New epigraphic comparisons for the Lapis Satricanus

The a"ternoon o" %cto er #$th the soil "rom the root2"illed channel in "ront o" the inscription /as removed and the in/ard2"acing side o" the loc!s ecame visi le. The inscription /as "ound upside2do/n on the centre loc!. Un"ortunately the /or!men proceeded /ith the removal o" the earth in "ront o" and on top o" the stone on their o/n initiative, and some unnecessary and regretta le damage /as caused y pic!s.

This inscription is carved on a loc! o" stone recovered the #$th o" %cto er #&'' in the area o" the ancient Satricum, during the e(cavations made y the )utch Institute in Rome, in the "oundation o" the second temple o" Mater Matuta *a out +,, a.-.., together /ith other t/o uninscri ed loc!s o" the same !ind o" tu"" stone *cappellaccio.. The three loc!s /ere "irst discovered during the e(cavations o" #0&1 ut they remained partially uried.

%" this phase o" the e(cavation a photo e(ists in /hich the Lapis appears more e(tensively preserved on the upper le"t side than in the other pictures pu lished up to then. This picture, ta!en /hen the stone /as still in situ, clearly sho/s that there had een t/o moments o" damage3 the "irst one during the e(cavation and the second one during the e(traction o" the stone. This picture /as "irst pu lished in #&&# y -.M. Sti e and then y ).4. 5aarsen urg in #&&6.

G. -olonna, through the o servation o" an enlargement o" the corner in ?uestion, asserts that an I can e read3 @It is clearly visi le that the lost splinter o" the corner contained the upper part o" the controversial sign, /hich is unmista!a ly an I, entirely preserved in its development. %n the le"t o" the I another letter is visi le that resem les an asymmetric U, /ith the right stro!e shorter than the le"t one, perhaps "or concern o" spaceA. 9 ne/ autopsy con"irmed the presence o" a vertical stro!e seen y means o" a graBing light.

7I8ST8T8R9I:%:LI%SI%;9L8SI%SI% S;%)9L8S M9M9RT8I <ecause o" the "racture on the upper le"t side, the te(t is incomplete and it has thus een variously interpreted. The hypothesis o" the symmetrical order, suggested y -olonna, supposes that the second line is complete and that, ecause o" the centring, at least "our letters miss at the eginning o" the "irst line. =evertheless, most o" the attempts o" integration do not consider this "act and give a three2letter integration *de 5aele #&&1 Sal7iei, ;ersnel #&&' Iun7iei., e(cept :rosdocimi *#&&6. /ho proposes matr7ei. I" -olonna>s hypothesis "ails *a "irst e(ample o" the symmetrical order appears in the I; century in Rome, ut it /ill ecome more common only in the III., it /ill e necessary to admit a lacuna "or the second line as /ell.

9pograph in Sti

e et alii *#&0,..

The inscription presents le"t2to2right ductus and scriptio continua. The se?uence right2to2le"t le"t2to2right, instead, is typical o" the /ritings in /hich the possi ility o" changing direction is given y the use o" the strophedon. The "orm o" some o" the letters *the A /ith a descending cross2stro!e according to the direction o" /riting, the "our2stro!e M, the O o" smaller dimension, the open P, the R in the shape o" rho, the three2stro!e S, the T /ith a transversal descending stro!e. is characteristic o" the archaic Latin epigraphic production. Thus the Caliscan hypothesis *Lucchesi2Magni D,,D. has to e dismissed.

This ta le compares some archaic Latin inscriptions. Starting "rom those o" Satricum, it proceeds geographically anticloc!/ise to end up in Rome.

Crom these ta les o" comparison it can e seen that the Lapis Satricanus presents some "eatures that seem to allude to a @non RomanA /riting conte(t /ith possi le inter"erences o" pre2Latin /riting patterns. The /riting conte(t d/elled in an area that /ill e South :icenean and in the near area *Marsi.. It also indicates the presence o" a @di""erentA /riting in an area that /ill later ac?uire the Latin /riting. The smaller O, that on the Lapis Tiburtinus appears as a point, is ?uite common in the archaic inscriptions, not only in this area3 in South :icenean, the O is al/ays rendered as a point *not distinguisha le "rom the dividing point. and represents the point o" arrival o" a /riting tradition *Latin2Sa ineF. that tends to simpli"y the circular graphs in a point *see also the F in 8 shape rendered as t/o points :..
The num ers correspond to the inscriptions listed in the ta le on he le"t.

The "our2stro!e M is the most controversial graph3 oth archaic Latin and Caliscan present a "ive2stro!e M. 9 term o" comparison is o""ered y the "ragments o" the altar o" -orcolle /hich present more than a "eature in common /ith the Lapis Satricanus3 the ductus, the P as ErE, the A /ith a descending cross2stro!e, the shape o" the M. More interesting is the a""inity, never noticed y others, o" the "orm muliar "or mulier and mamartei "or mamertei. Muliar cannot e compared /ith mulies, the antecedent o" mulier, as can e supposed y the derivative muliebris "rom *mulies-ris. 9s to the morphological aspect, a heteromorphy can e postulated3 mulier is the continuation o" oth muliar and mulies *ancient neuterF., a remnant o" derivation later converged in a single system. In this vie/, this is not a non Latin "orm, ut a Latin "orm that has to e de"ined. I", "rom the epigraphic point o" vie/, /e are "ar "rom relia le proo", the presence o" a morphological "act, di""erent "rom /hat has rought to mulier and mamer- in classic Latin, is ?uite signi"icant.

9pograph in :rosdocimi *#&'&.. Giovanna Rocca Universit IULM, Milan, Italy giovanna.rocca@iulm.it Giulia Sarullo Universit IULM, Milan, Italy giulia.sarullo@iulm.it