Interpretation of Vitruvius, de Architectura VI.1-2

[Klingan]

Well in my work concerning castellums I've found myself in trouble when reading Vitruvius, de Architectura VI.1-2.

"1. Water is conducted in three ways, either in streams by means of channels built to convey it, in leaden pipes or in earthen tubes, according to the following rules. If in channels, the structure must be as solid as possible, and the bed of the channel must have a fall of not less than half a foot to a length of one hundred.

[Faustus]

Well in my work concerning castellums I've found myself in trouble when reading Vitruvius, de Architectura VI.1-2.

"1. Water is conducted in three ways, either in streams by means of channels built to convey it, in leaden pipes or in earthen tubes, according to the following rules. If in channels, the structure must be as solid as possible, and the bed of the channel must have a fall of not less than half a foot to a length of one hundred.

Edited October 21, 2007 by Faustus

[Klingan]

Ah I think I know how this works now.... My drawing is flawed, I believe.

 

"In the reservoir are three pipes of equal sizes, and so connected that when the water overflows at the extremities, it is discharged into the middle one"

 

Three pipes, he's talking about the in-pipes not the out-pipes.

 

 

I makes at least a little more sense.

 

In this manner, the lacus have priority as they should have.

[Klingan]

Well I have come to a conclusion about this.

 

First of all it's not possible to make a crystal clear picture of what Vitruvius mean, the description isn't good enough. However this is how I think he meant:

 

 

I made this drawing some feedback on if it's understandable would be great. I believe he mean that there are three in-pipes and three out-pipes. Those are divided as in the picture. and the middle walls are lower to enable the water from the smaller (my guess) side cisterns to overflow into the larger and more important middle one.

Edited October 27, 2007 by Klingan

[Maladict]

Any thoughts on the mater anyone?

 

Go to the library

A. Trevor Hodge, In Vitruvium Pompeianum: Urban Water Distribution Reappraised.

American Journal of Archaeology 100 no.2 (1996), pp.261-276

 

It's available on JSTOR too.

 

He basically states that the entrances to the three reservoirs would be blocked by 'gates' or 'weirs' of different height, resulting in different overflow levels for the reservoirs behind.

 

 

edit: The Vitruvian passage is VIII.6.1-2 btw.

Edited October 27, 2007 by Maladict

[Melvadius]

Well I have come to a conclusion about this.

 

First of all it's not possible to make a crystal clear picture of what Vitruvius mean, the description isn't good enough. However this is how I think he meant:

 

 

I made this drawing some feedback on if it's understandable would be great. I believe he mean that there are three in-pipes and three out-pipes. Those are divided as in the picture. and the middle walls are lower to enable the water from the smaller (my guess) side cisterns to overflow into the larger and more important middle one.

 

If you check Rowland, I.D. & Noble How, (1999) Vitruvius: Ten Books of Architecture Cambridge University Press, there is a clearer illustration of what is meant by Vitruvius (Fig 108, pg 279).

 

There is often only one large inlet pipe and you need to raise the height of the outflow pipes up towards the top of your illustration, the two outermost slightly higher than the middle pipe and just above the top most part of the divisions.

 

That way when the water level is low only the central pipe will receive water but if there is a good flow of water then all three sections will fill up and the two outermost pipes will also receive a supply.

Edited November 4, 2007 by Melvadius

[Klingan]

Ah the part with the pipes on different levels would explain some parts. However I am curious what does Rowland base his illustration on? I'll do my best to find the book thou. How do you mean that there is only one in-pipe? is it one wide pipe?

[Melvadius]

Ah the part with the pipes on different levels would explain some parts. However I am curious what does Rowland base his illustration on? I'll do my best to find the book thou. How do you mean that there is only one in-pipe? is it one wide pipe?

 

The article at the attached link and especially Figure 7, which shows the reconstruction of the castellum divisorium at Pompeii, gives a good idea of how the system would work in practice.

 

http://www.iwaponline.com/ws/00701/0113/007010113.pdf

 

Melvadius

Edited November 4, 2007 by Melvadius

[Klingan]

Ohh great a reconstruction of Pompeiis castellum!!! Finally a decent picture of the inside of it too. All the pictures I've got are quite blurry.

 

And all those water towers! Damn, I've been looking for them for weeks! I was almost giving up.

 

Anyway from what I've seen of the Pompeii water system I'm quite sure it's not following Vitruvius model. It would be practically impossible in the slope of the city, not to mention the three times larger use of led pipes. Do you believe that Vitruvius is writing about a practical or theoretical model?

[Gaius Octavius]

I believe that in any engineering project there isn't a one size fits all, but rather general principles to be applied to specific conditions, and adjusted for them.

[Melvadius]

Ohh great a reconstruction of Pompeiis castellum!!! Finally a decent picture of the inside of it too. All the pictures I've got are quite blurry.

 

And all those water towers! Damn, I've been looking for them for weeks! I was almost giving up.

 

Anyway from what I've seen of the Pompeii water system I'm quite sure it's not following Vitruvius model. It would be practically impossible in the slope of the city, not to mention the three times larger use of led pipes. Do you believe that Vitruvius is writing about a practical or theoretical model?

 

Sorry I have just re-read your original posting and what I should have made clear is that the fountains being the main public source of water in Roman society always took priority followed by the baths and only then private supply. However the Pompeii example is a simplified model and the castellum divisiorae could contain multiple pipes, as at Nimes where I believe there were 10 outlets, which were all controlled by sluices. The inclusion of sluices is an essential technique which allows water to be released or contained for both maintenance as well as extended supply purposes.

 

As to your question the inlet is usually directly from an aqueduct so would have a larger cross-section than the outlet pipes. I would also say that a lot of Vitruvius' writing falls very firmly into the area of having been based on practical examples. The difficulty, for our interpretation, is that the drawings which would have originally accompanied the text may not have been included in published translations.

 

In the majority of technical writing examples from the Roman period, there would normally have been accompanying drawings but often these have either been lost during earlier copying, possibly misdrawn or else simply deemed too difficult to reproduce in 'modern' text books based on them so ignored.

 

Melvadius

Edited November 4, 2007 by Melvadius

[Klingan]

Well obviously Vitruvius is not of the opinion that the lacus have priority as we know from the text I quoted in the first post, that is one of the only things that makes real sense. It's also a fact that Frontinus tells us that only 9% of the Urbus water supply went to the public fountains (13% intra Urbus). I would say that it's all but clear that the public supply had very much of a priority. Just beacuse we today can't even imagine to cut the supply to the general population to supply a smaller number of rich and high status people doesn't mean for certain that they would even hesitate to do so in the empire?

 

If you have anything that would show that the lacus et salientes do have a clear priority please show us.

 

And as you say we do not know that if my illustration or any other is more correct, since we do not have the original one left if there ever were any. A good part of the original that was found was badly damaged and is very difficult to read too. Actually I do believe that Vitruvius is talking in theory, as there are no archaeological remains that resembles his description. As some examples; it's very far from both N

[Melvadius]

<SNIP>Actually I do believe that Vitruvius is talking in theory, as there are no archaeological remains that resembles his description. As some examples; it's very far from both N

Edited November 10, 2007 by Melvadius

[Klingan]

Well this is hardly a translation issue, I've been through it myself, I've asked my professor to take a look at it (and he's reading Latin classical literature not very much unlike I read English.) and I've been through two other translations.

 

Anyway I've written this part now and I stand firm in my belief that Vitruvius is writing in theory.

[Gaius Octavius]

Again:

 

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gaze...works/home.html