In the city of Rome, four aqueducts were constructed during the Republic. Modern historians tend to think that these aqueducts were built to provide the growing population with fresh water. The reason they think so is because they believe that the construction of aqueducts represented the increase of the population and the growth of cities. However, the explanation which states that aqueducts were built to provide people with water is not based on researches about the aqueducts themselves. Rather, it is based on the circumstantial situation of that era and the biased modern views about aqueducts. Apart from the fact that the water from the Aqua Anio Vetus and the Aqua Tepula were not fit for drinking, we need to focus on the fact that no historical source tells us about why aqueducts were built(the only exception to this is the Aqua Marcia). The fact that fresh water supplies were provided to the sharply increasing population would have acted as a huge political merit. Thus ancient historians wouldn't have failed from referring it. In other words, the fact that there is no reference explaining why aqueducts were built points at the fact that aqueducts were built for purposes different from what we would normally think. The Aqua Anio Vetus and the Aqua Tepula seem to have been constructed to the benefit of the privileged class who owned farms in the outskirt of Rome or bathes, and not to provide the people with fresh water. I do not intend on arguing that the public aqueducts were built solely for the benefit of the privileged class. As Frontinus stated, the Aqua Marcia was built because the growth of the city required a large supply of water. We cannot deny that the construction of aqueducts intend to provide the city and its people with the continually increasing need for water. However, we should refrain from applying this particular statement about the Marcian aqueduct to all the other aqueducts. Ignoring the characteristics of each aqueducts and applying the 'bigger city + larger population = more aqueducts' rule disturb us from understanding why each aqueduct was built. There is also no need to assume that the public aqueducts were built for the one reason. It is more likely that aqueducts were built because of many different reasons. It could have been for the privileged class as the Aqua Anio Vetus and the Aqua Tepula or for economical reasons as in the case of the Aqua Appia. In addition, the long arguments about the Aqua Marcia and the antipathy regarding the Aqua Appia show us the possibility that political stakes lay in the construction of aqueducts. Therefore, the assumption that the four aqueducts representing the growth and the development of Rome in the Republic should be discarded. We should consider that they were the outcome of the complex mixture of the necessity of water, the benefit of the privileged and other economical, political reasons. In other words, the four aqueducts in the Roman Republic were not architectural structures placed to solve the need for water, but historical structures holding the political, economical and many other situation of era within themselves.
한국중앙사학회 [Korean Association of Joong-Ang Historical Studies]
설립연도
2000
분야
인문학>역사학
소개
중앙사학연구회를 중앙사학회로 명칭을 변경함. 중앙사학연구회는 중앙대학교 사학과를 모체로 출발한 연구회였다. 주로 중앙대학교 사학과와 연관을 가진 사람들로 회원이 구성되었으며, 또한 그들의 연구활동의 무대가 되어 온 셈이다. 그러나 이러한 성격의 연구회는 자연히 그 활동과 연구의 지평이 제한을 받을 수 밖애 없다는 것을 지적하는 회원들이 많았다. 뿐만 아니라, 최근 한국학계에서 제기된 학술지 평가문제에 적극적으로 대처해야한다는 공감대가 형성되었다. 어느 곳에 게재된 것이 중요한 것이 아니라 그 글의 내용을 가지고 평가해야 한다는 고전적인 의견에 회의를 품는 분위기가 팽창하고 있다. 이러한 과정을 거쳐서 중앙사학연구회의 명칭을 발전적으로 고쳐보고 조직도 전국적인 규모로 만들자는 데 합의하게 되었다. 그러나 명칭을 무엇으로 하느냐 하는 문제를 놓고 또 다시 1년여를 보냈다. 그 결과, 2000년 겨울 동계 정기 워크숍에서 회원들의 투표를 거쳐서 중앙사학회로 결정하였다.
간행물
간행물명
중앙사론 [JOONGANG SARON ; Journal of Joong-Ang Historical Studies]