Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:46:46.988Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Aqueduct of Aspendos

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 August 2013

J. B. Ward Perkins
Get access

Extract

Among the many fine antiquities of the Roman period that are preserved in Pamphylia, none is more immediately impressive than the aqueduct of Aspendos. The upper town of Aspendos occupies an oval, flat-topped hill, some 50 acres in extent and river about 60 m. above the meadows on the right bank of the Köyürirmaǧi, the ancient river Eurymedon. The rock of which the hill is composed is a coarse, pebbly conglomerate, and despite its modest height the hill-top is sharply defined, with steeply scarped slopes on all four sides. The eastern part of the Pamphylian plain, unlike the level, terraced limestones of the Antalya district, consists of gently rolling quaternary formations. The foothills of the Isaurian mountains are not far distant to the east, and there is higer ground only a short way to the north. But the site of Aspendos was cut off from the former by the Eurymedon itself, and from the latter by the wide, shelving valley of one of its western tributaries; and although the site is not one of outstanding natural strength, it was the obvious choice for a settlement in a district which, in antiquity as today, commanded the lowest practicable crossing for all land-traffic between eastern and western Pamphylia.

Type
Research Article
Information
Papers of the British School at Rome , Volume 23 , November 1955 , pp. 115 - 123
Copyright
Copyright © British School at Rome 1955

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Lanckoronski, K., Städte Pamphyliens und Pisidiens, Vienna, 1890, vol. i, pp. 120–4Google Scholar; the text of this section is by G. Niemann.

2 The occasion of the observations contained in this note was a visit to Pamphylia undertaken in April 1955 in the company of Mr. William L. MacDonald, with whom the writer was fortunate to be able to discuss on the ground the structural problems involved. The visit was made possible by the generosity of the Trustees of the Leverhulme Research Grants, to whom the writer wishes to express his grateful thanks. I am indebted to my father, Mr. B. Ward Perkins, for advice on the hydraulic problems involved.

3 viii. 6. 1–9.

4 CIL x, 1, 5807, which records that the censor L. Betilienus Varus ‘lacum balinearium lacum ad portam aquam in opidum adqu(e) arduom pedes CCCXL fornicesq(ue) fecit fistulas soledas fecit’. According to Angelo Secchi, who first identified the remains (Intorno ad alcuni avanzi di opere idrauliche antiche rinvenuti nella città di Alatri, Rome, 1865; cf. Bull. Inst. Corr. Arch. 1865, pp. 65–7), the figure of 340 Roman feet corresponds almost exactly with the 101 m. that separate the levels of the bridge over the Fosso del Purpuro and the receiving tank. The accuracy of these figures was questioned by, among others, R. Bassel in Ann. Inst. Corr. Arch., 1881, pp. 204–13 (cf. Not. Scav. 1882, pp. 417–19), but the basic identification is not in doubt. Bassel (loc. cit.) claimed to have found remains of the ‘fistulas soledas’ in the form of lead pipes, cast in cylindrical form and beaten to increase their strength, with an internal diameter of 105 mm. and a thickness of up to 31 mm. It would have required nine such pipes to carry the maximum flow of water of which the specus of the aqueduct was capable. For the inscription ( = ILS, 5348) see further Van Buren, A. W., Rend. Pont. Acc. ix, 1933, pp. 137–44Google Scholar.

5 CIL xii, 5701, 2.

6 Adrien Blanchet, Recherches sur les Aqueducs et Cloaques de la Gaule romaine, 1908, pp. 81–4. It is of first-century workmanship, faced with opus reticulatum and brick, and was certainly already in use under Hadrian, (CIL xiii, 1, 1623Google Scholar). I owe this reference to Mrs. D. W. Brogan.

7 Blanchet, op. cit., p. 71.

8 From the figures given by Lanckoronski the approximate heights above sea-level of the various elements can be calculated as follows (disregarding the slight fall along the aqueduct from north to south):

9 Fig. 1 has been redrawn, with minor corrections, from Lanckoronski, op. cit., fig. 97.

10 viii. 6. 5–6, and particularly the passage: quodsi non venter in vallibus factus fuerit nee substructum ad libram factum, sed geniculus erit, erumpet et dissolvet fistularum commissuras.

11 Lanckoronski, op. cit., pl. XVII.

12 Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua, iii, p. 222, figs. 177–8. My attention was first called to this building by Mr. Michael Gough.

13 E.g. the walls of Nicaea (Iznik) in Bithynia, the palace of Diocletian at Split, the palace of Galerius at Salonica.

14 Lanckoronski, op. cit., pp. 98–102, pls. XVIII, XIX.

15 Ibid., pp. 96–8. As pointed out by Lietzmann (Archäologischer Anzeiger, 1923–24, col. 128), the traces of roofing visible against the south wall of the ante-room belong to a later reconstruction, perhaps as a church, and not to the original building, which had galleries over the lateral aisles.

16 Or possibly corbelled out (the writer's visit was made in conditions of poor visibility without possibility of close inspection). Both forms were used in early Byzantine architecture, the object in both cases being the same, to make the least possible use of timber centring.