319. Building dedication of the Market to Augustus
- Thirty-one blocks of sandstone (width varying w: 0.50 x h: 0.52), originally stuccoed. The blocks were in most cases found plastered over.
- Inscribed on one face with a monumental inscription. a) Single line over the original Augustan south doorway: b) l. 1, in continuation of a) c) l. 2, underneath b)
- Lapidary capitals: av. 0.15.
- 8 B.C. (reign, titulature)
- Lepcis Magna: Punic Market. It had fallen from the South West precinct wall of the market but has now been replaced.
- Original Location:
- Last recorded location:
- Goodchild, Papers of the British School at Rome, XVIII:72- 77. This edition taken from J. M. Reynolds and J. B. Ward-Perkins, The Inscriptions of Roman Tripolitania, Rome: British School at Rome, 1952.
- Text constituted from:
- Transcription (Reynolds, Ward-Perkins)
b.1, M[uttun Annonis f(ilio)]: The initial M, after sufetib(us), is all that survives of the name of the first sufes. Muttun son of Hanno, recorded in the Neo-Punic text. The name of the second sufes is lost in both texts
c.1, The letters HIMILCHO are cut over the first eight letters of IMILCHONIS. The remaining letters were presumably plastered over at the time of this correction.
a. Emperor Caesar Augustus, son of deified (Caesar), consul for the eleventh time, acclaimed victor fourteen times, holding tribunician power for the fifteenth time, chief priest.
b. When Marcus Licinius Crassus Frugi, son of Marcus, consul, augur, was proconsul and patron and the flamines of Augustus Caesar were Iddibal [·· ? ··]on son of Arin and [·· ? ··] son of Annobal [·· ? ··], and the sufetes were Muttur son of Anno[and·· ? ··]
(c. ) Annobal Tapapius Rufus son of Imilcho (corrected to Himilcho), sufete, flamen (local priest), prefect in charge of sacred things, saw to its construction and also dedicated it.
The text is clearly the Latin version of NeoPunic 27, also found in the Market. The Latin follows the Neo- Punic word for word, omitting only the phrase << son of Arim >> after praefectus sacrorum in l. 2. The name of the proconsul is lost in the Neo- Punic text.
a) l. 1. imp. XIII - 8 B.C..
a) l. 1. trib. pot. XV - 1 July 9 B.C. - 30 June 8 B.C..
b) l. 1. M. Licinius Crassus Frugi - cos. 14 B.C. = PW XIII. 285, 59 where the cognomen Frugi is rejected for him. He was not previously known to have been procos. Africae.
b) l. 1. The name of the second flamen, lost in the Latin text, appears as Abdmelqart in the Neo-Punic.
c) l. 1. For Annobal Tapapius Rufus. s. of Himilcho Tapapius. see also 321, 322 and 323 . Other recorded members of this wealthy local family (Tabahpi, latinized as Tapapii or Tapafli) are: a) Bodmelqart ben Bodmelqart Tabahpi Griq.1 (Graeculus ?) from the door(s) of the Tiberian. Temple of Rome and Augustus in the Forum Vetus. Neo- Punic 28. b) Iddibal Magonis f. Tapapius, 273 (A.D. 42- 3), c) Ithymbal Arinis f. Sabinus Tapapius. 341 (A.D. 61- 2); also in Neo- Punic 29 (not dated). and probably in Neo- Punic 33 (not dated). d) Abdemelqart Tabahpi, Neo- Punic 12, 1. (not dated). [e) ...] Arinis f. Tapafius Diodorus Nizaz. 745 (not dated).