ISic000620: Fragmentary monumental Latin inscription from the amphitheatre

ID
ISic000620
Language
Latin
Text type
building
Object type
block
Status
No data
Links
View in current site

Edition

Loading...

Apparatus criticus

  • Text after Manganaro and photographs

Physical description

Support

Description
four separate blocks each bearing one or more letters, which appear to join up to form part of a monumental text
Object type
block
Material
limestone
Condition
No data
Dimensions
height: 60 cm, width: 298 (combined) cm, depth: 20-37 cm

Inscription

Layout
No data
Text condition
No data
Letter heights
Line 1: 375mm
Interlinear heights

Provenance

Place of origin
Syracusae
Provenance found
First reported by Paolo Orsi in 1889, as lying in the garden of the custodian's hut near the amphitheatre, and as coming originally from the amphitheatre
Map

Current location

Place
Siracusa, Italy
Repository
Area archeologica della Neapolis, Orecchio di Dionisio e Teatro Greco
Autopsy
No autopsy, but last reported as in the chiesetta di S. Nicolò, just north of the amphitheatre at the entrance to the archaeological park.
Map

Date

first or second century CE (AD 1 – AD 200)
Evidence
lettering

Text type

building

commentary

Orsi in NSA reports the dimensions of all four blocks: (a), reading TIL, is 1.2 x 0.6 x 0.25m; (b) reading E is 0.45 x 0.6 x 0.37; (c) reading IE is 0.48 x 0.6 x 0.31; (d) reading B is 0.85 x 0.6 x 0.2. The inscription blocks were photographed in the 1970s and 1980s seemingly outside the entrance to the small church of S. Nicolo at the entrance to the archaeological park, but they are no longer in that position and have not recently been observed. Buonocore reports autopsy in 1987. The dating of the amphitheatre is much disputed, between the Augustan period and the early third century CE, and since the inscription can only itself be dated on prosopographical or palaeographical grounds, the arguments either for its date, or to use it to date the amphitheatre rapidly become circular. Wilson has argued strongly for an Augustan or earlier first century date. Certainly it is difficult to assert on palaeographical grounds that the inscription must be second or even early third century CE, and a first century date seems at least as possible.

Bibliography

Digital editions
Printed editions

Citation and editorial status

Editor
Jonathan Prag
Principal contributor
Jonathan Prag
Contributors
Last revision
6/28/2024