ISic001404: Inscribed boundary stone

Apparatus criticus

Text from autopsy;
line.1: Gualtherus: ΤΡΧϹ; Manganaro (1980/1994): ΤΡΧ.
line.2: Gualtherus: ΕΚΙ; Manganaro (1980/1994): ΕΚΟ
line.3: Gualtherus: ΙϹΜΙ; Franz/Kaibel: ΙϹΜΤ; Manganaro (1980/1994): ΚΑΤ.

Physical description

Support

Description: A large, slightly rounded rectangular cippus, of grey volcanic stone, with a pitted surface. Intact, with only superficial weathering of the surface.
Object type: stele
Material: volcanic
Condition: No data
Dimensions: height: 86 cm, width: 46 (base) - 36 (top) cm, depth: 25.5 cm

Inscription

Layout

Three lines of large letters across the upper part of one of the wider faces. The inscribed field is approximately 0.36 m high x 0.30 m wide. The first line of text is less clear, especially around the upper margin and at the right edge. A continuous horizontal line separates lines 1 and 2.

Text condition

No data

Lettering

Letter heights

Line 1: 120-130mm

Line 2: 100-110mm

Line 3: 100mm

Interlinear heights

Interlineation line 1 to 2: 30-40mm

Interlineation line 2 to 3: 10-30mm

Provenance

Place of origin: Centuripae
Provenance found: First recorded by Gualtherus, it was transferred to the Adrano museum in 1975, from the ‘fondo Cancellieri-Nicolò Reina', contrada Cavalera (Centuripe), located on the right bank of the Simeto between Centuripe and Adrano
Map

Current location

Place: Adrano, Italy
Repository: Museo Archeologico Regionale di Adrano , 480
Autopsy: 2015.07.03
Map

Date

5th century CE or later (?) (AD 401 – AD 700)

Evidence: No data

Text type

terminus

commentary

Line 1: the third letter of line 1 is far from certain; it is smaller than the other letters, and the traces above could be compatible with the X that has been read by previous editors. I can see no basis for reading the final letter as Ẉ as it is reported by Manganaro 1994, p. 173; the letter finishes with the edge of the stone and is not closed.

Lines 2-3: the text is entirely clear, despite the fact that this diverges from all previous editions. The final letter of line 2 joins the horizontal line above; and the final letter of line 3 has some damage to the upper right; both are however clear under varied lighting.

Manganaro (1994, p. 171-174) discussed the significance of this text as a probable boundary marker, and used the Hellenistic cadastral inscription from Halaesa (ISic001174) to support an interpretation and expansion of the text as: Τ(έ)ρ(μων) χώ(ρου) ἐκ ὁ(ρίου) κάτω, understood to mean something like ‘boundary marker of the land running from the lower boundary’ (‘termine del fondo, a partire dal cippo di sotto’; see already Manganaro 1980, p. 434 with n.112). Any expansion of abbreviations out of context is always speculative, and given the need to correct the reading of the letters on the stone, this interpretation must be rejected. Manganaro (1994, p. 174) rightly drew attention to the existence of parallel texts for this stone; he failed to recognise the full significance of these parallels however, because of the flawed reading of the stone.

IG XIV, 518 (based upon Gualtherus 1624, p. 9, nr. 56-57 ; repeated in CIG III, 5733) records a (now lost) pair of texts from the territory of Catania: (a) E̅K̅L̅ KAT; (b) E̅K̅ L KAT.

Ferrua 1989, p. 123-124 nr. 471 reports (from antiquarian records) what he interprets to be three separate boundary stones (ISic004425, ISic004426, ISic004427) from the area of Paternò (fraz. Sferri), each engraved on a ‘colonna quadrata di lava’ (cf. Pace 1949, p. 225 n. 2, who believed these all to be on four sides of a single stone). The first of these (ISic004425) is engraved on two sides: ROM ECL / ORB ECL KATs; the second (ISic004426): ECL KAT; the third (ISic004427): + ECL KAT NVA. Like Pace before him, Ferrua interpreted these within the context of the lands of the early church in Sicily, and expands ECL as ecclesiae and KAT as Katinensis.

It is obvious that, whether the interpretation of ECL/EKL KAT as ecclesiae Katinensis is accepted or not (it is certainly plausible), all of these texts contain the same phrase ECL KAT or EKL KAT, and in several cases, including the example in the Adrano museum, the letters EKL have a line above them (the significance of which is unclear – to mark an abbreviation? or to separate off the first line?). Furthermore, these parallels serve to confirm the reading of lines 2 and 3 of the text in the Adrano museum. The language of the stone is far from certain, given the use of K which would be normal for Greek, but the appearance of L which is in the Latin form. Mixed use of letters and language in Sicily is relatively common, and it therefore remains possible that an interpretation of line 1 in the Adrano text understanding that line at least as Greek, and so involving an abbreviation for Τέρμων, as proposed by Manganaro should be considered.

The date of the stone is very difficult to ascertain. The letters by themselves would allow for a date from the Hellenistic period onwards. If the interpretation suggested by Ferrua is adopted, making this one of several boundary markers for church property from the wider area of the Catania hinterland, then a date of the fifth century AD or later seems likely. It would be possible to accept the reading of KAT as refering to Catania, without accepting the need to interpret ECL or EKL as a reference to the church.

Bibliography

Digital editions

Printed editions

Citation and editorial status

Editor

Jonathan Prag

Principal contributor