ISic002007: Fragment of an imperial dedication

No image available

ID
ISic002007
Language
Latin
Status
stub
Text type
honorific
Object type
plaque

Edition

Loading...

Apparatus criticus

  • Text to be added

Physical description

Support

Description
Marble fragment of a monumental inscription on a plaque, right margin preserved
Object type
plaque
Object condition
No data
Dimensions
height: cm, width: cm, depth: cm

Material

Description
marble
Type > subtype
stone.marble > unverified

Inscription

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

Provenance

Place of origin
Tyndaris
Provenance found
No data

Current location

Place
Palermo, Sicilia
Repository
Antiquarium di Tindari
ME28145
Autopsy
No data
Map

Date

Later C2 CE (AD 151 - AD 200)
Evidence
No data

Text type

honorific

commentary

Manganaro proposed that this fragment formed the ends of lines 3-5 of ISic000065 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
  • TM: -
  • EDR: -
  • EDH: -
  • EDCS: -
  • PHI: -
Printed editions

Citation and editorial status

Editor
Jonathan Prag
Principal contributor
Jonathan Prag
Contributors
Last revision
6/7/2026