Arqueologia - Historia

The Lusitanian text of Cabeço das Fráguas follows an evident and clearly intentional symmetry between the two series of declared elements: the animal offerings and the receiving deities. Assuming the theonyms to be in the dative case, the traditional interpretation of this epigraph called for the existence of singular dat. in -a of the first declension in this linguistic context. But this axiom was based on fragile evidences and was refuted by Untermann and others who, however, offered alternatives that lacked solidity themselves. An attempted compromise by the author of the present paper later proved to be likewise erroneous. Now, reviewing the internal features of the text and the specificities of the sanctuary, a radically different proposition is presented, approaching the epigraph of Fráguas as an invocatio and considering the theonyms to be necessarily written, without exception, in the vocative case.

Considerando o cariz manifestamente corrompido do topónimo Χρητίνα registado nos códices da «Geografia» de Ptolomeu (II 5, 6), levando ainda em conta a cadeia de transmissão de tal obra e as mais frequentes tipologias de erros ocorridos ao longo desse longo e moroso processo de cópia e transcrição, designadamente a troca de letras entre si com determinadas afinidades paleográficas, e, por fim, atendendo à realidade linguística da Hispania ocidental, território em que se insere o nome em análise, o A. propõe, como correcção que crê mais provável, a forma *Ἀρητίνα. Na busca de paralelos dentro da onomástica lusitano-galaica, conclui-se existir apenas um elemento francamente comparável: o topónimo Aritium que, entre a bacia do curso inferior do Tejo e a do Mondego, qualifica três povoações: Aritium Praetorium, Aritium Vetus e, mais a norte, Aritium. Procurando situar topograficamente Χρητίνα/ /*Ἀρητίνα de forma isenta e despida de preconceitos historiográficos, antigos ou recentes, após proceder a uma minuciosa reanálise das indicações ptolomaicas para a referida faixa territorial inclusa entre o Tejo e o Mondego e ainda para algumas outras mais setentrionais, que o levam a apresentar algumas pequenas – mas determinantes – rectificações quanto a certas coordenadas claramente deturpadas na versão do texto de Ptolomeu que nos chegou, o A. propõe que, com elevada plausibilidade, o ubi do referido lugar se localizasse algures na zona interior do ager Olisiponesis, talvez não longe do respectivo limite norte. Noutro aspecto, tendo-se revelado inconclusivos, a nível filológico e no domínio paleohispânico – e mesmo latino –, a compreensão e o enquadramento da base arit-/aret-, patente em Aritium e, de acordo com a reconstituição ora avançada, também em *Ἀρητίνα, o A. recorda então as numerosas e significativas evidências antroponímicas da vinda de migrantes itálicos, designadamente da Etrúria e sobretudo durante o séc. I a.C., senão mesmo já antes, para o territorium de Olisipo e confinantes, sugerindo que igualmente os topónimos em estudo pudessem afinal revelar-se também eles explicáveis no âmbito dessa mesma conjuntura histórico-demográfica, vindo pois a derivar, in origine, do nome da importante cidade etrusca de Ar(r)etium.

In this second and final part of his study on the polysemy that was ascribed throughout the centuries to the great slate of the Aelii (CIL II 267), the author analyses and attempts to explain in detail and to culturally contextualize another legendary tradition, this one pertaining to the realm of popular belief and fantasy, built around the old stone slab – and its mysterious writing – by the rural pilgrims that, throughout time, travelled from the ends of the territories of Sintra and Mafra to the hermitage of São Miguel de Odrinhas. In the end, the author points out that our own current perspectives, both scientific and museologic, are themselves new and specific interpretations that, equally and obviously, change and add to the original semantic dimension of the investigated object.

The large framed slab of São Miguel de Odrinhas, Sintra (Portugal), that during the first century A.D. was placed above the door of the mausoleum inside which were entombed the ashes of several members of the gens Aelia and other people with familial connections, and that recorded and perpetuated the memory of their names (CIL II 267), was found, transcribed and made known by Portuguese humanists of the mid-16th century, notably André de Resende. Being quickly included in the most important Iberian and international antiquary literature (Morales, Gruterus…), it soon aroused a great deal of interest due to mentioning, among others, a certain L. Aelius Sex. f. Gal. Seneca. Based upon this fact, two impressive historical propositions were created: the first intended to establish a family relation between this unknown individual and the celebrated philosopher Seneca; the second – making use of the convenient reference of a famous forged chronicle, the pseudo-Dexter – interpreted the inscription as the epitaph of a mentioned Lucius Seneca verus Christianus and the solidity of the slab itself as doubtless and material evidence of the apostolic evangelization of the Hispaniae. Eventually, both theories ended up merging, and both persevered until a much later date. The rural peoples who, throughout time, went in pilgrimage to the chapel of São Miguel de Odrinhas came up with a different legendary tradition concerning the old stone table and its puzzling writings, this one with a fabulous background that dissipated only in the 20th century. Along this text the Author presents, analyses and interprets these different “secondary contexts”, not leaving aside the fact that also our current views, both scientific and museological, are themselves new and specific interpretations that, them as well, add to and change the semantic dimension of the studied object.

The A. focus the inscription in Lusitanian language recently found in Arronches (Portugal). From a direct analysis of the stela, he reviews its reading, presenting a new interpretation. This one considers that theonimic designations precede those of the sacrificial animals – and not the opposite. The A. concludes that the invocative text is organized as followed: (a) a consecration to a “triform” goddess who receives three animals; (b) a “trifunctional” textual block devoted to three deities, culminating with Reva who receives tauro ifate; (c) a textual block devoted to Bandi and Munitie, the two main tutelary deities of the Galaico-Lusitanian area. Then, it follows the complementary text, which contains the personal names and the generic designation of the cultores – ougurani – as well as references to the ritualistic circumstances.