ISic002985: I.Sicily inscription 002985

ID
ISic002985
Language
Ancient Greek
Text type
accounts
Object type
block
Status
No data
Links
View in current site

Edition

Loading...

Apparatus criticus

  • Text is provisional, based upon autopsy by Filippo Battistoni and Alessia Dimartino in 2009, with further revision by them against photographs.;
  • 8: τετρα engraved in a hole in the stone
  • 9: Manganaro: θησαυρῷ
  • 11: Manganaro: μετά
  • 19: Manganaro suggests τρί(vac)τας was corrected to δευτέρας using paint.
  • 23: Manganaro: ΑΛΙΙ; lapis: Λ[--]
  • 24: Manganaro: ΑΙΙητω (=Ἀρρήτῳ?)
  • 37: lapis: - - ΟΙ - - Ο - - ΧΟ
  • 38: Manganaro: ΜΕΣ

Physical description

Support

Description
No data
Object type
block
Material
limestone
Condition
No data
Dimensions
height: 32 cmwidth: 69 cmdepth: 59 cm

Inscription

Layout
Text is laid out over two columns, with the majority of the second column blank and uninscribed.
Text condition
No data
Letter heights
Line 1-41: 4mm
Interlinear heights
Interlineation line 1 to 2: mm

Provenance

Place of origin
Tauromenium
Provenance found
Original discovery not recorded.

Current location

Place
Taormina, Italy
Repository
Antiquarium del Teatro Antico
Autopsy
2009.10.06 Battistoni, Dimartino, Prag
Map

Date

46—36 BCE (46 BC – 36 BC)
Evidence
No data

Text type

accounts

commentary

This example of the account inscriptions from Taormina is to be closely associated with ISic002986, which is similar in terms of calendar and institutions, and diverges from the other account inscriptions in this regard. The text is conventionally dated to the period between 44 and 36 BCE due to the use of Roman calendar, 'duo andres', etc., which are assumed to imply the adoption of municipal status, although the presence of the month Quinctilios in ISic002986 makes this somewhat problematic, strictly implying a date before 44 BCE. The solutions are either to restrict these texts to the narrow window between 46 and 44 BCE, or to allow an earlier date (and so to reject the idea that adoption of Roman institutions necessarily requires the formal status of municipium), or to allow a date down to c.36 BCE (on the assumption that support during the period for Sextus Pompeius entailed rejection of the adoption of the new month name of Iulius). Strictly, unlike ISic002986, this text is not confined to the narrow window between 46 and 44, since we cannot know whether it employed Quinctilius or Iulius.

Bibliography

Digital editions
Printed editions

Citation and editorial status

Editor
Jonathan Prag
Principal contributor
Jonathan Prag
Contributors
Last revision
8/11/2023