This is to announce the publication of Hispania Epigraphica latest issue, which is respectfully dedicated to the memory of Géza Alföldy (1933-2011).
The volume deals with inscriptions published during the year 2008, although it also includes some selected pieces published in following years. It contains 255 references to new or revised inscriptions (mostly Latin, some in Greek and several in Paleohispanic scripts), sorted by modern place of finding; in total, 45 documents from Portugal and 210 from Spain, to which the editors often add comments, amends or further bibliography.
Notice that, effective from the previous issue, the publisher (Universidad Complutense de Madrid) has changed its policy on digital editions. Now, Hispania Epigraphica is not sequestered for a year after publication, so the latest issue is already available for free download at the UCM journals’ server. Nevertheless, I’m attaching to this post the volume’s front matter for easy reference.
The inscriptions reviewed in Hispania Epigraphica 17 are now being posted in Hispania Epigraphica Online, with full data and pictures.
I forgot to mention the volume’s bibliographical IDs:
Consulting “Hispania Epigrafica” 17, 2012, with access and possibility to comments, I would like to make some remarks. I am mainly interested in the non Greek or non Latin inscriptions.
1st The Latin and Greek inscriptions are noted in their own writing with Latin and Greek majuscules. Why do you not follow the same for the remaining texts, which you call either Celtiberian, or Iberian, or Paleohispanic? You published the photograph of the inscription of Arronches, Portugal.
Only the original epigraphic form permits to read, to understand, to translate.
Number: 129, bronze de Luzaga. You publish again the transcription of MLH K. 6.1. The cited translation system identified one letter correctly from more the hundred. The text in not to understand and has no sense, or only nonsense, which proves that the translation is absolutely wrong.
Consult for more information: Sauren, H., 2007, Acta Paleohispanica IX. A review of the Semitic Inscriptions. BAEO 43, 103-149, especially 128, critics to the article of C. J. Colera.
2nd You use the same system 162, the stele of Belvís de la Jara, Toledo, and the reading is impossible. If the publication of E. R. Luján Marinez, has a picture or / and a drawing, I beg you to send the article, which it is not available to me.
My transliterations respect the alphabetic writing and the knowledge of the languages. I take in my advantage that my translations, based on dictionaries and grammar, are coherent, respond to concrete situations and are understandable.
I remain open for discussion even of details, but if Hispania Epigrafica does not publish the right epigraphic form, or does not cite different decipherments, how can the solution of the script be discussed? The aim of the studies is the history of your country and of Western Europe before our era. To copy again and again a wrong system fails this aim.
3rd Other texts cited in Hep 17 are published in: http://www.herbertsauren.netau.net You will find there the text of Arronches with other similar inscriptions of Sanceno.
With kind regards