Next Article in Journal
A Review of Urban Flood Disaster Chain Research: Causes, Identification, and Assessment
Previous Article in Journal
Experimental Study on the Variation Pattern of Saline Ice Microstructure with Temperature
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Water
Volume 17
Issue 23
10.3390/w17233342
water-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Geo-Hydrological Characteristics That Contributed to the Choice and Configuration of the Ancient Roman Aqueduct Aqua Augusta from Serino Springs

by
Libera Esposito
,
Michele Ginolfi
*,
Guido Leone
and
Francesco Fiorillo
Department of Science and Technology, University of Sannio, 82100 Benevento, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2025, 17(23), 3342; https://doi.org/10.3390/w17233342
Submission received: 3 October 2025 / Revised: 4 November 2025 / Accepted: 9 November 2025 / Published: 21 November 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Hydrogeology and Water Management in Ancient Hydraulic Systems)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

The Augustan Aqueduct, built between 33 and 12 BC at the command of Augustus and designed by Marcus Vipsanio Agrippa, stands as one of the most remarkable hydraulic engineering feats of the Roman era. The main route of the aqueduct extends over 100 km, starting from the caput aquae, represented by the Acquaro-Pelosi springs located at the foot of the Terminio karst massif, near the village of Serino (Campania region) and ending at Castellum Aquae, which corresponds to the Piscina Mirabilis in Bacoli, near Neapolis. Hydrogeological and hydrological features have been analyzed to reconstruct the rationale behind the selection of the aqueduct’s water sources: flow rate, ground level, and quality of the karst waters of the Serino springs best met the supply requirements. These characteristics, and others of historical and archaeological nature, suggest that the Augustan Aqueduct had a hydraulic connection with the Sannitico Aqueduct, also fed by Serino springs. The Sannitico Aqueduct fed the town of Benevento towards Nord, and it is believed to have been built in the first century AD. As shown by this study, both aqueduct systems could be part of a unique and great hydraulic system, built in the 1st century BC to supply areas of great residential importance (cities and patrician villas) or military importance (Miseno harbor and Benevento). The several studies available on the Augustan Aqueduct primarily focus on archaeological, architectural, and engineering aspects and less on hydrogeological aspects. In this paper we highlight that the hydrogeological perspective represents a key to understand the rationale behind the selection of the water sources feeding both aqueducts, built probably at the same time, and their interconnection.

1. Introduction

Since ancient times, access to huge and good-quality water resources has been important for populations. In this framework, Sumerian (IV–III millennia BC), Ancient Egyptian, and Indus Valley populations [1,2] were the first to build aqueducts for water supply. Sumerians diverted water from the Tigris and Euphrates rivers to human settlements. In Phoenicia and Palestine, several aqueducts were also constructed by drilling in rock. A notable example is the Siloe Aqueduct, a small channel dug into the ground to guide water from Gihon Spring (actually ‛Ain Sittī Maryam) to Jerusalem [3]. By the II millennium BC, the technique of underground aqueducts had spread from the East to the Mediterranean. Archaeologists found terracotta pipes from the Minoan civilization (Crete, about 2700 BC to 1400 BC) under the floors of the Knossos Palace. Structures from the Mycenean period were also found in Mycenae and on Ithaca. Many aqueducts appeared in Greece and Magna Graecia. Yet, the Romans turned the aqueduct from an early invention into a large masonry work serving cities. They valued the use of good-quality springs for citizens, unlike water from wells, reservoirs or polluted rivers like the Tiber. This supported the economic and demographic growth of cities and empire. Roman engineers designed aqueducts to bring spring water from distant reliefs, adapting to all terrains. As a result, these hydraulic achievements became common across the empire. Water was supplied both for satisfying daily city needs and luxuries such as large public baths (thermae), decorative fountains (nymphaea), and private villas. As Strabone noted (60 BC–about 20 AD), indeed, “Romans thought especially that Greeks neglected: the paving of streets, the water channeling, the building of sewers that could evacuate in the Tiber River all the city waste waters […]” [4]. Certainly, Roman aqueducts were massive structures. Their visual impact was clear in some superficial stretches, while others were developed underground. They always emerged as great main characters in the Roman Empire’s expansion. Their management and maintenance represented two fundamental features. This was especially true because major public works, including hydraulic infrastructures realized by emperors, concealed political and social messages [5]. Roman aqueducts are found from Scotland to Iraq and from the foot of the Caucasus to the northern edge of the Sahara Desert [6]. The most famous aqueducts throughout the Roman Empire were those of: Pont du Gard, located in the southern part of France [7]; Eifel Aqueduct, located along the Rhine River in Germany [8]; Caesarea Aqueduct, located in Palestina, current Israel [9]; Segovia [10], Tarragona, and Merida [11] aqueducts, in Spain; and, finally, the Valens Aqueduct, located in Istanbul, Turkey [12]. The latter was built in the 5th century and represents the longest Roman aqueduct ever built [13]. In Italy, the city of Rome was fed by at least eleven aqueducts: Aqua Appia, Anio Vetus, Aqua Marcia, Aqua Tepula, Aqua Iulia, Aqua Virgo, Aqua Alsietina, Aqua Claudia, Anio Novus, Aqua Traiana, and Aqua Alexandrina aqueducts [14,15]. Regional catalogues, remaining from a last compilation during the Empire of Diocletian, also list at least nineteen aqueducts reporting a number of branches from the main channels [16]. Everything known today about Roman aqueducts in Italy is due to Sestus Giulius Frontinus [17]. He was a Roman writer and architect (about 35 AD), curator aquarum, during the reign of Nerva and Trajan. The first aqueduct to reach the urban area of Rome was the Aqua Appia in 312 BC, thanks to the work of Appio Claudio Cieco [18]. After the destruction of the aqueducts of Rome, some of the springs once feeding the ancient aqueducts (Aqua Marcia, Aqua Virgo, Aqua Appia and Alexandrina, Aqua Traiana) were re-tapped only in the last two centuries and still supply the city today. Currently, almost all Italian regions have aqueducts and water plants dating back to Roman times. Indeed, almost all cities near Rome were involved in the construction of long aqueducts. In central-southern Italy, these aqueducts operated for centuries, in some cases until recent historical times. In other cases, they were destroyed after the fall of the Roman Empire. In particular, in the Campania region of southern Italy, the Romans built two important aqueducts: Augustan (1st century BC, also known as Aqua Augusta; [19]), for the drinking water supply of the Puteoli area and for the military water supply of the imperial fleet located in Capo Miseno, and the Sannitico (1st century AD) for the water supply of the city of Benevento [20]. Other minor aqueducts, like Abella [21], Capua [22], and Sant’Egidio [23], were built before and during this age. Augustan and Sannitico aqueducts tapped the powerful springs of the Terminio-Tuoro karst massif (southern Italy), Acquaro-Pelosi, and Urciuoli (mean annual discharge of 2.1 m3/s). This represents their particular features. These aqueducts were abandoned at some point, though exactly when is unknown, most likely due to the destruction during barbarian invasions, the floodings of the Sabato River, or landslides and seismic events affecting their layout. To supply the area of Naples, Urciuoli Spring was re-tapped from 1885–1888 by the “Serino Aqueduct” through a gravity channel, followed by a system of pressure conduits. Later, in 1934, Acquaro-Pelosi springs were also re-tapped and joined to the “Serino Aqueduct” for the water supply of the same area. After considering what is present in the literature about the Augustan Aqueduct, which is based mainly on archaeological and hydraulic aspects, some hydrological and hydrogeological features have been considered here for the first time to provide further details on the motivations that affected the selection of the Serino Spring group, the aqueduct layout, and the role that it assumed in history.

2. Material and Methods

The study was split into three main phases:
  • A literature review and field surveys were carried out to track back the path of the aqueduct, including the main path and secondary branches, and the different phases of its building. Literature data spans from ancient documents to recent research papers. It must be outlined that different aqueduct layouts have been proposed in the literature and a new one is proposed in this study. Field surveys aimed at verifying the precise location of aqueduct remain to constrain the aqueduct path.
  • The aqueduct path was digitalized in a GIS environment (ArcGIS, Version 10.5). A digital elevation model (5-DEM Territorial Informative System of Campania Region) of the Campania region was used to extract the topographic elevation of some fixed points along the aqueduct path. Digitally extracted elevation values were validated by topographic maps. This allowed us to draw the altimetric profile of the aqueduct. Hydraulic gradient analysis was carried out, which suggests a complex hydraulic structure.
  • Finally, we carried out an integrated analysis of historical, hydrological, and morphometric aspects to understand the reasons explaining the tapping of Acquaro-Pelosi springs among many others natural sources.
The following sections mostly focus on hydrogeological features of the investigated area.

2.1. Hydrogeological Features

During Roman times, a vast territory extended between the foot slope of Massico Mountain, on the northern side, to Phelegrean Fields and the Vesuvian area, in the southern part, which was known as the Campania Felix region (or ager Campanus). This name is the consequence of the vicinity of the region to the sea and the fertility of the soils. This region coincides with one of the largest structural coastal depressions in southern Italy, known as the Campanian Plain. During the Quaternary age, this structural depression was filled by thick successions of continental, sea and volcanic sediments [24,25,26,27]. The volcanic deposits were associated with the activity of the Phelgrean Fields and the Somma-Vesuvius volcanoes. Among these deposits, the most notable formation is the “Campanian ignimbrite” (or Campanian grey tuff, 39,395 ± 51 BPF; [28]). This formation is followed by the most recent products of the volcanic activity of Somma Mountain (from about 25,000 years B.P. to 79 A.D.) and that of Vesuvius, which allowed, from 79 AD to 1944 AD, the deposition of effusive and explosive volcanic products [29,30]. Carbonate reliefs of Meso-Cenozoic age of Mount Massico, Avella and Sarno mountains, and Lattari Mountain define the boundaries of this depression. Hydrogeologically, two main aquifer systems can be recognized (Figure 1): karst aquifers associated with the carbonate reliefs, and the wide porous aquifer of the depression constituted by alluvial and volcanic terrains. Additionally, the volcanic structures of Phlegrean Fields and SommaVesuvius constitute complex aquifer systems, where porous and fractured media overlap.

2.1.1. Karst Aquifers

The karst reliefs considered in this paper are those of Avella, Sarno, and Mt. Vergine and Picentini massifs. These reliefs are characterized by a high permeability resulting from karst processes and fractures, forming a wide aquifer system feeding important springs in terms of water quantity and quality. The main discharges of the Avella, Sarno, and Mt. Vergine karst aquifer are located along the boundary of reliefs at low elevations (about 30 m a.s.l.), in two main locations: the Cancello Spring group (formed by Calabricito and Mofito springs; Figure 1 and Table 1) and Sarno Spring group (comprising Santa Maria La Foce, Santa Marina in Lavorate, Mercato-Palazzo-Cerola, and San Mauro springs; Figure 1 and Table 1). The San Mauro Spring is highly mineralized due to deep groundwater flow paths caused by structural features [31,32,33]. It fed the ancient Riullo River, effluent of the Clanio River. Sarno springs fed the homonymous river that named the Sarno Plain on which, in Roman times, the two main cities of Pompeii and Nuceria Alfaterna (Figure 1) and two other residential and luxury settlements, Stabiae and Oplontis, were built. These areas were all ultimately destroyed and buried by the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 AD. Additionally, the other springs, such as Laura and Labso springs (elevation 185 and 190 m a.s.l.; Figure 1 and Table 1), have a lower discharge and a more variable flow regime. These springs discharge in the higher Solofrana Valley and are hydraulically connected to the endorheic area of Forino Plain through a complex karst system linked to the Celzi ponor. These springs represent the main discharges of the aquifer [34,35]. Higher elevation springs, typically fed by “perched water tables” or karst channels connected to ponors, exhibit low and variable discharge rates during the hydrological year. The Bocca dell’Acqua karst spring, with a discharge of about 0.5 m3/s (Figure 1 and Table 1), stands out, although its discharge regime is highly variable. During the pre-Augustan period, this spring served as caput aquae for the Abella Aqueduct which supplied the city of Nola [36]. The Picentini massif group, constituted by Terminio-Tuoro and Cervialto karst aquifers, feeds several basal springs with huge mean annual discharges like the Caposele karst spring (417 m a.s.l. and 3.96 m3/s), in the Cervialto massif, and Serino (370 m a.s.l. and 2.1 m3/s) and Cassano (476 m a.s.l. and 2.75 m3/s) spring groups, in the Terminio karst massif [37].
The Serino springs are located in River Sabato Valley, along the northwestern border of the Terminio-Tuoro karst massif (Figure 1). These are constituted by two main groups: Acquaro-Pelosi and Urciuoli. The former are defined as “high springs” because they emerge at an elevation of 370 m a.s.l.; the latter is defined as a “lower spring” because it emerges at an elevation of 330 m a.s.l. Both spring groups are fed by an upwelling water flux mechanism coming from the buried karst bedrock linked to the Terminio-Tuoro karst massif ([37], Figure 1 and Figure 2). These springs are characterized by a long discharge time series, starting from 1886 ([38]).
Water 17 03342 g001
Figure 1. Hydrogeological sketch of western Campania. (1) Karst terrains; (2) Impervious terrains; (3) Volcanic deposits; (4) Alluvial deposits; (5) Rivers; (6) Lake; (7) Main springs; (8) Mountain peaks; (9) Main Roman cities; (10) Augustan and Sannitico aqueducts layout.
Figure 1. Hydrogeological sketch of western Campania. (1) Karst terrains; (2) Impervious terrains; (3) Volcanic deposits; (4) Alluvial deposits; (5) Rivers; (6) Lake; (7) Main springs; (8) Mountain peaks; (9) Main Roman cities; (10) Augustan and Sannitico aqueducts layout.
Water 17 03342 g001
Water 17 03342 g002
Figure 2. (a) Constantine epigraph in current Acquaro-Pelosi Spring tapping work; (b) Current tapping work of Acquaro-Pelosi Spring; (c) Start of Sannitico Aqueduct near Urciuoli Spring. Photography by Giovanni Minervini ©2025. All Rights Reserved.
Figure 2. (a) Constantine epigraph in current Acquaro-Pelosi Spring tapping work; (b) Current tapping work of Acquaro-Pelosi Spring; (c) Start of Sannitico Aqueduct near Urciuoli Spring. Photography by Giovanni Minervini ©2025. All Rights Reserved.
Water 17 03342 g002

2.1.2. Porous Aquifers

The Campanian depression is filled with pyroclastic-alluvial deposits of varying grain sizes, reaching several thousand meters in thickness [39]. These deposits form a porous aquifer with a medium to high degree of permeability. The recharge of the aquifer occurs through precipitation that falls directly onto the plain, as well as from underground, transferring from bounding carbonate reliefs and from structures of the Phlegrean Fields and Vesuvius volcano. Throughout geological history, the plain underwent a significant morphological evolution due to several factors including tectonic movements, the abundant pyroclastic cover supplied by the eruption activity of the nearby Vesuvian and Phlegrean volcanic centers, the Campanian ignimbrite eruption, the glacio-eustatic variations, and the following re-incision phases by the main surficial water courses [40]. For instance, during the last Versilian eustatic uplift (7–8000 years BP), wetland environments developed both along the narrow stretch near the actual coast and within the broad streambed created by Clanio-Regi and Volturno rivers on the plain surface [40]. Additionally, significant subsidence events during the Holocene led to a lowering of the Phlegrean Fields volcanic structure toward the southeast, particularly along the Posillipo-Ponti fault. This resulted in the formation and evolution of the structural depression known as Volla or Sebeto Valley [41]. Overall, this territory has been characterized by wetlands created by the superficial runoff, waters flowing in several rivers from Vesuvius and surrounding areas, including the Sebeto River network originated by Bolla or Volla springs (Figure 1) located here (Table 1). These springs represented the caput aquae of Bolla Aqueduct (also known as “Water House”).
Table 1. Features of the main spring groups in Campania Felix region and Serino springs.
Table 1. Features of the main spring groups in Campania Felix region and Serino springs.
Spring GroupSpring NameHydrogeological UnitElevation
(m a.s.l.)		Discharge
(m3/s)		Reference
SerinoAcquaro-PelosiTerminio-Tuoro3700.92[38]
Urciuoli3301.2[38]
SarnoS. Maria La FoceAvella-Vergine Pizzo d’Alvano26–282.6[42]
Mercato-Palazzo3.0
Cerola0.6
S. Marina di Lavorate1.80
S. Mauro0.40
CancelloCalabricito350.7[43]
Mofito320.5[43]
Laura 185140[44]
Labso199120[44]
Bocca dell’Acqua9300.5[44]
S. Ciro (Ferrina)Vesuvius126n.a.[36]
GauroGauron.a.n.a.[36]
Volla (or Bolla)Campanian Plain140.0065[45]
Note: n.a. means not available.

2.1.3. Volcanic Aquifers

There are two main volcanic aquifers located inside the study area: Phlegrean Fields and Somma-Vesuvius aquifers (Figure 1). The Phlegrean Fields aquifer is located between the ancient cities of Neapolis, Puteoli, and Baiae, which is modern-day Bacoli (see Figure 1). This aquifer is situated within one of the primary active volcanic centers in the Campania region, which developed during the stretching tectonic phases of the Plio-Quaternary period. This process created the Campanian Plain by collapsing the sedimentary bedrock. The volcanic activity originated two significant eruption events of a great magnitude. The first produced the grey Campanian tuff (or Campanian ignimbrite 39,395 ± 51 BPF; [28]). Following this, there was very intense volcanic activity inside the caldera that resulted in the formation of the yellow Neapolitan tuff (15,000 years BP; [46,47,48]). Recent studies have indicated a third event of higher energy happened during the last 29,000 years: the Masseria del Monte tuff eruption [49]. In the past 15,000 years—after the yellow Neapolitan tuff eruption—the volcanic activity has primarily been explosive and freato-magmatic, generating numerous ash fall deposits interlayered with pyroclastic flows, leading to the formation of scoria and tuff fans. It is clear that, in the Phlegrean Fields area, the underground stratigraphic sequence varies from location to location depending on factors like position, thickness, and grain size. Thus, this geological structure results in a complex hydrogeological structure characterized by a groundwater flow, almost to local scale, constituted by an overlapped water table configuration. At a greater scale, the groundwater flow can be considered unique due to the lack of wide and powerful impervious layers [50,51,52]. The whole area is affected by natural phenomena like the emission of endogen vapors (fumaroles) and idromineral and thermal springs that, during Greek and Roman times, favored the diffusion of thermal buildings founded in Pozzuoli and Baia municipalities and along Averno Lake, and also in Agnano district and inside the calderas of Astroni and Bagnoli district of Naples (Figure 3). Several Roman writers like Marcus Vitruvius Pollione, Plinius the Older, and Orazio recognized the medicinal and therapeutic properties of thermal waters discharging in this area. Also, some emperors, starting from Augustus, made that area their favorite destination. These complexes were destroyed in the following years and centuries, probably due to the Monte Nuovo eruptions that in a single night (between the 29 September and 6 October 1538) caused deep modifications underground that changed the groundwater flow path. This eruption led to the disappearance of various springs and the destruction of numerous thermae buildings. It is likely that thermal springs also existed at the base of Gauro Mountain, one of the area’s major elevations, which ranges from 290 m a.s.l. at Corvara Mountain to 331 m a.s.l. at Barbaro Mountain (the term “gauro” means “magnificent” in Greek). In the literature, we did not find papers about the springs mentioned above, excluding the work written by [36], in which the authors assert that “Puteoli was supplied also by a local aqueduct coming from the near Gauro Mountain (Gaurus Mons) and surrounding hills” (Figure 3 and Table 1).
The other hydrogeological volcanic area is the Somma-Vesuvius structure, located in the southern part of Campanian Plain (Figure 1). This is a strato-volcano constituted by pyroclastic and lava deposits erupted up to the last eruption that happened in 1944. As highlighted above for the Phlegrean Fields, alternating medium–high-permeability and low-permeability (mainly ashes) lithotypes, inside the hydrogeological unit, allow a groundwater flow path with overlapped and interlinked water tables. The fissured lava layers and the loosened and coarse-grained pyroclastic deposits represent a good aquifer [53,54]. These deposits host a radial flow water table that, along the northern boundary, feeds the surrounding alluvial plain while, along the southern one, the water table discharges into the sea [55]. Important springs with a great amount of discharge are absent, while many springs with a lower discharge (<5 L/s, [55]) are present. In particular, along the northern boundary, there are the Olivella Spring, located in S. Anastasia municipality at an elevation of 382 m a.s.l., Chiantelle Spring, with the highest discharge point located at an elevation of 675 m a.s.l. and disappearing and a lower one located near Pollena, and Gavete Spring in Somma Vesuviana municipality. Furthermore, along the southern boundary, there is S. Ciro (or Ferrina) Spring, located in Ercolano municipality (at an elevation of 126 m a.s.l.), currently tapped for bottling with the name “Mineral Water S. Ciro” (Figure 1 and Table 1). Probably, this spring represented the caput aquae of a supply system feeding the city of Herculaneum in pre-Augustan times [56].

3. Results

3.1. Historical Insights on the Augustan Aqueduct

The aqueduct measured approximately 106 km along its main axis and about 135–140 km when including lateral branches, making it the longest aqueduct built during that period [13,36,57]. The construction of Aqua Augusta was commissioned by Emperor Augustus and took place between 33 and 12 BC. It was first designed by Marco Vipsanio Agrippa (about 63–12 BC, ancient Campania), who was a Roman curator aquarum [21]. This remarkable project supplied water to a vast geographical area, extending beyond several natural hydrographic basins in the Neapolitan Bay area. Its purpose was to supply water to the two principal harbors of the empire: the military one of Misenum and the civilian one of Puteoli. The construction of the aqueduct is likely connected to the realization of port works promoted by Emperor Augustus in the Phlegrean area. It also served several other cities (like Puteoli, Nola, Atella, Neapoli, Cumae, Acerrae, Baia, and Misenum [58]). Evidence of its use includes a rediscovered inscription (Figure 2a) near the Acquaro and Pelosi spring discharge area, which discusses restoration work carried out during the reign of Emperor Constantine the Great (circa 324 AD). The order followed in listing the cities is undoubtedly linked to their water consumption [59]. The aqueduct also aimed to supply water to colonies and settlements linked to Augustan power in the aforementioned cities, as well as to notable villas in the region [36]. This explains the remarkable economical investment, estimated at 140 and 450 million sestertii (1 or 2 years of non-military expenses of the state [60]). The exact time when the aqueduct ceased operations is actually unknown. Surely, it experienced damage, at least in the branch towards the city of Pompeii during the Vesuvian eruption of 79 BC, following several periods of scarce maintenance. This necessitated major restoration efforts during the era of Emperor Constantine the Great, as evidenced by the aforementioned inscription [58,61]. In 410 AD, Alric, Visigoth king, devastated Rome and the Campania region, assaulting Neapolis and Nola, particularly, and seriously damaging the surrounding areas [62]. It is thus very likely that, during these events, the aqueduct was seriously damaged at some key points and that the seriousness of the general crisis, both from the economical and organizational points of view, did not allow its restoration. Furthermore, it is important to remember that, from 456 AD onwards, the Campania region underwent several raids by Vandals from the sea. This demonstrates that the Roman fleet could not fight barbarian invasions from the sea [62]. Probably, in that period, the main aim for the existence of the Augustan Aqueduct, the need to supply the military harbor of Misenum with water, ceased.

3.2. The Main Channel Layout

Several authors have studied the Aqua Augusta Aqueduct layout; the Neapolitan engineer Pietrantonio Lettieri (1797–1805) was a pioneer in this field. He, appointed by the Spanish viceroy Don Pedro from Toledo, in four years, followed the remains and the traces of the ancient aqueduct of Naples and wrote a detailed description. Even more detailed was the study by Felice Abate (first half of the 19th century). He, with the essay “Studi sull’Acquedotto Claudio e Progetto per rifornire di acqua potabile la città di Napoli” [63], proposed the reinstatement of the Roman aqueduct to bring to Naples the water from Serino springs again. Other relevant studies were those by Sgobbo [64] and Elia [65].
The Roman aqueduct was developed mainly underground; currently, only some stretches are known [66]. When the Romans conquered Samnium and the land of Irpinium (Samne wars, second half of the 4th century and the beginning of the 3rd century BC), they had the access to fresh and abundant waters discharged by the Picentini mountains. Indeed, Acquaro-Pelosi springs, located at 370 m a.s.l., were chosen as caput aquae of the Augustan Aqueduct (Figure 2b and Figure 3; Table 1). Later (1st century AD), Urciuoli Spring (Figure 3) was also tapped, becoming the caput aquae of Sannitico Aqueduct, feeding Benevento (Figure 2c) [20].
From Serino, the Augustan Aqueduct ran on the left side of the Sabato River (Figure 3). It arrived in the current Mercato di Serino district and passed the valley (Pescarola Valley and Contrada Stream) on a channel-bridge flanking Serino mountains and Cesinali municipality towards Aiello del Sabato [59]. This is one of the more rugged stretches, and several remains of the channel-bridge in Pescarola Valley and Contrada Stream were found. From this point, the aqueduct passed the Forino Plain through an underground path and reached the Preturo locality (in the current Montoro municipality) and Pandola (in the current Mercato San Severino municipality). It left, on the left side of the city of Mercato San Severino, passed below the Tor di Marcello district, part of the current Castel San Giorgio municipality, and went towards Taverna di Lazzaro and Serra Paterno localities. Next, along the hill, the aqueduct passed above Urbula (actually the city of Sarno), reaching the Episcopio locality, and went towards Torricelle locality (current Palma Campania municipality). Several remains can be seen along the stretch between Sarno and Palma Campania municipalities, for example, in Mura d’Arce locality (Sarno municipality; Figure 4a) and in Torricelle/Ponte Tirone district (Palma Campania municipalities) (Figure 3 and Figure 4b). Immediately after the channel-bridge of Mura d’Arce locality, the aqueduct is no longer visible. Slightly before this locality, the layout was divided into two branches: the first continued on the channel-bridge; the other flanked the hill. It was thought that the original layout was the second one, but it was modified using the channel-bridge due to the instability of the crossed terrains [67]. Indeed, slightly after Monaco Stream, both branches merge into one tunnel. It is reasonable that it carried on underground until the Torricelle locality, flanking the hill in Palma Campania municipality. From this locality, presumably, the channel, even underground, goes towards the west [68], passing San Gennaro Vesuviano municipality, leaving on the right side of Nola and Saviano municipalities, reaching the Masseria La Preziosa locality. Starting from this locality, the channel continues on arches until reaching Pomigliano d’Arco, Casalnuovo, Afragola, S. Pietro a Patierno, and S. Giuliano municipalities; in this latter part the channel is still visible in the Ponti Rossi locality (Figure 3 and Figure 4c). From there, the aqueduct passed underground through S. Efremo hill, Santa Maria delle Vergini, reaching the S. Agnello locality (currently Naples municipality). In this district the aqueduct divided itself into two branches: one served Naples, passing Constantinople’s door and reaching the S. Patrizia locality; the other passed the foot of S. Elmo Hill towards the Chiaia locality, reaching Terracina [19] and Agnano thermae [69,70]. Later it continued, passing above Bagnoli district, towards Pozzuoli. The final end of the aqueduct was the castellum aquae of Piscina Mirabilis, located in the actual municipality of Bacoli (Figure 3 and Figure 4d).

3.3. Secondary Branches

The Aqua Augusta Aqueduct fed several localities through several secondary branches that were developed, from 49 km 2007 [21] up to 60 km [19].

3.3.1. Branch Towards Nola

The first branch, about 9 km long, was at the city of Nola, located at an elevation of 12 m a.s.l. less than the elevation of the starting point of the branch from the main channel of the aqueduct (Figure 3). In particular, the remains of an ancient aqueduct are still visible in the Ciesco della Fata locality, built by inhabitants of Nola in 410 AD (5th century AD). Saint Paolino, bishop of Nola, founded this aqueduct, and probably it marked the Augustan Aqueduct layout [36]. Some authors hypothesize that, before the arrival of the Augustan Aqueduct, the city’s water supply was provided by another Roman aqueduct. The spring sources were located in the area of Abella mountains [36]. Abella was an ancient Campania city that became a Roman colony, located at about 10 km NE from Nola (Figure 1 and Figure 3). Although actually there are no reliable references about the Abella Aqueduct, it is reasonable to hypothesize that the Sant’Egidio, Acqua del Monte, and Bocca dell’Acqua springs (the latter located at an elevation of 900 m a.s.l., not so far from the Capo Summonte locality) were the primary sources of the Abella Aqueduct (Figure 1). Probably, the water supply was scarce, mainly during the dry season during which these springs dry out. Thus, the arrival of Aqua Augusta Aqueduct improved the city’s water supply and water quality.

3.3.2. Branch Towards Pompeii and Herculaneum

Aqua Augusta Aqueduct likely fed Pompeii civitas through a branch (Figure 3) from Palma Campania. In Pompeii, this branch reached Porta Vesuvio, one of the main accesses to the city, located at an elevation of 42 m a.s.l. [71]
Water 17 03342 g003
Figure 3. (a) Layout of Augustan Aqueduct through Campania region; (b) Layout of Bolla Aqueduct through Naples (redrawn from [58]).
Figure 3. (a) Layout of Augustan Aqueduct through Campania region; (b) Layout of Bolla Aqueduct through Naples (redrawn from [58]).
Water 17 03342 g003
It is probable that from Pompeii the aqueduct continued towards Oplontis (with a path of about 0.4 km), currently Torre Annunziata municipality, and to Herculaneum, currently the city of Ercolano. It served, with a layout of about 25 km, the luxury houses located along its path ([71], Figure 2). Near and inside the ancient city of Herculaneum some remains of a Roman aqueduct and of a castellum aquae were exhumed [64]. As in the case of Pompeii, the aqueduct contributed to the city’s water supply until that time, which was supplied by several wells. The remnants of two water wells were found by archaeologists and excavated to reach the water table: forum thermae well, with a depth of 8.25 m [72], and that of Erma di Bronzo House [72]. Inside the remnants of the hypothesized Augustan channel, archaeologists did not exhume the lime concretions that, for example, were found in the branch of the main aqueduct towards Pompeii. This detail led to the hypothesis that Herculaneum was supplied by an aqueduct fed by a local spring, lacking lime, located at the foot slope of Vesuvius, like S. Ciro (also known as Ferrina) Spring currently situated in Ercolanum municipality ([56], Figure 1).
Water 17 03342 g004
Figure 4. Augustan Aqueduct remains in (a) Mura d’Arce locality (Sarno municipality); (b) Ponte Tirone locality (Palma Campania municipality); (c) Ponti Rossi locality (Naples municipality). (d) Interior of Piscina Mirabilis Castellum Aquae (Bacoli Municipality). Photography by Giovanni Minervini ©2025. All Rights Reserved.
Figure 4. Augustan Aqueduct remains in (a) Mura d’Arce locality (Sarno municipality); (b) Ponte Tirone locality (Palma Campania municipality); (c) Ponti Rossi locality (Naples municipality). (d) Interior of Piscina Mirabilis Castellum Aquae (Bacoli Municipality). Photography by Giovanni Minervini ©2025. All Rights Reserved.
Water 17 03342 g004

3.3.3. Branches Towards Acerrae and Atella

The Constantine epigraph assures the existence of this branch. It is reasonable to think that this branch had an elevation of about 48 m a.s.l. (Figure 3) and reached Acerrae, located at 31 m a.s.l., passing through an area with a lower elevation (23–26 m a.s.l.; Figure 3). Thus, in this section, the aqueduct probably had to run on a channel-bridge.
The close village of Sessula (Figure 1), was fed by other water sources [36], and in particular the Calabricito and Mofito springs (Figure 1).

3.3.4. Branch Towards Neapolis, Pausylipon, and Nisida

In the epoch before Augustan times, Neapolis was partially nourished by another aqueduct, most likely of Roman origin [73], fed by Bolla (or Volla) springs located in the Sebeto depression (Figure 1). These springs were located at an elevation of 18.5 m a.s.l. The aqueduct was built using terracotta pipes [74] and started in Naples, near Tribunali district [58]. It was primarily used for the water supply of some mills located in Sebeto Valley [73] and to bring water to a little area of “New City”.
The Augustan Aqueduct in Neapolis split into two main branches (Figure 3) [34]. The first branch served the upper part of the city, whereas the second branch served the lower part of the city.
Just before the tunnel towards Fuorigrotta district, there was a branch of the Augustan Aqueduct. This branch was recently found and investigated; it started from an elevation of 38 m a.s.l. and ran inside Posillipo Hill [66]. It served the rich villas located in the area (Figure 3). Immediately after the Fuorigrotta tunnel, there was another branch that was developed along the hill flank until reaching the channel-bridge located on the sea on the island of Nisida. In this locality, there was the luxury house of Lucio Licinio Lucullus, built in the 1st century AD in Naples.

3.4. Castellum Aquae (Piscina Mirabilis) and Other Reservoirs

The Piscina Mirabilis (Figure 3 and Figure 4d) constituted the end of the Aqua Augusta Aqueduct, and thus its castellum aquae, dating to the contemporary age of the aqueduct itself [75]. Located in the ancient Misenum (current Miseno locality, Bacoli municipality), its noteworthy importance depends on the fact that it was the most significant military reservoir during Roman times. Its dimensions were discussed for a long time [72,76,77,78]. The length, the width, and the height of the building are, respectively, about 70, 25, and 12 m. Since many authors assert that some parts of the reservoir are hidden, some differences exist in estimating the overall volume. These differences in reservoir dimensions make it difficult to estimate its volume, which varies from 10,700 m3 [77] to 12,600 m3 [75,77]. The elevation of the inflow point from the Augustan Aqueduct channel to the Piscina Mirabilis reservoir is estimated at about 17 m a.s.l. [5]. On the real functioning of the mechanism of this reservoir, the tapping works, and the water network branches inside the city and towards Misenum Harbor, some doubts still exist. Near the Piscina Mirabilis castellum aquae, there were two great reservoirs, probably a part of the grand villas, Grotta Dragonara and Cento Camerelle (the latter known also as Nerone’s jail). In Puteoli, the aqueduct fed several reservoirs, among them Piscina Cardito [69], from the 2nd century AD, and Piscina Lusciano, from the 1st century AD. In Baiae, the aqueduct fed a tunnel constituted by two reservoirs, named Crypta Neapolitana [21,78,79,80].

3.5. The Serino Springs (Caput Aquae)

The spring group’s mean annual overall discharge is of about 2.25 m3/s (Table 1; [38]). Both Acquaro-Pelosi and Urciuoli springs show a permanent regime with an average monthly spring discharge just over 1.2 m3/s (Figure 5). Urciuoli Spring discharge, less variable, shows limited fluctuations compared to Acquaro-Pelosi. In this latter case, there are greater fluctuations (Figure 5a). Among the two spring groups, the most productive and that with the most stable discharge is Urciuoli Spring (1.25 m3/s Figure 5b). These were the high springs of Acquaro-Pelosi chosen to constitute the caput aquae of the Augustan Aqueduct, as reported by many authors who have addressed this topic.

4. Discussion

During pre-Augustan times, the water supply of inhabitants of Campania Felix was granted by cisterns that collected rainfall water, wells located in the most depressed areas and near the coastline, and springs. These springs represented the caput aquae of some small aqueducts of local significance (Cfr. Section 2 and Section 3).
During Augustan times, the idea of the design of Serino Aqueduct emerged [81]. Indeed, Augustus believed the Campania region to be strategic and of secondary importance only to Rome. This ambitious construction was part of a broader planning initiative that needed to address the requirements of the “classis praetoria misenas”, the commercial harbor of Puteoli, and the population’s needs. Augustan work, focused mainly on the Phlegrean area, was also aimed at realizing and improving public buildings, public thermal structures, and baths linked to the construction of private houses and the adjustment of street networks. In the Phlegrean area, the construction of Crypta Neapolitana serves as an example of efforts to improve the connectivity between Puteoli and Neapolis [81]. Certainly, Neapolis, like Puteoli that became “Colonia Julia Augusta Puteoli”, enjoyed particular attention from the emperor. At the same time, Baiae, Bacoli, and Cumae were occupied mainly by residential villas equipped for fish breeding [81]. As mentioned earlier (Cfr. Section 3.1), in the epigraph about the restorations of Aqua Augusta during the time of Constantine the Great are listed the cities fed by aqueducts in order of priority following the amount of water consumption (Puteoli, Nola, Atella, Neapolis, Cumae, Acerrae, Baiae, and Misenum; [58]). Notably, Pompeii and Herculaneum are absent from this inscription, as they were buried under volcanic deposits from the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 AD. Thus, an estimation of population in the Campania region during the Augustan age is shown in Table 2. The table shows that the overall population is about 200,000 inhabitants, most likely slaves excluded.

The Caput Aquae Choice

Caput aquae (Figure 6a) needed to address three primary requirements: (i) an elevation that granted water outflow by gravity, with average hydraulic heads in the order of 0.4–1.0‰ [5]; (ii) a high spring discharge to accommodate the population being supplied, along with minimal fluctuations throughout the hydrological year or such to guarantee a certain flow rate during the long Mediterranean dry season; (iii) excellent quality features of spring waters. For these reasons, springs in the Phlegrean and Vesuvian areas were ruled out, leading to the necessary selection of karst springs. Geographically, the nearest were Sarno springs (Figure 3) that, together with Mofito and Calabricito springs, were fed by the Avella-Vergine-Pizzo d’Alvano Mountains karst aquifer. The Sarno springs are characterized by a high discharge (an overall amount of about 8.5 m3/s; Table 1; [42]) and emerge at an elevation ranging between 26 and 28 m a.s.l. Notwithstanding the short distance separating them from the Phlegrean Fields area, and their high discharge, their lower elevation of discharge did not allow them to be chosen as the caput aquae of the aqueduct. To support this, it has to be considered that the Aqua Augusta Aqueduct has a ground elevation of about 70 m a.s.l corresponding to Mura d’Arce locality, which is close to and downstream of all the Sarno springs (Figure 6b).
Always in the areas nearest Phlegrean Fields, can be considered as “origin” of Aqua Augusta, Abella springs, and in particular the Bocca dell’Acqua spring (Figure 1), as it is characterized by high discharge [44]; however, this spring is characterized by very varia-ble discharge due to its high ground elevation, and can dry out during summer. Thus, they were not chosen as the caput aquae, and Romans had to look to more distant water sources, overcoming difficulties of other types, such as the need to cross multiple watersheds along the route.
The choice of the Serino springs as the caput aquae determined the need to overcome the local watershed between the Sabato River and the Campania Plain, though a series of tunnels, which is not easy to imagine at that time.
From Serino springs, the Augustan channel reached Piscina Mirabilis, about 106 km away, declining more or less delicately, as deducted from slope analysis shown in Table 3. The average slope of Aqua Augusta is equal to about 2.5‰, as also found in the literature [36]. This value also agrees with the average slope values in other Roman aqueducts (0.4–1.0‰). Some stretches show a higher slope than others, where it is necessary to hypothesize the existence of “dropshafts” [84], hydraulic systems characterized by a vertical junction which connects two sub-horizontal segments of the main channel, allowing dissipation of the energy of the water flow (Figure 7).
The reasons leading Vipsanio Agrippa in the choice of the high-elevation spring of Acquaro-Pelosi (instead of the lowest-elevation spring of Urciuoli) as the main source of this magnificent and important hydraulic work with many inhabitants to feed seems not supported by hydraulic and hydrogeological evidence. First, it is noteworthy to consider the spring discharge regime of the Serino group (Figure 5). Indeed, during drought periods, springs can discharge only a few hundred liters per second for several months; during the historical drought period of the year 2002, Acquaro Spring dried out [38]). During the Roman period, the mean background climate of the Mediterranean basin was broadly similar to that of the present day [85]. The two spring groups responded to the same climatic inputs, and this response is governed by the hydraulic and hydrological characteristics of the karst aquifer. Therefore, it can be assumed that, even if the absolute discharges differed from the present ones, the regime was similar in relative terms (with Urciuoli having higher discharge than Acquaro-Pelosi). Assuming a stationary regime during the last 2000 years, these discharge features seem not to support the decision of Romans to feed the Augustan Aqueduct only with the Acquaro-Pelosi spring group. Furthermore, the hydraulic mechanism of emergence characterizing these springs, constituted by several discharges located on the Sabato River alluvial plain, was not so easy to tap in terms of the overall spring discharge. This is because the realization of several complicated underground drainage tunnels was necessary, while for Romans it was easiest to take pointed springs, like Aqua Marcia springs (representing the caput aquae of the homonymous aqueduct built in the 3rd century BC; [15]).
Furthermore, it is interesting note that the main channel of Acquaro-Pelosi springs crosses the area of Urciuoli Spring (Figure 6a), located 3.5 km downstream and with an elevation 40 m lower than the Acquaro-Pelosi one. These features did not prevent their usage as caput aquae of the Augustan Aqueduct, neither in slope nor in layout, rather they could have considerably enhanced its flow.
Another consideration deals with Sannitico Aqueduct fed by (and only as tested by literature sources) lower springs of Urciuoli, affected by a more stationary hydrological regime and by a higher mean annual discharge (Figure 5b). In the literature several authors believed that Sannitico Aqueduct was built about one century later than the Augustan Aqueduct, but on this dating several doubts can be raised. Indeed, the archaeological remains founded in Pratola Serra municipality (Avellino Province), based on the architectural technique, allow us to hypothesize the existence of this aqueduct since the early decades of the 1st century AD [86]. This hypothesis seems plausible if we consider that the city of Benevento (castellum aquae of Sannitico Aqueduct) was a pivotal settlement during Roman times from 86 BC when the city became a municipium. In that time, indeed, Benevento was settled on the crossing of Minucia and Appia roads, the main streets that linked Rome with the city of Brundisium, with the main harbor controlling the Middle East territory since the 2nd century BC. Here the famous Roman Cesarea Aqueduct was built during Herod’s government (first century BC), and it appears very plausible that Sannitico Aqueduct already existed at that time.
Already in the 1st century BC, this city exhibited a particular period of prosperity and well-being shown by the existence of magnificent public buildings. Examples are represented by the Santi Quaranta complex (1st century BC–1st century AD?), a long and magnificent cryptoporticus located at the entrance of Appia Road in Benevento coming from Rome [87], and by the Roman amphitheater (later 1st century BC–early 1st century AD [88]), a monumental building near Santi Quaranta. It was widely ascertained that the amphitheater was a place where gladiators fought and that the city had to be one of the branch offices of the Ludus Magnus gladiator school, the most important in Rome [89]. Thus, it is reasonable to hypothesize that Benevento needed a water supply before the 1st century BC. In a recent paper focused on Sannitico Aqueduct (Esposito et al., 2024 [20]), the authors hypothesized a maximum spring discharge arriving in Benevento ranging from 0.58 to 0.86 m3/s. As mentioned earlier, supposing that past and current spring discharge regimes are similar, it may be that this amount could also be granted during extreme droughts that hit Urciuoli Spring (Figure 5b). Furthermore, the overall spring discharge was only partially conveyed towards Benevento and more than 50% of the water tapped was lost. In fact, hypothesizing a link between the Augustan and Sannitico aqueducts, it could be possible that a huge part of Urciuoli Spring discharge fed the Aqua Augusta Aqueduct.
These reasons, together with the huge water demands of the Neapolitan area served by the Augustan Aqueduct (Table 3), lead us to think that Augustan and Sannitico aqueducts were a part of a unique and great hydraulic design, built approximately in the same period. Thus, the two aqueducts could be interconnected according to the water demand, allowing hydraulic exchanges in the layout where the two paths run parallel in Sabato River Valley (Figure 6a). The hypothesis of an interconnection between the two hydraulic systems is, among others, reported in the book “Pompeii” by Robert Harris [90], which describes the last four days of Pompeii before the 79 AD eruption and forerunner signals that affected the hydrogeological balance and the reduction of flows of Aqua Augusta. This is the phenomenon investigated by the main character (a young engineer sent from Rome as curator aquarum) who illustrates to Plinius the Older an intervention plan for repairing a supposed failure in the main channel following the branch for Pompeii: “I never seen Serino sources, but from this map it results that they rush into a basin from which start two branches. The major part of the water is toward West, to us, but a minor channel go towards North to feed Beneventum. If we convey all the water to North, closing the bulkheads towards West, we leave dry the channel towards west and we can enter for reparing”. It is not clear from which source Harris extrapolated this hypothesis, even if there are several bibliographical references [78,91,92]. This writing clearly assumes the connection between the two aqueducts and supports the idea of a unique and great hydraulic design, which was built in the 1st century BC.

5. Conclusions

The architectural techniques codified by Frontino ([17], 1st century AD), Vitruvius ([93], 15 BC), or Plinius ([94], 77–78 AD) guarantee that Romans knew about arches, syphons, and terracotta, stone, and lead pipes. The Romans typically favored constructing aqueducts in free channels or tunnels because the building material available did not allow the construction of forced channels, at least in the modern sense of the term. Starting from the 1st century BC, the challenge of supplying water to cities across the Roman Empire emerged, prioritizing high-quality spring water from great distances [69]. With these assumptions the Aqua Augusta Aqueduct, one of the biggest aqueducts in the Roman Empire, was designed for its dimensions and technical intricacy.
Based on topographic and geo-hydrological features of the area, urban settlements, and density of population distribution, the Acquaro-Pelosi springs as caput aquae of the Aqua Augusta Aqueduct were the most suitable choice, compared to all other possible ones. The steady flow regime and the very good hydrochemical properties of the spring water, together with the ground elevation, drove their selection criteria at the expense of others located a small distance away and, in some cases, with a higher spring discharge (e.g., Sarno springs group). After the fall of the Roman Empire, the Augustan Aqueduct was abandoned. Only in the late nineteenth century (more than one thousand years later) were the Serino springs tapped again to feed the Neapolis area with a new aqueduct. This new aqueduct guaranteed again high-quality water and was the first aqueduct of Neapolis. Successively, other karst springs were systematically tapped to supply the city (Torano, Maretto, Sarno, and Gari springs).
Some historical considerations and specific geo-hydrological features have highlighted how the Aqua Augusta and Sannitico aqueducts should have many links. Both could be part of a unique and great hydraulic system, built in the 1st century BC to supply residential areas of great importance (cities and patrician villas) or military areas (Miseno Harbor and Benevento). In the stretch where the two aqueducts run parallel to each other (in the Sabato River Valley), it is difficult not to hypothesize their connection, as well as because the Urciuoli Spring has a higher and more stable flow than Acquaro and Pelosi springs and the water demand throughout the coastal area (from Pompeii to Misenum) was greater. Furthermore, Benevento itself appears to have been an important Roman city since the 1st century BC, and therefore the construction of the two aqueducts was likely actually the project of a single, grandiose hydraulic water supply system. Chronologically, this wide hydraulic system appears second only to those already supplying Rome since the 3rd century BC, with the Aqua Marcia Aqueduct, which first tapped a karst spring in 144 BC.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.E. and F.F.; methodology, L.E., M.G., G.L. and F.F.; data curation, G.L. and M.G.; software, M.G. and G.L.; writing—original draft preparation, all the authors; writing—review and editing, all the authors; supervision, L.E. and F.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Acqua Bene Comune (ABC) Aqueduct Company for the supplying of discharge data, for the historical information provided, and for the access to archaeological sites.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Kramer, D. I Sumeri Alle Radici Della Storia; Newton & Compton: Rome, Italy, 1979. [Google Scholar]
  2. Pettinato, G. I Sumeri; Bompiani: Milan, Italy, 2005; ISBN 978-88-587-6975-1. [Google Scholar]
  3. Diringer, D. Le Iscrizioni Antico-Ebraiche Palestinesi; Monnier: Firenze, Italy, 1934. [Google Scholar]
  4. Strabone. Geographia; Eredi di Aldo Manuzio e Andrea Torresano, Venezia, 23 AD; Gece Kitaplığı: Ankara, Turkey, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  5. D’Agostino, P.; Merone, R.; Pugliese, F. Hypotheses for the Phlegrean Section of the Aqua Augusta Campaniae. Between Multidisciplinary Investigation and Hydrayulic Functioning. In Proceedings of the Hystory of Engineering, Naples, Italy, 16–17 May 2022. [Google Scholar]
  6. De Feo, G.; Angelakis, A.N.; Antinou, G.P.; El-Gohary, F.; Haut, B.; Passchier, C.W.; Zhang, X.Y. Historical and Technical Notes on Aqueducts from Prehistoric to Medieval Times. Water 2013, 5, 1996–2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ortloff, C.R. Roman Hydraulic Engineering: The Pont Du Gard Aqueduct and Nemausus (Nîmes) Castellum. Water 2021, 13, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Hoffman, G.; Kummer, S.; Marquez, R.; Valdivia Machego, M. The Roman Eifel Aqueduct: Archaeoseismological Evidence for Neotectonic Movement at the Transition of the Eifel to the Lower Rhine Embayment. Int. J. Earth Sci. 2019, 108, 2349–2360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ecker, A.; Tepper, Y.; Karasik, A. A Milestone without a Road: A Distance Marker below an Arch of the High Aqueduct to Caesarea. Atiqot 2023, 110, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Tomlov, J. Observations on the Design and Building of the Roman Segovia Aqueduct. In History of Construction Cultures; Mascarenhas-Mateus, J., Pires, P., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2021; ISBN 978-1-032-00203-3. [Google Scholar]
  11. Doolittle, W.E. Roman and Medieval Aqueduct Bridges on the Landscape of Spain: Issues of Construction. Preprints 2024, 2024020082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Crapper, M. The Valens Aqueduct of Constantinople: Hydrology and Hydraulics. Water Hist. 2020, 12, 427–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Keenan Jones, D. The Aqua Augusta. Regional Water Supply in Roman and Late Antique Campania; Department of Ancient History, Faculty of Arts, Macquarie University: Sidney, Australia, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  14. Bono, P.; Boni, C. Water Supply of Rome in Antiquity and Today. Environ. Geol. 1996, 27, 126–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Deming, D. The Aqueducts and Water Supply of Ancient Rome. Groundwater 2020, 78, 152–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Ashby, T. Gli Acquedotti dell’Antica Roma; Quasar: Rome, Italy, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  17. Frontinus, S.L. De Aquaeductu Urbis Romae; Createspace Independent Publishing Platform: Scotts Valley, CA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  18. Valipour, M.; Ahmed, A.T.; Antoniou, G.R.; Sala, R.; Parise, M.; Salgot, M.; Bensi, N.S.; Angelakis, A.N. Sustainability of Underground Hydro-Technologies: From Ancient to Modern Times and toward the Future. Sustanability 2020, 12, 8983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Lorenz, W.; Libertini, G.; Miccio, B.; Leone, N.; De Feo, G. Prominent Features of the Augustan Aqueduct in the Naples Bay Area. In Proceedings of the 4th IWA International Symposium on Water and Wastewater Technologies in Ancient Civilizations, Coimbra, Portugal, 17–19 September 2016. [Google Scholar]
  20. Esposito, L.; Ginolfi, M.; Leone, G.; Fiorillo, F. Hydrogeological and Historical Aspects of the Water Supply of Benevento Town since Roman Times. Acque Sotter. Ital. J. Groundw. 2024, 13, 145–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. De Feo, G.; Napoli, R.M.A. Historical Developement of the Augustan Acqueduct in Southern Italy: Twenty Centuries of Works from Serino to Naples. Water Sci. Technol. Water Supply 2007, 7, 131–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Libertini, G.; Miccio, B.; Leone, N.; de Feo, G. The Augustan Aqueduct of Capua and Its Historical Evolution. Water Supply 2016, 17, 1653–1662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. De Feo, G.; Del Prete, S.; Manco, M.; Maurano, F.; Tortora, A. L’acquedotto Romano Ipogeo e La Fontana Helvius a Sant’Egidio Del Monte Albino (Salerno, Campania). Opera Ipogea 2013, 2, 3–12. [Google Scholar]
  24. Ippolito, F.; Ortolani, F.; Russo, M. Struttura Marginale Tirrenica Dell’Appennino Campano: Reinterpretazione Di Dati Di Antiche Ricerche Di Idrocarburi. Mem Soc Geol It 1973, 12, 227–249. [Google Scholar]
  25. Bernasconi, A.; Bruni, P.; Gorla, L.; Principe, C.; Sbrana, A. Risultati Preliminari Dell’esplorazione Geotermica Profonda Nell’area Vulcanica Del Somma-Vesuvio. Rend. Della Soc. Geol. Ital. 1981, 4, 237–240. [Google Scholar]
  26. Ortolani, F.; Aprile, F. Principali Caratteristiche Stratigrafiche e Strutturali Dei Depositi Superficiali Della Piana Campana. Boll. Della Soc. Geol. Ital. 1985, 104, 195–206. [Google Scholar]
  27. Di Girolamo, P.; Morra, V.; Ortolani, F.; Pagliuca, S. Osservazioni Petrologiche e Geodinamiche Sul Magmatismo « orogenico Transizionale » Della Campania Nell’evoluzione Della Fascia Tirrenica Della Catena Appenninica. Boll. Della Soc. Geol. Ital. 1988, 107, 561–578. [Google Scholar]
  28. Marti, A.; Folch, A.; Costa, A. Reconstructing the Plinian and Co-Ignimbrite Sources of Large Volcanic Eruptions: A Novel Approach for the Campanian Ignimbrite. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 21220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Delibras, G.; Di Paola, G.M.; Rosi, M.; Santacroce, R. La Storia Eruttiva Del Complesso Vulcanico Somma-Vesuvio Ricostruita Dalle Successioni Piroclastiche Del Monte Somma. Rend. Soc. Ital. Mienralogia Petrogr. 1979, 35, 411–438. [Google Scholar]
  30. Santacroce, R. Somma-Vesuvius, CNR. Quad. La Ric. Sci. 1987, 8, 10–20. [Google Scholar]
  31. Celico, P. Schema Idrogeologico Dell’appennino Carbonatico Centro-Meridionale. Mem. Note Ist. Geol. Appl. Napoli 1978, 14, 5–97. [Google Scholar]
  32. Civita, M.; De Riso, R.; Nicotera, P. Sulla Struttura Idrogeologica Alimentante Le Sorgenti Del Fiume Sarno e Le Falde Pedemontane Profonde Della Parte Sud-Orientale Della Conca Campana. In Proceedings of the Atti II Convegno Internazionale sulle Acque Sotterranee, Palermo Palermo, Italy, 26–27 October 1970. [Google Scholar]
  33. Corniello, A.; De Riso, R.; Ducci, D. Idrogeologia e Idrochimica Della Piana Campana. Mem. Soc. Geol. Ital. 1990, 45, 351–360. [Google Scholar]
  34. Celico, P. Idrogeologia Dei Massicci Carbonatici, Delle Piane Quaternarie e Delle Aree Vulcaniche Dell’Italia Centro-Meridionale (Marche e Lazio Meridionali, Abruzzo, Molise e Campania); Quaderni della Cassa per il Mezzogiorno 4/2; Cassa per il Mezzogiorno: Rome, Italy, 1983. [Google Scholar]
  35. Santo, A.; Liguori, M.; Aquino, S.; Galasso, M. Problemi Di Geologia Ambientale Nei Polje Appenninici: L’esempio Della Piana Di Forino (Campania). Il Quat. Ital. J. Quat. Sci. 1998, 11, 233–245. [Google Scholar]
  36. Libertini, G.; De Feo, G.; Miccio, B. The Augustan Aqueduct in the Context of Road System and Urbanization of the Served Territory in Southern Italy. In Proceedings of the IWA Regional Symposium on Water, Wastewater and Environment, Patras, Greece, 22 March 2014. [Google Scholar]
  37. Fiorillo, F.; Esposito, L.; Testa, G.; Ciarcia, S.; Pagnozzi, M. The Upwelling Water Flux Feeding Springs: Hydrogeological and Hydraulic Features. Water 2018, 10, 501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Fiorillo, F.; Esposito, L.; Guadagno, F.M. Analyses and Forecast of Water Resources in an Ultra-Centenarian Spring Discharge Series from Serino (Southern Italy). J. Hydrol. 2007, 336, 125–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Celico, P.; Esposito, L.; De Gennaro, M.; Mastrangelo, E. La Falda Ad Oriente Della Città Di Napoli: Idrodinamica e Qualità Delle Acque. Geol. Romana 1994, 30, 653–660. [Google Scholar]
  40. Brancaccio, L.; Cinque, A.; Romano, P.; Rosskopf, C. L’evoluzione Delle Pianure Costiere Della Campania: Geomorfologia e Neotettonica. Mem. Soc. Geol. Ital. 1995, LIII, 313–336. [Google Scholar]
  41. Bellucci, F. Nuove Conoscenze Stratigrafiche Sui Depositi Vulcanici Presenti Nel Sottosuolo Del Settore Meridionale Della Piana Campana. Ph.D. Thesis, Geophysics and Vulcanology, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  42. Petrone, P.; De Vita, P.; Marsiglia, P.; Allocca, P.; Coda, S.; Lepore, D.; Allocca, V. Hydrogeological Conceptual Model and Groundwater Recharge of Avella Mts. Karst Aquifer (Southern Italy): A Literature Review and Update. J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud. 2024, 54, 101871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Allocca, V.; Celico, F.; Celico, P.; De Vita, P.; Fabbrocino, S.; Mattia, C.; Monacelli, G.; Musilli, P.; Piscopo, V.; Scalise, A.R.; et al. Illustrative Notes of the Hydrogeological Map of Southern Italy; Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato: Rome, Italy, 2007; ISBN 88-448-0215-5. [Google Scholar]
  44. Aquino, S.; Allocca, V.; Esposito, L.; Celico, P. Le Risorse Idriche Della Provincia di Avellino (Appennino Meridionale, Italia); Arti Grafiche Cinque: Avellino, Italy, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  45. Fiorelli, T. Cenni Sull’andamento Della Falda Acquifera Nel Sottosuolo Della Zona Tra Napoli e Pomigliano d’Arco in Relazione Colla Costituzione Geologica e La Topografia Ed Idrologia Superficiale Del Territorio Medesimo. Ann. Genio Civ. 1926, 7, 613–626. [Google Scholar]
  46. Orsi, G.; D’Antonio, M.; De Vita, A.; Gallo, G. The Neapolitan Yellow Tuff, a Large-Magnitude Trachytic Phreatoplinian Eruption: Eruptive Dynamics, Magma Withdrawal and Caldera Collapse. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 1992, 53, 257–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Scarpati, C.; Cole, P.; Perrotta, A. The Neapolitan Yellow Tuff. A Large Volume Multiphase Eruption from Campi Flegrei, Southern Italy. Bullettin Vulcanol. 1993, 55, 343–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Deino, A.L.; Orsi, G.; de Vita, S.; Piochi, M. The Age of Neapolitan Yellow Tuff Caldera-Forming Eurption (Campi Flegrei Caldera—Italy) Assessed by 40Ar/39Ar Dating Method. J. Vulcanol. Geotherm. Res. 2004, 133, 157–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Albert, P.G.; Giaccio, B.; Isaia, R.; Costa, A.; Niespolo, E.M.; Nomade, S.; Pereira, A.; Renne, P.R.; Hinchliffe, A.; Mark, D.F.; et al. Evidence for a Large-Magnitude Eruption from Campi Flegrei Caldera (Italy) at 29 Ka. Geol. Soc. Am. 2019, 47, 595–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Civita, M.; Medici, G.B.; de Riso, R.; Nicotera, P.; Nota d’Elogio, E. Memorie Descrittive Della Carta Idrogeologica Della Campania Nord-Occidentale. In Proceedings of the Atti II Convegno Internazionale Sulle Acque Sotterranee, Palermo, Italy, 25–27 October 1973. [Google Scholar]
  51. Celico, P.; Aliberti, F.; Biscardi, D.; De Fusco, R.; Mazzacca, F.R.; Paoletti, A. Relazioni Tra Idrodinamica Sotterranea e Caratteristiche Fisico-Chimiche Delle Acque Minerali di Castellammare Di Stabia. In Proceedings of the Atti Congresso Internazionale Igiene Medica Termale, Castellammare di Stabia, Italy, 24 October 1986. [Google Scholar]
  52. Celico, P.; De Vita, P.; Pagano, D.; Ronca, A.; Stanzione, D.; Vallario, A. Idrogeologia Ed Idrogeochimica Dei Campi Flegrei: Relazioni Tra Chimismo Delle Acque e Idrodinamica Sotterranea. In Proceedings of the Atti Convegno Bradisismo e Fenomeni Connessi, Napoli, Italy, 1987; pp. 33–42, 167–185. [Google Scholar]
  53. Bellucci, F.; Corniello, A.; De Riso, R. Geology and Hydrogeology of the Somma-Vesuvio Volcano (Southern Italy). In Proceedings of the Memories of XXIV IAH Congress Hydrogeology of Hard Rocks, Oslo, Norway, 2 July 1993. [Google Scholar]
  54. Celico, N.; Celico, P.; Ghiara, M.R.; Piscopo, V.; Stanzione, D.; Aquino, S. Caratteristiche Geochimiche Delle Acque Sotterranee Dell’area Del Somma-Vesuvio (Campania, Italia). Geol. Romana 1994, 30, 709–724. [Google Scholar]
  55. Celico, P.; Stanzione, D.; Esposito, L.; Ghiara, M.R.; Piscopo, V.; Caliro, S.; La Gioia, P. Caratterizzazione Idrogeologica e Idrogeochimica Dell’area Vesuviana. Boll. Soc. Geol. Ital. 1997, 117, 3–20. [Google Scholar]
  56. Camardo, D. Ercolano: La Gestione Delle Acque in Una Città Romana. Oebalus Studi Sulla Camp. Nell’antichità 2007, 7, 167–187. [Google Scholar]
  57. Keenan-Jones, D. The Aqua Augusta and the Control of Water Resources in the Bay of Naples. In Proceedings of the Australasian Society for Classical Studies Conference 31, Perth, Australia, 2 February 2010. [Google Scholar]
  58. Miccio, B.; Potenza, U. Gli Acquedotti Di Napoli; Tip. Gaeta.; A.M.A.N—Azienda Municipalizzata Acquedotto di Napoli: Napoli, Italy, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  59. Colucci-Pescatori, G. Evidenze Archeologiche in Irpinia. In La Romanisation du Samnius aux IIe et Ier Siecles av. J.-C.; Centre Jean Bérard: Naples, Italy, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  60. Duncan Jones, R. Money and Government in the Roman Empire; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  61. Mariniello, A. Il Tracciato Dell’Acquedotto Augusteo Nel Tratto Napoli-Miseno. Club Alpino Ital. Sez. Napoli 1988, 3, 34–36. [Google Scholar]
  62. Savino, E. Campania Tardoantica; Edipuglia: Bari, Italy, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  63. Lettieri, P. Studi Sull’Acquedotto Claudio e Progetto per Rifornire Di Acqua Potabile La Città di Napoli; Manfredi: Napoli, Italy, 1862. [Google Scholar]
  64. Sgobbo, I. L’acquedotto Romano Della Campania: “Fontis Augustei Aqueductus. Not. Scavi 1938, 1, 75–95. [Google Scholar]
  65. Elia, O. Un Tratto Dell’acquedotto Detto “Claudio” in Territorio Di Sarno. Camp. Romana 1938, I, 99–112. [Google Scholar]
  66. De Simone, D.; Ferrari, G. Acquedotto Augusteo Della Campania Notizie Preliminari Sul Tratto Fuorigrotta-Coroglio (Napoli). J. Fasti Online 2024. Available online: www.fastionline.org/docs/FOLDER-it-2024-576.pdf (accessed on 8 November 2025).
  67. Cosimi, E. Fons Augusteus. Le Mura d’Arce Di Sarno Ed Il Doppio Canale Di Palma Campania. Gradus 2008, 3, 23–42. [Google Scholar]
  68. Abate, F. Studi Sull’acquedotto Claudio e Progetto per Fornire Di Acqua Potabile La Città di Napoli; Stamperia Dell’iride: Naples, Italy, 1862. [Google Scholar]
  69. Preziosi, G. L’acquedotto Di Serino Nella Storia Del Territorio; Carla Masetti: San Gemini, Italy, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  70. Beloch, K.J. Campanien, Geschichte Und Topographie Des Antiken Neapel Und Seiner Umgebung; Morgenstern: Breslau, Poland, 1890. [Google Scholar]
  71. Matsui, S.; Sorrentino, L.; Sakai, S.; Shimizu, Y.; Iorio, V. La Provenienza Dell’acqua Potabile Dell’antica Pompei: Un’ipotesi Basata Sull’analisi Chimica Dei Residui Calcarei Degli Impianti Idrici. J. Fasti Online 2009. Available online: https://www.fastionline.org/s/folder/item/96799 (accessed on 8 November 2025).
  72. Maiuri, A. Ercolano. I Nuovi Scavi (1927–1958); Istituto poligrafico dello Stato, Libreria della Stato: Rome, Italy, 1958. [Google Scholar]
  73. Celano, C. Notizie Del Bello Dell’antico e Del Curioso Della Città di Napoli; Chiarini: Naples, Italy, 1962. [Google Scholar]
  74. Fiengo, G. L’acquedotto Di Carmignano e Lo Sviluppo di Napoli in Età Barocca; Bibl. Dell’Archivio Stor. Ital.; Olschki: Florence, Italy, 1990; Volume 26. [Google Scholar]
  75. De Feo, G.; De Gisi, S.; Malvano, C. The Greatest Water Reservoirs in the Ancient Roman World and the “Piscina Mirabilis” Misenum. Water Sci. Tecnhnology Water Supply 2010, 10, 350–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Borriello, M.R.; D’Ambrosio, A. Baiae-Misenum. Forum Ital. Reg. I 1979, XIV, 179. [Google Scholar]
  77. Caputo, P.; Costigliola, F. Il “Ritrovamento” Del Punto Di Alimentazione Idrico Di Piscina Mirabilis: Riflessioni Su Approvvigionamenti Idrici Del Porto e Della Città Di Misenum. Piscina Mirabilis: Storia, Scoperte e Studi. Ric. Stor. Epigr. 2016, 14, 18.1–18.11. [Google Scholar]
  78. Adam, J.P. L’Arte di Costruire Presso i Romani. Materiali e Tecniche; Longanesi & C.: Milan, Italy, 1988; ISBN 88-304-0855-7. [Google Scholar]
  79. Catalano, R. Acqua e Acquedotti Romani. Fontis Augustei Aqueductus; Arte Tipografica: Altamura, Italy, 2003; ISBN 88-87375-54-2. [Google Scholar]
  80. Passchier, C.W.; Schram, W.D. Roman Aqueducts. An Introduction. 2004. Available online: http://www.cs.uu.nl/wilke/introduction/index.html (accessed on 8 November 2025).
  81. Morretta, S. L’Acquedotto Augusteo Di Serino (Av). Geoarcheologia 1990, 2, 57–89. [Google Scholar]
  82. Camodeca, G. Puteoli Romana: Istituzione e Società; Unior Press: Naples, Italy, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  83. Vegezio. Epitoma Rei Militaris; Nicolaus Ketelaer e Gerardus de Leempt IV-V Century AD; CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform: Scotts Valley, CA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  84. Chanson, H. An Experimental Study of Roman Dropshaft Hydraulics. J. Hydraul. Res. 2002, 40, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Demordy, B.J.; van Beek, R.P.H.; Meeks, E.; Klein Goldewijk, K.; Scheidel, W.; van der Velde, Y.; Bierkens, M.F.P.; Wassen, M.J.; Dekker, S.C. A Virtual Water Network of the Roman World. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2014, 18, 5025–5040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Cristilli, A. L’acquedotto Romano Di Pratola Serra (Avellino) “The Roman Aqueduct of Pratola Serra (Avellino)”. Rend. Dell’Accademia Archeol. Lett. Belle Arti 2005, LXXXIII 171-190. [Google Scholar]
  87. Galasso, G. The Benevento Amphitheater Reappears. Archeo 1999, 11, 14–15. [Google Scholar]
  88. Giampaola, D. Napoli Stazione Chiaia—Linea 6 Della Metropolitana Di Napoli, Valorizzazione e Gestione Integrata Del Patrimonio Archeologico. In Proceedings of the XIV Borsa Mediterranea del Turismo Archeologico, Paestum, Italy, 17 November 2011. [Google Scholar]
  89. Rotili, M. Benevento Romana e Longobarda. L’immagine Urbana; Banca Sannitica: Ercolano, Ercolano, 1986. [Google Scholar]
  90. Harris, R. Pompeii; Mondadori: Milan, Italy, 2003; ISBN 978-88-04-49650-2. [Google Scholar]
  91. Hodge, T.A. Roman Aqueducts & Water Supply; Duckworth: London, UK, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  92. D’Arms, J. Romans on the Bay of Naples; a Social and Cultural Study of the Villas and Their Owners from 150 B.C. to A.D. 400; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1970. [Google Scholar]
  93. Vitruvius. De Architectura; 15 AD; Eucharius Silber: Roma, Italy, 1487. [Google Scholar]
  94. Plinio, T.O. Naturalis Historia; 77-78 AD; Giovanni da Spira: Venezia, Italy, 1487. [Google Scholar]
Water 17 03342 g005
Figure 5. Monthly mean discharge of (a) Acquaro-Pelosi and (b) Urciuoli springs (period 1934–2018); 5th and 95th percentile discharges are shown.
Figure 5. Monthly mean discharge of (a) Acquaro-Pelosi and (b) Urciuoli springs (period 1934–2018); 5th and 95th percentile discharges are shown.
Water 17 03342 g005
Water 17 03342 g006
Figure 6. Aqueduct paths and hydrogeological sketch map of (a) Caput aquae area of Serino springs area and (b) Sarno springs and Mura d’Arce area.
Figure 6. Aqueduct paths and hydrogeological sketch map of (a) Caput aquae area of Serino springs area and (b) Sarno springs and Mura d’Arce area.
Water 17 03342 g006
Water 17 03342 g007
Figure 7. Aqua Augusta Aqueduct path with elevation points (blue triangles) and average slope values. The solid line represents the aqueduct layout, the dashed one represents sections of the main channel supposed to be interrupted by the presence of dropshafts to maintain the slope of the main channel ≈ 0.0004. The numbers are referred to the elevations points in Figure 3.
Figure 7. Aqua Augusta Aqueduct path with elevation points (blue triangles) and average slope values. The solid line represents the aqueduct layout, the dashed one represents sections of the main channel supposed to be interrupted by the presence of dropshafts to maintain the slope of the main channel ≈ 0.0004. The numbers are referred to the elevations points in Figure 3.
Water 17 03342 g007
Table 2. Roman cities in Campania Felix region and related numbers of inhabitants during the Augustan age. * The extension of the city was inferred by [36].
Table 2. Roman cities in Campania Felix region and related numbers of inhabitants during the Augustan age. * The extension of the city was inferred by [36].
TownNumber of InhabitantsReferences
Puteoli<40,000[82]
Nola<100 *Estimated by authors considering information in [70]
Atella21,800[36]
Neapolis30,000–50,000[70]
CumaeN.d.
AcerraN.d.
BaiaeN.d.
Misenum10,000[83] (4th–5th century)
Herculaneum4000[82]
OplontisN.d.
Pompeii20,000[70]
Note: N.d. means no data.
Table 3. Slope values for some stretches of the Augustan Aqueduct.
Table 3. Slope values for some stretches of the Augustan Aqueduct.
Stretch (Number)Starting
Elevation
(m a.s.l.)		Ending Elevation
(m a.s.l.)		Distance
(km)		Slope
137120518.00.0092
22057016.40.0082
3705013.70.0015
4504713.80.00022
547444.50.00067
644417.40.00041
741408.00.00013
840387.80.00026
938365.50.00036
103608.40.0043
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Esposito, L.; Ginolfi, M.; Leone, G.; Fiorillo, F. Geo-Hydrological Characteristics That Contributed to the Choice and Configuration of the Ancient Roman Aqueduct Aqua Augusta from Serino Springs. Water 2025, 17, 3342. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17233342

AMA Style

Esposito L, Ginolfi M, Leone G, Fiorillo F. Geo-Hydrological Characteristics That Contributed to the Choice and Configuration of the Ancient Roman Aqueduct Aqua Augusta from Serino Springs. Water. 2025; 17(23):3342. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17233342

Chicago/Turabian Style

Esposito, Libera, Michele Ginolfi, Guido Leone, and Francesco Fiorillo. 2025. "Geo-Hydrological Characteristics That Contributed to the Choice and Configuration of the Ancient Roman Aqueduct Aqua Augusta from Serino Springs" Water 17, no. 23: 3342. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17233342

APA Style

Esposito, L., Ginolfi, M., Leone, G., & Fiorillo, F. (2025). Geo-Hydrological Characteristics That Contributed to the Choice and Configuration of the Ancient Roman Aqueduct Aqua Augusta from Serino Springs. Water, 17(23), 3342. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17233342

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop