ISic003573: Fragment with OVIS and PA

Latin, honorific, plaque

edited, View in current site

Photo J. Prag courtesy Soprintendenza BBCCAA di Messina
1[---]OVISM[---]
2[---]MPA[---]
3[---]·[---]

Apparatus criticus

  • Text from autopsy

translation

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
TODO: use the geo information in the museums dataset

Date

21 BC – AD 54
Evidence
No data

Text type

honorific

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

Citation and editorial status

Citation
No data