TWO BATH BUILDINGS ON THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE SPHINX’ AVENUE IN LUXOR BY JACEK KOŚCIUK Abstract. The paper discusses the remains of two bath buildings originating from Roman period. Both are located on the western side of the Sphinx Avenue which connected once Luxor temple with the Karnak complex. The author had a chance to undertake a survey and architectural studies in the early spring of the year 1983, joining the mission of the German Institute of Archaeology in Cairo. Since that time the buildings have disappeared nearly entirely and this short description might be the only data available for further studies. 1. General description of the area. Archeological works carried out in the area of Luxor Temple at the beginning of the second half of 20th century by Supreme Council of Antiquities1, among many other interesting features, unearthed also remains of two bath buildings located on the western sides of the Sphinx’ Avenue which once connected the Luxor Temple with the Karnak complex. In the early spring of the year 1983, during the mission of the German Institute of Archaeology in Cairo, the author had a chance to undertake a survey and architectural studies of both the buildings. Preliminary results have already been described in a separate publication2. 1 Cf. MUHAMED ABDUL-QADER, Preliminary report on the excavations carried out in the Temple of Luxor seasons 1958-1959 & 1959-1960, ASAE 60 (1968) 227279. 2 cf. J. KOŚCIUK, Dwie łazienki z czasów rzymskich w rejonie okręgu świątynnego w Luksorze, in: E. RÓŻYCKA-ROZPĘDOWSKA, M. CHOROWSKA (ed.), Nie tylko zamki, Wrocław 2005, 215-231. 76 JACEK KOŚCIUK BSAC L 2011 Despite the fact that the bath remains cover only a small section of the much bigger settlement, it is nevertheless possible to point out some interesting observations concerning not only the bathes itself, but also the settlement. The fact that at the time of our survey or in later years we did not have an opportunity to consult any excavation reports or field notes, greatly handicaps possibility to draw out more detailed conclusions. With the developments of last years, when a good part of the ancient settlement nearly entirely vanished being partially refilled and partially dismantled, it becomes necessary to publish our observations even if they are incomplete, lack reference to a more detailed archaeological context or the precise dating of the relicts. Both bath buildings are separated from each other by a relatively wide (about 2.10 m) street (Fig. 1). On its western side there is a group of rooms which will be further referred to as the 'Small Bath' with an eastern slightly larger complex vis a vis, called 'Large Bath'. 2. The 'Small Bath' This 14.0 x 14.0 m complex consists of two groups of rooms: a spacious open court 1 (Fig. 1) and adjacent to its eastern side rooms 2, 3, 4 forming the actual bath. On its eastern side the complex borders on the aforementioned street. Two fragments of walls have remained on the opposite side, thus suggesting that the court was closed up there. The northern and southern borders are delimited by ca. 1.5 m thick mud-brickwork. Unfortunately, we do not know the exact position of the entrance to the whole complex. Probably, it was located in the western, only partially preserved, wall of the mentioned court 1. Whether the access was provided from a public area, or whether the ‘Small Bath’ was connected directly with a private house to which it belonged we do not know, but the latter possibility looks more plausible. The function of court 1 is not clear. It might have been only a kind of BATH BUILDINGS IN LUXOR Fig. 1. The ‘Small Bath’ 77 JACEK KOŚCIUK 78 BSAC L 2011 back-yard, but it might have served as well also as a resting area for bathers. Its relatively large size (ca. 9 x 10 meters) makes a small garden for recreational purposes fully possible. In the northwestern corner of the court there is an oval well of mixed stonebrick construction, while a tank for used water is located in the middle of the opposite, eastern side (Pl. XVa). The proper bath (Pl. XVb) consisted of the two rooms 2 and 3. Room 2, which was accessible from the court, functioned probably as vestibulum and apodyterion. On its northern side it bordered on room 3 which was the central part of the bath. This room is equipped with a large (1.53 m of internal length) tub for bathing built of red bricks, and two smaller ones with seats3 (Pl. XVIa). The way of how the small tubs were used is still discussed. Some scholars believe that they were for foot-bathing, others insist that they were basins for shower (a bather sat in it and somebody else sprinkled water on him)4. The latter interpretation seems to be more reliable, especially if we take into account that many known examples of baths consist only of small sitting tubs5. In our case, used up water was spooned out from small tubs directly over the floor made of opus signinum. Oval hollows in sitting tubs bottoms facilitated this operation. The drain in the side wall of the large bathing tub also leads directly onto the floor and, thanks to the drop of its level, the water drifts through the ceramic drain down to the already mentioned tank (Pl. XVa) in court 1. The tank bottom, as well as its side walls are lined with opus signinum. Judging from the fact that the tank bottom is placed ca. 80 cm below the bath floor, we can estimate that its capacity was roughly equal to that of the big bathing tub – ca. 0,5 m3. If so, the Such an arrangement (two small tubs accompanying a larger one) is often found in small private baths in Egypt, cf. Fouilles Franco-Polonaises. Tell Edfou 1937 (Le Caire 1937) 67 fig. 30; ABD EL-MOHSEN EL-KHASHAB, Ptolemaic and Roman Baths of Komm el Ahmar, in: Supplements aux annales du service antiquites de l'Egypte (SASAE 10, Cairo 1949) plan 1. 4 For the more detailed discussion together with appropriate references see: ABD EL-MOHSEN EL-KHASHAB, op.cit. 31. 5 Two such baths found in Madinat El-Fayoum (Crododilopolis-Arsinoe) may serve here as the example, cf. FOAD YACOUB, A Private Bath Discovered at Kiman Fares - Fayoum, Annales du service antiquites de l'Egypte (ASAE) LX, 1968, 55-56, fig. I-IV. 3 BATH BUILDINGS IN LUXOR 79 upper surface of the tank side walls would have projected ca. 6080 cm above ground level6. All three bathing tubs are grouped alongside the western wall of room 3 leaving the north-western corner of the room free. This facilitated an easy access to a small container for water built into the thickness of the northern wall (Pl. XVIIIa). The fully preserved southern side wall of the container allows to estimate its capacity to be ca. 0,35 m3 – roughly 70% of the big bathing tub’s capacity. The opening above the side wall parapet was probably ended with an arch, and the whole structure was of the wall recess shape. To reinforce the particularly weak northern wall (only ½ of brick) a small buttress was erected at the outer face. No remains of heating devices were found – neither those heating up water nor those heating up air in the bath7. Quite a natural conclusion may be that water for hot bath was prepared – if at all, in court 1. The last of the compartments – room 4 – was added on the southern side of room 3 in a later period. It was accessible by two doorways: one from court 1 and the other, presently walled up, from the south. The floor in the eastern section of this room is elevated by 0.25 m and covered with opus signinum (Pl. XVIb). At the mid-length of the eastern wall there is a drain hole in the floor. The function of this room is not known. Watertight mortar suggests, however, that water was in frequent use there. Perhaps it was a kind of a primitive bathing compartment for servants (?) where bathers could only use water from vessels standing on the floor. The more sophisticated bathing in tubs was perhaps re6 Although the original level of use is not preserved on the court, we can assume that it was only a bit higher than that left by excavators. Rough, unfinished outer face of the tank side walls suggest that it was partially set into the ground. 7 Among known examples of private bath buildings in Egypt equipped with hot air conduits one can point to a bath in Medinet Habu, cf. U. HÖLSCHER, The Excavations of Medinet Habu, vol. V, Post-Ramessid Remains, 37-8, fig.38-41; bath in Karanis, cf. S.A.A. EL-NASSERY–G. WAGNER–G. CASTEL, Un grand Bain GrécoRomain à Karanis [Bibliothèque de l'Institut Français d'Archéologie Orientale 76, Cairo 1976]; and also an unpublished bath located west of Bahig, close to railroad leading from Amarya to Marsa Matrouh. A bath from Tell Edfou was also furnished with a wall heating system, as well as both bath utilities found in buildings B3 and B5 in Medinet Habuc cf. respectively: Fouilles Franco-Polonaises, op.cit., 67, fig 30 and U. HÖLSCHER, The excavation of Medinet Habu, vol. V, Post-Ramessid Remains, 37-8, fig. 38-41. JACEK KOŚCIUK 80 BSAC L 2011 stricted to the house owner (?) and his family. It might have been also a latrine, which could be expected even in such a small bathing utility. Lack of typical seats arranged above the channel flushed with used water renders such interpretation unlikely, expect it was a solution similar to that found in house B5 where, according to the excavators, in a similar separate room probably had been located a wooden toilet seat with a removable basin8. The stage of preservation allows us to observe building methods implemented there. All walls (rooms 2, 3 as well as added room 4) up to ca. 0.75 m above the designed floor level were made of fired bricks as follows: two layers of bricks laid horizontally as headers or stretchers, one layer of up-right laid bricks and again two layers of horizontally laid bricks9. All were cemented with clay mortar. The upper part of the walls was built of mud-bricks only. The floors were laid directly on the ground level with a bed of broken ceramics and crushed bricks that were only several centimetres thick. Such a prepared base was stabilized with pebbles cemented with opus signinum. The tubs were built of fired bricks bound with lime mortar. The large tub was protected against irregular subsiding by a brick foundation stretching under its whole width. There is a layer of rubble above the foundations which helps to model the tub bottom (Pl. XVIIa). To facilitate the shaping of rounded sections of the tub profile, the edges of bricks of the last course were cut before burning (Pl. XVIIb). As already mentioned, the tubs together with the floor and the walls were covered with opus signinum. In order to increase the adhesion, the clay plaster of the mud-brick portions of the walls was herring-bone patterned. On the walls, the carefully finished opus signinum plastering was painted red10. Unfortunately, no traces have been found of how both compartments were covered. The fact that the span between longitudinal walls is ca. 2.65 m and that they are about 0.58 m thick alcf. U. HÖLSCHER, op.cit. 38. Such a method of brick laying seems to be typical for the building style of the Roman-Byzantine period in Egypt, cf. U. HÖLSCHER, op.cit. 37-41 - bath of house B3 and of house B5, also water conduits A and B, or M.M. ALLIOT, Rapport sur les fouilles de Tell Edfou 1932, Le Caire 1933, 5, fig. 7, or Fouilles FrancoPolonaises, Tell Edfou 1939, 155, fig. 100. 10 From 10R-4/4 to 7.5R-5/4 according to Munsell Book of Colour. 8 9 BATH BUILDINGS IN LUXOR 81 lows us to assume that theoretically the compartments could have been covered with a simple barrel vault11. On the other hand, room 3 forms a perfect square measuring 2,65 by 2,65 meters. Such a room could have been easily covered with a flat dome (sailing vault) as for example in a small private bath found to the east of Abū Mīnā where a domed part had exactly the same dimensions12. A similar solution might have been implemented in room 2, whereas room 4, which was added later, could have been easily covered with flat roofing resting on wooden beams. The construction span of 2.28 m should not have raised any problems. As for the dating of this building we can observe that its particular fragments originated from different periods. The earliest are the two walls closing the courtyard from north and south. They are both surprisingly thick (ca. 1.50 m) and the brick courses are concave rather than horizontal. Most likely, they are remains of much earlier (Ptolemaic ?) constructions. The eastern wall bordering on the street is next in chronology. The bath compartments proper (rooms 2 and 3) constitutes the 3rd phase. Room 4 is the last in chronology. The thick southern wall of court 1 was cut down to place this room. Absolute dating is hardly possible, for reasons already mentioned. Good building technology, a regular plan and some similarities (?) with other private bath buildings in Egypt suggest the turn of the 3rd and 4th cent. or the 1st half of the 4th cent. as the most plausible dating. Little can be said about the character of the bath itself. Its dimensions and equipment point to a private use. However, no traces of related domestic dwellings have been found in the closer neighbourhood. If at all, such a house (or residence?) might have been located on the western or southern side of court 1 which in this case could have served as a kind of atrium or hortus with the bath located in its rear, more secluded part. Similar solutions are found in both baths from Medinet Habu, cf. UVO HÖLop.cit. 37-41. 12 cf. J. KOŚCIUK–ABD EL-AZIS NEGM, The private Roman bath found nearby Abu Mina, in: Acta Politechnicae Vratislaviensis, I-II (1987) 5-9; and also J. KOŚCIUK– ABD EL-AZIS NEGM, The private Roman bath found nearby Abu Mina, in: Akten des XIII. internationalen Kongresses für klassische Archäologie (Berlin 1988) 442-445. 11 SCHER, 82 JACEK KOŚCIUK Fig. 2. The ‘Large Bath’ BSAC L 2011 BATH BUILDINGS IN LUXOR 83 3. The 'Large Bath' This complex, which is here referred to as the 'Large Bath', consists of three distinct parts (Fig. 2): an L-shaped court 1, the proper bath (rooms 2, 3, 4 and 5) and, adjacent to it from the eastern side, a large court 6. From the west the complex borders on a small street separating it from the 'Small Bath' (Fig. 1). The rear walls of domestic dwellings adjacent to the complex confine it from the east, north, and south. The walls are approached by two narrow streets from the north and east, at the mid-length of the sides of the rectangle constituting the whole bath complex (about 15 x 20 m). During the construction of the bath the street approaching from the east was blocked by a mud-brick wall. The L-shaped court 1 probably functioned as the back-yard of the bath13. The proper bath is made up of four rooms (2, 3, 4, and 5). Room 2 functioned as the apodyterion though it is not sure whether its southern wall contained the main entrance door. Fragments of the floor were found in its western part together with a ceramic drain that carried away the water from room 4 towards the small street on the east of room 2. The floor revealed traces of many repairs suggesting a relatively long period of use. Initially, the floor was made of opus signinum and then covered with a course of 'flat' laid bricks and fragments of stone slabs cemented with a low quality mortar. The remains found in the badly preserved eastern part of room 2 point out to the fact that there the walls were also covered with opus signinum. A small recess in the eastern wall would have perfectly suited the function of a toilet. Such a hypothesis can be further supported by the direction of the drain mentioned above14, and by the 25 cm wide outlet that is placed below the wall’s recess. A settling tank for toilet wastes would have been then located on the other side of the wall, below the surface of the street. Unfortunately we were not in a position to check this hypothesis. Room 3 adjacent to room 2 had a floor raised by about 25 cm in relation to that of the apodyterion. It contained four small tubs with 13 The court of this type, separated from the bath itself, can be met in the example from Tell Edfou, cf. FFP, op.cit. 66 fig. 29. 14 The waste water from the bath was usually used for washing away the wastes from the toilets. 84 JACEK KOŚCIUK BSAC L 2011 seats (Pl. XIXa), the construction and shape of which are similar to that of the 'Small Bath'. It is highly probable that only three tubs were initially planned. The fourth one of clearly deformed shape was placed in the passage partially blocking the access to the westernmost bathing tub15. The floor and walls as well as the tubs were finished with opus signinum. Room 4, located north of the above described compartment houses, contained two water containers. The smaller one (0.3 m2 bottom surface) was built into the western wall of the room (Pl. XIXb). It bears traces of many repairs and, originally, its bottom was about 25 cm lower. Probably this container was for storing cold water. The main water container was placed in the north-east corner of room 4 (Pl. XXa). Its bottom is situated about 35 cm below the floor level of room 4. The container was accessible through a 70 cm wide opening with a parapet wall placed 80 cm over the floor. To facilitate routine cleaning and repairs, a step was built inside. The reconstructed volume of that container is about 2 m3 and it was enough to fill three large bathing tubs placed in the adjacent room 5. The hearth was probably located east from the large water container16. The mud mortar of the red-brick walls around reveals characteristic pink traces of overheat. The hearth itself is not preserved, but one should assume that it was operated from the court 1. Most probably, a bronze boiler was placed directly above the hearth.. It was however not as sophisticated a system as those found in classical Roman private villas in Italy17. More likely it was rather a solution similar to the one discovered in 1986 near Abu Mina18. The presence of the bronze boiler explains also traces of intensive intentional destruction around the assumed hearthspot – bronze was a too expensive metal to leave it in the bath 15 The joints between them were not checked in order not to destroy the well preserved tubs walls. 16 An identical hearth location can be observed in the bath found in Tell Edfou, cf. FFP, op.cit. 67 fig. 30. 17 The bath in villa 13 at Boscoreale near Napoli is one of the most interesting examples of this type, cf. M.I. ROZTOVTZEFF, The Social and Economic History of Hellenistic World (Oxford 1941) vol. II, 552. 18 Cf., J. KOŚCIUK–ABD EL-AZIS NEGM, The private Roman bath found nearby Abu Mina, in: Akten des XIII. internationalen Kongresses für klassische Archäologie (Berlin 1988) 442-445. BATH BUILDINGS IN LUXOR 85 when out of use. The placement of the main water container, as well as the boiler (?) and bathing tubs in room 5, theoretically enabled the gravitational circulation of hot water. However, the state of preservation of the surrounding walls makes the verification of this hypothesis impossible. We neither know the method of filling the main reservoir nor the source of water. Both the containers and the walls as well as the floor were finished with opus signinum. When the bath was in regular use its floor underwent several repairs. The last refurbishment was done in a similarly careless way as in room 2. During that operation, the original drainage leading in the direction of room 2 has been replaced by a narrow groove cut into the renewed floor surface (Pl. XXb). Room 4, except for its technical function, also could have served as laconicum (?). Being heated both by the hearth and by the evaporating main reservoir, as well as an open boiler probably located there, it could have perfectly played that role. Then, the small container placed in the western wall could have served for cold water sprinkling. It should, however, be kept in mind that, as K. MICHAŁOWSKI already stated when describing a private bath found in Tell Edfou, looking for functional analogies between private bath buildings in Egypt and their public counterparts is very difficult and often misleading19. Despite this remark, if one would continue looking for possible analogies between private and public bath buildings, room 5 located further to the east could be interpreted as a caldarium (Pl. XXIa). Three large bathing-tubs were placed in wall recesses covered with arches (Pl. XXIb)20. Their construction is similar to that of the 'Small Bath' except for the shape of the tub bottom (Pl. XVIIIb). Here too the water was disposed of directly onto the floor of the bath (Pl. XXIIa). The floor of opus signinum, despite of several repairs, was almost completely destroyed during an evidently long period when the bath was in use. Similarly as in the other rooms, all walls were also finished with opus signinum. The room was equipped with a primitive air heating system. In its western wall, two slot-like channels were arranged leading towards the supposed hearth (Pl. XXIIb). Originally, there were 19 20 cf . Fouilles Franco-Polonaises, op.cit. 74. The arch of the southern recess is clearly asymmetric in shape. JACEK KOŚCIUK 86 BSAC L 2011 three such channels, but the southern one was walled up during later periods. The bricks used for walling up are of different dimensions (7x16x32 cm) if compared with the original part. South of the described rooms there is a spacious open space (6) surrounded by mud brick walls. Remains of two short walls perpendicular to the western marginal wall suggests that at least three rooms once existed there (rooms 7, 8, and 9). They might be the remains of a house (villa?) to which the ‘Large Bath’ belonged. A small niche, typical for habitable rooms, located in the northwestern corner of room 9 might further support this interpretation. Unfortunately, we are not able to reconstruct the covering system of the bath rooms. Theoretically, the rooms 2 and 3 could have been roofed by barrel vaults with the axis oriented east-west. Room 4 measuring 2.25 x 2.55 meters could have been easily covered with a dome. Dimensions of room 5 are less regular (2.85 x 3.25 m) but thick wall reinforcements added at the corners, suggest that a kind of a dome might have existed there as well. The problem of far from perfect square proportions of room 5 might have been solved by moving the centre of the dome slightly to the west. This idea is further supported by the fact that the arch above the southern bathing tub is clearly asymmetrical (Pl. XXIb) and perhaps reflects the asymmetrically placed dome. A hypothetical reconstruction of room 5 cross-section is presented in Pl. XXIIIa. Lacking access to excavation diary as well as to archaeological finds does not enable us to offer any precise dating. We can only suppose that the ‘Large Bath’ might have functioned at roughly the same time as the ‘Small Bath’. In both cases we observe similar building material and similar building technology. Differences in the dimensions of the fired bricks21 as well as in shaping the bathing tubs suggest that both buildings were not erected by the same building team. The level of use of the ‘Large Bath’ which is ca. 1 meter lower than that of the ‘Small Bath’ suggests in turn that the first might have been of earlier origin. Lacking other indications, the end of the 3rd century seems to be the best guess in the present stage of our knowledge. Multiple traces of refurbishment suggest at the same time that it was in use for a long time – so, for a certain period, both baths might have been functioning parallel. 21 'Small Bath': 7x14 x29 cm; 'Large Bath': 6-6.5x12x24-25 cm. BATH BUILDINGS IN LUXOR 87 3. Typological observations on private baths buildings Despite of many examples of small private bath buildings found in Egypt, there is hardly any consistent typological study available. The opinion of K. MICHAŁOWSKI quoted above shows only one part of the problem. The other reason is that publications of known examples are scattered across many different reports of excavations and rarely is there any attempt to show newly discovered private bath buildings in a broader context. Although this paper does not pretend to overcome these problems, an attempt will be made to show the two described examples in a somewhat wider perspective. Additionally, the reader is offered the comparison of some known examples in the same scale (Fig. 3). The ‘Small Bath’ belongs to the group of the simplest bathing buildings. Their characteristic feature is grouping in one room both, seating bathing tubs (often two of them) with one large, ‘normal’ size tub. Such a room which combines functions of hot and cold bathing22 was usually accompanied by a small fore-room functioning as apodyterion. From this point of view, the plan of the ‘Small Bath’ is similar to that found in Tell Edfou (Fig. 3: 4). However, from the technical point of view, they both represent an entirely different type, the bath from Tell Edfou was equipped with a boiler for hot water and a well thought system of hot air channels built into walls of the bathing room. Our ‘Small Bath’ lacks any traces of such devices. These two private bath examples illustrate well the difficulties with attempting typological studies – what seems to be a certain type of a bath building judging by the functional layout, represents an entirely different type from a technical point of view. The functional layout of the ‘Large Bath’ is much more complicated. Its characteristic feature is splitting both kinds of bathing tubs between separate rooms (Fig. 3: 3, 5, 6, 7). Such a solution is common in many private bath buildings (Fig. 3: 3, 5, 6, 7) – all of them are equipped with water heating devices. One large bathing tub is there usually accompanied by two small seating tubs placed in a separate room (Fig. 3: 3, 5, 6), but solutions with only one 22 tain. Whether seating bathing tubs were for cold bathing remains is still uncer- 88 JACEK KOŚCIUK BSAC L 2011 Fig. 3. Comparison of some private baths found in Egypt (1, 2, 6 – measured by the author; 3 – after ABD EL-MOHSEN EL-KHASHAB, Ptolemaic and Roman Baths of Kom El Ahmar, SASAE 10 (1949) plan 5; 4 – after FFP 1937, 67, fig. 30; 5 – after H. RIAD, Ancient bains d’Alexandrie, BSAA 43 (1975) 116, plan 1; 7 – according to a rough sketch taken at the site together with P. GROSSMANN in spring 2007; 8 – after S.A.A. EL-NASSERY – G. WAGNER – G. CASTEL, Un grand bain Gréco-Romain à Karanis, BIFAO 76; 9 & 10 – after U. HÖLSCHER, The Excavations of Medinet Habu vol. V, Post Ramessid Remains, 37-8, fig.38-41) BATH BUILDINGS IN LUXOR 89 small seating tub are also possible (Fig. 3: 7)23. In three cases (Fig. 3: 3, 5, 6) the room where the seating bathing tubs were placed has a circular shape and in the case of the baths from Abū Mīnā (Fig. 3: 6) and Kom Sakha (Fig. 3: 3) there is a striking similarity with their plans and functional layouts. Most probably, the only partially preserved bath from Asafrah (Fig. 3: 5) represents the same type which was perhaps quite common among private bath buildings in Egypt. At this point it is worth mentioning that the dome above the circular room of the bath in Abū Mīnā had an oculus equipped with a kind of a cover24 – thus it was possible to regulate the temperature and humidity inside. We can expect similar solutions in the circular rooms of Kom Sakha and Asafrah as well. Theoretically, such rooms might have functioned in two ways: for refreshing after taking a warm bath in the other room with a large bathing tub – the oculus was in that case open – or for a steam bath when the oculus was closed. The source of steam might have been a hot water tank situated in these rooms, or an open boiler above the furnace which in all cases was probably located nearby. The idea that the same room could have functioned for different purposes may explain also our problems with attributing typical functions of the Roman bath (that of the caldarium, frigidarium, tepidarium, laconicum, etc.) to particular rooms in the case of small private bath buildings in Egypt. Not necessarily the full ‘programme’ of Roman bathing was observed there, but also the rooms might have functioned for different purposes at different moments. These very preliminary observations on the typology of private bath buildings in Egypt do not exhaust the subject. It needs further studies including re-examination of already excavated examples, some of which never appeared properly as publications, if at all. 23 Also in the first phase of the ‘Large Bath’ (before adding the fourth seating tub), the proportion between both kinds of bathing tub was also one to one. The existence of three large tubs in this case may, however, raise some suspicions about the ‘Large Bath’ character, suggesting that it might have been an example of a very small and simple public bath. If not, than the bath must have been a part of a larger residence whose owner perhaps enjoyed bathing in a larger group of guests or house residents. 24 cf. J. KOŚCIUK–ABD EL-AZIS NEGM, op.cit. JACEK KOŚCIUK 90 BSAC L 2011 Among many still open questions is that about inner decoration of the private bath buildings in Egypt. Was the richly decorated bath from Abū Mīnā typical, or rather an exception, with most of the private bath buildings in Egypt bearing modest ‘Spartan-like’ character, that fitted perhaps a much earlier bath of Scipion Africanus, modesty of which Seneca admired comparing it with irrationally rich bathing establishments of his own period: “I have inspected the house which is constructed of hewn stone ... and the small bath, buried in darkness according to the old style ... But who in these days could bear to bathe in such a fashion? We think ourselves poor and mean if our walls are not resplendent with large and costly mirrors; if our marbles from Alexandria are not set off by mosaics of Numidian stone, if their borders are not faced over on all sides with difficult patterns, arranged in many colours like paintings; if our vaulted ceilings are not buried in glass; if our swimming-pools are not lined with Thasian marble, once a rare and wonderful sight in any temple pools into which we let down our bodies after they have been drained weak by abundant perspiration; and finally, if the water has not poured from silver spigots. I have so far been speaking of the ordinary bathing- establishments; what shall I say when I come to those of the freedmen? What a vast number of statues, of columns that support nothing, but are built for decoration, merely in order to spend money! And what masses of water that fall crashing from level to level! We have become so luxurious that we will have nothing but precious stones to walk upon…”25 Bibliography M.M. ALLIOT, Rapport sur les fouilles de Tell Edfou 1932 (Le Caire 1933) 5, fig. 7; or FFP 1939, 155, fig. 100. ABD EL-MOHSEN EL-KHASHAB, Ptolemaic and Roman Baths of Kom el Ahmar, in: Supplements aux Annales du Service Antiquites de l'Egypte (SASAE), 10 (1949) plan 1. Fouilles Franco-Polonaises. Tell Edfou 1937 (Le Caire 1937) 67, fig. 30. U. HÖLSCHER, The Excavations of Medinet Habu, vol. V, Post Ramessid Remains, 37-8 fig. 38-41. 25 Sen. ep. 2-321 (source: http://www.stoics.com/seneca_epistles_book_2.html). BATH BUILDINGS IN LUXOR 91 Y. FOAD, A Private Bath Discovered at Kiman Fares - Fayoum, Annales du service antiquites de l'Egypte (ASAE), LX, 1968, 55-6, fig. I – IV J. KOŚCIUK – ABD EL-AZIS NEGM, The private roman bath found nearby Abu Mina, in: Akten des XIII. Internationalen Kongresses für Klassische Archäologie (Berlin 1988) 442-45 J. KOŚCIUK, Dwie łazienki z czasów rzymskich w rejonie okręgu świątynnego w Luksorze, w: E. RÓŻYCKA-ROZPĘDOWSKA–M. CHO-ROWSKA (ed.), Nie tylko zamki (Wrocław 2005) 215-31 S.A.A. EL-NASSERY–G. WAGNER–G. CASTEL, Un grand bain Gréco-Romain à Karanis, [Bibliothèque de l'Institut Français d'Archéologie Orientale 76, Cairo 1976] M.I. ROZTOVTZEFF, The Social and Economic History of Hellenistic World (Oxford 1941) vol. 2, 552 92 JACEK KOŚCIUK BSAC L 2011 Plate XV XVa. The ‘Small Bath’. Tank for used water in the court 1 XVb. The ‘Small Bath’. Rooms 2 and 3 BATH BUILDINGS IN LUXOR Plate XVI XVIa. The ‘Small Bath’. Bathing tubs in room 3 XVIb. The ‘Small Bath’. Opus signinum floor in room 4 93 94 JACEK KOŚCIUK BSAC L 2011 Plate XVII XVIIa. The ‘Small Bath’. Foundation of bathing tub XVIIb. The ‘Small Bath’. Intentionally shaped red brick of bathing tub BATH BUILDINGS IN LUXOR Plate XVIII XVIIIa. The ‘Small Bath’. Tank for cold water in room 3 XVIIIb. The ‘Large Bath’. Bathing tub in room 5 95 96 JACEK KOŚCIUK BSAC L 2011 Plate XIX XIXa. The ‘Large Bath’. Room 3 XIXb. The ‘Large Bath’. Small water tank in room 4 BATH BUILDINGS IN LUXOR Plate XX XXa. The ‘Large Bath’. Main water tank in room 4 XXb. The ‘Large Bath’. Traces of floor repairs in room 4 97 98 JACEK KOŚCIUK BSAC L 2011 Plate XXI XXIa. The ‘Large Bath’. Room 5 XXIb. The ‘Large Bath’. Southern wall recess in room 5 with remains of bathing tub BATH BUILDINGS IN LUXOR Plate XXII XXIIa. The ‘Large Bath’. Outlet of used water from bathing tub in room 5 XXIIb. The ‘Large Bath’. Heating channels in room 5 99 100 JACEK KOŚCIUK BSAC L 2011 Plate XXIII XXIIIa. The ‘Large Bath’. Hypothetical reconstruction of the dome over room 5