Talk:Lapis Niger

High Importance

I have not given this article a "high" importance level. It is connected to several other Wiki subjects that already have that rating.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Map

A map is now included in the in the info box. I am removing the tag from this page. However another map in the article itself wouldn't be so bad.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Remark

TABLE I (Civil procedure)

   Si in ius vocat, ito. Ni it, antestamino. Igitur em capito. 

Lapis niger

  ...     m kalatorem hai      ...      iod iouxmenta kapia dotau    ...

kalatorem versus vocat
iouxmenta kapia versus capito

Lapis niger seems to be a margin of a table containing laws. Not necessarily the of XII tables. -- jn 147.251.80.34 (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Translations

Added two translations of notable scholars. Comments welcome.09:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Aldrasto11 (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

What about giving a translation of Stroux's attempt? The provided link is off limits for unregistered persons.Aldrasto11 (talk) 03:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The Inscription

I've been trying to make parts of this general section more easily comprehensible, but am completely baffled by the following paragraph:

"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. It is obvious that 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 uicus iugarius: Dumézil thinks its name should be understood according to the prescription on issue. 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."

Repeated readings shed no light, even searches elsewhere on the net don't help. I've tried rewriting it, but it's too confusing to do so. My confusion hinges on the phrase uicus iugarius, which name Varro apparently gives to an intersection of the Via Sacra and (perhaps) another (unnamed) road, close to the Comitium. This is supposing that the article's author has interpreted Varro's translations correctly, or that I've interpreted the author's implied meaning correctly. Apparently the Lapis Niger, with its incomplete inscription, is located at this place, possibly because traffic pulled by yoked animals would be likely to pass here, with the potential bad omen of coincidental defecation. uicus iugarius, according to Dumézil, may be an etymological pun on "Juno Juga, a cult. Whether the inscription's warning related to a crossing of two routes, or simply to the passing of teams of oxen in opposite directions on the Via Sacra is both unclear, and possibly beside the point.

The point is, apparently, that by unyoking one team's oxen before passing the other team, any coincidental defecation would cease to be seen as a bad omen. It would be nice to make the paragraph both simpler, and clearer- anyone got any advice? Regardless, the section is badly written, with incomplete sentences. Mygodfrey (talk) 11:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Images used

The images, in conjunction with their legends, make not the least bit of sense in relation either to the lede or to their nearby texts. Is the Niger a building? A floor of a building? A neighborhood of a city? The images and their legends, best, should stand alone in explanatory value; at very least, they should combine with text to give a clear picture of the reality being described. As it stands, no picture at all would be better than these three images, with text and legends as they are. (The vanishing location on the map image is the poorest choice and design.) Apologies for bluntness, but when a scholarly individual comes away clueless, your average reader must be doing the same. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 02:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I think there is a general understanding today that the Lapis Niger is a series of open air shrines built over a period of time. Not sure if we should lose the images.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Inscription section indecipherable

…for reasons stated above, and more generally, for ridiculously poor composition. I propose it be moved to Talk, en masse, so the article becomes readable on the whole. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 02:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. We can discuss how to improve it before it is returned if we decide to return it.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lapis Niger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060725093908/http://www.ancientworlds.net/aw/Article/614653 to http://www.ancientworlds.net/aw/Article/614653

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:18, 17 December 2017 (UTC)