Markierungen zu einem interdiszipli-
nären Dialog”, 5.
50 De Blaauw, “Kultgebäude”, 340.

tion in the baptistery of Milan.51 He himself believed, however, that the shape
had been borrowed from the frigidaria of the late Roman baths. his was an
important observation which sprang out of Dölger’s ambition to study the inter-
action between “Antike” und “Christentum”, between the early Christianity and
contemporary culture.
he octagonal shape was the latest fashion in the fourth century, when the
irst monumental baptisteries were built. Octagonal halls did not always have
the same function, and it is diicult to imagine that the form in itself could
carry any absolute symbolic content. In Imperial palaces, from the irst century
Domus Aurea to the Domus Augustana on the Palatine in Rome and the palace
of Diocletian in Split, octagonal halls had diferent functions.
From the second to the ith century, octagonal halls become more and more
frequent in baths. his is evident if you look at the plans in the catalogue of Ro-
man baths by Inge Nielsen.52 Many are diicult to distinguish from those in
the classical corpus of early Christian baptisteries by Khatchatrian. In Nielsen’s
catalogue, the octagonal halls are found in the baths of the Heliocaminus in the
Villa Adriana at Tivoli, dated to 118–131 (catalogue number C56), in the baths
of the Olympieion in Athens from 124–131 (C255), the baths of Butrint in Alba-
nia from the early second century (C353), the Antoninian baths of Carthage in
Tunisia (C209), the Forum baths at Ostia from the second century (C214), the
southern baths of Bostra from the second or third century (C286), the baths of
Dchar Jdid from the same period (C124), the third century “C” baths in Anti-
ochia (C374), in Diocletian’s baths in Rome 298–305/6 (C11), the baths of Max-
entius on the Palatine in Rome 306–312 (C12), the baths of Constantine of the
year 315 (Fig. 36) (C13), the baths of Piazza Armerina in Sicily 320–340 (C65),
the northeast baths of Bulla Regia, perhaps fourth century (C208), and the ith
century baths of Toprak-en-Naroidja (C386).
Other Roman monuments of octagonal shape can not even be deined as
halls. An enigmatic structure at the centre of the Atrium Vestae in Rome was
dated by van Deman to the second century AD and interpreted as a summer
pavilion.53 Another enigmatic structure, which may have something to do with
nymphaea or fountains, is the octagonal structure at the centre of the peristy-
lium of the Domus Flavia on the Palatine, of Domitianic date. he structure
has been described as an octagonal labyrinth with channels for some kind of
51 Dölger, “Zur Symbolik des altchristlichen Tauhauses”, 153–160; St. Ambrose’s inscription in
Bücheler (ed.), Carmina Latina Epigraphica, Lipsiae 1895–1897, 908; see also Cuscito, “Epi- Epi-
grai di apparato nei battisteri paleocristiani d’Italia”; for the symbolic interpretation of the
number eight in early Christian culture, see also A. Quacquarelli, L’ogdoade patristica e i suoi
rilessi nella liturgia e nei monumenti.
52 I. Nielsen, hermae et Balnea. he Architecture and Cultural History of Roman Public Baths.
53 E. B. van Deman, he Atrium Vestae, 44, Plan E, o.

1602 Olof Brandt
fountain.54 Both structures were found at the centre of a peristylium, and prob-
ably both had something to do with water.
Dölger was right in seeing a relationship between the architecture of baptis-
teries and that of late antique baths, but he didn’t take the inal step of widening
the horizon and see that both baptisteries and baths ware part of the same cul-
ture which liked to create architectural backdrops for water and fountains. his
late antique, cultural backdrop was better understood in the same years by Paul
Styger.55 he great baths in Rome all belong to late antiquity: those of Caracalla
are the oldest among them, but the baths of Diocletian, Maxentius and Con-
stantine (Fig. 36) all were built in the same period when the irst monumental
baptisteries were created. It is illuminating to walk along the streets of Ostia
antica and ind so many fountains and nymphaea, both along the streets and in
the private domus, which all belong to the same fourth century.56 his common
late antique culture of architectural structures for water is more helpful than
symbolism in order to understand the origin of the architecture of the octago-
nal early Christian baptisteries.
6.4. Understanding Structure: Space
As has been outlined above, the last century has seen several less fruitful paths of
research in the study of early Christian baptisteries. Probably for future research,
the most fruitful approach will be to consider the architectural structure not
as a work of art intended to express something, but rather as an answer to the
needs of the celebration, as indicated by De Blaauw, who sees the fundamental
reason behind the choice of the octagonal plan or of any central plan in the need
of moving around the font during the celebration; whatever was meant to be
expressed, except for a general expression of grandeur, monumentality and rich-
ness, was expressed through the decoration and not through the structure. he
fundamental question to consider is the space needed for the celebration. How-
ever, a purely ritual approach is not enough. It can be interesting and stimulating
to try to identify the places used for the diferent parts of the celebration, as De
Blaauw himself has done for the Lateran (Fig. 37)57 and G. C. Menis for Aquileia
54 W. L. MacDonald, he Architecture of the Roman Empire. I. An Introductory Study, 54.

55 Styger, “Nymphäen, Mausoleen, Baptisterien; Probleme der Architekturgeschichte”.
56 For Ostia, see the classical work of R. Meiggs, Roman Ostia, and for the domus of Ostia, G.
Becatti, Case ostiensi del Tardo Impero; for the late antique transformations of the Ostian
domus, C. Pavolini, “L’L’edilizia commerciale e l’edilizia abitativa nel contesto di Ostia tardoan-
tica”.
57 De Blaauw, Cultus et decor. Liturgia e architettura nella Roma tardoantica e medievale, 149–
155.

(Fig. 38),58 but it is diicult to do any true progress on this path. Texts and struc-
tures are diferent universes and obey diferent mental structures. It is diicult
to use one to explain the other. Neither does the purely ritual approach explain
why the structures of the baptisteries so oten are identical to the forms of other
buildings with completely diferent functions.
he problem can be resolved only by taking one further step and ask what
really distinguished the celebration performed in these buildings seen as an
action, beyond the ritual and ideological label given to it. his approach can be
helped by the discussion of space which has developed during the last decades
in urbanistic and architectural studies both of the modern and of the ancient
world. his recent space discussion is in great part inspired by the “Space syn-
tax analysis” proposed by Hillier and Hanson in their volume he Social Logic
of Space of 1984, which aims to study social processes through the quantiica-
tion of the relationships between architectural spaces. In the studies of the an-
cient world, this method has been used particularly in Ray Laurence’s studies
of the city of Pompeii.59 Laurence expresses the classical form of the theory that
the movement and its meaning are determined by structures. However, this ap-
proach to the study of space is not entirely satisfying. As a matter of fact, oten
movement does not automatically obey structures; people don’t go to church
just because you build one. A better approach can be inspired by Henri Lefebvre
and his 1974 book La production de l’éspace.60 He states that: “Les Les gestes orga-
nisés, donc ritualisés et codiiés, … engendrent des espaces, produits par e pour
leurs gestes.”61 his space, produced by actions, is not empty: “L’espace n’est pas
seulement l’espace du ‘non’ mais celui du corps, par conséquent celui du ‘oui’,
du vivre”.62 He even makes the important statement: “Le vide se révèle plein”.63
Space already exists, and is full; the structure protects this space and articulates
its communication with the outside world. Lefebvre also distinguishes between
big and small movements. In the study of a building, it would be reasonable to
state that the structures must obey the big movements, while smaller move-
ments obey structures. Understanding which movements have determined the
shape of a building can help understanding which movements and actions, in
the complex articulation of a liturgical celebration, were considered “big” or
particularly important, and which were less important. his approach leads the
58 G. C. Menis, “Il battesimo ad Aquileia nella prima metà del IV secolo”, 701–708, ig. 2; cfr
discussione critica in Ristow, Frühchristliche Baptisterien, 24.
59 R. Laurence, “Space and Text”; Laurence, Roman Pompeii: Space and Society.
60 H. Lefebvre, La production de l’espace.
61 Ibid., 249.
62 Ibid., 233.
63 Ibid. 258.

1604 Olof Brandt
space discussion to centre not on walls considered as an expressive work of art,

but on the human body and its actions.
An example taken from the ield of early Christian baptisteries could be the
fact that the font is oten, but not always, at the centre of the hall, surrounded
by a more or less circular space (Figs. 28, 31, 32 and 33). In many regions, this
circular space seems to have been “full” of the space created by liturgical ac-
tion and could not be illed in any way. However, especially in Syria, there are
cases where the font is built against the wall or in an apse, from Dura Europos
to Qal’at Sem’an (Fig. 30), making it impossible to move around the font. his
may relect an important regional liturgical diversity. Another example could
be the space of the room which most oten separates the baptistery itself from
the Church; an intermediate space which oten has no particular character, but
which seems to have been necessary.
Bibliography
Apollonj Ghetti, Bruno Maria, “Nuove considerazioni sulla chiesa inferiore
di S. Crisogono”, in: Rivista di archeologia cristiana 22 (1946) 235–249.
Argentini, S./Ricciardi, Monica, “Il complesso di S. Croce in Gerusalemme
in Roma: nuove acquisizioni ed ipotesi”, in: Atti della Pontiicia Accademia
Romana di Archeologia: Rendiconti 69 (1996–1997) 253–288.
Bagatti, Bellarmino, “I battisteri della Palestina”, in: Actes du Ve Congrès In-
ternational d’Archéologie Chrétienne, Aix-en-Provence, 13–19 settembre 1954
(Studi
Studi di antichità cristiana 22),
), Città del Vaticano: Pontiicio
Pontiicio Istituto di Ar-
cheologia Cristiana 1957, 213–227.
Becatti, Giovanni, Case ostiensi del Tardo Impero, Roma: Libreria dello Stato
1949.
Ben Pechat, Malka, “he Paleochristian Baptismal Fonts in the Holy Land.
Formal and Functional Study”, in: Liber Annuus 39 (1989) 165–188.
Bisconti, Fabrizio, “L’iconograia dei battisteri paleocristiani in Italia”, in: L’edi-
icio battesimale in Italia. Aspetti e problemi. Atti dell’VIII Congresso Nazio-
nale di Archeologia Cristiana. Genova, Sarzana, Albenga, Finale Ligure, Ven-
timiglia 21–26 settembre 1998 (Istituto Internazionale di Studi Liguri. Atti
dei Convegni 5), Bordighera: Istituto Internazionale di Studi Liguri 2001,
405–440.
Brandt, Olof, “Il battistero lateranense da Costantino a Ilaro. Un riesame degli
scavi”, in: Opuscula Romana 22–23 (1997–1998) 7–65.

— “Scavi e ricerche dell’Istituto Svedese a San Lorenzo in Lucina”, in: FOLD&R

2004, 25 (www.fastionline.org/docs/2004-25.pdf).
Brandt, Olof/Guidobaldi, Federico, “Il Il Battistero Lateranense: Nuove inter-
pretazioni delle fasi strutturali”, in: Rivista di Archeologia Cristiana 84 (2008)
189–282.
Bücheler, F. (ed.), Carmina Latina Epigraphica, Lipsiae: Teubner 1895–1897.
Büyükkolanci, Mustafa, “Zwei neugefundene Bauten der Johannes-Kirche
von Ephesos: Baptisterium und Skeuophylakion”, in: Istanbuler Mitteilungen
32 (1982) 236–257.
Cantino Wataghin, Gisella/Cecchelli, Margherita/Pani Ermini, Letizia,
“L’ediicio battesimale nel tessuto della città tardo antica”, in: L’ediicio battesi-
male in Italia. Aspetti e problemi. Atti dell’VIII Congresso Nazionale di Arche-
ologia Cristiana. Genova, Sarzana, Albenga, Finale Ligure, Ventimiglia 21–26
settembre 1998 (Atti dei Convegni 5), Bordighera: Istituto Internazionale di
Studi Liguri 2001, 231–265.
Cechelli, Margherita, “San Marco”, in: L. Paroli/L. Vendittelli (eds.), Roma
dall’antichità al medioevo II. Contesti tardoantichi e altomedievali, Roma:
Electa 2004, 312–316.
Cuomo, Serafina, Technology and Culture in Greek and Roman Antiquity, Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press 2007.
Cuscito, Giuseppe, “Epigrai di apparato nei battisteri paleocristiani d’Italia”,
in: L’ediicio battesimale in Italia. Aspetti e problemi. Atti dell’VIII Congresso
Nazionale di Archeologia Cristiana. Genova, Sarzana, Albenga, Finale Ligure,
Ventimiglia 21–26 settembre 1998 (Atti dei Convegni 5), Bordighera: Istituto
Internazionale di Studi Liguri 2001, 441–466.
De Angelis D’Ossat, Guiglielmo, “Tipologia architettonica dei battisteri
paleocristiani”, in: Corsi di cultura sull’arte ravennate e bizantina 10 (1963)
127–129.
De Blaauw, Sible, Cultus et decor. Liturgia e architettura nella Roma tardoanti-
ca e medievale, Città del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana 1994.
— v. “Kultgebäude”, in: Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum XX, Stuttgart:
Hiersemann 2008, cols. 227–393.
De Bruyne, Lucien, “La décoration des baptistères paléochrétiens”, in:
Miscellanea Liturgica in honorem L.C. Mohlberg (Bibliotheca “Ephemerides
liturgicae” 22), Roma: Edizioni Liturgiche 1948, 189–220.

1606 Olof Brandt
Deichmann, Friedrich Wilhelm, v. “Baptisterium”, in: Reallexikon für Antike

und Christentum I, Stuttgart: Hiersemann 1950, cols. 1157–1167.
van Deman, Esther Boise, he Atrium Vestae, Washington, D.C.: Carnegie In-
stitution 1909.
De Palol, Pere, “El baptisterio en el ámbito arquitectónico de los conjuntos
episcopales urbanos”, in: Actes du XIe Congrès International d’Archéologie
Chrétienne. Lyon, Vienne, Grenoble, Genève et Aoste, 21–28 settembre 1986
(Studi
Studi di antichità cristiana 41),
), Città del Vaticano:: Pontiicio
Pontiicio Istituto di Ar-
cheologia Cristiana 1989, 559–605.
Dölger, Franz Josef, “Zur Symbolik des altchristlichen Tauhauses”, in: Antike
und Christentum 4, Münster in Westfalen: Aschendorf
Aschendorfsche
sche Verlagsbuch-
handlung 1934, 153–187.
Dura Europos Final Report VIII, 2. he Christian Building, New Haven, Conn.:
Yale University Press 1967.
L’ediicio battesimale in Italia. Aspetti e problemi. Atti dell’VIII Congresso Nazio-
nale di Archeologia Cristiana. Genova, Sarzana, Albenga, Finale Ligure, Ven-
timiglia 21–26 settembre 1998 (Atti
Atti dei Convegni 5), ), Bordighera: Istituto In-
ternazionale di Studi Liguri 2001.
Episcopo, Silvana, “L’ecclesia baptismalis nel suburbio di Roma”, in: Atti del VI
Congresso Nazionale di Archeologia Cristiana. Pesaro –Ancona 19–23 settem-
bre 1983, Ancona: Consiglio Regionale delle Marche 1985, 297–308.
Eyice, Semavi, “Le baptistère de Ste Sophie d’Istanbul”, in: Atti del IX Congresso
Internazionale di Archeologia Cristiana, Roma 21–27 settembre 1975 (Studi di
antichità cristiana 32), Città del Vaticano: Pontiicio Istituto di Archeologia
Cristiana 1978, II, 258–273.
Falla Castelfranchi, Marina, ΒΑΠΤΙΣΤΗΡΙΑ. Intorno ai più noti battisteri
dell’Oriente (Quaderni dell’istituto di archeologia e storia antica, Università
degli studi ‘G. D’Annunzio’, Chieti, Monograia, 1), Roma: Libreria Editrice
Viella 1980.
— v. “Battistero”, in: Enciclopedia dell’arte medievale III, Roma: Istituto della En-
ciclopedia Italiana 1992, 214–227.
— “Battisteri e pellegrinaggi”, in: Akten des XII. Internationalen Kongresses für
Christliche Archäologie, Bonn 22–28 September 1991 (StudiStudi di antichità cri-
stiana 52), Città del Vaticano: Pontiicio Istituto di Archeologia Cristiana
1995, 234–248.

Farrar, Linda, Gardens of Italy and the Western Provinces of the Roman Empire
4th century BC-4th century AD (BAR international series 650), Oxford: Brit-
ish Archaeological Reports 1996.
Février, Paul-Albert, “Baptistères, martyrs et reliques”, in: Rivista di Archeolo-
gia Cristiana 62 (1986) 109–138.
Fiocchi Nicolai, Vincenzo/Gelichi, Sauro, “Battisteri e chiese rurali (IV-
VII secolo)”, in: L’ediicio battesimale in Italia. Aspetti e problemi. Atti dell’VIII
Congresso Nazionale di Archeologia Cristiana. Genova, Sarzana, Albenga, Fi-
nale Ligure, Ventimiglia 21–26 settembre 1998 (Atti dei Convegni 5), Bor-
dighera: Istituto Internazionale di Studi Liguri 2001, 303–384.
Grossmann, Peter, “Neue frühchristliche Funde aus Ägypten”, in: Actes du XIe
Congrès International d’Archéologie Chrétienne. Lyon, Vienne, Grenoble, Ge-
nève et Aoste, 21–28 settembre 1986 (Studi di antichità cristiana 41), Città del
Vaticano: Pontiicio Istituto di Archeologia Cristiana 1989, 1843–1908.
— “Die durch liturgische Änderungen veranlassten Umbauten im Baptisterium
von Abū Mīnā”, in: M. Altripp – C. Nauerth (eds.), Architektur und Liturgie.
Akten des Kolloquiums vom 25. bis 27. Juli 2003 in Greifswald, Wiesbaden:
Reichert Verlag 2006, 83–89.
Guidobaldi, Federico, “San Clemente. Gli scavi più recenti (1992–2000)”, in:
L. Paroli – L. Vendittelli (eds.), Roma dall’antichità al medioevo II. Contesti
tardoantichi e altomedievali, Roma: Electa 2004, 390–415.
Guyon, Jean, “Baptistères
Baptistères et groupes épiscopaux de Provence. Élaboration, dif
difu-
u-
sion et devenir d’un type architectural”, in Actes du XIe Congrès International
d’Archéologie Chrétienne. Lyon, Vienne, Grenoble, Genève et Aoste, 21–28
settembre 1986 (Studi di antichità cristiana 41), Città del Vaticano: Pontiicio
Istituto di Archeologia Cristiana 1989, 1427–1449.
— Le premiers baptistères des Gaules (IVe – VIIIe siècles), Roma: Unione degli
Istituti di Archeologia e Storia dell’Arte in Roma 2000.
Hillier, Bill/Hanson, Julienne, he Social Logic of Space, Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press 1984.
Itinerarium Burdigalense (Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina 175), Turnhout:
Brepols 1965, 1–26.
Khatchatrian, Armen, Les baptistères paléochrétiens. Plans, notices et biblio-
graphies, Paris: École pratique des Hautes Études 1962.
— Origine et typologie des baptistères paléochrétiens, Mulhouse: Centre de
Culture Chrétien 1982.

1608 Olof Brandt
Klauser, Theodor, “Taufet in lebendigem Wasser!”, in: Pisciculi. Studien zur

Religion und Kultur des Altertums Franz Joseph Dölger zum sechzigsten Ge-
burtstage dargeboten, Münster in Westfalen: Verlag Aschendorf 1939, 157–
164.
Krautheimer Richard/Corbett, Spencer/Frazer, Albert K., Corpus
basilicarum christianarum Romae. Le basiliche paleocristiane di Roma (IV-IX
sec.) 5 (Monumenti di antichità cristiana 2), Città del Vaticano: Pontiicio
Istituto di Archeologia Cristiana 1977.
von Lanckorónski, Karl, Der Dom von Aquileia. Sein Bau und seine Geschich-
te, Wien: Gerlach & Wiedling 1906.
Laurence, Ray, “Space and Text”, in: R. Laurence – A. Wallace-Hadrill, Domestic
Space in the Roman World: Pompeii and Beyond (JRA Suppl. 22), Portsmouth,
RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology 1997.
— Roman Pompeii: Space and Society, New York: Routledge 22007.
Leclercq, Henri, v. “Baptistère”, in: Dictionnaire d’archéologie chrétienne et de
liturgie 2, Paris: Libraire Letouzey et Ané 1924, cols. 382–469.
Lefebvre, Henri, La production de l’espace, Paris: Anthropos 1974.
Letzner, Wolfram, Römische Brunnen und Nymphaeen in der westlichen
Reichshälte (Charybdis 2), Münster: Lit-Verlag 1990.
Le Liber Pontiicalis. Texte, introduction et commentaire par l’abbé L. Duchesne, I,
Paris: Ernest hroni Éditeur 1886.
Lukken, Gerald/M. Searle, Mark, Semiotics and Church Architecture, Kam-
pen: Kok Pharos 1993.
MacDonald, William L., he Architecture of the Roman Empire. I. An Introduc-
tory Study, New Haven and London: Yale University Press 1965.
Mannoni, Tiziano/Cagnana, Aurora, “Archeologia dei monumenti. L’analisi
stratigraica del battistero paleocristiano di Albenga (SV)”, in: Archeologia
dell’Architettura 1 (1996) 83–100.
Meiggs, Russell, Roman Ostia, Oxford: Clarendon Press 21977.
Menis, Gian Carlo, “Il battesimo ad Aquileia nella prima metà del IV secolo”,
in: L’ediicio battesimale in Italia. Aspetti e problemi. Atti dell’VIII Congresso
Nazionale di Archeologia Cristiana. Genova, Sarzana, Albenga, Finale Ligure,
Ventimiglia 21–26 settembre 1998 (Atti dei Convegni 5), Bordighera: Istituto
Internazionale di Studi Liguri 2001, 685–708.

Nestori, Aldo, “Il battistero paleocristiano di S. Marcello. Nuove scoperte”, in:

Rivista di Archeologia Cristiana 58 (1982), 81–126.
Neuerburg, Norman, L’architettura delle fontane e dei ninfei nell’Italia antica,
Napoli: G. Macchiaroli 1965.
Nielsen, Inge, hermae et Balnea. he Architecture and Cultural History of Ro-
man Public Baths, Aarhus: Aarhus University Press 1990.
Odenthal, Andreas, “RaumRaum und Ritual. Liturgietheologische Markierun-
gen zu einem interdisziplinären Dialog”, in: M. Altripp – C. Nauerth (eds.),
Architektur und Liturgie. Akten des Kolloqiums vom 25. bis 27. Juli 2003 in
Greifswald, Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag 2006, 1–13.
Parmegiani, Neda/Pronti, Alberto, S. Cecilia in Trastevere. Nuovi scavi e
ricerche (Monumenti di antichità cristiana. II serie. 16), Città del Vaticano:
Pontiicio Istituto di Archeologia Cristiana 2004.
Pavolini, Carlo, “L’edilizia commerciale e l’edilizia abitativa nel contesto di
Ostia tardoantica”, in: A. Giardina (ed.), Società romana e impero tardoantico.
II. Roma. Politica Economia Paesaggio urbano, Bari: Laterza 1986, 239–283.
Pelliccioni, Giovanni, Le nuove scoperte sulle origini del battistero lateranense
(Atti della Pontiicia Accademia Romana di Archeologia serie III. Memorie,
XII,1), Città del Vaticano: Tipograia Poliglotta Vaticana 1973.
Quacquarelli, Antonio, L’ogdoade patristica e i suoi rilessi nella liturgia e nei
monumenti, Bari: Adriatica Editrice 1973.
Ristow, Sebastian, Frühchristliche Baptisterien (Jahrbuch für Antike und
Christentum. Ergänzungsband 27), Münster in Westfalen: Aschendorfsche
Verlagsbuchhandlung 1998.
Sodini, Jean-Pierre, “Qal’at Sem’an: Quelques données nouvelles”, in: Akten
des XII. Internationalen Kongresses für Christliche Archäologie, Bonn 22–28
September 1991 (Studi di antichità cristiana 52), Città del Vaticano: Pontiicio
Istituto di Archeologia Cristiana 1995, 348–368.
Styger, Paul, “Nymphäen,
Nymphäen, Mausoleen, Baptisterien; Probleme der Architektur-
geschichte”, in: Architectura 1 (1933) 50–55.
Thiel, Andreas, Die Johanneskirche in Ephesos, Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag
2005.


Understanding The Structures of Early CH

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Understanding The Structures of Early CH

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AUTHOR’S COPY | AUTORENEXEMPLAR