Aqueducts in Rome

Introduction

Ancient Romans constructed complex hydrological systems known as aqueducts which

supplied Rome with massive amounts of water through a complex system of open
channels, tunnels, and pipes. These aqueducts traveled great distances and overcame
geological and civil engineering hurdles to accomplish magnificent engineering feats with
minimal technologies. The aqueducts that are classified as the ancient Roman aqueducts
were built over a five century time period. From BC 311 to AD 226, Romans built 11 of
these, see table 1, bringing water from the northwestern springs found near Lake
Bracciano, and the springs, lakes, and rivers of the east towards the Apennine mountain
range, see figure 1. These complex systems snaked their way through mountains, rivers,
and valleys delivering approximately one million gallons of water a day to the city of
Rome during the height of the Roman Empire.

The time period of the 11 aqueducts corresponds with the rise of the Roman Empire and
its dominating power and growth throughout those five centuries. Beginning around the
time of the construction of the Circus Maximus, aqueducts provided essential water for
survival of Roman citizens, monuments and fountains to honor conquests, hero’s, and
gods, and luxurious baths for both public and private use. Sustaining a population
thought to be near a million within the city walls, constant water for survival and
recreation was a sign of the power and ingenuity of the Roman civilization. Construction
of new aqueducts stops a few centuries short of the fall of the Roman Empire in the sixth
century A.D., shortly after the construction of the Baths of Caracalla, marking a decline in
new construction and the beginning of the end.

Roman Aqueducts
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/roman-aqueducts/

The Roman aqueduct was a channel used to transport fresh water

to highly populated areas. Aqueducts were amazing feats
of engineering given the time period. Though earlier civilizations in
Egypt and India also built aqueducts, the Romans improved on the
structure and built an extensive and complex network across their
territories. Evidence of aqueducts remain in parts of modern-day
France, Spain, Greece, North Africa, and Turkey.

Aqueducts required a great deal of planning. They were made from

a series of pipes, tunnels, canals, and bridges. Gravity and the
natural slope of the land allowed aqueducts to channel water from a
freshwater source, such as a lake or spring, to a city. As water
flowed into the cities, it was used for drinking, irrigation, and to
supply hundreds of public fountains and baths.
Roman aqueduct systems were built over a period of about 500
years, from 312 B.C.E. to C.E. 226. Both public and private funds
paid for construction. High-ranking rulers often had them built; the
Roman emperors Augustus, Caligula, and Trajan all ordered
aqueducts built.

The most recognizable feature of Roman aqueducts may be the

bridges constructed using rounded stone arches. Some of these can
still be seen today traversing European valleys. However, these
bridged structures made up only a small portion of the hundreds of
kilometers of aqueducts throughout the empire. The capital in Rome
alone had around 11 aqueduct systems supplying freshwater from
sources as far as 92 kilometers away (57 miles). Despite their age,
some aqueducts still function and provide modern-day Rome with
water. The Aqua Virgo, an aqueduct constructed by Agrippa in 19
B.C.E. during Augustus’ reign, still supplies water to Rome’s famous
Trevi Fountain in the heart of the city.

How Much Water Reached Rome?

https://www.archaeology.org/issues/195-1511/trenches/3753-trenches-rome-anio-novus-aqueduct

Rome’s 11 aqueducts, some extending for more than 50 miles, transported enough
water to feed the city’s 591 public fountains, as well as countless private residences.
However, experts have long been divided about how much water each aqueduct
could actually convey. “Many assumptions have been made based on some pretty
unreliable ancient data concerning the size of the flows of Rome’s aqueducts, giving
some very inflated figures,” says archaeologist Duncan Keenan-Jones of the
University of Glasgow. “We thought it was important to adopt a more scientific
approach.”

Keenan-Jones is part of a team of scientists who measured the amount of residual

mineral deposits in the Anio Novus aqueduct to accurately gauge the depth and flow
rate of water. By analyzing travertine—a type of limestone deposit—that was left on
the aqueduct’s interior walls and floor, the researchers calculated a flow rate of 1.4
cubic meters per second, or between 100,000 and 150,000 cubic meters (25 to 40
million gallons) per day, a number below traditional estimates. The amount of water
actually reaching the city was hindered by the buildup of travertine on the aqueduct’s
interior, which considerably lessened the flow. “Our work has shown that often, even
shortly after the aqueducts were built, the flow rates were well below the capacity
estimates,” says Keenan-Jones. “Ancient Rome had a lot of water, but not nearly as
much as has often been claimed.”
Sleeper Effect
Sleeper Effect Definition
A sleeper effect in persuasion is a delayed increase in the impact of a persuasive
message. In other words, a sleeper effect occurs when a communication shows no
immediate persuasive effects, but, after some time, the recipient of the
communication becomes more favorable toward the position advocated by the
message. As a pattern of data, the sleeper effect is opposite to the typical finding that
induced opinion change dissipates over time.

Sleeper Effect Discovery and Original

Interpretation
The term sleeper effect was first used by Carl Hovland and his research associates to
describe opinion change produced by the U.S. Army’s Why We Fight films used to improve
the morale of the troops during World War II. Specifically, Hovland found that the film The
Battle of Britain increased U.S. Army recruits’ confidence in their British allies when the effect
of this film was assessed 9 weeks after it was shown (compared with an earlier assessment).

After the war, Hovland returned to his professorship at Yale University and conducted
experiments on the sleeper effect to determine its underlying causes. According to
Hovland, a sleeper effect occurs as a result of what he called the dissociation
discounting cue hypothesis—in other words, a sleeper effect occurs when a
persuasive message is presented with a discounting cue (such as a low-credible
source or a counterargument). Just after receiving the message, the recipient recalls
both message and discounting cue, resulting in little or no opinion change. After a
delay, as the association between message and discounting cue weakens, the
recipient may remember what was said without thinking about who said it.

History of the Sleeper Effect Research

The Hovland research gave the sleeper effect scientific status as a replicable
phenomenon and the dissociation discounting cue hypothesis credibility as the
explanation for this phenomenon. As a result, the sleeper effect was discussed in
almost every social psychology textbook of the 1950s and 1960s, appeared in related
literatures (such as marketing, communications, public opinion, and sociology), and
even obtained some popular notoriety as a lay idiom.

However, as the sleeper effect gained in notoriety, researchers found that it was
difficult if not impossible to obtain and replicate the original Hovland findings. For
example, Paulette Gillig and Tony Greenwald published a series of seven
experiments that paired a persuasive message with a discounting cue. They were
unable to find a sleeper effect. They were not the only ones unable to find a sleeper
effect, prompting the question “Is it time to lay the sleeper effect to rest?”
The Differential Decay Hypothesis
Two sets of researchers working independently of each other were able to find
reliable empirical conditions for producing a sleeper effect. In two sets of experiments
conducted by Charles Gruder, Thomas Cook, and their colleagues and by Anthony
Pratkanis, Greenwald, and their colleagues, reliable sleeper effects were obtained
when (a) message recipients were induced to pay attention to message content by
noting the important arguments in the message, (b) the discounting cue came after
the message, and (c) message recipients rated the credibility of the message source
immediately after receiving the message and cue. For example, in one experiment,
participants underlined the important arguments as they read a persuasive message.
After reading the message, subjects received a discounting cue stating that the
message was false and then rated the trustworthiness of the message source. This
set of procedures resulted in a sleeper effect.

The procedures developed by these researchers are sufficiently different from those
of earlier studies to warrant a new interpretation of the sleeper effect. As a
replacement for the dissociation hypothesis, a differential decay interpretation was
proposed that hypothesized a sleeper effect occurs when (a) the impact of the
message decays more slowly than the impact of the discounting cue and (b) the
information from the message and from the discounting cue is not immediately
integrated to form an attitude (and thus the discounting cue is already dissociated
from message content).

The procedures associated with a reliable sleeper effect and the differential decay
hypothesis do not often occur in the real world. However, one case in which these
conditions are met is when an advertisement makes a claim that is subsequently
qualified or modified in a disclaimer (often given in small print and after the original
message). In such cases, the disclaimer may not be well integrated with the original
claim and thus its impact will decay quickly, resulting in the potential for a sleeper
effect.

Other Sleeper Effects

Although much of the research on the sleeper effect has focused on the discounting
cue manipulation, researchers have developed other procedures for producing
sleeper effects including (a) delayed reaction to a fear-arousing message, (b)
delayed insight into the implications of a message, (c) leveling and sharpening of a
persuasive message over time, (d) dissipation of the effects of forewarning of
persuasive intent, (e) group discussion of a message after a delay, (f) the dissipation
of reactance induced by a message, (g) delayed internalization of the values of a
message, (h) wearing-off of initial annoyance with a negative or tedious message, (i)
delayed acceptance of an ego-attacking message, and (j) delayed impact of minority
influence. Although these other procedures for obtaining a sleeper effect have been
less well researched, they may indeed be more common in everyday life than are
sleeper effects based on the differential decay hypothesis.
https://books.google.com.tr/books?
id=sS_iBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA184&lpg=PA184&dq=sleeper+effect+old+chestnut&source=bl&ots=cNwY1J
GAbm&sig=ACfU3U3FnL0zv2oOqEZNOtiBLO6fvIuZFg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjC1OG7w_OAAxVR
SfEDHTycDgAQ6AF6BAgqEAM#v=onepage&q=sleeper%20effect%20old%20chestnut&f=false
Social Psychology
By Graham M Vaughan, Michael A Hogg