Lapis Niger

The Lapis Niger went through several incarnations. The initial versions were destroyed by fire or the sacking of the city and buried under the slabs of black marble. It is believed this was done by Sulla; however, it has also been argued that Julius Caesar may have buried the site during his re-alignment of the Comitium.

Dedicatory statues found at the Lapis Niger site

The original version of the site, first excavated in 1899, included a truncated cone of tuff (possibly a monument) and the lower portion of a square pillar (cippus) which was inscribed with an old Latin inscription – possibly the oldest in existence. A U-shaped altar of which only the base still survives, was added some time later. In front of the altar are two bases, which may also have been added separately from the main altar. The antiquarian Verrius Flaccus (whose work is preserved only in the epitome of Pompeius Festus), a contemporary of Augustus, described a statue of a resting lion placed on each base, "just as they may be seen today guarding graves". This is sometimes referred to as the Vulcanal. Also added at another period was an honorary column, possibly with a statue topping it.

Lines 8 to 16 of the inscription.

Archaeological excavations (1899–1905) revealed various dedicatory items from vase fragments, statues and pieces of animal sacrifices around at the site in a layer of deliberately placed gravel. All these artifacts date from very ancient Rome, between the 5th and 7th centuries BC.

The second version, placed when the first version was demolished in the 1st century BC to make way for further development in the forum, is a far simpler shrine. A pavement of black marble was laid over the original site and was surrounded by a low white wall or parapet. The new shrine lay just beside the Rostra, the senatorial speaking platform.

The inscription on the stone block has various interesting features. The lettering is closer to Greek letters than any known Latin lettering, since it is chronologically closer to the original borrowing of the Greek alphabet by peoples of Italy from Italian Greek colonies, such as Cumae. The inscription is written boustrophedon. Many of the oldest Latin inscriptions are written in this style. The meaning of the inscription is difficult to discern as the beginning and end are missing and only one third to one half of each line survives. It appears, however, to dedicate the shrine to a rex or king and to level grave curses at anyone who dares disturb it.

Attempts have been made at interpreting the meaning of the surviving fragment by Johannes Stroux,[3] Georges Dumézil and Robert E. A. Palmer.

Here is the reading of the inscription as given by Dumézil (on the right the reading by Arthur E. Gordon[4]):

Diagram of the text

Reproduction of the Lapis Niger stone block with the inscription in Old Latin

(Roman numbers represent the four faces of the cippus (pedestal) plus the edge. Fragments on each face are marked with letters (a, b, c). Arabic numbers denote lines. A sign (/) marks the end of a line).

(The letters whose reading is uncertain or disputed are given in italics). (The extension of the lacuna is uncertain: it may vary from ​¹⁄₂ to ​²⁄₃ or even more). (In Gordon's reading the v of duo in line 11 is read inscribed inside the o.)

Dumézil declined to interpret the first seven lines on the grounds that the inscription was too damaged, while acknowledging it was a prohibition under threat.

Dumézil's attempt [5] is based on the assumption of a parallelism of some points of the fragmentary text inscribed on the monument and a passage of Cicero's De Divinatione (II 36. 77). In that passage, Cicero, discussing the precautions taken by augurs to avoid embarrassing auspices, states: "to this is similar what we augurs prescribe, in order to avoid the occurrence of the iuges auspicium, that they order to free from the yoke the animals (which are yoked)".[6] 'They' here denotes the calatores, public slaves whom the augurs and other sacerdotes (priests) had at their service, and who, in the quoted passage, are to execute orders aimed at preventing profane people from spoiling and, by their inadvertent action thereby rendering void, the sacred operation.[7] Even though impossible to connect meaningfully to the rest of the text, the mention of the rex in this context would be significant as at the time of the Roman Monarchy augury was considered as pertaining to the king: Cicero in the same treatise states: "Divination, as well as wisdom, was considered regal".[8]

The iuges auspicium are defined thus by Paul the Deacon:[9] "The iuges auspicium occur when an animal under the yoke makes its excrements".

Varro in explaining the meaning of the name of the Via Sacra, states that the augurs, advancing along this street after leaving the arx used to inaugurate.[10] While advancing along the Via Sacra they should avoid meeting a iuges auspicium. As the Via Sacra begins on the Capitol and stretches along the whole Forum, in the descent from the hill to the Forum the first crossing they met, i.e. the first place where the incident in question could happen, was named Vicus Iugarius: Dumézil thinks its name should be understood according to the prescription on issue.[11] In fact the Comitium, where the cippus was found, is very close to the left side of this crossing. This fact would make it natural that the cippus were placed exactly there, as a warning to passers by of the possible occurrence of the order of the calatores.

In support of such an interpretation of the inscription, Dumézil emphasises the occurrence of the word recei (dative case of rex). Lines 8-9 could be read as: (the augur or the rex) [...iubet suu]m calatorem ha[ec *calare], lines 10-11 could be [...iug]ō (or [...subiugi]ō or [...iugari]ō) iumenta capiat, i.e.: "that he take the yoked animals from under the yoke" (with a separation prefix ex or de before the ablative as in Odyssea IX 416: "άπο μεν λίθον ειλε θυράων" = capere). Line 12 could be accordingly interpreted as: [...uti augur/ rex ad...-]m iter pe[rficiat].

The remaining lines could also be interpreted similarly, in Dumézil's view: iustum and liquidum are technical terms used as qualifying auspices, meaning regular, correctly taken and favourable.[12] Moreover, the original form of classic Latin aluus, abdomen and also stools, as still attested in Cato Maior was *aulos, that Max Niedermann on the grounds of Lithuanian reconstructs as * au(e)los. The h in quoihauelod could denote a hiatus as in ahēn(e)us, huhuic (i.e. bisyllable huic). Dumézil then proposes the following interpretation for lines 12-16: ... ne, descensa tunc iunctorum iumentoru]m cui aluo, nequ[eatur (religious operation under course in the passive infinitive) auspici]o iusto liquido. The hiatus marked by h in line 13 would require to read the antecedent word as quoii, dative of quoi: quoiei is the ancient dative of the accentuated relative pronoun, but one could suppose that in the enclitic indefinite pronoun the dative could have early been reduced to quoiī. The e in auelod can be an irrational vowel as in numerus from *nom-zo: cf. Etruscan Avile. As for loi(u)quod it may be an archaic form of a type of which one can cite other instances, as lucidus and Lucius, fluuidus and flŭuius, liuidus and Līuius.

Michael Grant, in his book Roman Forum writes: "The inscription found beneath the black marble ...clearly represents a piece of ritual law ... the opening words are translatable as a warning that a man who damages, defiles or violates the spot will be cursed. One reconstruction of the text interprets it as referring to the misfortune which could be caused if two yoked draught cattle should happen while passing by to drop excrement simultaneously. The coincidence would be a perilous omen".[13]

That the inscription may contain some laws of a very early period is also acknowledged by Allen C. Johnson.[14]

Palmer instead, on the basis of a detailed analysis of every recognisable word, gave the following interpretation of this inscription, which he too considers to be a law:

Whosoever (will violate) this (grove), let him be cursed. (Let no one dump) refuse (nor throw a body ...). Let it be lawful for the king (to sacrifice a cow in atonement). (Let him fine) one (fine) for each (offence). Whom the king (will fine, let him give cows). (Let the king have a ---) herald. (Let him yoke) a team, two heads, sterile ... Along the route ... (Him) who (will) not (sacrifice) with a young animal ... in ... lawful assembly in grove ...[15]