ISic000065: I.Sicily inscription 000065

I.Sicily with the permission of the Assessorato Regionale dei Beni Culturali e dell’Identità Siciliana - Dipartimento dei Beni Culturali e dell’Identità Siciliana
ID
ISic000065
Language
Latin
Text type
honorific
Object type
plaque
Status
No data
Links
View in current site

Edition

Loading...

Apparatus criticus

  • Text of ILPalermo

Physical description

Support

Description
Seven fragments of the upper left and lower portion of a large marble plaque; the upper right half is missing. The fragments have been mounted in plaster to recreate the inscription (the alignment of the fragments is not perfect, with insufficient space vertically left between the upper left fragments and the lower fragments to allow for lines 6 and 7 to be separated.
Object type
plaque
Material
marble
Condition
No data
Dimensions
height: 82 cm, width: 60.5 cm, depth: 6.2 cm

Inscription

Layout
No data
Text condition
No data
Letter heights
Line 1: mm
Interlinear heights
Interlineation line 1 to 2: mm

Provenance

Place of origin
Tyndaris
Provenance found
Found at Tyndaris by Fagan

Current location

Place
Palermo, Italy
Repository
Museo Archeologico Regionale Antonino Salinas , 3566
Autopsy
partially recorded 2022-05-23
Map

Date

probably 10th December 160—9th December 161 CE; 161 (Raepsaet-Charlier) (AD 160 – AD 161)
Evidence
No data

Text type

honorific

commentary

Manganaro published in 1989 a small fragment on display in the Tindari site antiquarium (and still on display in 2022). Manganaro proposed that the fragment formed the ends of lines 3-5 of this inscription in Palermo Archaeological Museum, and this attribution has generally been accepted (e.g. Zambito 2007). Fasolo 2013: 73 no.5 rejected the attribution, but his reasoning is flawed (he suggested that the presence of VA at the start of line 5 in the preserved fragments precluded the integration of the new fragment, and yet at first sight it directly supports it, only that the word division at the end of line 5 in the currently proposed restorations of the text would require minor revision). However, a more serious objection lies in the fact that the new fragment is only half as thick (3.5-3.9 cm) as the existing plaque (6.5 cm), and close study of the letter forms (which have the same height, 60-65mm in the existing plaque; 60mm in the new fragment) also suggests minor differences. It is, additionally, given that the right margin of the new plaque is preserved, extremely hard to restore ARTHI at the end of line 1 of the fragment (required at the end of line 3 of the existing text, given CI at the start of line 4), where autopsy confirms that there appears to be no trace of, or space for, the final two verticals required, and the traces preserved are more readily compatible with e.g. ARI·F or similar, unless a complex triple ligature has been employed (unlikely). The new fragment clearly comes from a very similar and contemporary text, but unless other arguments can be adduced, it should be considered part of a separate text. It is also unclear whether the stone is the same. The existing text of ISic000065 is entirely painted in red, but this is presumably antiquarian recolouring in the earlier 19th century and the absence of paint in the new fragment should not be considered an argument either way.

Bibliography

Digital editions
Printed editions
Discussion

Citation and editorial status

Editor
Jonathan Prag
Principal contributor
Jonathan Prag
Contributors
Last revision
7/17/2022