A few days ago I received a wonderful response to my query on the probable age of the L. Artorius Castus inscription from Dr. Abigail Graham (https://ics.sas.ac.uk/people/dr-abigail-graham).
As a follow-up, I asked her about my proposed ARM(ATAS) GENTES reading for the ARM[...]S lacuna. I've added her response to that at the bottom of the blog post.
Dear Daniel,
I have come across this before but not in detail.
A few key points.
Visual cues (like stop marks or ligatures) alone are seldom reliable indicators of date. However, combined with a series of other elements, they can be helpful.
I know Benet Salway and Roger Tomlin. For the Antonine date, I think Roger subscribed to Miletic's theory, which is based on archaeology and historical evidence for camps. My issue is that there are several mistakes in Miletics assessments of the inscriptions, that suggest he is referring to them, rather than looking at them carefully. He wants the pieces to fit together, but that does not necc mean they do. https://storicamente.org/miletic_bekavac_castus_liburnia_italy
3. I note several issues, and I can see why Benet has gone for a later Severan date.
A few caveats, I am not a specialist in epigraphy from this area, nor have I yet been able to find suitable parallel texts from the region to support what I'm about to say. I have been able to look at some texts from Serbia, Hungary, and relatively nearby (Salona and Split, Viminiacum). Dating by style alone is dangerous, but there are stylistic, spelling and practical features that are incredibly rare before a certain time.
There are a few things that, in my mind, make it very hard to accept an Antonine date, at the earliest, one could say Commodus, but its a stretch. These have to do with a combination of visual features, ligatures, spacing, stops, textual organisation and spellings.
Ligatures & Spacing. Ligatures can happen at any time for practical reasons: when cutters run out of space (often in the right hand margin). As texts become more complex, this happens more often. By the time of Septimius Severus, however, they also become decorative, and some seem deliberate, even artistic. Quite a few ligatures in this text happen early on in a line (ll 2-3, 5, 6) not as the carver ran out of space, and with the letter T. Two unusual ones of curved forms also fall beneath each other. ll. 7-8. Also line 9, there was no need for a ligature of 'TE" there was plenty of space (compare with a practical use of ligature NTE at the end of line 8). Ligatures of vowels and T form become popular under Sept Severus, and occur regardless of spacing. cf. Line 2 of this text from Britain. https://romaninscriptionsofbritain.org/inscriptions/1151.
Terms: "Duci" tends to be used in the 3rd c. CE. I found one use in Pannonia on a shield referring to Commodus (180-191). for [Vi]ctoria [re] duci . All other uses are Severan or later.
Spellings: Another dating issue noted by Salway is the replication of letters "Legg" (or "Augg" ""praeff" to show a potential plural. I cannot find a single example of this anywhere in the empire before Sept Severus (201 CE), though it occurs frequently after.
The lovely letters, the contrast between deep and light chisel cuts (for another example of this Severan from Pannonia cf. https://lupa.at/26913, also note the fine triangulate interpuncts), plus the double letters, the ligatures for decorative rather than functional use... As well as spelling and terminology all point to Severan or a bit later. At the earliest, this could be 180, but the issue is, it does not look anything like the parallel text cited by Miletic CIL 3. 11695 https://www.flickr.com/photos/156429244@N04/43444599171. A monumental text from this period (ca. 179/180) has no ligatures, and diff lettering style altogether. It is hard to believe that a man born in ca. 100, in his fifties by 154, as he claims, was commemorated in ca. 180-190. It is not impossible, but it would be incredibly rare.
Where do the interpuncts fit in? You are right to observe these: this is a beautifully arranged inscription with skilled carving. Dating at text involves taking in the whole picture, and reconciling skill and message with the medium. Few texts are perfect and this had moments of difficulty, but it is beautifully rendered. The idea that all ligatures are from lack of talent does not hold, in theory or in practice. That double letters are a series of errors in common terms "legg". "praeff" is hard to accept, especially when these features emerge after 200 CE Legg= at least 22 cases, all dating to the 3rd. C. CE, most between 200-250. "praeff" 40+ cases, none dating before 200. I lean towards Benet Salway's date: Severan or later. I'm not sure one can rule out something from 180, but it would be an anomaly. It's a shame Miletic's archaeology/history and the dating don't align, but this happens often.
We have to be very careful about seeing what is there, as opposed to what we want to see.
Hope that helps,
Abigail
Dear Daniel,
Yes, your reading does make sense, and I applaud it!
When you make your case for the restoration, perhaps you should send a copy of it to Silvia Orlandi so that she can add or reference your version to the EAGLE database, where most people hunt for inscriptions... (this would also advertise your work to more scholars).
All the best,
Abigail
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.