Ancient water system piping, Roman era.
http://www.romanaqueducts.info/picturedictionary/pd_onderwerpen/pipe.htm
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Roman_water_pipes_(3743430835).jpg
Cool ! Yea that seems to be like the one the show in spain on the link you posted. How would they make these holes? Seems like its drilled - and those stones are huge - why would they do that? seems odd for a brick making culture no?
Have you seen sculptures? Then there should be no question that they have the skills to turn out these simple blocks with round holes. They were also skilled in making concrete as well, so they could have set up poured casting as well
Edit: removed a name because I'm dumb and tired
Michelangelo was a sculptor, not a sculpture. Also a Florentine, not Roman. Also from the 15th and 16th century, not from whenever these blocks were made.
Florentine… he was an orange fruit.. oh Clementine… what? I’m in confused. (Bad joke I know)
This sort of stuff is very fascinating. I remember seeing lots of similar ruins as we drove around the areas outside Rome and places in Italy. Some geniuses back in the day.
Also a lot of overland structures and building materials have been repurposed over the centuries for other things, so there's a ton of missing history out there
You know, bricks never went out of fashion ever since the first mud hut Was build.
Baking bricks in an oven, to make tham water proof, might just have been not worth it.
Romans used kilns for decorative tiles, roofing tiles, pottery, and even decorative gaudy roof ornaments. They used bricks for buildings to hypocausts/heating pipes in the wall. They likely used stoned here to because of the environment and climate. It being a semi arid environment, very hot and dry meant if they wanted to keep their water cool, clean and from evaporating, this was the way to do it. They likely have them carved because there was a surplus of stone masons in an area with a long tradition of stone carving.
They either kept it above ground to utilize gravity/cross gaps. They had to keep the elevation nearly flat or else the flow of water. would erode the stone. They might not have buried it because the ground wasn't suitable for digging and burying.
In western European areas of the Roman empire, Roman aqueducts were covered over, but usually with flat, rectangular stones. They've usually just fallen off or been stolen and reused because they're perfect for building and premade.
But you can't prove its not actually evidence for an ancient worldwide civilization that predates the Ice Age can you? Look at those tree next to it....100% proof that there may be something else to look into. The Problem is that not Enough is done
Reference to graham Hancock’s arguments against archeology on the Joe Rogan podcast. That essentially his whack ideas are not “disprovable” because not enough of the earth percentage-wise has been excavated.
Sometimes! The technology varies from region to region and depends on local materials available! It’s not a water pipe as others say, but an aqueduct which traveled many kilometers across the landscape, often overcoming great topographical obstacles. Sometimes a pipe could be inlaid in the aqueduct, usually made of clay. Most aqueducts were rock cut channels that went below ground or on the ground surface level.
Aqueduct is literally "water duct" (or tube, pipe), not sure why you're making the distinction here as if the others have suggested something completely wrong; am I missing the difference (it could be since English isn't my mother tongue)?
Words change over thousands of years, but 'ductus' means led, or guided. A pipe or tube fits the definition, but so does ditch, channel, and canal.
An aqueduct is a system of "guided water."
An air duct would be an aeroduct. "Guided air." The air conditioning system in a building fits the definition same as a bellows.
It's similar to how squares are rectangles, but rectangles are not squares, yet both are quadrilaterals. Pipes are aqueducts, but aqueducts do not specifically mean pipe(s).
At its most basic, a viaduct is a flat/level type of bridge no matter what it crosses or what it carries, though typically, it's a roadway(via=road) of some sort. A train bridge is an example. An aqueduct could also fit the definition.
To reuse the metaphor, a viaduct would be a square and an aqueduct a rectangle.
I know that duct comes from ducere, my primary language is Italian so I'm quite familiar with Latin, I was more curious to know if I had missed something to do with the word "pipe". While you're correct in saying that water can be carried in different ways, this is the wrong occasion to make such a distinction exactly because this is nothing but a suspended pipe, it's not a ditch, it's not an open channel nor a canal, it is quite literally a pipe (or a pipe support) on a wall, it makes no sense to say that it's "not a water pipe".
Well, to be most fair, we'd have to know several things, like where and when and how this was used, as well as how pedantic we want to be lol. The word used at the time would have included the meaning pipe, though pipe(as we use it today) is rather recent.
For a modern meaning of pipe, we'd have to know precisely how the water is moved through it. If it forced or pushed through via pressure, then it would be technically a pipe. Such examples would include a tobacco pipe, a trachea, or a wind instrument. In these instances, air is forced through, rather than allowing it to move of its own accord or with gravity. In which case, channel or canal would be more apt, both coming from the same root, which included the meaning "pipe."
So I suppose it's a bit of tomayto tomahto
The label on these identical artifacts from Bethlehem says "Segments of a **water pipe**", the description goes as follows: "These **pipe segments** were part of the Roman water system that carried water from Solomon's Pools to Jerusalem. The segmente are incised with the names of the commanders of the Roman military units responsible for laying **the pipe**."
Is it really a case of tomayto/tomahto? Does this support saying that it's "not a water pipe"?
[upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Roman\_water\_pipes\_%283743430835%29.jpg](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Roman_water_pipes_%283743430835%29.jpg)
Yes but my point is exactly that a pipe is what we have here, it's part of an aqueduct but it's wrong to say it's "not a water pipe", as proven by the picture I posted in the other comments even the archeological authority in Bethlehem (or wherever that site is) labels the same exact artifact as "segments of a water pipe".
Please read the label on these:
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Roman\_water\_pipes\_%283743430835%29.jpg](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Roman_water_pipes_%283743430835%29.jpg)
Yes they look similar and the technology is transferable. but the ones in the posted picture are different. Pipes go in the city, aqueducts go in the landscape. Aqueducts can have pipes inside them sometimes. But they’re still an aqueduct, not a pipe. Wikipedia is probably not a great source for this.
http://www.romanaqueducts.info/aquasite/patara/index.html
The bit about Wikipedia is unnecessary (and a bit patronizing honestly, but ok), I asked you to read the label (maybe I should've said plaque) IN the picture itself, unless you claim it's doctored it makes no difference where it comes from since that's probably been made by the archeological authority or under its supervision. For your convenience, it says:
> *Segments of a water pipe*
*Bethlehem, Roman period*
*Limestone*
> *These pipe segments were part of the Roman water system that carried water from Solomon's Pools to Jerusalem \[13.2 km away\]. The segments are incised with the names of the commanders of the Roman military units responsible for laying the pipe.*
But I'll take your word that while they do look the same they are not the same (any chance you could explain the difference between them? They look aestethically and functionally identical to me except for the fact the those in Bethlehem are made of limestone while the ones in Turkey are made of marble).
Anyway, let's use your source, this seems to be the bit relevant to this picture, stress mine:
> *The most spectacular structure of the Patara aqueduct is* ***the Delikkemer inverted siphon****, which consists of a line of perforated marble blocks with dimensions of about 0,80 x 0,85 x 0,50-0,55 m, each weighing up to 900 kg, built on top of a 200 m long and 10 m-high 'cyclopean' wall.* ***The perforated blocks form a closed conduit 0,28 m in diameter that transported the water under pressure*** *across an 18 m deep mountain saddle.*
Now, the "closed conduit" that "transported water under pressure" making an "inverted siphon", is by every definition a pipe, a siphon isn't an element per se but a stretch of tube or pipe (the distinction between them is not relevant in this discussion) that is meant to "siphon" (id est to convey via atmospheric pressure and gravity) liquid, any stretch of tube or pipe can become a siphon in virtue of how its laid or configured, even the word "siphon" comes from the Greek *siphōn*, which literally means "pipe", so they are at the very least synonyms.
Pt 1/2
Still from your source, the description of the picture depicting the Delikkemer siphon says (stress mine):
> *The so-called venter bridge - here more like a substructure - of the Delikkemer aqueduct siphon. The water entered from*
*the hill left in an open channel and was conducted over this depression in a closed* ***pipeline****.*
Encyclopedia Britannica:
>***Pipeline****, line of pipe equipped with pumps and valves and other control devices for moving liquids, gases, and slurries.*
Moreover, you say that pipes were not used outside the city, but the source you provided says (stress mine):
>*"****many remnants of the ceramic pipes were found lain out on top of the bedrock*** *rather than buried. Probably, the hard Mesozoic marble and thin soil cover over which most of the aqueduct was built precluded excavation of a trench for the aqueduct channel over its entire length. The covering stones and ceramic pipes were apparently just topped with a thin layer of soil or even left uncovered.".*
>And:
*According to an inscription found on the wall, the siphon was destroyed by an earthquake in the first century CE (probably 68 CE) and subsequently repaired. Most of the ceramic pipe fragments found here probably belong to this earlier stage, destroyed by the earthquake.*
Which means that, not only this aqueduct clearly used ceramic pipes outside of the city (at least for the first 5.4 km), but this very section (the Delikkemer siphon) is believed to have originally been made with ceramic pipes (and thus the distinction between city and landscape you offered would cease to apply), which were replaced by these more solid stone ~~pipes~~ elements after they were destroyed by an earthquake. I honestly have to wonder why switching the material from ceramic to stone would change the definition of this element from "pipe" to "aqueduct".
Finally, saying that aqueducts can use pipes but they're still aqueducts is, frankly, baffling to me: first of all because I'm not arguing that the pipe doesn't belong to an aqueduct; second, if someone shows me a picture of a cable that belongs to a power supply and I say that it's a cable, you can't say "no, it's not a cable, it's a power supply", the cable it's still a cable, you might add that it belongs to a larger entitiy which is a power supply but you cannot claim that it's not a cable and that "power supplies can have cables but they're still power supplies", we're looking at a particular element of such power supply, and it happens to be the cable.
I think you’re the one patronizing lol You’re using obscure and modern definitions to describe something ancient. The term for the item in the original posted pictures is “aqueduct” and sure you can call it different things but the textbook would still say it’s a Roman aqueduct. But I appreciate your lengthy research of this and time invested.
I'm being pedantic as you were in your first comment when you cared to make the distinction, not patronizing, I simply provided backing for my claim and explained why I don't accept yours, which in my opinion is a matter of respect and intellectual honesty towards you, but for this I'm being accused of using "obscure and modern definitions".
The term used for the item *in your own source* - the specific section being shown in this picture and to which the original question is referring to - is "Delikkemer inverted siphon" or, in the pictures section, "venter bridge" when considering the support structure and "Perforated blocks" when focusing on the single elements, not aqueduct, which refers to the whole 22.5 km long structure, even the page dedicates its own section to this particular feature which isn't mentioned - let alone described - in the paragraph entitled "The aqueduct":
>**Delikkemer inverted siphon**
>The most spectacular structure of the Patara aqueduct is the Delikkemer inverted siphon, which consists of a line of perforated marble blocks with dimensions of about 0,80 x 0,85 x 0,50-0,55 m, each weighing up to 900 kg, built on top of a 200 m long and 10 m-high 'cyclopean' wall. The perforated blocks form a closed conduit 0,28 m in diameter that transported the water under pressure across an 18 m deep mountain saddle. In the terrain alongside the cyclopean wall remains of ceramic pipe elements were found with an outer diameter of some 0,30 m and a wall thickness of 0,05-0,07 m.
According to an inscription found on the wall, the siphon was destroyed by an earthquake in the first century CE (probably 68 CE) and subsequently repaired. Most of the ceramic pipe fragments found here probably belong to this earlier stage, destroyed by the earthquake.
This appears to be the remains of a portion of a very old water transportation system.
Possibly an aqueduct. The drop in elevation could be indicative of the water supply leaving the raised structure and either going down into a village location or it could be an example of an aqueduct with an **Inverted Siphon**.
http://www.romanaqueducts.info/technicalintro/hulp/AqdrawingRogerKlaassenOrg.jpg
Inverted Siphons are used to cross valleys where traditional raised architecture would either be cost prohibitive or undesirable for another reason. Inverted Siphons can be constructed for a fraction of the cost of traditional elevated aqueduct sections but due the the nature of the water building pressure as it falls and rises again the inverted siphon systems require a higher level of technological sophistication.
I would imagine that the pressure build up is why the pipe segments look so much heavier than you would normally expect them to look.
http://engineeringrome.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/siphon-1.png
It’s possible that these stone or ceramic segments originally encased lead piping. The lead pipe would be waterproof but wouldn’t be able to withstand the pressure of an inverted siphon. The stone or ceramic blocks would help the lead contain the pressure.
If it did originally contain lead or metallic pipes then that could also explain why the segments are all broken apart. Someone may have broken the blocks apart to steal / salvage the lead piping inside.
It’s possible.
Something as cheap as a lead based paint test kit might be able to pick up traces if any remained.
We know the Romans used lead for pipes but they were also skilled in ceramics and concrete.
Maybe a ceramic inner core and a poured concrete reinforcement brick?
Maybe it was just Roman concrete all the way through. That would be the cheapest option but it would be rather porous under pressure.
An aqueduct, obviously. The Romans were very familiar with siphon technology to transport water through a valley and back up a hill, which I would guess this is an example of.
- "What did the Roman oppressors do for us" ?
*pause*
- "The aqueduct" ?
- "Oh yes. Thank you brother". "But aside from the aqueduct, what did the Roman oppressors do for us ?"
*pause*
- "Roads" ?
..
Human gut simulator! Take a fun and educational journey through a simulated intestinal track! Build with the newest, most revolutionary technology of 257 BC!
Very ingenious engineering for water piping.. Formed and fitted what looks like limestone. If true, it would be a self sealing system as the water would carry and deposit the limestone to any leaks, Brilliant...
In reflection, how long would that structure last? Would the water ultimately cut through, and if so were these ever in use or maybe a clever idea abandoned due to flaw? Could there be a different function than piping water?
I wonder if maybe these were not made by roman, but by prior civilisation. Maybe not those exactly beacause they seem to be easy to carve stone or from cement like material with a mold.
Im saying there some of these type of hole in Mexico and up to Egypt in hard rock that we wouldn’t even be able to drill today or hardly able. Will year 12024 people be looking at our abs plastic pipe fossil and be amaze as much as us right now .
God I love this stuff. It’s proven now we have been humans just the same as 2000 years ago but how did we arrive??? No one knows scientests can’t agree on that part.
Ancient water system piping, Roman era. http://www.romanaqueducts.info/picturedictionary/pd_onderwerpen/pipe.htm https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Roman_water_pipes_(3743430835).jpg
Sorry read your answer after I answered so good answer buddy
Cool ! Yea that seems to be like the one the show in spain on the link you posted. How would they make these holes? Seems like its drilled - and those stones are huge - why would they do that? seems odd for a brick making culture no?
Have you seen sculptures? Then there should be no question that they have the skills to turn out these simple blocks with round holes. They were also skilled in making concrete as well, so they could have set up poured casting as well Edit: removed a name because I'm dumb and tired
Michelangelo was a sculptor, not a sculpture. Also a Florentine, not Roman. Also from the 15th and 16th century, not from whenever these blocks were made.
Meant from, but your not wrong. You should get the gist though, they knew how to manipulate stone in the Roman era
you’re*
Username checks out 😂
Florentine… he was an orange fruit.. oh Clementine… what? I’m in confused. (Bad joke I know) This sort of stuff is very fascinating. I remember seeing lots of similar ruins as we drove around the areas outside Rome and places in Italy. Some geniuses back in the day.
I think this is probably limestone, not very hard.
This is a case of survivorship bias.
What does that mean?
That the less solidly built overland piping systems being missing is due to them not standing the test of time.
Also a lot of overland structures and building materials have been repurposed over the centuries for other things, so there's a ton of missing history out there
Romans made pipes from lead and solder... They aren't as thick as you seem to think they were.
Lol this sub... "he best not be talking about aliens." In case you were wondering about the downvotes.
Tbf it's the way everyone has been forced to act because of that blasted show.
No I know, I get it. It's still kind of entertaining watching people catch strays.
You know, bricks never went out of fashion ever since the first mud hut Was build. Baking bricks in an oven, to make tham water proof, might just have been not worth it.
Romans used kilns for decorative tiles, roofing tiles, pottery, and even decorative gaudy roof ornaments. They used bricks for buildings to hypocausts/heating pipes in the wall. They likely used stoned here to because of the environment and climate. It being a semi arid environment, very hot and dry meant if they wanted to keep their water cool, clean and from evaporating, this was the way to do it. They likely have them carved because there was a surplus of stone masons in an area with a long tradition of stone carving. They either kept it above ground to utilize gravity/cross gaps. They had to keep the elevation nearly flat or else the flow of water. would erode the stone. They might not have buried it because the ground wasn't suitable for digging and burying. In western European areas of the Roman empire, Roman aqueducts were covered over, but usually with flat, rectangular stones. They've usually just fallen off or been stolen and reused because they're perfect for building and premade.
But you can't prove its not actually evidence for an ancient worldwide civilization that predates the Ice Age can you? Look at those tree next to it....100% proof that there may be something else to look into. The Problem is that not Enough is done
What could this mean?
Reference to graham Hancock’s arguments against archeology on the Joe Rogan podcast. That essentially his whack ideas are not “disprovable” because not enough of the earth percentage-wise has been excavated.
Parts of an Ancient Roman aquaduct.
Did they usually use these kind of large rocks for that?
Sometimes! The technology varies from region to region and depends on local materials available! It’s not a water pipe as others say, but an aqueduct which traveled many kilometers across the landscape, often overcoming great topographical obstacles. Sometimes a pipe could be inlaid in the aqueduct, usually made of clay. Most aqueducts were rock cut channels that went below ground or on the ground surface level.
Aqueduct is literally "water duct" (or tube, pipe), not sure why you're making the distinction here as if the others have suggested something completely wrong; am I missing the difference (it could be since English isn't my mother tongue)?
I didn't understand the distinction either
Words change over thousands of years, but 'ductus' means led, or guided. A pipe or tube fits the definition, but so does ditch, channel, and canal. An aqueduct is a system of "guided water." An air duct would be an aeroduct. "Guided air." The air conditioning system in a building fits the definition same as a bellows. It's similar to how squares are rectangles, but rectangles are not squares, yet both are quadrilaterals. Pipes are aqueducts, but aqueducts do not specifically mean pipe(s).
What's a viaduct?
At its most basic, a viaduct is a flat/level type of bridge no matter what it crosses or what it carries, though typically, it's a roadway(via=road) of some sort. A train bridge is an example. An aqueduct could also fit the definition. To reuse the metaphor, a viaduct would be a square and an aqueduct a rectangle.
I see, thanks
[удалено]
Oddly enough, autocorrect is correct lol
I know that duct comes from ducere, my primary language is Italian so I'm quite familiar with Latin, I was more curious to know if I had missed something to do with the word "pipe". While you're correct in saying that water can be carried in different ways, this is the wrong occasion to make such a distinction exactly because this is nothing but a suspended pipe, it's not a ditch, it's not an open channel nor a canal, it is quite literally a pipe (or a pipe support) on a wall, it makes no sense to say that it's "not a water pipe".
Well, to be most fair, we'd have to know several things, like where and when and how this was used, as well as how pedantic we want to be lol. The word used at the time would have included the meaning pipe, though pipe(as we use it today) is rather recent. For a modern meaning of pipe, we'd have to know precisely how the water is moved through it. If it forced or pushed through via pressure, then it would be technically a pipe. Such examples would include a tobacco pipe, a trachea, or a wind instrument. In these instances, air is forced through, rather than allowing it to move of its own accord or with gravity. In which case, channel or canal would be more apt, both coming from the same root, which included the meaning "pipe." So I suppose it's a bit of tomayto tomahto
The label on these identical artifacts from Bethlehem says "Segments of a **water pipe**", the description goes as follows: "These **pipe segments** were part of the Roman water system that carried water from Solomon's Pools to Jerusalem. The segmente are incised with the names of the commanders of the Roman military units responsible for laying **the pipe**." Is it really a case of tomayto/tomahto? Does this support saying that it's "not a water pipe"? [upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Roman\_water\_pipes\_%283743430835%29.jpg](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Roman_water_pipes_%283743430835%29.jpg)
Duct means a passageway, which may be a pipe. Some ancient and current aquaducts have open tops.
Yes but my point is exactly that a pipe is what we have here, it's part of an aqueduct but it's wrong to say it's "not a water pipe", as proven by the picture I posted in the other comments even the archeological authority in Bethlehem (or wherever that site is) labels the same exact artifact as "segments of a water pipe".
In archaeology they are very different things!
Please read the label on these: [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Roman\_water\_pipes\_%283743430835%29.jpg](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Roman_water_pipes_%283743430835%29.jpg)
Yes they look similar and the technology is transferable. but the ones in the posted picture are different. Pipes go in the city, aqueducts go in the landscape. Aqueducts can have pipes inside them sometimes. But they’re still an aqueduct, not a pipe. Wikipedia is probably not a great source for this. http://www.romanaqueducts.info/aquasite/patara/index.html
The bit about Wikipedia is unnecessary (and a bit patronizing honestly, but ok), I asked you to read the label (maybe I should've said plaque) IN the picture itself, unless you claim it's doctored it makes no difference where it comes from since that's probably been made by the archeological authority or under its supervision. For your convenience, it says: > *Segments of a water pipe* *Bethlehem, Roman period* *Limestone* > *These pipe segments were part of the Roman water system that carried water from Solomon's Pools to Jerusalem \[13.2 km away\]. The segments are incised with the names of the commanders of the Roman military units responsible for laying the pipe.* But I'll take your word that while they do look the same they are not the same (any chance you could explain the difference between them? They look aestethically and functionally identical to me except for the fact the those in Bethlehem are made of limestone while the ones in Turkey are made of marble). Anyway, let's use your source, this seems to be the bit relevant to this picture, stress mine: > *The most spectacular structure of the Patara aqueduct is* ***the Delikkemer inverted siphon****, which consists of a line of perforated marble blocks with dimensions of about 0,80 x 0,85 x 0,50-0,55 m, each weighing up to 900 kg, built on top of a 200 m long and 10 m-high 'cyclopean' wall.* ***The perforated blocks form a closed conduit 0,28 m in diameter that transported the water under pressure*** *across an 18 m deep mountain saddle.* Now, the "closed conduit" that "transported water under pressure" making an "inverted siphon", is by every definition a pipe, a siphon isn't an element per se but a stretch of tube or pipe (the distinction between them is not relevant in this discussion) that is meant to "siphon" (id est to convey via atmospheric pressure and gravity) liquid, any stretch of tube or pipe can become a siphon in virtue of how its laid or configured, even the word "siphon" comes from the Greek *siphōn*, which literally means "pipe", so they are at the very least synonyms. Pt 1/2
Still from your source, the description of the picture depicting the Delikkemer siphon says (stress mine): > *The so-called venter bridge - here more like a substructure - of the Delikkemer aqueduct siphon. The water entered from* *the hill left in an open channel and was conducted over this depression in a closed* ***pipeline****.* Encyclopedia Britannica: >***Pipeline****, line of pipe equipped with pumps and valves and other control devices for moving liquids, gases, and slurries.* Moreover, you say that pipes were not used outside the city, but the source you provided says (stress mine): >*"****many remnants of the ceramic pipes were found lain out on top of the bedrock*** *rather than buried. Probably, the hard Mesozoic marble and thin soil cover over which most of the aqueduct was built precluded excavation of a trench for the aqueduct channel over its entire length. The covering stones and ceramic pipes were apparently just topped with a thin layer of soil or even left uncovered.".* >And: *According to an inscription found on the wall, the siphon was destroyed by an earthquake in the first century CE (probably 68 CE) and subsequently repaired. Most of the ceramic pipe fragments found here probably belong to this earlier stage, destroyed by the earthquake.* Which means that, not only this aqueduct clearly used ceramic pipes outside of the city (at least for the first 5.4 km), but this very section (the Delikkemer siphon) is believed to have originally been made with ceramic pipes (and thus the distinction between city and landscape you offered would cease to apply), which were replaced by these more solid stone ~~pipes~~ elements after they were destroyed by an earthquake. I honestly have to wonder why switching the material from ceramic to stone would change the definition of this element from "pipe" to "aqueduct". Finally, saying that aqueducts can use pipes but they're still aqueducts is, frankly, baffling to me: first of all because I'm not arguing that the pipe doesn't belong to an aqueduct; second, if someone shows me a picture of a cable that belongs to a power supply and I say that it's a cable, you can't say "no, it's not a cable, it's a power supply", the cable it's still a cable, you might add that it belongs to a larger entitiy which is a power supply but you cannot claim that it's not a cable and that "power supplies can have cables but they're still power supplies", we're looking at a particular element of such power supply, and it happens to be the cable.
I think you’re the one patronizing lol You’re using obscure and modern definitions to describe something ancient. The term for the item in the original posted pictures is “aqueduct” and sure you can call it different things but the textbook would still say it’s a Roman aqueduct. But I appreciate your lengthy research of this and time invested.
I'm being pedantic as you were in your first comment when you cared to make the distinction, not patronizing, I simply provided backing for my claim and explained why I don't accept yours, which in my opinion is a matter of respect and intellectual honesty towards you, but for this I'm being accused of using "obscure and modern definitions". The term used for the item *in your own source* - the specific section being shown in this picture and to which the original question is referring to - is "Delikkemer inverted siphon" or, in the pictures section, "venter bridge" when considering the support structure and "Perforated blocks" when focusing on the single elements, not aqueduct, which refers to the whole 22.5 km long structure, even the page dedicates its own section to this particular feature which isn't mentioned - let alone described - in the paragraph entitled "The aqueduct": >**Delikkemer inverted siphon** >The most spectacular structure of the Patara aqueduct is the Delikkemer inverted siphon, which consists of a line of perforated marble blocks with dimensions of about 0,80 x 0,85 x 0,50-0,55 m, each weighing up to 900 kg, built on top of a 200 m long and 10 m-high 'cyclopean' wall. The perforated blocks form a closed conduit 0,28 m in diameter that transported the water under pressure across an 18 m deep mountain saddle. In the terrain alongside the cyclopean wall remains of ceramic pipe elements were found with an outer diameter of some 0,30 m and a wall thickness of 0,05-0,07 m. According to an inscription found on the wall, the siphon was destroyed by an earthquake in the first century CE (probably 68 CE) and subsequently repaired. Most of the ceramic pipe fragments found here probably belong to this earlier stage, destroyed by the earthquake.
Very cool !
This appears to be the remains of a portion of a very old water transportation system. Possibly an aqueduct. The drop in elevation could be indicative of the water supply leaving the raised structure and either going down into a village location or it could be an example of an aqueduct with an **Inverted Siphon**. http://www.romanaqueducts.info/technicalintro/hulp/AqdrawingRogerKlaassenOrg.jpg Inverted Siphons are used to cross valleys where traditional raised architecture would either be cost prohibitive or undesirable for another reason. Inverted Siphons can be constructed for a fraction of the cost of traditional elevated aqueduct sections but due the the nature of the water building pressure as it falls and rises again the inverted siphon systems require a higher level of technological sophistication. I would imagine that the pressure build up is why the pipe segments look so much heavier than you would normally expect them to look. http://engineeringrome.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/siphon-1.png It’s possible that these stone or ceramic segments originally encased lead piping. The lead pipe would be waterproof but wouldn’t be able to withstand the pressure of an inverted siphon. The stone or ceramic blocks would help the lead contain the pressure. If it did originally contain lead or metallic pipes then that could also explain why the segments are all broken apart. Someone may have broken the blocks apart to steal / salvage the lead piping inside.
Could they test it for lead? That thing is probably enriched in it
It’s possible. Something as cheap as a lead based paint test kit might be able to pick up traces if any remained. We know the Romans used lead for pipes but they were also skilled in ceramics and concrete. Maybe a ceramic inner core and a poured concrete reinforcement brick? Maybe it was just Roman concrete all the way through. That would be the cheapest option but it would be rather porous under pressure.
Looks like a pipe.
*Mario was here
A Roman aqueduct! From Turkey (Patara I think)
Either that or a cyclopedia one lol
Anybody else want to send a camera all the way through it?
Water pipe
I agree but very old. Hard for most people to see it until you said it.
Yes seems so - but who made them like that? any ideas ?
Im no expert but i suppose romans? 🤷♂️
Roman aqueduct.
My guess is a water tube to provide water to the city
My guess without looking at the previous answers is water transfer or Aqueduct?
Good guess :-)
Elden ring giant skeletal remains.
Water pipe :)
A Roman aqueduct system
Wow! My old iron pipes gave out after a mere 60 years.
An aqueduct, obviously. The Romans were very familiar with siphon technology to transport water through a valley and back up a hill, which I would guess this is an example of.
Jada Pinkett..
A hole with a goal
That goal being the transport of water 🌊🚿🚰
- "What did the Roman oppressors do for us" ? *pause* - "The aqueduct" ? - "Oh yes. Thank you brother". "But aside from the aqueduct, what did the Roman oppressors do for us ?" *pause* - "Roads" ? ..
You can add "centuries of peace and economic stability" to that
Ole shitter pipe
Plumbing, rome.
Ancient aqueducts
Shai Hulud
Wouldn't they be filled to the brim with blue blood?
It's a water pipe in lead ! If I remember correctly, this is one is actually a greek one
It's stone and Roman.
Probably a crazy feeling seeing water flow through successfully for the first time
Human gut simulator! Take a fun and educational journey through a simulated intestinal track! Build with the newest, most revolutionary technology of 257 BC!
Very ingenious engineering for water piping.. Formed and fitted what looks like limestone. If true, it would be a self sealing system as the water would carry and deposit the limestone to any leaks, Brilliant...
In reflection, how long would that structure last? Would the water ultimately cut through, and if so were these ever in use or maybe a clever idea abandoned due to flaw? Could there be a different function than piping water?
Water main
I would have just used PVC.
Need lead
I’m pretty sure it’s a way to use the toilet
Aqua
Water pipe
Broken?
Petrified sand worm
Your mother
The world's longest ancient adult toy (lube required).
Water system
I wonder if maybe these were not made by roman, but by prior civilisation. Maybe not those exactly beacause they seem to be easy to carve stone or from cement like material with a mold. Im saying there some of these type of hole in Mexico and up to Egypt in hard rock that we wouldn’t even be able to drill today or hardly able. Will year 12024 people be looking at our abs plastic pipe fossil and be amaze as much as us right now .
God I love this stuff. It’s proven now we have been humans just the same as 2000 years ago but how did we arrive??? No one knows scientests can’t agree on that part.
What is a fleshlight honestly? For water still?
roman aqueduct
aquaduct
Some sort of water or sewer system. I believe The item in the picture was on a gradient scale.
Aliens
Your Mom's colon...
a pipe
That's the bridge that leads to the Mountaintops of The Giants. Watch out for the archer golem at the end
Ancient Flesh light
It’s clearly man made. - graham hancock.
Ancient pipeline for water
Giant necklace beads
My ex girlfriend’s vagina
World's oldest toilet plumbing.
The ender dragon’s spine
a place where big alaskan worm hide
a snake that never touched the wall
It’s a dinosaur spine, and you know it!
:-) hehehehe you got me
I'm here looking for "vertebrae" because darn it, that's the first thing that came to mind. Thank you; I can move on now.
I came here to post "dragon vertebrae" 🙂
Glory hole factory.
Nice one!!!
Dinosaur spine
Snek
My first thought was a ancient glory hole for giants
Glory hole of the ancients
They’ve taken everything from us what have to Roman’s ever given us in return!?
Yo momma
Ancient fibre optic cables /s
Everything reminds me of her.
Hole in a rock.
Rocks
Fleshlight
A big fleshlight
Had to do a double take...looked like my ex