Reconstructing the Baths of Caracalla

Taylor OetelaarDepartment of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive, NW Calgary, AB, Canada T2N 1N4

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 20 May 2013Received in revised form5 October 2013Accepted 9 December 2013

a b s t r a c t

The Baths of Caracalla are the second largest but most complete bathing complex in the city of Rome.They are a representation of the might, wealth, and ingenuity of the Roman Empire. As such, a briefintroduction to the site of the Baths of Caracalla and its layout is advantageous. This article chronicles thedigital reconstruction process that began as a means to obtain the geometry of one room for the purposesof a thermal analysis. Unlike many reconstructions, this one uses a parametric design program,SolidWorks, as the base because it allows for easy and precise manipulation of the geometry. Whilethis recreation still has rough textures, it provides insights into the geometry: particularly surroundingthe glass in the windows. The 3D model allows the viewer to partially experience the atmosphere of thesite and illustrates its enormity.

& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The Baths of Caracalla in Rome, Italy were the second largestbathing complex but remain remarkably well preserved. As amechanical engineer, I used the Baths of Caracalla as a case studyto investigate the thermal environment inside the room thathoused the hot baths, known as the caldarium. In order tocomplete the simulation, however, I required a geometrical modelof the air volume inside the room. The way that I chose ofobtaining this was to construct the room and take its interiornegative. The reconstruction process was fascinating and soonenveloped the entire structure. In earlier publications (Oetelaar,2011, 2012), I have outlined aspects of the procedure. This articlebuilds on my previous work to provide a consolidated andcomplete overview. Furthermore, this journal allows for a partialexploration of the atmosphere of the Baths because of its uniqueinclusion of 3D models. The methodological synopsis chroniclesthe software programs used, the overarching issues that arose, theroom specific adjustments made, the intricate insertion of windowglazing, and the application of textures.

Since it is the most intact thermae in Rome, the Baths of Caracallaare important to reproduce accurately. As such, this reconstructionuses published publically available dimensions as much as possible.I have also undertaken a logical and precise mapping of window panesizes not seen in other models. The biggest difference between thisrecreation and others is the program that I used. Parametric programslike SolidWorks allow for a higher degree of control of dimensions andeasier modification of those dimensions. Though my recreation does

not fully capture the opulence of the Baths, it is a 3D scale model thatcan provide scholars measurements not available with comparativemodels.

2. Brief overview of the Baths of Caracalla

Before introducing the reconstruction process, it is important tobriefly give the historical background and general layout on theBaths of Caracalla to establish some context for the site. TheRomans constructed the Baths of Caracalla (formally the ThermaeAntoninianae) between 212 CE and 216 CE and dedicated them in216 CE. The Emperor Septimius Serverus (193–211 CE) commis-sioned their construction but his son, Marcus Aurelius AntoninusBassianus (popularly known as Caracalla; 211–217 CE), completedthem. The baths remained in use until the Goths severed theaqueducts to Rome in 537 CE. They are located approximately1.2 km SSE of the Flavian Amphitheatre (or Colosseum). The mainbuilding itself covers just over 2.4 ha and, with the garden andperimeter walls, the complex occupies just under 9 ha.

The layout of the Baths of Caracalla (Fig. 1) is virtuallysymmetrical. The alignment of the four rooms in the middle ofthe bath—the natatio, the frigidarium, the tepidarium, and thecaldarium—comprise the axis. These four rooms represent themajor bathing components of the complex. The natatio was a vastswimming pool (1300 m2)1 originally thought to have a roof(Iwanoff and Hülsen, 1898; shown in Yegül, 1995, p. 158) butnow believed to be open to the atmosphere (DeLaine, 1997). Thefrigidarium was a giant, typically high vaulted, room (1960 m2)

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/daach

Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage

2212-0548/$ - see front matter & 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.daach.2013.12.002

E-mail address: taylor.a.oetelaar@gmail.com 1 The areas given here are based off of this reconstruction.

Please cite this article as: Oetelaar, T., Reconstructing the Baths of Caracalla. Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage(2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.daach.2013.12.002i

Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

that housed the unheated baths.2 The tepidarium was a smallerroom (360 m2) containing the warm baths. The caldarium wasanother large room (1300 m2) that, as mentioned earlier, con-tained hot pools. The two very important off-axis rooms are 3E/W,3 the apodyteria, and 12E/W, the palaestrae. The two apodyteriawere rooms (540 m2 each) where patrons changed into theirbathing attire (which, many times, consisted of sandals andnothing else) and store their clothes. The two palaestrae, large,probably open-aired,4 rooms (2000 m2 each) where the patronswould exercise, represented the major sportive component of thebaths.5 The specific purposes of the remaining rooms are largelyunknown though there are some speculations.6 Rooms 19E/W–22E/W

were hot rooms since excavators found evidence of heating structures—known as the hypocaust (Yegül, 1995 provides a nice description ofthe hypocaust)—in them. Rooms 14E/W, 17E/W, and possibly 19E/Whad smaller pools; basins sitting on the floor in the case of 14E/W andtubs approximately 0.88 m below the surface of the floor in the caseof 17E/W and 19E/W.

Outside the complex there was a garden-like area surrounded bya large external wall. In this wall there were libraries, small shops,eateries, a theater, and massive cisterns that held the water for thebaths. In the garden just south of the hot rooms there was anintricate network of underground passageways that slaves primarilyused for the day-to-day workings of the bath, such as storing woodand boiling water for the hot baths (Piranomonte, 2008).

3. Software

Because of its parametric capabilities and my familiarity with it,I chose to use the engineering computer-aided design (CAD)program, Dassault Systèmes0 SolidWorks (Dassault Systèmes, 2012),for the geometrical portion of the reconstruction. In parametricdesign, as the name suggests, the researcher creates features by

Fig. 1. Layout of the Baths of Caracalla. (Model created by Taylor Oetelaar.)

2 The term frigidarium technically implies an association with cold water;however, since artificial cooling was impossible in Roman times, cold baths weresimply baths with unheated water.

3 I followed DeLaine0s numbering scheme for the off-axis rooms as shown inFig. 1.

4 Brödner (1951) suggests that the palaestrae were roofed but most others(DeLaine, 1997; Yegül, 1995; Nielsen, 1993) maintain they were open-aired.

5 Yegül (1995) points out when defining the palaestrae that this type of roomused to be part of the Greek gymnasium. It is important to remember that theseactivities included running, boxing, wrestling, fencing, and ball games. The roomsjust off the palaestrae at the Baths of Caracalla (i.e., 8–10E/W and particularly 13E/Wgiven its mosaic motif, see note 20) also probably had some athletic component.The other major exercising area was the natatio though, as Yegül (2010) points out,because of its size and other bathers, swimming may have been limited.

6 Ripostelli (1916) lists 2E/W as rooms for conversation; 8–10E/W as schools forthe gymnasia; 17E/W as small sudatoria; 19E/W as baths for the palaestra; and20E/W as open rooms for exercise. Krencker et al. (1929) specifically state that theywere not trying to identify room function but they do speculate that 19E/W might havebeen ancillary frigidaria. Lugli (1970) lists 8–10E/W as schools; 14E/W as sudatoria; and

(footnote continued)20E/W as halls. Nielsen (1993) lists Room 19E/W as unctoria or frigidaria, 20E/W astepidaria, and 21E/W and 22E/W as sudatoria. DeLaine (1997) suggests that 17E/W mayhave been massage rooms, 20E/Wwere very hot, and, on page 46, she gives a schematicbreakdown of the rooms (1–3E/W): dressing; 4–6E/W: entrance; 7–12E/W: palaestra;13–14E/W, 17E/W: social; 15–16E/W, 18E/W, 23E/W: services, 19–22E/W: hot rooms.Piranomonte (2008) lists 1E/W as a vestibula and 20E/W as lanconia.

T. Oetelaar / Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎2

Please cite this article as: Oetelaar, T., Reconstructing the Baths of Caracalla. Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage(2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.daach.2013.12.002i

drawing shapes and defining modifiable parameters to hold theshapes in place. This allows for easy manipulation of pieces of thedesign if new information becomes available. However, the programis based on mathematical formulae, which limits the creativityof the researcher. This is evident in the formation of intricate curves,such as a Corinthian capital, which can be time-consuming andfrustrating if not impossible. This is why parametric programs arealmost always engineering-based. Therefore, for the artistic finishingdetails, such as texture application, Autodesk0s 3ds MAX (Autodesk,2012) was more appropriate.7 However, the use of McNeel0s Rhino 4(McNeel, 2012) was necessary to ensure a smooth transitionbetween these two programs because Rhino 4 can open a nativeSolidWorks file and export it to a Autodesk file format.

4. Base data and general structure

Even though there have been a number of books,8 sections ofbooks,9 and articles10 on the Baths of Caracalla, none had thenecessary numeric data that I required. I was fortunate enough tovisit the site in May 2008 but was unable to take any substantivemeasurements of my own because of limited time and access.DeLaine0s (1997) book on the Baths of Caracalla has the onlypublished and publically available composite of dimensions for thesite. So this table supplied the base dimensions for my reconstruc-tion. However, it is important to note that the numerical data wereskeletal and left room for interpretation. I used the above listedworks and the information gathered from my visit to supplementand clarify any of the data from DeLaine.

The Appendix A in DeLaine0s manuscript tabulates the measure-ments of wall lengths, door widths and heights, window widths andheights, window-sill heights and niche widths and heights of mostrooms. Even though her data are extensive, they are not complete,which presents the first stumbling block. The absent data fell into twocategories: those dimensions that had a place but no value and thosethat did not fit in a standardized table. For the first category, DeLainecould not provide a particular dimension, either due to access issuesor, more often, because it simply did not exist anymore. To solve thisI took advantage of the symmetry of the Baths of Caracalla and usedthe mirror image dimension. For example, DeLaine listed the northwindow dimensions of Room 1W (Fig. 1) but those for the northwindow of Room 1E are missing because the window itself is notthere anymore. In this case, both windows used the same dimensions.While it may be possible to gather data from other contemporarySeveran buildings or even the Baths of Diocletian, these would morereflect trends in architecture than numerical values necessary here aseach building is unique. These buildings will be helpful when some-one undertakes a study of the decorative motif of the Baths ofCaracalla. The second category probably stems from a need for clarity.While she gave many key dimensions, she omitted some, mostnoticeably the placement of the doors, windows, and niches. Theissue with the placement of the various openings is that they areimpossible to fit clearly into a table because there is no datum thatworks in all cases. For example, take the north door of 5E, one canspecify its placement from the west wall but this datumwill not workfor the west door as it is in the west wall. Fortunately, DeLaine also

included a set of scale drawings of the building, which I measured toobtain approximations for the missing dimensions.

The following ten steps outline my procedure for the basicgeometric construction.11

(1) Walls. I drew the outline of the walls for a block of rooms(e.g., 4W–6W), leaving the doorways, windows, and niches open.I then extruded this sketch to the lowest height that the vaultsprung from of the block of rooms. However, when drawing thesketch I made my first simplification. Averaging opposing walllengths modified the rooms from quadrilateral to rectangular,which meant that all corners met at 901. In actuality, sinceopposing walls were not the same length, no room corners wereperfectly square. In most cases, though, the difference was 2 or3 cm, which, over a wall measuring up to 20 m, was relativelyinsignificant. The key reason for modification was that itsubstantially decreased the complexity of the reconstruction ofthe vaults. The parallel walls allowed for a simple extrusion tocreate the vaults instead of using a complicated, somewhatunpredictable loft. More importantly, it simplified the wholeprocess because then all walls were either vertical or horizontaland angles were not involved.

(2) Niches. At this point in the reconstruction the niches lackedsills and lintels and were essentially grooves that ran theentire height of the extruded wall. In the Baths of Caracalla,there are two types of niches: rectangular and semi-circular.The rectangular niches were simple because they had flat sillsand lintels that I made with extrusions. The semi-circularniches, on the other hand, had a semi-dome instead of alintel. I made a lower faux lintel and then cut away a semi-sphere to reconstruct the semi-dome.

(3) Doors and windows. The doors and windows were gaps in thewall. I drew the door lintels and window sills and lintels ontothe surface of the wall and then extruded the sketch throughthe thickness of the wall. This allowed me easily to add thecurvature in the lintels. I found that for most doors a radius ofcurvature of 5 m best approximated the required camber.

(4) Vaults. I used the springing heights given by DeLaine tosketch and extrude the shape of the vault. In the case ofgroin vaults, I extruded one vault and then cut out thecrosswise vault from the existing structure. I finished byextending the wall to the vault. Like the wall lengths, thedistance from the floor to the springing of the vault varieddepending on where DeLaine took the initial measurements.Because these vaults were the finishing piece, structurallyspeaking, the differences in their dimensions were not ascritical and could be incorporated without jeopardizing sub-sequent components. The vaults themselves were easy tocreate but their thickness is a point of debate due to theuncertainty surrounding the existence of rooftop terraces, aswe notice in step six.

(5) Pools. By this point in the reconstruction the superstructurewas recognizable as the Baths of Caracalla but the floor hadno definition. The major geometrical pieces that were missingwere the pools. Since the structural pools were below thefloor, to form these I created a hole in the outline of the poolto the depth of 1.5 m.

(6) Roofs and terraces. The shape of the roofs and existence ofroof-top terraces are somewhat contentious. Some recon-structions have gabled roofs on many of the major rooms(such as the one in Italo Gismondi0s model of Rome in the

7 It is important to note that it is possible to create the entire model in 3dsMAX; in fact, a large proportion of scholars use it to generate their archeologicalmodels. I found, however, that SolidWorks allows a higher degree of flexibility andaccuracy.

8 Blouet (1828), Ripostelli (1916), Brödner (1951), Lugli (1970), and Piranomonte(2008).

9 Krencker et al. (1929), Iacopi (1977), Heinz (1983), Nielsen (1993), and Yegül(1995, 2010),

10 Iwanoff and Hülsen (1898), Ghislanzoni (1912), Iacopi (1985), Cecchini(1985), DeLaine (1985, 1987), Conforto (1991), and Manderscheid (1991).

11 It is important to note that in the remainder of this section and the nextsection there is a number of terms—extrusion, revolve, sweep, and loft—that applyonly to the digital reconstruction and not to how the Romans constructedthe Baths.

T. Oetelaar / Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎ 3

Please cite this article as: Oetelaar, T., Reconstructing the Baths of Caracalla. Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage(2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.daach.2013.12.002i

Museo della Civiltà Romana) while others (like DeLaine0s)have all flat roofs. Based on site observations that I made in2008, my current reconstruction is somewhere in the middle.The presence of stairs above Room 11E/W and from 18E/W tothe roof of the portico above 12E/W intimated that therewere terraces on Rooms 4E/W–11E/W. There were also thewell-lit staircases that ascend from the floor of Room 3c tothe top of Room 4; presumably if the Roman designers hadmeant these for only the maintenance staff, the light wellswould not be present.12 The presence of a gabled roof on theBasilica di Santa Maria degli Angeli e dei Martiri,13 formerlythe frigidarium of the Baths of Diocletian, the sister complexto the Baths of Caracalla in ancient Rome, suggests that therewas gabling on the roof of the Caracalla frigidarium. This is anexample of how architectural trends in similar buildingsmentioned above influenced this reconstruction.

(7) Stairs. The Baths of Caracalla have two categories of stairs:those that go into the pools and the ones that go to theterraces. The former were easy to create by extruding(or revolving, in the case of the caldarium) the shape of the stairsbut the latter posed some difficulty due to their intricacy. Thestairs leading to the terraces are U- or fold-back stairs, meaningthat they have multiple flights connected by landings. While thestairs themselves were easy to construct, the vaults supportingthe stairs were not, due to the quasi-helical nature. I had to uselofts to construct these in the computer model. This is one casewhere the mathematical nature of SolidWorks proved to bedisadvantageous as these lofts were extremely time-consumingto create.

(8) Placeholders for the columns. As mentioned earlier, creation ofartistic shapes like columns is extremely difficult in Solid-Works, so my plan was to insert prefabricated columns intomy model in 3ds MAX. I created cylinders that were the rightsize and spacing as indicated in Table 2 on page 59 ofDeLaine0s book (1997) thereby making this procedure asimple process of copying, scaling, and replacing.

(9) Window glass and frames. This is a complex and interestingissue and Section 6 below describes it.

(10) Finishing touches. These are mainly the entablatures abovemany of the colonnaded doorways. In SolidWorks I createdthe basic shape using either extrusions or, if the entablaturewas on more than one wall as in Room 12E/W, lofts. One ofthe major regions of entablatures was on the north wall ofthe natatio where the impressive wall had eighteen niches forstatuary. Since the wall now has—and had even in Blouet0stime in the early nineteenth century—only recessed defini-tion intact, the entablatures for the natatio simply give ageneral impression of its grand nature.

Overall, then, it was not necessary to make many assumptionsor simplifications to complete such a massive reconstruction,which decreased the introduced uncertainty. The squaring of therooms, for example, reduced the complexity of the reconstructiveprocess considerably without affecting the overall accuracy by an

appreciable margin. All of this means that the base of the modelstayed true to the site and the surviving evidence.

5. Specific alterations and assumptions

There were ten rooms that required more attentive reconstruc-tions: Rooms 15E/W, 16E/W, 18E/W, 20E/W, the tepidarium, andthe caldarium. The reason that these rooms could not follow theoutline established above was either because of complex geometryor, more often, a lack of information. This section chronicles theobstacles of these rooms and their subsequent resolution.

The biggest problem with Rooms 20E/W was that they hadthe most complicated ground plan of any room. As the floor planshows, Rooms 20E/W have three exedrae—one in each of the E,W, and N walls—and the two E and W exedrae have two smallerapses in them. Three of these four apses contained the doorwaysto the adjoining rooms. This meant that the standardized datathat DeLaine provided only was not enough to complete thesketch. Again, though, this limitation was most likely necessaryfor the overall clarity of the table. To finish the floor plan of 20E/W, I supplemented the standard dimensions given by DeLainewith measurements from the scale drawing: some of which wereextremely difficult to obtain. To minimize the difficulty of thedigital recreation of the roofs of 20E/W, I needed to make theminor assumption that the apses with doorways were circularand not ovoid. With the walls complete, however, the remainingstages of the process were not straightforward either. The nextissue was that, unlike almost all of doorways in the complex thatwere straight, the doorways of Rooms 20E/W had an angularbend part way through.14 I created the lintels of these doorwaysusing lofts. Since the ends of the lofts in SolidWorks are flat, Iremoved excess material to maintain the curvature of the apse. Ithen used revolves to create the apse semi-dome as well as theexedrae. The roof is unique because, like 19E/W, there is noevidence of vaulting indicating that these rooms most likely hada flat roof.

The major issue with the tepidarium was that DeLaine gives nodimensions. After onsite observations, the reason became clear asthe tepidarium has suffered the most damage of the rooms withinthe building proper. Only the west wall remains standing and eventhat only reaches approximately 1 m in height. As such, I derivedthe dimensions of the tepidarium from measuring the floor planand scale elevation drawings. Fortunately, the tepidarium was asmall rectangular room and followed the stages outlined above.The south doorways to the caldarium, however, had similar bendslike in 20E/W and therefore required the use of lofts to create thedigital model.

Like the tepidarium, the caldarium also requires interpretationsince the entire southern half exists only to half a metre in heightand DeLaine0s data on the caldarium were therefore minimal. Withthe doorway to the tepidarium finished, the basic structure of thedigitally recreated caldarium was seven piers measured from thescale drawings and extruded up to the springing height of thedome. The dome15—created using a revolved sketch—finished theskeleton of the caldarium. The detailing, particularly the insertionof arches over the windows, however, proved to be complex,12 This is similar to the windowed stairwell inside the Column of Trajan.

As Jones points out, “that the stair was meant to be used by visitors, and not just formaintenance purposes, is confirmed by the presence of forty windows, ten on eachcardinal axis, sufficient to ensure an adequate illumination throughout the climb”(Jones, 2003, p. 165). Given the size differential (0.15 m�0.3 m in the Column ofTrajan and 0.5 m�1.25 m in the Baths of Caracalla), it is safe to assume that thesame principle applies.

13 Etchings by Palladio in 1550 (Cameron, 1772), Dosio in 1564 (Siebenhüner,1955, p. 181), and Dupérac in 1575 (Siebenhüner, 1955, p. 181) suggest that thevaults were largely intact when construction on the basilica began. Though it isdifficult to tell from these drawings whether the gabling existed in the 1500s, it ishard to believe that the architects would have risked collapse to convert the roof.

14 This makes thermal sense if, as DeLaine (1997) and Piranomonte (2008)speculate, that the Roman architects designed 20E/W to be extremely hot. Anybend, particularly in a narrow doorway, will slow heat transfer in and out.

15 It is important to note, however, that some reconstructions such as Le Duc0sfrom 1867 (given in Piranomonte, 2008, p. 31) and Blouet (1828) show thecaldarium as having an oculus on top. This could have a dramatic impact of thethermal environment inside and on its controllability. This, though, introducesanother aspect of uncertainty which is beyond the scope of the CFD work later so Idid not include it in this reconstruction.

T. Oetelaar / Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎4

Please cite this article as: Oetelaar, T., Reconstructing the Baths of Caracalla. Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage(2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.daach.2013.12.002i

cumbersome, and time-consuming. The major difficulty with thearches was that they were in two pieces; each involving 3D curveson top of cylindrical faces that stretched the capabilities of Solid-Works almost to the limit. The way I solved this was again to uselofts and trim the excess to maintain the inner and outercurvatures of the room. However, the top outer arches added anew problem as Blouet (1828) and DeLaine (1997) indicated thatthese had a degree of flaring to them meaning the loft was straightalong the sides but concave in the middle. The use of multipleguide curves solved this.

The final six rooms—Rooms 15E/W, 16E/W, and 18E/W—

required attention because they were geometrically difficultand the publically available documentation is sparse.16 Rooms15E/W and 16E/W most likely were places for servants andmaintenance people as the doorways were extremely smallwhen compared to the others. There appeared to be remains ofa hanging staircase in 15E/W leading to the window sill in thecentral wall that separated 15E/W and 23E/W and the secondfloor of 16E/W. It may have been that the ground floor of 16E/Wled to the subterranean maze under the baths. From unpublishedpictures provided by DeLaine, it appeared that the roof of 16E/Wconnects to the terrace system that eventually led to the centralwall of 15E/W mentioned above. Room 18E/W was a mysterybecause even DeLaine had to guess its contents. Her drawingsindicated a staircase leading up to the terrace level. Blouet(1828), however, suggested that it was just a connecting roombetween 12E/W, 17E/W, and 20E/W with a mosaic floor. If therewas a staircase in 18E/W, it would have to lead to the secondfloor of 16E/W because there was no break in the roof structureof 16E/W. While this staircase is not improbable, it would seemrather futile unless the Romans used it to transport bathingaccoutrements to the hot rooms. The most curious aspect of 18E/W, however, was the terrace floor, because it appears that thedesigners raised the terrace walkway above the structuralvaulting, leaving an air gap. What was the purpose of this gap?Heating? The reconstruction of these six rooms was, therefore,tenuous and highly speculative.

Most of the room-by-room modifications dealt with problemsthat arose from a lack of data, the notable exception being thecaldarium window arches, which were also difficult to create. Therecreation of Rooms 20E/W, the tepidarium, and the caldarium,however, was as accurate as the evidence allowed. The reconstruc-tion of Rooms 15E/W, 16E/W, and 18E/W, on the other hand, wasinterpretive given the extreme absence of data and their apparentcomplexity. Overall, the recreation of these complicated roomstook more resourceful thinking but was not unrealistic.

6. Windows and window glazing

One of the more challenging and time-consuming aspects ofthe model construction was the creation of the glazing for thewindows. This was for two reasons: one, the number and size ofthe windows in the complex, and two, nothing remains of them,archeologically. There are 130 windows in DeLaine0s reconstruc-tion and the smallest measures 2.5 m wide�3.25 m high inRooms 13E/W. DeLaine does not reconstruct the glazing in herscale drawings but she does state that there would have been aminimum of 3400 m2 of glass on site (1997, p. 218). Even thoughthere are no glass fragments from the Baths of Caracalla, there isevidence from other sites in the Empire. Therefore, the first step isto survey what evidence is available to plan a course of action.

6.1. Evidence for glazing

Direct articles on bath glazing fall into two major categories.First are the overviews of window glass production in bathingcontexts, which include Foy and Fontaine (2008), Allen (2002),Whitehouse (2001), Ortiz Palomar and Paz Peralta (1997), Broise(1991), Charlesworth (1977), and Boon (1966). Second are descrip-tions of archeological glass and frame fragments recovered frombath sites that authors embed in their site reports. There are manyarticles in this category and, for the sake of brevity, this articledoes not include details except for special cases. Many scholarsfound glass panes and fragments at a number of sites datedprimarily between the 1st and 2nd centuries CE.17 Other finds,though, better indicate the nature of Roman bath window con-struction.18 Zienkiewicz (1986, p. 1:337) came across glass fragmentsand the remnants of putty that supposedly held the glass into theframes at the legionary fortress baths at Caerleon (ca. 75 CE). In theForum Baths at Pompeii (62 CE), Nissen (1877, p. 135) uncoveredremainders of bronze frames along with pieces of sheet glass. Martini(1984, p199-200) unearthed complete marble-framed windows in theRoman baths at Samos (ca. 2nd century CE). This evidence impliesthat ancient windows were not of one pane, like modern windows,but were multi-paned. In fact, it was not until after the IndustrialRevolution that large plate glass became available (Douglas and Frank,1972).

It is important to note, however, that, according to Seneca theYounger (Q. Nat. 86.8–11)—the only ancient writer to mentionwindow material in baths—the baths in his time had “latisspecularibus” in the windows of the caldaria.19 What is peculiarabout this reference is the use of specularia instead of vitrum: theLatin word for glass. Many scholars (e.g., Rackham, 1938, p. 2:25, p.5:463; Sedgwick, 1959, p. 124; Oltramare, 1961, p. 206; André,1964, p. 19:49, p. 19:122; De Labriolle and Villeneuve, 1974, p. 41;Smith, 1975, p. 189; Shackleton Bailey, 1993, p. 2:171) and the OLD(Glare, 1982) have translated this word as being mica or transpar-ent stone rather than glass. While this differentiation does notaffect the geometry here, it does impact the texture of thematerial. The counterpoint to this debate as it pertains to thisreconstruction is that Seneca wrote in the 1st Century CE—almosttwo centuries before the Baths of Caracalla—so the designers mayhave abandoned this technology in favor of glass. However, sincethe material may have varied with both time and region asdemonstrated by Pliny in note 11, what material I chose was notcrucial to the overall reconstruction.

There are also key secondary works (Thatcher, 1956; Ring,1996; Oetelaar, 2013, pp. 89–116; Miliaresis, 2013; and to a lesser

16 DeLaine states, in a personal communication, that she was not allowed inthese rooms during her research so this discrepancy is not surprising.

17 These are the Taurine Baths at Civitavecchia (Bastianelli, 1933, pp. 407, 420),the Hadrianic Baths at Leptis Magna (ca. 2nd century CE; Bartoccini, 1929, pp. 60–61),the small baths of the Middle City in Pergamon (ca. 2nd century CE; Radt, 1980, p. 412),the Great Bath on the Lechaion Road in Corinth (ca. late 2nd century CE; Biers, 1985,p. 17), the baths at Chassenon (ca. 2nd century CE; Hourcade, 1999), the public baths atCaesaraugusta in Zaragozza (ca. 1st century CE; Ortiz Palomar and Paz Peralta, 1997,p. 442), the baths at Labitolosa (ca. 1st century CE; Ortiz Palomar and Paz Peralta, 1997,p. 442), the baths at Uncastillo (ca. 1st century CE; Beltrán Lloris, 1996, p. 76), the bathsat Bilbilis (ca. 1st century CE; Ortiz Palomar and Paz Peralta, 1997, p. 440), the baths atSaint-Jean-Le-Vieux (ca. 1st century CE; Bouet and Tobie, 2003, p. 160), the bath-houseat Garden Hill, Hartfield, Sussex (ca. 2nd century CE; Harden, 1974), and the baths atBarzan (ca. 1st century BCE; Bouet, 2003, pp. 187–188).

18 In the caldarium of the Constantinian Baths (ca. mid-3rd century CE) atArles, excavators discovered not only glass, but evidence for wooden shutters(Formige, 1922, pp. 253–254). Broise (1991) notes similar finds at the Terme delInvidioso, the Terme di Nettuno, and Bazra. For this reconstruction, however, I didnot want to speculate on the placement of shutters.

19 Pliny (Ep. 2.17.11) mentions how he could see out from a bath all the way tothe sea which suggests a translucent or transparent material or no glazing at all.However, it is important to note that Pliny does not explicitly reference a caldariumand his bath is part of a residence rather than a public bath. The temporal andspatial differences between Pliny and Seneca are also significant.

T. Oetelaar / Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎ 5

Please cite this article as: Oetelaar, T., Reconstructing the Baths of Caracalla. Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage(2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.daach.2013.12.002i

extent, Broise, 1991) that debate the possible ramifications to theinterior thermal environment of having or not having windowglass. Though these, with the exception of Broise (1991), are notprimarily showing evidence for glass, they show how importantglass was to the day-to-day operation of the baths.

6.2. Reconstructing the windows

The evidence suggests that the Roman designers would havemost likely made the inserts from compilations of smaller panes.Therefore all windows had to be split into two parts: the glass andthe frame. Instead of making the individual panes of glass, it waseasier to make one sheet of glass fill the window opening and thenoverlay the frames.

One major question remains: how big were the panes, muntins,stiles, and rails (Fig. 2)? For clues one has to turn to sites outside Rome.The evidence, though, was limited as shown earlier, so one mustappeal to practicality. Assuming that the panes of glass were inmultiples of Roman feet (1 Roman foot or pes (p) is 0.297 m) and thatthe muntins are 5 cmwide gave a starting point. To determine the sizeof the panes, I created a spreadsheet giving the dimensions of eachwindow and the multiple of each 1p, 1.5p, 2p, 2.5p, and 3p panes (seeTable 1) that would fit in each window, to see if a pattern appearedfrom these data. Somewhat counter-intuitively, though, there has to besome leeway in the fit to allow for the space for the frames (i.e., themuntins, rails, and stiles). Interestingly, a pattern emerged. Thecolumns in bold (number of 2p panes that fit in height-wise andnumber of 2.5p panes that fit in width-wise) have values that are alljust above multiples of 5 and 4 respectively. This means that the bestfit comes from arranging panes 2.5p wide�2p high into panels4 panes wide�5 high, and making the rails and stiles adjustable.There are two exceptions—the windows in Rooms 13E/W and thehigher windows in the frigidarium—where the best fit is panes that are1.5p wide. However, it is important to note that these were completelybased on DeLaine0s drawings as nothing remains. The caldariumwindows were different because the openings that they cover werecurved. Since curved glass panes were difficult to manufacture andthe radius of the curve is so large, I decided to break these windowsdown into three equal flat sections and then paned each section.Interestingly, since the size of the window differed depending on itsorientation, each window had a different number of panes per panel

and even a different sized pane. The site northeast and northwestwindows (Fig. 1) were the smallest, each section with three 2.5pwide�2p high panes across the bottom; the site east, west, southeast,and southwest windows each had four 2p wide�2.5p high panes;and the largest were the site south windows, with six 1.5p wide�2phigh panes.

7. Texturing the model

With the geometry complete, the next step in the reconstructionwas texturing. This is where the major drawback of SolidWorksbecomes apparent. As an engineering design program, models gener-ated by SolidWorks look metallic and the program0s rendering cap-ability is limited. As mentioned earlier, to enhance its appearance,I chose the more artistic Autodesk 3ds MAX. The transition process,however, was not easy as 3ds MAX cannot open SolidWorks filesdirectly and IGES—a CAD interchange file format—did not provideadequate results. The best alternative was to open the SolidWorks filesdirectly in another program, McNeel0s Rhino 4, and then save themodel as a 3D Studio file. In essence, a tertiary programwas necessaryto ensure the best results. The problem then became the large meshsize and the limitations associated with high memory demands. Forinstance, instead of a cylindrical surface that has three faces, the modelwould import a cylindrical mesh containing many polygons orpolyfaces. Smaller grids produce smoother images but rendering timesgo up dramatically and some displays can only handle a limitednumber polyfaces. The intricacy of the Baths of Caracalla turned into adrawback because creating the mesh of the entire building requiredmore computer memory than was available. Instead of importing theentire model, it was better to import groups: superstructure, frames,glazing, mosaic floors, subfloor, columns, terrace and tiled roofs, andpool water. This also made applying the texture simpler because, forexample, applying the bronze texture to all the frames at once is easierthan applying it to each frame individually. To create the mesh of thesuperstructure, though, it was necessary to break the complex downfurther into three blocks: the two wings and the central rooms. Sincetheir coordinate system origins were the same, the reassembly of thegroups was a simple overlay.

Texture application is critical to the appearance of a reconstructionbecause, as a visual medium, the “skin” is the first thing that the eyecatches. In the prototype model presented here, most of the texturesthemselves were generic because the details of the decorative schemeare largely unknown and thus insufficient to propose a specific designmotif. However, I did attempt a reconstruction of the opus sectilefloors using drawings from Blouet published in 1828. I only hadaccess to the microform version that was black and white soI extrapolated the color scheme based on the fragments of opussectile still in situ; however, the assumption that the color schemeremains similar throughout the baths is questionable as evident bythe remnants. Room 3E and its subsidiaries (a–d) were all black withwhite detailing but Room 12W had white, tan, green, and maroonwith some sea green accents. This version used the colors of Room12W and tried to ensure some degree of continuity; however, thiswas just one of many interpretations. The completed design is shownin Fig. 3. There is one omission, the semi-circular Rooms 13E/W thatheld the Mosaics of the Athletes now in Rome0s Vatican Museums.20

I did not attempt to reproduce these rooms as they are much moreintricate and require much more expertise than I possess.

The decorative motifs of the walls and vaults were considerablymore difficult to reconstruct. DeLaine provided line drawings ofher interpretation of the marble revetment on one wall of tworooms. These mosaics of large rectangular tiles appeared

Fig. 2. Sketch of a sample window showing the different parts. (Model created byTaylor Oetelaar.)

20 For a picture of this, refer to Fig. 71 in Dunbabin (1999) or Figs. 144–148 inHeinz (1983).

T. Oetelaar / Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎6

Please cite this article as: Oetelaar, T., Reconstructing the Baths of Caracalla. Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage(2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.daach.2013.12.002i

inconsistent with what little remains in a corner of Room 8E,which indicated intricate multi-layer decoration. However, if oneremembers that Romans often painted marble, these two imagescan merge and create an extremely complicated picture. Thisbecomes even more complex with the suggestion that thewalls could have glass tesserae, as contended by Sear (1977).

As such, I decided not to attempt to reconstruct the wall andvault treatments. For this model, the best option to coverthe superstructure was a simple stone material that mimickedtravertine.

I felt that I could take some freedomwith some of the remainingtextures because as mentioned earlier this is a model made largely

Table 1Breakdown of the windows of the Baths of Caracalla.

Window Width (cm) Height (cm) Number of Roman feet per dimension (first: width; second: height)

1p 1p 1.5p 1.5p 2p 2p 2.5p 2.5p 3p 3p

1N 501 1303 16.9 44.0 11.3 29.3 8.5 22.0 6.8 17.6 5.6 14.72W 595 726 20.1 24.5 13.4 16.4 10.1 12.3 8.0 9.8 6.7 8.23NE 529 717 17.9 24.2 11.9 16.1 8.9 12.1 7.1 9.7 6.0 8.13NW 533 680 18.0 23.0 12.0 15.3 9.0 11.5 7.2 9.2 6.0 7.73SE 530 683 17.9 23.1 11.9 15.4 9.0 11.5 7.2 9.2 6.0 7.73SW 528 719 17.8 24.3 11.9 16.2 8.9 12.1 7.1 9.7 5.9 8.13W 456 683 15.4 23.1 10.3 15.4 7.7 11.5 6.2 9.2 5.1 7.74N 660 714 22.3 24.1 14.9 16.1 11.1 12.1 8.9 9.6 7.4 8.04S 650 333 22.0 11.3 14.6 7.5 11.0 5.6 8.8 4.5 7.3 3.85N 497 879 16.8 29.7 11.2 19.8 8.4 14.8 6.7 11.9 5.6 9.95S 1000 247 33.8 8.3 22.5 5.6 16.9 4.2 13.5 3.3 11.3 2.86N 634 733 21.4 24.8 14.3 16.5 10.7 12.4 8.6 9.9 7.1 8.36S 700 334 23.6 11.3 15.8 7.5 11.8 5.6 9.5 4.5 7.9 3.87W 442 297 14.9 10.0 10.0 6.7 7.5 5.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 3.311W 353 314 11.9 10.6 8.0 7.1 6.0 5.3 4.8 4.2 4.0 3.513W Tier 1 250 200 8.4 6.8 5.6 4.5 4.2 3.4 3.4 2.7 2.8 2.313W Tier 2 250 316 8.4 10.7 5.6 7.1 4.2 5.3 3.4 4.3 2.8 3.614S Tier 1 300 444 10.1 15.0 6.8 10.0 5.1 7.5 4.1 6.0 3.4 5.014S Tier 2 300 572 10.1 19.3 6.8 12.9 5.1 9.7 4.1 7.7 3.4 6.417E 725 741 24.5 25.0 16.3 16.7 12.2 12.5 9.8 10.0 8.2 8.317W 747 306 25.2 10.3 16.8 6.9 12.6 5.2 10.1 4.1 8.4 3.417S 425 477 14.4 16.1 9.6 10.7 7.2 8.1 5.7 6.4 4.8 5.419W 425 575 14.4 19.4 9.6 13.0 7.2 9.7 5.7 7.8 4.8 6.519S 375 600 12.7 20.3 8.4 13.5 6.3 10.1 5.1 8.1 4.2 6.820S 375 600 12.7 20.3 8.4 13.5 6.3 10.1 5.1 8.1 4.2 6.8Frig N 200 978 6.8 33.0 4.5 22.0 3.4 16.5 2.7 13.2 2.3 11.0Frig S 200 978 6.8 33.0 4.5 22.0 3.4 16.5 2.7 13.2 2.3 11.0Frig E 200 1014 6.8 34.3 4.5 22.8 3.4 17.1 2.7 13.7 2.3 11.4Frig W 200 1020 6.8 34.5 4.5 23.0 3.4 17.2 2.7 13.8 2.3 11.5Frig SE 962 1127 32.5 38.1 21.7 25.4 16.3 19.0 13.0 15.2 10.8 12.7Frig SW 900 1198 30.4 40.5 20.3 27.0 15.2 20.2 12.2 16.2 10.1 13.5Tep E 996 926 33.6 31.3 22.4 20.9 16.8 15.6 13.5 12.5 11.2 10.4Tep W 1022 913 34.5 30.8 23.0 20.6 17.3 15.4 13.8 12.3 11.5 10.3

Fig. 3. Reconstructed opus sectile floors of the Baths of Caracalla. (Model created by Taylor Oetelaar.)

T. Oetelaar / Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎ 7

Please cite this article as: Oetelaar, T., Reconstructing the Baths of Caracalla. Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage(2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.daach.2013.12.002i

to demonstrate the geometry. Initially I used two tones of greenishmarble to cover the simple columns: dark green for the largecolumns and light for the others. Later iterations may have morespecific colors of marble and detailed columns will replace thepresent simple ones. I purchased more detailed columns for keyrooms (the natatio, the frigidarium, and the tepidarium) but eventhese, while better, do not have the capitals that still exist and thusare nonetheless inaccurate. The columns in the publishable modelhere, however, have less detail to minimize the polygon count andthe overall file size. The window frames imitated bronze and Idecided to go with glass that had a slight blue tinge to match manyexamples from that period instead of mica for the panes. I estimatedwhat the vestiaria (lockers) and benches in the apodyteria may havelooked like as seen in the 3D model. Since nothing remains, Iextrapolated measurements of the lockers from Eschebach0s scaledrawings (1979) of the women0s apodyterium of the Stabian Bathsin Pompeii.21 I assumed that the ones that were in the Baths ofCaracalla were wooden with a cloth door.

With the geometry completed, attention turned to the moreintricate details, namely texture application. For this, it was necessaryto switch to Autodesk 3ds MAX. Picking the most appropriate texturewas exceedingly difficult considering the state of preservation of the

veneers and mosaics. The arrangement presented in this model was asimplified one and not a completely accurate appearance of the Bathsof Caracalla when they opened in 216 CE. Video S1 is a fly-throughof the 3D model that highlights many of the major rooms of thecomplex.

8. The atmosphere of the Baths

What was it like to stand in the Baths of Caracalla at theirheight? There are multiple components to fully analyze thisseemingly simple question including the thermal environment,the sounds, and the sights. Engineering techniques like computa-tional fluid dynamics (CFD) can help decipher the thermal envir-onment by determining the temperature and air currents in the

Fig. 4. A view from the northeast of the reconstructed Baths of Caracalla. (Model created by Taylor Oetelaar.)

Fig. 5. A view from the southwest of the reconstructed Baths of Caracalla. (Model created by Taylor Oetelaar.)

Video S1. Video of 3D Model 1: The fly-through starts by entering Room 5W andcircling the west palaestra via 8W–10W. The camera continues into the westapodyterium, on to 1W and over the water of the natatio. It then passes through thefrigidarium, 14E, the east palaestra, and 11E on its way outside. The video completeswith an aerial overview of the entire structure.

21 In this model, there are 1090 separate lockers which indicate that the Bathsof Caracalla held less people than Fagan0s (2000) lowest estimate for the five hourseating capacity of the caldarium. Obviously this is inaccurate but these lockerswere simply meant to give an impression of what the apodyteria were like.

T. Oetelaar / Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎8

Please cite this article as: Oetelaar, T., Reconstructing the Baths of Caracalla. Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage(2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.daach.2013.12.002i

building on a room-by-room basis. The sounds are possibly themost difficult to interpret because they are very dependent on theactivity taking place, which could vary day-to-day or even hour-to-hour. However, a recording of a crowd might be a worthy analog.The last aspect—the sights—is where a 3D model can be veryuseful. Pictures of the 3D model, while good, only give the viewersnapshots and cannot truly convey the immensity of this complex.Similarly with video walkthroughs because inevitably the part thata scholar wants to view is not included or is only briefly. Thisdownloadable model allows for exploration and immersion intothe complex. Moving from room to room the full size of thisbuilding becomes apparent. Whether it is looking up to the45.75 m apex of the caldarium dome or the view of the palaestrafrom the terrace that encircles it, the Baths of Caracalla are asymbol of the wealth and power of Rome.

9. Conclusion

This digital reconstruction of the Baths of Caracalla (Figs. 4 and 5)relied heavily on the work done by DeLaine. As the only publicallyavailable dataset, her composite of dimensions, in combinationwith her scale drawings, provide its foundation. The overall aim ofthis model is to illustrate the immensity that an Imperial thermaepossessed. In addition, I have demonstrated a methodology fordetermining how the Roman designers may have broken down thewindows into panes. There are also a number of distinctive aspectsof this reconstruction. Since the textures of the walls in thisrecreation are uniform, it may be helpful to researchers who wishto test different decorative motifs on the superstructure of theBaths of Caracalla. It is also possible to obtain the air volume insidethe Baths for unique studies, such as my investigation of thethermal environment. Finally, unlike similar models, I utilizeda parametric program, SolidWorks, for the structural geometry.As new data come to light—specifically surrounding Rooms 15E/W,16E/W, and 18E/W and the substructure—it is possible to easilyand accurately update the model. Furthermore, parametric soft-ware, when applied to other monuments or buildings, couldprovide a valuable tool for researchers because of its inherentflexibility.

Appendix A. Supplementary material

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found inthe online version at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.daach.2013.12.002.

References

Allen, D., 2002. Roman window glass. In: Aldhouse-Green, M.J., Webster, P. (Eds.),Artefacts and Archaeology: Aspects of the Celtic and Roman World. Universityof Wales Press, Cardiff, pp. 102–111.

André, J., 1964. Pline l0Ancien: Histoire Naturelle. Société d0Édition “Les BellesLettres”, Paris.

Autodesk, 2012. 3ds MAX [computer software]. San Rafael: Autodesk. Retrievedfrom: ⟨http://usa.autodesk.com/3ds-max/⟩.

Bartoccini, R., 1929. Le Terme di Lepcis. Istituto Italiano d0arti Grafiche, Bergamo.Bastianelli, S., 1933. Civitavecchia. Scavi Eseguiti nelle Terme Taurine o Trajane. Not.

Antich. 9, 398–421.Beltrán Lloris, M., 1996. La Ciudad Clásica en Aragón. In: Lacarra Ducay, M.C. (Ed.),

Difusión del Arte Romano en Aragón. Institución “Fernando el Católico”,Zaragoza, pp. 37–104.

Biers, J.C., 1985. The Great Bath on the Lechaion Road. American School of ClassicalStudies at Athens, Princeton.

Blouet, A., 1828. Restauration des Thermes d0Antonin Caracalla, Rome. Didot, Paris.Boon, G.C., 1966. Roman window glass from Wales. J. Glass Stud. 8, 41–45.Bouet, A., 2003. Thermae Gallicae: Les Thermes de Barzan (Charente-Maritime) et

les Thermes des Provinces Gauloises. Fédération Aquitania, Bordeaux.Bouet, A., Tobie, J.-L., 2003. Les Thermes d0Imus Pyrenaeus (Saint-Jean-le-Vieux,

Pyrénées Atlantiques). Aquitania 19, 155–179.

Brödner, E., 1951. Untersuchengen an den Caracallathemen. Walter de Gruyter &Co., Berlin.

Broise, H., 1991. Vitrages et Volets des Fenêtres Thermales à l0Époque Impériale. In:Les Thermes Romains: Actes de la Table Ronde Organisée par l0École Français deRome, Rome, 11–12 novembre 1988. Ecole Française de Rome, Rome, pp. 61–78.

Cameron, C., 1772. The Baths of the Romans Explained and Illustrated. George Scott,Chancery Lane, London.

Cecchini, M.G., 1985. Campagna di Scavo 1982/83 Lungo il Lato Orientale. In: Roma:Archeologia nel Centro—Lavori E Studi Di Archeologia 6, Volume 2. Soprinten-denza Archeologica di Roma, Rome, pp. 583–604.

Charlesworth, D., 1977. Roman window glass from Chichester, Sussex. J. Glass Stud.19, 182.

Conforto, M.L., 1991. Terme di Caracalla: Dati Acquisiti ed Ipostesi di Ricerca. In: LesThermes Romains: Actes de la Table Ronde Organisée par l0École Français deRome, Rome, 11–12 Novembre 1988. École Français de Rome, Rome, pp. 49–60.

Dassault Systèmes, 2012. SolidWorks [computer software]. Waltham: DassaultSystèmes S.A. Retrieved from: ⟨http://www.solidworks.com/⟩.

De Labriolle, P., Villeneuve, F., 1974. Juvénal: Satires. Société d0Édition “Les BellesLettres”, Paris.

DeLaine, J., 1997. The Baths of Caracalla: a study in the design, construction, andeconomics of large-scale building projects in imperial Rome. Journal of RomanArchaeology (JRA), Portsmouth.

DeLaine, J., 1987. The ‘Cella Solearis’ of the Baths of Caracalla: a reappraisal. Pap. Br.Sch. Rome 55, 147–156.

DeLaine, J., 1985. An engineering approach to Roman building techniques: theBaths of Caracalla in Rome. BAR Int. Ser. 246, 195–206.

Douglas, R.W., Frank, S., 1972. A History of Glassmaking. G T Foulis & Co Ltd.,Henley-on-Thames.

Dunbabin, K.M.D., 1999. Mosaics of the Greek and Roman World. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.

Eschebach, H., 1979. Die Stabianer Thermen in Pompeji. Verlag Walter de Gruyter &Co., Berlin.

Fagan, G.G., 2000. Hygenic conditions in Roman public baths. In: Jansen, G.C.M.(Ed.), Cura Aquarum in Sicilia. Stichting Babesch, Leiden, pp. 281–287.

Formige, J., 1922. Quelques Remarques sur Certaines Dispositions des ThermesRomains. Bull. Soc. Nat. Antiq. Fr., 252–254.

Foy, D., Fontaine, S., 2008. Diversité et Évolution du Vitrage de l0Antiquité et duHaut Moyen Age. Gallia 65, 405–459.

Ghislanzoni, E., 1912. Anno 1912—Fascicolo 9: Roma—Nuove Scoperte nella Città enel Suburbio: Regione XII—Scavi nelle Terme Antoniniane. Not. Antich., 9; , pp.305–325.

Glare, P.G.W. (Ed.), 1982. The Oxford Latin Dictionary. The Bath Press, Bath.Harden, D.B., 1974. Window-glass from the Romano-British bath-house at Garden

Hill, Hartfield, Sussex. Antiq. J. 54, 280–281.Heinz, W., 1983. Römische Thermen: Badewesen und Badeluxus im Römischen

Reich. Hirmer, Berlin.Hourcade, D., 1999. Les Thermes de Chassenon (Charente): l0apport des fouilles

récentes. Aquitania 16, 153–181.Iacopi, I., 1985. Terme di Caracalla: Nota sui Progetto di Indagine Archeologica. In

Roma: Archeologia nel Centro—Lavori E Studi Di Archeologia 6. SoprintendenzaArcheologica di Roma, Rome, vol. 2, pp. 578–582.

Iacopi, I., 1977. L0Arco di Constantino e le Terme di Caracalla. Istituto Poligrafico eZecca dello Stato, Rome.

Iwanoff, S.A., Hülsen, C., 1898. Aus Den Caracalla-Thermen. Archit. Stud. 3, 72–81.Jones, M.W., 2003. Principles of Roman Architecture. Yale University Press, New

Haven.Krencker, D., Krüger, E., Lehmann, H., Wachtler, H., 1929. Die Trierer Kaiserthermen.

B. Filser, Augsburg.Lugli, G., 1970. The Baths of Caracalla. Bardi, Rome.Manderscheid, H., 1991. La Gestione Indrica delle Terme di Caracalla: Alcune

Osservazioni. In: Les Thermes Romains: Actes de la Table Ronde Organiséepar l0École Français de Rome. Rome, 11–12 Novembre 1988, École Français deRome, Rome, pp. 49–60.

Martini, W., 1984. Das Gymnasium von Samos. In: Kommission bei R. Habelt, Bonn.McNeel, 2012. Rhinoceros [computer software]. Seattle: McNeel. Retrieved from:

⟨http://www.rhino3d.com/⟩.Miliaresis, I.A., 2013. Heating and Fuel Consumption in the Terme del Foro at Ostia

(Ph.D. Dissertation). University of Virginia.Nielsen, I., 1993. Themae et Balnea, 2nd ed. Aarhus University Press, Aarhus.Nissen, H., 1877. Pompeianische Studien zur Städtekunde des Altertums. Breitkopf

und Härtel, Leipzig.Oetelaar, T., 2013. An Innovative Investigation of the Thermal Environment inside

the Reconstructed Caldaria of Two Ancient Roman Baths Using ComputationalFluid Dynamics (Ph.D. Dissertation). University of Calgary.

Oetelaar, T., 2012. Reconstructing the Baths of Caracalla. In: CAA2012 Proceedings ofthe 40th Conference in Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods inArchaeology, Southampton, United Kingdom, 26–30 March 2012. CAA, South-ampton, pp. 145–148.

Oetelaar, T., 2011. Reconstructing the Baths of Caracalla. In: Dellepiane, M.,Niccolucci, F., Pena Serna, S., Rushmeier, H., Van Gool, L. (Eds.). The 12thInternational Symposium on Virtual Reality, Archaeology and Cultural HeritageVAST (2011): Short and Project Papers. EuroGraphics Association, Goslar,pp. 33–36.

Oltramare, P., 1961. Sénèque: Questions Naturelles. Société d0Édition “Les BellesLettres”, Paris.

T. Oetelaar / Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎ 9

Please cite this article as: Oetelaar, T., Reconstructing the Baths of Caracalla. Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage(2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.daach.2013.12.002i

Ortiz Palomar, M.E., Paz Peralta, J.A., 1997. El Vidrio in los Baños Romanos. In: PeréxAgorreta, M.J., Escorza, C.M., Ochoa, C.F. (Eds.), Termalismo antiguo: I CongresoPeninsular: Actas: Arnedillo, La Rioja, 3–5 Octubre 1996. Casa de Velázquez,Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia, Madrid, pp. 437–457.

Piranomonte, M., 2008. The Baths of Caracalla Guide. Electa, Milan.Rackham, H., 1938. Pliny: Natural History. William Hienemann LTD, London.Radt, W., 1980. Pergamon, 1979. Arch. Anz. 95, 400–422.Ring, J.W., 1996. Windows, baths, and solar energy in the Roman Empire. Am. J.

Archaeol. 100, 717–724.Ripostelli, G., 1916, Le Terme di Antonino Caracalla, Alfredo Carlini, Rome.Sear, F., 1977. Roman Wall and Vault Mosaics. F.H. Kerle, Heidelberg.Sedgwick, W.B., 1959. The Cena Trimalchionis of Petronius. Clarendon Press,

Oxford.Shackleton Bailey, D.R., 1993. Martial: Epigrams. Harvard University Press,

Cambridge.

Siebenhüner, H., 1955. S. Maria degli Angeli in Rom. Münchner Jahrb. Bild. Kunst 6,176–206.

Smith, M.S., 1975. Petronii Arbitri: Cena Trimalchionis. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Thatcher, E., 1956. Open rooms at the Terme del Foro at Ostia. Mem. Am. Acad.

Rome 24, 169–264.Whitehouse, D., 2001. Window glass between the first and eighth Centuries. In: Il

Colore nel Medioevo: Arte, Simbolo, Tecnica: La Vetrata in Occidente dal IVall’XI secolo: atti delle Giornate di Studi, Lucca, 23–25 Settembre 1999,Del0Acqua, F. Silva, R., (Eds.), Instituto Storico Lucchese, Lucca, pp. 31–43.

Yegül, F.K., 2010. Bathing in the Roman World. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

Yegül, F.K., 1995. Baths and Bathing in Classical Antiquity (Paperback ed.). The MITPress, Cambridge.

Zienkiewicz, J.D., 1986, The Legionary Fortress Baths at Caerleon, National Museumof Wales, Cardiff.

T. Oetelaar / Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎10

Please cite this article as: Oetelaar, T., Reconstructing the Baths of Caracalla. Digital Applications in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage(2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.daach.2013.12.002i