în Orbis Antiquus, Studia in honorem Ioannis Pisonis, Cluj-Napoca, 2004, p. 354-367.

Gică Băeştean

TYPES OF AQUEDUCTS IN ROMAN DACIA1

Although the antique authors mention the existence of 3 types of aqueducts, in

fact there are more2, archeology recording others. For the adduction - the distribution of
water in the Roman settlements Vitruvius recommended the usage of the masonry canal,
ceramic tubes and lead fistulas.
Other 3 sewerage systems were discovered: the pipes made of stone blocks, the tubes
made of wood and seldom bronze.

1. The masonry canal

The Romans took over hydraulics engineering from the Greeks and the Etruscans,
but they also brought their own innovations. While the Greeks had a system that provided
the water for one or two reservoirs found near Agora3, the Romans introduced the
distribution reservoir for the 3 big consumers: thermae, public fountains, private persons4.
But before water could be distributed, it had to be collected and then transported.
Therefore, the water was probably gathered in a collecting pool (from springs or running
waters) whence it was discharged directly into the adduction canal. As a rule, the pool
was open, constructed in stone or whitewashed with mortar5.
The necessity of a collecting pool is objective and well - grounded, in the idea of
supplying a clean and impurity-free water. But the problem raised is practical; the
absence or the ignorance of this type of pools from the research performed on the field,
both the level of the Empire and on the level of the province Dacia.
Some more examples seem to be known in Bulgaria. The collecting pool for the town of
Ratiaria was situated at a distance of approximately 10 km. An octagonal pool is situated
in the proximity of the village Mussina, whence the pipe for the town of Nicopolis ad
Istrum sets out. And the pools for Bononia and Florentiana had rectangular shape6.
La Martiniere (who published in 1912) showed that, for example to Volubilis the water
came from the Berber village Fartassa. But, the works carried out by the Public Works
Department in 1951, although they established the useful flow of the source, didn’t
discover anything that would certify a Roman collecting in the area7.

1 I owe the English version to Ms. Mădălina Cenan, to whom I hereby thank;
2 Hodge 1995, p. 93;
3 Stephens 1985, p. 197;
4 Vitruvius VIII, 6, 5;
5 A. Neuburger, Die Technik des Altertums, Leipzig 1920, p. 432; Tudor 1976, p. 116-117; Leveau 1979, p.
10; DA, s. Aquaeductus, p. 339;
6 J. Atanasova, La conduite d’eau de la ville de Ratiaria, in Ratiarensia, Bologna 1980, p. 85-86;
7 Etienne 1960, p. 17-18;
G. Garbrecht8 affirmed that, theoretically, there must exist wells that collect underground
water, stock rainwater or combine the two methods, but no such installations were
discovered at Pergam.
Al. Suceveanu considers that in Fântânele (in the county of Constanţa) there are
more collecting pools (based on the route of the canals). What is known is a pool of 2 x 4
m constructed in opus signinum, with a clean gravel layer on the bottom (to filter the
water). A ceramic tube with a 15 cm diameter crosses through the south wall of the pool
(30 cm thick). These tubes discharge the water into the stone aqueduct situated
somewhere in the proximity9.
In the case of Dacia the only known example is the one offered by I. Teglaş, who
affirmed that he saw at one of the springs above Copăceni (in Săvădisla) a conglomerate
pool, with the dimensions of 79 x 75 x 46 cm, having the leaking orifice and the remains
from the ceramic tubes proceeding from the nearby aqueduct. This must have been from
one of the two aqueducts of Potaissa10.
The recent discoveries from Sarmizegetusa, which have spotlighted a lead pipe,
make us believe that somewhere in the south part of the town there was a castellum
divisorium. More precisely at approximately 100 m outside the walls, on an axis on
which we can find the thermae from “the palace of the augustales”, the drinking fountain
next to the curia, one of the sandstone fountains from the forum vetus entrance and
probably other objectives too, which are not necessarily on the same axis (the
alimentation being achieved though ramifications, with lead pipes).
The supplying system through masonry canals raised bigger demands, a good
leveling of the slope was required, the costs were very high and the maintenance could
raise a series of juridical problems. Obviously, also the advantages were far greater, both
in the quantity of water transported and in the resistance of the construction, all these
implicitly leading to the enlargement of the adduction distance (to Cartagina 130 km11).
Before starting the construction of the adduction canal, the ground had to be previously
arranged, so that the most propitious slope could be ensured (this is a problem raised for
all types of aqueducts). The water had to flow normally through the pipes, due to the
gravity and to the regular and continuous slope, a slope too inclined having the drawback
of over soliciting the installation and quickly wearing off the canal.
The question asked is which would be the best inclination angle. After Plinius the slope
must not exceed 20 cm on kilometer; after Vitruvius – 5 cm on kilometer; after Palladius
– 9,7 cm on kilometer12. The inclination in a section of the aqueduct of Nîmes is of 7 cm
on kilometer13, in Gier it is of 6,59 cm on kilometer14.

8 Garbrecht 1979, p. 26;

9 A. Suceveanu, Piese de sculptură şi arhitectură din aşeyarea rurală de la Fântânele (jud. Constanţa), in
SCIV 31, 4, 1980, p. 563.
10 M. Bărbulescu, Potaissa, Turda, 1998, p. 65-84; Rep Cluj s. Copăceni, M. Bărbulescu, Gh. Lazarovici,
p. 159-161. 354;
11 Rakob 1979, p. 36; Eck 1991, p. 61;
12 Vitruvius VIII, 5; VII, 6, 2 and especially note 1; Leveau 1979, p. 12;
13 Lassale 1979, p. 55;
14 Leveau 1979, p. 12; Burdy 1979, p. 62-73, the rest of the technical data of this aqueduct is offered,
together with the one of the other three aqueducts of Lugudunum, Mont d’Or, Craponne, Brevenne.
 One of the known instruments used for leveling the ground is the chorobates, that
through the two lead wires at the end of a horizontal slide, gave the angle towards the
horizontal on a graded scale15.
After an acceptable slope was ensured, it was passed on the proper construction of
the canal. The construction technique was different. The typical aqueduct was a surface
canal built in stonework or in brick. By this, we can understand a pipe which follows the
surface of the ground, without being suspended on arks buried in the land. For protection,
sometimes it was buried at a depth of 50 cm – 1 m into the ground, reason for which it
was named – underground16.
As a rule, the canal is covered with a solid masonry vault (Cartagina 17, Aqua Anio
Novus , Aqua Claudia19, Caesareea Maritima20, Gier21, Tomis22). More seldom are those
18

with flagstones (Vindonissa and Vindobona23, Histria24). At Callatis, the aqueduct is built
directly in the cliff, with the purpose of supplying the harbor and probably the town25.
Philippe Leveau26 considers that these adduction canals are always covered, this
representing the distinctive element between an urban aqueduct and the simple irrigation
canals.
The breadth quite large of these canals is explained by the fact that they had to be
easily accessible for cleaning and not for a bigger volume of water. With the same reason
(ventilation and maintenance) on the route of the aqueduct vertical wells were built at
regular intervals27.
Another problem raised with the maintenance of such an aqueduct is the one of
the limestone depositions, which can contribute to the narrowing of the interior walls of
the canal. The aqueduct Pont du Gard presents massive limestone depositions (up to 46
cm on each wall)28, while at C.C.A.A./Köln, the canal is almost plugged by these
depositions29.
The necessity of maintaining an acceptable slope required the usage of some
substructions – substructiones, built in opus arcuatum. In spite of their fame, however,
these substructions are a rarity, considering the number of the Roman aqueducts 30. In

15 Vitruvius VIII, 5, 3-6

16 Hodge 1995, p. 94;
17 Rakob 1979, passim; the dimensions of the canal are 86 cm, 140 cm high;
18 G. Garbrecht, Rome, in Die Wasserversorgung II, p. 208-213, fig. 4;
19 Ibidem, fig. 5-6;
20 J. Peleg, Caesareea Maritima, in Die Wasserversorgung II, p. 176-179;
21 Burdy 1979, p. 62-73; Fahlbusch 1991, p. 151, fig. 16;
22 M. Ionescu, Cercetări perieghetice pe malul lacului Siutghiol, in SCIV 3, 1988, p. 315; M. Bucovală,
Descoperiri noi în zona suburbană a Tomisului, in Pontica 3, 1970, p. 204-206; Gh. Papuc, Despre
apeductele Tomisului, in Pontica 15, 1982, p. 161-172;
23 Grewe 1994, p. 53-59;
24 V. Canarache, Alimetarea Histriei cu apă de băut, in SCIV 2, 1951, p. 62-72; Histria I, p. 361-362. The
canal is 80 cm wide, 90 cm high and presents limestone depositions;
25 C. Scarlat, Apeductul antic de la Callatis, in ActaMN 13, 1976, p. 55-64;
26 Leveau 1979, p. 10-11. 355;
27 Tudor 1976, p. 117; Rakob 1979, p. 39-40. In the aqueduct of Cartagina circular wells appear at
irregular intervals, with a diameter of 113-115 cm. F. Rakob says that there is no proof that these wells can
be found along the entire air tract; Hodge 1995, p. 93;
28 M. Bailchache, L’evolution du debit de aqueducs gallo-romains, in Dossiers 38, 1979, p. 84;
29 Grewe 1994, p. 84-89, fig. 4;
30 Hodge 1995, p. 93;
order to provide solidity to this construction, the pillars have trapezoidal shape or exterior
buttresses. At Frejus the presence of these buttresses only on one side has been
interpreted as a means of protection against the Mistral.
In the province of Dacia we have no information about the usage frequent of this
system, more often being resorted to ceramic tubes. The only traces seem to be the ones
from the substruction of the aqueduct for Porolissum31.
Some question marks are raised in connection with a discovery from Romula –
Malva. During Phillip the Arabian restorations of the wall of the first civil precincts take
place. Though the middle of the foundation of this wall a gaping canal made of brick
(1,75 m high and 1,80-2,10 m wide) passed. A series of lead pipes which “brought the
dirty water from the neighboring houses” (D. Tudor) appear in this canal. The canal has
been preserved by bits on a length of 4,90 m. A lead tube kept in situ 1,90 m long, with
the exterior diameter of 12 cm and the interior diameter of 9 cm.
Although the photo is not relevant, it can be said that two fistulas compose the
fragment with the joining between them (fig. 1). According to the photo, the pipe seems
to descend from the vault of the canal, which would make the discharge quite difficult.
The depth of the pipe in the canal is also unknown. By the dimensions, the fistula is close
to those of Volubilis (which served for the distribution of water inside the city). Also, we
don’t know many examples of the usage of lead pipes for the drainage (the drainage was
realized through gutters and canals in any settlement). The lead was very expensive and
there are reasons to doubt that someone would go through such expenses for the mere
evacuation of the water.
Another observation would be that D. Tudor, and than C. Tătulea32, although they
mention the drainage system of Romula, which is composed of brick canals that
discharge into the ditch outside the walls, talk about this great canal, which doesn’t find
its functionality considering that there are already a well – set system.
Though shape, dimensions, construction technique (masonry vault), it more likely seems
to be an adduction canal, possibly a distribution castle. In this case, if the hypothesis is
correct, we would have an example of private adduction/ distribution of water, directly
from the the source (I call it “private” because the authors tell us that these pipes come
from the houses around.)
When D. Tudor asserts that more pipes discharged into the canal (only one can be
seen in the photo), he probably refers to the orifices that the pipes could have left in the
masonry vault. Considering that this canal is preserved on a small distance (as a
consequence it’s hard to believe that several owners made their stock from only one) we
could be dealing with the so – called puteus for airing and cleaning the canal.
It seems that Dobrogea is better from this point of view, the Greek towns here
being supplied through such canals, built directly on the ground or in the ground.

2. The ceramic tubes

Arranging the field for a ceramic pipe didn’t imply a special technical effort,
which made them very attractive from a financial point of view. This is probably the
reason why it is one of the most widespread water adduction/ distribution system.

31 Cronica cercetărilor arheologice, Cluj-Napoca 1995, p. 56;

32 Tudor 1971, p. 187, fig. 89, 1; C. M. Tătulea, Romula – Malva, Bucureşti 1994;
 In most cases, a ditch was dug, which ensured the best slope for water draining,
and which was subsequently recovered with earth. In other cases a special protection of
the instalation against an extreme pressure was resorted to. In Căbeşti (Hunedoara
county) there was a simple ditch dug directly in the ground. On the other hand, in
Cogealac (Constanţa county) the pipe was protected with green shale boards, and the
space among the boards was filled with mortar. In Romula – Malva the protection of the
tubes was ensured by a brick gallery, with triangular section filled with mortar.
In regard to the ceramic tubes, they had different shapes and dimensions, but in
principle they presented a muff at one of the end, which permitted the joining with the
previous tube, and at the other end the interior diameter was larger, in order to include the
muff of the subsequent tube.
Henning Fahlbusch33 realizes a typology of the ceramic tubes, depending on
shapes and dimensions, extracting three main types: archaic/classic for the Greek area,
the Hellenistic type and the Roman one.
One of the supplying sources of the town of Pergam was situated at Madradag,
the adduction being realized through a battery of three ceramic pipes, which date from
the times of Eumenes the 2nd (197 – 159 B. C.), the main artisan of the town’s
urbanism34. G. Garbrecht estimated that 200 000 tubes were used, which differ among
them by dimensions that vary between a length of 50-70 cm, a breadth of 3-4 cm, an
interior diameter of 16-19 cm, and the muff has a breadth of 1-2 cm and a length of 5-6
cm.
There were two ceramic pipes for the Hellenistic town of Perge (Turkey), the
tubes having a length of 30 cm and a diameter of 20 cm35.
The Roman collecting of water from Mangavat is known in Side (Turkey),
through a stonework canal, next to which there is a second aqueduct of ceramic pipes36.
Nine ceramic tubes in situ were discovered in Mainz, of which 8 have the Legio I
Adiutrix stamp, and one has the Legio XIV Gemina stamp. Another tube was found
probably inside the Roman camp. All tubes have approximately the same dimensions – a
length of 65,5-75 cm and an interior diameter of 18-20 cm37.
Several aqueducts of ceramic pipes are known in Dacia. In Drobeta the thermae
were supplied through a ceramic pipe which P. Polonic identifies in 1987 as supplying
the fountains of the Roman town next to the present day highschool38 (fig. 2). In Cătunele
(Gorj county), ceramic tubes for the adduction and transportation of the hot air were
discovered among the ruins. The tubes found intact (without specifying if they were for
adduction or for hot air transportation) were 24 cm long and have a diameter of 9 and 13
cm39.
In Potaissa, the aqueduct for the Roman camp is composed by ceramic tubes with
a length of 43 cm and a diameter of 16,5 cm. Also from Potaissa we know a second
aqueduct of ceramic pipes, this time the tubes being thicker, having an interior dimeter of

33 Fahlbusch 1991, p. 138, fig. 7;

34 Garbrecht 1979, p. 26-33;
35 H. Fahlbusch, Perge, in Die Wassreversorgung III, p. 193-195, fig. 3-4;
36 Idem, Side, in Die Wasserversorgung II, p. 218-221; Lamprecht 1994, p. 133, fig. 3-4;
37 Kaphengst 1994, p. 203, fig. 6-7;
38 Tudor 1971, p. 319, fig. 94, 3;
39 Tudor 1971, p. 315;
25,5 cm and being 39 cm long. The second aqueduct can be seen on a length of 2,1 km
(in five points), disappearing at the town’s entrance40 (fig. 3).
In Căbeşti41 (Hunedoara county) the pipe is at 30-50 cm under ground and it is
known a distance of 98 m, and the tubes have a length of 30 cm, an interior diameter of
6,5 cm, an exterior diameter of 8,5 cm. O. Floca uses as analogies the German examples
from Arzbach and Kinzingheimer Hof.
Ceramic tubes were seen by D. A. Sturdza at Romula-Malva, with a length of 80 cm and
a diameter of 12 cm42.
The Roman camp of Buciumi also benefited by such a pipe, the length of the
tubes varying between 15-20 cm and the diameter between 6-12 cm. It seems that its role
was to distribute water to the thermae43 (fig. 4).
The Roman camp Racoviţa (Vâlcea county) was also supplied by a ceramic
aqueduct. It seems that the traces of the collecting pool have been kept in the slope of
three slabs with the dimensions: 94 x 48 x 4, 93 x 88 x 4, 96 x 89 x 7 cm. The pipe is
seen on a distance of 195 m and followed the configuration of the ground, going on the
level curves44.
Probably the Roman camp of Tibiscum was supplied by such an installation too45.
In Sarmizegetusa the level difference between a possible water collecting spot and
the town’s area was quite big. This would justify the hypothesis of the usage of some
ceramic pipes, which didn’t imply a special financial effort in regards to the arrangement
of an acceptable slope. Moreover, O. Floca46 asserted that he saw ceramic tubes in the
south part of the town, and the aqueduct that served Sarmizegetusa is known in
Clopotiva.
In the area of the palace of the financial procurator of the Dacia Apulensis
province, between buildings 001 and 002, a fragment of a pipe of ceramic tubes was
found. There are 22 pieces joined one in the other. The tubes have a length of 26-28 cm, a
big diameter of 13 cm, a small diameter of 6 cm and the muff has approximately 7 cm 47
(fig. 5).
Public baths were a big water consumer. The main thermal complex of the Dacica
Sarmizegetusa colony, located in the area between the precincts’ walls and the
amphitheater was dug in 1883 by G. Teglas and P. Kiraly48. They mention a pipe that
supplied the area, but they don’t pay special attention to this. Therefore we don’t know if
it’s a question of a lead pipe or a ceramic one.

40 M. Bărbulescu, Din istoria militară a Dacieie romane, Cluj-Napoca 1987, vol. I, p. 112; RepCluj, s.
Turda, M. Bărbulescu, p. 397; M. Bărbulescu, Potaissa, Turda 1994, p. 65-84;
41 O. Floca, O conductă romană de apă dezgropată în comuna Căbeşti, in Sargetia 1, 1937, p. 79-82;
42 Tudor 1971, p. 180;
43 N. Gudea and others, Castrul roman de la Buciumi, Cluj 1972, p. 31;
44 C. M. Vlădescu, Gh. Poenaru-Bordea, Cercetările arheologie în castrul roman de la Racoviţa, jud.
Vâlcea şi în zona aferentă in Materiale şi cercetări arheologice, Bucureşti 1983, p. 348;
45 Some ceramic tubes were caught in an exposition organized near the excavation, unfortunatelly the
pieces are not published;
46 O. Floca, V. Şuiaga, Ghidul jud. Hunedoara, Deva 1936, p. 322; D. Alicu, A. Paki, Town Planning and
Population in Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa, in BAR International Series 605, 1995, p. 11;
47 G. Băeştean, Conducte din tuburi ceramice în Colonia Dacica Sarmizegetusa, in Sargetia 27/1, p. 353-
367;
48 Daicoviciu 1984, p. 73-74;
 The schola gladiatorum of Sarmizegetusa also seem to have benefited by its own
thermae. H. Daicoviciu mentioned some pipes (probably ceramic ones) having
rectangular or square section which made possible the discharge, respectively the
distribution of water in a pool49. But in this case special attention is not paid to these
details either, and it’s not impossible that they proceed from the network whose role was
to warm the objective.
A new fragment of ceramic tubes has appeared during the archaeological
excavation campaign carried on in the area of the forum of the Dacica Sarmizegetusa
colony, in august 1998. Unfortunately, this discovery can’t shed more light upon the
utilization manner, because, as in the others’ case, it misses a place of discovery in situ. It
was found in a modern pit, in one of the control caskets opened in order to bring
explanations concerning the construction stages of the forum. The fragment is 17 cm
long, the interior diameter of the muff has 7,5 cm and the exterior diameter has 10 cm. In
the body area, the tube has an interior diameter of 7,5 cm, but the exterior diameter has
approximately 12,5-13 cm. The tube is remarkable for the robustness given by the walls’
thickness, quite uncommon, thing which recommends it to be used in the place where the
water pressure was very high.
Ceramic tubes are also recorded in Chinteni50, Moldoveneşti51, Pălatca52,
Rădaia53, Răhău54, the Roman camp of Gherla (length of 19 cm and diameter of 10
cm)55, Măgheruş – Covasna county (length of 27 cm and diameter of 5 cm)56. With no
sure place of discovery, Transilvania, with a length of 70 cm and a diameter of 7,2 -11,2
cm57, and another piece with a length of 50 cm58.
It seems that these tubes were very well built, having a sufficient resistance to be
re-used in the later construction of the vaults of a building. The ceramic tubes were given
this kind of usage in Cartagina. Other examples are known in Chemton, Ergastulum,
Bulla Regia59.
In Dacia it seems that it was resorted to this solution in the thermae of the Roman
camp of Potaissa60.
In the deposits of the museum of Deva there is a ceramic tube fragment with a
piece of mortar stuck on it that comes from the vault of a building, on which the painting
is also conserved.
Here is that Vitruvius (Vitruvius II, 8, 61) has to say concerning the tiles: “As for
the proper tile, nobody can say before if it is good or bad in stonework, for only if it is
used on roofs can we verify if it is resistant to age and bad weather; for the one that it is
not made of good clay or it is not burnt enough, it will show its defects when touched by

49 Idem, p. 100-103;
50 RepCluj 1992, s. Chinteni;
51 Idem, s. Moldoveneşti;
52 Idem, s. Pălatca;
53 Idem, s. Rădaia;
54 C. Daicovicu, Dacica, Cluj 1969, p. 146;
55 Civilta romana in Romania, Roma 1970, p. 160;
56 Idem, p. 161;
57 Idem, p. 160;
58 Idem, p. 160-161;
59 S. Storz, Toonrohren im antiken Gewolbebau, Mainz am Rhein 1994, passim;
60 Cronica cercetărilor arheologice, Satu Mare 1994, p. 68;
frost or humidity. So the one that can’t resist on roofs will not be able to carry the load in
stonework. This is why the walls made of piece of old tiles will be especially durable”.
Paraphrasing Vitruvius, we could say that after the tubes have shown their resistance in a
water pipe, they will be able to face the load that a building’ vault must assume.

3. The lead pipes

Vitruvius recommended the usage of lead in water supply, offering a series of

important data concerning the fabrication method and the dimensions of the fistulas, data
which will be later taken by Frontinus too.
The pipes were made by molding on marble boards, having a rectangular slope.
On the marble boards different inscriptions are engraved, the so-called silloge-aquaria
being obtained after the molding. Then the board was wrapped around a wooden stake.
The margins of the pipe are perpendicularly pointed up, in order to be covered more
easily with melted lead61. The joining of the two fistulas was made either by molding lead
(Drobeta, Sarmizegetusa), or by enlarging one of the extremities (Romula-Malva).
More lead pipes appear at Volubilis, but the dimensions don’t vary too much. The
adduction fistulas that belong to the VIIIth ramification are 2,25-2,50 m long, 4-5 mm
thick, having a diameter of 8 cm and a weight of 32-33 kg. The adduction fistulas from
the house west of the governor’s palace are 2,31 m long, 5 mm thick, have a diameter of
7 cm and a weight of 34 kg. The fistulas from the house of Dionyssos and the four
seasons are 5 mm thick and have a diameter of 5 cm and unknown length.
R. Etienne noticed that the dimensions of the pipes at Volubilis are far from the
ones that appear at Frontinus, the dimensions approaching more the 15 cm pipe. At
Volubilis the pipes are inside cemented canals, and in order to protect them from the
movements produced by the water pressure, an insertion ditch was made on the bottom of
the canal62.
A pipe fragment is known in Mainz, having a 5 cm diameter and one of the
extremities connecting to another construction, possibly the water castle63.
In Aquae Sulis – Bath (Great Britain), the distribution in the town was made
through lead pipes, inserted directly into the paving64. Similar examples are also known
in Chesterholm and Catterick65.
The existence of some ceramic and lead pipes of great caliber is known in
Aventicum – Avenche (Switzerland)66.
Lead sewerage with taps has been preserved in Stabie67. A similar coupling is also
found in Pompei68. The house of the Vettiias from Pompei (as well as other houses in this
town) is endowed with lead pipes that supply water for garden fountains, pools, etc.

61 DA, s.v. Fistula, p. 1446;

62 Etienne 1960, p. 116-118; for the house of Dionyssos and the four seasons, see Pl XL III, 5;
63 Kaphengst 1994, p. 203, fig. 8;
64 Grewe 1994, p. 66, fig. 19;
65 Stephens 1984, p. 200;
66 Grewe 1994, p. 66;
67 Eschebach 1979, p. 78;
68 L. Eschebach, Pompeji, in Die Wasserversorgung II, p. 205, fig. 7;
 The supply of the great palaestra of Pompei, the amphitheater and Iulius Felix’s
thermae was accomplished from a secondary water castle, located northeast of the 11,2
insula. Here at 1,60 m under the street level, there is a cubic lead box (0,65 x 0,65 x 0,65
m), made of stuck 6 mm thick lead boards. In the box there were two pipes, one for the
entering and the other for the going out of the water that came from the castle of Porta del
Vesuvio through an underground high pressure pipe; the going out pipe was also
endowed with a filter and a tap which would reduce the pressure69.
In Nîmes the distribution from the water castle to the town was made through lead
70
pipes .
But if in the case of these examples the pipes are simpler, there are numerous examples
of fistulas that present a legend or a silloge aquaria. These legends contain some data
about the owner’s name, possibly the one that takes care of the respective construction –
curante, sub cura, and sometimes the name of the person that worked on the fistula -
fecit71.
A legend is known in Lucus Feroniae (Italy) with the name of the owner – Q.
Volusius Saturninus and of the man that made the pipe – C. Herenius Vitalis (fecit)72.
Besides these essential data, there can also be data referring to the type of water,
the distribution hours, also number (as in the case of Sarmizegetusa) referring to the
pipes’ capacity or to the number of the fistula. The case of Rome is the best known from
this point of view, on the basis of the legends studied by W. Eck 73, who has made a
division on sociological criteria of the owners who benefited from private adduction.
At Aquae Mattiacorum – Wiesbaden, a lead pipe fragment was discovered, whose
caption – LEG XIIII GEM MAR VIC is included in a handle. It was dated in 90 A. D.74.
Three lead pipes are known in Arles, with a 12 cm diameter, and a 1 cm
thickness, with a caption75.
At Bologna in the XVIIth century, with the name of two quaestors – Q. Varius
Certus and M. But( _ _ _ ) Secundus76.
At Efes, close to Artemision, a lead tube with cylindrical stone joining was
discovered77.
We have some examples of lead fistulas in Dacia. The existence of some lead
pipes (see the part referring to the stonework canal) is known in Romula – Malva. At
Voineşti (Argeş county), within the thermae, fragments of lead pipes were discovered, 56
cm long, the muzzle diameter being 6 mm78 (there may be a mistake and it could be a 6
cm diameter pipe).
At Drobeta, within the thermae fragmental pipes were discovered, 1,20 m long
and having a 5-10 cm diameter79(fig. 6 a-b).

69 Eschebach 1979, p. 75-79;

70 Lassale 1979, p. 60;
71 DA, s.v. Fistula, p. 1447; Th. Mommsen in CIL XV, 2, p. 906 sqq; Bruun 1991, p. 20-62;
72 Eck 1991, p. 85;
73 Ibidem;
74 Grewe 1994, p. 61, fig. 14;
75 Idem, p. 134, fig. 9;
76 D. Giorgetti, Bologna, in Die Wasserversorgung III, p. 180-185, p. 184, fig. 14;
77 W. Alzinger, Ephesos, in Die Wasserversorgung II, p. 180, fig. 1;
78 Tudor 1974, s.v. Voineşti, p. 320;
79 M. Davidescu, Drobeta, Craiova 1980, p. 106;
 In Apulum – Alba Iulia, at Bela Cserni’s excavations in the “thermae”
(praetorium), two lead pipes fragments were discovered, with 2,5 cm diameter 80. Also
from Apulum three lead pipe fragments are known in the Bruckenthal Museum (A
6208/13856). Other two fragments don’t have an inventory number, but it’s very likely
that they also come from Apulum. The first 3 fragments have an exterior diameter
between 4-5,5 cm, while the 2 last fragments have the exterior diameter of 4,5 cm, and
the interior diameter is 3,7-4,8 cm (the first ones) and 3,5 cm (the last ones).
In the Dacica Sarmizegetusa colony a 4,30 m long pipe fragment was discovered
in situ together with another broken one (there is a small part missing between the two)81
(fig. 7-8). Inside the section the pipe is oval and it has an exterior diameter of 5 cm, and
an interior one of 4 cm. The so-called silloge aquaria appear on the two fragments:
- in the first fragment: ANT VAL ET MA CL
COL DAC SAR
- on the second fragment: ANT VAL ET MA CL
There is also a number CXXVIII scratched on the first fragment, for which we
could find certain analogies in Rome, except that the figures are molded here, and so is
the rest of the inscription.
Inside the room in the middle of the Sarmizegetusa amphitheater arena they
discovered “a water pool, covered with wooden floor… Inside the pool we can still see
the oak wood drains that caught the water which came on some small canals from the
southern and western walls”82. This pool was interpreted as being a component of a
hydraulic machine that served for special effects during the shows - pegma83. C. Opreanu
presented a few photos in which we can notice some rectangular stone blocks, with a
central orifice, stretched along the drainage canal from the amphitheater arena (fig. 9-10).
It is possible that we are dealing with joining blocks for a lead pipe that supplied the
pegma, such as those in Ephes.
Generally the lead pipes are used for distributing water inside the town, although
Vitruvius talks about adduction through lead pipes. There are also some exceptions. In
Lugdunum – Lyon, the trap that helps the crossing of the Yzeron valley (2,6 km wide and
140 m deep) is made of lead. Due to the high inclination, the water reaches a pressure up
2
to 1 kgf/cm that could not be supported by a unique pipe of large diameter. In this case,
it was resorted to a battery of nine pipes disposed one next to other, between the
reservoirs disposed on the sides of the valley. In order to resist the high water pressure,
lead pipes were used, 3 cm thick and with a 27 cm diameter. It has been estimated that
approximately 12000 – 15000 tons of lead were used for this trap84.
These exceptions don’t consolidate a rule, they belong to the exceptional cases
domain, when exceptional solutions are required. This statement is made considering the
exorbitant costs that such a construction would imply in those times.

80 Az Asofehermegyei Tortenelmi. Regeszeti es Termesz tudomany Egylet, Gyulafehervar 1891, p. 38;

81 I. Piso, G. Băeştean, Des fistulae plumbae a Sarmizegetusa, in ActaMN 37/1, 2000, p. 223-229;
82 C. Daicoviciu, in ACMIT 4, 1932-1938, p. 339-400, fig. 30-31, pl. III;
83 C. Opreanu, Despre structurile subterane ale arenei amfiteatrului de la Sarmizegetusa, in ActaMN 22-
23, 1985-1986, p. 156-157, fig. 4; the joining blocks are also dealt with in the article by D. Alicu, D. Rus,
Essai de reconstitution de l’amphiteatre de Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa, in Politique edilitaire, 1993, pl. I
and IV 2;
84 Burdy 1979, p. 66;
 Plinius (Naturalis Historia 34, 161), referring to the case of Rome, showed that
the price for a pound of lead was 28 HS, which meant 86 HS/kg. Even if the price of lead
had been a lot lower in the Lyon area, it must have exceeded the sum of 280 –420
millions HS, for the used quantity. Also the lead used for the thermae must have weighed
around 8t. Even if the price had been lower due to the proximity to the Mendip mines, the
total amount must have been around 190 000 HS. Under those circumstances it seems
reasonable that the imperial intervention, in the shape of beneficium functioned for this
kind of constructions, through a metal supply from the imperial mines85.
An inscribed lead ingot was discovered at Volubilis. Considering the quantity of
lead that it contains, it seems to proceed from the Spanish mines86. There is such in ingot
in Sarmizegetusa too.

4. Bronze tubes

This kind of pipe is very seldom used. Moreover, some question marks are raised
upon their functionality when they are discovered. In many cases they are used as
distributors for the fountain sculptures, in other cases it seems we are dealing with a
calix, the instrument used for the checking of the water installations against
embezzlements (a pipe of fixed section)87.
In Dacia these kind of attestation are not very numerous either, and the existing
ones do not offer to many details about the context of the discoveries. A first information
comes from Apulum88 where we have 54 x 3 cm and 22 x 2 cm tubes. Another attestation
is the one from Potaissa where there are known the names of two brothers, municipal
administrators, on one extremity of a lead pipe89.

5. Stone blocks

An adduction system less encountered is the one with rectangular stone blocks,
joined one in other through muffs. This kind of pipe is somewhere between the ceramic
tubes and the stonework canal, the shape of the ceramic tubes joining the resistance of the
stone. The processing of these blocks must have been difficult and expensive, which
could explain their scarcity.
There are few attestations in the west of the Empire, stone tubes appear in Arezzo,
1,20 m long, with a 35 cm diameter and 18 cm thickness90, in Baelo (Bolonia), near
Cadiz, and a fragment seems to have been reused in the arch of the Segovia aqueduct91.
A similar piece, re-used in the later constructions, is situated at Mainz, although
the authors of the study question the possibility of belonging to the Roman period92.
H. Fahlbusch asserts that this kind of pipe is spread in the Roman world,
especially in Asia Minor, where it appears at Methymna, Gerga, Ankara in Licia,

85 Stephens 1984, p. 199;

86 Etienne 1960, p. 116;
87 Bruun 1991, p. 42-43;
88 Civilta romana in Romania, Roma 1970, p. 160;
89 M. Bărbulescu, Potaissa, Turda 1994, p. 65-84;
90 DA, s.v. Fistula, p. 1446;
91 Hodge 1995, p. 110;
92 Kaphengst 1994, p. 203, fig. 10;
Antiohia in Pisidia, Aspendos93. It also exists in Laodiceea (Turkey)94 , Patara (Turkey)95
or in Jerusalem96.
In Histria, the blocks are parallelipipedal, 60 x 40 cm, having a 20 cm diameter
and a 5 cm muff. It was ascertained that the blocks are drilled here and there, as a
consequence it was considered that it is a draining canal, the cavities making the water
discharge possible97 (fig. 11).
In Dacia the only examples are those of Sarmizegetusa, where we have several limestone
or andesite blocks. There are also such tubes in the walls of the church in Densuş, which
probably also proceed from Sarmizegetusa98. The big problem raised by the interpretation
of this material is that not even one of the blocks was found in situ, they are all in
secondary position (fig. 12-15).

6. Wooden pipes

This type of installation seems to be a less pretentious one, cheap and available
for anybody, used especially by isolated communities, villas or Roman camps. It is
widespread in the north of Europe, Germany and Britain being the best known cases99.
These tubes were usually made of oak wood, but Plinius recommended the pie
wood too. The length is variable depending on the material available anyhow higher than
the one of the ceramic tubes. The size represented a disadvantage concerning the
flexibility of the pipe and the adjustment at the level curves, where the dimensions of the
ceramic tubes compensated. This may be the reason why they were used as joining
mostly for the distribution and less for the adduction. There were metallic joinings
between the tubes, and the pipe was protected with clay and stone supports at the
junctions100.
We have no information about the existence of such a pipe in Dacia so far. We
must consider the low cost on one hand and the perishability of the material on the other,
also as a consequence of the difficulty of their detection in the field. And from the point
of view of the pluviometric conditions and of the wood resources, it is not impossible that
also in the case of Dacia the supply through wooden pipes was resorted at in a larger
extent than the one that we know nowadays.

93 Fahlbusch 1991, p. 154-155;

94 Lamprecht 1994, p. 166, fig. 7;
95 Fahlbusch 1991, p. 156, fig. 25;
96 A. Mazar, Jerusalem, in Die Wasserversorgung II, p. 185-188, fig. 6;
97 Histria I, p. 359-361; A. Avram, O. Bounegru, Noi contribuţii la problema apeductelor Histriei, in
SCIVA 37, 3, 1986;. p. 265;
98 G. Băeştean, Blocuri de piatră pentru aprovizionarea cu apă în Colonia Dacica Sarmizegetusa, in
Sargetia 25/1, 1995- 1996, p. 353-367;
99 Stephens 1985, p. 200-206; Hodge 1995, p. 111-113. 100;
100 Hodge 1995, p.112;
ABREVIERI
ACMIT = Anuarul Comisiunii monumentelor istorice. Secţia pentru Transilvania, Cluj, I,
1926-1958.
ActaMN = Acta Musei Napocensis, Cluj-Napoca, I, 1964.
CIL = Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, Berlin, vol. I, 1877.
DA = Dahremberg –Saglio, Dictionaires de antiquites greques et romaines, Paris, vol. I,
1877.
Dossiers = Dossiers de l’archeologie, vol. I, 1977.
Histria I, II = Histria. Monografie Arheologică, Bucureşti, vol. I, 1954, vol. II, 1966.
IDR = Inscripţiile Daciei Romane, Bucureşti 1957-1988.
Rep Cluj = Repertoriul arheologic al judeţului Cluj, Cluj – Napoca 1992.
SCIVA = Studii şi cercetări de istorie veche şi arheologie, vol. I, 1950.
Die Wasserversorgung = Die Wasserversorgung Antiker Stadte, Mainz am Rhein, vol. II,
1991, vol. III, 1994.
Bruun 1991 = Ch. Bruun, The water Supply of Ancient Rome (A Study of Roman Imperial
Administration), in Commtationes Humanorum Litterarum, Helsinki 1991.
Burdy 1979 = J. Burdy, Lyon – Lugdunum et ses 4 aqueducs, in Dossiers 38, 1979, p. 62
– 73.
Daicoviciu 1984 = H. Daicoviciu, D. Alicu, Colonia Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa,
Bucureşti 1984.
Eck 1991 = W. Eck, Die Wasserversorgung im romischen Reich, in Die
Wasserversorgung II, p. 49-103.
Eschebach 1979 = Pompei la distribution des eaux dans un grand ville romaine, in
Dossiers 38, 1979, p. 74 – 81.
Etienne 1960 = R. Etienne, Le Quartier Nord Est de Volubilis, Paris 1960.
Fahlbusch 1991 = H. Fahlbusch, Elemente griechischer und romischer Wasser
versorgunganlagen, in Die Wasserversorgung II, p.133-165.
Garbrecht 1979 = L’alimentation en eau de Pergame, in Dossiers 38, 1979, p.26-33.
Grewe 1994 = K. Grewe, Romische Wasserleitungen nordlich der Alpen, in Die
Wasserversorgung III, p. 45 – 93.
Hodge 1995 = A. Trevor Hodge, Roman Aqueducts and Water Supply, London 1995.
Kaphengst 1994 = C. v. Kaphengst - G. Rupprecht, Mainz, in Die Wasserversorgung III,
p. 199-204.
Lamprecht 1994 = H. O. Lamprecht, Bau und Materialtechnik bei antiken
Wasserversorgunganlagen, in Die Wasserversorgung III, p. 129 – 154.
Lassale 1979 = V. Lassale, Le Pont du Gard et l’ aqueduc de Nîmes, in Dossiers 38,
1979, p. 52 – 61.
Leveau 1979 = P. Leveau, La construction des aqueducs, in Dossiers 38, 1979, p.8-18.
Rakob 1979 = F. Rakob, L’ aqueduc de Carthage, in Dossiers 38, 1979, p. 34 – 42.
Stephens 1985 = G. R. Stephens, Civic Aqueducts in Britain, in Britannia 16, 1985, p.
197 – 207.
Tudor 1971 = Oltenia romană,Bucureşti 1971.
Tudor 1976 = D. Tudor, Arheologia Romană, Bucureşti 1976.
Vitruvius = Vitruviu, Despre arhitectură, Bucureşti 1964.
SOURCES
I. Literary sources:
1. Frontin, Les aqueducs de la ville de Rome, Paris 1944.
2. Vitruviu, Despre arhitectură, Bucureşti 1964.
II. Epigraphical sources:
1. Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, vol. I, Berlin 1863.
2. H. Dessau, Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae, Berlin,
vol. I – III, 1892 – 1916;
3. Inscripţiile Daciei Romane, Bucureşti 1975 – 1988.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
D. Alicu, D. Rus, Essai de reconstitution de l’amphiteatre de Ulpia Traiana
Sarmizegetusa, in La politique edilitaire dans la provinces de l’empire romaine, Cluj-
Napoca 1993.
D. Alicu, A. Paki, Town Planning and Population in Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa, in
BAR International Series 605, 1995.
D. Alicu, C. Pop, Figured Monuments from Sarmizegetusa, in BAR International Series,
1979.
E. B.Andersen, Urban Water Supply in Pompeii and the Private Water Consumption, în
Actes-Actas XIV Congreso Internacional de Arheologia Clasica,Taragona 1993.
J. Atanasova, La conduite d’eau de la ville de Ratiaria, in Ratiarensia, Bologna 1980, p.
85-86.
A. Avram, O. Bounegru, Noi contribuţii la problema apeductelor Histriei, in SCIVA 37,
3, 1986.
M. Bărbulescu, Potaissa, Turda 1994.
idem, Din istoria militară a Daciei romane, Cluj-Napoca 1987.
Ch. Bruun, The Water Supply of Ancient Rome (A Study of Roman Imperial
Administration), in Commtationes Humanorum Litterarum, Helsinki 1991.
M. Bucovală, Descoperiri noi în zona suburbană a Tomisului, in Pontica III, 1970.