The Water Supply of Ancient Rome: City Area, Water, and Population 9050632688, 9789050632683

Citation preview

DUTCH MONOGRAPHS ON ANCIENT HISTORY AND ARCHAEOLOGY EDITORS

H.W. PLEKET

- F.J.A.M. MEIJER

VOLUME XXII

G. DE KLEIJN THE WATER SUPPLY OF ANCIENT ROME

GERDA DE KLEIJN

THE WATER SUPPLY OF

ANCIENT ROME CITY AREA, WATER, AND POPULATION

J.e. GIEBEN, PUBLISHER AMSTERDAM 2001

No part of this book may be translated or reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. © by G. de Kleijn, 2001 I Printed in The Netherlands I ISBN 90 5063 268 8

For Jaap, Jan, and Maria

Contents Preface

IV

Introduction Chapter 1 1.1 1.2 1.3

Roman water supply The aqueducts of Rome Technical aspects: The city's water supply system at work Excurse: Lead fistulae in an aqueduct?

9 9 30 39

Chapter 2 2.1 2.2 2.3

Water supply and population in terms of quantities The volume of water Population Conclusion: water supply and population

44 47 61 68

Chapter 3 3.1 3.2

Running water in use Purposes Praise and appreciation

75 77 84

Chapter 4 4.1 4.2 4.3

Water consumption: legislation, supervision and fistulae Legislation. The evolution of the ius aquae ducendae Supervision Fistula stamps, authorised production or authorised consumption?

115

Chapter 5 5.1 5.2 5.3

Find-spots of fistula stamps Imperial fistula stamps Plumber's fistula stamps Private fistula stamps

147 151 165 193

Chapter 6 6.1 6.2

Fabric and extent of the city of Rome Residential districts? Fabric and extent of the city

224 225 243

Appendix I.l Urbs and suburbium I.2 Domus and insula 1.3 Hortus, horti, and villa

92 93 107

249 253 256

11

Appendix ILl The aqueducts of Rome II.2 Large scale aqueducts II.3 Urban distribution

258 259 260

Appendix III The people mentioned in fistula stamps

261

Bibliography Summary Samenvatting Index

308 333 337 342

Tables 1 Standard measures of fistulae based on Vitro De Arch. 8.6.4 2 Standard measures of fistulae based on Front. Aq. 25.4 and 39-46 Standard measures of fistulae based on Front. Aq. 29 and 46-63 3 Aqueduct flow, derived from the cammentarii principis 4 Frontinus' measurements in terms of quinariae 5 Amounts of water brought to Rome 6 Cangiaria and frumentatianes 46 BC- AD 15 7 Aqueduct flow in different years 8 Water division according to Front. Aq. 78 9 10.a Distribution of stamps of supposed owners (names in the genitive) found at different geographical places 1O.b Distribution of stamps of supposed owners (names in the nominative) found at different geographical places II Distribution of stamps mentioning plumbarii, found at different geographical places 12 Fistulae with different stamps 13 Imperial fistula stamps, first century AD 14 Imperial fistula stamps, second, century AD 15 Imperial fistula stamps, third, century AD 16 Rome: number of imperial fistula stamps per regia 17 Plumber's fistula stamps, first century AD 18 Plumber's fistula stamps, second century AD 19 Plumber's fistula stamps, third century AD 20 Plumber's fistula stamps, unknown date 21 Rome: number of plumber's fistula stamps per regia 22 Private fistula stamps, first century AD 23 Private fistula stamps, second century AD

48 50 51 54 56 59 63 69 70 129 130 130 143 151 155 160 163 165 170 177 185 192 193 199

III

24 25 26

Private fistula stamps, third century AD Private fistula stamps, unknown date Rome: number of private fistula stamps per regio

Figures 1.1 Find-spots of imperial fistula stamps, Rome, first century AD 1.2 Find-spots of imperial fistula stamps, suburbium, first century AD 2.1 Find-spots of imperial fistula stamps, Rome, second century AD 2.2 Find-spots of imperial fistula stamps, suburbium, second century AD 3.1 Find-spots of imperial fistula stamps, Rome, third century AD 3.2 Find-spots of imperial fistula stamps, suburbium, third century AD 4.1 Find-spots of plumber's fistula stamps, Rome, first century AD 4.2 Find-spots of plumber's fistula stamps, suburbium, first century AD 5.1 Find-spots of plumber's fistula stamps, Rome, second century AD 5.2 Find-spots of plumber's fistula stamps, suburbium, second century AD 6.1 Find-spots of plumber's fistula stamps, Rome, third century AD 6.2 Find-spots of plumber's fistula stamps, suburbium, third century AD 7.1 Find-spots of plumber's fistula stamps, Rome, unknown date 7.2 Find-spots of plumber's fistula stamps, suburbium, unknown date 8.1 Find-spots of private fistula stamps, Rome, first century AD 8.2 Find-spots of private fistula stamps, suburbium, first century AD 9.1 Find-spots of private fistula stamps, Rome, second century AD 9.2 Find-spots of private fistula stamps, suburbium, second century AD 10.1 Find-spots of private fistula stamps, Rome, third century AD 10.2 Find-spots of private fistula stamps, suburbium, third century AD 11.1 Find-spots of private fistula stamps, Rome, unknown date 11.2 Find-spots of private fistula stamps, suburbium, unknown date

207 215 221

153 154 158 159 161 162 168 169 175 176 183 184 190 191 197 198 205 206 213 215 219 220

IV

Preface Since the last decades of the twentieth century, it has become clear that the water supply of peoples all over the world is in danger. Environmental pollution threatens water quality. Shortage and distribution problems, intensified by mounting competition, are at the base of political conflicts on the Iberian Peninsula, for instance, and contribute to the unrest in the Near East. As a consequence, water management ranks high on the international agenda. In addition, a renewed interest in the water supplies of earlier civilisations has arisen, so that water supply has once again become an object for historical research. My fascination with ancient Roman waterworks started well over ten years ago, when I visited ruins of Roman cities in Tunisia. My fellow travellers and I - teachers and students from the history and classics departments of the Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen - were amazed by the apparently lavish water use in public baths and private domus. The assumed abundance of the ancient Roman water supply contrasted sharply with the disquieting reports of modern water shortages. My interest in the issue of Roman water supply deepened while exploring its technical aspects. I came to admire the technical skills of Roman engineers. Moreover, I wondered whether data derived from our knowledge in this field of research might be useful in other fields. The publications of Eck (1982) and Bruun (1991) prepared the way. I decided to investigate whether data derived from the water supply of ancient Rome might add to our understanding of the social fabric, the population size, and the extent of the urbs. From the beginning over ten years ago, the discussions with my promotor Lukas de Blois, and his encouragement of have been essential stimuli to my research. lowe him special thanks for his constant support. My understanding of various aspects of Roman water supply has greatly benefited from the work of members of the Frontinus-Gesellschaft and other scholars, which has been presented at the conferences Cura Aquarum in Campania (1994) and Cura Aquarum in Sicilia (1998). Discussions with Jos de Waele, Nathalie de Haan, and Gemma Jansen, with whom I have served on preparatory committees for both conferences, have also been most valuable. I gratefully acknowledge the staff of the Nederlands Instituut in Rome for the hospitality they extended to me, Rene Reijnen who designed the map of Rome

v

I used as a basis, and Emily Embree who has corrected my English. Needless to say, any errors fall under my area of responsibility. Moral support, which I received from colleagues, friends, and students at the departments of history and classics of the Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen, made me carry through. Long-standing as well as recent friends have expressed interest in my work, and I have always accepted their encouragement with gratitude. Last but not least, I wish to thank my family. The continuing helpfullness and patience of my husband Jaap, my son Jan, and my daughter Maria, have been indispensable.

Introduction

Water is indispensable for life, for pleasure, and for daily use. I These words of Vitruvius convey, in brief, a notion that is both commonplace and worthwhile. It is common knowledge that every human being needs water to stay alive. At the same time, this notion is worthwhile, as it draws our attention to the different purposes water is utilised for. Although the required volume of drinking water varies according to one's size and exertions, and is dependent upon climatic conditions, a certain quantity of potable water is a prerequisite for life. A few litres suffice to meet these daily needs. However, more water is needed for personal care and cleaning, certain manufacturing purposes, irrigation of gardens and fields, and recreation. The total required volume is not absolute: it depends upon economic and social factors, in addition to climatic conditions. Whereas drinking water has to meet stringent quality requirements for its chemical and microbiological condition, lower quality water will suffice for other purposes. There is a limited set of possible water sources, which can be utilised both privately and collectively. Local rainfall collected through a system of gutters can be stored in reservoirs. Ground water can well up spontaneously as a spring, or be tapped by digging wells. Surface water is available in rivers and lakes. At a certain point in time, a settlement's growing population density, together with rising water consumption per head and a limited natural presence of water, may prompt the construction of some form of collective water supply. Excluding natural factors, the community's wealth and its organisational and technical skills determine what actions can be taken to increase the available water volume. Communal reservoirs or wells built locally, or aqueducts bringing in water from remote sources are two possible options. Initially, the growing hilltop settlements that would eventually develop into the city of Rome had to cope with water surplus in the intermediate valleys, rather than with water shortage. 2 After the Cloaca Maxima had been constructed, and I Vitro De Arch. 8.1.1: Est enim maxime necessaria et ad vitam et ad delectiones et ad usum cotidianum. 2 See Purcell 1996a, 194

2

Introduction

an increasing number of people had started to live and work in the lower-lying areas, the city appeared to be in need of additional water supply. The Aqua Appia (312 BC) was the first of the eleven aqueducts leading to Rome to be built in antiquity. Time and again, the volume of water brought into the city was increased through the construction of new aqueducts. Rome's population and the extent of its built-up area also changed over time. It is quite likely that these three growth processes were interrelated. However, they did not necessarily keep pace with each other. It would prove very helpful to our understanding of what it meant to live in the capital of the Roman Empire if we could gain a better understanding of the intertwined developments in the population, the urban area, and the urban water supply. One of the key questions about ancient Rome is: how many people lived there, anyhow? In his fundamental discussion of this issue, Beloch (1886, 392-412) scrutinised the available evidence. His ideas and conclusions have been criticised and evaluated for more than a century (see section 2.2). Questions like the number of recipients of the com dole, the number of insulae in the city and their mean number of inhabitants, the probable population density in the area enclosed by the Aurelianic wall, and, more recently, the employment of demographic models, have all been discussed. The outcome of these scholarly efforts is rather disappointing: Beloch's results have primarily been challenged by the idea that there is no sound basis for reliable estimates of the city's population. Yet, the question of Rome's population should not be brushed aside. It is one of the aims of this study to investigate whether data extracted from the Roman water supply can possibly add to our understanding of the growth or shrinkage of the capital's population. Such evidence is not intricate enough to allow us to see seasonal fluctuations or changes over decades, but it might shed light on population trends over centuries. This is to say that there is neither a direct nor even a close connection between the available volume of water and the city's population. 3 Such a connection would only exist if everyone used an equal volume of water, for instance the minimum quantity needed for drinking and cleaning, and if the supply had been adjusted regularly to the demand. Bearing in mind Vitruvius' quotation above, we should be aware that water might have been used in a conservative or in a wasteful way, during different periods of time and by different individuals and groups in society. It is worthwhile, therefore, to endeavour to find out how water was divided and distributed by the authorities and used by different (groups of)

3

See Pace 1986, 139 + fig. 1.

Introduction

3

people. Furthermore, it is worth knowing whether practices in this field changed over time. Another key question concerns the places where the Roman people lived. It brings two different concepts under discussion. Firstly, one wonders whether the rich and the poor inhabited separate districts, or whether the different districts of Rome housed a mixed population (Stambaugh 1988, 186-187). Did the elite of Roman society perhaps live on the hills, with the poor inhabiting the low-lying areas in between, as has been suggested (MacMullen 1976, 67; Lampe 1987, 43)? With respect to the urban fabric, recent topographical reference works (Richardson 1992; LTUR II, 1995) focus ample attention on individual houses. A synthesis of their locations, however, has not been achieved. As a matter offact, Eck's complaint that 'we still lack a collection of the evidence for the location of senatorial houses in Rome' (Eck 1990, 156 n. 43) has not been answered. Secondly, the extent of the city has been open for debate too, resulting in opposite opinions. On the one hand, it is claimed that the city's growth was blocked by the green belt of parks (Frezouls 1987, 390) whereas on the other hand it is suggested that the city extended far beyond these parks (Jolivet 1997,201). This thesis will examine whether data derived from our knowledge of the urban water supply are of any help in answering these questions about the urban social fabric and topography. As the present study uses data borrowed from our knowledge of the urban water supply in antiquity, in order to discuss the above-mentioned questions, the available evidence in this field of research must be reviewed. The physical remains of the aqueducts have long been a topic of scholarly interest. As early as the last quarter of the seventeenth century, Fabretti (1680) discussed them quite comprehensively. Archaeological research into the water supply of the city started again in the second half of the nineteenth century (Lanciani 1881), culminating in the middle nineteen-thirties with the books of Van Deman (1934) and Ashby (1935). As accurately as the remains made possible, the (courses of the) aqueducts and their various components were described, the original and later elements were dated, the sizes of their canals were measured, and their heights above sea level at different places were established. This research has been basic to our understanding of the performance of the ancient water supply system in Rome (see chapter 1). Since that time, only smaller stretches of the aqueducts have been studied in detail. The data collected in the heyday of archaeological aqueduct research in Rome and its surrounding area have formed the basis for calculations made by civil engineers regarding the volume of water conveyed to the city by the aqueducts (see section 2.1).

4

Introduction

Sextus Iulius Frontinus who, appointed curator aquarum of the city of Rome in AD 97, discussed several aspects of the urban water supply in his booklet De Aquis Urbis Romae, had already provided similar information. 4 When the elderly emperor Nerva entrusted Frontinus, who was roughly of same age, with the management of Rome's waterworks, the latter had already completed under the Flavian emperors - a successful senatorial career in the military and in the administration of the Roman Empire. s Nerva must have known Frontinus to be a skilful senatorial colleague and a political survivor. He realised that Frontinus belonged to the category of the principes civitatis, persons of great merit for the state, from which the curatores aquarum had been chosen for over a century (Aq. 1). The question of whether Frontinus had any hydraulic knowledge may not have bothered the emperor. Nevertheless it is quite possible that he - as governor - had supervised the building of military camps in Britain, inclusive of their water supply and bath establishments (P6czy 1997, 101), and was already familiar with this subject matter at an administrative level. It is likely, however, that this was not a decisive argument in favour of his appointment, as there must have been quite a few other senators who had gained similar experience in the provinces. In the context of this study, Frontinus' motives for writing De Aquis Urbis Romae and the issue of his supposed readers should only concern us to a limited extent. 6 If indeed, as Frontinus claims, the booklet was in the first place meant for himself, as a guide for his administration, and in the second place as For a brief and sound overview of the contents of Frontinus' treatise see Bruun 1991, 11-13. 5 Sextus lulius Frontinus: PIR 2 I 322, RE X.l lulius 243; RE supp!. XIV, 208-209; A. Trevor Hodge's article 'Frontinus: A study in military history, hydraulic science and public administration' will be published in ANRW II 37.6. See Eck 1989a for a lengthy discussion of Frontinus' career, and Bruun 1991, 10-11 + n. 1 for a summary of the consensus which has been reached about it. During the reign of Vespasian, Frontinus was praetor urbanus in AD 70, consul in AD (72 or) 73, governor of Britannia as successor to Petillius Cerialis and followed by Julius Agricola AD 74 (or 73) - 77 (or 78). In command of about a quarter of the Roman military force, including four legions, he subjugated Wales. Under Domitian, he was probably involved in a military campaign against the Chatti. Thereafter, in AD 85-86, he held the top office of proconsul Asiae. After Nerva assumed power, Frontinus became a member of a commission entrusted with the task of reducing public expenses, and was subsequently appointed curator aquarum. In the years afterward, in AD 98 and AD 100, he was honoured with two more consulships, in both cases as colleague of the emperor Trajan. 6 Bruun 1991, 13-18 gives a clear overview with references for the various opinions about these topics, which need not be repeated here. 4

Introduction

5

a guide for his successors (Aq. 2.1-2), he may have assumed that the latter would also have had some understanding of a water supply system in one of the provinces at an administrative level. Nevertheless, the water works of Rome must have been a complex entity, with its own characteristics. A curator aquarum intending to fulfil his duty properly was not necessarily interested in every detail, but he needed enough data so as not to be intimidated by his subordinates (Aq. 2.1). This means that several technical aspects of Rome's water supply system were mentioned only briefly or completely left out of Frontinus' book, simply because he did not consider knowledge of them essential for his purposes. Although Frontinus may have taken more than a usual interest in technical matters, Rodgers' characterisation of his technical knowledge in this field as 'an administrator's hydraulics' appears most appropriate (Rodgers 1991). Accordingly, as has been stressed by Bruun (1991, 14-19), Frontinus' book should not be considered a reliable historical source in every aspect. What he tells us must be assessed on its internal consistency, and, if possible, checked by information derived from other sources. On the other hand, as De Aquis Urbis Romae remains a unique source regarding the procedures of granting water concessions to private individuals and the functioning of the organisation of Rome's water supply, we often cannot but rely on the information Frontinus hands over to us. The third kind of evidence is found in the physical remains of the urban water distribution system. As the final distribution in the city took place by means of lead pipes (fistulae), whatever remains of them might constitute a source for our investigation. Although thousands of ancient fistulae have been discovered, a greater number of them must have disappeared. They were probably melted down so that the lead could be reused. Moreover, in many cases the find-spots of the remaining fistulae have not been recorded (correctly), or the exact information about the places where they were found has been lost. As a consequence, a reconstruction of the urban distribution network by means of the found lead pipes is totally out of reach, all the more because the connections between the large scale aqueducts and the distribution devices, as well as the urban intermediate installations, have hardly survived either. On the other hand, a substantial number of stamped fistulae have been found. 7 Bruun (1991) went into the subject of stamped fistulae at great length. Hence, the present study is greatly indebted to his work, among other reasons because of

7 At the end of the nineteenth century, Dressel recorded more than 700 fistula stamps from Rome and its immediate surroundings (elL 15,2,1). Several hundreds were published later. It is likely that some more await publication.

6

Introduction

his thorough presentation of the fistula material. s The question of their usefulness is of vital importance for the intended discussion. That is to say that both the representativeness of the material and the interpretation of the stamps should be addressed. It is evident that there is no way of knowing for certain the number of stamped fistulae (or fistula stamps) that existed in Rome and its surroundings during the first two and a half centuries of our era. 9 Nevertheless, Bruun made a reasonable estimate of the order of magnitude of the percentage of fistulae that have survived, which is some 4 - 5%.10 Because the present study aims to utilise the fistula material for matters of urban topography and the city's social fabric, it is important to know where the fistula stamps were found. The findspots of about half of them, some 450 items, are adequately recorded, whereas S Bruun 1991, 20 n. 4 states that his 'study aims at completeness for the material from Rome and its surroundings, but will probably fail in this objective.' I am only aware of two additional publications mentioning fistula stamps from this area, which were issued simultaneously with or after Bruun's book: Santa Maria Scrinari 1991 (fistulae found on the Celian Hill) and Villedieu 1995 (stamps naming Mucianus, from the Palatine). 9 The majority of the stamped fistulae date from the Principate. No fistulae from the Republican period have survived. After the middle of the third century, either there were barely any new installations or the epigraphic habit changed. (For the epigraphic habit in the Roman Empire, see Mac Mullen 1982). 10 Bruun 1991,66-71: First, Bruun compares the numbers of the curatores aquarum, being the Romans most likely to appear as water conduit owners, with the actual surviving stamps from Rome and its surroundings bearing their names. The names of two (maybe two more) out of the seventeen curatores aquarum of the first century AD named by Frontinus (Aq. 102), approximately 12% of them, are found among the surviving fistulae. The names of three out of the seven persons known to us as curator aquarum after Frontinus' term of office, or as curator aquarum et Minuciae, have survived in the fistula stamps, which is over 40%. However, the absolute numbers are too low to give this percentage any significance. Another group, which presumably received water grants, consists of the 37 known praefecti Urbi (AD l3 AD 200). There is convincing evidence for at least three (and maybe two more) of them in the fistula material, which is 8%. Furthermore, there are more than 100 stamps naming members of consular families, whereas it has been calculated that there were about 2,000 consuls during the period from AD l3 to AD 250. This means that the families of some 5% of these high-ranking officials are named in fistula stamps. Finally, assuming about 900 private conduits at a time for the whole period, and further assuming that a conduit was used for an average of 30 years, there would have been over 7,000 different stamps bearing the names of private people. Taking into account that the names of 288 different private people that occur on the fistula stamps, Bruun calculates a survival rate of 4%.

Introduction

7

those of the other half are not, and will therefore remain unknown forever. It follows that we are presumably aware of the find-spots of some 2 - 2.5% of the fistulae. This small percentage constitutes no representative sample of any kind in a statistical sense, since the selection is the result of unintentional and chance occurrences, and is therefore quite problematic. Nonetheless, in spite of this small percentage of surviving fistulae with known find-spots, the absolute number of items is considerable. It seems worthwhile to investigate whether the find-spots of fistula stamps might guide our opinions about the topics under discussion. Though statistical precision is out of reach, some information can be borrowed from the available data. Chapter five will go into this matter. In preparation, the significance of inscribed fistulae for such an investigation should first be addressed, all the more so because the traditional interpretation of the contents of fistula stamps is subject to scholarly discussion (Bruun 1991; Aubert 1993). As it is an accepted notion that fistula stamps served as a means of control, the key question is: who or what had to be controlled? Therefore, chapter four will enter into the functionality of fistula stamps within the framework of the rulings and the practices related to Rome's water distribution. Special attention will be given to the fistula stamps mentioning the names of private people. The results of the investigations reported on in the earlier chapters will be integrated in the final chapter. Since it is the aim of this study to explore whether data derived from our knowledge of Rome's water supply might elucidate the intertwined relationship between the size of the urban population, the city's social fabric, its extent and its water supply, a quantitative approach is chosen whenever sensible. Such an approach entails the use of numbers, which are, admittedly, mainly estimates. These estimates relate to the urban population and the delivery of the aqueducts. In addition, it appears worthwhile to apply a quantitative approach to the examination of the fistula material in order to establish which were the usual and which were the exceptional contents of stamps. In this respect such an approach is contrary to that of Dessau, who in his Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae shows the different types of content, irrespective of the frequency of their occurrence. A misleading side-effect of Dessau's procedure is that a type of content that is attested to only once, seems to be of equal value as a type that is attested to more than a hundred times (see section 4.3.4.1). Figures, even if they are estimates, are needed to reach a well-reasoned impression of what it meant for different people to live in ancient Rome. In this respect I agree with Brunt (1971, 3) who wrote:

8

Introduction

"For antiquity an even wider margin of error (than 15 or 20 per cent, mentioned in his previous sentence) may have to be accepted, and the estimate still be better than nothing. It should be obvious that if we have no conception of the numbers of peoples about whom we write and read we cannot envisage them in their concrete reality. What does a statement about the Romans mean, if we do not know roughly how many Romans there were?" Some final remarks must be made. The first concerns the period of time under discussion. The evidence at our disposal dates mainly from the ages of the Principate. During this period, the later and larger aqueducts were constructed, and nearly all extant ancient aqueducts were carrying water to the city of Rome. Moreover, this was the time period during which Frontinus wrote his treatise, and lead pipes were stamped. The present investigation must consequently focus on a limited period of time: the ages of the Principate. Secondly, I have chosen not always to comply with the rule that Latin words must be written in italics. Toponyms like Castra Praetoria and Horti Sallustiani, as well as technical terms like fistula and aqua Claudia, are the exceptions to the rule. In addition, no italics are used in tables.

Chapter 1

Roman water supply

1.1

THE AQUEDUCTS OF ROME

"The aqueducts were to him the most engrossing of all Roman antiquities" May Ashby I

During the period of the Republic and the Principate eleven aqueducts were built for Rome, which each conveyed water to the city for centuries. They will briefly be presented in chronological order in the first part of this chapter. The emphasis will be on their construction, on adjustments and repairs, on the people who paid for their creation, and on those who took credit for them. The quality of the water that was led into the city by the aqueducts will be touched upon, as well as the people's appreciation of it. Furthermore, figures will be given for the aqueducts' total length, for stretches running underground or above ground, on substructures and arches. These figures will show that some aqueducts had hardly any stretches above ground outside the city, while others ran on arches for a considerable distance, and therefore were relatively vulnerable. What happened after an aqueduct entered the city - the distribution of the water by means of branches, mains and fistulae - is not explored in any depth in this chapter. As the present study aims at an evaluation of the role played by the water supply system in the city's history of social conditions and its historical demography, it is evident that the vicissitudes of the aqueducts, rather than their archaeological remains, will be stressed here. References to specific archaeological publications are offered in the footnote inserted after each heading. Technical aspects are mainly discussed in part 1.2. The discussion of the water distribution in the city's regiones relies to a large extent on Frontinus' reports, although it will be clear that his regiones do not

I Ashby 1935, v. May Ashby was the widow of Thomas Ashby who died 1931 after he had finished the manuscript of his book The Aqueducts of Ancient Rome which he considered to be his crowning work as an archaeologist and director of the British School at Rome.

Roman water supply

10

necessarily completely match those mapped out by modem scholars. 2 The quantity of water delivered will come up for discussion in the next chapter and is therefore not mentioned here.

1.1.1

Aqua Appia 3

The year 312 BC saw the earliest execution of plans for building an aqueduct to bring water to the city of Rome, by the censors C. Plautius Venox and Appius Claudius. Plautius found the water 'veins' to be tapped as sources for this aqueduct, hence his cognomen. Appius Claudius was the only one, however, who got credit for its construction; he deliberately stayed on as censor after his year-and-a-half term, and thus he was the one who finished the aqueduct. (Aq. 5.1-3).4 The project was paid from public funds, according to Diodorus Siculus, without a decree of the senate (Diod. Sic. 20.36.1). In 144 BC, the aqueduct was leaking because of old age, and because it had been unlawfully punctured by private people. Q. Marcius Rex, praetor inter cives that year, was instructed by the senate to repair the aqueduct and reclaim the water (Aq. 7.1). Agrippa had the aqua Appia repaired again in 33 BC. The aqueduct probably formed part of the major repair of all rivi aquarum ordered by Augustus (RGDA 20.2), which he had promised to pay for in 11 BC (Aq. 125). This work was finished by 5 or 4 BC (CIL 6.1244V In addition to his interest in the aqueduct, Augustus supplemented the Aqua Appia by means of a new branch, the ramus Augustae (Aq. 5.6).6 Augustus probably paid for both the repair and the new branch. 7 2 For a more critical discussion of the extent of the regiones and Frontinus' cityconcept see section 2.4. 3 PA, 21; Van Deman 1934,23-28,368,385; Ashby 1935,49-54; Hainzmann 1975, 78-82; Richardson 1992, 15-16; Evans 1993a, 65-74; LTUR I, 61-62; Aicher 1995, 34-35. 4 Livy's story to explain the name of the aqueduct was slightly different: Plautius did not agree with the way in which Appius Claudius had revised the list of senators, and resigned during office (Livy 9.29.5-9). 5 CIL 6.1244, part of ILS 98, can be seen on the Porta Tiburtina, above the arches over ancient Via Tiburtina. Nash 1961-1962 I, 49 fig. 44. 6 It is not impossible that Agrippa built this branch, since Augustus did not mention it in his Res Gestae (20.2), unlike his addition to the aqua Marcia. However, Grimal 1961,68; and Ashby 1935,50 are of the opinion that the ramus Augustae must have been built between 11 and 4 Be. 7 Bruun 1997a, 150-151.

The aqueducts of Rome

11

The original aqua Appia had its source on a crossroad 780 pass us (ca. 1.2 Ian) to the left of the Via Praenestina, between the seventh and eighth milestone, from Rome (Aq. 5.4).8 The ramus Augustae had its intake on another crossroad of the Via Praenestina, at the sixth milestone, 980 pass us (ca. 1.5 km) to the left (Aq. 5.7), near the Via Collatina. Both sources must have been situated near to each other, but have never been found. The two supply channels were united Ad Spem Veterem, a spot that Frontinus called Gemelli for that reason (Aq. 5.6). The end of the supply line was situated at the Clivus Publicus near the Porta Trigemina, at a place named Salinae (Aq. 5.9). Distribution started therefore at the northwest side of the Aventine hill, close by the river Tiber. The total length of the original aqua Appia from caput to end was 11.190 passus (ca. 16.56 Ian), of which some 60 passus (ca. 0.09 km) were above ground on substructures and arches near the Porta Capena, between the Caelius and the lower Aventine (Aq. 5.5). The ramus Augustae ran completely underground (Aq. 5.8).9 No settling tank was incorporated in the aqueduct. Possibilities for distribution of the Appia's water were rather limited because of the low level at which the water line entered the city. The advantage of the depth of the caput - 50 feet (ca. 14.8 m) below the surface of the earth - and the low positions of the channels outside the city was that they were less vulnerable to injuries from outside (Aq. 65.7). In the city, on the other hand, there were leaks and illicit punctures diminishing the total amount of water (Aq.65.5-6). At the end of the first century AD, the water from the aqua Appia that had entered the city was divided, by means of twenty castella, among the regiones II (Caelimontium), VIII (Forum Romanum), IX (Circus Flaminius), XI (Circus Maximus), XII (Piscina Publica), XIII (Aventinus), and XIV (Transtiberim) (Aq. 79.2). It was therefore used in the regiones where the rivus came through (II, XII and XIII) and the low-lying districts near the river. It is astonishing that regio I is not included in this series, since only in this regio. and in regio XII, does the channel seem to have run on substructures and arches. lo Or maybe the boundaries of the fourteen Augustan regiones as indicated on our modem maps do not correspond to reality in the time Frontinus wrote these lines. 11 Water 1 passus = 5 Roman feet = 5 x 29.6 cm = 148 cm 1 Roman mile = 1000 pass us = 1.48 km. 9 Van Deman 1934, 385 mentioned some remains of the aqua Appia under the Aventine hill; nothing has been found of the ramus Augustae (Van Deman 1934,26). 10 Evans 1993a, 66 + n. 6. II Von Gerkan 1959, 393-430 disputed, unsuccessfully, the consensus on the boundaries of the fourteen Augustan regiones. The principal adjustment he promoted

8

Roman water supply

12

from the aqua Appia was conveyed to the other side of the Tiber by means of a bridge, probably the Pons Aemilius. It is quite likely that when this bridge for normal traffic was reconstructed in 12 BC, provisions were made, for the first time, to transport water from the Appia to Transtiberim. 12

1.1.2

Aqua Anio Vetus

13

Forty years after the construction of the aqua Appia, in 272 BC, one of the censors in office, M' Curius Dentatus, contracted out the building of a second aqueduct. It was to be financed with the booty captured from Pyrrhus (Aq. 6.1). After Curius' term in office, construction apparently dragged. In 270 BC, the senate decided to appoint Curius together with Fulvius Flaccus as duumviri aquae perducendae to complete the waterline (Aq. 6.2-3). Owing to the premature death of Curius, Flaccus finished the aqueduct alone and claimed the credit (Aq. 6.4). His name, however, was not attached to it. The waterline brought surface water, sometimes of poor quality, from the river Anio to the city, and was named aqua Anio. When, in the first century AD, a second aqueduct, which drew its water from the same river, was built, the name of the former was extended with the adjective vetus to differentiate this aqueduct from the latter (Aq. 13.5). Along with the aqua Appia, the Anio Vetus was repaired several times: by Q. Marcius Rex in 144 BC (Aq. 7.1), by Agrippa in 33 BC (Aq. 9.9), and by Augustus between 11 and 4 BC (Aq. 125; CIL 6.1244 = ILS 98). The remains, moreover, suggest that Agrippa and Augustus made major adjustments. They also bear traces of Flavian, Hadrianic, and third century repairs. 14 The length of the aqua Anio Vetus, from its caput near modern Vicovaro to its terminus inside in the Republican city wall close to the Porta Esquilina, totalled up to 43,000 pass us (approx. 63.64 km), of which only 221 passus (approx. 0.33 km) ran above ground (Aq. 6.7). The waterline was this long because, among other reasons, its route followed the slopes of the hills as much as was that Meta Sudans should no longer be considered as the spot where five regiones (I, II, III, IV, X) met. As a consequence, his regio I was situated completely outside the Republican city wall (Von Gerkan 1959,409 fig. 2; 418). 12 Taylor 1995, 78-80. 13 PA, 12-13; Van Deman 1934,29-66,369,385-390; Ashby 1935,54-87; Hainzmann 1975,83-90; Richardson 1992, 11; Evans 1993a, 75-82; LTUR I, 44-45; Aicher 1995, 35-36. 14 Van Deman 1934,62-65.

The aqueducts of Rome

13

possible and only by way of exception crossed a valley, to the ill effect that height was lost (Aq. 18.6)}5 The intake not only served the aqua Anio Vetus, but also an aqueduct for Tibur (Aq. 66.2).16 Frontinus described a supplement from the aqua Marcia into the aqua Anio (Aq. 67.3) that might be confirmed by archaeological evidence. 17 The Anio Vetus had its own settling tank, probably just before the fourth milestone on the Via Latina (Aq. 21.1).18 From there, the water line ran underground along Spes Vetus, then in a roundabout way in the direction of the Porta Viminalis in the Republican wall to its terminus inside that wall near the Porta Esquilina. From there, the water was spread over the city (Aq. 21.3).19 There must have been a shunt from the main line, near the second milestone on the Via Labicana, named Specus Octavianus, bringing some of the water to another place, near the gardens of Asinius and the Via Nova, from where it was distributed to a neighbouring region (Aq. 21.2).20 The name of this shunt, Specus Octavianus, strongly suggests a date shortly before 27 BC. Remains were found near the Amphitheatrum Castrense, under the Aurelianic wall and east of the Porta Metrovia, that is to say at the south-eastern side of the city,

15 Some stretches above ground: Van Deman 1934, 385 ff. no. 47: bridge, no.50: bridge (Augustan), no. 70: substructure and channel 100 m long (Augustan), no. 72: substructure with channel (Marcian?) 16 The exact location of the aqueduct for Tibur is much debated, but remains unknown. See Evans 1993b, especially pp. 450-452. Both Aq. 6.5 (Concipitur Anio Vetus supra Tibur vicesimo miliario extra portam ... RRa ... nam, ubi partem in Tiburtium usum) and Aq. 66.2 on the water quantity (Ad caput inveni quattuor milia trecentas nonaginta octo praeter eum modum qui in proprium ductum Tiburtium derivatur, ... ) talk about this line supplying Tibur. In order to locate the intake and the derivation of the branch for Tibur from the main aqueduct, discussion concentrated on the corrupted passage Aq. 6.5, in particular on the twenty miles above Tibur and the identification of the porta, but paid less attention to Aq. 66.2, which seems to imply that both aqueducts, the Anio Vetus as well as the Tibur line, started at the same caput, apart. 17 Van Deman 1934,387 no. 28; Grimal 1961,85 and Ashby 1935,65 suggest dating this supplement as Augustan. 18 According to Frontinus (Aq. 19.1) the aqua Anio Vetus was one aqueduct out of six with a piscina within the seventh milestone on the Via Latina. 19 See Bruun 1991, 119 for the suggestion that here free-flow channels were used for distribution. 20 Grimal 1984, 159 situated the gardens of Asinius at the place where, in the early third century, the Baths ofCaracalla were laid out. The Via Nova, as is to be seen on modern maps of Imperial Rome, was built at the same time as these baths. Maybe Frontinus meant another road, existing at the end of the first century. We may also be dealing with a later interpolation of the text; see also Evans 1993, 78-79.

Roman water supply

14

under and outside the later third-century city wall. Lanciani has identified these as fragments of the Specus Octavianus. Van Deman dated them Augustan. 21 Like the aqua Appia, the aqua Anio Vetus did not have enough height to supply the entire city with water (Aq. 18.2-3.6). At the end of the first century AD, the water from the aqua Anio Vetus was distributed via 35 castella in the regiones I (Porta Capena), III (Isis and Serapis), IV (Templum Pacis), V (Esquiliae), VI (Alta Semita), VII (Via Lata), VIII (Forum Romanum), IX (Circus Flaminius), XII (Piscina Publica), and XIV (Transtiberim) (Aq. 80.2). It is noteworthy is that regio II (Cae1imontium) is not mentioned on Frontinus' list. Hence it appears that the water from the aqua Anio Vetus was distributed, by means of the Specus Octavianus, to the southern regiones I and XII, from a place near the gardens of Asinius. 22 Water could have been distributed to the other regiones mentioned above from a place near the Porta Esquilina. The aqua Anio Vetus was extended from the Forum Holitorium in regio XI towards regio XIV (Transtiberim) either via the pons Agrippae or via the Tiber Island using the pons Fabricius and the pons Cestius. This extension was probably carried out by Agrippa. 23

1.1.3

Aqua Marcia 24

The censors of 179 BC, M. Aemilius Lepidus and M. Fulvius Nobilior, tried to build a third aqueduct serving Rome, an attempt that was blocked by M. Licinius Crassus, who did not allow the waterline to pass through his lands (Liv. 40.51.7). Yet thirty-five years later, according to Frontinus, the senate considered it wise, in view of the growth of the city, to repair the two existent aqueducts leaking from old age, and to reclaim the water illicitly diverted by private people. Q. Marcius Rex, praetor inter cives that year, was appointed to both tasks (Aq. 7.1.3), and accomplished them. He was also charged with the task of enlarging the water quantity, if possible, by bringing alias aquas into the city (Aq. 7.2). Whether the senators ordered him to supplement the existing Van Deman 1934,66 and 390 nos. 81-83; She did not mark off Agrippa's activities from those of Augustus on the basis ofremains (Van Deman 1934,60). 22 Evans 1993a, 78-79 discusses the problems. 23 Taylor 1995, 78-81. 24 PA, 24-27; Van Deman 1934, 67-146, 370-371, 390-402; Ashby 1935, 88-158; Nash 1961-1962 I, 48-51; Hainzmann 1975,91-106; Bieber 1976; Richardson 1992, 17-18; Evans 1993a, 83-93; LTUR 1,67-69; Aicherl995, 36-37; Astin 1961, Morgan 1978, Tortorici 1993, Volpe 1996. 21

The aqueducts of Rome

15

two aqueducts with new sources or to construct a new water line, Marcius succeeded in building a new aqueduct too (Aq. 7.3).25 Whereas censors had contracted out the earlier aqueducts, Marcius obtained HS 180 million this time, probably for his three assignments (Aq. 7.4).26 The relatively sudden population increase in the city, when in 146-145 BC three victorious armies had returned to Italy, and many veterans wanted to try their luck in Rome, may indeed have been the reason why the senators chose not to wait another two years when censorship would be filled again.27 Where the money came from, Frontinus does not say. It is obvious, however, that the victories over Carthage and in Greece in 146 BC, had enlarged the funds of the Roman Republic to such an extent that this large sum of money could be spent. Again the builder's term of office did not suffice to finish the job, so Marcius' praetorship was prorogued for a year. 28 From its caput, at a place to be reached when coming from Rome on the Via Valeria up to the thirty-sixth milestone, then going 3,000 passus (ca. 4.44 km) along a crossroad to the right, up to the city, the aqua Marcia had a length of 61,710.5 passus (ca. 91.33 km) of which 54,247.5 passus (ca. 80.28 km) were underground and 7,463 passus (ca. 11.05 km) above ground (Aq. 7.6.8). The sources have been found in an elevated valley of the river Anio, and the route of the water line is rather well known. 29 From the settling tank (piscina) at the city side of the seventh milestone on the Via Latina, the aqueduct continued above ground: 528 passus (ca 0.78 km) on 25 Evans 1993a, 84; Morgan 1978,47 suggested that the senatorial debate in 143 BC (Aq. 7.5) turned on the issue of the new aqueduct. 26 See Brunt 1971, 13 for a list of censors. 27 Evans 1993a, 84 n. 7; Morgan 1978, 29-33 and 54 argued convincingly that the senators, aware of the problems related to the sudden influx of Roman citizens they could not send away, and confronted with proposals for a redistribution of the ager publicus, decided in favour of improvement ofliving conditions in the city. 28 Plin. HN 36.121, telling that Q. Marcius Rex finished the aqueduct within his term, omitted to say that the term was prolonged. The debate in the senate about a branch to Capitol Hill was carried on in the years after 144 BC (see Astin 1961,540-548 for a discussion arisen from Aq. 7.4). In HN 31.41, contrary to his HN 36.121 and Frontinus' words, Pliny attributed the construction of the aqua Marcia to one of the Roman kings, Ancus Marcius, and held Q. Marcius Rex responsible for repairs only. Morgan 1978, 37 thought that Pliny, in attributing the aqueduct to Ancus Martius, "reflected a conceit originated by the Marcii themselves, to invest their aqueduct with an impressive pedigree". 29 The later aquae Claudia and Anio Novus, following approximately the same course, were not as long as the aqua Marcia, since curves in their upper courses were cut short (GrimaI1961,71).

16

Roman water supply

substructures and 6,472 passus (ca. 9.58 krn) on arches. 30 After this stretch the water line disappeared from sight again, it went underneath the Viminal Hill, only to re-emerge at the Porta Viminalis (Aq. 19.5-6). The exact location of the original main distribution point is not known, but it must have been near the Porta Viminalis. When entering the city, the most prized water of all had enough height to be distributed in all regiones (Aq. 18.3-4). The aqua Marcia was put under repair by Agrippa in 33 BC (Aq. 9.9), by Augustus (Aq. 125 and CIL 6.1244), and by Titus (CIL 6.1246).31 Moreover, archaeological remains also show Hadrianic, Severan and later improvements. 32 In order to supplement the aqua Marcia ifit ran dry, Augustus ordered water to be added from another spring, a little further on in the Anio valley than the first, by means of an underground channel into Marcia's original rivus (RGDA 20.2; Aq.12.1-3, 72.8). This extra supply channel was named Augusta after its builder. Under normal conditions, however, the aqua Marcia was not in need of such a supplement, and therefore, at some point in the first century AD, Marcia's surplus was conducted into the aqua Claudia (built in Claudius' reign, see below) (Aq. 14.3, 72.8). Somewhere between the sources and the piscina near the seventh milestone on the Via Latina, part of the water of the aqua Marcia was given to the Anio Vetus and the aqua Tepula (see below) (Aq. 67.3). Agrippa, constructing the aqua lulia in 33 BC and transforming the aqua Tepula, built the channels of both these water lines, from the sixth milestone on the Via Latina onwards, on top of the aqua Marcia (Aq. 19.3-4). In the second century AD, probably, reservoirs were built south of Porta Collina in the Republican city wall, to take in the water of these three aqueducts. 33 In Frontinus' time, three branches conveyed water to major distribution points: The first was a branch to the Capitol, the construction of which caused sensation for years. For political reasons, probably, religious objections were made to prevent Q. Marcius Rex from being honoured as the first who did bring water to the Capitol. In senatorial debates in 143 and 140 BC, objections

For the puzzling interpretation of these numbers, see Grimal 1961, 76-77. 31 Both CIL 6.1244 and 1246 are included in ILS 98. The inscriptions were attached on an arch of the aqua Marcia over the Via Tiburtina, that was incorporated in the Aurelian wall. However see Grimal 1961,77 who is of the opinion that the arches of the Marcia-Tepula-Iulia between the Porta Maggiore and the Porta Tiburtina were never incorparated in that wall; Nash 1961-1961 1,49 fig. 44. 32 Van Deman 1934,390-401. 33 Van Deman 1934,401 no. 177,403 no. 9, 404 no. 16; Ashby 1935, 151; Evans 1993a,86. 30

The aqueducts of Rome

17

were overruled at last (Aq. 7.5).34 Nothing has ever been found of this branch. Nevertheless, VanDeman is of the opinion that it is possible to infer from the position of Marcius' statue behind the temple of Iupiter Capitolinus, that the terminus of the aqua Marcia must have been there. 35 And Ashby supposes that there had been a siphon from the Quirinal to the Capitol Hill. 36 The second branch, the rivus Herculaneus, began before the aqueduct reached its main distribution point, behind the Horti Pallantiani on the Esquiline. From there it ran underground through the Caelius and ended above Porta Capena. For the Caelius itself this rivus was of no importance, since it was too low (Aq. 19.8-9). The third branch supplied, according to Frontinus, together with the aqua Iulia (see below), water to Caelius and Aventine. It went out of use after Nero had built the Arcus Neroniani as a branch from the aqua Claudia (see below), and utilised the water from that aqueduct for both hills, employing the distribution devices of the aqua Marcia (Aq. 76.5-7). In Frontinus' time, the branch from the aqua Marcia from Spes Vetus to the Aventine was open again (Aq. 87.3-4). At the end of the first century AD, water from the aqua Marcia was distributed in the regiones I (Porta Capena), III (Isis and Serapis), IV (Templum Pacis), V (Esquiliae), VI (Alta Semita), VII (Via Lata), VIII (Forum Romanum), IX (Circus Flaminius), X (Palatium) and XIV (Transtiberim), by means of 51 castella (Aq. 81.2). It is striking, that in this inventory, the regiones II (Caelimontium), XII (Piscina Publica), in which normally the lesser Aventine is located, and XIII (Aventinus) are missing, whereas they, especially, should have been supplied by the aqua Marcia. Since Van Deman noticed Trajanic repairs in the branch to the Aventine, Frontinus may have confused reality and intentions. 37 Besides, he may have been wrong in assuming that the second and the third branches ran separately.38 34 Astin 1961, 547-548; see Morgan 1978 for a rather extensive hypothesis of the problems in bringing water to the Capitol via the aqua Marcia.

35 Van Deman 1934, 139 established the position of the statue on CIL 16.5

= CIL 3.2.846, a diploma militaria found in Bavaria, Germany. 36 Ashby 1935, 152. Both Cicero (Rab. Post. 31) and Florus (II. 4), describing how Marius had had the water line to Capitol Hill cut off in 100 BC, used the word fistula, which is usually understood as lead pipe by modem authors. Ashby did not adduce these passages as evidence for his assertion. 37 Van Deman 1934,402 nos. 184c and 185; Ashby 1935, 156, however, wrote "Of Trajan's amplum opus nothing appears to be left." See Evans 1993a, 87-89 discussing both the rivus Herculaneus and the second branch to the southern parts of the city. 38 Volpe 1996, 75-80 counter to the consensus of earlier students, thought that Trajan extended the rivus Herculaneus from Porta Capena to the Aventine.

Roman water supply

18

Maybe there was another branch from the Marcia, the evidence for which dates from Hadrian's reign. Lanciani has already identified some very big fistulae as elements of a water main from the Porta Viminalis to the Forum Traiani. 39 Rather recently, it has once more been suggested that this main was the branch constructed by Q. Marcus Rex that supplied the Capitol. 40 If so, the lead pipes must have replaced earlier ones. 41 Archaeological evidence, dated as Caracallan, indicates a branch from a reservoir near the third milestone on the Via Latina to a reservoir behind the Baths of Caracalla. 42 As Caracalla made clear in an inscription (CIL 6.1245, to be seen on the Porta Tiburtina) that he had restored the aqua Marcia and added a new source, it is plausible that the aqua Marcia supplied his baths. The aqua Marcia likewise supplied the later Baths of Diocletian, via a short stretch from the Porta Viminalis to a reservoir at the south east side of these baths. 1.1.4

Aqua Tepula 43

In 125 BC, the censors Cn. Servilius Caepio and L. Cassius Longinus built the aqua Tepula, bringing water from Lucullus' lands at Tusculum to Rome and the Capitol (Aq. 8.1-3). Neither of them attached his name to the aqueduct, possibly because they did not take any pride in its construction, as the water it delivered was tepid and therefore unappreciated. The water line started at a distance of 2,000 pass us (ca. 2.96 km) on a crossroad to the right - seen from Lanciani 1975,432-433; His silloge no. 59 = CIL 15.7309~, two items found near the center of the exedra of the Baths of Diocletian, bearing a stamp containing the names of Hadrian, procurator Petronius Sura and a plumber, the slave Martialis, and CIL 15.7309 u (= Lanciani's silloge no. 60), one item found at the west side of the Quirinal near the temple of Serapis, bearing a stamp containing the names of the same emperor and procurator, and a different plumber, Claudius Felix. Van Deman 1934, 402 nos. 186 and 187 mentioned an underground channel and a Hadrianic lead pipe at both find-spots. 40 Tortorici 1993, 19-21 and fig. 22; Ashby 1935, 152 knew of such an hypothesis, in his time based on an underground channel found in Piazza Tennini which is now called Piazza della Repubblica, in Antiquity the exedra of the Thennae Diocletianae, and a "small portion of a conduit found in front of Palazzo Rospigliosi" (FUR fol. 16). This portion of a conduit was probably CIL 15.7309 u. In his opinion, both attributions to the Marcia's branch to the Capitol were very doubtful. 41 Volpe, accepting Tortorici's hypothesis: Volpe 1996,80-81 and fig. 80. 42 Van Deman 1934,402 nos. 188-194. 43 PA, 27-28; Van Deman 1934,147-156,372,403; Ashby 1935, 159-160; Hainzmann 1975,107-108; Richardson 1992, 18; Evans 1993a, 95-98; LTUR I, 70; Aicher 1995, 38. 39

The aqueducts ofRome

19

Rome - at the tenth milestone on the Via Latina. Its sources were identified as close by Tusculum. Van Deman's measurement showed a water temperature of 16 to 17° C there, at an air temperature of 10° C. There are no known remains of this aqueduct as a separate construction. 44 In 33 BC Agrippa took measures to end the separate course of the tepid water: it was mixed with the fresh supply of a new aqueduct, the aqua Julia, drawing its water from sources nearby those of the Tepula (Aq. 9.1). Frontinus considered the aqua Tepula a waterline without separate sources, entirely diverted from the aqua lulia. Yet the name aqua Tepula had not vanished (Aq. 9.2). The caput of the Tepula was, after Agrippa's efforts, the piscina of the aqua lulia at the sixth milestone on the Via Latina (Aq. 68.2-3). From there the Tepula had its own channel, between those of the aqua Marcia and the aqua lulia. It received water from the aqua Marcia just beyond the piscina, and was, at some point in the first century AD, supplemented with water from the aqua Anio Novus at a place near the gardens of Epaphroditus (Aq. 68.4). As the channel of the Tepula ran, just like the channel of the aqua lulia, on top of the substructures and arches of the aqua Marcia, the route of the latter aqueduct was followed up to Porta Viminalis (Aq. 19.3-5), and, probably since the second century, beyond to Porta Collina (see section 1.1.3). Augustus repaired the aqua Tepula between 11 and 4 Be, along with the Marcia (Aq. 125, CIL 6.1244).45 Some later repairs have been attested to by means of archaeological evidence. 46 As the channel of the aqua Tepula was built on top of the aqua Marcia, this line too had sufficient height to distribute water all over the city. Yet, according to Frontinus, water from the Tepula was only divided among the regiones IV (Templum Pacis), V (Esquilliae), VI (Alta Semita), and VII (Via Lata), which were all at the north and east sides of the city, by means of 14 castella (Aq. 82.2). 1.1.5

Aqua lulia 47

44 Van Deman 1934, 149; Evans 1993a, 96 suggested that from the beginning in 125 BC, the Tepu1a ran on top of the Marcia. 45 It is evident that Plin. HN 36.121, mentioning a repair by Marcius in 144 BC, cannot be correct. How to repair a structure 19 years before its construction? 46 Van Deman 1934,403. 47 PA, 23-24; Van Deman 1934, 157-166,373,403-404; Ashby 1935, 161-166; Nash 1961-1962 I, 47; Hainzmann 1975, 109-113; Richardson 1992, 17; Evans 1993 a, 99103; LTUR I, 66-67; Aicher 1995, 38-39.

20

Roman water supply

Agrippa was engaged in the water supply of the city as aedilis curulis in 33 BC, four years after he had held the office of consul. 48 Besides repairing the existent aqueducts, the aquae Appia, Anio, and Marcia, he rebuilt the aqua Tepula and constructed a new one, the aqua lulia. 49 For that purpose he made available for Rome sources in the surroundings of Tusculum, some 3.4 Ion as the crow flies, from those of the Tepula. 50 How he financed these activities is not reported. It is not unlikely, however, that he paid for them out of his own fortune. 51 The aqua Tepula was intercepted, and its water mixed with that of the new aqua lulia. As a single channel the water of both aqueducts arrived at the piscina near the sixth milestone on the Via Latina. Here the water was separated: a minor part continued on as aqua Tepula, while the remainder continued as aqua lulia, the highest of three channels on the substructures and arches originally built for the aqua Marcia. The aqueduct followed its course to Porta Viminalis (Aq. 19.3-5, 69.2), and, probably from the second century onwards, beyond to Porta Collina (see section 1.1.3). Like the other aqueducts, the lulia was under repair between 11 and 4 BC (Aq. 125; CIL 6.1244). Archaeological evidence suggests Severan and late repairs. 52 The aqua lulia has a length of 15,426.5 passus (ca. 22.83 Ion), of which 7,000 passus (ca. 10.39 Ion) are above ground in common with the aquae Marcia and Tepula (Aq. 9.3).53 Frontinus brought to an end a temporary supplement into the lulia, for Rome neither necessary nor effective, from the Cabra. This source close by those of

Agrippa aedilis curu/is: CIL 6.31270 = ILS 128; aedil after the office of consul: Aq. 9.1, Plin. HN36.121, Dio Casso 49.43.1-4. 49 Plin. HN 36.121 expressing his admiration for Agrippa' s activities as aedil in 33 BC, does not mention this aqueduct, but rather the aqua Virgo. According to Dio Casso 48.32.3, Agrippa,praetor urbanus that year, had the aqua lulia introduced into the city in 40 Be. In view of the political instability and the premature end of his term (MRR II 380), Frontinus'dating is more plausible. 50 Grimal 1961, 72. 51 Frank 1959, 370 was of the opinion that Agrippa enlarged the water supply of the city at his own expense, but it is not clear on which evidence his opinion was based. Dio Casso 49.43.1-4, listing Agrippa's activities as aedilis in 33 BC, in some cases mentioned his financial efforts, for example in 49.43.1 writing about Agrippa's repair of public buildings and roads, and cleaning the cloacae, without breaking into public funds. He passed over the building of this aqueduct. 52 Van Deman 1934,403-404. 53 The common course is confirmed by Augustan cippi (CIL 6.31559 = 6.1248 and CIL 6.31561 = 6.1249) and remains of that can be seen at Porta Tiburtina, Porta Maggiore and Romavecchia (AicherI995, 56, 58, 98-102). 48

The aqueducts of Rome

21

the Iulia supplied the landowners of Tusculum, irrigating their fields. The supplement had been made by aquarii, who took care that it never reached the city. When the emperor ordered Frontinus to end this abuse, he returned the water to the people of Tusculum (Aq. 9.5_7).54 At some time in the first century AD, the Iulia accepted a supplement from the aqua Claudia (Aq. 69.3) behind the gardens of Pallas, close by the city. Like the aquae Marcia and Tepula, the Iulia had sufficient height to be distributed all over the city (Aq. 18.3-4). A branch starting at Spes Vetus supplied the Caelius (Aq. 19.7). Whether this line has ever existed, separate or on top of the Marcia is doubtful, since no traces of this branch have been found. Equally problematic is Frontinus' statement that the Iulia as well as the Marcia were neglected after Nero had built the Arcus Neroniani as a branch of the aqua Claudia (Aq.76.47).55 A branch running from the channel of the Iulia somewhere between Porta Maggiore and Porta Tiburtina to a nymphaeum Alexandri also called Trofei di Mario at Piazza Vittorio Emanuele was traditionally supposed to have been built by Severus Alexander in the third century AD. Measurements from the last decade seem to have proven that the aqua Iulia cannot have supplied this nymphaeum. 56 By Frontinus' time, the water from the aqua Iulia was distributed by means of 17 castella in the regiones II (Caelimontium), III (Isis and Serapis), V (Esquiliae), VI (Alta Semita), VIII (Forum Romanum), X (Palatium), XII (Piscina Publica) (Aq. 83.2). 1.1.6 Aqua Virgo

57

After his third consulship, Agrippa once again constructed a new aqueduct (Aq. 10.1), at his own expense (Dio Casso 54.11.7). The first day on which the aqueduct flowed into the city was June 9, 19 BC (Aq. 10.2).58 Agrippa's name for it, aqua Augusta, was never accepted; a fancy name became the vogue. 59

54 The attribution of CIL 6.1261, showing water division among landowners at fixed hours, to the Cabra is doubtful. See Grimal 1961, 72 n.26. 55 See section 1.1.3 (aqua Marcia); Evans 1993a, 100-10 1. 56 LTUR 1,67. 57 PA, 28-29; Van Deman 1934, 167-178,374-375,404-405; Ashby 1935, 167-182; Nash 1961-1962 I, 55-56; Hainzmann 1975, 114-118; LLoyd 1979; Richardson 1992, 19; Evans 1993a, 105-109; LTUR 1,72-73; Aicher 1995, 39-41. 58 Plin. NH 36.121 dated the aqua Virgo during Agrippa's term as aedil, that is to say in 33 Be. 59 Aqua Augusta: Dio Casso 54.11.7; Aq. 10.3-4 and Plin. HN 31.42 each explained the name by which it was generally known.

22

Roman water supply

The caput was situated in the marshland near the eighth milestone on the Via Collatina, not far from the sources of the aqua Appia. The enclosure of the source was lined with impenetrable opus signinum in order to screen the spring water from that of the marsh (Aq. 10.5).60 An unspecified number of extra sources were added to the main channel before the seventh milestone (Aq. 10.6, 70.2-3). Like the aqua Appia, the Virgo had, by the time of Frontinus, no piscina to settle impurities before entering the city (Aq. 22.1). That device was built during Hadrian's reign.61 The route of the aqua Virgo had a length of 14,105 passus (ca. 20.88 km), of which 12,865 passus (ca.19.04 km) ran underground, 540 passus (ca. 0,80 km) on substructures at several places, and the remaining 700 passus (ca. 1.04 km) on arches (Aq. 10.7). These arches started under the gardens of Lucullus and ended in the Campus Martius near the front of the Saepta (Aq. 22.2).62 It seems plausible that Frontinus in his treatise described the arches of the aqueduct, which Claudius had rebuilt after Gaius had removed the original. Their route seems not to have been altered. 63 Repairs by Augustus are neither likely nor proven. However, the aqueduct has been under repair time and again as it still serves the city of Rome. Apart from Claudius, cippi point at interference from Tiberius (CIL 6.31565 = 6.1253 and 1254). Another inscription shows that Constantine II was concerned with this aqueduct in the fourth century (CIL 6.31564). The aqua Virgo, like the Appia, had insufficient height to be distributed all over the city, since both their capites were too low (Aq. 18.7). Water from the Virgo was distributed by means of 18 castella in the low-lying regiones VII (Via Lata), IX (Circus Flaminius), both at the north side of the city. It was

60

Grimal 1961, 73 n. 30 and 32.

61 Van Deman 1934,405 no. 6; Aicher 1995,40. The gardens of Lucullus were situated near modern villa Medici and the Spanish steps. 63 CIL 6.1252 = ILS 205: TI CLA VDIVS DRVSI CAESAR AVGVSTVS GERMANICVS PONTIFEX MAXIM TRIB POTEST V IMP XI P P COS DESIG nn ARCVS DVCTVS AQV AE VIRGINIS DISTVRBATOS PER C CAESAREM A FVNDAMENTIS NOVOS FECIT AC RESTITVIT; Nash 1961-1962 I, 56 fig. 52. Had Caligula, assuming that the new aqueduct he had begun near Tibur would take over the Virgo's supply, pulled down the arches to give way to the amphitheater he planned to build beside the Saepta (Suet. Calig. 21)? Van Deman 1934, 404-405 dated the greater part of the remains of the Virgo as Claudian. 62

The aqueducts ofRome

23

conveyed to regio XIV (Transtiberim) (Aq. 84.2), probably by means of the Pons Agrippae. 64

1.1.7 Aqua Alsietina 6S Augustus had an aqueduct constructed simultaneously with his naumachia (open to the public in 2 BC), which was built on the right-hand side of the Tiber. It was named aqua Augusta after its builder, but became known as aqua Alsietina. Its water had poor quality. The sole rational explanation for the construction of this water line that Frontinus was capable of thinking up, was that Augustus needed a separate aqueduct in order not to use drinking water for the Naumachia Augusti (Aq. 11.1,22.4). Through the specus of the aqua Alsietina flowed surface water from the Lacus Alsietinus (modem Lago di Martignano) (Aq.l1.3), supplemented by surface water from the Lacus Sabatinus (modem Lago di Bracciano) (Aq. 71.1), which were both situated northwest of the city. The length of the aqueduct from its caput at Lacus Alsietinus to its terminus near the Naumachia Augusti in Transtiberim totalled up to 22,172 passus (ca. 32.81 kIn), of which 358 passus (ca. 0.53 kIn) ran on arches (Aq.l1.3). Like the aqua Appia and the aqua Virgo up to Hadrian's reign, the Alsietina had no settling tank (Aq. 22.1). According to Frontinus this aqueduct was lowest of all. 66 Under normal conditions, and when there was no naumachia held, the total amount of its water was utilised outside the city (Aq. 85.2).67 But, although the water was pronounced unfit for human consumption, in a pinch it was conveyed to the public fountains in Transtiberim. This occurred all the time when the bridges over which water from the other side of the river was

Lloyd 1979,200-201; Evans 1993a, 107; Taylor 1995, 78-83. PA, 20-21; Van Deman 1934, 179-186,376-377,405; Ashby 1935, 183-189; Nash 1961-1962 I, 35-36; Hainzmann 1975, 119-120; Richardson 1992, 15; Evans 1993a, 111-113; LTUR 1,61; Aicher 1995,41; Taylor 1997. 66 However see PA, 20; Richardson 1992, 15; Taylor 1997, 484-485 postulating a principal castel/urn in the vicinity of the city before the remains found high on the laniculum. 67 Against Mommsen in CIL, Ashby 1935, 183-184 and Grimal 1961, 73 n. 33 thought that the forma Mentis (CIL 6.31566 = 11.3772a) showed irrigation to landed estates, rather than an influx into the aqua Alsietina. Taylor 1997, 485 thought that Alsietina' s delivery extra urbem was effected to a large extent not before its water entered the regionary city, but rather after it left, beyond the Naumachia Augusti.

64

6S

24

Roman water supply

conveyed were under repair, and the water supply to this region came to a standstill. The vicissitudes of the aqua Alsietina after the end of the first century AD are within the realm of speculation, since hardly any traces of this aqueduct have been identified for sure. 68 It has been thought that its water served to operate the flourmills on the laniculum. 69 Recent excavations, however, seem to have proven that the aqua Traiana supplied the mills.70

1.1.8

Aqua Claudia 71

Early in his reign, emperor Caligula noticed that the existent seven aqueducts scarcely sufficed to meet the requirements of public use and private pleasure, and began the building of two new aqueducts (Aq. l3.1, Suet. Calig. 21). He did not live long enough to see their completion. Their inauguration took place fourteen years later in AD 52 under Claudius, who made it known among the people passing through the monumental arches over the viae Praenestina and Labicana, supporting the channels of both aqueducts, that he had had the water lines built at his own expense (CIL 6.1256). The aqua Claudia drew its water from two copious springs, the Caeruleus and the Curtius. Its caput was situated 300 pass us to the left on a crossroad of the Via Sublacensis at the thirty-eighth milestone (CIL 6.1256, Aq. l3.3, 14.1). The aqueduct had a length of 46,406 passus (ca. 68.68 km), of which 36,230 passus (ca. 53.62 km) ran underground, and 10,176 (ca. 15.06 km) passus above ground. At the upper course the specus ran on arches at several places, totaling up to 3,076 pass us (ca. 4.55 km), and near the city beyond the seventh milestone on substructures 609 passus (ca. 0.90 km) and on arches 6,491 pass us (ca. 9,61 km) (Aq. 14.4). Although the sources of the Claudia were situated nearby those of the Marcia, its channel was some 22.65 km shorter Van Deman 1934,405. Wikander 1979, 24-26 supposed that the very water of the Alsietina supplied the grain mills on the laniculum. This supposition has been accepted by Evans 1993a, 112. Taylor 1995, 98 n. 74 thought it evident that both the Alsietina and the Traiana served the flour mills, while Taylor 1997,486 gave preference to the Traiana; Taylor 1995,97 n. 73 suggested that Alsietina's water was used by Domitian and Trajan for their naumachiae. 70 Wilson 1998a, 2. 71 PA, 22-23; Van Deman 1934, 187-270; Ashby 1935, 190-251; Nash 1961-1962 I, 37-46; Hainzmann 1975, 121-128; Richardson 1992, 16-17; Evans 1993 a, 115-128; LTUR 1,63-65; Aicher 1995,42-43.

68

69

The aqueducts of Rome

25

because of the more ample use of bridges in the upper course. Perhaps a network of channels and valves from various springs to Claudia's and Marcia's channels existed, since water from another source, the Albudinus supplying an aqua Augusta, was transmitted sometimes into the Claudia, and sometimes into the Marcia (Aq. 14.2-3, 72.8).72 The Claudia had its piscina inside the seventh milestone on the Via Latina, as had the Anio Vetus (section 1.1.9) (Aq. 19.1). Both channels met there and ran together, the Anio Novus on top, on arches to their common terminus (Aq. 72.6, 86.1) behind the gardens of Pallas. Their impressive remains still stretch into the countryside southeast of the city. As the terminus had enough height, the water of both aqueducts could be distributed all over the city (Aq. 86.3). This was done indeed, by means of fistulae (Aq. 20.2), making use of 92 castella. Vespasian (CIL 6.1257) and Titus (CIL 6.1258) executed repairs to the main aqueduct at their own expense. The remnants show mainly Hadrianic, Severan and later influences. 73 During Nero's reign, a branch from the Claudia was built. That branch, the socalled Arcus Neroniani (Aq. 20.3, 87.3) or Arcus Caelimontani (CIL 6.1259), began shortly before the main channel arrived at the terminus and ended behind the temple of Claudius. It served the Caelius, Palatine, Aventine and regio Transtiberim (Aq. 20.5).74 Whether the Arcus Neroniani was originally built by Nero for the purpose of supplying the Domus Aurea, or the Palatine and the centre of Rome, or was planned by Claudius as an integral part of the aqua Claudia right from the beginning, is hard to decide on the basis of Frontinus' evidence alone. 75 The Severi took care of the ageing branch and restored it at their own expense (CIL 6.1259).

1.1.9 Aqua Anio Novus 76

72 Grima11961, 74 n.38; See section 1.1.3. 73 Van Deman 1934,405-416. 74 Although no remains are left over, Taylor 1995, 78 thought it possible that Transtiberim was served via the bridges of the Tiber Island, and attributed the extension to Nero. Evans 1993a, 121-122 decided for the Pons Aemilius. 75 For these hypotheses and relevant literature see Evans 1993a, 118-120. 76 PA, 11-12; Van Deman 1934, 271-330, 380, 417-427; Ashby 1935, 252-298; Hainzmann 1975, 129-134; Richardson 1992, 11; Evans 1993a, 115-128; LTUR I, 4244; Aicher 1995,43-44.

26

Roman water supply

The story of the construction of the Anio Novus resembled that of the Claudia so much that Frontinus treated them together. Built by Claudius, the Anio Novus drew surface water from the river Anio at the forty-second milestone on the Via Sublacensis (Aq. 15.1).77 A little further on, the surface water was combined with water from a spring at the thirty-eighth milestone on the same way, by means of a Rivus Herculaneus (Aq. 15.4). In order to prevent confusion with the earlier aqueduct that drew its water from the same river, the former got the adjective Vetus, as the latter was called Anio Novus. By the time of Frontinus, the aqueduct had a length of 58,700 passus (ca. 86.87 km), of which 49,300 pass us (ca. 72.96 km) ran underground and 9,400 passus (ca. 13.91 km) above ground. Most of the substructures and arches were located near the city beyond the seventh milestone, where the Anio Novus ran atop the aqua Claudia (see section 1.1.8). In the upper course, 2,300 passus (ca. 34.04 km) spread over several parts of the channel, ran on arches (Aq. 15.6). Complaining about the behaviour of the personnel of the cura aquarum, Frontinus made a passing reference to the use of water from the aqua Anio Novus enlarging the quantity delivered by other aqueducts (Aq. 91,3), and archaeological evidence indeed argues for supplements. VanDeman recorded original diversions from the main channel of the Anio Novus into the lower aquae Marcia, Claudia and Anio Vetus, and Hadrianic diversions into the Marcia and the Claudia. 78 As the aqueduct originally conveyed water from a river that ran through arable land and had loose banks, its water was always muddy and turbid. A settling tank installed beyond the captation did suffice in fine weather but fell short after showers (Aq. 15.2-3). As a consequence, the water in the other aqueducts was polluted. Trajan decided to reconstruct the intake at a different place (Aq. 93.3-4). The remains show Hadrianic, Severan and later adjustments and repairs, which are partially corroborated by a few inscriptions. 79 As the aqua Anio Novus was highest of all, its water could be and was indeed distributed over the entire city (Aq. 86.3), making use of the same fistulae and 92 castella as did the aqua Claudia (Aq. 20.2).

77 Plin. HN 36.122, also taking together the aquae Claudia and Anio Novus, thought that both aqueducts had their intake at the fortieth milestone of an unnamed way. 78 Original: Van Deman 1934,422 no. 87 into the aqua Marcia before Tivoli, and p. 423 no. 98 into all three of them beyond Tivoli. Hadrianic: p. 423 nos. 99 and 100,just beyond no. 98. Mari in LTUR I, 43 mentioned some more in the upper course. 79 Van Deman 1934,417-427; CIL 6.31945 = 3865; CIL 9.4051 = ILS 795; see Bruun 1997a, 145 +n. 83.

The aqueducts of Rome

27

1.1.10 Aqua Traiana 80 Since the aqua Traiana was built after Frontinus had written his treatise, the presentation of this aqueduct must be done without him. And because other contemporary authors likewise have failed to mention this waterline, we have to rely on the scanty epigraphic, numismatic, and archaeological evidence. 81 Why Trajan had this aqueduct built at his own expense (CIL 6.1260), we do not know for sure. As it ran on, and conducted water to, the right Tiber bank, one might suppose a need for water in that part of the city, but the water supply of the Baths of Trajan at the other side of the river might have formed an incentive as well, as both aqueduct and baths were dedicated shortly after each other in AD 109. That these baths were supplied by an aqua Traiana is confirmed by some huge lead pipes found in 1935 near the Baths of Trajan, on which several stamps had been applied during the casting process, among which a stamp reading THERM TRAIAN, and on which the letters AQTR had been scratched afterwards. 82 And that this aqua Traiana was indeed a branch of the aqua Traiana mentioned in CIL 6.1260, found some 10 miles north west of Rome near the road to Bracciano, is hard to deny.83 Archaeological evidence permits us to roughly reconstruct the course of the aqueduct. Water from springs was gathered northwest of Rome, at the west side of the Lacus Sabatinus (modem Lago di Bracciano). From there, the channel passed north and east of the Lacus Sabatinus, and ran to its terminus, which seems to have been situated on the Ianiculum Hill. The water of the aqua Traiana was distributed throughout the entire city.84 The plausibility of that distribution was corroborated by an interpretation of piers of aqueducts and river crossings as

80 PA, 28; Van Deman 1934,331-340,427-428; Ashby \935,299-307; Bloch 1944, 347-34; Nash 1961-1962 I, 52-54; Hainzmann 1975, 138-140; Richardson 1992, 1819; Evans 1993a, 129-132; LTUR I, 70-72; Aicher 1995,44. 81 CIL 6.1260 = 31567 = 11.3793; BCAR 1938,244-245; Inscr. Ital. XIII, I, 5 no. 22; RIC II, Trajan 463-464,607-609; Van Deman 1934,427-428. 82 BCAR 1938,245 = AE 1940,40. See Hansen 1990, 111-124; Nash 1961-1962 I, 53 fig. 49. 83 Bloch 1944,337; Bruun 1991, 135-136 + n. 78; RIC II, 240 is of the opinion that the wording aqua Traiana on aes coins nos. 463 and 607-609 referred to a branch of the aqua Anio Novus. As no references to literature are mentioned, the origin of this assertion cannot be checked. Nor do I understand why no. 464 is omitted. 84 InseT. Ital. XIII, I, 5 no. 22.

28

Roman water supply

shown on maps from the sixteenth century onwards, partially reproduced in Lanciani's FUR. 85 From the end of the second century onwards, it was used to operate the grain mills of the Ianiculum. 86

1.1.11 Aqua Alexandrina 87 The last independent imperial aqueduct was constructed by Alexander Severus and was named aqua Alexandri(a)na. Its water was especially meant to supply the baths Severus Alexander built, substituting for the Thermae Neroniani on the Campus Martius (S.H.A. Alex. Sev. 25.3). Fabretti studied the course of this aqueduct, and sketched its remains. 88 It started east of Rome, south of the Via Praenestina at the foot of the Alban hills. VanDeman saw some groups of springs in marshy grounds. The intake is now lost, but some traces of a piscina limaria nearby did survive. Remains allow us to follow the course of the aqueduct until it arrived underground near Porta Maggiore. There are no traces left beyond that point, neither of its course nor of its distribution. Repairs were executed afterwards. Summarizing: The eleven aqueducts, which were built between 312 BC and the reign of Severus Alexander in the first half of the third century AD, were major enterprises undertaken by people at the top of Roman society. The building of a new aqueduct was often accompanied by adjustments and repairs to older ones. In this way, the system was scrutinised at intervals. Until Agrippa's intervention, funds for building and upkeep were made available by senate decision. Later on, emperors performed that duty. Credit for a new water supply line was only taken if its water was up to standard and appreciated by its consumers. So neither the Republican aquae Anio Vetus and Tepula, nor the imperial aquae Alsietina and Anio Novus were named after their builders. Agrippa's efforts in between did not result in an aqueduct bearing his name

85 Taylor 1995, 91-98; Maps: Buffalino 1551, Nolli 1748 fol. 13, Lanciani FUR fol. 34. 86 Van Buren & Stevens 1917,59-61; Bell 1993; Wilson 1998a, 2-3. 87 PA, 20; Van Deman 1934,341-360; Ashby 1935,308-315; Hainzmann 1975,141142; Richardson 1992, 15; Evans 1993a, 132-133; LTUR 1,60-61; Aicher 1995,45. 88 Fabretti 1680; his map between pp. 4-5 was prized by Ashby 1935, 308 as very accurate.

The aqueducts of Rome

29

either. On the contrary, the very name of the aqua Iulia shows his secondary position, and the fancy name of the aqua Virgo his loyalty. Over time, as belligerent threats from the outside diminished, it seemed safe to build stretches above ground. As engineering improved, short cuts through valleys, if possible, were preferred to detours making use of side-hill channels. Therefore, underground stretches decreased proportionally. The aqua Claudia, for example, was over twenty kilometres shorter than the aqua Marcia, although its springs were slightly farther away from Rome, and both aqueducts followed roughly the same route. In the course of time, the waterlines that began east of Rome became ever more interconnected and developed into a coherent system. The same applies to the mains inside the city. Already in 33 BC, Agrippa took care that the water of the aquae Marcia, Tepula and Iulia had enough height to be distributed all over the city, although this seems not to have been carried out, since the regiones XI and XIII are missing in Frontinus' listing of these aqueducts' distribution. Anyhow, water from the two great first century AD aqueducts was led into all the city's regiones to the effect that, at the end of the first century AD, at least two aqueducts could supply each regio. And if we do believe Frontinus, even the majority of the public fountains were connected to more than one aqueduct (Aq. 87.4-5). The advantages were clear: if necessary, shortage in one channel could be met by supplements from another, and closing down a water main for maintenance was only a nuisance for a confined area.

The aqueducts of Rome

1.2

30

TECHNICAL ASPECTS: the city's water supply system at work

Large-scale Roman waterworks studies have been so amply made as to allow for some general remarks about the aqueducts serving the city of Rome. The same does not apply to the distribution network inside the cities. Both the absence of results from systematic archaeological research up to now, and of sufficient chance archaeological data should warn us against jumping to conclusions in that particular field. 89 Consequently, what is written on that subject here and elsewhere cannot but be tentative. This constraint, however, should not result in totally giving up the subject. Being mindful of the defective archaeological evidence, in the following sections an idea will be given of how, in a technical sense, the water supply system of the city of Rome might have worked during Republican times and in the first centuries of our era.

1.2.1

From source to city: large-scale aqueducts90

Eight out of the eleven aqueducts serving the city drew their subsoil water at springs welling up from the hills east and northwest of Rome. Three others utilised surface water from river Anio that passed Tibur and flowed into the Tiber north of Rome, or from Lacus Alsietinus (modem Lago di Martignano) in the Northwest. The water was conveyed from the intake spot, the caput, by means of channels, rivi, into the city. In modem literature, following Vitro De arch. 8.6.1 and 3, the word rivus often denotes a channel in general, whereas specus specifies an underground channe1. 91 At several locations, a rivus ran on substructures, bridges, or arches, and some rivi, for example stretches of the rivi of the aquae Claudia and Anio Novus, were built on top of others. Characteristic of the aqueducts leading to Rome was that their rivi were mainly free-flow gravity The exception being G.C.M. Jansen's forthcoming dissertation on the water supply systems of Pompeii and Herculaneum. Evans' book (Evans 1993a) on the water distribution of ancient Rome is entirely based on the written evidence of Frontinus. Pace 1998, engaged in the water supply system of Rome in a technical sense, is based on written sources (especially Frontinus and Plin. N.H. 31) and some Pompeian data. 90 See appendix 11.2. 91 Vitro De arch. 8.6.1: Ductus autem aquae generibus tribus: rivis per canales structiles, aut fistulis plumbeis, seu tubulis fictilibus. ( ... ) Vitro De arch. 8.6.3: Sin autem medii montes erunt inter moenia et caput fontis, sic erit faciendum, uti specus fodiantur sub terra librenturque ad fastigium, quod supra scriptum est. ( ... ) Ashby 1935 did not comply with this difference.

89

Technical aspects: the city's water supply at work

31

channels, sloping slightly.92 Inverted siphons, in which water was transported under pressure through a valley by means of closed conduits, as well as water lifting devices, were probably little used. 93 The channels were rectangular at their lower sides, roofed over, but not filled with water up to the top. Often calcareous deposits (sinter) indicate the water levels reached. 94 Near the city, the majority of the waterlines opened out on settling tanks, piscinae, in which the water could become calm and deposits settle. 95 Then the water ran along towards the city, occasionally splitting off into branches, and reached the terminal, from which distribution took place. As it was of utmost importance for distribution that the water arrived in the city at a high level (Aq. 18.3), the aqueducts coming from the (south)east ran via an elevated terrain at or near modem Porta Maggiore.

Blackman 1978, 60-61 + n. 26 offers a good discussion on the bed slopes of water lines. Both Vitruvius 8.6.1 and Plin. HN 31.57 seem to have recommended a bed slope not less than one sicilicus per hundred feet, that is about 0.02 %0. Blackman's histograms (Blackman 1978, 62-63) show that the slope in sections of the four great aqueducts of Rome could vary by factors of 100, but also that the greater part of sections show values of slope between 1 and 3 %0. 93 Siphons: Vitro De arch. 8.6.5; Pace 1998, 22-23; Hodge 1989, 133; Van Deman 1934, 33 mentioned an inverted siphon in the aqua Anio Vetus, near Ponte Lupo, probably Augustan. Smith 1976, 68 is of the opinion that the Romans had their choice of siphon or rivus on substructures or arches determined by the depth of the valley to be crossed. The four aqueducts to Lugdunum (Lyons, France) all had one or more lead siphons (Burdy 1988, 193). Water lifting devices: Oleson 1984,259-261 listed for Rome, all in all, two imperial force pumps, which now both seem to have disappeared; his pp. 323-324 deal with the practical application of these devices as bilge pump, well pump, basement pump, mining apparatus, fire extinguisher, ceiling washer, reservoir pump for water-jets and scientific demonstration apparatus. As regards the well pumps, literary evidence suggests their serving irrigation on a small scale, whereas the archaeological evidence points at their use in the household. 94 Blackman 1978, 56; Hodge 1989, 131. 95 According to Frontinus all aqueducts except the aquae Appia, Virgo and Alsietina had settling tanks. As his treatise dates of the years before the aquae Traiana and Alexandrina were built, and archaeological data are missing, their occurrence in these water lines is uncertain. 92

32

1.2.2

Roman water supply

From large-scale aqueduct to distribution: the castellurn and beyond

To facilitate water distribution, rivi or specus somehow had to give way to smaller apparatus. The transfer of water from built channels into finer conduits took place in buildings often called castella. As Vitruvius put it: "When they come to the city walls, a reservoir is to be made. To this a triple receptacle is to be joined to receive the water; and three pipes of equal size are to be put in the reservoir, leading to the adjoining receptacles, so that when there is an overflow from the two outer receptacles, it may deliver into the middle receptacle. From the middle receptacle pipes will be taken to all pools and fountains; from the second receptacle to the baths, in order to bring in public revenue; to avoid a deficiency in the public supply, private houses are to be supplied from the third: for private persons will not be able to draw off the water, since they have their own limited supply from their receptacle. The reason I have made this division, is that those who take private supplies into their houses may contribute by the water rate to the maintenance of the aqueducts. ,,96 Here, the interest of this Vitruvian passage lies in its technical definition of such a castel/urn and in the way it has been used in publications on Roman water supply systems. Time and again, historians have attempted to use this passage as evidence to postulate either a general water distribution system for the Roman cities, or a preconceived discrimination in favour of certain groups of consumers embedded in public rulings and/or the hardware of the system. Regarding the latter, it is often thought that Vitruvius prescribed or at least recommended a system in which private people had to pay a vectigal for the luxury of a private connection from the public water mains to their homes. This issue will be discussed below. 97 As regards the technical aspect, the castel/urn aquae at Pompeii, bearing striking resemblance to the essential part of Vitruvius' description, that is: ita Vitro De arch. 8.6.1-2: 1. (... ) Cumque venerit ad moenia, efficiatur castellum et castello coniunctum ad recipiendam aquam triplex inmissarium, conlocenturque in castello tres fistulae aequaliter divisae intra receptacula coniuncta, uti, cum abundaverit ab extremis, in medium receptaculum redundet. 2. Ita in medio ponentur fistulae in omnes lacus et salientes, ex altero in balneas vectigal quotannis populo praestent, ex quibus tertio in domus privatas, ne desit in publico; non enim poterint avertere, cum habuerint a capitibus proprias ductiones. Haec autem quare divisa constituerim, hae sunt causae, uti qui privatim ducent in domos vectigalibus tueantur per publicanos aquarum ductus. 97 See section 4.1.1.

96

Technical aspects: the city's water supply at work

33

in medio ponentur fistulae in omnes lacus et salientes. ex altero in balneas. ex tertia in domos privatas, has been of great interest. Situated just inside the northern town wall next to Porta Vesuvio, it has an underground channel coming from the north, and at the opposite side three large holes just above street level on the town side of the building. Although other castella like the one at Nemausus (Nimes) do not show such a triple partition, the Pompeii Vitruvius resemblance has led scholars in the past to suggest that beyond the castellum, Pompeii had three more or less independent distribution networks serving different groups of consumers simultaneously, and moreover that the castellum at Pompeii constituted a sort of standard. 98 Although the suggestion of three not interconnected networks is hardly plausible, a decisive answer to the problem, as far as Pompeii is concerned, is still lacking because it is not yet known in what way exactly the connection between castellum aquae, water towers and consumers was made up. The water supply and distribution systems of Ostia, constituting another potential source of information, have been investigated only recently.99 Little by little it seems to become clear, however, that towns supplied by an aqueduct had their systems adjusted to local potentialities and restrictions. loo As both of these comparatively well preserved towns, which are located at a rather short distance from Rome, yield up their water supply and distribution secrets reluctantly, how to gain the desired results for the bigger and more complex city of Rome itself, which has been rebuilt time and time again? If, because of too meagre a quantity of remains, archaeological research appears to be unable to produce sufficient data for a plausible reconstruction of the system, there is little alternative left than to put up with the information furnished by Frontinus' treatise. Frontinus mentioned 247 castella (Aq. 78.3). It will be clear that he cannot only have meant the castella aquae in the town

98 Forbes 1955,163 ff.; Kretzschmer 1958,50; Landels 1978,48-49. The castellurn at Ntmes: Fabre et al. 1991, 84 and 239; Hauck 1989; Kessener 1996. The Pompeii castellurn: Eschebach 1983,87-90; Ohlig 1995, 1996, and 2000. For an evaluation see Hodge 1992, 282-291; African castella: Ellis 1996. 99 Meiggs 1973, 143 presented a description of the water supply and distribution system of Ostia based on a rather superficial observation. Bruun 1991, 285, being aware of its defectiveness, adopted this description. See also Ricciardi & Santa Maria Scrinari 1996. 100 For North African cities Wilson 1998, 90, referring to Wilson 1997, suggests that "urban strategies of water supply relied on the use of all available sources - wells, cisterns for rainwater, local springs, and remote aqueduct-led springs - to ensure the best chance of riding out a dry season of unpredictable length."

34

Rornan water supply

wall as stated in Vitro De arch. 8.6.1. Therefore, the question that must be addressed is: What did Frontinus understand by the word castellurn? An analysis of his use of the word castellurn leads to an interesting observation: Frontinus did not use it in the Vitruvian sense as a building in which water entering the city was conducted into smaller lead conduits. If he mentioned water transfer at the terminal of an aqueduct or branch of an aqueduct, he did so by circumscription. For example, about the aquae Claudia and Anio Novus he wrote: "Their arches end behind the gardens of Pallas, and from that point their waters are distributed in pipes to serve the City.,,101 And the Specus Octavianus, a branch from the aqua Anio Vetus: " ... reaches the Asinian Gardens in the neighbourhood of the Via Nova, from where it is distributed throughout that district.,,102 However, the word castel/urn does occur in De aquae ductu several times. It is used to define certain devices that play a prominent part in the water distribution system; they numbered, as stated above, 247 items. Reviewing the water quantities that each of the aqueducts delivered and distributed to various groups of consumers in the city, Frontinus set forth the number of castella used per aqueduct. 103 Furthermore, castel/urn is used in the context of rulings that set standards for the installations of private water conduits. A senatus consulturn, which he quoted, dated 11 BC, put it this way:

101 Aq. 20.2: Finiuntur arcus earum post hortos Pallantianos et inde in usum urbis fistulis diducuntur. See on this passage Bruun 1991, 126, who stated that it "cannot be used as evidence that the very large amount of water carried by these aqueducts was conducted from there all over the city through lead pipes". In this context, Bruun pointed at the Arcus Neroniani, which was a branch of the aqua Claudia. Branching off, however, did probably take place upstream from the terminus, just south of present Porta Maggiore. In my view, the difference made between fistulae for distribution and a rivus as a branch from the aqueduct (the Arcus Neroniani) should be noted. 102 Aq. 21.2: ... pervenit in regionem Viae Novae ad hortos Asinianos, unde per illum tractum distribuitur. Other instances: Aq. 5.9, 19.7-9,21.3,22.2,76.6. 103 Aq. 79.2 (aqua Appia 20),80.2 (aqua Anio Vetus 35), 81.2 (aqua Marcia 51), 82.2 (aqua Tepula 14),83.2 (aqua Iulia 17),84.2 (aqua Virgo 18), 86.3 (aquae Claudia and Anio Novus 92).

Technical aspects: the city's water supply at work

35

"That no private person be permitted to tap water from the public conduits (rivi) and that all those who have the right to draw water draw it from the reservoirs (castella) and that the curators of the aqueducts point out places within the city where private persons may properly create reservoirs (castella), from which to draw the water that they had received from the public reservoir (castellum) through the curators of aqueducts."I04 It is noteworthy that in this version, as well as in other translations into English, castel/um has been understood as reservoir. lOS Frontinus, who apparently agreed with its content, did however comment upon this senatus consultum:

"In this resolution of the Senate, it is worthy of note that the resolution does not permit water to be drawn except from castella, in order that the conduits (rivi) or the public pipes (fistulae publicae) not be frequently cut into.,,106 Maybe, by his time, the practice had changed a bit, and branch lead pipes from the mains had been installed, as is indirectly suggested. Another passage seems to confirm this change. Discussing, in a practical way, the sizes of the fistulae connected to a castel/urn, Frontinus wrote: "This principle is regularly employed whenever several quinariae are delivered by one pipe and received in a reservoir, from which consumers receive their individual supply - this being done to ensure that the conduit would not be tapped too often (Aq. 27.3).,,107

104 Aq. 106.1 (= EJ 278c; translation Braund 1985 no. 798c.) ne cui privato aquam ducere ex rivis publicis liceret, utique omnes ei quibus aquae ducendae ius esset datum ex castell is ducerent, animadverterentque curatores aquarum, quibus locis intra urbem apte castella privati facere possent, ex quibus aquam ducerent quam ex castello cummunem accepissent a curatoribus aquarum. lOS With the exception of Evans 1993,44 who let pass castellum untranslated; In the German translation ofKiihne (WAS I, 81-120) it was understood as Verteilerbauwerk, Grimal has chosen chiiteau d'eau. 106 Aq. 106.3: In hoc S.C. dignum adnotatione est, quod aquam non nisi ex castello duci permittit, ne aut rivi aut fistulae publicae frequenter lacerentur. Bruun 1991, 127 utilised this passage to reinforce his argumentation in favour of rivi as part of the distribution network in the city. Some text editions added extra after intra in Aq. 106.1, and so solved the problem of the rivi in this passage by a reference to private connections to the aqueducts outside the city. 107 Est autem fere tum in usu, cum plures quinariae impetratae, ne rivus saepius convulneretur, una fistula excipiuntur in castell urn, ex quo singuli suum modum

36

Roman water supply

The sunnise of a change in practice is corroborated by some lines in the Digesta, in which the issue is brought up for discussion of whether someone who drew off water from a water tank (castel/um), that is from a receptacle for the collection of public water (ex eo receptacula, quod aquam publicam suscipit) (Dig. 43.20.1.39), should be given equal rights as those who drew it off from a source: If it is pennitted to draw the water from the water tank ( ... ) it is pennitted to draw the water from the water tank either out of the water course (rivus) or out of any other public place (Dig. 43.20.1.40-41).108 Whereas Vitruvius used castel/um to indicate a building which was likewise the tenninal of an aqueduct and starting point for distribution through town, Frontinus (and Dig.) took it as a rather vague word defining a device utilised to enable private people to deduce their granted share from the public water works, a word with mainly a functional meaning. 109 What concrete fonn was given in Rome to this functionality is hard to say. Maybe the castellum looked like the water towers of Pompeii, or like small reservoirs with feed and outlet pipes incorporated at certain height in other buildings. Frontinus' account of the water division amongst the different groups of consumers does not allow us to establish whether private castella were included in the number of 247. Castella in the Vitruvian sense were few: Rome numbered eleven large-scale aqueducts with a limited number of branches. Since Frontinus seems not to have disagreed with this S.C. of 11 BC, it can be supposed that in his view the water distribution system of the city of Rome a century earlier in essence operated like this: At each tenninal of the grand-scale aqueducts and their branches, water was transferred from the aqueducts into fistulae publicae or rivi that were connected with several castella, from which

recipiunt. Branch lead pipes did constitute an illegal water system anyway (Aq. 115.34).

108 Si ex castello permissum est, dandum erit interdictum: Permittitur autem aquam ex castello vel ex rivo vel ex quo alio loco publico ducere. 109 Although there is no definite terminus technicus for castel/um in the distribution system (Larsen 1982, 65 + n. 1), a distinction is often made in modern literature. The Vitruvian type is defined as castel/um publicum (Larsen 1982, 41) or primary castellum (Fahlbusch 1989, 116), whereas castella in town are called secondary castella (Hodge 1992,292-294). The term castel/um divisorium is understood both as the former (Hodge 1984,205 and 1992,279-291), and as the latter type (Larsen 1982, 41), maybe to set them apart from castella along the aqueduct itself (Vitr. De arch. 8.6.7; Hodge 1992, 165) which might have had a different function (Fahlbusch 1989, 114 ft).

Technical aspects: the city's water supply at work

37

part of the city was supplied with water, possibly by means of other castella. I to By his own time, the system must have been more complex, since by then all regiones and even public fountains drew their water from more than one aqueduct (Aq. 87.3 and 5), an arrangement that presupposed interconnection. Moreover, castella were no longer the only places where private connections to the mains were made. At the end of the first century AD, at the far end of the conduits, three types of consumer groups were present in the city of Rome: water was delivered in the name of the emperor, to private people, and for public use (Aq. 78.3). One more issue cannot be left out. An important characteristic of the Roman water system seems to have been that water flowed as artificial rivers through the aqueducts, day and night (Aq. 104.2).111 If the same applied to the system inside the city, if there was ample supply or if consumers turned off their taps or stopped fetching water at night, water would have overflowed from (public) fountains, castella and other natural places as a consequence. I 12 After it had, in passing, carried away some street-refuse, it would have vanished into the sewerage only to be discharged into the river Tiber. This option is brought forward by Frontinus, who recognised that in that way public health might be served (Aq. 88.3; 111.2). If, on the other hand, water were a rather scarce commodity, an alternative would be to utilize the overflow. If so, one might suppose rulings about entitlement to water, together with water saving measures or installations. Rulings about entitlement did exist and will be discussed below (section 4.1). A method to utilise water overflow might be to sell it or give it away. This method manifested itself as the use of aqua caduca, which was also regulated (Aq. 94.4; 111.1). What it actually looked like is still unknown since no remains have ever been considered as devices for that purpose. Finally, a way to save water would have been to adjust the supply to the demand. Such a procedure presupposes the occurrence of storage facilities such as storage basins outside the city or reservoirs in the distribution system. To the Ito Hodge 1992, 291; Pace 1998. See, however, Bruun 1991, 118-123, discussing Fahlbusch 1989, 142, for the possibility offree-flow channels in the urban distribution net. III Hodge 1989, 132; Bruun 1991, 110-114 doubts the water flow at night. 112 Ohlig 1995 understood, in my view correctly, the second part of Vitro De arch. 8.6.1 as advice on the regulation of surplus water. If too much water reached town, or if private people or public baths turned off their taps, the surplus would flow into the middle receptacle earmarked for public fountains. As public installations probably had no taps, the surplus would not threaten private conduits or public baths.

38

Roman water supply

best of my knowledge, no early imperial storage basins nearby Rome have ever been attested to. Large reservoirs were built rather early elsewhere. The Piscina Mirabilis, which was supposed to supply the imperial navy in the Thyrrenian sea after Agrippa had designed the naval base at Misenum, might serve as an example. l13 In Rome, large reservoirs, in which water entering when there was little demand could be kept until it was needed, were connected to the imperial bath complexes, dating from the early second century AD and beyond. I 14 There is, however, one building that, if identification is correct, served as a reservoir near the city and had no direct connection to the imperial bathhouses. This building was part of the Aurelian wall south of Porta Tiburtina. Recent excavations seem to have proven beyond any doubt that the structure was a reservoir built circa 200 AD, against the triple aqueduct of the aquae Marcia, Tepula, and Iulia. lIs This reservoir might hint at others, now destroyed or not yet excavated. The fact, that none of the known reservoirs in Rome dates before the second century AD, suggests that they were not built before that age. Maybe economising by building up buffer stocks was an alternative to constructing new supply lines again and again, which had come to a halt after the aqua Traiana had been built. Whether or not smaller distribution devices served as buffer stocks is impossible to say.

113 Maiuri 1958, 99-lO1 dated the Piscina Mirabilis as Augustan; D'Arms 1970, 81 n. 39 thought that the masonry was certainly of early lulio-Claudian date; See also Eschebach 1983, 86-87; Tsuk 1996, 117-119. 114 Sette Sale near the Baths of Trajan, a reservoir in back of the Baths of Caracalla, and the bottege del Termini near the Baths of Diocletian. IlsYolpe 1996,43-52 summarizes the different interpretations of the remains of the building: Piranesi thought that the building was the origin of the rivus Herculaneus, which was a branch of the aqua Marcia; Nibby (1820) identified the structure as a reservoir, Parker (1876) as a castel/urn of the aqua Tepula. Lanciani, Calza (1914), Richmond (1930) were of the opinion that it had been an insula. Packer 1971,27,34, 75, 79 + PI. CXIII, Fig. 322 considered the remains at the outside of the Aurelianic wall as the garden fa~ade of an apartment building four stories high.

Excursus: leadfistulae in an aqueduct?

1.3

39

EXCURSUS: LEAD FISTULAE IN AN AQUEDUCT? A commentary upon the first lines ofVitruvius De Architectura 8.6.4 But if water is to be conducted by lead pipes, first of all a castel/urn is to be built ad caput. Then the cross-section of the pipes for the supply of water is to be detennined, and the pipes are to be laid from the castel/urn to the castel/urn in the town wall. 116

In modem translations, the above passage has been interpreted as a discussion of the upper reaches of an aqueduct from the source up to its terminal, the castel/um in the town wall that served as starting point for urban distribution: a supply line entirely made of lead fistulae. 117 The large-scale Roman aqueducts that have been investigated up to now, however, consisted mainly of masonry channels, whereas lead pipes were used for the final distribution in town. The only application of lead fistulae as part of large-scale supply lines known to me is that in which water under pressure was transported across a valley.1I8 One might wonder why Vitruvius would have described an application of lead fistulae totally different from the usual. I19 True, the notion of a supply line entirely made of lead pipes seems to be self-evident, but might be incorrect. It is my aim to show here that Vitruvius discussed another part of the water supply system, namely the fistulae that constituted the connection between a castel/um for private water use on the one side, and the terminal of a largescale supply line on the other, a part of the distribution system in which lead fistulae have frequently been attested to. For that purpose a look at the build-up ofVitr. De arch. 8.6.1-11, dealing with aqueducts, is essential. Vitruvius' discourse starts with a classification of the existing types of conduits based on the material used: there were rivi in built-up channels, lead fistulae, and terracotta tubuli. The channels had to have a certain slope, and also had to offer shelter from the sun. It continues with instructions on how to design the 116 Vitro De Arch. 8.6.4: Sin autem fistulis plumbeis ducetur, primum castellum ad caput struatur, deinde ad copiam aquae lumen fistularum constituatur, eaeque fistulae castello conlocentur ad castellum, quod erit in moenibus. 117 Granger 1955-1956, Morgan 1960, Callebat 1973, Fensterbusch 1987, Peters 1997. 118 For example the Gier aqueduct to Lyons (Burdy 1988, 198). Water was conveyed through the val1ey of the Yzeron by means of twelve big lead pipes, which were laid side by side. The most important Roman (inverted) siphons are listed in Smith 1976, 54. 119 Cal1ebat 1973, 161 refers to a statement (which I have not been able to check) of P. Grimal in Vitruve et la technique des aqueducs 1945, 165, who was of the opinion that Vitruvius speculated on a theoretical option. See also Hodge 1981, 487.

40

Rornan water supply

transfer of water from the large-scale aqueduct into the urban distribution system, and how to prevent shortage in public fountains. 120 His remedy was twofold: Firstly private people should have their own conduits from a caput to their houses, and secondly both balnea and private people should have to pay a tax for the maintenance of the water supply. 121 In De arch. 8.6.3 Vitruvius returned to the large-scale aqueduct. If there were hills in between the caput fontis - origin of the aqueduct - and the town wall, tunnels were to be dug in order to maintain the slope of the rivus. Depending on the type of soil, it was enough to hew out a specus. Otherwise a vaulted masonry channel had to be built, and both kinds of tunnels were to have shafts (putei) at regular distances. After that Vitruvius went on with the lines cited above, dealing with the second type of conduit, lead fistulae. He did not specify in which segment these pipes should be laid, but he wrote that ad caput a castel/urn had to be built, that the size of the pipes had to be established dependent on the amount of water, and that the fistulae had to be laid from the castel/urn ad caput up to the castel/urn in the town wall. The remaining part of De arch. 8.6.4 is taken up by nomenclature, sizes and weights of fistulae, from very big ones with a diameter of just under 60 cm, to the smallest with a diameter of less than 3 cm. Modem translations have interpreted castel/urn ad caput as a castel/urn at the spring or at the intake from the river.122 At a cursory reading, this interpretation seems correct. The implication, however, would be that in that case the whole aqueduct outside town was to be made of lead pipes. A different meaning of caput would dispose of this difficulty. Maybe, Vitruvius' continuation might present an answer: The ductia, however, which will be made with lead pipes must have the following arrangement. If there is a fall from the caput to the maenia, and there are no intervening hills which are so high as to interrupt (my addition: the water course so that tunnels have to be dug as is stated in 8.6.3), but 120 See section 1.2. Ohlig 1995, however, has demonstrated explicitly that Vitruvius' advice on the triplex inmissarium had nothing to do with shortage. The French translation of Callebat and the Dutch of Peters both correctly interpreted the last lines of Vitro De arch. 8.6.1 as a way to handle surplus. 121 As regards the first remedy Callebat's translation showed a different note: "De fait les particuliers ne pourront pas detourner les eaux d'usage public des I'instant OU les adductions speciales leur ameneront l'eau depuis les sources." The implication would be that Vitruvius was of the opinion that private people should build their own conduits from the source to their homes, a thought hardly conceivable in a sizeable town. 122 See note 117.

Excursus: lead fistulae in an aqueduct?

41

valleys, it is necessary to build substructures to keep up the plane as in the rivi and channels (see 8.6.1). If, however the way round the hills is not long, a roundabout is to be made, but if the valleys are wide, the water course will be directed downhill. On reaching the bottom, a low substructure is built so that the level may continue as long as possible. This will form the venter which the Greeks call coelia. Next, on reaching the opposite side, since the length of the venter made it swell quietly, the water will be forced to rise up to the top of the hill. 123

Again, prima facie Vitruvius seems to have spoken of a large-scale aqueduct consisting entirely of lead pipes, for his discussion on fistulae proper is continued by considerations that were of importance when planning a conduit made of lead pipes. Closer reading, however, suggests a different interpretation. Whenever valleys instead of high hills constituted the obstacles, there were three options to solve the specific levelling problems. Firstly, if the valley was narrow, substructures might be built to continue the gradient of the rivi and channels. A second option to keep up the plane was a circuit along the hillsides. This solution was only practical if the detour was not too long. Finally, if they were wide, valleys could be crossed by means of a venter. 124 In De arch. 8.6.6. the geniculus is discussed, a fourth option to reach the far side of a valley. Such an elbow deserved no recommendation since fistulae and their joints would break down easily under the air pressure it entailed. A venter too needed a device to reduce air pressure. Vitruvius went on: Thus, those who conduct water through lead pipes in this way will be able to produce fine results, because like this they can make its descents, circuits, venters, and risings when there is a regular fall from the caput to the moenia. 125

Vitro De arch. 8.6.5: Ea autem ductio, quae per fistulas plumbeas est futura, hanc habebit expeditionem. Quodsi caput habeat libramenta ad moenia montesque medii non fuerint alteriores, ut possint interpellare, sed intervalla, necesse est substurere ad libramenta, quemadmodum in rivis et canalibus. Sin autem non longa erit circumitio, circumductionibus, sin autem valles erunt perpetuae, in declinato loco cursus dirigentur. Cum venerint ad imum, non alte substruitur, ut sit libratum quam longissimum; hoc autem erit venter, quod Graeci appellant coelian. Deinde cum venerit adversis clivum, ex longo spatio ventris leniter tumescit exprimatur in altitudinem summi clivi. 124 See appendix 11.2. 125 Ita per fistulas plumbeas aquam qui ducent, his rationibus bellissime poterunt efficere, quod et decursus et circumductiones et ventres et expressus hac ratione possunt fieri, cum habebunt a capitibus ad moenia [ad] fastigii libramenta. 123

42

Roman water supply

Of course it was an option to lay lead pipes in side-hill channels or build substructures to support a lead conduit and keep up the desired steady slope. But a closed conduit, fistula or tubulus, was necessary only if water, after descending, should rise under pressure in order not to lose height in its course to the city. This was only the case in a venter or in the despised geniculus. In De arch. 8.6.7. Vitruvius advised building castella at regular intervals in the aqueduct, except in the venters and their descending and ascending pipes, in order to facilitate eventual repairs. A hint to reduce building costs is thrown out in De arch. 8.6.8: One might use terracotta tubuli. So here Vitruvius passed on to the third conduit type. These terracotta pipes should have a certain thickness and be joined properly. Moreover, a block of stone should enclose the elbows on either side of the venter. Thus the force of air pressure in the conduit would be under control and damage would be avoided. Everything else was to be made like using lead pipes. Furthermore, when water was let in from the caput for the first time, one had to put in ashes first to fill up insufficiently coated joints (De arch. 8.6.9). Finally, in De arch. 8.6.10-11, Vitruvius described the pros of tubuli and the cons of lead pipes: Terracotta pipes were more practical to repair, less insalubrious, and the water led through them would have a better taste. 126 Striking in Vitruvius discussion on terracotta pipes is that he only compared them to lead fistulae, not to masonry channels. Moreover, that attention was mainly paid to the use of tubuli in a venter and particularly to the venter's connection to the descending and rising pipes, the most vulnerable parts in which water had to change direction. Therefore, in my view, Vitruvius thought of tubuli instead of lead pipes in the very sections in which water was transported under pressure. That is to say that he did not allude to free flow conduits. So it cannot be inferred that Vitro De arch. 8.6.5-9 covered an aqueduct completely made of lead pipes, on the contrary. Therefore, it is not necessary to regard the castel/um ad caput of De arch. 8.6.4 as the startingpoint of a large-scale aqueduct. Besides, it is worthwhile to take a closer look at the use of the word caput. It is used in paragraph 8.6 several more times: once in De arch. 8.6.2, in relation to private people who had their own private conduit from a caput, and twice in De arch. 8.6.9, discussing the difficulties entailed in the use of tubuli in a venter. In view of the pressure in the conduit, the water should carefully be let into the tubuli 'a capite '. Secondly it would be wise to plug up the tubuli and put up 126 In the Greek world terracotta pipes were commonly used. It is not fully beyond doubt that Vitruvius compared the Roman practice to the Greek. For a comparison of (the remains of) the Greek and Roman water supply systems, see Fahlbusch 1982.

Excursus: leadjistulae in an aqueduct?

43

ashes a capite before the venter was put into use. On the other hand, twice it is absolutely clear that Vitruvius meant the starting-point of a large-scale aqueduct. When hills stood in between the caput Jontis and the town wall, a specus had to be dug (De arch. 8.6.3), and when there were no hills but valleys between caput and town wall, another specific problem needed to be solved (De arch. 8.6.5). In conclusion, it is plausible that Vitruvius used caput as a general word to define some beginning of a conduit: either the spring or the intake from a river at the origin of a large-scale aqueduct, or the beginning of a private pipe at a public or private castel/urn, or the place where a rivus was transferred into the tubuli or fistulae descending to a venter, that is to say the starting-point of a terracotta or lead pressure conduit. 127 In connection with the fact that Vitruvius limited his discussion on the use of terracotta pipes in substitution for lead fistulae to those parts in which water was conveyed under pressure, it may therefore be possible that the castel/urn ad caput in the first lines of Vitruvius 8.6.4 should better be interpreted as a private castel/urn in the city from which lead pipes were to be connected to private people on the one side and to a public castel/urn on the other. Such an interpretation corresponds to a senatus consulturn issued at Rome in 11 Be: ... that no private person shall be pennitted to draw water from the public conduits, and that all those to whom the right to take water has been granted shall take it from castella, and that the curatores aquarum point out places within the city where private persons may properly build castella from which they take the water they received through the curatores aquarum. 12H

127 Similar to Capogrossi Colognesi 1966, 23 n. 40 who suggested that the wording caput aquae evolved from just the natural starting-point, the/ons, into a wider concept including the legal starting-point, that is the place where private conduits drew water from the public supply. Compare his pages 13-21 on inter alia Dig. 43.20.1.8 defining the starting point of a water stream: either a spring, a lake, a river, or a place where water oozing through soil was caught. 128Aq. 106.1: ne qui privato aquam ducere ex rivis publicis Iiceret, uti que omnes ei quibus aquae ducendae ius esset datum ex castel lis ducerent, animadverterentque curatores aquarum, qui bus locis intra urbem apte castella privati facere possent, ex quibus aquam ducerent quam ex castello communi accepissent a curatoribus aquarum.

Chapter 2

Water supply and population in terms of quantities

An elaborate system of distribution in the city and its surrounding countryside, which took its water from the aqueducts, artificial water streams running to the city, presupposed some rulings to ensure that all parties concerned would receive their shares. For that purpose, it had to be established who or which parties were supposed to benefit from the efforts of aqueduct building in the first place. Furthermore, the way in which rulings on water derivation and distribution would be given concrete form, and how their execution could be submitted to control, had to be arranged. These subjects will be discussed in chapter 4. Water supply in rural conditions is beyond my scope.! Nevertheless, the bones of such qualitative notions need some quantitative flesh to create a sense of the true value of the water supply system for the people living in Rome around the beginning of our era and the ages to follow. Although reaching exactness is undoubtedly impracticable, an idea of the order of its magnitude might shed some light on its importance. Therefore, this chapter will enter into some quantitative aspects related to the city of Rome's water supply and distribution system: the amount of water arriving in the city per day, the number of people that lived in the city and were somehow dependent on the public supply, and, in a technical sense, the way in which the capacities of aqueducts were measured and how distribution pipes were given their sizes. Another question of quantity, the area in which distribution took place, will be addressed below, in chapter 6. The population of the city of Rome is an issue that has been much debated, and estimates on its size ranged considerably, depending on which sources were used. 2 The research focuses on epigraphic and literary sources from a restricted

! For water supply in rural conditions and for irrigation purposes in the environs of Rome see Thomas & Wilson 1994. Bruun 1991, 87 + n. 48 points at elL 6.1251 (inclusive of a 'map') which seems to refer to an aqueduct situated in a non-urban landscape. Water apportioning from that aqueduct seems to have been based on time and amount (or size?) of the side-branches. See elL 8.4440 (Numidia) in which elL 6.1251 and another inscription on water division from Tibur can be found. See also Dig. 8.3: De servitutibus praediorum rusticorum, especial\y 8.3.20 and 8.3.33-37. 2 Beloch 1886, 394-395 mentioned earlier estimates, of which I borrow: On the one hand Lipsius 4 million, Vossius 14 million, Gibbon 1.2 million, Marquardt and

Water supply and population in terms ofquantities

45

period of time (46 Be - AD 15). Those sources give information about a specific segment of the popUlation: the recipients of the com dole. Some ancient evidence that at first sight might seem worthwhile will be dismissed: although reasonably reliable, census figures are of little use, as they bear no witness to what part of the citizens actually lived in the city at a certain moment in time. 3 Demographic models too can only be useful to a small extent. For although demographic studies may provide some insight into the general principles of population dynamics in the Roman world, they are often not relevant to the city of Rome because 'people doubtlessly moved in and out of the capital city continuously and in considerable numbers, with probably quite significant seasonal differences.,4 The three basic factors which determine the size of populations, being mortality, fertility, and migration, were most likely subject to fluctuations different from those in the Roman Empire as a whole. Mortality, a natural factor, may have been affected by the living conditions in the city as well as by endemic and epidemic diseases typical of a large urban centre. 5 Furthermore, the supposed imbalance in sex ratio, that is fewer women than men, may have had an effect on the fertility of the population at large. 6 If the city were to maintain its population at a certain size, considerable immigration was a precondition. 7 With regard to the volume of water conveyed to the city of Rome by means of large-scale aqueducts, we have the good fortune to have at our disposal two different kinds of data that may be helpful in roughly estimating each

Friedlander between 1.5 and 2 million people, on the other hand Castiglioni who came to about 550,000 - 600.000 people. 3 Lo Cascio 1994, 28-29 disagreed with the way in which Beloch had related the size of Rome's population to the census figures in the Augustan period. A short discussion on the value of the census figures in Augustus' Res Gestae as promoted by Beloch, Brunt and others, but rejected by Lo Cascio can be found in Scheidel 1996, 167-168 who himself sees no compelling reason to abandon Beloch's and Brunt's position. On census figures see also Bagnall & Frier 1994. 4 Parkin 1992, 5. 5 For season mortality at Rome see Duncan-Jones 1990, 104 n. 31; Scheidel 1994; Shaw 1996. 6 Parkin 1992, 99-101 dismissing Dio Casso 54.16.2 as "secure and convincing evidence", nevertheless was of the opinion that "due to various social practices that favored the advancement or indeed the survival of males over females ( ... ) the possibility remains that such an imbalance existed in reality." 7 Scheidel 1994, 166 considered the capital of the Roman Empire to be a 'superconsumer city' in demographic as well as economic terms. Shaw 1996, 134 arrived at the same conclusion calling the city of Rome a 'net consumer of her own population'.

46

Water supply and population in terms ofquantities

aqueduct's delivery per day: data given by Frontinus, as well as data, which have been generated by archaeological research. The latter, if generated in adequate quantities, may allow for hydraulic computations that result in reasonably trustworthy estimates on the volume of water per aqueduct per day that might have reached the city. It stands to reason that such an approach is problematic when archaeological data are non-extant or fall short. Some such constraints apply equally to the former type of data, that is the numbers given by Frontinus, not only because it is chronologically impossible that he informed posterity about the delivery of the aqua Traiana and beyond, but also because the numbers cannot be used right away. So the question that must be addressed is: What numbers did Frontinus hand down to us? As the quinaria was the basic unit in Frontinus' calculations of both supply and delivery, it seems appropriate to establish its character and size to begin with.

The volume of water

2.1

THE VOLUME OF WATER

2.1.1

The quinaria, unit for capacity?

47

Frontinus considered a coherent system of measures to be essential to any trustworthy and useful measurement. 8 To elucidate how much water the city of Rome had at her disposal, he described the capacity of channels and pipes in terms of quinariae. The standard sizes of fistulae used in the city were related to the quinaria, and Frontinus' particulars on those sizes allow us to grasp the meaning of this unit. Frontinus noted that some standardisation of fistula sizes by the name quinaria had been accomplished before, either by Agrippa or by the plumbarii and Vitruvius (Aq. 25.1).9 Agrippa was supposed to have united five small measures in a new one, which was called quinaria for that reason (Aq. 25.2).10 Vitruvius explained the name in a different way: The fistulae receive the names of their sizes from the width of the sheets, that is how many digiti they have before they are bent round. For when a fistula is made of a sheet fifty digiti wide, it is called a quinquagenaria, and similarly the rest. II

8 Aq. 34.3-4: Omnia autem quae mensura continentur, certa et inmobilia congruere sibi debent; ita enim universitati ratio constabit. Et quemadmodum verbi gratia sextarii ratio ad cyathos, modii vero et ad sextarios et ad cyathos respondent: ita et quinariarum multiplicatio in amplioribus modulis servare consequentiae suae regulam debet: All standard sizes, however, based on the measure, ought to be fixed, invariable, and internally consistent; for in this way the system will be settled for all. Just as, for example, sextarii have a regular ratio to cyathi, and modii correspond to both sextarii and cyathi, so quinariae when multiplied into larger measures ought to follow the rule of their progression. So the conversion of standard measures for lead pipes were compared to that for volumes: 1 modius (ca. 8.7361) = 16 sextarii = 192 cyathi (Dilke 1989,27). 9 See Grimal 1961, 80-81. 10 See appendix lb. II The last lines of Vitro De arch. 8.6.4: e latitudine autem lamnarum, quot digitos habuerint, antequam in rotundationem flectantur, magnitudinum ita nomina concipiunt fistulae. namque quae lamna fuerit digitorum quinquaginta, cum fistula perficietur ex ea lamna, vocabitur quinquagenaria similiterque reliquae. Plin. HN 31.58 likewise used this measure. Another important characteristic of a lead pipe, totally absent in Frontinus' treatise, is its weight. Both Vitro De arch. 8.6.4 and Pliny HN 31.58 mentioned this characteristic. Later authors just mentioned name and weight of a fistula, corresponding to (a selection from) Vitruvius' names and weights. See Faventinus, De divers is fabricis architectonae 7; Palladius 9,12

48

Water supply and population in terms of quantities

So it is plausible, according to Frontinus, that Vitruvius and the plumbarii understood a quinaria as a pipe made from a lead sheet five digiti (9.25 cm) wide. 12

measure quinaria octonaria denaria quinum denum vicenaria tricenaria quadragenaria quinquagenaria octogenaria centenaria

perimeter (digitus)

weight (pondo)

diameter (cm)

area of cross section (cm 2)

5 8 10 15 20 30 40 50 80 100

60 100 120 180 240 360 480 600 960 1,200

2.94 4.71 5.89 8.83 11.78 17.67 23.55 29.44 47.11 58.89

6.81 17.43 27.24 61.28 108.94 245.12 435.77 680.88 1,743.06 2,723.54

Table I: Standard measures of fistulae based on Vitro De Arch. 8.6.4. 13 Frontinus saw a major drawback in Vitruvius' computation method: it was imprecise since the outside of the pipe was enlarged and the inner surface was compressed during production process (Aq. 25.3). Maybe he should have added

12 Vitro De arch. 8.6.4 just before the names and weights: fistulae ne minus longae pedum denum Jundantur. It follows that lead pipes might have had a standard length of ten Roman feet (2.96 m) 13 Vitruvius mentioned perimeter and weight. Calculations were based on the assumptions that the lead sheet was bent into a perfect circle, and that 1 digitus = 1116 Roman foot = 1.85 cm. The modern value for 7t (my calculator) was used. Numbers were calculated to two decimal places, and rounding off was my final manipulation. See Fahlbusch 1982, 153 = 1989, 139. As Vitruvius wrote that fistulae ne minus longae pedum denum Jundantur, he might have suggested a standard length often feet. If so, the thickness of lead sheets can also be approximated by means of Vitruvius' data. Assuming that their specific gravity equalled that of pure lead (11,350 kg/m 3), and putting a pondo as 0.325 kg, the calculated thickness oflead sheets for all pipe sizes was 0.63 cm, except the octonaria which had a calculated thickness of 0.66 cm. Werner 1990, 160-161 thought that such a thickness may have sufficed for the bigger pipes, Callebat 1973, 164, on the contrary, thought it insufficient. One may wonder whether the bigger fistulae were more than theoretical.

The volume of water

49

that different kinds of seams took different parts of sheet-widths. 14 As a result, there was no fixed ratio between the pipe's sheet width and the area of cross section or internal diameter. Hence, Vitruvius' standardising seemed practical for those plumbers who were only involved in the process of making lead pipes. ls It was, however, hardly fit to meet administrative needs. Plumbers who were instructed to install a certain size of ready-made lead pipes, or personnel who were ordered to be present at the installation of fistulae to check whether the granted size was used, would probably prefer the more simple measurement of the internal diameter to carry out their task. Frontinus, whose concern with the urban water supply system was primarily administrative, must have shared their way of thinking. Therefore he promoted another concept of quinaria, a measure practical for administrative ends. In his eyes, the most plausible explanation was that the name quinaria was derived from a diameter of five quarters [of a digitus], a system that is maintained in the measures that follow, up to the vicenaria, the diameter of each measure increasing by the addition of one quarter [of a digitus]: as in the senaria which has a diameter of six quarters, and the septenaria which has seven, and so on by similar increases up to the . . 16 Vlcenana.

For a reconstruction of lead pipe making see Cochet & Hansen 1986, 24-34, Hodge 1992,309; for different seams see Hodge 1992, 312; Lanciani 1975, tav. IX la-3a. IS Werner 1990,161. 16 Aq. 25.4: Maxime probabile est, quinariam dictam a diametro quinque quadrantum, quae ratio in sequentibus quoque modulis usque ad vicenariam durat, diametro per singulos adiectione singulorum quadran tum crescente: ut in senaria, quae sex quadrantes in diametro habet, et septenaria, quae septem, et deinceps simili incremento usque ad vicenariam. That five quarters of a digitus were meant, is inferred from Aq. 24.1: Aquarum moduli aut ad digitorum aut ad unciarum mensuram instituti sunt. Digiti in Campania et in plerisque Italiae 10cis, unciae in Apulia cita huc obsevatur. See also Cod. Theod. 15.2.3: In Constantinople at the end of the fourth century AD, the emperors decreed water grants in terms of unciae. 14

50

Water supply and population in terms ofquantities

diameter digitus

cm 2.31 2.78 3.24 3.70 4.63 5.55 6.94 9.25

area of cross-section (A) = lumen q\linaria

di~itus2

cm

2

5/4 quinaria 4.20 1.00 1.23 6/4 1.44 1.77 senaria 6.05 7/4 2.41 1.96 8.24 septenaria 8/4 2.56 3.14 octonaria 10.76 10/4 4.00 4.91 denaria 16.81 12/4 5.76 7.07 duodenaria 24.20 15/4 9.00 11.05 quinum denum 37.82 20/4 16.00 19.64 vicenaria 67.23 Table 2: Standard measures of fistulae based on Front. Aq. 25.4 and 39-46, . . . . 17 qumana - vlcenana There were two options for multiplying the smallest measure, but they had uneven effects: one might enlarge either the diameter - as had occurred in the cases of the smaller measures from quinaria up to vicenaria and shown in Table 2 - or the number of square digiti or quinariae, which is the area of 17 Frontinus (Aq. 24.3-5) seems to have wanted to convince himself or his readers that a round area can be defined in tenns of a square and vice versa. For that purpose he mentioned the results of the universal calculation of the area of a circle (7[r\ assuming 7[ = 2217. a. I square digitus - 3/14 square digitus = 1 round digitus [(2r)2 _ 3114(2r)2 = 22/7r2 = 7[r2]. b. I round digitus + 311 I round digitus = I square digitus [7[r2 + 3/117[r2= (2r)2]. Each chapter (Aq. 39-63) followed the same fonnat: name of the pipe, its diameter in tenns of (fractions of) digiti, its circumference in the same tenns, its capacity in tenns of (fractions of) quinariae, and finally, in some cases, a remark on its application. My method to calculate the areas of cross-section of the pipes, assuming a perfect circle and I digitus = 1.85 cm, is detennined by ancient practice, since it was based in the diameter's number of digiti and used 7[ = 2217. It started by calculating the crosssection of the pipe called quinaria (Aq. 39). Quinaria: diameter: 1 + 3112 digitus = 5/4 digitus, so the radius (r) = 5/8 digitus. The area (7[r2) is therefore 2217 x (5/8 digitus/ = 275/224 digitui. The calculation resulted in the key: I quinaria = 2751224 digitus 2 that was used to convert the areas of the other measures from square digiti into quinariae, and finally into the metric system. As Frolltinus approximated the number of quinariae by means of fractions, they showed minor differences to the calculated number of quinariae. In practice such a difference cannot have been important. Conversion into the metric system was made for clarity's sake. Rounding off to two decimal places was always my last manipulation. See Fahlbusch 1982, 155.

The volume of water

51

cross-section. As a consequence of the former calculation method, the denaria's area of cross-section, for example, is four times that of the quinaria 's, because the diameter was twice as large. Frontinus pointed at this explicitly (Aq. 27-28). diameter digitus

area of cross-section (A) = lumen 2 cm quinaria digitus 2

cm 5+13/288 20.00 9.33 16.29 vicenaria 5+1851288 10.44 vicenum quinum 25.01 20.37 6+51/288 11.43 24.42 tricenaria 29.98 34.99 6+1941288 12.35 28.50 tricenum quinum 7+39/288 quadragenaria 40.00 13.20 32.59 7+1641288 quadragenum quinum 45.02 14.00 36.67 49.98 7+2811288 14.76 40.71 quinquagenaria 44.81 quinquagenum quinum 55.02 8+106/288 15.48 8+2121288 48.84 59.97 16.17 sexagenaria 64.98 9+271288 52.92 16.83 sexagenum quinum 9+126/288 69.98 57.00 septuagenaria 17.46 9+2221288 75.01 61.10 septuagenum quinum 18.07 10+26/288 80.00 65.16 octogenaria 18.67 84.97 10+1151288 69.21 octogenum quinum 19.24 10+202/288 nonagenaria 19.80 89.98 73.29 10+2851288 20.34 94.89 77.29 nonagenum quinum 20.87 99.99 11+811288 81.45 centenaria 22.86 119.92 12+1021288 97.68 centenum vicenum Table 3: Standard measures of fistulae based on Frontinus Aq. 29 and 46-63, vicenaria - centenum vicenum 18

68.45 85.61 102.61 119.76 136.91 154.08 171.06 188.30 205.23 222.38 239.51 256.73 273.79 290.81 307.95 324.77 342.23 410.43

The measures of the bigger pipes, from the vicenaria upwards, were derived otherwise: They follow a calculation method which is based on the number of square digiti that the area, that is the lumen, of each measure contains. From this number the fistulae also take their name. For a pipe which in area, that is in circular lumen, has twenty-five square digiti is called vicenum quinum; similarly the tricenaria, and so on, by identical increase of five square digiti, up to the centenum vicenum. 19 18 The chapters 46-63 are organised in a similar way as the earlier chapters 39-46. See table 2 and note 11. 19 Aq. 29: Subsequitur illa ratio, quae constat ex numero digitorum quadratorum, qui area, id est lumine, cui usque moduli continentur, a quibus et nomen fistulae accipiunt.

52

Water supply and population in terms of quantities

The changeover from the first to the second calculation method can be seen in the vicenaria: In the fistula vicenaria, which is on the border between the two calculation methods, both methods almost coincide. 20 A glance at the vicenaria's areas of cross-section in tables 2 and 3 shows that this notice was correct: Their values differed less than 1.3 cm2 • After Agrippa's death in 12 BC, Augustus established the system Frontinus described (Aq. 99.4) and probably simultaneously decided that the vicenaria would comprise sixteen quinariae, so that for this measure the first method should be employed (Aq. 33.3). In conclusion, the nomenclature of the standard fistula measures by Frontinus' time was set up more than a century before. Agrippa and his staff probably played a major role in this achievement, since he seems to have formulated the principle on which the bigger fistulae received their names. Moreover, since Agrippa had bequeathed the organisation and the personnel of the city of Rome's water supply system to Augustus, it is plausible that just after Agrippa's death in 12 BC, Augustus adopted the arrangements he had found in the commentarii, which had been left by Agrippa. It follows that if Vitruvius' measures were used at all, they were set aside in Rome at least, in spite of their occurrence in later building manuals. It needs no more explaining what Frontinus understood by the concept quinaria: First it was a fistula with a diameter of 5 quarters of a digitus. Such a lead pipe had an area of cross-section he also called quinaria. So, secondly, the quinaria was an area-measure that equalled a fixed amount of square digiti and which (as is self-evident) can be converted into the metric system: 1 quinaria = 1.23 digitus 2 = 4.20 cm2 The volume of water a quinaria delivered is "a question about which probably more nonsense has been written, or rather repeated or compiled, than about many another".21 This sharp observation by Herschel, made a century ago, is of current interest. Two different fixed values of the quinaria have frequently appeared in the literature: 60 m 3124 hours from 1820 onwards, and 40.6 m 3/24

Nam quae habet areae, id est luminis in rotundum coacti, digitos quadratos viginti quinque, vicenum quinum appellatur: similiter tricenaria et deinceps pari incremento quinorum digitorum quadratorum usque ad centenum vicenum. 20 Aq. 30.1: In vicenaria fistula, quae in confinio utriusque rationis posita est, utraque ratio paene congruit. 21 Herschel 1899,211.

The volume of water

53

hours since the calculations of Di Fenizio in 1916. 22 The latter value was determined presupposing a minimum head (difference in height) between castellum and point of discharge. Rodgers proceeded to the idea of a uniform head for all delivery pipes from all distributary castella. In his view it is certain that the quinaria was a workable unit for quantity because velocity had been standardised. 23 Bruun, however, showed, conclusively in my opinion, that one need have no illusions about a standard delivery per quinaria. 24

2.1.2 The amount of water flowing to Rome In the chapter introducing the discussion on supply and delivery of each aqueduct, Frontinus justified himself regarding the numbers he was going to mention (Aq. 64). It was his aim to make a distinction between various categories of numbers, namely those as recorded in the commentarii principis until his administration, and those he himself had generated by the measurements he had (had) carried out. The imperial records comprised the amounts of water ascribed to each aqueduct and the quantities of each waterline's distribution, probably in great detail (see section 4.2.2). Upon his taking office, he was astonished to find discrepancies between those two kinds of numbers, with distribution exceeding supply, and he decided in favour of his own investigations on the subject. As a result, he wrote, he found the discrepancies to be just the reverse, and thus even worse: the total supply of the aqueducts was far greater than he had found in the imperial records. Thereafter, he reviewed the numbers per aqueduct (Aq. 65-73), comparing his measurements to the data from the commentarii principis (Table 4), and trying to elucidate the differences. It is striking that Frontinus only carried out a small number of measurements (Table 5). Three out of the four greatest aqueducts of his time were measured at two different sites, four aqueducts were measured at one site, and the two smallest underwent no measurements at all. Therefore, there is a real danger of

22 Rondelet 1820 was followed by Lanciani 1975, 571, who on his p. 573, on the other hand, calculated 27 m 3124 hours, and by Pohlmann 1884, 143. Among those who cited Di Fenizio's calculation (1916), which I have not been able to see, were Hainzmann 1975,24, Grimal 1961,83, and Hodge 1992,300 + n. 62 who stressed that Di Fenizio's number was a minimum discharge of the quinaria. 23 Rodgers 1986,355 and 1991,19. 24 Bruun 1991, 385-388.

54

Water supply and population in terms of quantities

his measurements standing for little as regards capacity computations. The figures, however, were his and he believed them to be reliable and usefu1. 25

aqueduct

adscriptum

erogatio upstream downstream Total or at piscina plscina

841 Appia (Aq. 65) Anio Vetus (Aq. 66) 1,541 Marcia (Aq. 67) 2,162 400/445 Tepula (Aq. 68) 649(+162) Iulia (Aq. 69) Virgo (Aq. 70) 652 Alsietina (Aq. 71) Claudia (Aq. 72) 2,855 Anio Novus (Aq.73) 3,263 Traiana Alexandrina Table 4: Aqueduct flow - in terms of principis.

--? 262 351 190 --? 392 ? 163

704 26 1,348 1,840 445 803 2,504 27 1,750 4,037

704 1,610 2,191 445 993 2,504 392 >1,750 4,200

quinariae - derived from the commentarii

Frontinus' line of argument must have run as follows: Once an aqueduct's capacity had been established at the intake, the piscina or elsewhere, it was only a matter of adding up the figures of extra inflow and subtracting those of delivery, with the final result that at the end total inflow equalled total delivery. His discussion on the aqua Anio Vetus may serve as an example: To the Anio Vetus is attributed in the commentarii the amount of 1,541 quinariae. At the caput I found 4,398 quinariae in addition to the amount that is diverted to the Tiburtines in its own conduit. Upstream from the piscina, 262 quinariae were distributed. The capacity at the piscina, which is calculated by means of gauges placed there, was 2,362 quinariae. So 1,774 quinariae were lost between caput and piscina. Below the piscina 1,348 quinariae were delivered, 699 quinariae more than we have stated to be the

25 Rodgers 1991, 15 stated correctly that Frontinus' primary focus was on matters of administration, and he therefore warned against using De aquae ductu for technical issues. 26 Below Spes Vetus? 27 Below the 7th milestone?

The volume of water

55

capacity in the record books, but 1,014 quinariae less than we have determined were received into the conduit downstream from the piscina. The total loss between caput and piscina and below the piscina amounted to 2,788 quinariae, which I would suspect to have resulted from error in measurement, had I not discovered where it was diverted. 28 So the Anio Vetus, according to Frontinus' measurements, had a capacity of 4,398 quinariae at its intake and 2,362 at the piscina. The difference can only be explained partially: 262 quinariae were distributed, so the rest (1,774 quinariae) must have been lost somehow. From the 2,362 quinariae measured at the piscina, 1,348 were distributed and once more the other 1,014 were considered lost. The discrepancies were puzzling indeed, and can be explained in various ways, the easiest of which was to suspect the personnel of fraud, like Frontinus did. If the personnel were to blame, the commentarii principis and both the quality and the interpretation of the measurements themselves were kept above reproach. Although the possibility of fraud cannot be precluded, it may be worthwhile to look at Frontinus' measurements. How had Frontinus actually measured the capacity of the aqueducts? That information he only related in the first of his accounts on the capacities of the aqueducts, in Aq. 65.3 on the aqua Appia. Since it was impossible to measure the aqueduct at its intake, he went to a place below Spes Vetus, and there he found a water depth of 5 feet and a width of 1¥.t feet, making 8¥.t square feet. Thereafter he converted the square feet into another unit for area, namely the quinaria that was also used for water pipes. He did so in this way: .. an area of 8 3/4 feet, twenty-two centenariae and a quadragenaria, which results in 1,825 quinariae. 28 Aq. 66: Anioni veteri adscriptus est in commentariis modus quinariarum mille quingentarum quadraginta unius. Ad caput inveni quattuor milia trecentas nonaginta octo praeter eum modum qui in proprium ductum Tiburtium derivatur: amplius, quam in commentariis est, quinariis duobus milibus octingentis quinquaginta septem. erogantur antequam ad piscinam veniret quinariae ducentae sexaginta duae. modus in piscina, qui per mensuras positas initur, efficit quinariarum duo milia trecentas sexaginta duas. intercidebant ergo inter caput et piscinam quinariae mille septingentae septuaginta quattuor. erogabat post piscinam quinarias mille trecentas quadraginta octo: amplius quam in commentariis conceptionis modum significari diximus, quinariis sexaginta novem: minus quam recipi in ductum post piscinam posuimus, quinariis mille decem quattuor. summa quae inter caput et piscinam et post piscinam intecidebat: quinariae duo milia septingentae octoginta octo, quod errore mensurae fieri suspicarer, nisi invenissem ubi averterentur.

56

Water supply and population in terms of quantities

aqueduct Appia (Aq. 65) Anio Vetus (Aq. 66) Marcia (Aq. 67) Tepula (Aq. 68) Iulia (Aq. 69) Virgo (Aq. 70) Alsietina (Aq. 71) Claudia (Aq. 72) Anio Novus (Aq.73) Traiana Alexandrina

at source

at piscina

4,398 4,690

2,362 2,944 29

elsewhere 1,825 at Spes Vetus

1,206 2,504 4,607 4,738

3,312

Table 5: Frontinus' measurements in terms of quinariae

The area he had measured in the open channel indeed roughly equalled the sum of the areas of those 23 pipes (see Table 3). Hence it follows that Frontinus, in order to establish capacity, just determined the area of the cross-section by simple multiplication of depth and width, and took no account of whether it was the cross-section ofa closed conduit or an open channel. 30 At the same time, however, Frontinus appeared not to be totally unaware of the universal rule for calculations of water delivery by means of open and closed conduits, that is for free-flow channels and pressure pipes alike. 31 He knew that velocity affected capacity, for a putative delivery greater than the capacity was explained as follows: the sweeping force of water, taken from a large and fastflowing river, increases the volume by its very velocity.32 He was however incapable of quantifying velocity and incorporating that factor in his computations. 33 Hodge's suggestion that, in spite of this, Frontinus must have been able to measure an aqueduct's discharge is neither based on Frontinus' booklet nor on Rome's archaeological remains. There is no compelling 29

This figure near the piscina was achieved by a combination of measurement in the

piscina and data from the commentarii. 30 Hodge 1984 suggested that Frontinus must have had some measuring device made up of a system of sluice-gates. 31 Q = v. A, in which Q is the quantity of water delivered, v is the velocity of the flow, and A the area of the cross-section of the water stream or pipe In the metric system Q is expressed in terms of m3 , v in mis, and A in m2 • 32 Aq. 73.6: vis aquae rapacior, ut ex largo et ce1eri flumine excepta, ve10citate ipsa ampliat modum. 33 Already noted by Herschel 1899, 201-203.

The volume of water

57

evidence to support the thesis that Frontinus had at his disposal any measuring instrument other than a ruler. 34 Another attractive idea, namely that there must have been a sort of normal speed of flow in the aqueduct channels, seems not to be in line with modem observations, and cannot be demonstrated. 35 A major point at issue in Frontinus' as well as his contemporaries' application of the quinaria as a unit, is that it was used irrespective of whether it related to an area in a free-flow channel or in a closed pipe. The quinaria itself can only be considered a unit of capacity for water in motion, should a fixed amount of water have flowed through every area of 4.20 cm 2, overlooking circumstances as head, roughness of the conduit, or the gradient in an open channel. 36 As yet, the procedure followed above has led to little: the quinaria by itself is a working unit that cannot help us grasp an idea of the amount of water brought to Rome. It is true, Frontinus' measurements produced neither reliable data about the capacity of channels nor about fistulae, but they did yield information about depth and width of certain aqueducts outside the city. The latter may be conveniently used by modem hydraulic engineers who try to estimate the quantity of water each aqueduct brought to the city. In addition to modem archaeological data, the results of ancient measurements can be seen as a valuable supplement. Outside the city, information suffices to make well-founded statements on the supply of several aqueducts. 37 Blackman applied a rather sophisticated method for hydraulic computations, entirely based on archaeological evidence, to the four greatest aqueducts. With the help of data on the width and gradient of sections still in existence, gathered in the first decades of the twentieth century, he analysed the depth of the specus and also calculated the maximum delivery per aqueduct. 38 His histograms served to deduce that the specus of the earlier aquae Anio Vetus and Marcia showed more variation than that of both later aqueducts, the aquae Claudia and Anio Novus. Furthermore, Blackman is of Rodgers 1986, 359 contra Hodge 1984, 208-216. Contra Rodgers 1986, 358; See Blackman 1978, 60-63 on the bed slopes of the aquae Anio Vetus, Marcia, Claudia, and Anio Novus. 36 Recently again, Bruun 1991,385-388 rightly stressed the impossibility of reaching an exact value for the quinaria as a measure of capacity. 37 Blackman 1978, 52-53 is of the opinion that the measurements published by Reina et al. 1917, supplemented by quantitative data from the publications of Ashby 1935 and Van Deman 1934, form an efficacious basis for hydraulic computations; Fahlbusch 1982, 146. 38 Blackman 1978,68-70: aqua Anio Vetus 1.2 - 1.6 m 3 /s; aqua Marcia 1.1-1.4 m 3 /s; aqua Claudia 2.11 m3Is; aqua Anio Novus 2.0 - 2.3 m3Is. 34 35

58

Water supply and population in terms of quantities

the opinion that the sections near the city imposed restrictions on the volume the aqueducts delivered. 39 A somewhat more reliable estimate might be based not merely on archaeological data alone, but by also taking into consideration Frontinus' measurements, as Fahlbusch has done. 40 He made the most of the figures passed along by Ashby and Frontinus to reach the average values he needed for his computations. Each aqueduct's probable delivery was calculated, and further, also for each aqueduct, the delivery per quinaria. Considering the capacity numbers just before the city as mentioned by Frontinus, Fahlbusch brought forward a lower approximation than Blackman's. The delivery at the end of the first century AD, according to Fahlbusch, totalled up to 6.0 - 7.35 m 3/s, that is 520,000 - 635,000 m 3 per day.41 If Fahlbusch's calculations are accepted, it follows that there was no standard delivery per quinaria. Under excellent conditions, probably only just after the building or the repair of an aqueduct, the quinaria showed a divergence in delivery from 21.60 m 3124 hours (aqua Virgo) up to 38.02 m 3124 hours (aqua Claudia). A second deduction might be that by Frontinus' time total delivery, conditional upon the aqueducts' state of repair, varied between 5.78 m3/s and 7.21 m3/s, which is roughly between 500,000 - 623.000 m 3/day.42 Furthermore, these calculations enable us to appreciate the efforts of those people who played a major part in building and maintaining the large-scale aqueducts, in particular Agrippa's, during the first decades after Octavianus had assumed power. During Claudius' reign also, valuable contributions were made to Rome's water supply. Regarding Agrippa's contributions, as far as I can ascertain, the last major repairs to the aquae Appia and Anio Vetus had been carried out by the time when the aqua Marcia was built, that is about 144140 BC. The latter aqueduct, as well as the aqua Tepula, were still in their original state. For about 100 years, the aediles in charge had probably ordered only minor repairs, or maybe had paid no attention to the aqueducts at all. During the civil wars of the first century AD, and especially in the years preceding Agrippa's aedileship in 33 BC, the water supply system would have been neglected anyhow, since scarcely any aediles have been recorded for that

39

Blackman 1978,55-59.

40 Fahlbusch 1982, 141-152. 41 Fahlbusch 1982, 149. 42 My figures take into account, that the aqua Tepula after Agrippa's reworking may have had no sources of its own, but started at aqua Iulia's piscina.

The volume of water

aqueduct

aqua Appia aqua Anio Vetus aqua Marcia aqua lulia aqua Virgo aqua Claudia aqua Tepula aqua Alsietina aqua Anio Novus aqua Traiana aqua Alexandrina

59

lumen (A) according delivery per quinaria to Frontinus (I/s) quinariae 1,825 2,362 1,944 1,206 2,504 3,312

2

m 0.77 0.99 1.24 0.51 1.05 1.39

(445t 3 (392)44

min. 0.29 0.31 0.28 0.36 0.24 0.35

delivery (Q) (m 3 /s)

max. 0.31 0.41 0.38 0.39 0.25 0.44

min. 0.53 0.74 0.81 0.44 0.59 1.17 + 4.28

max. 0.57 0.99 1.11 0.47 0.63 1.47 + 5.24

0.30

0.32

? ?

? ?

(0.13) 0 1.47

(0.14) 0.12 1.85

? ?

? ?

? ?

? ?

Table 6: Amounts of water brought to Rome. 45

period. 46 Therefore, it can be assumed that leaks and sediments had seriously diminished delivery by the time Agrippa took responsibility, to less than 191.000 m 3/day. By repairing the older aqueducts, Agrippa added to the volume some 52,000 m 3/day at least, and by building the aquae Iulia and Virgo, the total increase he had arranged came out to roughly 135,000 m 3/day.47 The next and even more voluminous increase was probably planned 43 As Frontinus considered the piscina of the aqua Julia to be the source of the aqua Tepula, it is not clear whether Frontinus included its water in the lulia's. In my view he did so, since he did not measure the aqua Tepula. This is to say that the Tepula's water must be left out here. 44 Under normal conditions no water of the Alsietina was distributed in the city. 45 Table 6 is based on Fahlbusch 1982, 147. 46 MRR II could only retrieve one aedil from the period 40 - 33 BC: M. Oppius (App. B. Civ. 4.41; Dio Casso 48.53.4-6). According to Dio Casso 49.16.2 nobody even ran for this office in 36 BC. 47 In view of the four aqueducts' condition of bad repair, minimum delivery at the moment Agrippa took office should be considered as the maximum (table 6). The difference between both values roughly counted for 52,000 m3/day. As during his term of office the piscina of the aqua Iulia had come to be the beginning of the aqua Tepula, I assumed that all the latter aqueduct's original water was left out. If not, the increase would have been greater.

60

Water supply and population in terms ofquantities

during Caligula's emperorship and was carried ~)Ut during Claudius' reign. In those years, by building the aquae Claudia and Anio Novus, total supply was augmented by 287,000 m3/day. Regrettably, the quantities added by the two later aqueducts cannot be estimated.

Population

2.2

61

POPULATION

Several possibilities have been examined in order to arrive at a justifiable estimate of Rome's population. That is to sayan estimate of the number of people who actually lived in the city in a given period of time, irrespective of Roman citizenship, sex or legal status. Beloch set the trend for modern discussions. 48 His point of departure, when calculating the estimates, was the number of male citizens who qualified for the monthly frumentationes (hand-outs of grain at reduced tariff that had been started in 123 BC by Gaius Gracchus, and from 58 BC onwards were available for free), and the congiaria which were occasionally remitted (usually in the form of money). Thereafter he tried to make a connection between these citizens and the number of women, children and slaves dependent on them. Then he estimated the number of foreigners, and finally took all citizens, slaves and foreigners together. The check on the sum of these additions consisted in putting it side by side with the data relating to the volume of grain transported to Rome every year, the built-up area of the city, and the number of domus and insulae as recorded in the Regionary Catalogues, two fourth-century catalogues of the fourteen regiones. 49 This procedure resulted in an estimated population size of 800,000 by Augustus' time. 50 Brunt, on the other hand, was of the opinion that only the figures concerning the recipients of the grain dole could substantiate a dependable estimate. 51 He used the very same figures as those from which Beloch started; likewise he did not reckon with the senators and equites, because they were numerically irrelevant. He arrived at a lower estimate, among other reasons, because he did not mention any foreigners living in the city. According to his estimate, Rome had 750,000 inhabitants during late Republic and Augustus' reign. 52 Other authors did include Beloch's checks in their reasoning. 53

Be10ch 1886, 392-412: Die Bevolkerung Roms; Lo Cascio 1994, 26-27 rightly stated that "the advances made in finding new devices for evaluating the absolute numbers have not been substantial since Beloch." 49 Curiosum Urbis Regionum XIV and Notitia Regionum Urbis XIV; the text can be found in Jordan 1871 11,539-574, and Richter 1889, 186-189. 50Beloch 1886,404,410, and 412. 51 Brunt 1971,376. 52 Brunt 1971,83. 53 For example: Kahrstedt 1921-1923, Hopkins 1978a, 96-98. See also Hermansen 1978. Brunt was equally 'oversceptical' (Hopkins 1978, 98) as was Maier 1953-1954, 318-351. 48

62

Water supply and population in terms of quantities

What numbers are we talking about? In 46 BC, in connection with the disturbances of the times, the number of grain recipients had increased to 320,000 people (Suet. Caes. 41.3; Dio Casso 43.21.4). One might think of a confluence of Roman citizens from other parts of Italy, attracted by the putative possibilities of the urbs and the free support in sustenance (App. B. Civ. 2.120; Sal. Cat. 37.5-7). If indeed the criteria to qualify for the grain dole consisted of Roman citizenship and actually being domiciled in the city, such an increase in the number of recipients must probably be characterised as a consequence of the situation. But what about the improper liberation of slaves? Owner and slaves sometimes may have made an agreement: the new liberti were to hand over the com receipts to their former dominus (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 4.24.5). They tried to line their pockets with state money in an immoral, ifnot illicit way. Caesar appears to have tried to reduce the attraction asserted by the city's hand-outs. Therefore he made a recensus, neighbourhood after neighbourhood, with the help of the domini insularum in order to control public expenditure for com by means of a new list of entitled persons. He fixed the number of grain recipients at 150,000 by stipulating that only in case of a qualified person's death, should the praetor fill the vacancy on the list (Suet. Jul. 41.3). Of course, this difference of 170,000 men, who were entitled to the hand-outs, had no immediate effect on the size of Rome's population. It might have discouraged new immigrants, however. A measure that must have affected the population size was the transfer of some 80,000 citizens to overseas coloniae, even though it must have taken some time (Suet. lui. 42.1).54 The maximum stipulated by Caesar appears to have been a short-lived solution. OctavianuslAugustus bestowed money or food on the plebs urbana several times, always on no less than 250,000 persons. Even at the end of his longlasting reign he gave congiaria to the people of Rome. After Augustus' death, Tiberius remitted to the people what Augustus had bequeathed to them. Although in the sources a distinction is made between the monthly grain dole and occasional congiaria, it seems unlikely that those who benefited from the former were different from those who gained from the latter. Both were bracketed together (RGDA 15.4; Dio Casso 55.10.1). Therefore, in my view, the numbers of beneficiaries can be considered mutually interchangeable.

54 Brunt 1971,257 is of the opinion that those 80,000 colonists consisted of 70,000 citizens and 10,000 military veterans.

Population

63

number of recipients

hand-out

funding

reference

46BC

320,000

?

Dio Cass.43.21.3-4

?

150,000

extra grain + olive oil ?

?

Suet. luI. 41.3

44BC

>250,000

HS 300

RGDA 15.1

29BC 24BC 23 BC

>250,000 >250,000 >250,000

HS400 HS400 12 frumentationes

11 BC 5 BC 2BC

>250,000 320,000 200,000

HS400 HS 240 HS 240

inheritance Caesar ex manubiis ex patrimonio Augustus, private ? ? ?

AD6 AD 15

200,000? 150,000 165,000

extra frumentatio HS 260

? inheritance Augustus

RGDA 15.1 RGDA 15.1 RGDA 15.1 RGDA 15.1 RGDA 15.2 RGDA 15.4 Dio Casso 55.10.1 Dio Casso 55.26.3 Dio Cass.57.14.1-2 Tac. Ann. 1.8.2 Suet. Aug. 101.2

Table 7: Congiaria andfrumentationes 46 BC - 15 AD The questions that must be addressed now are first which factors patently affected the level of the number of recipients, and further which information about the size of the population these numbers might give. In the first place, a prominent part was played by the real growth or decrease of the number of persons meeting the criteria for qualification for the frumentationes, that is new settlements of Roman citizens in the city, or their dispersal elsewhere, together with the liberation of slaves who acquired citizenship, and colonisation. The idea that the colonisation mentioned by Suetonius (lui. 42.1) can be recognised in the difference between the 320,000 citizens in 46 BC and the 250,000 shortly after Caesar's death is tempting. Octavianusl Augustus founded several colonies too, however principally for the benefit of military veterans. How many citizens, if any, moved from Rome into such veteran colonies after the completion of Caesar's colonisation plans is not known. 55 Maybe the accommodation of veterans in colonies prevented a

55

Brunt 1971,259.

64

Water supply and population in terms of quantities

substantial group of ex-soldiers from settlement in the metropolis. Equally, it is not known whether a large quantity of Roman citizens moved into the city from outside during the period from 46 BC up to AD 15. They cannot be traced back in Augustus' figures anyhow. Up to 12 BC, the number of grain recipients was rather stable, but in 5 BC that number appears to have grown again to the amount of 320,000. Maybe liberation of slaves or slackening in the practice of record keeping must be held responsible for this increase. A real population growth is not necessarily implied. Nevertheless, the increase was not much to Augustus' liking: in order not to raise his budget, he gave everyone a little less (Suet. Aug. 42.2). Another point to be discussed is intervention by the authorities in the enrolment of citizens who qualified for handouts. Like Caesar, Augustus had a reeensus carried out, which in 2 BC appeared to have been effective (Suet. Aug. 40.2).56 In this context, Rickman stressed again the importance of full Roman citizenship and the city of Rome as the actual place of residence. 57 Senators and equites were probably excluded from the list, but a poverty criterion, as Kahrstedt among others took for granted, cannot be demonstrated. 58 The reorganisation of the city in regiones and viei, which were settled shortly after 7 BC (Suet. Aug. 30.1; Dio Casso 55.8.6-7) must have enabled Augustus technically to perform this recensus vieatim. 59 The small number of citizens who were sharing in Augustus' inheritance, is more difficult to explain. 60 Beloch's hypothesis was, that cutting down the number of grain recipients in 2 BC indeed resulted in people leaving the city to settle elsewhere, because Rome had lost its attractiveness. This hypothesis is as good as the suggestion ofa new census 61: Both lack plausibility.

56 Although Suetonius did not state the year in which this reeensus was held, it seems quite likely that it followed Augustus' discovery that the number had grown out of hand. The recensus' result was shown in RGDA 15.4 and Dio Casso 55.10.1. 57 Rickman 1980, 182. 58 Bruhns 1981,34-37; Rickman 1980, 182 + n. 92; App. B. Civ. 2.120 spoke of 'to 01 'tTJPEOlOV 'tOle; 1tEVTJ01, that is people who have to work for their daily bread. Kahrstedt 1921-1923, 14 distinguished between people in reduced circumstances who received com, and those who had to earn their living. 59 See section 4.2.2. 60 According to Suet. Aug. 102.2, Augustus' legacy to the populus Romanus came to HS 4,000,000; Tac. Ann. 1.8.2 mentioned a legacy of HS 43,500,000. If divided in equal shares ofHS 260 per citizen, which is the amount Dio Casso 57.14.1-2 stated, it follows that 150,000 a 165,000 citizens participated. 61 Beloch 1886,402; Van Berghem 1975,30 rejected the idea ofa third recensus.

Population

65

In conclusion: In view of the relatively high reliability of the Res Gestae,62 it can be inferred that between 46 Be and AD 14 some (200,000 to) 250,000 male citizens were legally enrolled as recipients of the grain doles and other hand-outs. It seems that these ups and downs must be attributed to a registration system that was not particularly accurate. An extensive increase seems to be out of the question. If there was any trend at all, it more likely pointed at a decrease rather than at a rise in the number of citizens at the end of the Augustan period. Given these above figures, what is their significance in relation to Rome's population size? First of all it has to be stressed that they only refer to the time of Octavianus / Augustus plus a few years earlier and later. As yet, there exist no figures as reliable as these, dating from other centuries of the Roman Empire. Therefore estimates of Rome's population size principally refer to this period of time. Although the estimates were founded on the numbers of grain recipients, scholars had to reckon with other factors. In the first place they had to take into account the interpretation of Suet. Aug. 41.2 regarding the age at which people were usually enrolled on the list of recipients, in relation to demographic factors such as human fertility and mortality, that may have been in existence in a city as big as Rome. Furthermore they had to take into account the ratios of men, women and children in the city.63 Authors weighed those factors in their own way and arrived at different figures about the citizen population: Beloch 500,000,64 Brunt 500,000 - 640,000,65 and Hopkins 670,000 -770,000. 66

62 I followed Brunt & Moore 1991, 3 who considered the Res Gestae an elogium which 'would hardly contain any directly untrue claims, since there would be too many people who could disprove them'. For the high reliability of the numbers of veterans settled in colonies, see Brunt 1971,338. 63 Here modem studies in demography might come into play, but a caveat is called for. The application of demographic models is based on certain assumptions such as life expectancy at birth (eo), and growth of the population. If the city of Rome was exceptional in the Roman world, model life-tables that might be applicable to the Roman Empire as a whole, fall short, since Rome's population seems to have been neither stationary nor stable. See Parkin 1992, 74. Frequently used demographic models are derived from Coale & Demeny 1983. See Duncan-Jones 1990, 93-104; Parkin 1992, 145-150; Saller 1997,27 and 48-65; Bagnall and Frierl994. See also Frier 1982 and 1999. 64 Beloch 1886, 404.

66

Water supply and population in terms of quantities

They added to these numbers, the 250,000 (Brunt) or 300,000 (Beloch and Hopkins) slaves, foreigners, and people from numerically insignificant groups. In this way they arrived at estimates of the population size varying from 750,000 to 1,000,000 people. The next question that must be addressed is whether other methods might contribute to the reliability of these estimates. Maier argued rather convincingly against utilising topographical data to figure out the population size during the time of AugustuS. 67 Of first and foremost importance is that the evidence bears on a much later period of time. The Aurelianic wall, which reputedly enclosed the built-up area of the city, was only constructed at the end of the third century AD, while Rome seemed to have outgrown the 'Servian' wall at an earlier stage. In relation to the size of the city's population, the extent of the built-up area is mainly used to judge whether a calculated population density seems implausibly absurd, which is seldom the case, for there are and were cities, districts, and neighbourhoods of which extremely high densities are reported. 68 It is also questionable whether the number of insulae may serve as a basis even for rough estimates. The regionary catalogues Notitia and Curiosum in which, among other things, the number of insulae per regio that would form the basis for such estimates was noted, are fourth-century documents. The debate on the meaning of the word insula, moreover, has only resulted in the conclusion that it denoted an apartment building. 69 Furthermore, inquiries about the space an insula took up, the number of floors an insula consisted of, or its occupationBrunt 1971,383; Brunt doubled the number of male grain recipients. I wonder why he left out of his considerations the lower numbers of the end of the period, also found in the Res Gestae. 66 Hopkins 1978, 97 stated himself that the proportion of women and children in the city may have been less than in the city at large. 67 Maier 1953-1954, 334 ff; Hopkins 1978, 78 dismissed Maier's criticisms as oversceptical. 68 The density of the population in the city of Rome, grounded on the assumptions of one million people and an area - according to Maier 1953-1954, 329 - within the Aurelian wall of 1,373 ha, amounts to 7301ha. Beloch 1886, 409 told of certain districts in Rome and Naples around AD 1880 counting circa 800lha or even 16001ha. Stambaugh 1988, 337 gave figures for modern cities: Calcutta 2951ha, in certain districts 1,018Iha; Bombay 4521ha, in some districts 1,169Iha. Hong Kong topped every other city: Stambaugh mentioned 1,656Iha, and Hopkins 1978, 97 even 2,5001ha (N.B.: based on his own personal observations). 69 Hermansen 1978, 130-131.

65

Population

67

rate, still await answers. Therefore, Hennansen has come to the conclusion that the insulae could not give a decisive answer about the size of Rome's population, neither when compared to the insulae found in Ostia, nor when put together with fragments of the Severan Forma Urbis Romae. 70 If there is little possibility of making serious statements, which are based on these topographical data about Rome's population size in the fourth century, there is even less chance of useful inference regarding a much earlier period. Do relatively recent publications about Rome's grain supply perhaps provide new evidence, which may enable us to reach a reliable estimate based upon data on grain-imports or com consumption? Regrettably, they do not. Garnsey was of the opinion that there is no chance of getting any exact figures on wheat-imports into the city: the ancient texts, particularly when combined together, are misleading.71 The combination of Flavius Josephus BJ 2.383 and 2.386 seems to suggest that in the second half of the first century AD, two thirds of the demand for grain in the city was met by imports from Africa, half of which came from Egypt. Taken together with a passage in Aurelius Victor (Caes. 1.6), which states that in the time of Augustus, 20 million modii grain were shipped from Egypt to Rome, we can infer that grain imports in Rome totalled 60 million modii. At an estimated medium consumption of 30 modii per person per year this would have meant that Rome accommodated a population of 2,000,000 million people in the Early Principate. 72 This high number is implausible. Verification by means of texts about grain imports must 70

For the Severan Forma Urbis see Rodriguez-Almeida 1981.

71 Garnsey 1983b, 119; See Hopkins 1978,97-98. 72 Garnsey 1988, 191 n. 26 thought that 30 modii per person per year was the average consumption, the minimum being 22.5 modii; Rickman 1980, 10 started from the idea that average grain consumption was 40 modii per person per year; Hopkins 1978, 98 took the view that an average consumption of 30 modii per person per year was rather high. Thirty modii per person per year would correspond to 2.5 modii per month, that was half the monthly Jrumentatio (See Duncan-Jones 1982, 146 + no. 1176b). In view of Cato's note that slaves with lighter duties were to receive 3 modii of wheat per month, whereas slaves employed in hard labour received an equivalent of 4.8 - 6 modii per month (Agr. Orig. 56-58), Garnsey's figures appear a little low. His estimate would imply that the monthly ratio of 5 modii of wheat satisfied the grain consumption needs of two adults. However, even starting from 40 modii per person per year, the calculated population of Rome would have been 1,500,000. Moreover it is striking that none of the authors took any notice of the pack animals present in the city, which may have eaten grain as well (see Erdkamp 1998,44-45) and thereby may have influenced consumption per (human) head. This is not to say that one can arrive at a reliable estimate of the Roman population with the help of ancient texts on grain imports or consumption.

68

Water supply and population in terms of quantities

be rejected. Two other passages, to which Beloch referred, in order to calculate population size with the help of grain consumption, must be considered of little use as well. 73 To sum up: An overview of the evidence related to Rome's population, as discussed by Beloch and later scholars, ended in the inference that there is no better evidence to rely on than the number of recipients of hand-outs from 46 BC - AD 15. Therefore, my estimate of the population at the beginning of our era primarily joins in with Beloch's, and with the consensus that now seems to have been reached. Interpretation and extrapolation of the figures led to a putative population of some 800,000 - 1,000,000 people. As those numbers showed a slight decrease at the end of Augustus' reign, it seems justified to take into account a somewhat lower estimate. Therefore I will reckon with a population of 800,000 plus or minus 200,000 people. Information, which studies on water supply may contribute, will be presented below.

2.3

CONCLUSION : WATER SUPPLY AND POPULA nON

Now that both the amounts of water that the aqueducts brought to Rome, and the number of people living in the city have been estimated, we may estimate the available quantity of water per person. That is not to say that a fixed amount of water needed per person can be established in this way. This estimate has neither absolute nor general validity, but merely informs about the state of affairs at a given moment in time (see table 8).

73 Hopkins 1978,98 on Beloch 1886,411 fwho referred to SHA Sept.Sev. 23.2 and a scholiast on Lucanus, Ad Pharsalia 1.319.

Conclusion: Water supply and population

69

Which purposes the aqueducts primarily served is not always exactly apparent, but it is clear that the provision of drinking water was sometimes only one of them (see section 3.1). It is quite possible that supplying public and private baths, ornamental fountains, watering gardens, or inundating fields for naumachiae took a considerable share. On the other hand, a metropolis like Rome during the Early Principate must have relied heavily on water from far away to meet the drinking water needs of its inhabitants. At the same time, however, springs, wells and rainwater cisterns may have remained in use after aqueduct building. Therefore, it is not admissible to draw direct conclusions about any period of time, which are based on a putative direct interconnection between population and the available amount of water. 74 Nevertheless it may be worthwhile to examine the putative growth of both population and water supply from the time of Agrippa's activity until the end of the first century AD.

34BC ± 25 BC 19BC AD 97

total quantity in terms of million IIday max. 191 max. 283 max. 338 max. 635

IIday per person 600,000 people 800,000 people 1,000,000 people 318 472 563 1,058

239 354 422 794

191 283 338 635

Table 8: Aqueduct flow in different years

It can be gathered from Table 8 that the total amount of water conveyed to the city by means of the large-scale aqueducts more than tripled in the period 34 Be - AD 97. At the end of the civil wars, shortly before Octavian survived as the sole ruler in Italy, the system must have been in bad repair. The efforts Agrippa dedicated to maintenance, repair, and adjustment of the older aqueducts and the building of the new aqua Iulia must have taken some years, 74 Brunt 1971, 384: At the beginning of our era, Rome had a population of about 750,000 people. As the water supply had doubled since ca. 130 BC, the population at that time must have numbered about 375,000 people. Earlier, in the period 270 BC 130 BC, the amount of water had also been doubled. It follows that ca. 270 BC the city had about 180,000 inhabitants. It is interesting that although Brunt put in a proviso as regards this arithmetic, Garnsey (1988, 191 n. 26) used the numbers for the earlier periods of time, but rejected the number of 750,000 people on which they were based. See also Duncan-Jones 1982, 261 + supplementary note; Bruun 1991, 100-10 1 n.20.

Water supply and population in terms of quantities

70

but at about 25 Be the system must have been in full swing. If water supply studies can potentially contribute to the understanding of population growth, the observation of the tripled supply requires refinement. If the amount was distributed unevenly to different types of consumers, the question that must be asked is not only how much water was available in tenns of the population at large, but also how much water was available for people who had to fetch their water in public places. For each aqueduct and for the aqueducts as a whole, Frontinus indicated the number of quinariae which were distributed outside the city and how many were left over for distribution inside the urbs, and further specified per aqueduct which of the fourteen Augustan regiones were served (Aq. 78_86).75 Moreover, he mentioned the types of consumers that benefited. Although, as argued in section 2.2, the quinaria had no standard delivery, it is supposed here that, put together, quinariae represented on average an equal value. Notwithstanding the fact that the manuscript tradition is not as perfect as one would wish, and the delivery units could not be defined exactly, it is sensible to establish the proportion of quantities delivered to the different types of consumers inside and outside the urbs, which Frontinus has indicated. It is evident that his numbers can only be used with some caution.

extra urbem

quinariae 4.063 = 29%

in urbe

9.955 = 71%

consumer emperor privati

quinariae 1,718 = 12% 2,345 = 17%

emperor 1,707.5 = 12% privati 3,847 =27% 4,401 = 31% public Table 9: Water division according to Frontinus Aq. 78 Outside the city, the aqueduct water was given to the emperor and to private people, presumably for their estates. Whether this water was used for luxurious ends or was meant for the irrigation of their fields, is not the issue here. Inside

75 As a matter of fact, Frontinus' figures may have been handed down incorrectly: The codex Cassinensis on which the manuscripts were probably based, shows serious gaps in this respect, and some additions were wrong. Arithmetic by Poleni 1722 and others has resulted in various corrections. See Bennett 1925, tables I-IV at the end of his translation. For the manuscript tradition see Reeve's contribution in Reynolds 1983, 166-170; Bruun 1991,381-384.

Conclusion: Water supply and population

71

the city the same consumers also received a considerable share. The public water supply, that is the water that did not go to the emperor and private people, was, at the end of the first century AD, restricted to the urbs. People who were dependent on it had at their disposal only about one third of the total amount, and less than half of the quantity entering the city. This observation leads to the ensuing question of what Frontinus understood by the urbs. What was his city concept? His contemporaries probably may not have been in want of such a definition, as they understood what was meant, but nowadays this does not hold true any more. The words in urbe and extra urbem were not only used with regard to the distribution of aqueduct water, but they are also found in Frontinus' discussion on the rulings concerning the maintenance of the aqueducts (Aq. 96.1) and the personnel assigned to the curator aquarum (Aq. 117.2-3). They were used as opposing ideas, without defining a borderline in between. People used different terms to denote the boundaries of the city: the pomerium, the 'Servian' wall, a customs boundary probably set up by Vespasian, the first milestone on the outgoing roads, or the end of the aedificia continentia, which is the end of the built-up area. 76 If Frontinus made a choice, did he choose the pomerium or the 'Servian' wall, or did his boundary coincide with the later Aurelian wall? Did it enclose an area extending as far as the seventh milestone on the outgoing roads as Bruun suggested, or was it otherwise?77 The rulings from shortly after Agrippa's death, quoted verbatim, may reflect an urbs concept different from Frontinus' a century later. Furthermore, a boundary as meant in a senate ruling dating 11 BC, seems not to have necessarily bothered Frontinus. This is obvious for instance, in a passage in which he speaks about the two lictores the senate had assigned to the curator aqua rum when on official duty outside the city.78 "When we ourselves examine the 76 See Champlin 1982, 97; Fn:zouls 1987; Nicolet 1987, 3 + n. 6 referring to the Tabula Heracleae (ILS 6085 = CIL 12 593 = FIRA I, 13 = Crawford 1996 no. 24) lines 20 and 26. 77 Bruun 1991, 148. The area he suggested corresponds roughly with the area denoted as suburban in Kiepert's map at the back ofCIL 14. Frezouls 1985,373 was of the opinion that the Aurelian wall was no "enceinte reduite", as opposed to Homo 1951, 99; As regards habitation, he thought that "Rome ville ouverte est donc restee, en ce qui concerne 1'habitat, une ville bloquee" (Frezouls 1985, 390). 78 Aq. 100.1-2 listed the functionaries assigned by senate ruling to accompany the curator aquarum inside and outside the city: three public slaves, an architectus, a scriba, a librarius, the same number of accensi and praecones as assigned to those responsible for the grain dole. The two lictores were only at the curator aquarum's disposal outside the city.

72

Water supply and population in terms of quantities

channels, our credibility and the authority extended to us by the emperor will substitute for the lictores".79 It seems justifiable to infer that he did not take the ruling too seriously in this respect. Only in a few cases did Frontinus locate a statement about the city, and then rather loosely. Discussing the course of the rivi of the aquae Marcia, Claudia, and Anio Novus he wrote " ... nearby the city, from the seventh milestone onwards ... ".80 And about the aqua Virgo, it is stated that he had carried out a measurement nearby the city at the seventh milestone (Aq. 70.3). The seventh milestones on the outgoing roads were apparently considered spots near the city. But whether Frontinus implied that the whole area within must be seen as the urbs is questionable, for in another passage relating to his measurements in the aqua Iulia, he noted: "Further she receives near the city, behind the gardens of Pallas, from the Claudia 162 quinariae".81 A place behind the gardens of Pallas, located just outside the Republican city wall, he apparently also considered nearby, but not in the urbs. This could have meant that Frontinus used some formal urbs concept, for instance urbs as the area within the 'Servian' wall or within the pomerium, had he not included in his account of the urban water distribution regio XIV, a district neither within the Republican wall, nor within the pomerium of his time. 82 Dionysius of Halicamassus who stayed in the city circa 30 - 8 BC, characterised Rome in his time as a city, of which the extent was hard to establish. Outside the walls ascribed to king Servius Tullius, extensive unprotected inhabited areas were located, and Dionysius of Halicamassus found it difficult to discover at what point the city ceased to be the city.83 Two city concepts are presented closely together here, in brief: on the one hand the urbs as the territory within the ancient city wall, on the other hand the whole of Rome's lived-in conglomerate. Such ambivalence between the univocal situation of the past and adjustment to changing practise is also present in the legal sources. Marcellus, for instance, called upon P. Alfenus Varus, cos. suff. 39 BC, in this way:

79 Aq. 10 1.4: nobis circumeuntibus rivos fides nostra et auctoritas a principe data pro Iictoribus erit. 80 Aqua Marcia Aq. 7.8 and aqua Anio Novus Aq.15.6: propius (aqua Claudia Aq. 14.4 prope) urbem a septimo miliario. 81 Aq. 69.3: praeterea accipit prope urbem post hortos Pallantianos ex Claudia quinarias centum sexaginta duas. 82 There is, of course, a possibility that Regio XIV was located within what Champlin 1982, 97 called "a very obscure customs boundary." 83 Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 4.13.4.

Conclusion: Water supply and population

73

As Alfenus said, urbs is that part of Rome which is surrounded by the wall. Rome, however, also covers the contiguous buildings, for from common parlance it can be understood that Rome is not regarded as being held within the wall, since we say that we are going to Rome even if we live outside the

urbs. 84 It should be borne III mind, however, that houses extra urbem were not necessarily villae. 85 While urbs may have been a well-defined idea, the notion continentia aedificia essentially was not, as the extent of the built-up area changed over time. A clearer indication of city expansion in the first century AD can probably be found in the number of fountains serving the public. The provision in the senatus consultum dated 11 Be, not to readjust, neither downwards nor upwards, the number of public fountains as established by Agrippa (Aq. 104.1), was judged by Frontinus as an attempt to secure the water supply of the extant fountains. However, the building of the two great aqueducts halfway through the first century AD (Aq. 104.3-4) rendered the necessity of this provision obsolete. Yet it is remarkable that even Agrippa had provided for public fountains outside the formal urbs. 86 Public water supply, therefore, at least in

84 Dig. 50.16.87: Ut Alfenus ait, 'urbs' est 'Roma', quae muro cingeretur, 'Roma'est etiam, qua continentia aedificia essent: nam Romam non muro tenus existimari ex consuetudine cotidiana posse intellegi, cum diceremus Romam nos ire, etiamsi extra urbem habitaremus; see also Dig. 50.16.139: Aedificia 'Romae' fieri etiam ea videntur, quae in continentibus Romae aedificiis fiant (Even those buildings seem to be 'at Rome' which are located in the built-up area adjacent to Rome) and Dig. 50.16.147: Qui in continentibus urbis nati sunt, 'Romae'nati intelleguntur. (Those who are born in the contiguous area of the urbs, are regarded as born 'at Rome'). 85 Varro, Rust. 3.2.6: For the fact that a building stands outside the urbs no more makes it a villa than the buildings of those who live outside the porta Flumentana or in the Aemiliana.; The Porta Flumentana was a city gate in the 'Servian' wall on the north side of the Forum Boarium; There has been speculation on the location and function of the Aemiliana: Coarelli in LTUR J, 18-19 located it as a terrain between the Tiber and the 'Servian' wall, bordering both the Forum Boarium and the Forum Holitorium, and thought it to have been shorthand for the horrea Aemiliana as there seems to have been a link with the urban grain supply (Suet. Claud. 18.1). On the other hand, Rodriguez-Almeida in LTUR J, 19-20 pointed at the praedia Tigellini Aemiliana referred to in Tac. Ann. 15.40. 86 Aq. 104.1: ... de numero publicorum salientium qui in urbe essent intraque aedificia urbi coniuncta, quos M. Agrippa fecisset, ... ; Grimal 1961, 93 stressed the expression aedificia urbi coniuncta; See also Bruun 1991, 105-106.

74

Water supply and population in terms of quantities

the decade before 11 BC, stretched out as far as the borderline of the city of Rome's built-up area. It could be expanded beyond as soon as the aquae Claudia and Anio Novus had made a more ample supply possible. Again, Frontinus clearly dealt with the provisions in the earlier senate rulings in a sensible, practical way. He must have realised that urbs did not cover Rome's built-up area, neither in his time nor a century earlier, but nevertheless used the word urbs to define that built-up area. As regards the water distribution he did not, in conclusion, use a formal urbs concept, but preferred a functional idea of the city of Rome. Simultaneously, however, when ceremonial customs such as the attendance by lietores were the issue, he may have accepted another boundary, the pomerium, as well. In conclusion: Several city concepts stood side by side and were used according to their context. In describing the distribution of water brought to Rome by means of the aqueducts, Frontinus used a functional city concept: the built-up area. At the end of the first century AD, about one third of the total volume, which is less than half the amount of water entering this built-up area, was made available to the pUblic. The majority was given to the emperor and private people, who would have constituted a minority of the population at large. Assuming a stationary population, and supposing that Agrippa's policy, during the early years of Augustus' reign, was so restrictive in the matter of granting private water supply that very few private people took advantage of this option, it appears that the amount of public water per person did not increase. Or, the other way round, water supply increase provides no proof of population growth in Rome during the first century of the Principate.

Chapter 3

Running water in use So copious seems to have been the amount of water brought to the city of Rome, that the question arises: what purposes was such a volume good for? As shown in the previous chapter, the greatest amount by far was brought to the emperor and to private people, both inside and outside Rome's built-up area, whereas the general public was only able to take advantage of the water supply in the city. So the question "how did the emperor and important private persons use their water", is more important than a similar question about the use of public water by other people. Before discussing how the people of Rome and its surroundings used their water, and what they thought about that, the matter of water use in general, from a human point of view, deserves some attention. The fact that water is a universal and necessary condition for life makes itself felt every day, as every human being requires drinking water, the volume of which is dependent on circumstances like climate and physical exertion. To stay alive, the volume of water needed per person can be measured in litres. Estimates of the average demand for drinking water range from two to five litres per person per day. I This demand is basic. In addition to drinking water, people need some more of this liquid as a means to remove dirt from their bodies, their laundry, their domestic belongings, their houses, and their public spaces. The water demand for the above-mentioned domestic purposes was conditional upon one's standards of cleanliness and the extent of one's properties, and therefore showed variation per individual and per household. The same holds true even more when water was used decoratively in little fountains on the one hand, and water gardens on the other, in private as well as in public spheres. Cleaning oneself could be done with little water; bathing in a tub took some more, but recreational bathing in thermae and swimming pools could not be done without a huge amount of water. Naumachiae, for which artificial ponds must be built and filled with water, constituted a water-demanding form of recreation too. I Estimates from the Dutch VEWIN (Vereniging van Exploitanten van Waterleidingbedrijven In Nederland = Association of waterworks companies in the Netherlands): 2 to 4 litres per person per day, and from calculations serving the construction of a water supply system in Tunis (North-Africa) in 1930 (Hydraulique 1931, 76): 5 litres per person per day. Brinker 1990, 17: 2 litres in winter and 7 litres in summer.

76

Running water in use

Last but not least, enterprises in an urban context such as fuller's workshops needed a lot of water. Market gardens, fisheries, and farms in suburban and rural settings were major consumers, when water was needed for fishponds, the irrigation of fields, or for watering the cattle. Water for some, but by no means all, purposes has to meet high quality requirements. This chapter will go into issues of aqueduct water use in the city of Rome and its surroundings and will give some attention to standards for (drinking) water. The question of whether water ran day and night to the effect that there was an overflow from the public fountains that would wash away street refuse, will only be touched in passing. 2

2 Here I want to refer to the forthcoming proceedings of Cura Aquarum in Sicilia, the Tenth International Congress on the History of Water Management and Hydraulic Engineering in the Mediterranean region, May 16-22, 1998. At this congress, a session was dedicated to the issue of water shortage and surplus.

Purposes

3.1

77

PURPOSES

Outside the city, imperial and private branches from the aqueducts were most likely laid into landed property situated within a reasonable distance from the aqueducts. 3 As we have seen in chapter one, near Rome, the majority of the aqueducts followed roughly the same course, and entered the city from the southeast. The two waterlines that entered Transtiberim, directly came from the northwest. Only the aqua Virgo came from the east, entering the city from the north. It follows that the possibilities for a connection to the large-scale aqueducts were unevenly spread in Rome's surroundings, to the probable effect that imperial and private connections were only laid in the strips of land around the aqueducts. Those in the suburbium who did not have the opportunity to utilise water from the large-scale aqueducts were still reliant on springs, wells, cisterns or surface water nearby. Whenever they wanted to bring water from a place at some distance to their own landed estate, they had to attend to that themselves. Columella (Rust. 1.5.1-2) stated how a villa rustica could meet its water-needs without connection to an urban or municipal water supply system. 4 His advice was to pay attention to the occurrence of afons perennis, a perennial spring, on the estate or to ensure that water could be brought in from outside. He was probably alluding to a private water supply from a spring at such a short distance that water could easily be brought into the villa by means of channels. 5 If it were impossible to provide running water from a spring, digging a well was his preferred alternative, but whenever that failed too, because of the bad taste of the well water, one had to rely on rainwater. In that case, large cisterns had to be built for human water usage and piscinae for the cattle. Inside the city of Rome, water from the mains was divided among three categories of consumers: the emperor, a selection of private people, and the remaining inhabitants of the city. People belonging to the latter group did not receive water at home or at their territory, but had to rely on water made available in public spaces. As Frontinus put it:

Grima11984, 295 n. 7. See Thomas and Wilson 1994, a publication in which explicit attention is paid to the rural water supply in Rome's surroundings. 5 See Dig. 8.3 giving attention to rural praedial servitudes. Aquae ductus, est ius aquam ducendi per fundum alienum was one of them. See especially 8.3.2.1-2, 8.3.15, 8.3.20.1-3, 8.3.21; 8.3.24-25, 8.3.30-31, and 8.3.33-37. See also Capogrossi Colognesi 1966. 3 4

78

Running water in use

The remaining 9,955 quinariae were distributed into 247 castella: from there were parcelled out in the name of the emperor 1,707.5 quinariae, to private people 3,847 quinariae, for public use 4,401 quinariae: from the latter to ... castra 279 quinariae, to 75 public buildings 2,301 quinariae, to 39 munera 386 quinariae, to 591facus 1,301 quinariae. 6

Although we are not familiar with the significance and use of these public works, it is clear that they were places where the public could fetch or use water: public fountains, thermae, and even the Euripus at the Campus Martius (Aq. 84.3) were included. 7 The emperor and the privileged private people inside and outside the city to whom the right to divert water to their territory had been granted, could lay pipes for personal use to their kitchens, bath-suites, toilets, peristyles, gardens, workshops, or fields. Regrettably, as far as I know, no systematic archaeological studies of water use indoors or on private property have been published yet. 8 For that reason it is only possible to make some preliminary statements based on personal observations and conversations with archaeologists. 9 From a modem, Western European point of view, one would expect a connection to the kitchen and the toilet. In Pompeii, however, the Roman town whose internal water supply we know relatively much about, by no means all houses with a connection to the water mains appear to have had a Aq. 78.3: Reliquae intra urbem 9,955 distribuebantur in castella 247: ex quibus erogabantur sub nomine Caesaris quinariae 1,707.5, privatis quinariae 3,847, usibus publicis quinariae 4,401: ex eo castris ... quinariae 279, operibus publicis 75 quinariae 2,301, muneribus 39 quinariae 386, lacibus 591 quinariae 1,335. 7 Bruun 1991, 102 n. 25 gave an overview of the ideas about the meanings of the various words used by Frontinus to indicate these structures. Public buildings are a rather vague notion in this context, and probably must have comprised thermae and fountains; munera were likely monumental fountains as was for instance the 'Trofei di Mario' at modern Piazza Vittorio Emanuele; facus must be seen as local water posts. On munera see also Baldwin 1994, 503 + n. 60 and 61. It is probable that facus denoted what the Greeks called krenai. For different forms of krenai see TolleKastenbein 1990, 131. Salientes, which were not mentioned in this passage but elsewhere in Frontinus' treatise, may have been a particular form of facus, namely those in which a water jet spouted. A discussion on the word castra in Frontinus can be found in Bruun 1991,250-253. Bruun is of the opinion that neither military camps nor headquarters of collegia were spoken of, but rather that Frontinus referred to specific features in the distribution system, which, analogous to the word castellum, had received its name from the military world. 8 Hodge 1992,328 and 474 n. 75. The forthcoming dissertation ofG.C.M. Jansen will probably be the first archaeological study of this issue. 9 My observations are in line with Hodge 1992, 328-331 6

Purposes

79

tap in their kitchen or toilet. And it is often obscure how the water supply of private bath-suites was arranged. Water supply, however, is conspicuously present in peristylia and gardens. Fountains constitute an essential feature in almost every garden. 10 It even looks as if water supply lines to private houses and estates were primarily laid in order to make fountains play, as well as to create nymphaea, garden-triclinia, or even bigger waterworks, aiming at a visually and aurally refreshing effect in house or garden. A fountain, whatever its size, is in need of running water to work properly.11 This observation does not hold true for water used for other purposes: drinking water can be poured out of a jug, and foodstuff, clothing and dishes can be cleaned in a bowl, bucket, or basin. A toilet can be flushed, if desired, by means of a bucket of water, and buckets can also serve to fill a bathtub. For other cleaning purposes, running water is not a precondition either. Two letters of Pliny the Younger illustrate these observations: Plin. Ep. 5.6 and 2.17. Describing the attractive aspects of his villa near Tifemum Tiberinum, Pliny explicitly pointed out its location in a setting of water streams, though not near marshes (Plin. Ep. 5.6.11 ).12 In and around the house one could find fountains, which delighted the ear and the eye (Ep. 5.6.20-24). Besides these amenities, the villa had pleasant bath-suites (Ep. 5.6.25-27). In the garden was a semicircular stibadium from which water jets spouted, by which the impression was given that water was being pressed out by the weight of the people lying on top of the stibadium. The water jets were caught in a marble basin, and on the water surface in that basin, little dishes could float during meals. J3 Opposite the stibadium, a generous fountain was to be seen (Ep. 5.6.36-37), and one could come across another fountain further on. Nearby the seats that were scattered throughout the garden, small fountains were laid any which way. In 10 See Grima11984, 295-301; Jashemski 1979,31-34; Semple 1932,476 thought that 'The pleasure gardens originated in walled orchards and vineyards, in plantations of flowering pomegranates, quinces, plums and apricots, in groves of stately date-palms, all with their irrigation pools and canals.' So irrigation was a precondition for the creation of pleasure gardens. Something similar is put forward by Purcell 1996b, 121 and 126. II This is not to say that a connection to the water mains is always a necessity: Tiberius' villa at Capri, for example, provided for running water by means of reservoirs at a rather elevated level. See Sear 1989, 88-91; Bruun 1991, 73 n. 43 12 See Duncan-Jones 1982, 19 for the villa's site. 13 See Salsa Prina Ricotta 1987 who gave attention to the importance of water in Roman garden triclinia like the one mentioned in Plin. Ep. 5.6, and the water triclinium in the so-called Canopus of Hadrian's villa at Tibur.

80

Running water in use

addition, throughout the pleasure garden, one could hear the sound of water running through pipes meant for irrigation (Ep. 5.6.40-41). Pliny did not mention the way in which the water supply for all these devices was arranged, nor did he note the presence of running water in kitchen and toilet. This sort of practical information was not the letter's focus. Most likely, he had little interest in the water used in the service rooms where his personnel were engaged. Yet, such a high standard of water use could hardly be maintained without an ample supply of running water. A major drawback of Pliny's second villa, at Laurentum near Ostia, was that it lacked running water, although it included a balneum. As the groundwater was within easy reach (Ep. 2.17.25-26), the deduction is unavoidable that water for the bathtub(s) had to be fetched with buckets or the like. 14 Not only for the houses and estates of private people was a connection to the collective water supply a desideratum, such a connection could also be very attractive for the operational management of various workshops and other enterprises. In all probability, neither aesthetic grounds nor status reasons were particularly relevant, when attempts were made to obtain a water concession in favour of fullonicae or balnea (meritoria).15 Frontinus mentioned them separately as businesses to which, in Republican times, surplus water could be allotted at a charge (Aq. 94.4). At the end of the first century AD, this surplus, aqua caduca, just like a private connection to the water mains, needed an imperial beneficium, which was only granted sparingly (Aq.11O.1).16 In this context, Frontinus quoted an imperial mandatum, but without naming the specific applications the water was meant for: It is my wish that no one shall draw caduca without a beneficium granted by

me or preceding principes. For it is necessary that a certain part of the water effuses the castella, since this not only contributes to the salubritas of our city, but also serves to flush out the sewers.17 14 See for instance Calci & Messineo 1994-1995 discussing a Roman villa, Via Nomentana km 9.700, in which two cisterns supplied its bath-suites. 15 Probably balnea meritoria were meant. See Meusel 1960, 23, who defined the balnea meritoria, occurring in the Imperial Age, as privately owned public baths, a definition followed by Merten 1983, 11 and Nielsen, 1990, 119. 16 Was this aqua caduca the source of income from the aqueducts, which the emperor Nerva had returned to the people (Aq. 118. 1-3)? HS 25,000 is too Iowa revenue if received from the water beneficia at large. See Grimal 1961,96-97 n. 139. 17 Aq. 94, 3-6: caducam neminem volo ducere nisi qui meo beneficio aut priorum principum habent. Nam necesse est castel lis ali quam partem aquae effluere, cum hoc pertineat non solum ad urbis nostrae salubritatem, sed etiam ad utilitatem c10acarum

Purposes

81

The next question that must be addressed is: "in what way did the emperors use their considerable share in the collective water supply?" First of all, it has to be noted that Frontinus described this share as divided nomine Caesaris. Such an expression perhaps implied that the emperor had this water at his disposal, and that he therefore could give away part of it without any intervention by the curator aquarum or his staff. To whom, or to what organisation this water might have been given, is rather puzzling. Doubtless, however, imperial estates inside and outside the city will have benefited in a similar way as private properties, if only because private estates seem to have passed into imperial ownership rather often. What is more, emperors ranked second to no one, neither in general nor in this respect. In some cases, the emperors may have used their water in the same way as private people, on a larger scale. This can be seen, for example, in Nero's building project in the area between the Palatine hill and the gardens of Maecenas, for which the Arcus Neroniani was constructed, a major aqueduct branch from the aqua Claudia, which ran from Spes Vetus into the Palatine. In this context, one might wonder under which heading the imperial public baths received their water. Again, Frontinus is our only source of information. At the time he wrote his treatise, the baths of Trajan still had to be built. The two largest imperial thermae, those built by Caracalla and Diocletian, did not yet exist. The thermae of Agrippa, Nero, and Titus were smaller, but nonetheless large-scale establishments, of which the former two were situated in regio IX, Campus Martius. The aqua Virgo seems to have been built primarily to supply the buildings in the Campus Martius, including Agrippa's baths, his stagnum and Euripus, which were given to the public after his death. At the end of the first century AD, according to Frontinus (Aq. 84), sixteen opera publica received rather more than 60% of Virgo's delivery inside the city. This amount must be considered, as Evans put it: 'rather large volumes to a very limited number of complexes,.18 The Euripus, which had been part of Agrippa's properties in the Campus Martius, was named explicitly as one of these opera publica (Aq. 84.3). It is therefore very plausible that the thermae of

abluendarum. For aqua caduca see Grimal 1961,90-91, n. 99 and 102. See also Lex Ursonensis (44 BC), line 100. (Lex Ursonensis = Lex Coloniae Genetivae luliae = ILS 6087 = CIL 2, 5439 = FlRA 1.21 = Freis 1984 no. 42 = Crawford 1996 no. 25). Which emperor issued the mandatum is not known. 18 Evans 1993, 108.

82

Running water in use

Agrippa and Nero nearby were two of the remaining fifteen items. 19 If they set the trend, the monumental imperial thermae were fed with water delivered under the heading 'public'. By way of conclusion, somewhat anticipating next chapter's discussion on rulings about water concessions, it must be noted that in the Republican Age, water brought to the city of Rome was primarily meant for the public at large. Some private people of great merit were formally allowed, other people (most likely: other senators) consenting, to receive water on their own private grounds (see section 4.1.1). The water effusing castella and public fountains could be sold to enterprises which were in need of large quantities of water and served an important function in city life: fuller's workshops and bathing establishments. In the initial decades of the Principate, the emperor took over the authority to determine which people qualified for a private apportionment of the collective supply, a habit still extant at the end of the first century AD. For a connection to the public water mains as well as for aqua caduca, an imperial beneficium was required. Private people, who had obtained a connection from the mains to their properties, were particularly interested in the possibility of installing decorative fountains and watering their gardens. Other people wished to operate their enterprises smoothly.20 Furthermore, it should be noted that a private connection to the collective supply often showed the privileged position of the owner in society.21 Although the emperor's share was considerable, it cannot be determined exactly which purposes it served. Water was decoratively used on a larger scale than on estates of private persons, but whether enterprises or other people were given part of the emperor's share, remains obscure. Yet, without further archaeological evidence, it cannot be assumed that imperial or private villae along the courses of the city's aqueducts were connected to them. 22 The public at large could use water from the public fountains at will for drinking or cleaning, but they had to fetch it themselves. Surplus water that had 19 Whether the Thermae Agrippianae were in working order is hard to decide. They had been damaged by fire in AD 80 (Dio Casso 66.24.2) and were rebuilt by Titus, Domitian (PA, 518) and/or by Hadrian (Stambaugh 1988,336 n. 15) 20 Lloyd 1979,201-203, promoted the idea that Virgo's water was used forfiglinae in Transtiberim from the first century AD onwards. 21 See Eck 1982. 22 Bruun 1991, 277-278 + n. 39 pointed at Nero's villa at Sublaquaeum, which probably had its own aqueduct from the river Anio, and at the villa Hadriani near Tibur, which comprised two bath complexes and extensive artificial water gardens. The latter's water supply has not yet been investigated sufficiently to know for sure whether the villa had a connection to one of the city's aqueducts.

Purposes

83

not been fetched was not seen as totally useless, as it would have washed away the dirt from the streets.

84

3.2

Running water in use

PRAISE AND APPRECIA nON

As early as the beginning of our era, the aqueducts of Rome, together with the paved roads and sewer-systems, were rated among the greatest Roman achievements. The water quantity too commanded respect: "So great is the amount of water brought by the aqueducts, that veritable rivers run through the city and the sewers, and almost every house has cisterns and pipes and generous fountains - with which Marcus Agrippa concerned himself most, although he also adorned the city with other monuments.,,23

The ancient admiration for the city's ample water supply induced some modem authors to think, that every house was easily connected to the mains. 24 More recently, however, scholars have come to the realisation that maybe, in spite of the ample supply, water should be regarded as a scarce commodity, and that tap water was by no means available in every house. 25 Strabo's opinion, as quoted above, should not serve as evidence for running water in every dwelling, first because he may have just referred to the houses of the well-todo, and secondly because he gave no answer at all to the question of whether these cisterns, pipes and krenai were connected to the mains. That cisterns at home could be filled with rainwater is well known. Simultaneously, however, aqueduct water may have been drained off into that very cistern after passing a fountain or nymphaeum. 26 Considering the location of fountains in Pompeii, at the edges of impiuvia, one can conclude that such handling of aqueduct water was probably widespread. 27 And conversely, elevated rainwater cisterns could

23 Strabo 5.3.8: ,ooou'ov o' eo,t ,0 EtOaywyqJ.ov uowp oux ,wv uopaywydwv WO,E nOHtIlOUs oux ,tis nOAEws Kat 'wv unovollwv pEiv, unaoav of: OiKtaV 0XEOOV oE~allEvas Kat Otwvas Kat KPOUVOUs EXEtv a8ovous, WV nAEtO,T')v eTItIlEAEtaV enOtTloa-ro MapKos Ayptnna0

~trl

::l

0,0

0..>

~

g"::r:

'-"--l

~

-

~

Q..

-

~

= ...

> "C "C

VI 00

IV

Appendix II Il.2

LARGE SCALE A QUEDUCTS

259

260

11.3

URBAN DISTRIBUTION (based on Pace 1998, 28)

private castellum

-

mam

t aqueduct 2

P. Aelius luvenalis Aelius

Aelius Carpoforus Aelius Carpoforus P. Aelius Coeranus Aelius Dionysius Aelius Dionysius Aelius Dionysius Aelius Dionysius Aelius Dionysius Aelius Felix

Aelia Marciana

lib.augg.

cos.

plumb. plumb.

2? 2?

priv. ?

priv. ? priv. ?

2/3 2/3 2/3

2

2/3

priv. ?

2/3

priv.

plumb.

plumb., officinator

priv. ?

2/3

priv.

priv.

plumb.

Aelia Lucilla 3?

plumb.

eq.?

plumb.

2 priv.

priv.

2?

century category

Aelia Hermione

PIR' A 162

sen.

M. Acenna Cesillanus Adacius (or Adasius) Aelia Athenais eq.

status

name

+ aug. Marcus Aurelius + caesar Commodus + curator Flavius Secundus

+ plumb. Aurelius Telesforus + priv. Aurelius Philetianus + statio patrirn.

stamp

+ priv.? Aelius Dionysius

+ plumb. Naevius Syntrophus + plumb. P. Aelius luvenalis + plumb. T. Claudius Colendus + plumb. P. Ra[iJus Magnus + priv. T. Vibius Postumius Terentianus + plumb. Aurelius Zosimus

fistula

CIL 15.7344 b

CIL 15.7344 a

CIL 15.7407

CIL 15.7411

regio XII

suburb., Via Aurelia

regio VI

sUburb., Via Aurelia

suburb., Via Aurelia

suburb., Via Aurelia

suburb., Via Aurelia

suburb., Via Aurelia

CIL 15.7374

CIL 15.7369

CIL 15.7320

CIL 15.7370

CIL 15.7373

CIL 15.7372

CIL 15.7371

CIL 15.7369

suburb., Via Nomentana CIL 15.7487

regio VI

Rome

suburb., Via Appia

regio IX

261

CIL 15.7377 BCAR 1882,172 no. 598 CIL 15.7589

CIL 15.7367; BCAR 1881, 27 CIL 15.7588

reference

suburb., Via Portuensis

regio III

regio V

Rome

find-spot

Appendix III: The people mentioned in the fistula stamps of Rome and its suburbium

plumb. curator

3? 3 2 priv. plumb. plumb. plumb. plumb.

2 3 3 3 2/3

plumb.

Aemilius Karicus

+ plumb.

+ plumb. Aemilius Lucius

priv.

2

cos.

priv.

2/3

PIR2 A 355

priv.

3

Aemilia Formiana PIR2 A416 Ae[milia] Gaviana Aemilia Paulina PIR2 A 424 Asiatica M.Aemilius PIR2 A 330? sen.? Aemilianus Aemilius Formianus Aemilius Frontinus

L. Aemilius luncus Aemilius Karicus Aemilius Lucius Aemilius Lucius Aemilius Secundus

regio VI

plumb.

3

Aemilia Chrysis

+ aug. Antoninus Pius + plumb. Aster

suburb., Via Osliensis

plumb.

C. Suetrius Sabinus + priv. Aurelius Thessalius + priv. C. Suetrius Sabinus

+ priv.

Marcia Caenis

+ plumb.

D. Percennius Marcianus

+ priv.

Q. Blaesius lustus

regiolVN

Rome

suburb., Via Labicana

Rome

regio V

regio VI

Rome

suburb., Via Tiburtina

Rome

Rome

Rome

Rome

regio IV

suburb., Via Aurelia

2

priv.

3?

Rome

find-spot

3

priv.

3?

+ priv.

fistula

priv.

stamp

plumb. ?

century category

2

lib.augg.

status

Maximus C. Aelius Pescennianus Va[ ... ] Aelius Ptolemaeus P. Aelius Romulus T. Aelius Septimus Aemilia Chrysis

name

CIL 15.7591

CIL 15.7546

CIL 15.7412

CIL 15.7546

CIL 15.7379

262

CIL 15.7590 Epigrafica 1951, 24 no. 40 CIL 15.7314

CIL 15.7378 a

CIL 15.7380

CIL 15.7368

CIL 15.7592

CIL 15.7509 d and e

CIL 15.7509 b and c

BCAR 1941,191 no. 27

CIL 15.7418

CIL 15.7376

CIL 15.7375

reference

Appendix III: The people mentioned in the fistula stamps ofRome and its suburbium

PIR' A 469

Rome suburb., Via Tiburtina regio VII

plumb. plumb. priv.

112 2? 1

servus or

Amandus Amethystus

proc.

priv.

cos. fam.

PIR'C98

+ plumb. Ti. Claudius Felix

263

CIL 15.7595; Epigrafica 1951, 24 no. 41 CIL 15.7596 CIL 15.7383

suburb., Via Nomentana BCAR 1907, 230; CAR III 0 p. 60 no. 9n regio IV CIL 15.7295

suburb., Via Nomentana CIL 15.7382

priv.

cos. fam.

PIR'C98

CIL 15.7335

Rome

CIL 15.7334 a

CIL 15.7333 a

CIL 15.7249 a; ILS 8696; CAR II F p. 139 no. 88 CIL 15.7332

CIL 15.7284 a and b

CIL 15.7381

CIL 15.7381

CIL 15.7719 CIL 15.7539

CIL 15.7553

reference CIL 15.7570

imperial

Rome

servus

+ aug. Trajan + plumb. Heracla

?+plumb. Valerius Primitivus

regio V

Rome

+ plumb. Naevius Manes regio VI

Amandus

3

PIR' A 1610 aug.

Rome

find-spot Rome

Rome priv. Silvius lunius regio VI Silvinus, Appius regio I + priv. Q. Aiacius Modestus Crescentianus + plumb. Claudius Aceius + priv. Q. Aiacius regio I Censorinus + plumb. Claudius Aeius regioX

fistula + priv. [Pet]ronia Lasciva + priv. Tribatia Marcellina

2

imperial

3

PIR' A 1610 aug.

+ aug. Domitian + proc. Epagathus + plumb. Martialis + hortorum sallustianorum + proc. (?) + plumb. Onagrius, oflicinator

?

stamp

libertus

stat. priv.

PIR' A 1610 aug.

imperial imperial

3

plumb.

priv.

PIR' A 1610 aug.

PIR' A 1610 aug.

servus

3

cos.

priv.

plumb. plumb.

? 3

plumb.

2

century category plumb. 2

cos. fam.

servus

status

Alexander Severns Alexander Severns Alexander Severns Ti. Alienus Caecina Ti. Alienus Caecina Alypus

Alexander Severns Alexander Severns

PIR' A470 Q. Aiacius Modestus Crescentianus Alexander

Q. Aiacius Censorinus

name Aemilius Victor P. Aemilius Victor [Ae]ropus Agathus

Appendix III: The people mentioned in the fistula stamps of Rome and its suburbium

Annion Annius ltalicus Honoratus C. Annius Laevonicus Maturus C. Annius Laevonicus Maturus Appius Annius Marsus L. Annius Maximus 3 2

sen. c.v.

sen.

cos.

PIR' A 661

PIR' A 670

PIR' A671 3

3

sen. c.v.

PIR' A 661

priv.

priv.

priv.

priv.

plumb. priv.

3 3

cos.

PIR' A 659

plumb.

plumb.

2

3

plumb.

2

priv.

plumb.?

2

M. Annaeus Victor Annea Iucunda e. Anneius Bassilianus Annia eomificia PIR' A 708 Faustina or e 1505 Annion 2

plumb.

2

+ aug. Trajan + proc. pair.

Flavius Vedius Antonius

+ priv.

suburb., Via Aurelia?

suburb., Pincio

Rome

regio V

regio VI Rome

regio VI

Rome

Rome

regio V

Rome

regioXIV

regio IX

Rome

priv.

+ aug. Antoninus Pius + proc. Porcius Potitus + aug. Antoninus Pius + proc. (?)

Rome

find-spot

priv.

Annaeus Symporus

2?

fIStula Transtiberim

stamp

priv.

century category

plumb.

imperial fam.

status libertus

2

[ ... ]ius Anicetus Aninia Senecilla Annaeus Succes[ ... ] Annaeus Symporus

name

elL 15.7390

elL 15.7389, 1-3

elL 15.7388

elL 15.7424 a I)

elL 15.7456 y elL 15.7387

elL 15.7456 a

elL 15.7442

elL 15.7597

264

elL 15.7303; ILS 8683

elL 15.7386

elL 15.7317 a

elL 15.7316

elL 15.7385

elL 15.7384

elL 15.7574 a

reference

Appendix III: The people mentioned in the fistula stamps ofRome and its suburbium

2 2

2 2 2

Antoninus Pius PlR' A 1513 aug.

PlR' A 1513 aug.

PlR' A 1513 aug.

PlR' A 1513 aug.

PlR' A 1513 aug.

Antoninus Pius

Antoninus Pius

Antoninus Pius

Antoninus Pius M.Antonius

Antoninus Antoninus Pius

1 2

lib. aug.

Antonia Caenis PlR' A 888

PlR' A 1513 aug.

priv.

lib. aug.

+ plumb.

MNR inv. no. 60997; BCAR 1987/8, 124 n. 45; Bruun 1991, 320 + n. 65 Epigrafica 1951,25 no. 42 NSA 1901, 144; lLS 8678 a ClL 15.7393

ClL 15.7351

reference ClL 15.7391 CAR III G p. 207 no. 35 BCAR 1902, 292; lLS 8689; CAR II H p. 234 no. 140s

regio XlII Rome

regio XlII

regioXlV

regio IX

+ proc.

BCAR 1906, 113 ClL 15.7392

ClL 15.7318

ClL 15.7317 a

ClL 15.7316

ClL 15.7315

265

suburb., Via Nomentana CAR 1II D p. 77-78 no. 52-56 lIla suburb., Via Nomentana BCAR 1908, 54 no. 2; CAR 1II D p. 60 no. 9m regio VI ClL 15.7575 regio VI ClL 15.7314

regio VII

regio IX

+ (?) plumb. Eutyches

C. lulius Pinytus + plumb. Ti. Claudius Felix

+ plumb. Aster + curator Dioscorus

Frontinus

+ curator Aemilius

Porcius Potitus + plumb. Annaeus Symporus + proc. (?) imperial + plumb. Annaeus Symporus imperial + proc. stat. pair. patrimonium + proc. lulius Rufus priv.

statio patrimonii imperial

priv. imperial

priv.

priv.

sen.?

Rome regio VlII

plumb. plumb.

Antigonus Antirnetus Ant[ ... ] Antonia [... ]vi Antonia Caenis PlR' A 888

Rome

plumb.

Rome

regio VI

find-spot regio VI

Anthus

+ aug. Vespasian + proc. Callistus + priv. [ ... ]lius Severus + priv. [ ... ]lius Celer

fIStula

plumb.

Plautianus + plumb. officinator Terentius Cassander

+ priv. C. Fulvius

stamp

caesaris servus?

proc.

century category priv. 1

servus

status

Anthus

PlR' A 676 A.Annius P10camus Annius Proculus

name

Appendix III: The people mentioned in the fistula stamps ofRome and its suburbium

PIR' A 973

3

5?

sen.

Flavius Asterius Aticius Iib.aug.

2

2

aug. lib.

PIR' A 1250 sen.

Aster

L. Asinius Rufus Asprenas

Asclepiades

priv. priv.

plumb.

+ aug. Antoninus Pius + curator Aemilius Frontinus

regio VII suburb., Via Appia

regio VI

AE 1904 no. 46 CIL 15.7585

266

Epigrafica 1951,22 no.25; AE 1954 no. 68b CIL 15.7314; ILS 8685

CIL 15.7472 a ~ + CIL 15.7472 b CIL 15.7396

regio XII

Rome

CIL 15.7281 a

CIL 15.7395 CIL 15.7278

BCAR 1906, 35 no. 3; Epigraphica 195 I, 20 no.17

elL 15. 7338 ~ CAR III G p. 195 no. 3a

CIL 15.7394 a

regio IV

Rome regio II

Rome

regioVI

priv.

+ plumb. [Vic)tor

+ proc. stationis aquarum M. Marius Festus Caecilianus

regio XII or Xlll

+ aug. Domitian + curator Caecina Paetus + curator Q. Ninius Hasta + plumb. Veturia Polla

+ aug. Domitian

+ plumb.? Aurelius Maximinus

Maximinus

+ plumb. Aurelius

Rome

CIL 15.7450 ~ CIL 15.7581

Rome

BCAR 1906, 108

CIL 15.7598

CIL 15.7327

reference

regio VI

priv.

plumb.

curator

M. Arricinus Clemens Q. Articuleus Paetus

PIR' A 1176 cos.

priv. curator

Arescus

plumb., officinator

priv.

plumb.?

eq.

Ar[ ... ) Maxi[minus)

C. Apronius Crispinus Ar[ ... ) Maximinus

plumb.

Apollonius

+ priv. T. Flavius Claudius Claudianus + priv. [Po Altius P)udens

regio III

plumb.

2 plumb.

Rome

plumb.

2

Rome

+ aug. Sept. Severus + caesar Caracalla + proc. (?)

plumb., officinator

2/3

find-spot

augg. lib.

fistula

stamp

century category

status

M. Antonius Olympus M. Antonius Olympus Apolaustus

name Eutactus M. Antonius Felix

Appendix III: The people mentioned in the fistula stamps of Rome and its suburbium

status sen. c.f. Altia Campanilla PIR' A 1354 sen. c.v. P. Altius Decianus Felix Matutinus PIR' A 1362 cos. fam. [Po Attius P]udens P. Altius Pudens PIR' A 1362 cos. fam.

L. Aurelius Agac\ytus L. Aurelius

Aurelius 2 2

sen.? sen.?

PIR'A452

PIR' A 452

priv.

priv.

plumb.

2

+ priv. Sabina

Martialis

regio VII

Rome

regio VI

regio VI

priv.

3?

PIR' A 1667 sen?

+ ? priv. Appius Claudius

Rome

priv.

3?

PIR' A I 667? sen?

suburb., Via Appia

priv.

+ priv.[ ... ] Faustinilla et socii

regiolVNI suburb., Via Tiburtina

regio V

Rome

regio XII

+ plumb. C. lulius Po[ ... ] Rome

3

? ?

Aurelia Irene Aurelia Irene

Hilarus

+ plumb. Aurelius

+ priv. Aurelius Laches

~

CIL 15.7402

CIL 15.7401

267

CIL 15.7415 CAR III G p. 233 no.129f CIL 15.7427

BCAR 1941, 191 no. 29

CIL 15.7612, I CIL 15.7612, 2; CAR III I p. 332 no. 16 CIL 15.7414

CIL 15.7343

CIL 15.7413 a

CIL 15.7262 CIL 15.7404

suburb., Via Nomentana CIL 15.7263 CAR III E p. 155 no. 4c

CIL 15.7398 a a

regio V

~

CIL 15.7352

CIL 15.7424 a

CIL 15.7581

reference BCAR 1941,191 no. 28 CIL 15.7397

Rome

PIR' A 1663 sen. c.f.

plumb., prebitor plumb. plumb.

3

Aurelia Nemesiana [Aure]lia Seberiana Aurelia Severa

priv.?

3

eq.

imperial priv.

I 3

imperial

plumb., officinator priv.

aug.

PIR'I216

3

3

regio V

+ plumb.

priv.

3

T. Flavius Carious

Rome

+ plumb. Apollonius

find-spot Rome Rome

fistula

priv.

stamp

3

century category priv. 3? priv. 3

Augustus? Aurelia Caelestina Aurelia Dionusias Aurelia Gaiana

lib. aug. Au[ ... ]ius lustinus Aufidia Cornelia PIR' A 1396 sen. Valentilla PIR'I216 aug. Augustus

name

Appendix III: The people mentioned in the fistula stamps ofRome and its suburbium

Rome

plumb. priv. priv.

2/3 ? 2 3

Aurelius isas PIR2 A 1537 eq. M.Aurelius lulianus Aurelius Laches

plumb., prebitor plumb. prebitor plumb., prebitor plumb.

plumb.

plumb.

Aurelius Hylas

3

regio V

+ aug. Caracalla, or

+ priv. Aurelia Caelestina

Aurelius Lucius

+ socius plumb.

regio XII

Rome suburb., Via Ardeatina

Rome

CIL 15.7404

CIL 15.7608 CIL 15.7403

CIL 15.7607

CIL 15.7606

CIL 15.7605

regio VINII suburb., Via Appia

CIL 15.7343

regio V

Gaiana + plumb. Aurelius Cyminus

~

268

Rome

Rufus + priv. [... ]odonius Taurus

CIL 15.7604

CIL 15.7573

Transtiberim

+ priv. L. Sempronius

Rome

CIL 15.7330; ILS 8690; CAR III G p. 257 no. 168 r CIL 15.7530 a

+ plumb. Aurelia

Commodus, or E1agaba1 + curator aquarum Su1picius Priscus regio V

CIL 15.7603 CIL 15.7605; CAR II H p. 205 no. 26 CIL 15.7330; ILS 8690; CAR III G p. 257 no. 168 r

regio VI regio VINII

+ plumb. Aurelius Hilarius

CIL 15.7602

Rome

CIL 15.7601

CIL 15.7600 b

plumb., officinator plumb., officinator plumb. plumb., prebitor plumb.

2 or 3? plumb., officinator? plumb.

2/3

? 3

?

3

reference

regio VI

find-spot

plumb.

fistula suburb., Via Nomentana CIL 15.7600 a

stamp

plumb.

century category

2/3

lib.

status

Aurelius Hilarus Aurelius Hilarus Aurelius Hylas

Aurelius Dionysius Aurelius Florentinus Aurelius Florentinus Aurelius Gratus

name Agac\ytus Aurelius Agatbange1us Aurelius Agatbangelus Aurelius Antb[ ... ] Aurelius Aquil[inus] Aurelius Bassus Aurelius Cyminus Aurelius Dionysius

Appendix III: The people mentioned in the fistula stamps ofRome and its suburbium

Aurelius Philelianus Aurelius Rufmus M. Aurelius Secundinus M. Aurelius Servandus M. Aurelius Solanus Aurelius Telesforus Aurelius Telesphorus Aurelius Thessalus Aurelius Zosimus Avianius Vindicianus

M. Aurelius Maximus Aurelius Paulus

Maximinus

M. Aurelius Lucius Aurelius Martialis M. Aurelius Mato Aurelius Maximinus Aurelius

Aurelius Lucius

name

sen. v.c. PLRE Vindicianus 4

lib. aug.

aug. lib.

status

+ proc. stalionis aquarum M. Marius Festus Caecilianus

priv. plumb. priv.

2 4

plumb.?

+ plumb. Aemilius Lucius + priv.? Aelius Dionysius

regio IX

suburb., Via Aurelia

suburb., Via Labicana

Rome

regio IX

regio V

priv. plumb.

regio V

priv.

+ plumb. Aelia Lucilla

Rome

+ aug. Antoninus (?)

plumb.

Rome

suburb., Via Appia

+ priv. Aelia Marciana

+ aug. Maximinus

regio VII

plumb. officina tor priv.

plumb.

Rome

regio VI

Rome

priv.?

plumb., officinator

plumb.?

suburb., Via Aurelia

plumb.

CAR II D p. 84 no. 53

CIL 15.7370

CIL 15.7412

CIL 15.7410

CIL 15.7411

CIL 15.7409 a

CIL 15.7408

269

BCAR 1941,190 no. 25 AE 1948 no. 75 CIL 15.7337 P

CIL 15.7407

CIL 15.7611

CIL 15.7406

BCAR 1906, 35 no. 3; Epigraphica 1951,20 no.17 CIL 15.7338 P CAR III G p. 195 no. 3a

CIL 15.7610

CIL 15.7405

reference CIL 15.7607

Rome

find-spot Rome

priv.

+ plumb.? Ar[ .J Maxi[minusJ + plumb. Ar[ .. J Maximinus

fistula CIL 15.7609

stamp + socius plumb. Aurelius Hylas suburb., Via Aurelia

plumb.

2/3

2

2

2/3

2/3

century category plumb. 2/3

Appendix III: The people mentioned in the fistula stamps of Rome and its suburbium

proc.

2

PIR'C 104

priv.

?

sen?

curator

priv.

priv.

?

sen.?

Caecilia Lupercilla Caccilius Capito Caccilius Dextrianus

3?

proc.

aug. lib.

C[. .. ]stus

sen.?

proc.

libertus

Bucola

PIR'C 44?

proc.

Bucola

Caecilius Felix Caecina Paetus

plumb.

priv.

2

caesaris libertus

priv.

2

plumb. priv.

servus

sen.?

2 2

+ aug. Domitian

+ aug.s Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus + plumb. Ismalus + date (coss.)

+ plumb. T. Claudius

+ priv.? Demetrian[us]

regio IV

suburb., Via Latina

regio VI

regio IX

Felix + plumb. Zosimus

BCAR 1900,225; NSA 1900,26 CIL 15.7281 a;

270

CIL 15.7319 CAR III G p. 245 no.l48dd

CIL 15.7419

suburb., Via Praenestina CIL 15.7477

+ plumb. C. Licinius

+ priv. lulia Prisca

CIL 15.7288

CIL 15.7280 CAR III G p. 255 no. 168 i CIL 15.7279; ILS 8679

CIL 15.7353

CIL 15.7418

CIL 15.7417

CIL 15.7599 CIL 15.7416

Rome

Rome

regio VI

Rome

regio IV

suburb., Via Latina

regio VIII regio V

CIL 15.7400 b 3

CIL 15.7400 a and CIL 15. 7400 b I CIL 15. 7400 b 2

reference CIL 15.7399 a

+ aug. Domitian

Philctaerus

+ aug. Domitian + plumb. Fortunatus + aug. Domitian + plumb. Ti. Claudius

+ plumb. P. Aelius Romulus

Hermes

+ plumb. [Ti. Servil]ius

priv.

PIR' A 1410 cos.

Rome

suburb., Via Appia

priv.

find-spot regio IX

PIR' A 1410 cos.

fistula regio VI

stamp

priv.

century category 4 priv.

status sen. v.c. PLRE Vindicianus 4 PIR' A 1410 cos.

C. Bellicius Calpurnius Apolaustus Q. Blaesius lustus [B]landus

name Avianus Vindicianus T. Avidius Quietus, T.Avidius Quietus T.Avidius Quietus Avillius Baronia lusta

Appendix III: The people mentioned in the fistula stamps ofRome and its suburbium

Transtiberim RegioX regio VII

priv. priv.? priv.

cos. fam.?

imp. fam. sen.?

priv.

2

cos.

PIR2 C 317

priv.

priv.

PIR2 C 290- cos. (fam.) I or 2 294 or 295 2 PIR2 C 295 cos.

Rome

+ plumb. Calpumius

plumb.

+ priv. Ser. Calpumius Scipio Orfitus + priv. L. Calpumius Piso

Euphrosynus

regio IV

+ date (coss.)

curator

suburb., Via Flaminia

suburb., Via Flaminia

regio II

regio VI

2

Celsus

plumb.

2/3

suburb., Via Flaminia

regio IV Rome

regio VII

regio VIII

regio VIII

plumb.

+ ? priv. Ti Flavius

Florentinus

2/3

Nicias

+ plumb. Calpumius

plumb.? plumb.

Calpumi(anus) Calpumius Euphrosynus Calpurnius Licinianus C. Calpumius Licinianus Calpumius Maximus Calpumius Nicias L. Calpumius Piso L. Calpumius Piso SeT. Calpumius Scipio Orfitus

Atimetus + aug. Vespasian

proc.

lib.aug.

Callistus

+ aug. Vespasian + plumb. Ant[ ... ]

proc.

lib. aug.

I?

Caesares C. Caesius Cinna Callistus

153

Caepia Procula

priv.

NSA 1907,465

NSA 1907,465

CIL 15.7513

CIL 15.7613

271

BCAR 1987/8, 124 n. 45: MNR inv. 60759 CIL 15.7360

CIL 15.7235 a 13

ILS 8678; NSA 1902,95; 269; 287; CAR II E p. 115 no. 59 b CIL 15.7702 CIL 15.7613

CIL 15.7421; CAR I F p. 26 no. 20 b CIL 15.7265 LTURII,74: MNR inv. 113274 NSA 1901; 144; ILS 8678a

CIL 15.7489a 13

BCAR 1908, 291

regioXIV

priv.

+ ? plumb. L. Nostius

PIR2 C

?

sen.?

PIR2 C 144

CAR II C p. 73 no. 142 bis

regio VI

reference ILS 8682

priv.

Paetus and Q. Ninius Hasta

eq.

find-spot

PIR2 C 109

fIStula [ ... ]us

C. Caecina Tuscus Caedicius Crescens CaeliaGalla

stamp

+ curatores Articuleus

status

name

century category

Appendix III: The people mentioned in the fistula stamps ofRome and its suburbium

proc.

aug.

priv.

2 or 3

aug. aug.

cos. fam.

PIR' S 321

PIR'S 321 Caracalla or Commodusor Elagabal PIR2 C 442 Carminia Liviana Diotima M. Cartilis Bitalion M. Cartilis Bitalion M. Cartilius Callidromus M. Cartilius Callidromus Carns

Chryseros

[ ... Jius Celer

Cecina Decius Maximus Basilius Celadus

Caracalla

PIR2 C724

PLRE II Basilius 12

lib. aug.

cos.

priv. priv.

3/4 2

sen. c.f. cos.

PIR2 C402

Candida Q. Canusius Praenestinus Capitolinus

2

I?

3?

priv.?

+ plumb. C. lulius Pinytus

Rome

regio VII

regio V

plumb. priv.

regio XIII

+ priv. C. Art Germanianus

plumb., officinator priv.

regio VI

272

BCAR 1941,190 no. 23 AE 1948 no. 73

CIL 15.7393

CIL 15.7614

CIL 15.7420

CIL 15.7462

CIL 15.7475 Y

regio VII

plumb.

regio VII

plumb.

+ priv. lulius Pompeius Rusonianus

CIL 15.7469 y; CAR I F p. 26 no. 20 b CIL 15.7475 a Transtiberim

CIL 15.7469 a

plumb.

Transtiberim

+ priv. A.tIonensius Licinianus

Epigrafica 1951, 19 nos. 9-12; AE 1954 no. 64 CIL 15.7330; ILS 8690; CAR III G p. 257 no. 168 r CIL 15.7424a a

CIL 15.7321

reference Santa Maria Scrinari 1991,10 no. 63: Mus. Vat. inv .18606 CIL 15.7422 CIL 15.7423

2/3

regio V

regio V

Rome

Rome

Transtiberim regio V

find-spot regio II

+ plumb. T. Flavius Carinus

fistula

plumb.

+priv. [ ... Jius Severns + priv. Antonia [ .. Jvi

+ aug. M. Aurelius Antoninus + plumb. Felix + proc. Dionetus + plumb. Minervalis + curator Sulpicius Priscus (cur. aq.)

stamp

2/3

aug.

century category priv. 2?

PIR2 C 357

status cos.

name

P. Calvisius Tullus

Appendix III: The people mentioned in the fistula stamps of Rome and its suburbium

aug. aug.

PIR'C 942 PIR'C 942

Claudius Claudius

plumb.

1/2

Rome Rome

plumb. priv.

2?

regio XIV

regio VIII or X

Rome

2

priv.

plumb.

112

Ti. Claudius Alexander Ti. Claudius Alexander Claudius Amphio Ti. Claudius Callisthenes Ti. Claudius Celer

regio I

plumb.

Claudius Aceus

+ cur. Caecina Paetus, Q. Articuleus Paetus, and Q. Ninius Hasta + priv. Q. Aiaeius Modestus + priv. Q. Aiacius Censorinus

regio IV regio IV

Claudius

T. Claudius T. Claudius [... ]us

regio XIII

regio V regio VI

regio IX

regio VI

Rome regio V

regio V?

find-spot regio V

regio II

+ aug. Domitian

+ ? plumb. L. Popilius Hilams

+ plumb. Vetrania Zosime

fistula

plumb.? plumb.

aug. aug.

aug.

+ priv. Claudius Erotion

priv. plumb.

3 2

2/3?

+ ? plumb. Obsequens

priv.?

3?

priv.

stamp

century category priv. 112

plumb., officina tor plumb.

Claudius

aug.

PIR'C 942

Claudius

name status Regina Claudia PIR' C 1086 cos. fam. Capitol ina sen.? Claudia Cervonia Claudia Marcia PIR'C 1105 sen. Claudia Trophime PIR'C 1131 sen. Claudia Vera

CIL 15.7426

CIL 15.7617a and b

CIL 15.7425

CIL 15.7720

CIL 15.7616

CIL 15.7381

Santa Maria Serinari 1991, \0 no. 65e and d CIL 15.7705 CIL 15.7281 a

273

CIL 15.7269a CARllp. 110 no. 71e CIL 15.7269b BCAR 1987/8,125 n. 46: MNR inv. 61136-8 CIL 15.7615

CIL 15.7434

CIL 15.7433 CIL 15.7620

CIL 15.7431

reference CIL 15.7520

Appendix III: The people mentioned in the fistula stamps of Rome and its suburbium

PIR2 C 852

Ti. Claudius Philetaerus Ti. Claudius Phoenix Claudius

Ti. Claudius Felix Ti. Claudius Felix Ti. Claudius Felix Ti. Claudius luventinus Claudius Marcellus Claudius Marcianus Appius Claudius PIR2 C 931 Martialis M. Claudius Nestor Claudius Onesimus Claudius Onesimus

name T. Claudius Colendus Claudius Diognetus Claudius Erotion Claudius Eutychus Claudius Felix

sen.

status

priv.

?

plumb. plumb.

2 2

2

priv.

?

plumb.

plumb.

plumb.

priv.

2

3

centurion vigiles plumb.

3?

plumb.

plumb.

plumb.

+ aug. Domitian + proc. Bucola

C. Pomponius Hyllus

+ aug. Trajan + proc. Hesychus + aug. Trajan + proc.

?

?

M. Petronius Sura

plumb. plumb.

+ aug. Domitian + proc. Epagathus + aug. Hadrian + proc.

priv.

?

2

+ aug. Caracalla + plumb. Minervalis + priv. Claudius Amphio

proc.

stamp

3

century category plumb. 3

Pudens

+ ? priv. Q. Servilius

+ plumb. Aurelius

Caecina + ? priv. Antonia Caenis Diadumenus

+ priv. Ti. Alienus

fistula + priv.? Aelius Dionysius

CIL 15.7309 a

CIL 15.7283

Epigrafica 1951, 19 nos. -12 CIL 15.7425

~

suburb., Via Trionfale

NSA 1954, 256 no. I

274

CIL 15.7279; ILS 8679

CIL 15.7299

CIL 15.7296

CIL 15.7428

CIL 15.7427

BCAR 1941, 191 no.30

CIL 15.7413

CIL 15.7245

suburb., Via Nomentana CIL 15.7534 a

Rome

regio III

Rome

Rome

regio VI

Rome

Rome

Rome

suburb., Via Nomentana CIL 15.7382; CAR III E p. 158 no. 15 suburb., Via Nomentana CAR III D p. 77-78 no. 52-56a regio II CIL 15.7444

regio VI

regio VII

regio XIV

Rome

find-spot reference suburb., Via Aurelia CIL 15.7371

Appendix III: The people mentioned in the fIStula stamps ofRome and its suburbium

2 2 2 2 2 2

PIR' A 1482 caes.

PIR' A 1482 aug. PIR' A 1482 aug. PIR' A 1482 aug.

PIR' A 1482 aug.

PIR' A 1482 aug.

Commodus

Commodus Commodus Commodus

Commodus

Commodus

Coponius

?

PIR' C 1225 cos. or 1227

plumb.

aug.

aug.

aug. aug. aug.

aug.

priv. + aug. Marcus Aurelius +cur. Flavius Secundus + plumb. Aelius Felix + plumb. M. P1autius Eros + plumb. M. Plautius Eros

+ aug. Marcus Aurelius + cur. Flavius Secundus

Rome suburb., Via Tiburtina regio V

priv. priv. priv.

? ?

plumb.

2

sen.?

Rome

plumb.

I?

CIL 15.7435 CIL 15.7436 CIL 15.7437

CIL 15.7619

CIL 15.7618

CIL 15.7430

NSA 1922, 222

CIL 15.7325 b

CIL 15.7323 CIL 15.7324 CIL 15.7325 a

suburb., Via Nomentanal CIL 15.7621

regio III

Rome

Rome suburb., Via Ardeatina regio IV?

275

BCAR 1901, 295; AE 1903 no. 33 CIL 15.7429 a; NSA 1925,49; CAR II C p. 72 no. 152 IVb CIL 15.7429 b

Epigrafica 1951, 25 no. 45

reference

suburb., Via Nomentana NSA 1908,267; CAR III 0 p. 77-78 nos 51-56 IlIa regio VI CIL 15.7320

regio V

Rome

Rome

priv.

2

regio VI

PIR I S 725? sen.

priv. priv.

3

regio VI

find-spot

priv.

fIStula Rome

stamp

plumb.

century category

PIR'C 1018 sen.

PIR'C 1018 sen.

status

sen.?

Ti. Claudius Serenus Ti. Claudius Sulpicius lulianus Ti. Claudius Surus Claudius Valentinus Clodia Marciana Clymenus M. Cocceius Nerva Sex. Cocceius Sertorianus

name Polybius [T]i. Claudius Polybius Ti. Claudius Q. Crispinus Ti. Claudius Serenus

Appendix III: The people mentioned in the fistula stamps ofRome and its suburbium

Rome regio XIII Rome Rome

priv. priv. plumb. plumb.

1428 eq. or sen? 2

physician 1535 lib. aug.

PIR'D 181

PIR'D65

imp. fam.

priv.?'

curator

plumb.

servus 2

priv.

lib.aug.

, The stamp is found on a leaden water dividing box.

Domitia

Dioscoros

Dionysius

Diadumenus

+ statio patrimonii of Antoninus Pius

276

Epigrafica 1951, 22 no. 26 AE 1954 no. 69 CIL 15.7315

CIL 15.7622,1 CIL 15.7622,2 BCAR 1900,225 NSA 1900,26 CIL 15.7444

CIL 15.7310p CAR I E p. 22 no. 3

CIL 15.7569 CIL 15.7443 CIL 15.7682 BCAR 1941, 192 no. 37

CIL 15.7439

CIL 15.7438 a and b

Epigrafica 1951,25-26 no. 46 CIL 15.7490; CAR I F p. 26 no. 20 a CIL 15.7438 a and b

CIL 15.7440

CIL 15.7441 CAR II I p. 268 no. 123 lib

reference

suburb., Via Nomentana CIL 15.7293

regiolX

regio II Felix + ? priv. Octavia Lucana Rome

+ plumb. Ti. Claudius

Felix

Castra Praetoria? Rome suburb., Via Latina

plumb. plumb. priv.?

Daphnus Daphnus Demetrian[us]

+ priv. A. Caecilius

Transtiberim

to Faustus plumb.

2 3 3

+ priv. Paulla, married

regio XIII

priv.

2

1426 cos.

regio V

priv.

2

1364 cos.

regio V

priv. Quadratus + priv. Cornelius Fronto

Transtiberim

priv.

1538 eq.

+ priv. Cornelius

Rome

plumb.'

3

regio VI

find-spot Tiburtina regio VI

priv.

fIStula

1477 cos. fam.

stamp

priv.

century category

1476 cos. fam.

status

T. Crispius Nicias

name Orn[iu]s Cornelia, marriedPIR' C to L. Volusius Saturninus Cornelia, marriedPIR' C toT. Axus Cornelius Cornelianus Marus Cornelius PIR'C Cossinus PIR' C Cornelius Fronto PIR' C Cornelius Quadratus Sex. Cornelius PIR' C Repentinus Cosmas PIR'C Cosmus Crispinus Crispinus

Appendix III: The people mentioned in the fistula stamps ofRome and its suburbium

aug. aug. aug. aug. aug. aug. aug. aug. aug. aug. aug. aug. aug.

PIR' F 259

PIR' F 259

PIR' F 259

PIR' F 259

PIR' F 259

PIR' F 259

PIR' F 259

PIR' F 259

PIR' F 259

PIR' F 259 PIR' F 259

Domitianus

Domitianus

Domitianus

Domitianus

Domitianus

Domitianus

Domitianus

Domitianus

Domitianus

Domitianus Domitianus

+ cur. Caecina Paetus, + plumb. T. Claudius Q. Artieuleus Paetus, [ ... Jus and Q. Ninius Hasta + proe. Entellus and Hero + plumb. Primigenius + proe. Epagathus + plumb. Claudius Eutyehus + proe. Epagathus + plumb. Martialis and Alexander + proe. Eytuehus + plumb. Hymnus + proe. Polydeueis + plumb. Graptus + proe. Polydeueis + plumb. Philtatus + proe. C[ ... Jstus + proe. (?) + plumb. Egleetus Atimetianus

+ plumb. Flavius Cervius + cur. M. Arricinus Clemens + proe. Bueola + plumb. Ti. Claudius Philetaerus + proe. Bueola + plumb. Fortunatus

'The stamp is found on a lead water dividing box (NSA 1890, 13).

imperial imperial

imperial

imperial

imperial

imperial

imperial

imperial

imperial

imperial

imperial

imperial imperial

Rome Rome

Rome

Rome

regio X

regio X

regio VII

Rome

CIL 15.7288 CIL 15.7289

CIL 15.7287

CIL 15. 7286 a and b

CIL 15.7285

CIL 15.7284 a and b

CIL 15.7283

277

CIL 15.7280; CAR III G p. 255 no.168 i CIL 15.7281 a

regio VI

CIL 15.7282

CIL 15.7279; ILS 8679

Rome

regio IV

CIL 15.7277 CIL 15.7278

Santa Maria Serinari 1991, \0 no. 65 a and b BCAR 1901,94

reference

Rome regio II

regio II

find-spot

priv.

2

cos. fam.

fistula regio II

2

cos. fam.

Domitia Lueilla PIR'D 182 or 183 Domitia Lueilla PIR'D 182 or 183 PIR' F 259 Domitianus PIR' F 259 Domitianus

stamp

priv.

century category

status

name

Appendix III: The people mentioned in the fistula stamps ofRome and its suburbium

name

priv.? plumb. priv.? plumb.

? ? ?

aug. lib. aug. lib.

cos.

plumb.

lib.

Epictetus

Sex. Erucius Claros Eucarpus Euhoda

proc.

2

2

priv. proc.

priv.

plumb. priv. proc.

3 ?

aug. lib.

plumb.

?

Epagatbus

plumb.

?

proc.

plumb.

?

aug. lib.

plumb.

category imperial imperial imperial imperial

century I I I 1

Epagatbus

servus

servus caesaris

status aug. aug. aug. aug.

aug. lib.

PIR' E96

PlR' F 259 PlR' F 259 PlR' F 259 PlR' F 259 or 398

Eg1ectus Atimetianus Sex. Egnatius Reditus Sex. Egnatius Reditus Sex. Egnatius Reditus Elainus Eleutber Entellus

Dovia Hilaritas Eglectus

Domitianus Domitianus Domitianus [ ... ]ianus or Vespasianus L. Domitius Dovia Hilaritas + priv. C. Valerius Laetus + plumb. Evelpistus

fistula

+ domus Augustana

+ aug. Domitian + proc. Hero + plumb. Primigenius + aug. Domitian + plumb. Claudius Eutychus + aug. Domtian + plumb. Alexander and Martialis + aug.s Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verns + proc. Q. Terentius Scaurus +? plumb. Sec[undus]

+ aug. Vespasian + proc. (?) + aug. Domitian + proc. (?)

stamp

ClL 15.7409

P

ClL 15.7708 NSA 1949,71; AE 1951 no. 198 ClL 15.7289

ClL 15.7707 ClL 15.7557 a

reference ClL 15.7290 ClL 15.7291 ClL 15.7292 ClL 15.7346

ClL 15. 7284 a and b

ClL 15.7283

Rome Rome

regio V

278

ClL 15.7445 CAR III H p. 325/6 no.56m ClL 15.7446 ClL 15.7246; lLS 8694

suburb., Via Nomentana BCAR 1908, 53 no.1 CAR III D p.60 9 I

regio VIll

regio VII

regio V

ClL 15.7333 P lLS 8691 suburb., Via Nomentana ClL 15.7512 P CAR III Dp. 60 no. 9 h Rome ClL 15.7623 suburb., Via Latina/AppiaClL 15.7576 Rome ClL 15.7282

regio V

Rome

regio IV suburb., Via labicanal Latina regio VI regioX

find-spot Rome regio IV regio II regio V?

Appendix III: The people mentioned in the fistula stamps ofRome and its suburbium

aug. lib.

Felix

[ ... ]umius Felix M. Feridius Euthetus Flavia Demetria

plumb. plumb.

2 1/2

2or3

2

suburb., Via Appial Via Latina

Rome

P

P

NSA 1922, 227

CIL 15.7681 CIL 15.7629

CIL 15.7321

CIL 15.7684 CIL 15.7308

CIL 15.7628 CIL 15.7683 CIL 15.7684

CIL 15.7414

NSA 1925,399 CIL 15.7447 CIL 15.7448 CIL 15.7449ao CIL 15.7449 b CIL 15.7627

CIL 15.7708 CIL 15.7563

CIL 15.7317 CIL 15.7625 CIL 15.7285

BCAR 1906, 114

reference CIL 15.7624, I and 2 CIL 15.7577

Rome regio XIII suburb.,Via Labicanal Latina suburb., Via Labicanal Rome

suburb., Via Appia

suburb., Via Cassia regio XII suburb., Via Ostiensis regio IV regio VI Rome

regio VI regio V

regio XIV suburb., Via Aurelia regio X

regio XIII

find-spot Rome Rome

plumb.

+ priv.? Dovia Hilaritas

+ aug. AntoninllS Pius + proc. lulius Rufus

fistula

Transtiberim Rome

plumb. Felicianus + aug. Hadrian + proc. Flavius Rufus + aug. M. Aur. Antoninus + proc. Capito linus

plumb. Felicissimus

+ Aurelia Nemesiana and socii

+ priv. Umbria Albina

+ aug. Domitian + plumb. Hymnus

stamp

plumb. plumb.

plumb.

priv.

libertus

cos. fam.

sen.? sen.?

cos.

cos.

plumb. priv. priv. priv. priv. plumb.

I 2/3 2/3 2 2 3

Felicissimus Felix

F 27 F 27 F 35 F 35

PIR' F 126

PIR' PIR' PIR' PIR'

plumb. priv.

plumb. plumb. proc.

4

2

plumb., officina tor

century category 1/2 plumb. priv.

plumb. plumb. plumb.

PLRE Paulina 4

lib.

status

Evelpistus Fabia Anconia Paulina F1. Fabia Flora L. Fabius Cilo L. Fabius Cilo L. Fabius Gallus L. Fabius Gallus M. Fabius Romanus [ ... ]nia Faustinilla Favia Glycera [ ... ]ius Favor Felicianus

[Eu]tychus Eutychus Eutychus

name Euhodus [ ... ]lius Eunathus Eutyches

279

Appendix III: The people mentioned in the fistula stamps ofRome and its suburbium

plumb.

priv.

2/3

2/3

T. Flavius

PIR' F 352

sen. or

sen. V.c.

sen.?

2 priv.

plumb.

2

plumb.

plumb., officinator plumb.

5 or 6

plumb.

2/3

plumb. priv.

plumb.

2/3

sen. c.v.

plumb.

2/3

Ti. Flavius Celsus Flavius Cervius PIR' F 238 T. Flavius Claudius Claudianus T. Flavius Hymnus Flavius lohannes T. Flavius Parthenius T. Flavius Prirnio Flavius Rufus

plumb. priv. priv. priv.

3 late? late? 3

Flavia Sepptima Flavii Gartemii Flavii Gartemii Flavius Balentinus T. Flavius Carinus T. Flavius Carinus T. Flavius Carinus T. Flavius Carinus

century category ? priv. 2 priv. plumb.

PIR' F 437? sen.?

status

Flavia Sepptima

Flavia Ianuaria Flavia Procilla

name

+ aug. Dornitian + plumb. Felix

+ aug. Dornitian

stamp

find-spot suburb., Via Appia Rome

+ plumb. Apolaustus

+ priv.? Sept. Marianus Iunior and Sept. Bel[li]cius Ulpianus Iulianus + plumb. C. Calpumius Licinianus

+ priv. Carminia Liviana Diotima + priv. P. Altius Pudens

regio VI

Rome

CIL 15.7451;

CIL 15.7308

CIL 15.7632

CIL 15.7631

CIL 15.7260 a and b

CIL 15.7630

280

BCAR 92(1987/88)124 n. 45: MNR inv. 60759 CIL 15.7277 CIL 15.7450 a

Epigrafica 1951, 23 no. 34 AE 1954 no. 71

CIL 15.7424 b

CIL 15.7424 a p

CIL 15.7424 a a

CIL 15.7253 I) NSA 1917,12 NSA 1917, 14-15 CIL 15.7455

CIL 15.7253 Y

reference CIL 15.7457 CIL 15.7458

suburb., Via Labicanal via Latina Rome

regio VI

regio V

Rome regio VI

regio VI

Rome

Rome

regio V

regio V

+ plumb. C. Galerius Hermeros + Dec(uria) sacerdotium regio VII videntalium regio VII regio VII or IX regio VII Rome

fistula

Appendix III: The people mentioned in the fistula stamps of Rome and its suburbium

+ plumb. Annion

cos. 3

112

P. Fu1cinius Docimus Fulvius Petronius Aemilianus

PIR' F 528 or 529

?

Fortunius

FortunalUs

priv.

plumb., officinator plumb.

plumb.

plumb.

2

Fortunatus

+ aug. Trajan + proc. [H]es[ycbus] + aug. Domitian + proc. Bucola

regio VIII regio V

plumb. plumb.

3 3

+ priv. Q. Munatius Celsus

regio VI

priv.

2/3

cos.

F 392

suburb., Via Ardeatina

Transtiberim

regio VI

regio VI

Rome

regio VI

priv.

2/3

cos.

F 392

PIR2

regio V

priv.

3?

sen.

F 389

priv.

2?

PIR2

suburb., Via Appia

plumb.

2

CIl 15.7459 a

CIl 15.7634,1

281

CIlI5.7280; CAR III G p. 255 no. 168i CIl15.7633

CIl 15.7456 a; CAR III D p. 140 no. 185z CIl 15.7456 ~; CAR III D p. 140 no. 185z CIl 15.7236a~ CIlI5.7497; CAR III G p. 255 no. 168b CIlI5.7297

CIl 15.7424 a y

CIl15.7454

suburb., Via Nomentana BCAR 1907,230 no. 5; CAR III D p. 60 no. 9i suburb., Via Appia CIl 15.7298 ~

priv.

PIR2

CIl 15.7453 a

regio IV

priv.

2

reference CAR II I p. 257 no. 86b CIl15.7452

NSA 1922,222

regio VI

find-spot

regio IV

curator

2

+ aug.s Marcus Aurelius and Commodus + plumb. Aelius Felix + aug.s Marcus Aurelius and Commodus

fistula

CIl15.7320

curator

2

stamp

regio VI

priv.

?

century category

F 383? cos.

sen.?

status cos

PIR2

or 355

Flavius Secundus T. Flavius Tiberianus T. Flavius Titianus Flavius Tropbimus C. Flavius Turpilius T. Flavius Valerianus Flavius Vedius Antoninus Flavius Vedius Antoninus Florentinus Formianus

name Sabinus T. Flavius Salinator Flavius Secundus

Appendix III: The people mentioned in the fistula stamps of Rome and its suburbium

imperial plumb.

aug. 3 servo caes.

PIR' I 347 !rib.

lib.aug. I?

priv.

priv.

2/3?

regio VI

Transtiberim

suburb., Via Appia Rome

regio VI

Rome

regio VI

Gordianus Graptus

[Ti.lulius) Graptus L. Gratt(i)us

+ aug. Domitian + proc. Polydeucis

plumb. Cams

priv.

3?

PlREI Germanianus 2 PIR'G 191 eq.

regio IV

regio V

priv.

3

PIR'G 166

imperial

priv.

CIl 15.7243;

CIl15.7466

282

CIl 15.7338 a CAR III G p. 195 no.3a CIl15.7339 CIl 15.7286 a and b

CIl15.7465

CIl15.7462

CIl15.7463 CAR III G p. 257 no.168q CIlI5.7464

Epigrafica 1951, 26 no. 52-53

Rome

CIl15.7458

plumb.

Rome

regio VI

CIl 15.7242; IlS 8698 b; CIl15.7635

suburbium, Via Tiburtina CIl 15.7461

3

sen.fam. c.f.

PIR'G 157

Castra Praetoria

+ cur. Mucius Genitor

+ priv. Flavia Procilla

regio XIII

+ cur. Messius Atticus

CIlI5.7241

reference BCAR 1902,292; IlS 8689; CAR II H p. 234 no. 140s regio VI BCAR 1901,63; NSA 1902, 132-133; AE 1903,45 = 125 suburb., Via Nomentana CIl 15.7460 find-spot regio VI

stamp fIStula + proc. Annius Proculus + plumb. Terentius Cassander + proc. Victor + plumb. Terentius Cassander

priv.

aug.

cos.

PIR'G30

2

plumb., officinator plumb.

Geminia Bassa Genucius Marin[ ia )nus C. Art (?) Germanianus M. Gongius Nestorianus Gordiani

C. Galerius Hermeros P. Galerius Trachalus C. Galerius Verecundus

C. Galerius

Furius Festus

curagens?

priv. ?

trib. Praet. 3 Coho !rib. Praet. 3 Coho

PIR' F 570

L. Funisulanus Vettonianus Furius Festus

2/3

priv.

cos.

PIR' F 554

C. Fulvius Plautianus

century category 2/3 priv. ?

cos.

status cos.

PIR' F 554

name

Fulvius Plautianus

Appendix III: The people mentioned in the fistula stamps ofRome and its suburbium

plumb. plumb. plumb. plumb. priv. priv.

2

2 ? ? ? 4? ?

aug.

cos. fam.

servus

A 184 PIR2 A 184

PIR2 A 184

Hadrianus Hadrianus

Hadrianus

Hesychus

Heraclides [HerenniuJs Lucrianus Hermes Hermogenianus PLRE I Hermogenianus 1 L. Hermonius lustus Hero

Heracla

H28

aug. aug.

PIR2

Hadrianus

Haterius Latronianus

2

aug.

A 184

PIR2

PIR2

2 2

aug.

PIR2 A 184

2

2

2

proc.

proc.

priv.

imperial

imperial imperial

imperial

imperial

imperial

Hadrianus

2

aug.

PIR2 A 184

Hadrianus

imperial

2

aug.

PIR2 A 184

Hadrianus

imperial

aug.

2

plumb.

century category

PIR2 A 184

servus

status Pro Coho

Hadrianus

Hacato

Exsuperus

name

fistula

+ plumb. C. lulius Hermes

+ aug. Domitian + proc. Entellus + plumb. Primigenius + aug. Trajan + plumb. Claudius Onesimus

+ aug. Trajan + proc. Alypus

+ proc. Flavius Rufus + plumb. Felix + proc. M. Petronius Sura + plumb. Claudius Felix + proc. Petronius Sura + plumb. Martialis + proc. Trebellius Marinus + plumb. Martialis + proc. patrim. + proc. Marcus Cyrenicus + plumb. Lucifer + cur. Anai[ ... J + plumb. [ ... Jsande

stamp

P

regio VI

CIL 15.7311

Rome

Rome

regio IX

suburb., Via Appia suburb., Via Nomentanal Tiburtina Rome Rome

regio IV

regio VI

CIL 15.7296

CIL 15.7282

CIL 15.7468

283

Epigrafica 1951,26 no.54 CIL 15.7578

CIL 15.7636 CIL 15.7709

CIL 15.7467; CAR III D p. 117 V no. 170,178 a CIL 15.7295

CIL 15.7312 BCAR1911,247 AE 1912 no. 34 suburb., Via Nomentana CAR III D p. 73 no. 38

Rome regio XIII

regio VI

CIL 15.7309

elL 15.7309 a

regio VI

Rome

CIL 15.7307; CAR III G p. 249 no. 154g CIL 15.7308

reference CAR III G p. 276 no. 204 lib CIL 15.7593

regio V

Transtiberim

find-spot

Appendix III: The people mentioned in the fistula stamps of Rome and its suburbium

Iulia lulia Mamaea lulia Paula lulia Prisca lulia Severa lulia Tuche[?]

Isochrysus lulia Iulia

loannes, paus Isrnal[us]

A. Hortensius Licinianus A. Hortensius Licinianus Hostilia Fortunata Hymnus

Hilarianus

Hilarianus

Hesychus

[H]es[ychus]

name

plumb.

5?

sen.?

imp. fam imp. fam

imp. fam. imp. fam.

sen.fam.? sen.fam.?

PIR' F 426 PIR' F 426

PIR' F 426 PIR' 1649

PIR' 1700

pope

serv.caes.

priv.

2/3

priv. ? priv.? plumb. priv. priv. priv.?

plumb. priv.? priv. ?

2 I I

I 3 ? ?

plumb.

6 2

plumb.

plumb.

priv.

2/3

priv.

proc.

2

century category proc..-_· 2

sen.?

PIR' H 176 aug.lib.

aug.lib.

status

+ priv. Q. Vibius Crispus

+ plumb. M. Cartilius Bitalion

(+ Thermae Traiani) (+ Aqua Traiana)

fistula

~

CIL 15.7261 CIL 15.7319; CAR III G p. 245 no. 148 dd

suburb., Via Tiburtina regio VI

Rome regioX Transtiberim

CIL 15.7285

CIL 15.7564 a

CIL 15.7469

Epigrafica 195 I, 20 no.18-19; AE 1954 no. 65 CIL 15.7469 a

BCAR 1938 no. 245 b (+aandb) BCAR 1903, 365

reference CIL 15.7297

regioX

suburb., Via Latina

Transtiberim

Transtiberim

Rome

regio VII

regio III

find-spot Rome

284

CIL 15.7637 CIL 15.7264 and 7276 b CIL 15.7275; AE 1948 no. 72; CAR I F p. 26 no. 20 c; BCAR 1941, 190 no. 22; BCAR 1946-48 no. 220; CAR I H p. 81 no. 55h; CARllp.IOlno.26a CAR II p. 99 no. II Rome CIL 15.7276 a + plumb. Polychronius regio II CIL 15.7336 Rome CIL 15.7640 + priv. Caecilia LupercilIa+ plumb. C. Licinius Felixsuburb., Via Praenestina CIL 15.7477 Rome CIL 15.7478 Rome CIL 15.7479

+ aug. Domitian + proc. Eutychus + praepositus Stephanus + aug. Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus + proc. Caecilius Dextrianus

stamp + aug. Trajan + plumb. Fortunatus + aug. Trajan

Appendix III: The people mentioned in the fistula stamps of Rome and its suburbium

cos.

COS.;

PIR' 1190

PIR' 1322

priv.

2

Valerianus lunia Procula lunii P. lunius Karns luvencus

T. lulius

PIR'I612 sen. fam.? 2 ? 2? ?

2

2

plumb.

112

sen. v.c.

priv.

3

cos. fam.

priv. priv. priv. plumb.

priv.

proc.

priv.

3

cos. fam.

lulius Pompeius PIR' 1476 Rusonianus lulius Pompeius PIR' 1476 Rusonianus Ti. lulius Primigenius lulius Rufus

plumb. plumb.

plumb.

plumb. + priv. Cn. Sergius Craterns

+ patr. aug. Antoninus Pius

2

?

Transtiberim

plumb., officinator priv.

+?

+ plumb. M. Cartilius Callidromus

P

285

CIl15.7482 CIl15.7481 Epigrafica 1951, 21 no. 20 CIl15.7685

Cll15.7476

BCAR 1906, 113

Cll15.7639

Cil 15.7475

Cil 15.7475 a

CIlI5.7262 CIl15.7302

CIl15.7393

CIl 15.7533 a

CIl 15.7474; CAR III I p. 332 no. 16 CIl15.7578

CIl 15.7471 a a; CAR II I p. 283 no. 188f CIl15.7638

CllI5.7472aa CIl15.7470

CIl15.7480

reference

regio V suburb., Via Appia Rome suburb., Via labicanal Via latina

Rome

regio XIII

Rome

regio VII

regio VII

+ plumb. Servius regio VII Salvidienus Symphor[us J regio VII + priv. Antonia [ ... J, [ ... Jius Celer and [... Jius Severns + aug. Augustus? Rome + aug. Trajan regio IX

Rome

suburb., Via Tiburtina

regio VI

priv.

2/3

regio I Rome

find-spot

priv. priv.

fistula regio IV

stamp

priv.

century category

1 2

cur. aq.

sen.

PIR' 1254

slalus

C. luIius Pol ... J Julius Polybius

C.lulius Pinytus

lulia Vitalis N[ ... J lulii Cefalii Ti.lulius Augustalis C.lulius Avitus Julius Concord(i)us Sex.lulius Frontinus C.lulius Hermes Julius Hierax

name

Appendix III: The people mentioned in the fistula stamps of Rome and its suburbium

L. Laetorius Annaeus Rufus Larci(an)i A. Larcius Lydus A. Larcius Macedo Laurentius C. Lepid(i)us Lepidius Lupercus Cn. Lepidius Primus Libo Rupilius Frugi C. Licinius Felix Q. Licinius Hermias [c. Licinius1 Mucianus C. Licinius Mucianus Livius Saturninus Lollius plumb.

plumb.

priv.

PIR' L 216 cos. 1/2

priv.

plumb.

PIR'L216 cos.

2

plumb.

Lupercilla and lulia Prisca

CIL 15.7642

NSA 1902,627; ILS 8701 CIL 15.7722 CIL 15.7485

Epigrafica 1951,21 no. 22

CAR II C p. 68 no. 143 Epigrafica 1951,21 no. 21

CIL 15. 7483; CAR II F p. 147 no. 120; CAR III D p. 117 V no. 170,178 b CIL 15.7484

LTUR II, 74: MNR inv. 113273 CIL 15.7244; ILS 8699

reference CIL 15.7641

suburb., Via Flaminia

regio VIII

regio X

regio VI

regio V

CIL 15.7267

CIL 15.7644

286

MEFRA 107(1995)469-474

CIL 15.7496

CIL 15.7643

BCAR 1938,244; AE 1940 no. 39 suburb., Via Praenestina CIL 15.7477

regio III

Rome

plumb.

3

PIR' L 149 eq.

priv.

regio VII Rome suburb., Via Aurelia

priv. plumb. priv.

5?

sen.

PIR' L 166 cos.

Rome

priv.

sen.

PIR' L 98

regio VI Rome

priv.en? priv.

lib.

PIR'L96

regio VI

Castra Praetoria

regio VII

find-spot Rome

suburb., Via Labicana

+ priv. Caecilia

fistula

priv.

+ aug. Tiberius

stamp

sen.?

priv.

centurion praet.coh. cos.

2

priv.

century category 112 plumb.

cos.

status

PIR'L67

name C. Laecanius Antiochus PIR' L 30 C. Laecanius Bassus or 31 Sex. Laecanius Naevius Labio PIR' L 53 M. Laelius Fulvius Maximus

Appendix III: The people mentioned in the fistula stamps of Rome and its suburbium

plumb. imperial

imperial imperial

imperial

aug. aug. aug.

aug.

[MarciJa Caenis Marcus Aurelius PIR' A 697

Marcus Aurelius PIR' A 697

Marcus Aurelius PIR' A 697

Marcus Aurelius PIR' A 697

+ caes. Commodus + cur. Flavius Secundus + plumb. Aelius Felix + aug. Commodus + cur. Flavius Secundus + aug. Lucius Verus + proc. Caecilius Dextrianus + plumb. Isrnalus + aug. Lucius Verus + proc. Q. Terentius Scaurus + plumb. Epictetus

NSA 1922, 222

regio III

CIL 15.7319; CAR III G p. 245 no. 148 dd suburb., Via Nomenlana BCAR 1908, 53 no.l; CAR III D p.60 9 I; AE 1908 no. 232

regio VI

CIL 15.7378 b CIL 15.7320

regio VI regio VI

287

CIL 15.7378 a

suburb., Via Tiburtina

plumb.

3?

Epigrafica 1951,21 no. 23 CIL 15.7489 a a

Rome regio VIII

priv. priv.

+ plumb. L. Nostius Florenlinus + priv. M. Aemilius Aemilianus

Rome

plumb.

2

CIL 15.7488; MEFRA 110(1988)907 CIL 15.7646

2

regio IIIV

priv.

+ ? plumb. [VariuJs Pardus + plumb. P. Nautius Apollinaris

BCAR 1911,247; AE 1912 no. 34 CIL 15.7645

reference Epigrafica 1951,27 no. 55

CIL 15.7319; CAR III G p. 245 no. 148 dd suburb., Via Nomenlana BCAR 1908,53 no.l; CAR III D p.60 9 I; AE 1908 no. 232 suburb., Via Nomentana CAR III D p. 77-78 no. 51-56 IlIa regio XIV CIL 15.7486 a

regio VI

Rome

regio XIII

find-spot Rome

priv.

imperial

2

fistula

+ aug. Marcus Aurelius + proc. Caecilius Dextrianus + plumb. Ismalus + aug. Marcus Aurelius + proc. Q. Terentius Scaurus + plumb. Epictetus + aug. Marcus Aurelius

+ aug. Hadrian + proc. Marcus Cyrenicus

stamp

2?

imperial

2

imperial

plumb.

3? 2

aug.

PIR' C 606

Lucius Verus

sen.

aug.

PIR' C 606

Lucius Verus

2

2

plumb.

century category plumb.

Cn. Lucrelius Alexander L. Lusius Petellinus P. Luttius Hippi[usJ Maecilius Fuscus PIR2 M 41 PIR' M 48 Q. Maecius Blandus Marcia Caenis

aug.

PIR2 C 606

status

C. Lucilius Pylades Lucius Verus

P. Lollius Faus[tusJ Lucifer

name

Appendix III: The people mentioned in the fistula stamps of Rome and its suburbium

2

servus

Martialis

P. Martius Philippus

Martius Faustus

Martinus

Martinus

plumb.

PIR'M 345 eq.

PIR'M349 cos. fam.

3

3?

proc.

2

priv.

plumb., officinator plumb., officinator plumb.

plumb.

+ ? priv. P. Martius Philippus + ? plumb. Martius Faustus

regio XIV

CIL 15.7492 a

CIL 15.7492 a

CIL 15.7647 b

Rome regio XIV

CIL 15.7647 a

CIL 15.7311

regio VI

P regio IV

ClL 15.7309

CIL 15.7284 a and b

Epigrafica 1951, 27 no. 57-60 CIL 15.7493

CIL 15.7501 b

regio VI

regio X

regio VI

Rome

plumb. priv.

Rome

+ aug. Dornitian + proc. Epagathus + plumb. Alexander + aug. Hadrian + proc. Petronius Sura + aug. Hadrian + proc. Trebellius Marinus

regio XIII

CIL 15.7491 CIL 15.7501 a

BCAR 1911, 247

Rome

+ proc. Capitolinus + plumb. Felix. + aug. Hadrian + plumb. Lucifer

Rome suburb., Via Ostiensis

CIL 15.7321

regio XII

+ priv. L. Nonius Asprenas

regio VI

+ Castra Praetoria

288

CIL 15.7237; ILS 8697; CAR III G p. 23516 no. 135m CIL 15.7322

find-spot reference suburb., Via Nomentana CAR III D p. 77-78 no. 51-56 IlIa Rome BCAR 1941, 190 no. 25

fistula

+ proc. Philippus

stamp + aug. Lucius Verns

plumb.

priv. plumb.

imperial

2

2

imperial

servus

aug.

PIR' A 697

2

imperial

Martialis

aug.

PIR' A 697

2

imperial

plumb.

aug.

PIR' A 697

2

century category 2 imperial

servus

aug.

PIR' A 697

status aug.

Marcus Aurelius? Marcus Aurelius? Marcus Cyrenicus Maria Allicilla Sex. Marius Eros [Sex. Mariu]s Eros Sex. Marius Eros Publia Martia Sergia Fusca Martialis

Marcus Aurelius? Marcus Aurelius?

name Marcus Aurelius PIR' A 697

Appendix III: The people mentioned in the fistula stamps ofRome and its suburbium

PIR'I619

priv. priv. plumb.

3 2

eq.

plumb.

2 centurion 3 Praet.Coh. 2 sen.fam.

plumb. priv.

Praet. Coho

+ trib. Furius Festus

Rome

regio V

+ plumb. Fonnianus

289

CIL 15.7497; CAR III G p. 255 no. 168h CIL 15.7648

suburb., Via Nomentana CIL 15.7304; CAR III E p. 155 no. 4d Castra Praetoria CIL 15.7242; ILS 8698 b; CARIIIHp.314no.14 suburb., Via Ardeatina CIL 15.7498

Epigrafica 1951, 19 no. 9-12; AE 1954 no. 64 BCAR 1935, 185 CIL 15.7495

CIL 15.7241

CIL 15.7494

+ aug. Trajan

regio VI Rome

Rome

+ aug. Caracalla + proc. Claudius Diognetus

plumb.

2

regio XIII

+ cur. Furius Festus

Rome

Rome regio IX

curagens?

aug.serv. PIR'M610 cos.

Mucius Genitor PIR'M 738 Munatia Procula PIR'M721 Q. Munatius Celsus Naebius Italicus

Minervalis Minicius Faustinus Modes[?]

Minervalis

+ aug. Hadrian + cur. Silius Decianus + plumb.[lu]lius Polybius

Rome

centurion 3 Praet. Coho aug.serv. 3

plumb. curator

Secundinus

+ plumb. Aurelius

CIL 15.7712 NSA 1925,399; LTIJR 11,139 CIL 15.7337 a (plumb.: ~) Epigrafica 1951,27 no. 61 CIL 15.7302

plumb. priv. imperial

CIL 15.7306

suburb., Via Tiburtina suburb., Via Cassia

CIL 15.7504

CIL 15.7504

reference CIL 15.7492 b

RegioV

and P. Martius Sergius Satuminus

+ priv. Ofillius Macedo Rome

Rome

+ priv. Ofillius Macedo and Martius Verus

find-spot Rome

fistula

priv.

2

stamp

priv.?

priv.

2 2

priv.

2

century category priv. 3

cos. fam.

aug.

sen. c.v.

PIR'M 367 imp. fam. or 368

PIR' S 625 Messalina Tauri f. Mcssius Atticus

Maximus Mcmnius Ruf(in)us

Maximinus

Maxart

A. Matidius

Matidia

status name PIR'M345 eq. P. Martius Philippus PIR'M 346 cos. P. Martius Sergius Satuminus P. Martius Verus PIR' M 348 cos.

Appendix III: The people mentioned in the fIStula stamps ofRome and its suburbium

Nero Nero?

Neritus

L. Neratius Pr[iscusJ

Narcissus Nasennius Musaeus P. Nautius Apollinaris Neratius Marcellus C. Neratius

Naevius Syntrophus Naevius Syntrophus Naevius Syntrophus C. Nampudius leonides Narcissus

cos.

cos.

PIR'N 55

PIR'N51

PIR'D 129 PIR'D 129

lib. aug.

PIR'N23

aug. aug.

lib. aug.

lib. aug.

PIR'N23

?

plumb.

2

imperial imperial

priv.

priv.

priv.

priv.

priv. plumb.

I 2

priv.

plumb.

plumb.

plumb.

plumb.

plumb.

3

Naevius Manes

priv.

PIR'NII plumb.

priv.

century category 2 plumb.

PIR'N II

status

L. Naevius Clemens L. Naevius Clemens Naevius Manes

name N aevia Prisca

+ proc. Nestor

Adiectus

regio VI

regio VI

find-spot regio VI

+? plumb. Volusius

+ priv. L. lusius Petellinus

+ ? priv. P. Aelius Coeranus

+ priv. C. lulius Avitus

CIl 15.7499, 2; CAR III G p. 235/6 no. 135m CIl 15.7249 a CAR II F p. 139 no. 88 CIl 15.7249 b I and 2 CARIIIDp. 136 no. 176g CIl 15.7471 a ~ (priv. on a) CIl 15.7471 b

reference BCAR 1886, 105 no. 1168; CAR III D p. 98 no. 108 IIIb CIl 15.7499, I

regio IX regio VI

regio VI

regio VI BCAR 1987/8124 n.45:

regiolVNI

regiolVNI

regio IIIV

regio IX regio VI

regio VII

Rome

290

MNR inv.61134 and 61139 BCAR 1941, 190 no. 26; AE 1948 no. 76 CIlI5.7271 CIl 15.7270 a

CIl 15.7500 a en b; IlS 1666 CIl 15.7500 c CIl 15.7650; CAR III D p. 142 no. 185ss CIl 15.7488; MEFRA 110(1988)907 BCAR 1906, 294; AE 1906 no. 133 BCAR 1906, 294 AE 1906 no. 133 BCAR 1906,295;

Epigrafica 1951, 27 no. 63

suburb., Via Nomenlana CIl 15.7487

Rome

regio VI

+ aug. Alexander Severus regio VI + Horti Sallustiani regio VI

fIStula

+ priv. Neratius Marcellus

+ priv. C. N eratius

stamp

Appendix III: The people mentioned in the fistula stamps ofRome and its suburbium

priv. plumb. plumb.? priv.

3 I

+? priv. Claudia Cerbonia + plumb. Oionysius

regio V Rome

p

291

CIL 15.7459 Pand y CIL 15.7574 P CAR I H p. 78 no. 39d CIL 15.7431 Epigrafica 1951, 22 no. 26

CIL 15.7651

CIL 15.7502

NSA 1925,399

BCAR 1941, 191 no. 31 CIL 15.7651

CIL 15.7489 b

CIL 15.7489 a

Epigrafica 1951, 21 nos. 24 and 25 AE 1954 no. 68a and b CIL 15.7489aa

CIL 15.7399 P CARIFp.25no.13 CIL 15.7501 a

reference CARIIFp.120no.8b CIL 15.7270 b CIL 15.7270 c CIL 15.7294 a CIL 15.7271 CIL 15.7686 CIL 15.7298 a

suburb., Via Ardeatina Transtiberim

Rome

plumb.

+ plumb. P. Novius Helius

Rome

priv.

2 2

2

suburb., Via Cassia

plumb.

Rome Rome

+ plumb. P. Novius Tyridas

priv. plumb.

regio VIII

regio VIII

Rome

suburb., Via Ostiensis

regio VIII

+ priv. Q. Maecius Blandus + priv. Caelia Galla

+ plumb. Sex. Marius Eros

regio IX

regio V Rome regio XIII regio IX Rome suburb., Via Appia 7281 a

find-spot

plumb.

plumb.

plumb.

priv.

priv.

priv.

+ ? statio patrimonii

fIStula

+ aug. Trajan + aug. Oornitian + plumb. T. Claudius + cur. Caec[ina] Paetus [Colend]us and Q. Articuleus Paetus

4

cos.

PIR' N 159 PLRE I Maxima 5 PIR' N 117, cos. 118,or 119? PIR'N 133 cos.

PIR' N 100

+ aug. Nero

I I I I 2 2 I

PIR'O 129 aug. PIR'O 129 aug. PIR' C 1227 aug. lib. aug.

imperial imperial imperial proc. plumb. proc. curator

stamp

century category

status

L. Nonius Asprenas L. Nonius Torquatus Asprenas L. Nostius Florentinus L. Nostius Florentinus L. Nostius Florentinus sen. [ ... ]ia Novatilla P. Novius Helius P. Novius Helius Novius Priscus PIR' N 183, cos. 184 or 185 P. Novius Tyridas Nurnisia Procula PIR' N 220 cos. fam. Nurnisius Successus Obseque[ ns] Octavia Lucana PIR' 0 69

Nonia Maxima

Nero? Nero? Nerva Nestor [Ni]cephorus Nilas Q. Ninius Hasta

name

Appendix III: The people mentioned in the fistula stamps ofRome and its suburbium

imperial imperial

3 3 3 3

sen.

caes. caes.

cos.

PIR'O 107 M.Opellius Diadumenianus

PIR'O 107 M.Opellius Diadumenianus PIR'O 107 M.Opellius Diadumenianus PIR'O 108 M.Opellius Macrinus

servus

2

regio IX

plumb.

suburb., Via Labicanal

regio XIII

+ priv. Tbeodosius and Tbeodorus

plumb.

priv.

late

Transtiberim regio XIII

Papinius Dionysius Pardus

plumb. priv.

2 2

Rome RegioXIV

Castra Praetoria

Castra Praetoria

regio V

Rome

priv. priv.?

I 3

Diadumenianus

+ ? priv. M. Opellius

Castra Praetoria

Castra Praetoria

regio V

CIL 15.7534 b P

292

CIL 15.7653; Epigrafica 1951,27/8 no. 64 BCAR 1941, 192 no. 38

CIL 15.7583

CIL 15.7652 CIL 15.7507

CIL 15.7505 Pand a Santa Maria Scrinari 1991, 10 nr.66 a CIL 15.7331 CAR III E p. 172 no. 94 IIf CIL 15.7238 p; CAR III E p. 172 no. 94 lIe CIL 15.7505 a and p Santa Maria Scrinari 1991, 10 nr.66 a CIL 15.7331; CAR III E p.l72 n.94 IIf CIL 15.7238 a; CAR III E p.l72 no. 94 lie CIL 15.7506 CIL 15.7340 Macrinus

CIL 15.7332

+ ? priv. M. Opellius

CIL 15.7504

BCAR 1940, 219

reference AE 1954 no. 69 CIL 15.7503

+ aug. Alexander Severus Rome

Rome

plumb.

imperial

3

Diadumenianus

+ caes. M. Opellius

Macrinus

+ aug. M. Opellius

and P. Martius Sergius Satuminus

Pamphilus

imperial

3

priv.

plumb., officinator priv.

3

PIR'O 108 aug. M.Opellius Macrinus PIR' 0108 aug. M.Opellius Macrinus Otacilia Postuma PIR' 0 177 sen.? PIR'M266 imp. fam. M.Otacilia Severa L. Pacilius Felix PIR'P41 sen.? Pactumeia Lucilia PLRE II Palis sen. Palis

+ priv. P. Martius Verus

suburb., Via Appia

find-spot

plumb.

fIStula regio IV

Onagrius

cos.

stamp

priv.

priv.

sen.

PIR' 0 31 L. Octavius Felix Ofilia Crescentina Ofillius Macedo PIR' 0 87

century category

2

status

name

Appendix III: The people mentioned in the fistula stamps ofRome and its suburbium

L. Pescennius Eros L. Pescennius Evaristus Pup.Petillius Birro Pup. Petillius Clitus Petronia Lasciva Petronia Lasciva M. Petronius Audactus Q. Petronius Cyrillus

Pascal (c. Sallustius) PIR' P 146 Crispus Passienus Paulla, married PIR' P 166 to M. Postumms Festus [PaJulla, married PIR' P 167 to Faustus Cn. Pedius Phosporus D. Percennius PIR' P 232 Marcianus D. Percennius PIR' P 232 Marcianus D. Percennius PIR' P 234 Rufinus Peregriana Peregrina

name

regia VI Rome suburb., Via Aurelia

plumb. plumb.

+ plumb. Aemilius Victor Rome

regia II

regia II

priv.

priv.

priv.

+ priv. Pup. Petillius Clitus + priv. Pup. Petillius Birro

Rome

plumb. priv.

regia X

plumb.

regia X regia IV

Rome

priv.

sen. plumb. plumb.?

+ plumb. Aemilia Chrysis Rome

Rome

Rome

Rome

priv.

+ plumb. Crispinus

regia VI

find-spot Latina regia VII/IX Transtiberim

cos. fam.

+ plumb. [ ... Jus

+ priv. M. Postumius Festus, their children and Pompeius Heliodorus

fistula

cos. fam.

plumb.

priv.

priv.

priv. priv.

stamp

+ plumb. (?)

2/3

late I

century category

priv.

cos. fam.

cos. fam.

cos.

status

CIL 15.7656 a

293

AE 1907 no. 215 CAR II G p. 152 no. 19a CIL 15.7655

CIL 15.7570

CIL 15.7510

CIL 15.7510

Epigrafica 1951,28 no. 65

CIL 15.7687 u CIL 15.7726 CAR III G p. 244 no. 148 q CIL 15.7265

CIL 15.7509 f

CIL 15.7509 band c

CIL 15.7509 a

CIL 15.7654

BCAR 1941,191 no. 32

CIL 15.7517

CIL 15.7579 CIL 15.7508 CAR I I p. 101 no. 24

reference

Appendix III: The people mentioned in the fistula stamps of Rome and its suburbium

regio IV? regio V regio IV? Rome Rome regio V

priv.? priv.? plumb., officinator plumb. priv. priv. plumb. plumb. plumb. plumb.

? ? ?

lib.

trib. Cob. Vig.

trib. Cob. Vig. aug. lib.

Pbiltatus

Pboebianus

Pboebianus

? 2 2/3 2 2 2 2

cos.

cos. fam.

Pbronimus

PIR' P 449 A. P1atorius or 450 Nepos P1autia Servilla PIR' P 487 M. Plautius Eros M. Plautius Eros M. Plautius Eros M. Plautius Eros

+ aug. Domitian + proc. Po1ydeucis

+ aug. Antoninus

Aelianus Pacu1us

+ priv. L. Roscius

suburb., Via Tiburtina

plumb.

2 or 3 1

aug. lib. aug. lib.

+ aug. Commodus + aug. Commodus

CIL 15.7657 CAR III I p. 332 no. 16 BCAR 1941, 191 no. 33

regio IX

curator plumb. proc. proc.

?

lib.

Pboebion

NSA 1902,464; ILS 8700 a; CAR II G p. 190 no. 185 a eAR II Gp. 178 no. 131 lib elL 15.7354

regio VII

priv.

2

Rome

regio VII

CIL 15.7514 CIL. 15.7325 a CIL 15.7325 b CIL 15.7325 c CIL 15.7523 ~

294

LTUR II, 74: MNR inv. 113277 suburb., Via F1aminia CIL 15.7349 suburb., Via Trionfa1e NSA 1954,256 nos. 2-3 regio XII CIL 15.7322 suburb., Via Nomentana elL 15.7512 a; CAR III D p. 60 no. 9b CIL 15.7287 Rome

CIL 15.7511

cos.

Rome

PIR' P 314 or 315

priv.

2

cos.

elL 15.7511

PIR' P 312

Septirnianus + M. Petronius Mamertinus

2

Rome

elL 15.7309

regio VI

~

CIL 15.7309 a

reference CIL 15.7656 b

regio VI

find-spot regio VI

cos.

priv.

fistula

PIR'P311

+ aug. Hadrian + plumb. Claudius Felix + aug. Hadrian + plumb. Martialis + M. Petronius Sura

stamp

Petronius Sura Mamertinus M. Petronius Sura Septirnianus P. Petronius Turpilianus Pbiladelpbus Pbiletaerus Pbilippus Pbilon

proc.

2

Petronius Sura

century category plumb. 3 proc.

status 2

name

Q. Petronius Cyrillus Petronius Sura

Appendix III: The people mentioned in the fistula stamps of Rome and its suburbium

3

PIR' P 613

The stamp is found on a lead sheet.

P. Postumius Amerimnus P. Postumius Amerimnus P. Postumius Amerimnus P. Postumius

C. Pomponius Hyllus C. Pomponius Hyllus C. Pomponius Hyllus L. Popilius Hilams L. Popillius Hilario Porcius Potitus

Cn. Pompeius Eulogus Pompeius Heliodorus

lib.

Polydeucis

priv. proc. curator curator

2 2 2 2

plumb. proc. plumb. plumb. plumb. plumb.

2 2

2 2 2 2

plumb.

plumb.

2

proc.

plumb. proc.

3 I

aug. lib. lib.

Polychronius Polydeucis

3

century category priv.? priv. ? priv.

2

priv.

status imp.fam. sen.?

?

name

PIR' P 679 Plotina L. Plotius Plutius N iceforianus Plutius Niceforus

fIStula

+ priv. ? Iulia Mamea

+ aug. Antoninus Pius + plumb. Annacus Symporus

+ ? aug. Tiberius

Festus, his wife Paula and their children + aug. Trajan + plumb. Claudius Onesirnus + aug. Trajan + plumb. Thelesphorus + aug. Trajan

+ priv. M. Postumius

+ aug. Domitian + plumb. Graptus + aug. Domitian + plumb. Philtatus

and children

+ priv. Plutius Niceforianus

and children

+ priv. Plutius Niceforus

stamp

regio IX

regio II

regio II

Rome

regio IX

suburb., Via Tiburtina

regio VI

Rome

regio VI

regio III

regio VI

BCAR 1905, 344

CIL 15.7660 c

CIL 15.7660 b

CIL 15.7660 a

CIL 15.7316

295

BCAR 1987/88, 125 n. 46: MNR inv.61136-8 CIL 15.7659

CIL 15.7300 CAR III D p. 140 no. 185 v CIL 15.7301

CIL 15.7299

CIL 15.7517

CIL 15.7658

CIL 15.7287

Rome Rome

CIL 15.7336 CILl5.7286 a and b

CIL 15.7515

regio II Rome

Rome

find-spot reference Rome CIL 15.7305 suburb., Via Collatina BCAR 1907, 360 CIL 15.7515 Rome

Appendix III: The people mentioned in the fistula stamps of Rome and its suburbium

Publieius Victor Quadratus Quartinus Quartinus Quintilius Condianus Quintilius Condianus Quintilius Maximus Quintilius Maximus L. Ragonius Quintianus P. Raius

Niceros

Prisca, married to Ruf(in)us Priscianus Publicius Felicissimus [Pu]blicius Honoratus M. Publieius

P. Postumius Hector Primigenius

Amerimnus Postumius Apollonius P. Postumius Elphistus M. Postumius Festus

name

cos.

2

cos.

PIR'R \3 or 14

priv.

plumb.

cos.

PIR'Q24

priv.

3

cos.

PIR'Q24

priv.

priv.

2

cos.

PIR'Q 19

priv. plumb. plumb. priv.

+ priv. L. Sergius Paulus + priv. Quintilius Maximus + priv. Quintilius Maximus + priv. Quintilius Condianus + Quintilius Condianus

+ priv.? Aelius Dionysius suburb., Via Aurelia

Rome

suburub. Via Appia

regio II

suburb., Via Appia

suburb., Via Appia Rome regio II

regio IV

regio VI

priv.

Rome

Rome

priv.

CIL 15.7517

CIL 15.7661

CIL 15.7565

reference

CIL 15.7372

CIL 15.7519

Santa Maria Serinari 1991,10 n.65e CIL 15.7518

296

BCAR 1941, 191 no. 34 CIL 15.7356 a CIL 15.7356 b Santa Maria Scrinari 1991,10 n.65e CIL 15.7518

BCAR 1940, 197 no. 3

CIL 15.7516

CIL 15.7572

CIL 15.7355 CIL 15.7662

CIL 15.7580

suburb., Via Nomentana BCAR 1906,118; CAR III E p.157 nr.\3 b Rome CIL 15.7282

regio VI

Rome

Rome

find-spot

priv.

+ priv. Sex. Vitulasius Nepos

fistula

suburb., Via Ardeatina suburb., Via Aurelia

2or3

2

cos.

2 3 3 2

PIR' Q 19

augg. lib. augg. lib.

+ aug. Domitian + proc. Entellus and Hero

+ priv.: his wife Paulla, their children, and Pompeius Heliodorus

stamp

plumb. plumb.

priv.

plumb.

priv.

priv.

plumb.

plumb.

century category

serv.? aug. ?

servus

PIR' P 886a sen.?

PIR' P 886

status

Appendix III: The people mentioned in the fistula stamps of Rome and its suburbium

regia XlXI regio III

priv.

Sabina Sabina C. Sabucus Perpetuus

Sabidius Dionysius Sabina

Rufus

Rufius Ma[.·.linus Rufius Proculus

Rufinus Rufius Festus

PIRiV 414 PIR i V411

PIRiR 114 or 115

imp. fam. imp. fam.

sen.

sen.

sen.

augg. lib.

priv. proc.?

2 2

regia V regio VII Rome

regia VI

plumb. priv. ? priv. ? priv.

regio XIII

plumb. ?

Transtiberim

priv.

Rome

priv.

Rome

Rome Rome

?

priv.

+ priv. Rufius Ma[ ... linus and Rufius Proculus + priv. Rufius Festus and Rufius Proculus + priv. Rufius Festus and Rufius Ma[ ... linus

3

2 3

plumb. priv.

Transtiberim Rome

priv. priv.

+ aug. Antoninus + plumb. Aurelius Rufinus

regia XlXI Rome

priv.

2

? 2?

regia V

priv.

2

regia V

priv.

3 or 4

+ plumb. M. Plautius Eros

Rome

I?

priv.

L. Roius Auctus Roius Hilario PLREI Romanius Honoratus 12 Honoratus L. Roscius PIR i R66 Aelianus Paculus L. Roscius, L. PIR i R66 Aelianus Paculus cos. fam. Rubellia Bassa PIR i R 86 cos. fam. Sergo Rubellius PIR i R 85 PI.utus Rufinianus Rufmus

Transtiberim

proc.

aug. lib.

Restitutus

Rome

plumb.?

find-spot

aug. serv.? ?

fistula

Magnus Repentinus

stamp

status

name

century category

P

297

CIL 15.7582; CARllp.101 no.26a CIL 15.7904,2; CIL14.3705 a CIL 15.7688; CAR III D p.98 n.108 IlIa CIL 15.7313 a CIL 15.7402 Epigrafica 1951,23 no. 30-32

CIL 15.7525

CIL 15.7525

CIL 15.7524 Epigrafica 1951, 22 no. 29 AE 1954 no. 70 CIL 15.7530 P BCAR 1941,190 no. 25; AE 1948 no. 75 CIL 15.7357 CIL 15.7525

y

C1L 15.7523 a and

CIL 15.7523

CIL 15.7522 BCAR 1941, 192 no. 35

Epigrafica 1951, 22 no. 27-28 CIL 15.7310a CAR I E p.22 n.3 CIL 15.7521

reference

Appendix III: The people mentioned in the fistula stamps of Rome and its suburbium

Septirnius Bellicius Ulpianus lulianus? Septirnius Dativus Septirnius Marianus lunior

Severianus Seia Fuscinilla PIR'S PIR'S Seius Carns L. Sempronius L. Sempronius PIR'S Proculus L. Sempronius PIR'S Rufus Septirnia Procilla Septirnia Procilla sen.

271

275

cos. fam. cos. fam.

250 242

cos.

[M. Se )datius

Secundus

servus

Sec[undus)

Satuninus

Satrius Primus

PIR' S 231

imp. fam.

[ ... )sande

status

name

L. Sallinius Trop[ ... ) PIR'S67 M. Sallustius Rufus Titilianus Salonia Matidia PIR'M 367

century category plumb.

2/3

2/3

3

3

priv.

plumb.

priv.

plumb.? plumb.

priv.

priv. priv. plumb.? priv.

plumb. priv.

I 2

3 3

plumb.

plumb.

2

2

priv.

+ plumb. Septirnia Procilla + priv. Sept. Bellicius Ulpianus lulianus

lunior

+ plumb. T. Flavius Carinus

Rome

regio V

Rome

+ priv. Sept. Marianus

Dativus

Rome regio V

+ plumb. T. Flavius Carinus

Florentinus

+ plumb. Aurelius

regio V regio V regio VI suburb., Via Labicanai Latina Transtiberim

regio V Rome

regio V

regio VI

suburb., Via Appia

+ plumb. Septirnius

+ priv. Seius Cams + priv. Seia Fuscinilla

Clams + aug. Tiberius

+ priv. Sex. Erucius

Crescentina

plumb.

2

CIL 15.7526 CAR III H p. 325/6 no. 56e

reference CIL 15.7663

15.7523 /) 15.7523 /) 15.7730 15.7529

298

Epigrafica 1951, 23 no. 34 AE 1954 no. 71

CIL 15.7532

Epigrafica 1951,23 no. 34 AE 1954 no. 71

CIL 15.7531 CIL 15.7532

CIL 15.7530 a

CIL CIL CIL CIL

CIL 15.7689; CAR III G p. 235/6 no. 135m CIL 15.7445; CAR III H p. 325/6 no. 56m CILl5.7268 CIL 15.7527

BCAR 1940, 219

Epigrafica 1951,18/19 no. 7; AE 1954 no. 62 suburb., Via Nomentana CAR III p. 73 no. 38

Rome

priv.?

find-spot regio VI

1/2

+ plumb. Ofilia

fIStula suburb., Via Tiburtina

+ aug. Hadrian + cur. Anai[ ... )

stamp

priv.

I

Appendix III: The people mentioned in the fistula stamps of Rome and its suburbium

name PIR' S 346 Septimius Severus and Caracalla PIR'S 346 PIR'S 325 and Geta PIR'S 346 Septimius Severus and Caracalla PIR'S 321 PIR'S 346 Septimius Severus and and Caracalla? PIR'S 321 PIR'S 346 Septimius Severus? PIR'S 345? C. Septimius Severus Cn. Scrgius Craterus Sergius Licinius PIR'S 376 L. Sergius or 377 Paulus Scrgius Su1picius Alexander Scrgius Sulpicius Alexander Scrgius Sulpicius Alexander Scrgius Sulpicius Alexander Sergius Sulpicius Alexander Serveus Felieianus C. Servilius [Ti. Servil]ius Hermes Ti. Servilius Hermes PIR' S 423? Q. Servilius CIL 15.7714 CILl5.7416

regio IV suburb., Via Latina suburb., Via Latina regio V

plumb. priv. plumb. plumb. plumb. plumb. plumb. plumb., offieinator plumb.? plumb.

? lor2 ? ? ?

cos.

2

priv.

plumb.

CIL 15.7665

regio IV

priv.

2

3

regio IX

priv.

2

eq.?

cos.

imperial

+ priv. Quadratus

+ priv. lulius Hierax

+ ? plumb. Ti. Claudius

+ priv. Baronia lusta

Salvidienus Symphor[us]

+ plumb. Servius

CIL 15.7424 d; CAR III G p. 267 no. 204 lie CIL 15.7424 e

CIL 15.7424 c

CIL 15.7424 a Ii

Epigrafica 1951, 28 no. 72

CIL 15.7664 BCAR 1941, 191 no. 34

Epigrafica 1951, 23 no. 35 AE 1954 no. 72 CIL 15.7533 a

CIL 15.7329

299

CIL 15.7666; CAR III I p. 332 no. 16 suburb., Via Nomentana CIL 15.7534 a

suburb., Via Tiburtina

regio V

Rome

regio V? Rome

regio VII

Rome

regio IV

CIL 15.7328

2/3

Rome

CIL 15.7327

reference CIL 15.7326

imperial

Felix

Rome

find-spot Rome

2/3

Cassander

+ plumb. M. Antonius

fIStula

imperial

stamp

+ cur. Thrasia Priscus + proc. Varus Marcellus + plumb. Terentius

2

century category 2/3 imperial

aug. caes. aug. and caes. aug. and caes. aug.

status aug.

Appendix III: The people mentioned in the fistula stamps of Rome and its suburbium

status

eq.

Heirs of Spurius PIR' S 583 Maximus Q. Sta[ ... ] Lucullus [T. St]atilius Caeretanus T. Statilius Fructus [ ... ]i Statilius

Rome regio VI

regio IX

regio II

CIL 15.7669

300

regio V

plumb.

CIL 15.7668

Rome

plumb.

priv. plumb.

CIL 15.7538 CIL 15.7539; CAR II H p. 232 no. 139b CIL 15.7528;CAR II E p. 112 no. 45 NSAI922,227

CIL 15.7302

Santa Maria Scrinari 1991,10 no. 61 CIL 15.7536 b

CIL 15.7540; CAR II I p. 256 no. 83 suburb., Via Nomentana CIL 15.7541; CAR III F p. 188 no. Iia Rome CIL 15.7667

priv.

suburb., Via Appial Via Latina regio VI

+ ? plumb. Agathus

+ priv. Sextius Lateranus + aug. Trajan and cur. Mernnius Ruf(in)us

plumb.

priv. priv.

late

servus

curator

2

Sindanus

priv.

2

cos. fam.

regio II

CIL 15.7536 b

Rome regio II regio II

CIL 15.7393 CIL 15.7537 CIL 15.7536 a

regio VII

CIL 15.7533 a

CIL 15.7535

CIL 15.7534 b a

reference

suburb., Via Labicanal Latina suburb., Via Latina

find-spot

+ priv. lulius Hierax and regio VII Cn. Sergius Craterus

fistula Felix

regio VI

priv.

2

cos.

+ priv. Sextius Torquatus

+ priv. Antonia [ .. ]vi and [ ... ]ius Celer

stamp

priv.

priv.

2

cos.

priv.

I?

imp. fam.? 3 cos. 2

cos.

PIR'P 1086 PIR'S 468 or 469 PIR'S 468 or 469 PIR'S 468 or 469 PIR' S 478

Silverius Appius Silvius, PIR'S 524 lunius Silvinus PIR'S 529 Simonius

Sextia Setegilla Sextius Lateranus Sextius Lateranus Sextius Lateranus Sextius Torquatus Silius Decianus

plumb.

2

priv.

priv.

century category

priv. priv.

Pudens PIR' S 423? COS. Q. Servilius Pudens PIR' S 428 cos. M. Servilius Silanus Servius Salvidienus Symphor[us] [ ... ]ius Severus

name

Appendix III: The people mentioned in the fistula stamps of Rome and its suburbium

C. Teren[ti]us Lucilianus Tercntius Cassander Terentius Cassander

Sulpicius Satuminus Tarquitius [ ... ]odonius Taurus Telesphorus

name Nomaeus T. Statilius Sucinus PIR' S 617 T. Statilius Taurus or618 L. Statius Aquila PIR'S 666 C. Steminius Xenophon PIR'S 696 Suactrii PIR'O 25 C. Suetrius Sabinus Sulpicia Pacata PIR'S 744 Sulpicia Praetextata Sulpicia Triaria PIR'S 745 PIR'S 712 [Q. Su]lpicius or713 Camerinus Scrgius Sulpicius lustinus P. Sulpicius Magnus Sulpicius Priscus PIR' S 731

+ aug. Antoninus + plumb. Aelius Dionysius

plumb., officinator plumb. plumb. plumb.

2

2/3 2/3?

servus

+ aug. Trajan + proc. C. Pomponius Hyllus

Florentinus

regio VI

Castra Praetoria

Rome

regio VI

Rome Rome

plumb. priv.

+ plumb. Aurelius

Rome

plumb.

RegioV

Rome

plumb. curator

Rome

regio III regio VIIIIX

regio XIV Rome

Rome

+ plumb. Lucius AemiliusRome and Karicus Aemilius

CIL 15.7542

Epigrafica 1951, 23 no. 36

reference

301

CIL 15.72380; CAR III E p. 172 no. 94 lie CIL 15.7309 a; ILS 8684

CIL 15.7300; CAR III D p. 140 no. 185 v Epigrafica 1951,29 no. 75

Epigrafica 1951, 28 no. 74 CIL 15.7573

CIL 15.7330; ILS 8690; CAR III G p. 257 no. 168 r Epigrafica 1951, 28 no. 73

CIL 15.7671

CIL 15.7670

CILl5.7550 CIL 15.7547

CIL 15.7548 a CIL 15.7549

CIL 15.7545 CIL 15.7546

suburb., Via Nomentanal CIL 15.7543; Tiburtina CAR III E p. 164 no. 45 I regio II CIL 15.7544

plumb.

priv. priv.

priv. priv.

priv. priv.

priv.

priv.

regio V

find-spot

priv.

fistula Rome

stamp

priv.

3

2/3

3

2/3 3

2

?

century category

sen.

cur. aq.

sen.;

cos.

sen.

cos. fam.

cos.

imp. physician

cos.

status

Appendix III: The people mentioned in the fistula stamps ofRome and its suburbium

name

imperial imperial imperial imperial plumb. imperial

aug. aug. aug. aug. aug. aug. aug.

PIR'C941 PIR'C941 PIR'C941 PIR'C941

PIR'V575

PIR'V 575

PIR'V 575

Traianus

Traianus

2

2

I I I I I 2

imperial

imperial

curator

2/3

Tiberius Tiberius Tiberius Tiberius? Tiridas Traianus

priv.

late

imperial

priv.

late

aug.

Tbeodosius

Tbeodorus

PIR'C941

plumb.

proc.

2

2

priv.

?

priv.

Tiberius

servus

cos.

century category plumb., 2/3 officinator plumb., 2/3 officinator 2/3 plumb.

Thrasia Priscus

PIR'T54

status

sco. PLRE II Tbeodorus 36 PLRE II Tbeodosius 13 PIR' V 95 cos.

Tbemistus

Q. Terentius Culleo L. Terentius lunianus Q. Terentius Scaurus

Terentius Cassander Terentius Cassander Terentius Cassander

fistula

+ proc. Alypus + plumb. Heracla + proc. Hesychus + plumb. Claudius Onesimus + proc. [H]es[ychus]

+ plumb. Lollius + plumb. Secundus

and Lucius Verus + plumb. Epictetus + aug. Trajan + thermae Traiani + proc. Hesychus + aqua Traiana + priv. Palis and Tbeodosius + priv. Palis and Tbeodorus + aug. Septimius Severus and Caracalla + caes. aeta + proc. Varius Marcellus + plumb. Terentius Cassander

+ aug. Marcus Aurelius

+ priv. C. Fulvius Plautianus + proc. Victor + priv. Fulvius Plautianus + proc. Annius Proculus

Varius Marcellus

stamp

+ proc. Thrasia Priscus and

CIL 15.7552

NSA 1902, 132-133; AE 1903 no. 45 BCAR 1902,292; ILS 8689; CAR II H p. 234 no. 140s CIL 15.7551

reference CIL 15.7326

Rome

Rome

Rome suburb., Via Flarninia regio V regio V Transtiberim regio IV

regio V

Rome

regio IX

CIL 15.7297

CIL 15.7296

302

CIL 15.7266 a; Epigrafica 1951, 17 no. 2 CIL 15.7266 b CIL 15.7267 CIL 15.7268 CIL 15.7347 CIL 15.7690 CIL 15.7295

CIL 15.7326

CIL 15.7583

suburb., Via Nomenlana BCAR 1908, 53 no. I; AE 1908 no. 232; CAR III 0 p. 60 no. 9 I regio III BCAR 1938,245 b; AE 1940 no. 40b regio IX CIL 15.7583

Rome

regio III

regio VI

regio VI

find-spot Rome

Appendix III: The people mentioned in the fistula stamps of Rome and its suburbium

cos. aug.

PIR'Y3 PLREI

I 4

priv.

plumb. plumb. priv. imperial

+ aqua Pinciana

Rome regioXIY regio YI Rome

priv. plumb.? plumb. priv.

2

sen.

PIR'y 598 PIR'Y606

PIR'y 540

suburb., Via Latina regio IY

plumb. priv.?

2

Transtibcrim Rome regio II regio YI

suburb., Y ia Appiai via Latina +? priv. L. Fabius Gallus regio IY Rome

Rome

priv.

15.7554 15.7252 a ~ 15.7252 b 15.7566

CIL CIL CIL CIL

15.7681 15.7680 15.7555 15.7259

CIL 15.7449 a CIL 15.7567

~

NSA 1922,227

CIL CIL CIL CIL

Arch. Laz. 1995, 311 CIL 15.7453 Y

CIL 15.7553

303

suburb., Via Nomentana CIL 15.7304; CAR III E p. 155 no. 4d regio III BCAR 1938, 245 b; AE 1940 no. 40b Rome? CIL 15.7895 b regio YI CIL 15.7311

2

+ plumb. P. Aernilius Victor

+ thermae Traiani + aqua Traiana

regio Y

CIL 15.7303

CIL 15.7300; CAR III D p. 140 no. 185 v CIL 15.7301 CIL 15.7302

regio YI Rome regio IX

CIL 15.7298 a CIL 15.7299

reference

suburb., Via Appia regio III

find-spot

imperial proc. + aug. Hadrian + plumb. Martialis

+ proc. Hesychus + plumb. Thcmistus

stamp fIStula + plumb. Fortunatus + proc. Nilas + proc. C. Pomponius Hyllus + plumb. Claudius Onesimus + proc. C. Pomponius Hyllus + plumb. Telesphorus + proc. C. Pomponius Hyllus + cur. Silius Decianus and Memnius Rufus + cur. proc. patrimonium + plumb. Annea lucunda + plumb. Modes

2 2

imperial

priv. priv.

Traianus Trebcllius Marinus Tribatia Marcellina L. Tullius Felix M. Tuticius Capito Tutilia Procula Ulpia Eutychia Ulpia Eutychia M. Ulpius Arabianus M. Ulpius Phaedimus Umbria Albina Umrnidia Quadratilla [... ]urnius Felix Ursinus L. Yagellius Flavius

2

imperial

2 I

aug.

PIR'y 575 PIR'T 238

Traianus

2

imperial

sen.

aug.

PIR' Y 575

Traianus

2

2

aug.

PIR'y 575

imperial imperial

lib.aug.

aug.

PIR'y 575

Traianus

2 2

imperial

imperial imperial

cos.

aug. aug.

PIR' Y 575 PIR'y 575

Traianus Traianus

2

2 2

century category

2 3 3 2/3

aug.

PIR' Y 575

Traianus

PIR'T 321a

aug. aug.

PIR'y 575 PIR' Y 575

status

Traianus Traianus

name

Appendix III: The people mentioned in the fistula stamps of Rome and its suburbium

4

cos. fam.

cos.

cos.

PIR'VI62

PIR'V31

PLRE II Adelfius 3

sen.

These stamps are found on a lead sheet.

Publia Valeria Ma[ ... ]ssa? Valeria Paullina Valerianus M. Valerius Amaranthus M. Valerius Amaranthus M. Valerius Bradua Mauricus Valerius Colonicus Valerius Colonicus Valerius Colonicus Valerius Colonicus Valerius Colonicus Valerius Faltonius Adelfius Valerius

status name Valentinianus Valentinianus 7or8 Publia Valeria PIR'V 156 cos. fam. Comasia Publia Valeria PIR'V 156 cos. fam. Comasia Valeria Eunoea Valeria Eunoea regio VI suburb., Via Labicanal Via Latina regio VI

priv. ? priv. ?

suburb., Via Tiburtina Rome

priv. plumb. plumb.

? 2 2

plumb. plumb. plumb.'

3 3 3

?

Rome

plumb.

3

plumb.

priv.

Rome

plumb.

3

Rome

Rome

regio VI

regio VI

regio V

priv.

2

regio XIII

regio IX

suburb., Via Latina

priv.

priv.

regio XIII?

p

304

Epigrafica 1951, 29 no. 76

CIL 15.7571

CIL 15.7398 c

CIL 15.7398 b 3

CIL 15.7398 b I; CARIIIDp. 147 no. 198 CIL 15.7398 b 2

CIL 15.7398 a

CIL 15.7556

CIL 15.7672 b

CIL 15.7584 CIL 15.7672 a

BCAR 1881,17 Huelsen 1894,390 n. I CIL 15.7561

CIL 15.7560 Lanciani Syll. no. 343

CIL 15.7559, 2

CIL 15.7559, I

reference

priv.

find-spot regio V

fIStula

priv.

stamp

2

3?

3

century category

Appendix III: The people mentioned in the fistula stamps ofRome and its suburbium

priv. plumb. plumb. plumb.

? 3? 3? 3?

plumb. priv. plumb. plumb. plumb.

2 I? ? 3 aug. aug. aug.

Varius Pardus T. Vatinius Ceil ... ] D. Velius Longinus L. Veratius Dicaeus Vemasia Onesime PIR' F 398 Vespasianus PIR' F 398 Vespasianus

PIR' F 398

Vespasianus

plumb.

2

Varius Pardus

imperial

imperial imperial

proc.

priv.

priv.

?

2

cos.

plumb.

3/4?

century category

priv.

PIR'V 150

status

2

Primitivus Valerius Primitivus Valerius Primitivus Q. Valerius Vegetus M. Varenus Liberalis Varius Marcellus

name Hilarius Valerius lovinus C. Valerius Laetus C. Valerius Laetus Valerius

+ plumb. Dovia Hilaritas

fIStula

+ proc. Callistus + plumb. Atimetus AntI ... ]

+ proc. Callistus

+ aug. Septimius Severns and Caracalla + caes. Geta + proc. lbrasia Priscus + plumb. Terentius Cassander + ? priv. C. Lucretius Alexander

stamp

CIL 15.7486 b Epigrafica 1951,24 no. 37 Epigrafica 1951,29 no. 77

CIL 15.7486 a

CIL 15.7326

CIL 15.7558; CAR II 1 p. 269 no. 132 I CIL 15.7562

C1L 15.7334 c

CIL 15.7334 b

regio VIII

regio IV regio VII

305

CIL 15.7273 ILS 8678; CAR II E p. 115 no. 59 b NSA 1901, 144; ILS 8678a

suburb., Via Nomentana CIL 15.7674; CAR III A p.37 no. 51 IIc regio XIII CIL 15.7675

Rome Rome Rome

regio XIV

Rome

regio V

regio VI

suburb., Via Latina

suburb., Via Appia

~

CIL 15.7334 a

CIL 15.7557

CIL 15.7673;CARIIID p. 115 III no. 170,178 i CIL 15.7557 a

reference

suburb., Via Labicanai Via Latina suburb., Via Labicanai Via Latina Rome

regio VI

find-spot

Appendix III: The people mentioned in the fistula stamps ofRome and its suburbium

[Vic]tor M. Vipsa[nius] M. Vipsanius Donatus M. Vipsanius Herma Vitalio Sex. Vitulasius Nepos Volusius

Q. Vibius Crispus Q. Vibius Crispus T. Vibius Postumius Terentianus Victor

Vibia Hilaritas

Vespasianus Vetrania Zosime M. Vettius Bolanus Vettius Praetextatus [V]etulenus Petronianus [V]eturenius Benerianus Veturia Polla Veturia Polla Vibia Glauce

name Vespasianus aug.

PIR' F 398

PIR'V531

PIR'V 393

PIR'V379

PIR'V 379

cos.

cos.; cur. aq. cos.; cur. aq.

sen.

PIR'V 323 cos. or 324 PLREI Praetextatus I

status aug.

PIR' F 398

+ priv.? C. Fulvius Plautianus + plumb. Terentius Cassaner + priv. Arescus

proc. plumb. plumb. plumb. plumb. plumb. priv. plumb.

3 ? ? 112 ? ? ?

Transtiberim

Rome Rome Transtiberim

regio VI

suburb., Via Aurelia

BCAR 1906, 295;

NSA 1902, 132-133; AE 1903,45 CIL 15.7395 CIL 15.7679 CIL 15.7677; CAR II p. 100 no. 21 CIL 15.7678?; CARl H p. 91 no. 93 CIL 15.7453 ~ CIL 15.7565

CIL 15.7373

~

306

CIL 15.7564

Rome

suburb., Via Latina

~

suburb., Via Latina

CIL 15.7676

CIL 15.7394

reference NSA 1949,71; AE 1951 no. 198 CIL 15.7272 and 7274 CIL 15.7434 BCAR 1987/8, 124 n. 45: MNR inv. 60998 CIL 15.7563 a

CIL 15.7472 a ~ CIL 15.7472 b CIL 15.7717; CAR III D p. 117 V no. 170,I78c Epigrafica 1951, 24 no. 38-39; AE 1954 no. 73 CIL 15.7564 a

Rome regio XII regio VI

regio IV + plumb. Postumius Rome Apollonius +? priv. L.Neratis Pr[ ... ] regio VI

+ priv. ? Aelius Dionysius

+ plumb. Hostilia Fortunata

priv.

priv.

priv.

priv.

2/3

3

+ plumb. Asclepiades + plumb. Asclepiades

regio VI

plumb. plumb. plumb. plumb.?

Rome

plumb.

3 3

regio V

priv.

Rome regio VI regio VI

find-spot regio X

4

+ priv. Claudia Vera

fistula

imperial plumb. priv.

stamp + proc. (?) + plumb. Eglectus

I 3 lor 2

century category I imperial

Appendix Ill: The people mentioned in the fistula stamps of Rome and its suburbium

Volusius Satuminus Volusius Satuminus Zosimus Zosimus

name Adiectus

servus

PIR'V 659- cos. (fam.) 665? PIR' V 659- cos. (Cam.) 665?

status

? ?

CIL 15.7358 CILl5.7419

+ priv. Caecilius Capito

regio III regio IX

plumb. plumb.

CIL 15.7568 b

307

reference BCAR 1987/8, 124 n. 45: MNR inv.61134 and 61139 CIL 15.7568 a = 7389, 4

regio XIII

find-spot

priv.

fistula suburb., Via Salaria

stamp

priv.

century category

Appendix III: The people mentioned in the fistula stamps ofRome and its suburbium

308

Bibliography

Bibliography ANCIENT AUTHORS S. Hornblower & A. Spawford, The Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3rd ed., Oxford 1996 has been used as a guideline for the references to the ancient authors and their works. The editions, translations and commentaries ofa few of them, which have been referred to extensively are listed separately: Sextus lulius Frontinus, De aquae ductu urbis Romae. Herschel 1899: C. Herschel, The Two Books on the Water Supply of the City of Rome of Sextus Iulius Frontinus, Water Commissioner of the City ofRome AD 97, Boston. Bennett 1925: C.E. Bennett, The Aqueducts of Rome, London & Cambridge Mass. Grimal 1961: P. Grimal, Frontin. Les aqueducs de la ville de Rome, 2nd ed., (Bude) Paris. KUhne 1989: G. KUhne, 'Die Wasserversorgung der antiken Stadt Rom' in WAS I, 79120, translation based on Kunderewicz 1973. Kunderewicz 1973: C. Kunderewicz ed., Sex. Iulii Frontini De aquaeductu urbis Romae, Leipzig. Evans 1994: H.B. Evans, Water Distribution in Ancient Rome: The Evidence of Frontinus, Ann Arbor MI. Marcus Vitruvius Pollio, De architectura libri decem. Granger 1955-1956: F. Granger, Vitruvius on Architecture, London. Morgan 1960: M.H. Morgan, Vitruvius. The ten Books on Architecture, 2nd ed., New York. Callebat 1973: L. Callebat: Vitruve. De I 'architecture. Livre VIII, Paris. Fensterbusch 1987: C. Fensterbusch, Zehn Bucher uber Architektur, 4th ed., Darmstadt. Peters 1997: T. Peters, Vitruvius. Handboek bouwkunde, Amsterdam. RGDA: Res Gestae Divi Augusti, see Brunt & Moore 1991

Periodicals are abbreviated according to the form in L' Annie Philologique. In addition the following abbreviations are used:

COLLECTIVE WORKS AND STANDARD WORKS OF REFERENCE Basilica S. Clemente 1990: La basilica e I 'area archaeologica di S. Clemente in Roma: Guida grajica ai tre nivelli, Roma. CAR: Carta Archeologica di Roma, 3 vols. with maps, Firenze 1962-1977. CIG: Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum.

Bibliography

309

CIJ: Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaicamm. CIL: Corpus Inscriptionum Latinamm. Citta e architettura 1983: Citta e architettura nella Roma imperiale, ARID suppl. X, Odense. Cod. Theod.: P. Krueger & Th. Mommsen, Theodosiani libri XVI, Berlin 1904-1905 Dig.: Th. Mommsen, P. Krueger & A Watson eds., The Digest ofJustinian, Princeton N.J. 1985. EJ: V. Ehrenberg & AH.M. Jones, Documents illustrating the Reigns ofAugustus & Tiberius, 2nd ed., Oxfordl967. FlRA: C.G. Bruns ed., Fontes Iuris Romani Antiqui, 7th ed., Tiibingen 1909-1912. FUR: R. Lanciani, Forma Urbis Romae, reprint of ed. 1893-1901, Roma 1990. Hydraulique 1931: Hydraulique urbaine et agricole de 1884 a 1930, Bourg. ILS: H. Dessau, Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae, Berlin 1892-1916. Inscr. Ital.: Inscriptiones Italiae, Roma 193112-. Lacus Iutumae I: Lacus Iuturnae I (E.M. Steinby ed.), Lavori e studi di archeologia pubblicati dalla Soprintendenza Archeologica di Roma 12, Roma 1989. LTUR : E.M. Steinby ed., Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae, 5 vols., Roma 19931999. Misurare la terra 1985: Misurare la terra: centuriazione e coloni nel mondo romano. Citta, agricoltura, commercio: materiali da Roma e dal suburbio, Roma. MRR: T.R.S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, 3 vols., 2nd ed., Atlanta 1984-1986. OLD: Oxford Latin Dictionary, Oxford 1982 PA: S.B. Platner & Th. Ashby, A Topographical Dictionary ofAncient Rome, London 1929. PIR': E. Klebs, H. Dessau & P. de Rohden, Prosopographia Imperii Romani, Berlin 1897-1898. PIR2: E. Groag & AStein, Prosopographia Imperii Romani, 2nd ed., Berlin 1933- . PLRE I: A.H.M. Jones, J.R. Martindale & J. Morris, The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, vol. I, Cambridge etc. 1971. RE: Paulys Realencyclopiidie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, neue Bearbeitung, Stuttgart 1894 - . RIC: H. Mattingly, E.A Sydenham, et aI., Roman Imperial Coinage, London 19231967. Roma. Suburbio e dintorni 1906: Pianta topografica pubblicata dall ' Istituto Cartografico Italiano, Roma. Trionfo 1986: Il trionfo dell 'acqua. Acque e acquedotti aRoma. Mostra Museo della Civilta Romana, Roma. L 'Urbs 1987: L 'Urbs. Espace urbain et histoire (1" siixle avo J. -C - IIT siecle ap. J.C), Actes du colloque international organise par Ie Centre national de la recherche scientifique et I 'Ecole fran9aise de Rome (Rome, 8-12 mai 1985), Rome. Via Appia 1997: Via Appia. Sulle mine della magnijicenza antica (mostra 1997), Roma. WAS I: Wasserversorgung im antiken Rom, 4th ed., Miinchen & Wien 1989.

310

Bibliography

WAS II: Die Wasserversorgung antiker Stiidte, Mainz am Rhein 1987. WAS III: Die Wasserversorgung antiker Stiidte, Mainz am Rhein 1988.

INDIVIDUAL AUTHORS Abrams & Wrigley 1978: Ph. Abrams & E.A. Wrigley, eds., Towns in Societies, Cambridge etc. Abrams 1978: Ph. Abrams, 'Towns and Economic Growth: some Theories and Problems' in Abrams & Wrigley 1978,9-34. Aicher 1995: P.J. Aicher, Guide to the Aqueducts ofAncient Rome, Wauconda. AlfOldy 1991a: G. Alf6ldy, 'Augustus und die Inschriften: Tradition und Innovation: Die Geburt der imperialen Epigraphik', Gymnasium 98(1991)289-324. AlfOldy 1991 b: G. AlfOldy, 'Epigraphische Notitzen aus Kleinasien I. Ein Beneficium des Augustus in Ephesos', ZPE 87(1991)157-162. Anderson 1985: 1.C. Anderson, 'The Date of the Thermae Trajani and the Oppius Mons', AJA 89 (1985) 499-509. Andersson 1991: E.B. Andersson,' Metamorphoses in Water', Latomus 50,2(1991)544-565. Andreae 1993: B. Andreae, 'Zisterne am Stadtrand Roms restauriert', AW24,2(1993). Armellini 1942: M. Armellini, Le chiese di Roma dal secolo IVai XIX, new ed., Roma. Ashby 1902: Th. Ashby, 'The Classical Topography of the Roman Campagna' part 1, PBSR 1(1902)125-281. Ashby 1906: Th. Ashby, 'The Classical Topography of the Roman Campagna' part 2, PBSR 3(1906)1-212. Ashby 1935: Th. Ashby, The Aqueducts ofAncient Rome, Oxford. Ashby 1970: Th. Ashby, The Roman Campagna in Classical Times, new ed., London. Astin 1961: E.A. Astin, 'Water to the Capitol: A Note on Frontinus De Aquis 1,7,5', Latomus 20(1961 )541-548 Aubert 1993: 1.-1. Aubert, 'Workshop Managers' in Harris 1993,171-181. Aubert 1994: 1.-1. Aubert, Business Managers in Ancient Rome. A Social and Economic Study ofInstitores 200 BC-250 AD, Leiden. Bagnall & Frier 1994: R.S. Bagnall & B.W. Frier, The Demography ofRoman Egypt, Cambridge etc. Baldwin 1994: B. Baldwin, 'Notes on the De Aquis of Frontinus' in Deroux 1994, 484-506. Balsdon 1969: 1. P. V. D. Balsdon, Life and Leisure in Ancient Rome, New York. Baltrusch 1988: E. Baltrusch, 'Die Verstaatlichung der Gladiatorenspiele', Hermes 116(1988)324-337. Barbieri 1952: G. Barbieri, L 'Albo senatorio da Settimio Severo a Carino, Roma. Barbieri 1953: G. Barbieri, 'Ostia - Fistole inedite 0 completate', NSA 1953, 151-189. Barker & Lloyd 1991: G. Barker & 1. Lloyd, Roman Landscapes. Archaeological Survey in the Mediterranean Region, London.

Bibliography

311

Barker & Sutcliffe 1993: Th. Barker & A. Sutcliffe eds., Megalopolis: The Giant City in History, Basingstoke etc. & London. Barton 1989: I. M. Barton ed., Roman Public Buildings, Exeter. Barton 1996: I. M. Barton ed., Roman Domestic Buildings, Exeter. Bastomski 1990: S.J. Bastomski, 'Rich and Poor. The Great Divide in Ancient Rome and Victorian England', G&R 37,1(1990)37- 43. Bedello Tata 1995: M. Bedello Tata, 'Rinvenimento di un sistema di acquedotti in localita Malafede-Infermeria (Acilia)', Archeologia Laziale 12,1(1995)429-438. Bell 1993: M. Bell, 'Mulini ad acqua suI Gianicolo' , Archeologia Laziale 11,2(1993)65-72

Beloch 1886: J. Beloch, Die Bevolkerung der griechisch-romischen Welt, Leipzig. Beranger 1953: J. Beranger, Recherches sur l'aspect ideologique du principat, Schweizerische Beitrage zur Altertumswissenschaft 6, Basel. Berard et al. 1989: F. Berard, D. Feissel, P. Petitrnengin & M. Seve, Guide de l'epigraphiste 2nd ed., Paris. Bieber 1976: M. Bieber, 'The Aqua Marcia in Coins and Ruins', Archaeology 20(1976) 194-196. Bird et al. 1993: J. Bird, A. Claridge, O. Gilkes, & D. Neal, 'Porta Pia: Excavations and Survey in an Area of Suburban Rome' part I, PBSR 61(1993)51-113. Blackman 1978: D. R. Blackman, 'The Volume of Water Delivered by the Four Great Aqueducts of Rome' ,PBSR 46(1978)52-72. Blair MacDougall 1987: E. Blair MacDougall ed., Ancient Roman Villa Gardens (Dumbarton Oaks Colloquium on the History of Landscape Architecture, no. 10, 1984), Washington D.C. Blake 1968: M.E. Blake, Ancient Roman Construction in Italy from the Prehistoric Period to Augustus, reprint ed. 1947, New York. Blasi 1933: B. Blasi, Stradario Romano: dizionario storico, etimologico, topografico, Roma. Bloch 1944: H. Bloch, 'Aqua Traiana', AJA 48(1944)337-341. Boatwright 1987: M.T. Boatwright, Hadrian and the City of Rome, Princeton NJ. Bodel 1999: J. Bodel, 'Punishing Piso', AJPh 120,1(1999)43-63. Bollmann 1997: B. Bollmann, 'La distribuzione delle scholae delle corporazioni a Roma' in Virlouvet 1997a, 209-225. Bon & Jones 1997: S.E. Bon & R. Jones eds., Sequence and Space in Pompeii, Oxford. Bonneau 1993, D. Bonneau, Le regime administratif de l'eau du Nil dans I'Egypte grecque, romaine et byzantine, Leiden, New York & Koln. Boucher 1983: J.P. Boucher ed., Journees d' etudes sur les aqueducs romains / Tagung «Romische Wasserversorgungsanlagen» Lyon 26-28 mai 1977, Paris. Boulakia 1972: J.D.C. Boulakia, 'Lead in the Roman World', AJA 76 (1972) 139-144. Boulvert 1974: G. Boulvert, Domestique et fonctionnaire sous Ie Haut-Empire romain, Paris. Braund 1985: D. C. Braund, Augustus to Nero. A Sourcebook on Roman History 31 BC-AD 68, London & Sydney.

312

Bibliography

Brinker 1990: W. Brinker, Wasserspeicherung in Zisternen. Ein Beitrag zur Frage der Wasserversorgungfroher Stiidte, Braunschweig. Brodner 1983: E. BrOdner, Die romischen Thermen und das antike Badewesen: eine kulturhistorische Betrachtung, Dannstadt. Brothers 1996: AJ. Brothers, 'Urban Housing' in Barton 1996,33-63. Brothwell 1972: D. R. Brothwell, Digging up Bones: The Excavation, Treatment and Study ofHuman Skeletal Remains, 2nd ed., London. Bruhns 1981: H. Bruhns, 'Annut und Gesellschaft in Rom' in Mommsen & Schulze, 27-49. Brunt 1966: P.A. Brunt, 'The Roman Mob', P&P 35(1966)3-27. Brunt 1971: P.A. Brunt, Italian Manpower. 225 BC - AD 14, Oxford. Brunt 1980: P.A. Brunt, 'Free Labour and Public Works at Rome', JRS 70(1980)81100. Brunt & Moore 1991: P. A. Brunt & J. M. Moore eds, Res Gestae Divi Augusti, reprint of revised ed. 1988, Oxford etc. Bruun 1989a: Chr. Bruun, 'Statio aquarum', Lacus Iuturnae I, 127-147. Bruun 1989b: Chr. Bruun, 'The Roman Minucia Business. Ideological Concepts, Grain Distribution and Severan policy', Opuscula Inst. Rom. Fin/. 4(1989)107121. Bruun 1990a: Chr. Bruun, 'Die Historia Augusta, die Proskriptionen des Severus und die curatores operum publicorum' , Arctos 24( 1990)5-14. Bruun 1990b: Chr. Bruun, 'What happened to Rome's curatores aquarum? - a Case of Continuity or Change' in Solin & Kajava 1990, 133-141. Bruun 1991: Chr. Bruun, The water supply of ancient Rome. A study ofRoman imperial administration, Helsinki. Bruun 1993: Chr. Bruun, 'Lotores: Roman Bath-Attendants', ZPE 98(1993)222-228. Bruun 1994: Chr. Bruun, 'Neue Forschungen zur Organisation der stadtromischen Bleirohrherstellung im Lichte der Fistula-Stempel', EVKoNYE 1992 VIII. Bruun 1997a: Chr. Bruun, 'Acquedotti e condizioni sociali di Roma imperiale: immagini e realta' in Virlouvet 1997a, 121-155. Bruun 1997b: Chr. Bruun, 'A City of Temples and Squares, Emperors, Horses and Houses', JRA 10(1997)389-398. Bruun 1998: Chr. Bruun, 'Ti. Claudius Aegialus e I'aquedotto di Ostia', ZPE 122(1998)265-272. Burdy 1988: J. Burdy, 'LugdunumlLyon' in Was III, 190-198. Bums 1974: A. Bums, 'Ancient Greek Water Supply and City Planning: A Study of Syracuse and Acragas', Technology and Culture 15(1974)389-412. Calci & Messineo 1994-1995: C. Calci &, G. Messineo, 'Via Nomentana km 9,700. Localita La Cecchina (Circ.V), Villa romana, impianto tennale', BCAR 96( 1994/5)239-262. Calza, G. Calza ed., Scavi di Ostia. Topografia generale, vol. I, Rome 1953. Cameron 1976, A. Cameron, Circus factions: Blues and greens in Rome and Byzantium, Oxford. Candelori & Somigli 1986: A. Candelori & D. Somigli, Le fontane di Roma, Roma .

Bibliography

313

Capogrossi Colognesi 1966: L. Capogrossi Colognesi, Ricerche sulla struttura delle servitu d'acqua in diritto romano, Milano. Capogrossi Colognesi 1976: L. Capogrossi Colognesi, La struttura della proprieta e la formazione dei < > nell 'eta repubblicana vol. II, Milano. Carandini 1985: A. Carandini, 'Hortensia. Orti e frutteti intomo a Roma' in Misurare la terra 1985,66-74. Carcopino 1991: 1. Carcopino, Daily Life in Ancient Rome, London (first ed. in English 1941). Carettoni et al. 1960: C. Carettoni, A. M. Colini, L. Cozza & G. Gatti, La pianta marmorea di Roma antica, Roma. Casson 1978: L. Casson, 'Unemployment, the Building Trade, and Suetonius, Vesp.18', BASP 15(1978)43-51. Castagnoli 1978: F. Castagnoli, Roma antica, profilo urbanistico, Roma. Castellani 1933: E. Castellani, Le strade pubbliche di Roma: rilievo planimetrico in 48 fogli, Roma. Cavallo 1982/3: D. Cavallo, 'Precisazioni sulla Domus Pactumeiorum sull'Aventino attraverso una pianta ritrovata all' Archivio Centrale della Stato di Roma', BCAR 88(1982/3)213-223. Cerutti Fusco 1994: A. Cerutti Fusco, 'L'Agro Verano nell'Ottocento' in Pazzaglini 1994,47-69. Champlin 1982: E. Champlin, 'The Suburbium ofRome',AJAH7(1982)97-117. Champlin 1989: E. Champlin 'The Testament of Augustus', RhM 132(1989)154-165. Chanson 1998: H. Chanson, The Hydraulics ofRoman Aqueducts: Steep chutes, Cascades and Dropshafts, Brisbane. Chiostri 1973: F. Chiostri, L'acquedotto romano di Firenze, Firenze. Christie 1995: N. Christie ed., Settlement and Economy in Italy 1500 BC - AD 1500. Papers of the Fifth Conference ofItalian Archaeology, Oxford. Cima & La Rocca 1998: M. Cima & E. La Rocca eds., Horti Romani. Atti del convegno internazionale. Roma, 4-6 maggio 1995, Roma. Claridge 1998: A. Claridge, Rome: An Oxford Archaeological Guide, Oxford. Classen 1980: C.J. Classen, Die Stadt im Spiegel der Descriptiones und Laudes urbium in der antiken und mittelalterlichen Literatur bis zum Ende des zwjjlflen Jahrhunderts, 2nd ed., Hildesheim. Coale & Demeny 1983: A.J. Coale, P.G. Demeny & B. Vaughan, Regional Model Life Tables and Stable Populations, 2nd ed., New York. Coarelli 1977: F. Coarelli 'Public Building in Rome between the Second Punic War and Sulla', PBSR 45(1977)1-19. Coarelli 1981: F. Coarelli, Dintorni di Roma, Bari. Coarelli 1997: F. Coarelli, 'La consistenza della citta nel periodo imperiale: pomerium, vici, insulae' in Virlouvet 1997a, 89-109. Coates-Stevens 1996: R. Coates-Stevens, 'Housing in Early Medieval Rome, 5001000 AD', PBSR 64(1996)239-259. Cochet & Hansen 1986: A. Cochet & 1. Hansen, Conduites et objets de plomb galloromains de Vienne (Isere), Paris.

314

Bibliography

Cockle 1981: H. Cockle, 'Pottery Manufacture in Roman Egypt. A New Papyrus', JRS 71(1981)87-97. Coleman 1993: K.M. Coleman, 'Launching into History: Aquatic Displays in the Early Empire', JRS 83 (1993) 48-74. Colini 1941: A.M. Colini, 'Pozzi e cisterne', BCAR 69(1941)71-99. Collin Bouffier 1987: S. Collin Bouffier, 'L'alimentation en eau de la colonie Grecque de Syracuse',MEFRA 99(1987)661-691. Corbier 1984: M. Corbier, 'De Volsinii a Sestinum: Cura aquae et evergetisme municipal de l'eau en Italie', REL 62(1984)236-274. Cornell & Lomas 1995: TJ. Cornell & K. Lomas eds., Urban Society in Roman Italy, London. Crawford 1996: M.H. Crawford ed., Roman Statutes, HICS suppl. 64, 2 vols, London Crook 1967: J. Crook, Law and Life in Rome, London. Crouch 1993: D.P. Crouch, Water Management in Ancient Greek Cities, New York & Oxford. Crouch 1996: D.P. Crouch, 'Priene's Streets and Water Supply' in De Haan & Jansen 1996,137-143. Culham 1989, Ph. Culham, 'Archives and Alternatives in Republican Rome', CPh 84(1989)100-115. D'Arms 1970: J. d'Arms, Romans on the Bay ofNaples, Cambridge Mass. De Fine Licht 1990: K. de Fine Licht, Untersuchungen an den Trajansthermen zu Rom, 2. Sette Sale, Roma. De Haan & Jansen 1996: N. de Haan en G.C.M. Jansen eds., Cura Aquarum in Campania. Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress on the History of Water Management and Hydraulic Engineering in the Mediterranean Region, Leiden. De Kleijn 1996: G. de Kleijn, 'Die Fundorte der Fistulae Aquariae in Rom' in De Haan & Jansen 1996, 153-157. DeLaine 1988: J. DeLaine, 'Recent Research on Roman Baths', JRA 1(1988)11-32. DeLaine 1993: J. DeLaine, 'Roman Baths and Bathing', JRA 6(1993)348-358. DeLaine 1995: J. DeLaine, 'The Supply of Building Materials to the City of Rome' in Christie 1995,555-562. Delumeau 1975: J. De1umeau, Rome au XVIe siec/e, Paris. De Neeve 1983: P. W. de Neeve, De boeren bedreigd. Locatie en economie in Italie in de tweede eeuw v. Chr., Amsterdam. De Neeve 1984: P.W. de Neeve, 'Fundus as Economic Unit', RHD 52(1984)3-19. Deroux 1994: C. Deroux ed., Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History VII, Brussels. Devijver & Wonterghem 1985: H. Devijver & F.v. Wonterghem, 'Documenti epigrafici riguardanti l'aquedotto e il teatro di Alba Fucens', ZPE 58(1985)163181. Devine 1985: A.M. Devine, 'The Low Birthrate in Ancient Rome: A Possible Contributing Factor', RhM 128(1985)313-317. Devoti 1978: L. Devoti, Cisterne del periodo romano nel Tuscolano, Frascati. Dilkel989: O.A.W. Dilke, Mathematics and Measurement, 2nd ed., London.

Bibliography

315

Domergue 1987: Cl. Domergue, 'Les lingots de plomb de I'epave romaine de Valli Ponti (Comacchio)" Epigraphica 49( 1987) 109-175. Dressel 1899: H. Dressel, 'Fistulae urbanae et agri suburbani' in CIL 15,2,906-913. Dudley 1967: D.R. Dudley, Urbs Roma. A Sourcebook of Classical Texts on the City & its Monuments, London etc. Duncan-Jones 1982: R. Duncan-Jones, The Economy of the Roman Empire, 2nd ed., Cambridge. Duncan-Jones 1990: R. Duncan-Jones, Structure and Scale in the Roman Economy, Cambridge. Eck 1972: W. Eck, 'Die Familie der Volusii Saturnini in neuen Inschriften aus Lucus Feroniae', Hermes 100(1972)461-484. Eck 1974: W. Eck, 'Beforderungskriterien der senatorischen Laufbahn', ANRW II.l, 158-228. Eck 1980: W. Eck, 'Epigraphische Untersuchungen zu Konsuln und Senatoren', ZPE 39(1980)31-68. Eck1982: W. Eck, 'Die Fistulae aquariae der Stadt Rom. Zum Einfluss des sozialen Status auf administratives Handeln', Tituli IV( 1982) 197-225. Eck 1986: W. Eck, 'Augustus' administrative Reformen: Pragmatismus oder systematisches Planen?', AClass 29(1986)105-120. Eck 1987: W. Eck, 'Die Wasserversorgung im romischen Reich: Sozio-politische Bedingungen, Recht und Administration' in WAS II, 49-101. Eck 1988: W. Eck, 'Aussagerahigkeit epigraphischer Statistik und die Bestattung von Sklaven im Kaiserzeitlichen Rom' in Kneissl & Losemann 1988, 130-139. Eck 1989a: W. Eck, 'Die Gestalt Frontins in ihrer politischen ind sozialen UmweIt' in WAS I, 47-62. Eck 1989b: W. Eck, 'Organisation und Administration der Wasserversorgung Roms' in WAS 1,63-78. Eck1989c: W. Eck, 'Magistrate,"Ingenieure", Handwerker: Wasserleitungsbauer und ihr Sozialstatus in der romischen Welt', Mitteilungen aus dem Leichtweiss-Institut for Wasserbau der Technischen Universitiit Braunschweig 103(1989) 177 -217. Eck 1990: W. Eck, 'Senatorial Relf-Representation. Developments in the Augustan Period' in Millar & Segal 1990, 129-167. Eck 1998: W. Eck, 'M. Cornelius Fronto, Lehrer Marc Aurels, consul suffectus im J. 142', RhM 141(1998)193-196. Egidi 1995: R. Egidi, 'Rintrovamenti al IV miglio della via Latina antica', Archeologia Laziale 12,1 (1995)309-317. Ehlers 1983: W.W. Ehlers, 'Frontiniana. Anmerkungen zum ersten Buch der Schrift Frontins tiber die Wasserversorgung Roms', RhM 126(1983)72-91. Ellis 1996: S. Ellis, 'Systems of Water Control- The Evidence of some African Castellae' in De Haan & Jansen, 179-184. Engels 1990, D.W. Engels, Roman Corinth, Chicago. Erdkamp 1998: P. Erdkamp, Hunger and the Sword: Warfare and Food Supply in Roman Republican Wars 264-30 B.C., Amsterdam Eschebach 1979: H. Eschebach, Die Stabianer Thermen in Pompeji, Berlin.

316

Bibliography

Eschebach 1983: H. Eschebach, 'Die innerstadtische Gebrauchswasserversorgung dargestellt am Beispiel Pompejis' in Boucher 1983, 81-132. Evans 1982: H.B. Evans, 'Agrippa's Water Plan', AJA 86(1982)401-411. Evans 1983: H.B. Evans, 'Nero's Arcus Caelimontani', AJA 87(1983)392-399. Evans 1993a, H.B. Evans, Water distribution in ancient Rome: The Evidence of Frontinus, Ann Arbour MI. Evans 1993b: H.B. Evans, 'In Tiburtinum usum: Special Arrangements in the Roman Water System (Frontinus, Aq. 6.5)', AJA 97(1993)447-455. Fabre et al. 1991a: G. Fabre, J.-L. Fiches & J.-L. Paillet, 'Interdisciplinary research on the aqueduct of Nimes and the Pont du Gard' JRA 4(1991)63-88. Fabre et al. 1991 b: G. Fabre, J.-L. Fiches et l-L. Paillet eds., L 'Aqueduc de Nimes et Ie Pont du Gard. Archeologie Geosysteme Histoire, Gard. Fabre et al. 1992: G. Fabre, J.-L. Fiches, Ph. Leveau & J.-L. Paillet, Le Pont du Gard: L' eau dans la ville antique, Paris. Fabre & Roddaz 1982: G. Fabre & J.M. Roddaz, 'Recherches sur la 'familia' de M. Agrippa', Athenaeum 60( 1982)84-112. Fabretti 1680: R. Fabretti, De aquis et aquaeductibus veteris Romae: dissertationes tres, Roma. Fagan 1993: G.G. Fagan, 'Pliny Naturalis Historia 36,121 and the Number of Balnea in Early Augustan Rome', CPh 88(1993)333-335. Fagan 1999: G.G. Fagan, Bathing in Public in the Roman world, Ann Arbor MI. Fahlbusch 1982: H. Fahlbusch, Vergleich antiker griechischer und romischer Wasserversorgungsanlagen, Braunschweig. Fahlbusch 1989: 'Uber AbfluBmessung und Standardisierung bei den Wasserversorgungsanlagen Roms' in WAS I, 129-144. Fassitelli 1972: E. Fassitelli, Tubi e valvole dell'antica Roma, Milano. Ferrua 1967: A. Ferrua, 'Antiche iscrizioni inedite di Roma, II', Epigraphica 29(1967)62-100 Fevrier 1982: P.-A. Fevrier, 'Urbanisation et urbanisme de I 'Afrique romaine', ANRW 11.10.2,321-396. Finley 1977: M.1. Finley, 'The Ancient City: From Fustel de Coulanges to Max Weber and Beyond', Comparative Studies in Society and History 19(1977)305-327. Forbes 1955: R.J. Forbes, Studies in Ancient Technology, Leiden. Foxhall & Forbes 1982: L. Foxhall & H.A. Forbes, 'Sitometreia: The Role of Grain as a Staple Food in Classical Antiquity', Chiron 12(1982)41-90. Frank 1959: T. Frank, An Economic Survey ofAncient Rome, Paterson N.J. Freis 1984: H. Freis, Historische Inschriften zur romischen Kaiserzeit von Augustus bis Konstantin, Darmstadt. Frezouls 1987: E. Frezouls, 'Rome ville ouverte. Reflexions sur les problemes de l'expansion d'Auguste a Aurelien' in L' Urbs 1987,373-392. Friedlander 1921-1923: L. Friedlander, Darstel/ungen aus der Sittengeschichte Roms in der Zeit von Augustus bis zum Ausgang der Antonine, 9-10th ed., Leipzig. Frier 1977: B.W. Frier, 'The Rental Market in Early Imperial Rome', JRS 67(1977)2737.

Bibliography

317

Frier 1978: B.W. Frier, 'Cicero's Management of his Urban Properties', CJ 74(1978)1-6. Frier 1980: B.W. Frier, Landlords and Tenants in Imperial Rome, Princeton N.J. Frier 1982: B.W. Frier, 'Roman Life Expectancy: Ulpian's Evidence', HSPh 86(1982)213-251. Frier 1999: B.W. Frier, 'Roman Demography' in Potter & Mattingly 1999, 85-109. Friggeri 1977/8: R. Friggeri, 'La domus di Antonia Caenis e il balineum Caenidianum', RPAA 50(1977-1978)145-154. Frutaz 1962: A.P. Frutaz, Le piante di Roma, Roma. Frutaz 1972: A.P. Frutaz, Le carte del Lazio, Roma. Garbrecht 1984: G. Garbrecht, 'Die antiken Wasserleitungen Roms', AW 15,2(1984)213. Garbrecht 1987: G. Garbrecht, 'Die Wasserversorgung des antiken Pergamon' in WAS II, 11-47. Garbrecht 1991: G. Garbrecht, 'Romische Thermen. Betrachtungen aus der Sicht der Wasserbewirtschaftung', Schriftenreihe der Frontinusgesellschaft 16( 1991 )45-74. Garbrecht & Manderscheid 1995: G. Garbrecht & H. Manderscheid, 'Die Wasserversorgung der Caracallathermen durch die Aqua Antoniniana', A W 26,3( 1995) 193-202. Garbrecht & Peleg 1994: G. Garbrecht & Y. Peleg, 'The Water Supply of the Desert Fortresses in the Jordan valley', Biblical Archaeologist 57,3(1994) 161-170. Gardner 1993: J.F. Gardner, Being a Roman Citizen, London. Garnsey 1970: P. Garnsey, Social Status and Legal Privilige in the Roman Empire, Oxford. Garnsey 1980: P. Garnsey ed., Non Slave Labour in the Graeco - Roman World, Cambridge. Garnsey 1981: P. Garnsey, 'Independent Freedmen and the Economy of Roman Italy under the Principate' Klio 63(1981)359-371. Garnsey 1983a: P. Garnsey, 'Famine in Rome' in Garnsey & Whittaker 1983,56-65. Garnsey 1983b: P. Garnsey, 'Grain for Rome' in Garnsey et al. 1983, 118-130. Garnsey 1987: P. Garnsey, Famine and Food Supply in the Graeco-Roman World. Responses to Rrisk and Crisis, Cambridge. Garnsey et al. 1983: P. Garnsey, K. Hopkins & C.R. Whittaker, Trade in the Ancient Economy, London. Garnsey et al. 1984: P. Garnsey, T. Gallant & D. Rathbone, 'Thessaly and the Grain Supply of Rome during the Second Century BC', JRS 74( 1984)30-44. Garnsey & Morris 1989: P. Garnsey & I. Morris, 'Risk and the Polis: The Evolution of Institutionalised Responses to Food Supply Problems in the Ancient Greek State' in Halstead & O'Shea 1989,98-105. Garnsey & Rathbone 1985: P. Garnsey & D. Rathbone, 'The Background to the Grain Law of Gaius Gracchus', JRS 75(1985) 20-25. Garnsey & Saller 1987, P. Garnsey & R.P. Saller, The Roman Empire: Economy, Society and Culture, London. Garnsey & Whittaker 1983: P. Garnsey & C.R. Whittaker, Trade and Famine in Classical Antiquity, Cambridge.

318

Bibliography

Gazda 1991: E.K. Gazda ed., Roman Art in the Private Ssphere: New Perspectives on the Architecture and Decor of the Domus, Villa and Insula, Ann Arbour MI. Gazzetti 1992: G. Gazzetti, II territorio Capenate, Roma. Geertman & De Jong 1989: H. Geertman & J.1. de Jong, Munus non ingratum. Proceedings of the international symposium on Vitruvius' De Architectura and the Hellenistic and Republican architecture. Leiden 20-23 January 1987, Leiden. GeiBler 1998: K. GeiBler, Die offentliche Wasserversorgung im romischen Recht, Berlin. Giardina & Sciavone 1981: A. Giardina & A. Sciavone, eds., L'Italia: insediamenti e forme economiche, Roma & Bari. Gillian 1961: J.F. Gillian, 'The Plague under Marcus Aurelius', AJPh 82(1961)225-51 Giovannini 1991: A. Giovannini ed., Nourrir la plebe: actes du colloque tenu a Geneve les 28 et 29 IX 1989 en hommage aDenis van Berchem, Basel etc. Girard & Senn 1937: P.F. Girard & F. Senn, Textes de droit romain, 6th ed. Paris. Gjerstad 1960: E. Gjerstad, Early Rome, Lund. Goedicke 1994: H. Goedicke, 'Water and tax' in Menu 1994, 187-194. Gonzalez 1986: J. Gonzalez, 'The Lex Imitana: A New Copy of the Flavian Municipal Law', JRS 76(1986)147-243. Gordon 1983: A.E. Gordon, Illustrated Introduction to Latin Epigraphy, Berkeley & Los Angelos. Goubert 1986: J.P. Goubert, The Conquest of Water. The Advent of Health in the Industrial Age, Oxford. Gowers 1995: E. Gowers, 'The Anatomy of Rome from Capitol to Cloaca', JRS 85(1995)23-32. Greene 1986: K. Greene, The Archaeology of the Roman Economy, Berkeley. Grewe 1985: K. Grewe, Planung und Trassierung romischer Wasserleitungen, Wiesbaden Grewe 1986: K. Grewe, Atlas der romischen Wasserleitungen nach Koln, Koln & Bonn. Grewe 1994: K. Grewe, 'Die romische Wasserleitung nach Side (Tilrkei)', A W 25,2(1994)192-303. Grimal 1939: P. Grimal, 'Les Horti Tauriani. Etude topographique sur la region de la Porte Majeure', MEFRA 53(1939)250-286. Grimal 1984: P. Grimal, Lesjardins romains, 3rd ed., Paris. Gronewald 1983: M. Gronewald, 'Ein neues Fragment der Laudatio funebris des Augustus auf Agrippa', ZPE 52(1983)61-62. Gros 1996: P. Gros, L 'Architecture romaine du debut du Ill' siecle avo J.-c. lafin du Haut-Empire, vol. 1: Les monuments publics, Paris. Gross 1989: N. Gross, Senecas Naturales Quaestiones: Komposition, naturphilosophische Aussagen und ihre Quellen, Stuttgart. Guilhembet 1992: J.-P. Guilhembet, 'Sur unjeu de mots de Sextus Pompee', MEFRA 104( 1992)787-816. Guilhembet 1997: J.-P. Guilhembet, 'La densite des domus et des insulae dans les XIV regions de Rome selon les regionnaires: representations carthographique', MEFRA 108(1997)7-26.

a

Bibliography

319

Hainzmann 1975: M. Hainzmann. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Verwaltung der stadtromischen Wasserleitungen, Wien. Hallier 1987: G. Hallier, 'Les citernes monumentales de Barachus (Henchir Rougga) en Byzacene', AntAfr 23(1987) 129-148. Halstead & O'Shea 1989: P. Halstead, & J. O'Shea, Bad Year Economics, Cambridge & New York. Hammond 1986: M. Hammond, The Augustan Principate, 3rd ed. New York. Hansen 1989: AE. Hansen, 'Doctors and Diseases', JRA 2(1989)299-304. Hansen 1990: J. Hansen, 'Wasserleitungen aus Bleirohren' in De Fine Licht 1990, 111-124. Harris 1993: W.V. Harris ed., The Inscribed Economy. Production and Distribution in the Roman Empire in the Light ofInstrumentum Domesticum, JRA suppl. 6, Ann ArborMI. Harris 1994: W.V. Harris, 'Child-Exposure in the Roman World', JRS 84(1994)1-23. Hauber 1990: R.C. Hauber, 'Zur Topographie der Horti Maecenatis und der Horti Lamiani auf dem Esquilin in Rom', KJ23(1990)11-107. Hauck 1989: G.F.W. Hauck, 'The Roman Aqueduct ofNimes', Scientific American, 260 (March 1989) 78-84. Heimann et al. 1993: S. Heimann, U. Drewes & Ph. Leveau, 'Abflussberechnungen flir die Romischen Aquadukte der Stadt ArIes und der Miihlen von Barbegal', WasserwirtschaJt 83(1993)490-493. Heinz 1996: W. Heinz, 'Antike Balneologie in spathellenistischer und romischer Zeit. Zur medicinischen Wirkung romischer Bader', ANRWII.37.3, 2411-2432 Heinz 1983: W. Heinz, Romische Thermen. Badewesen und Badeluxus im Romischen Reich, Miinchen. Helen 1975: T. Helen, Organization ofRoman Brick Production in the First and Second Centuries AD. An Interpretation of Roman Brick Stamps, Helsinki. Hermansen 1970: G. Hermansen, 'The Medianum and the Roman Apartment' Phoenix 24( 1970)342-347. Hermansen 1978: G. Hermansen, 'The Population ofImperial Rome: The Regionaries', Historia 27(1978)129-168. Hermansen 1981: G. Hermansen, Ostia. Aspects ofRoman City Life, Edmonton. Hirschfeld 1877: O. Hirschfeld, Die kaiserlichen Verwaltungsbeamten bis auf Diokletian, Berlin. Hirschfeld 1902a: O. Hirschfeld, 'Der Grundbesitz der romischen Kaiser in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten' erster Teil, Klio 2( 1902)45-72. Hirschfeld 1902b: O. Hirschfeld, 'Der Grundbesitz der romischen Kaiser in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten' zweiter Teil, Klio 2(1902)284-315. Hodge 1981: A.T. Hodge, 'Vitruvius, Lead Pipes and Lead Poisoning', AJA 85(1981 )486-491. Hodge 1984: A.T. Hodge, 'How did Frontinus Measure the Quinaria?', AJA 88(1984)205-216. Hodge 1989: A.T. Hodge, 'Aqueducts' in Barton 1989, 127-149. Hodge 1991: AT. Hodge ed., Future Currents in Aqueduct Studies, Leeds. Hodge 1992: AT. Hodge, Roman Aqueducts & Water Supply, London.

320

Bibliography

Hodge 1996: A. T. Hodge, 'Anomalies in the Flow of the Pompeii Castellum' in De Haan & Jansen 1996, 13-18. Homo 1899: L. Homo, 'Le domaine imperial Ii Rome. Ses origines et son developpement du Ier au IV" siec1e (1)" MEFRA 19(1899)101-129. Homo 1951: L. Homo, Rome imperiale et l'urbanisme dans l'antiquite, Paris. Hopkins 1978a: K. Hopkins, Conquerors and Slaves, Cambridge etc. Hopkins 1978b: K. Hopkins, 'Economic Growth in Towns in Classical Antiquity' in Abrams & Wrigley 1978,35-77. Hopkins 1980: K. Hopkins, 'Taxes and Trade in the Roman Empire', JRS 70(1980)101-125. Hopkins 1983: K. Hopkins, Death and Renewal, Cambridge. Horton & Wiedemann 1995: M. Horton & Th. Wiedemann eds., North Africafrom Antiquity to Islam. Papers ofa Conference held at Bristol, October J994, Bristol. Hiilsen 1889: Ch. Hiilsen, 'Jahresbericht ueber neue Funde und Forschungen zur Topographie der Stadt Rom 1887-1889', Mittheilungen des kaiserlichen deutschen archaeologischen Instituts 4( 1889)227 -291. Hiilsen 1894: Ch. Hiilsen, 'Zur Topographie des Quirinals', RhM 49(1894)379-423. Hiilsen 1897: Ch. Hiilsen, 'Der Umfang der Stadt Rom zur Zeit des Plinius', Romische Mitteilungen 12( 1897) 148-60. Hiilsen 1910: Ch. Hiilsen, Die Thermen des Agrippa, Rom. Hiilsen 1975: Ch. Hiilsen, Le chiese di Roma nel medio evo, (reprint of ed. 1927) Hildesheim & New York. Jansen 1994: G.C.M. Jansen, 'Stromend water in Pompeji', Natuur en techniek 62,8(1994)590-601. Jansen 1995: G.C.M. Jansen, 'Die Wasserversorgung und Kanalisation in Ostia Antica. Die ersten Ergebnisse', Schriftenreihe der Frontinus-Gesellschaft 19(1995)111-123. Jansen 1997: G .C.M. Jansen, 'Private toilets at Pompeii: Appearance and Operation' in Bon & Jones 1997, 121-134. Jansen 2000: G.C.M. Jansen ed., Cura Aquarum in Sicilia. Proceedings of the Tenth InternationalCcongress on the History of Water Management and Hydraulic Engineering in the Mediterranean Region, Leiden. Jashemski 1979: W.F. Jashemski, The Gardens of Pompeii, Herculaneum and the Villas Destroyed by Vesuvius, New York. Jashemski 1995: W.F. Jashemski, 'Roman Gardens in Tunisia: Preliminary Excavations in the House of Bacchus and Ariadne and in the East Temple at Thuburbo Maius', AJA 99(1995)559-576 Jashemski & Salza Prina Ricotti 1992: W.F. Jashemski & E. Salza Prina Ricotti, 'Preliminary Excavations in the Gardens of Hadrian's villa: The Canopus Area and the Piazza d 'Oro', AJA 96( 1992)579-597. Jeffers 1991: J.S. Jeffers, Conflict at Rome: Social Order and Hierarchy in Early Christianity, Minneapolis. Jolivet 1983: V. Jolivet, 'Les jardins de Pompee: nouvelles hypotheses', MEFRA 95,1(1983)115-138.

Bibliography

321

Jolivet 1997: V. Jolivet, 'Croissance urbaine et espaces verts a Rome' in Virlouvet 1997a, 194-208. Jones 1962: G.D.B. Jones, 'Capena and the Ager Capenas', PBSR 30(1962)116-207. Jordan 1871: H. Jordan, Topographie der Stadt Rom im Alterthum, Berlin. Joshel 1992: S.R. JosheI. Work, Identity and Legal Status at Rome. A Study of the Occupational Inscriptions, London. Jouffroy 1986: H. Jouffroy, La construction publique en Italie et dans I 'Afrique romaine, Strasbourg. Kahrstedt 1921-1923: U. Kahrstedt, 'Uber die Bevolkerung Roms'in Friedlander 1921-1923, 11-21. Kaser 1971: M. Kaser, Das romische Privatrecht, 2nd ed., Munchen. Kek 1996: D. Kek, Der romische Aquiidukt als Bautypus und Repriisentationsarchitektur, Munster. Keppie 1983: L. Keppie, Colonisation and Veteran Settlement in Italy 47-14 BC, London. Keppie 1991: L. Keppie, Understanding Roman Inscriptions, London. Kessener 1996: P. Kessener, 'Incrustations at the Castellum Divisorium at Nimes' in De Haan & Jansen 1996, 169-177. Kienast 1996: D. Kienast, Romische Kaisertabelle, 2nd rev. ed., Darmstadt. Kiepert & Hiilsen 1896: H. Kiepert & Ch. Hiilsen, Forma urbis Romae antiquae, Berlin. Kirsch 1918: J.P. Kirsch, Die romischen Titelkirchen im Altertum, Paderbom. Klaffenbach 1954: G. Klaffenbach, Die Astynomeninschrift von Pergamon, Berlin. Kloft 1970: H. Kloft, Liberalitas principis, Koln. Kneissl & Loseman 1988: P. Kneissl & V. Losemann eds., Alte Geschichte und Wissenschaftsgeschichte: Festschriftfor Karl Christ zum 65. Geburtstag, Darmstadt. Koenen 1970: L. Koenen, 'Die "Laudatio Funebris" des Augustus flir Agrippa', ZPE 5( 1970)217 -183. Kohns 1961: P. Kohns, Versorgungskrisen und Hungerrevolten im spiitantiken Rom, Bonn. Kolb 1993: A. Kolb, Die kaiserliche Bauverwaltung in der Stadt Rom, Stuttgart. Kolb 1984: F. Kolb, Die Stadt im Altertum, Munchen. Kolb 1995: F. Kolb, Rom: die Geschichte der Stadt in der Antike, Munchen. Koloski et aI. 1997: A.O. Koloski-Ostrow, N. de Haan, G. de Kleijn & S. Piras, Water in the Roman town: 'New Research from Cura Aquarum and the Frontinus Society', JRA 10(1997) 181-191. Krautheimer 1983: R. Krautheimer, Rome. Profile of a City, 312-1308, 2nd ed., Princeton N.J. Kretzschmer 1958: F. Kretzschmer, Bilddokumente romischer Technik, Dusseldorf. Krinzinger 1980: F. Krinzinger ed., Forschungen und Funde: Festschrift Bernhard Neutsch, Innsbruck. La Follette 1994a: L. La Follette ed., Rome Papers: The Baths ofTrajan Decius, Iside e Serapide nel palazzo, a Late Domus on the Palatine and Nero's Golden House, JRA suppI. II, Ann Arbor MI.

322

Bibliography

La Follette 1994b: L. La Follette, 'The Baths of Trajan Decius' in La Follette 1994a, 6-88. Lampe 1987: P. Lampe, Die stadtromischen Christen in den ersten beiden Jahrhunderten, Tubingen. Lanciani 1888: R. Lanciani, Ancient Rome in the Light ofRecent Discoveries, London. Lanciani 1890: R. Lanciani, 'Ricerche sulle XIVregioni urbane', BCAR 18(1890)115137. Lanciani 1881: R. Lanciani, Topografia di Roma antica. I comentarii di Frontino intorno Ie acque e gli aquedotti, Roma. Landels 1978: J.G. Landels, Engineering in the Ancient World, London. Lang 1968: M. Lang, Waterworks in the Athenian Agora, Princeton N.J. Larsen 1982: J.D. Larsen, 'The Water Towers in Pompeii', ARID 11(1982)41-67. Laurence 1994: R. Laurence, Roman Pompeii: Space and Society, Londen & New York. Leon 1960: H.J. Leon, The Jews ofAncient Rome, Philadelphia. Letzner 1990: W. Letzner, Romische Brunnen und Nymphaea in der westlichen Reichshiilfte, Munster. Leunissen 1989: P.M.M. Leunissen, Konsuln und Konsulare in der Zeit von Com modus bis Severus Alexander (180-235 n.Chr.), Amsterdam. Leveau 1983: Ph. Leveau, 'La ville antique et l'organisation de l'espace rurale: villa, ville, village', Annales ESC 38,4( 1983)920-942. Leveau 1987-1989: Ph. Leveau, 'La ville romaine et son espace rural. Contribution de l'archeologie a la reflection sur la cite antique', Opus VI-VIII(1987-1989)87-100. Leveau 1991: Ph. Leveau, 'L'aqueduc de Nimes et les aqueducs antiques' in Fabre et al. 1991b, 223-250. Leveau 1993: Ph. Leveau, 'Mentalite economique et grands travaux: Ie drainage du lac fucin. Aux origines d'un modele', Annales ESC 48,1(1993)3-16. Leveau & Paillet 1976: P. Leveau & J.-L. Paillet, L 'alimentation en eau de Caesarea de Mauretanie et /'aqueduc de Cherchell, Paris. Levi 1991: M. A. Levi, 'Augusto e l'urbe',Athenaeum 69(1991)579-583. Liberati & Rosa 1987: A.M. Liberati & R. de Rosa, Gli acquedotti di Roma nell'epoca classica, (map) Roma. Liebenam 1967: W. Liebenam, Stiidteverwaltung im romischen Kaiserreiche, reprint of ed. 1900, Rom. Liverani 1988: P. Liverani, 'Le proprieta private nell'area lateranense fino all'eta di Constantino', MEFRA 100(1988)891-915. Lloyd 1979: R.B. Lloyd, 'The aqua Virgo, Euripus and Pons Agrippae', AJA 83(1979)193-204 Lo Cascio 1994: E. Lo Cascio, 'The Size of the Roman Population: Beloch and the Meaning of the Augustan Census Figures', JRS 84(1994)23-40. Lo Cascio 1997: E. Lo Cascio, 'Le procedure di recensus dalla tarda repubblica al tardo anti co e il calcol0 della populazione di Roma' in Virlouvet 1997a, 3-76. Lugli 1934: G. Lugli, I monumenti antichi di Roma e suburbio, Roma. Lugli 1950: G. Lugli, Roma nei suoi monumenti, Roma. LugJi 1957: G. LugJi, La tecnica edilizia romana, Roma.

Bibliography

323

Lugli 1960: G. Lugli, Fontes ad topographiam veteris urbis Romae pertinentes, Roma. Lugli 1962: G. Lugli, Carta Archeologica del territorio di Roma, Firenze. MacMullen 1976: R. MacMullen, Roman Social Relations 50 BC to AD 284, 2nd ed., New Haven & London. MacMullen 1982: R. MacMullen, 'The Epigraphic Habit in the Roman Empire', AJPh 103( 1982)233-246. Macready & Thompson 1987: S. Macready & F.H. Thompson eds., Roman Architecture in the Greek World, London. Maier 1953-1954: F.G. Maier, 'Romische Bevolkerungsgeschichte und Inschriftenstatistik', Historia 2(1953-1954)318-351. Maiuri 1957: A. Maiuri, Capri storia e monumenti, Roma. Maiuri 1958: A. Maiuri, I Campi Flegrei, 3rd ed., Roma. Mancioli et al. 1995: D. Mancioli, A. Ceccherelli & R.S. Valenzani, 'Indagini all'acquedotto Claudio-Felice nell'area della Banca d'Italia', Archeologia Laziale 12,1 (1995)303-308. Manderscheid 1981: H. Manderscheid, Die Skulpturenausstattung der kaiserzeitlichen Thermenanlagen, Berlin. Manderscheid 1988: H. Manderscheid, Ausfohriche Bibliographie zum antiken Badewesen unter besonderer Berilcksichtigung der romischen Thermen, Berlin. Mansuellil982: G.A. Mansuelli, 'La citta romana nei primi secoli dell'impero. Tendenze dell'urbanistica', ANRWII.12.1, 145-178. Mattingly & Hitchner 1995: D.J. Mattingly & R.B. Hitchner, 'Roman Africa: An Archaeological Review', JRS 85( 1995) 165-213. Mc.Camp 1977: J. Mc.Camp, The Water Supply ofAncient Athens from 3000-86 BC, Princeton N.J. Meiggs 1973: R. Meiggs, Roman Ostia, 2nd ed., Oxford. Meijer 1990: F.J. Meijer, 'De liberalitas principis en de problemen van de plebs urbana', Lampas 23(1990)74-88. Menu 1994: B. Menu ed., Les problemes institutionnels de l'eau en Egypte ancienne et dans l'antiquite mediterraneenne, Cairo. Merten 1983: E.W. Merten, Biider und Badegepflogenheiten in der Darstellung der Historia Augusta, Bonn. Meusel 1960: H. Meusel, Die Verwaltung und Finanzierung der ofJentlichen Bader zur romischen Kaiserzeit, Koln. Meyer 1990: E.A. Meyer, 'Explaining the Epigraphic Habit in the Roman Empire: The Evidence of Epitaphs', JRS 80( 1990)74-96. Mezzapesa 1964: S. Mezzapesa, Planimetria di Roma, Suburbio, Agro Romano, (map) Roma. Millar 1992: F. Millar, The Emperor in the Roman World 31 BC-AD 337, 2nd ed., London. Millar & Segal 1990: F. Millar & E. Segal eds., Caesar Augustus: Seven Aspects, (the edition 1984 re-issued, with corrections) Oxford. Millar 1998: F. Millar, 'The Inscriptions of Rome: Recovery, Recording and Interpretation', JRA 11 (1998)431-436.

324

Bibliography

Mommsen & Schulze 1981: H. Mommsen & W. Schulze eds., Vom Elend der Handarbeit, Stuttgart. Mommsen et al. 1985: Th. Mommsen, P. Krueger & A. Watson eds., The Digest of Justinian, Princeton N.J. Moretti 1968: M. Moretti, 'La villa dei Saturnini a Lucus Feroniae', Autostrade X,8(1968). Moretti & Sgubini Moretti 1979: M. Moretti & A.M. Sgubini Moretti, La villa dei Volusii a Lucus Feroniae, Roma (s.a 1979). Morgan 1978: M.G. Morgan, 'The Introduction of the Aqua Marcia into Rome, 144140 BC', Philologus 122(1978)25-58. Morley 1996: N. Morley, Metropolis and Hinterland. The City ofRome and the Italian Economy 200 BC - AD 200, Cambridge. Nash 1961-1962: E. Nash, Bildlexikon zur Topographie des antiken Rom, 2 vols., Tlibingen. Newbold 1974: R.F. Newbold, 'Some Social and Economic Consequenses of the AD 64 fire at Rome', Latomus 33(1974)858-869. Nibby 1837: A. Nibby, Analisi storico-topografico-antiquaria della carta de' Dintorni di Roma, Roma. Nicolet 1976: Cl. Nicolet, 'Le cens senatorial sous la Republique et sous Auguste', JRS 66(1976)20-38. Nicolet 1980: Cl. Nicolet, The World of the Citizen in Republican Rome, Berkeley. Nicolet 1987: C. Nicolet, 'La table d'Herac1ee et les origines du cadastre romain' in L'Urbs 1987, 1-25. Nicolet 1988: C. Nicolet, L 'inventaire du monde. Geographie et politique aux origines de I 'empire romain, Paris. Nicolet 1990: Cl. Nicolet, 'Augustus, Government, and the Propertied Classes' in Millar & Segal 1990,89-128. Nielsen 1990: 1. Nielsen, Thermae et balnea. The Architecture and Cultural History of Roman Public Baths, Aarhuus. Nielsen & Schieler 1980: 1. Nielsen & Th. Schieler, 'The Water System of the Baths of Mithras in Ostia', ARID 9(1980)149-159. Nierhaus 1966a: R. Nierhaus, 'Die wirtschaflichen Voraussetzungen der Villenstadt von Italica', MDAI(M) 7(1966)189-205. Nierhaus 1966b: R. Nierhaus, 'Hadrians Verhaltnis zu Italica', MDAI(M) 7(1966) 151168. Nippel 1984: W. Nippel, 'Policing Rome', JRS 74(1984)20-29. Nissen 1883: H. Nissen, Italische Landeskunde, Berlin. Nriagu 1983: J.O. Nriagu, Lead and Lead Poisoning in Antiquity, New York. Ohlig 1995: Chr. Ohlig, 'Vitruvs »Castellum Aquae« und die Wasserversorgung im anti ken Pompeji', Schriftenreihe der Frontinus-Gesellschaft 19( 1995) 124-147. Ohlig 1996: Chr. Ohlig, 'Anmerkungen zum Funktionsmodell des Castellum Aquae im antiken Pompeji' in De Haan & Jansen 1996, 19-27. Ohlig 2000: Chr. Ohlig, De Aquis Pompeiorum. Das Castellum Aquae in Pompeji: Herkunft, Zuieiting, Verteilung des Wassers, forthcoming.

Bibliography

325

Oleson 1984: J.P. Oleson, Greek and Roman Mechanical Water-Lifting Devices: The History ofa Technology, Toronto & Dordrecht etc. Oliver-Smith & Widrig 1981: P. Oliver-Smith & W. Widrig, 'Roma. Loc. Tor Bella Monaca - Villa rustica romana. Relazione preliminare sulle campagne di scavo 1976 e 1977 nell' agro romano', NSA 35(1981)99-114. Owens 1991a: EJ. Owens, The City in the Greek and Roman World, London & New York. Owens 1991 b: EJ. Owens, 'The Kremna Aqueduct and Water Supply', G&R 38(1991)41-58. Owens 1996, E.J. Owens, 'Residential Districts' in Barton 1996,7-32. Pace 1983: P. Pace, Gli acquedotti di Roma, Roma. Pace 1986: P. Pace, 'Tecnice di conduzione e distributione dell'acqua in epoca romana' in Trionfo 1986, 138-151. Pace 1998: P. Pace, Gli acquedotti di Roma, Roma. Packer 1967: lE. Packer, 'Housing and Population in Imperial Ostia and Rome', JRS 57(1967)80-95. Packer 1971: J.E. Packer, The Insulae ofImperial Ostia, Rome. Panimolle 1968: G. Panimolle, Gli aquadotti di Roma antica, Roma. Pantoni 1960/61, A. Pantoni, 'L'editto augusteo sull'acquedotto e una sua replica aIle fonte del Volturno', RPAA 33( 1960/61) 155-171. Paparazzo 1994: E. Paparazzo, 'Surface and Interface Analysis of a Roman Lead Pipe "Fistula": Microchemistry of the Soldering at the Join, as seen by Scanning Auger Microscopy and X-Ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy', Applied Surface Science 74(1994)61-74. Parkin 1992: T.G. Parkin, Demography and Roman Society, Baltimore & London. Parkins 1997a: H. Parkins ed., Roman Urbanism, London & New York. Parkins 1997b: H. Parkins, 'The 'Consumer City' Domesticated? The Roman City in Elite Economic Strategies' in Parkins 1997a, 83-111. Pavis d 'Escurac 1976: H. Pavis d 'Escurac, La prefecture de I 'ann one, service administratijimperial d'Auguste aConstantin, Rome. Pazzaglini 1994: M. Pazzaglini ed., II quartiere San Lorenzo aRoma. Storia e recupero, s.a. 1994, Roma. Pelletier 1991: A. Pelletier, 'La societe urbane en Gaule Narbonaise a I' epoque d' Auguste', Latomus 50,2(1991)645-654. Percival 1996: J. Percival, 'Houses in the Country' in Barton 1996, 65-90. Philips 1984/5: C.R. Philips III, 'Old Wine in Old Lead Bottles: Nriagu on the Fall of Rome', CW 78(1984/5)29-33. Pleket 1993a: H. Pleket, 'Rome: A Pre-industrial Megalopolis' in Barker & Sutcliffe 1993,14-35. Pleket 1993b: H. Pleket, Kapitalisme en Oudheid: was Rome een kwaadaardige metropool?, valedictory lecture, Leiden 1993. Plommer 1973: H. Plommer, Vitruvius and Later Roman Building Manuals, Cambridge.

326

Bibliography

Poczy 1997: K. Poczy, 'Sextus lulius Frontinus - Erfahrungen als Statthalter zur Wasserversorgung in den Provinzen', Schriftenreihe der Frontinus-Gesellschaft 21(1997)101-105. Pohlmann 1884: R. Pohlmann, Die Uberbevolkerung der antiken Grossstadte im Zusammenhange mit der Gesammtentwicklung stadtischer Civilisation, Leipzig. Potter & Mattingly 1999: D.S. Potter & DJ. Mattingly, Life. Death. and Entertainment in the Roman Empire, Ann Arbor MI. Priuli 1986: S. Priuli, 'Le iscrizioni sulle fistulae' in Trionfo 1986, 187-195. Purcell 1987: N. Purcell, 'Town in Country and Country in Town' in Blair MacDougall 1987, 187-203. Purcell 1990: N. Purcell, 'Maps, Lists, Money, Order and Power', JRS 80(1990)178182. Purcell 1996a: N. Purcell, 'Rome and the Management of Water' in Shipley & Salmon 1996, 180-212. Purcell 1996b: N. Purcell, 'The Roman Garden as a Domestic Building' in Barton 1996, 121-151. Quilici 1977: L. Quilici, La via Appia da Roma a Bovillae, Roma. Quilici 1978: L. Quilici, La via Latina 'da Roma a Castel Savelli, Roma. Quilici 1989: L. Quilici, 'Gli acquedotti di Roma', Archeo 53(1989)50-97. Quilici Gigli 1977: S. Quilici Gigli, La Via Salaria da Roma a Passo Corese, Roma. Quilici Gigli 1980: S. Quilici Gigli, Roma fuori Ie mura, Roma. Raepsaet-Charlier 1987: M.-Th. Raepsaet-Charlier, Prosopographie des femmes de l'ordre senatorial r'_2e siecles, Louvain. Rainbird 1986: J.S. Rainbird, 'The Firestations ofImperial Rome', PBSR 54(1986)147-169. Rakob 1983: F. Rakob, 'Die Romische Wasserleitung von Karthago' in Boucher 1983, 309-332. Rakob 1987: F. Rakob, 'Die Urbanisiering des nordlichen Marsveldes' in L'Urbs 1987,687-712. Ramage 1987: E.S. Ramage, The Nature and Purpose ofAugustus' Res Gestae, Stuttgart. Ramieri 1993: A.M. Ramieri, 'Cisteme in via Christoforo Colombo', Archeologia Laziale 11,2(1993)73-78. Reekmans 1968: L. Reekmans, 'L'implantation monumentale cretienne dans la zone suburbaine de Rome du IVe au IXe siec1e', Rivista di Archeologia Cristiana 44(1968)173-207. Reina et al. 1917: V. Reina, G. Corbellini & G. Ducci. Livellazione degli Antichi Acquedotti Romani, Roma. Reinhold 1935: M. Reinhold, 'The Imperial Commentarii Aquarum', CW 38,12(1935)92-93. Reinhold 1965: M. Reinhold, Marcus Agrippa, 2nd ed., Rome. Renberg et al. 1994: I. Renberg, M.W. Persson & O. Emteryd, 'Pre-industrial Atmospheric Lead Contamination Detected in Swedish Lake Sediments', Nature 386(1994)323-326. Reynolds 1971: J. Reynolds, 'Roman Inscriptions 1966-1970', JRS 61(1971)136-151.

Bibliography

327

Reynolds 1983: L.D. Reynolds, Texts and Transmissions. A Survey of the Latin Classics, Oxford. Ricciardi & Santa Maria Scrinari 1996: M.A. Ricciardi & V. Santa Maria Scrinari eds., La civilta del/'acqua in Ostia Antica, 2 vols, Roma. Rich & Wallace-Hadrill1991: 1. Rich & A. Wallace-Hadrill eds., City and Country in the Ancient World, London & New York. Richardson 1992: L. Richardson, jr., A New Topographical Dictionary ofAncient Rome, Baltimore & London. Richmond 1971: LA. Richmond, The City Wall ofImperial Rome, 2nd ed., New York. Richter 1889: O. Richter, Topographie der Stadt Rom, Nordlingen. Rickman 1980: G.E. Rickman, The Corn Supply ofAncient Rome, Oxford. Robinson 1992: O.F. Robinson, Ancient Rome. City Planning and Administration, London & New York. Robinson 1997: O.F. Robinson, The Sources ofRoman Law, London & New York. Roddaz 1984: J. M. Roddaz, Marcus Agrippa, Roma. Rodgers 1978: RH. Rodgers, 'The Textual Tradition of Frontinus 'De Aquaeductu Urbis Romae': Preliminary Remarks', BICS 25( 1978) 101-105. Rodgers 1982a: RH. Rodgers, 'Curatores Aquarum', HSPh 86( 1982) 171-180. Rodgers 1982b: RH. Rodgers, 'FrontinusAq. 76.2: An Unnoticed Fragment of Caelius Rufus', AJPh 103(1982)333-337. Rodgers 1983: R.H. Rodgers, 'Frontinus on Aqueducts. Textual Temptations', BICS 30(1983)131-136. Rodgers 1986: RH. Rodgers, 'Copia aquarum: Frontinus Measurements and the Perspective of Capacity', TAPhA 116(1986)353-360. Rodgers 1991: R.H. Rodgers, 'An Administrator's Hydraulics' in Hodge 1991, 15-20. Rodriguez 1985: 1.C. Rodriguez, Frontini index, Hildesheim, Zurich & New York. Rodriguez-Almeida 1981: E. Rodriguez-Almeida, Forma Urbis Marmorea, 2 vols, Roma. Rodriguez-Almeida 1984: E. Rodriguez-Almeida, II monte Testaccio, Roma. Rodriguez-Almeida 1986: E. Rodriguez-Almeida, 'Nota su due nuovi plumbarii di epoca medio-imperiale', BCAR 91 (1986)89-90. Rodriguez-Almeida 1987: E. Rodriguez-Almeida, 'Qualche osservazione sulle Esquiliae Patrizie e il Lacus Orphei' in L'Urbs 1987,415-428. Rodriguez-Almeida 1993: E. Rodriguez-Almeida, 'Graffiti e produzione anforaria della Betica' in Harris 1993, 95-106. Rostovtzeff 1957: M. Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire, (2nd edition, revised by P.M. Fraser) Oxford. Royo 1987: M. Royo, 'Le quartier r6publicain du Palatin, nouvelles hypotheses de localisation', REL 65(1987)89-114. Rufini 1847: A. Rufini, Dizionario etimologico-storico delle strade. piazze. borghi e vicoli della citta di Roma, Roma. Rykwert 1988: J. Rykwert, The Idea of a Town: The Anthropology of Urban Form in Rome. Italy and the Ancient World, Cambridge Mass. Saller 1984: RP. Saller, 'Familia, Domus, and the Roman Conception of the Family', Phoenix 38(1984)336-355.

328

Bibliography

Saller 1997: R.P. Saller, Patriarchy, Property, and Death in the Roman Family, 2nd ed., Cambridge. Salza Prina Ricotti 1987: E. Salza Prina Ricotti, 'The Importance of Water in Roman Garden Triclinia' in Blair MacDougall 1987, 137-184. Santa Maria Scrinari 1983: V. Santa Maria Scrinari, 'II Laterano e Ie fomaci di epoca imperiale' in Cilta e architettura 1983,203-218. Santa Maria Scrinari 1991: V. Santa Maria Scrinari, II Laterano Imperiale, vol. I: Daile «aedes Laterani» alia «domus Faustae», Roma. Sattler 1960: P. Sattler, Augustus und der Senat, Gottingen. Scagnetti & Grande 1986: F. Scagnetti & G. Grande, Roma urbs imperatorum aetate, 2nd ed., (map) Roma. Scheidel 1994: W. Scheidel, 'Libitina's Bitter Gains: Seasonal Mortality and Endemic Disease in the Ancient City of Rome', AncSoc 25(1994)151-175. Scheidel 1996: W. Scheidel, Measuring Sex, Age and Death in the Roman Empire. Explorations in Ancient Demography, JRA suppl. 21, Ann Arbor MI. Schneider 1986: H. Schneider, 'Infrastruktur und politische Legitimation im When Prinzipat', Opus 5( 1986)23-51 Scobie 1986: A. Scobie, 'Slums, Sanitation, and Mortality in the Roman World' , Klio 68(1986)399-433 Sear 1989: F. Sear, Roman Architecture, revised ed. 1983, Bath. Sellin 1983: R.H.T. Sellin, 'The Large Roman Water-mill at Barbegal (France)' History of Technology 8(1983)91-109. Semple 1932: E.C. Semple, The Geography of the Mediterranean Region. Its Relation to Ancient History, London. Serra 1994: S. Serra, 'La via Tiburtina dall' antichita al medioevo' in Pazzaglini s.a.(1994), 35-46. SeHila 1977: P. Setala, Private domini in Roman Brick Stamps of the Empire, Helsinki Sgubini Moretti 1998: A.M. Sgubini Moretti, La villa dei Volusii a Lucus Feroniae, Roma. Shatzman 1975: I. Shatzman, Senatorial Wealth and Roman Politics, Brussels 1975. Shaw 1980: B.D. Shaw, Archaeology and Knowledge: The History of the African Provinces of the Roman Empire, Ottawa. Shaw 1982: B.D. Shaw, 'Lamasba: An Ancient Irrigation Community', AntAfr 20(1982)61-102 (= Shaw 1995, VI). Shaw 1984: B.D. Shaw, 'Water and Society in the Ancient Maghrib: Technology, Property and Development', AntAfr 20(1984)121-173 (= Shaw 1995, V). Shaw 1991: B.D. Shaw, 'The Noblest Monuments and the Smallest Things: Wells, Walls and Aqueducts in the Making of Roman Africa' in Hodge 1991,63-91. Shaw 1995: B.D. Shaw, Environment and Society in Roman North Africa: Studies in History and Archaeology, Aldershot. Shaw 1996: B.D. Shaw, 'Seasons of Death: Aspects of Mortality in Imperial Rome', JRS 86( 1996) 100-138. Sherwin-White 1966: A.N. Sherwin-White, The Letters of Pliny: A Historical and Social Commentary, Oxford.

Bibliography

329

Shipley 1931: F.W. Shipley, 'Chronology of the Building Operations in Rome from the Death of Caesar to the Death of Augustus', MAAR 9(1931)7-60. Shipley & Salmon 1996: G. Shipley & J. Salmon, Human Landscapes in Classical Antiquity, Londen & New York. Sirks 1991: A1.B. Sirks, Foodfor Rome, Amsterdam. Skydsgaard 1983: J.E. Skydsgaard, 'Public Building and Society' in Citta e architettura 1983,223-227. Smallwood 1966: E.M. Smallwood, Documents Illustrating the Principates ofNerva, Trajan and Hadrian, Cambridge. Smallwood 1967: E.M. Smallwood, Documents Illustrating the Principates or Gaius, Claudius and Nero, Cambridge. Smith 1976: N.A.F. Smith, 'Attitudes to Roman Engineering and the Question of the Inverted Siphon', History of Technology 1(1976)45-71. Solin 1975: H. Solin, Epigraphische Untersuchungen in Rom und Umgebung, Helsinki. Solin & Kajava 1990: H. Solin & M. Kajava, Roman Eastern Policy and Other Studies in Roman History, Helsinki 1990. Spruit 1993- : J.E. Spruit et aI., Corpus Iuris Civilis, Zutphen & 's Gravenhage. Staccioli 1996, R. Staccioli, Gli acquedotti di Roma antica, Roma. Stambaugh 1988: J.E. Stambaugh, The Ancient Roman City, Baltimore & London. Steinby 1975: E.M. Steinby, 'Ziegelstempel von Rom und Umgebung' in RE suppl. XV, 1489-1531. Steinby 1982: E.M. Steinby, 'I senatori e l'industria laterizia urbana' Tituli 4(1982)227-237. Steinby 1983: E.M. Steinby, 'L'edilizia come industria pubblica e privata' in Citta e architettura 1983,219-221. Steinby 1993: E.M. Steinby, 'L'organizzazione produttiva dei laterizi: un modello interpretativo per l'instrumentum in genere?' in Harris 1993, 139-143. Stevens 1984/85: G.R. Stevens, 'Aqueduct Delivery and Waterconsumption in Roman Britain', BIAL 21-22(1984-1985)111-117. Stevens 1985: G.R. Stevens, 'Civic Aqueducts in Britain' Brittannia 16(1985)197208. Strong 1968: D.E. Strong, 'The Administration of Public Building in Rome during the Late Republic and Early Empire', BICS 15(1968)97-109. Suolahti 1963: 1. Suolahti, The Roman Censors: A Study on Social Structure, Helsinki. Sutcliffe 1993: A Sutcliffe, 'Introduction: The Giant City as a Historical Phenomenon' in Barker & Sutcliffe 1993, 1-13. Talbert 1984: RJ.A Talbert, The Senate ofImperial Rome, Princeton. Talbert 1985: R.J.A. Talbert, Atlas of Classical History, London & New York. Taylor 1995: R. Taylor, 'A citeriore ripa aquae: Aqueduct River Crossings in the Ancient City of Rome' ,PBSR 63(1995)75-103. Taylor 1997: R. Taylor, 'Torrent or Trickle? The Aqua Alsietina, the Naumachia Augusti, and the Transtiberim', AJA 101(1997)465-492. Tedeschi Grisanti 1977: G. Tedeschi Grisanti, I trofei di Mario. II ninfeo dell 'acqua Giulia sull 'Esquilino, Roma .

330

Bibliography

Thomas & Wilson 1994: R. Thomas & A. Wilson, 'Water Supply for Roman Farms in Latium and South-Etruria', PBSR 62(1994)l39-196. Thomson 1983: D.J. Thomson, 'Nile Grain Transport under the Ptolemies' in Garnsey et al. 1983, 64-75. Thornton & Thornton 1983: M.K. Thornton & R.L. Thornton, 'Manpower Needs for the Public Works Programs of the Julio-Claudian Emperors' , Journal of Economic History 43(1983)373-378. Thornton 1986: M.K. Thornton, 'lulio-Claudian Building pprograms: Eat, Drink and Be Merry', Historia 35(1986)28-44. Todd 1978: M. Todd, The Walls of Rome, London. Tolle-Kastenbein 1990: R. Tolle-Kastenbein, Antike Wasserkultur, Miinchen. Tomei 1992: M.A. Tomei, II palatino, Roma. Toner 1995: J.P. Toner, Leisure and Ancient Rome, Cambridge. Tortorici 1993: E. Tortorici, 'La