English:

Transcribed

[ ] lacuna of uncertain width

] text missing to left

] text missing to right

[.] one letter lost

. indecipherable trace of one letter

A letter damaged or incomplete

I bold numeral (I, V, X) with suprascript bar

extrinsecus: tabella I

IMP CAES DIV[.] H[ ] DIVI TRAIAN[

[ ]H[.]C NEP[ ]E PRONEP [.] AE[

[ ]VS HADRIANV[ ]VS AVG [.].VS

[..]NT MAX TR[ ]. COS IV P P

(5) [.]QVIT ET PEDIT [.]X[.....] QVI MILIT IN ALIS [

[.]V ET COH XIV QVA[....]LL NORIC ET SVLPIC[

[..]AFR VET ET I TH[ ].L HISP ET I LATOB

ET VARC ET Î PANN [...]ALM ET II C R ET I RAET[

ET VI BRITT P F ET II A[..]VR P F ET II VARC[

(10) ET III ET VI BREVC E[...]ENS P F ET II VARC[

[.....]AET ET IV THR [ ]VNT IN GERMANI[

[.....]B SALVIO I[ ]NO QVINQ ET VI[

[ ]SSIC SEX[ ]IGINT[ ]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - tablet broken here

[ ]H[.]N M[..]S [.]VOR NOM SVBSCR[

(15) S[..]T CIVIT ROM[ ]I EOR NON HAB ..

ET CONVB CVM VXOR QVAS TVNC HAB CVM ES[

CIVIT[.]S D[..]A AVT CVM IS QVAE POST DVXISS[

DVM.AX [ ] SINGVLIS A D XIII K DEC

[.] CVRTIO IVSTO COS

(20) C IVLIO IVLIANO

CLASSIS GERMANIC P F CVI PRAE[

M V.PIVS VLPIANVS

EX GREGALE

VELVOTIGERNO MAGIOTIGERNI F BRIT

(25) DESCRIPT ET RECOGNIT EX TABVL AEREA

QVAE FIXA EST ROMAE IN MVRO POST

TEMPL DIVI AVG AD MINERVAM

Notes on the reading

5. Enough space remains to show the numeral (barred IV) after ALIS was postponed to 6, where it has been lost.

6, SVLPIC Hardly space for C R after it.

7. There is space after LATOB

8. Sufficient trace of V in VARC to exclude BARC

9. II A[ST]VR can certainly be read. In the diploma of 152, ET I ASTVR is an engraver's error due to confusion between T and barred I.

10. BREVC is followed by E, not P.

11. Sufficient trace of A before first ET to confirm the restoration of [VI R]AET, with possibly even trace of R. The numeral is restored from other diplomas.

13. The restoration of this line is easier, since 14 does not begin with honesta missione as suggested (however abbreviated); there is room for [dimis(sis)] or similar in 14.

18, DEC. I am happy with this reading, although it is 'faint'.

19. The first consul's praenomen is covered by corrosion products, but can be restored from CIL v 5809 (Milan), C(aio) Curtio C(ai) [f(ilio)] / Pol(lia) Iusto / co(n)s(uli), as well as from the Ravenna waxed tablet. Diplomas such as RMD V, 418, which name him as legate of Moesia Superior in AD 157, do not include his praenomen. COS is inscribed after his name in the same line as, even though he is the first of two consuls; as in the Germania Inferior diploma of 152.

20. Of the second consul's praenomen only the lower curve remains, the rest being covered by the same patch of corrosion products that has robbed the first consul of his praenomen. This curve belongs to C, not P, since it is made by a series of short graver-strokes just like the C of CVRTIO in the line above. There is no bottom-serif to the left (for R; compare 22 below). It cannot be P because this would have been made with a vertical downstroke completed by a base serif.

22. Prefect's nomen: only the vertical stroke of the second letter survives, but part of the loop (for P) of the third. His cognomen: second letter similar, but third letter is T or P. (See further, below.)

24. Tenth letter of recipient's name: R can be read, rather than C. Only the bottom of the letter survives, but to the left of the curve (at first sight part of C, but in fact the tail of R) there is the foot of a vertical stroke (for R).

24. Father's name: MAGIO- , not MAGLO- (which would be more attractive, see below); the letter I has the usual pronounced lower serif, but is not wide enough to become L.

intus, tabella I

IM...[ ]ADRIAN DIVI TRAI[

PART[..]C N[ ]I NERVAE PRON T AE

LIVS HADRIAN[ ]NTONIN AVG PIVS

P M TR POT XIII IMP II COS IV P P

5 E[Q] ET [...] EXERC P F Q M IN AL IV ET COH

... ET SVNT IN [G]ERM INFER SVB IV

[ ] . N[ ]IP EM[ ]

[ ] N[ ]. QVOR NOM [ ]CR

[ ]VX QVAS TVNC [ ]M

10 [ ]AVT CVM IS QVAS TVNC

[ ] vacat

Notes on the reading

1. No 'I' after HADRIAN

2. Space after AE, which is continued in 3.

3. Traces of TR POT numeral, suggesting XIII (10 December 149 - 9 December 150) (see below, under 'Date').

5. Sufficient trace of EXERC P F

6. Although SALVIO would be expected, the traces look like IV[ Can this be for Iu[liano]?

intus, tabella II

IVSTO E[ ] IVLIANO COS

CLASS GERM[ ] P F CVI PRAEEST

M VLPIV[S] VLPIANVS

[E]X GREGALE

5 traces MAGIOTIGERNI F BRIT

vacat

Notes on the reading

1. The two fragments can be aligned by the continuity of sense in lines 2, 3, 4 and 5. IVSTO and IVLIANO belong to the same (first) line, making it plain that the consuls were identified by their cognomina alone, Iusto e[t] Iuliano co(n)s(ulibus). So the reading cannot contribute to the question of whether Julianus' praenomen was C or P.

3. The prefect's nomen: the third letter is clearly P, formed by a vertical stroke which is topped by a curving stroke, and based by a horizontal serif. This might be T, since the 'curving stroke' hardly turns downward at all (in other P's it extends quite some way), but the letter cannot be C, which would have been formed by a series of short cuts in a curve.

extrinsecus, tabella II

[ [ SERVILI vacat [ ]

L PVLLI vacat ]CHR[

M SENTILI vacat ]IA[

[.]I IVLI vacat ]F[ ]

5 C I[.]LI vacat SILVANI

L P[ ] vacat VELOCIS

[ ] OCILI vacat PRISCI

The Date

Antoninus Pius is IMP II (AD 142 and later), COS IV (AD 145 and later), but his TR POT numeral has been lost from the outer text. The inner text, line 5, undoubtedly begins PM TR POT (only the final T being obscured, with a rather slight downward-sloping cross-bar). 'X' of the numeral is quite plain, but then there is a patch of adhering corrosion products (they could probably be cleaned off). To the right of X is the beginning of the suprascript bar for the numeral (the end, as made from right to left), and below this bar, slight trace of III. The bold serif at the foot of the last digit is exposed, together with the end of the numeral-stroke above it, which is too vertical to be part of V. The space to the left would suit either V or II, but what little can be discerned in the surface of the corrosion products suggests there were two strokes, more or less vertical. Thus three strokes in all.

The other evidence of date is Salvius Julianus' governorship of Germania Inferior (c. AD 150/51 - 153 or later) and the suffect consuls. The TR POT numeral best resembles XIII (for AD 150) (see above), and the other possibilities TR POT XVI (for AD 153) and TR POT XVII (for AD 154) can be excluded historically, since Cattius Marcellus and Pettiedius Gallus were suffects on 26 Oct 153 (RMD V, 411, etc.) and are unlikely to have been replaced as late in the year as November; and Julius Statius Severus and T. Junius Severus were suffects in November and December 154 (CIL xvi 104 and RMD I, 48).

The suffect consuls, [C.] Curtius Justus and C. Julius Julianus, are a problem. The praenomen of Curtius Justus can be restored from CIL v 5809 (see above, note to I ext 22) which names him as consul (year not stated) and the legate of Antoninus Pius; he can certainly be identified with the legate of Moesia Superior in AD 157 who is named in diplomas (RMD V, 418, etc.) without his praenomen (PIR C 1613).

The suffect consulship of Curtius Justus is thus certain, but the only previous evidence of his colleague is the waxed tablet AE 1922, 135 (CPL 193; FIRA III, No. 134), which was first published by Eger in Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte (Romanistische Abteilung) 42 (1921), 452-68. It was excavated in the Fayum in 1912, and is now in the Giessen University Library. It is the deed of sale of a slave-girl written in bad Latin transliterated into Greek, followed by a summary in more bad Latin in Roman letters. Its consular heading is γαιω κουρτιω ιουϲτω πουπλιω ιουλιω ναυτωνε κωνϲουλιβουϲ, i.e. Gaio Curtio Iusto Publio Iulio Nautone consulibus. (I do not know if the subscript iotas are original, or have been restored by the editor.) The cognomen of the second consul, Nauto, is otherwise unattested and (considering the man's eminence) is inherently unlikely as a Roman name; the reading is uncertain - Eger notes 'Lesung am Schlusse unsicher. Unter τ ein Strich, auch bei ε Striche'. PIR attaches a question-mark.

The tablet was later published with a photograph (<a href="http://bibl.uni-giessen.de/pin">http://bibl.uni-giessen.de/pin</a> /kbgo10/ kbgipap10-012.html) by H G Gundel, 'Antiker Kaufvertrag auf einer Wachstafel aus Ravenna', in Giessener Hochschulblätter 8 (1960), 2/3, but without any further elucidation of the reading. His photograph only shows that the tablet retains its black wax and is well preserved; unfortunately the resolution is not sufficient to allow an improved reading. But ιουλιανω, especially if damaged, could easily be mis-read as ναυτωνε. The praenomen πουπλιω is more of a problem, since this cannot be a mis-reading. Since I am unwilling to read P (see above), I can only guess that the scribe made a mistake. Since Curtius Justus was Pol(lia tribu), he may have confused it with the second consul's praenomen (which was actually the same as that of the first), but would the consul's voting-tribe have been available to him?

A suffect consul Gaius (not Publius) Iulius Iulianus might be the same as C. Iulius Iulianus of CIL xi 3337 (Centumcellae, PIR I 366), who is a former equestrian officer adlected inter aedilicios a divo Hadriano, and now praetor (i.e. in the reign of Antoninus Pius). Since Curtius Justus was adlected inter tribunicios a div[o H]ad[riano] (CIL iii 1458 Sarmizegthusa, PIR C 1613) after an equestrian career, and occupied several senatorial posts before governing Moesia Superior in AD 157, he could well have been Julianus' contemporary, more or less, just as he shared his equestrian origin. It is easy to suppose that the praetor Julianus subsequently became consul, just as Curtius Justus did from being praetor peregrinus.

The prefect of the German Fleet

I am happy with the reading M VLPIVS VLPIANVS, which I deduced from I ext 22 before reading II intus 3, where it is clearer. In I ex 22, the praenomen M is obvious. The nomen can only begin with V, but the next three letters are covered by corrosion products: there is sufficient trace of three vertical strokes quite widely spaced. Next V, which is certain (the first diagonal being clear, but the second covered); then the bottom stroke of S, and an uninscribed space. Clearly a short nomen in V- ending in -IVS, with the two intervening letters uncertain: V..IVS

The cognomen clearly begins with V. The second letter (of which only the bottom half is uncovered) is L or E. The third letter is a vertical stroke too close to the second to be T. It must be I, or (with loop obscured) P. After that, the typical cognomen ending -IANVS, which would exclude the previous letter as I. So VEPLIANVS(!) or VLPIANVS.

The name is repeated at II int 3. Once again, the praenomen M is certain. After a space, the second stroke of V is obscured, but the reading is certain. LPIV is entirely clear. P cannot be C: it is made with three separate strokes, the first curving downwards to the right, the second a vertical, the third the usual bottom serif. S is lost, but inevitable since uninscribed space follows (i.e. the nomen has ended). Then the cognomen. Initial VL is certain. Next, the bottom serif of P is obscured, but the loop is plain. Once again -IANVS concludes it, more cramped and angular than in I ext 22, but entirely clear except for A which is partly obscured.

'Marcus Ulpius Ulpianus' is a name that suits the date of the diploma: the son of a first-generation Ulpius. Eck and Pangerl note other instances of early Ulpii who gained equestrian rank in their paper 'Ein M. Ulpius Marcellus als praefectus classis Ravennatis in einem Diplom des Jahres 119 n. Chr.' (ZPE 181 (2012), 202-06). However, I have not been able to identify this Marcus Ulpius Ulpianus with the one or two others of that name on record, nor indeed to find an equestrian officer with the names Marcus Ulpius [...] or [...] Ulpianus.

The name of the recipient

Preserved only in I ext 24. The short second stroke of G is clear, so it is -TIG- not -TIC- Two letters further on is the only problem, since the upper part of this letter is obscured by corrosion products. There is a curve like C, but just to its left the little bottom-serif of a vertical stroke. Compare R immediately below in the next line. R can easily be read, giving the well-attested name-element tigernos ('king', 'master'). This has not previously been found in Roman Britain, but is well attested in post-Roman Celtic names.

The first element (velvo-) is more difficult. The reading VELVO- is quite clear; otherwise VELIO or VELLO would have been attractive, since they are so frequent as initial elements. I wonder whether the second 'u' is a sort of glide after 'l', equivalent to 'li' or 'll', but compare the feminine name Velva (RIB 688, with Velvinna (Tab. Sulis 4.4) and Velvalis (Tab. Sulis 53.7)). These may imply a masculine name Velvus, but equally well support the idea of Vel-u-us with a glide.

The recipient's name is clearly derived from his father's, Magiotigernus (its reading being confirmed by the damaged repetition in II int 5). The first element magio- ('great') is frequent in Celtic names (for example the Gallic Magiorix, which would have meant much the same), but the reading MAGLO would have been nice, since Tigernomaglus ('king of kings') is so well attested in post-Roman sources; but the letter is certainly I (with a short serif, not L with a long).

Both names are in the oblique case (dative and genitive), so the nominative must be surmised; but presumably it was superficially latinised to -us rather than retained as -os.

1. Length: 54.60mm, Width: 49.30mm, Thickness: 1.50mm, Weight: 18.10g.

2. Length: 56.22mm, Width: 49.55mm, Thickness: 1.66mm, Weight: 11.30g.

3. Length: 52.12mm, Width: 49.78mm, Thickness: 2.04mm, Weight: 19.80g.

4. Length: 50.97mm, Width: 42.79mm, Thickness: 1.55mm, Weight: 9.5g.

4a. Length: 15.25mm, Width: 6.25mm, Thickness: 1.43mm, Weight: 0.6g. (Fragment)

5. Length: 59.34mm, Width: 48.13mm, Thickness: 1.60mm, Weight: 14.9g.

6. Length: 68.10mm, Width: 52.66mm, Thickness: 2.13mm, Weight: 31.50g.

7. Length: 67.75mm, Width: 50.55mm, Thickness: 2.29mm, Weight: 26.90g.

8. Length: 67.21mm, Width: 54.49mm, Thickness: 2.26mm, Weight: 31.20g.