ISic003573: Fragment with OVIS and PA
- ID
- ISic003573
- Language
- Latin
- Text type
- honorific
- Object type
- plaque
- Status
- edited
- Links
- View in current site
Edition
Apparatus criticus
- Text from autopsy
Physical description
Support
- Description
- A thin fragment of off-white marble, broken on all sides, with some surface encrustation, and traces of plaster on the reverse. The reverse is well finished.
- Object type
- plaque
- Material
- marble
- Condition
- No data
- Dimensions
- height: 17 cm, width: 16.5 cm, depth: 1.7-2.0 cm
Inscription
- Layout
- Remains of three lines of text are visible, although only traces survive of the third line; it is impossible to know whether there were additional lines above or below.
- Text condition
- No data
- Lettering
- [object Object]
- Letter heights
- Line 1: 57-60mm
- Line 2: 48-49mm
- Interlinear heights
- Interlineation line 1 to 2: not measured
Provenance
- Place of origin
- Halaesa
- Provenance found
- Excavated in 1971, in room 7 of the west portico of the agora
- Map
Current location
- Place
- Halaesa, Italy
- Repository
- Antiquarium e sito archeologico di Halaesa , 30617
- Autopsy
- On display in new lapidarium
- Map
Date
Augustan or Julio-Claudian (21 BC – AD 54)- Evidence
- No data
Text type
commentary
In line 1, the ending -OVIS is not common, with the principal alternatives being Iovis, novis, bovis, or ovis. The first two are much more frequent epigraphically (ILS 4403 from Ostia includes mention of Iovis Magni). In line 2, it is tempting to restore this as a further reference to (and so dedication by) Marcus Paccius (cf. ISic003572 and the Augustan coinage of RPC I, nos. 630-633). In line 3, traces of a circular letter are visible, which are compatible with any of O, P, R, B or D.
The excavator, Giacomo Scibona, proposed that this fragment should be associated with ISic003572, the fragment mentioning Paccius. In favour of this association, the stone is very similar, and of similar (and slightly varying) thickness, the style of the letters is similar, and although the heights vary they are in the same general range; and the interpuncts are of identical type (and relatively unusual). Against the association, the heights of the lines do not match easily to the heights of the lines on the other fragment, which means that this fragment would have to be placed below the other; but this would entail that the line heights decrease and then increase again, which while not impossible is unlikely. Close study of the letters suggests that they are not exactly identical, although similar: the P in both cases is open, but the eye is formed differently; and A in this text has a serif at its head, which is not to be found in the instance of A in ISic003572. It is easier to imagine a second contemporary text.
Bibliography
- Digital editions
- TM: 645644
- EDR: -
- EDH: -
- EDCS: -
- PHI: -
- Printed editions
- Discussion
- ()
Citation and editorial status
- Citation
- No data