Tablet 594

description (a) 28 x 91 mm. (b) 30 x 70 mm. (c) 40 x 74 mm. (d) 23 x 38 mm. (e) 18 x 34 mm. (f) 16 x 37 mm. (g) 6 x 32 mm. (h) 11 x 39 mm. (j-n) small fragments.
Archaeological data. Location: SG (bonfire site). Period: 3.
Under this inventory number are recorded 13 separate fragments of an account or accounts with text written across the grain of the wood, on one side of the leaf only. They are probably, although not certainly, all by the same hand and there are clear indications that the subject-matter is related. We publish them all together here, on the hypothesis that they belong to the same account, although the conditions under which they were found (see Introduction, p.00) make it impossible to connect all the fragments physically and it is, indeed, possible that some may be connected with other fragments inventoried under adjacent numbers. It is noteworthy that the one fragment which is complete at the top and the bottom (a) is very close in its vertical dimension to the leaves in 581 and 583. The upshot is that we have three substantial pieces (a-c) each composed of several joining fragments, five smaller pieces with legible writing (d-h) and a further five scraps (j-n).
The fragmentary and uncertain state of the text is regrettable since it contains several points of interest, in particular the mention of the name Anauionenses, a tribal name in southern Scotland (see a.6 note). We cannot be sure whether the items in the account are related in kind, and several of the entries suggest that they are not, making it probable that we have a miscellany of items, as in other accounts from Vindolanda. The one recurrent concern is the number of possible references to hunting-dogs called segosi and uertragi, on which see Adams (2003). The word segosi or segosius occurs, or can confidently be restored, in c.4, e.1, 2 and perhaps 3. We interpret segosi as a form of the nominative plural of segusius, word which designates a type of Celtic hunting-dog described by Arrian, Cyneg. 3.1-4, and regarded as the ancestor of the modern bloodhound: ἔστιν γὰρ καὶ ταύτῃ κυνῶν γένος ἰχνεῦσαι μὲν οὐ μεῖον σοφὸν ἢ τὸ Καρικὸν καὶ Κρητικόν, τὴν δὲ ἰδέαν ἀνιαρὸν καὶ θηριῶδες. καὶ αὗται ἰχνεύουσιν ξὺν κλαγγῇ καὶ ὑλαγμῷ, ὁπόσα αἱ Καρικαὶ ἐπικλάζουσαι. ἀλλ' αὗταί γε ἔτι μᾶλλον ἔκφρονες γίγνονται, ἐπειδὰν αἴσθωνται ἴχνους· καὶ ἔστιν ὅτε καὶ ἐπὶ ἑώλοις ὑπερλαμπρύνονται. ὥστε ἐμεμψάμην ἔγωγε αὐτῶν τὸ πολὺ τῆς κλαγγῆς καὶ τὸ ὅμοιον ἐπὶ παντὶ ἴχνει καὶ τῷ δρομαίῳ οὐ μεῖον ἢ τῷ εὐναίῳ. μεταθεῖν δὲ καὶ ἀνευρίσκειν τὸν ὑποκινήσαντα οὔτε τῶν Καρικῶν φαυλότεραί εἰσιν οὔτε τῶν Κρητικῶν, ὅτι μὴ κατὰ τὴν ὠκύτητα. ἀγαπητὸν γοῦν εἰ καὶ ἕνα λα- γὼν χειμῶνος ὥρᾳ κατακαίνοιεν· τοσαύτην διατριβὴν ἐς τὸ ἀναπαύεσθαι αὐτῷ παρέχουσιν, εἰ μή τι ἄρα ὑπὸ θο- ρύβου τῶν κυνῶν ἁλοίη ἔκφρων γενόμενος. καλοῦνται δὲ Σεγούσιαι αἵδε αἱ κύνες, ἀπὸ ἔθνους Κελτικοῦ τὴν ἐπωνυμίαν ἔχουσαι, οὗ πρῶτον, ὥς γέ μοι δοκεῖ, ἔφυσάν τε καὶ εὐδοκίμησαν As far as the name itself is concerned, it should be noted that Σεγούσιαι is a modern emendation of the manuscript's ἐγουσίαι (cf. AS II 1457). Most scholars connect it etymologically with the Segusiavi whose capital was Forum Segusiavum in the Loire valley.
The occurrences of the word uertragus in the present text are less straightforward. The single place in which the word might occur almost in full is d.6, where we can read ụertragm (see note). In all other instances, the word would have to be restored from a few letters: uer[ (a.2, b.7, 9, agum (c.3), ṭragum (c.10). The cumulative force of these letter combinations, along with the suitability to the context, gives some confidence that the word should be restored in most or all of these entries. Arrian, Cyneg. 6.6-7 also describes the uertragi, which are greyhounds: αἱ δὲ ποδώκεις κύνες αἱ Κελτικαὶ καλοῦνται μὲν οὐέρτραγοι φωνῇ τῇ Κελτῶν, οὐκ ἀπὸ ἔθνους οὐδενός, καθάπερ αἱ Κρητικαὶ ἢ Καρικαὶ ἢ Λάκαιναι, ἀλλὰ ὡς τῶν Κρητικῶν αἱ διάπονοι ἀπὸ τοῦ φιλοπονεῖν καὶ <αἱ> ἰταμαὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ ὀξέος καὶ αἱ μικταὶ ἀπ' ἀμφοῖν, οὕτω δὲ καὶ αὗται ἀπὸ τῆς ὠκύτητος. τὴν δὲ ἰδέαν καλόν τι χρῆμά εἰσιν κατά τε τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αἱ γενναιόταται αὐτῶν καὶ κατὰ τὸ σῶμα ἅπαν καὶ τὴν τρίχα καὶ τὴν χρόαν· οὕτω ταῖς τε ποικίλαις ἐπανθεῖ τὸ ποικίλον, καὶ ὅσαις ἁπλῆ ἡ χρόα ἐστίν, ἀποστίλβει καὶ αὕτη, καὶ ἔστιν ἥδιστον θέαμα ἀνδρὶ θηρευτικῷ See also Martial, 14.200. Apart from the collocation in Arrian, the words also turn up together in the Lex Salica (for citations see AS III 247-8). For discussions of these terms and of Celtic and British hunting-dogs in general see Aymard (1951), 267-8 and plate 12b (who also offers an alternative etymology for Segusius, based on sequi, and tries to identify these hounds on a relief in Cluny), Hull (1964), 24-5, Anderson (1985), 108. The present text is a welcome supplement to other evidence in the tablets for the popularity of hunting among the military personnel at Vindolanda (see 233.i.4 and note, 593, 615), cf. A.R.Birley (2002), 147-51. The text is also mentioned by A.R Birley (2001c), 20 but we have not adopted readings of all the names which he cites.
In fragment (a) the leaf is complete at the top and the left, and probably at the bottom. It may well, of course, not be the beginning of the account of which it forms part. The form in which the text is set out on this fragment suggests that we have names in ecthesis, followed by commodities indented, although the loss at the right means that none of the latter actually survives in full. It is probable that fragment (b), in which the layout is the same, belongs with (a) and that the two belong to a single diptych. Fragment (b) is complete at the left and the bottom. The text lists personal names in the nominative or the dative, followed by items or commodities which are indented. Fragment (c) is incomplete at all margins except possibly the foot. There is no certain example of a personal name and the lines which can be read suggest objects or things supplied. Fragment (d) consists of two pieces, which probably join as illustrated in A.R.Birley (2002), Plate 108. In fragment (f) there may be the remains of a tie-hole at the bottom.


Ṃị.am . [ n
uer . [ n
Verecundọ [ n
albuṃ [ n
5 amilụ[m] n
Anauion [ n
] gnịus Le . [ n
Ḅurc̣tẹrda . [ n
atra. [ n
10 Neg̣alet [ n
] . [
. . . . . . . .
... qu . [ n
F̣lauụs li . [ n
... f̣reu [ n
mur . [ n
5 Verecun[d-] n
Simp̣lex [ n
ue. [ n
Crescenti [ n
uer [ n
10 Septiṃio . [
. . . . . . . .
] . ẹnt . n
] agụṃ [ n
[s]egosi .. [ n
5 ] .. ṣ . ḍd . [ n
s[...] . s .... [ n
] ueṇtraḷe uacat [ n
uacat (?)
] ... lagi .…ṛquatuṃ [ n
10 ] ṭragum n
] u ṣ p. cum n
. . . . . . . .
traces of 2 lines
] ṣ genia .. traces n
[] .mueṛ traces n
5 ] . ṇịgrụm [ n
] .er ṭragm [
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
] .m segosi[ n
] ṃ segosi [ n
] .g .si traces (?) n
[] traces (?)
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
] . lḷo [ n
] . ụentạ [
] .ra .. f̣e [ n
. . . . . . . .
]gu ṣ [
] .si [ n
] .s [
] .o ṃ [
5 ] . [
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
] ..qu .. [ n
] album n
] .um
5 ]urin [ n
. . . . . . . .
small scraps with traces of a few letters.


a.1. The alignment suggests that this should be a name and it seems to begin with either ṃịṛam or ạụṛam. The traces across the break seem to represent only one letter and r looks good. At the start ṃị is favoured by the fact that the writer does not elsewhere use the form of u made in two strokes with a serif on the right-hand stroke. The letter before the break does not look like u; it is more like c but might possibly be read as i. We can find no evidence for a name Miramius (-icus) vel sim.

a.2. There may be a slight trace of ink at the right before the break. If the subject-matter is connected with the other fragments, we might suggest uerṭ[ragum, cf. introduction. But there are other possibilities, e.g. uerị[culum (a javelin), cf. 596.back 2-3 note.

a.3. The name Verecundus is very common at Vindolanda (see Tab.Vindol.II, Index II s.v., 649.ii.16, 745.back, 814.2, 828.2), and in the north-west generally (see NPEL s.v.).

a.4. This could be the noun, meaning chalk or some similar white substance, or a whitened board, cf. line 9 note. The word occurs again at h.3.

a.5. amilụ[m is an attested form of amylum (= meal), as is amulum which appears in 204.5 (see Adams (2003)). The u, however, of which only a part survives at the break, would be in a form different from that elsewhere in this text since the vertical slopes markedly to the right. A quite different interpretation, which is however not supported by the indentation of this line, would be to take lines 5 and 6 together as a milị[tibus / Anauion[ensibus, or something like it, as a heading for the three entries which follow (see following note).

a.6. Anauion[: this is presumably to be restored as some case of the ethnic proper name Anauionenses (see previous note). An alternative possibility is a proper name Anavionus, derived from the ethnic (suggested by A.R.Birley (2001c), 20); for comparison, we note that there is a personal name Bellovacus, derived from the Gallic ethnic, in one of the stilus tablets ( 85.974, see Bowman and Tomlin (2004)). For this ethnic, referring to the people in Annandale, the region of the Anava, the river Annan in southern Scotland, see PNRB 249-50, A.R.Birley (2001c). The author of 611, Haterius Nepos, held a post as censitor of the Anavionenses, attested in ILS 1338, perhaps c. 95-100 (see 611 introd. and cf. A.R.Birley (2001c), 15-6). The alignment of lines 6-8 is perhaps the key to interpreting this entry; the names in lines 7 and 8, although that in line 7 is not fully preserved, were clearly justified to the left-hand side of the column, in alignment with the other names in the list, whereas line 6 is indented by a space of two letters. This suggests that we have Anauion[enses, slightly indented, as a heading followed by the names of two people from this ethnic or regional group. The commodities listed in the present document exclude the possibility that this might be some sort of a census-list to be connected with the activities of Haterius Nepos (cf. line 7, note).

a.7. ]gnịus Le.[: the alignment suggests that there cannot be more than one or at most two letters missing at the left (there may in fact be traces on the edge). Attested nomina of the right length are Agnius, Egnius, Ignius; Dignius, Dognius and Magnius are also attested nomina (LE 184, 191) and Magnius occurs in Britain (RIB 162). What follows must then be a cognomen, of which the third letter is very likely to be u; this suggests Leubius, which occurs in 609.a.ii.14 (and see note ad loc.). If this does fall under the heading of Anauionenses in line 6, it would be of interest as possible evidence for enfranchisement (or at least the use of Roman nomina by an auxiliary soldier, which is not the same thing, see P.Diog. p.21, Hagedorn (1979), 47-59, note 27a) in a tribe beyond the frontier; grants of citizenship for officers of levies/auxiliary units raised in areas beyond the frontiers are of course well-known from the beginning of the imperial period, as famously exemplified by the words of Segestes at Tacitus, Ann. 1.58, non hic mihi primus erga populum Romanum fidei et constantiae dies. ex quo a diuo Augusto civitate donatus sum, amicos inimicosque ex uestris utilitatibus delegi …. In general, see A.R.Birley (2001c), 20, "the census of the Anavionenses was surely to find out how many young men, not taxes in money, they could produce …". This name seems clearly to be in the nominative case (so also the names in b.2 and b.6) whereas some if not all of the others (the endings of several names are not preserved) are in the dative. On this phenomenon see Adams (1995a), 114-5; there is no reason why the account should not be a mixture of some items supplied or sold to various people in the dative, while other entries record in the nominative people who are, for example, the subject of an understood verb such as debet.

a.8. Ḅurc̣tẹrda.[: the first letter is almost certainly , although the top of the letter has been lost. The alignment suggests that we have a name and bur is a well-attested Celtic name-element (see AS I 632, 641). What follows looks most like cter or iter which yields ḅurc̣terda.[ or burịterda.[; we cannot find a parallel for these combinations of letters. We note the attestation of the name Burspra at Cologne (CIL XIII 8632, 8392), but (a) it is very difficult to read the fourth letter here as s, and (b) the name in the inscriptions is unequivocally female. One other possibility which has occurred to us is to read ḅurịc̣ạ ạd a.[; burica would then be a proper name (cf. Buricus in AS I 641) which could perhaps be masculine in this form (cf. Verica, king of the Atrebates, AS III 215, and Latin cognomina such as Nasica, Civica), followed by a function such as we find in 180.10, 27, perhaps ad arma, armamentarium, or armenta. But we think this could hardly be defended palaeographically

a.9. atra.[: the trace at the right is compatible with m. Since the word is inset, this ought to be a commodity and atraṃ[entum would therefore offer better sense than the adjective atram (but see album in line 4). The word occurs in 591.b.6.

a.10. The reading looks certain and CIR 446 (Bucklemund) attests Negalaet(i)us as a name (Fatalis Negalaeti Grati lib.), the exact form depending on whether we take the name as a patronymic or the nomen of Gratus; presumably this is what we have here.

b.1. The indentation suggests that we must have an item or a commodity rather than a name. The first three letters are very damaged and only qu can be read with certainty. ṭọṛqu.[ would make sense; ṭọṛ is difficult to read, though not impossible. This suggests ṭọṛquẹ[s but the trace of the final letter looks more like a or r. Compare c.9 where torquatum is a possible reading. There is clearly nothing preceding it here so we would have either to suppose that there was a noun in the previous line or to construe it as a noun in a neuter adjectival form, perhaps some kind of a twisted collar or neckband? This might be relevant to the fact that we have references to hunting-dogs elsewhere in these fragments (see introduction) and perhaps cf. 597.b.4, collares kanum.

b.2. Neither Flauius nor Flauio can be read. Although the first letter looks more like s, we suggest the name Flauus, which is well attested (see NPEL), in the nominative case, cf. line 6. What follows is likely to be some further form of identification, such as an ethnic or a function (e.g. librarius, cf. 670 III.front 4 and note).

b.3. The position of this word suggests that it must be a name. The individual letters seem clear but unpromising: we read them as ṃịṭf̣reu[, or ṃịṭẹreu[ but we can find nothing in the onomastica which fits these letter combinations.

b.4. murị[a could be restored, cf. 190.c.27, 202.a.5, 302.margin 2, but see h.5 where we have ]urin[; hordeum murinum is a kind of wild barley, according to Pliny, NH 22.135.

b.5. On Verecundus see a.3 note.

b.6. Simp̣lex: for the nominative form compare line 2, a.7 and note. The name occurs in 773.

b.7. The trace of the third letter is compatible with the tail of r, in which case we might restore ueṛ[tragum (see introd.).

b.8. Since there is a dative name in line 10, we might have Crescenti in the dative here; the name is particularly common at Vindolanda, see Tab. Vindol.II, Index II s.v. and 574.9 note. But we note that there are also names in the nominative in lines a.7 and b.2 and 6, and the names Crescentius and Crescentinus are also attested.

b.9. Again perhaps uer[tragum (see introd.).

c.2. The last clearly visible letter looks like e, and there seems to be nothing following it. However, the vertical lacks the characteristic curve and it may be that the apparent cross-bar is dirt rather than ink, in which case we could read ].ẹnti, perhaps Cres]c̣ẹntị, cf. b.8.

c.3. Perhaps uertr]agụṃ, see introduction.

c.4. There is certainly more ink after s]egosi, but the traces are indeterminate; we could perhaps read segosiụṃ. The word also occurs at least twice in fragment e.1-2 and possibly elsewhere in this group (see introd.). The word should probably be explained as a form of segusius, see introd. and Adams (2003). Here we could envisage restoring canem s]egosium, cf. e.1 and 2.

c.5. Perhaps a gentilicium ending –us followed by a cognomen, or a common noun followed by a name in the genitive; add fits the traces and Adductus is attested.

c.7. This might be segosi, but what follows is not –um or –os. It may be a name ending -stius; perhaps Sallustius.

c.8. ueṇtraḷe, cf. 439, 607.b.2 and note, Adams (2003); in 607 we have uentralem; usually rendered as "money-belt".

c.9. This line is very difficult to read and interpret. At the right we could imagine ṭọrquatuṃ (cf. b.1 note), which might make sense in the context but it is hard to make sense of what precedes. lagi seems clear with room for one or two letters before ṭọrquatuṃ, but we do not know how much is lost at the left. The only idea we have is that it might be just possible to read p̣lagiụṃ, preceded by two letters, perhaps si. OLD s.v. cites plagium as an abstract noun, meaning "trapping" and we could only explain it here as an abstract noun acquiring a concrete meaning, like ue<c>tura in 600.ii.2, see Adams (2003).

c.10. ]ṭragum: we suggest restoring uer]ṭragum with some confidence here (see introduction).

c.11. It would be possible to read pẹcum, if we have lost the top of e, or pịcum but in either case an interpretation eludes us. We think it may be just possible to read pọcḷum, i.e. poc(u)lum; for the syncope see Adams (1995a), 92.

d.3. This might be a reference to Flavius Genialis, possibly Flavius Cerialis' predecessor at Vindolanda (see 611-614, with citation of earlier references and Introduction, above, p.00). The traces at the right of lines 2-4 are obscured by dirt on the surface of the tablet.

d.4. Perhaps ]ẹm ueṛ, suggesting a possible restoration of can]ẹm ueṛṭ[ragum, see introduction.

d.5. ]. ṇịgrụm [: this is perhaps a reference to the colour of a dog; album occurs in a.4. 6.].erṭragm [: this reading depends on the joining of two fragments, on the basis of which A.R.Birley (2002), 148 suggests uertrag<u>m. There are two problems with this: (a) the traces before e are not at all compatible with u, but it is possible that they are simply dirt; (b) there is no possibility at all that u has been written between g and m, which necessitates postulating a scribal error or supposing that uertrag(um) is abbreviated and m is the beginning of the next word. Nevertheless, the join seems likely to be correct.

e.1-2. We suggest restoring can]ẹm segosi[um in line 1, but it is difficult to tell whether there are any signs of ink after i in either line. Perhaps just it]ẹm segosi.

e.3. Probably segosi again, but there may be further traces to the right.

f.1. Tranq]ụịlḷo could be restored (cf. 196.12, 14); there might be an apex over the o.

f.3. At the end we could read ṣe rather than f̣e and ṣe[gosi would be possible, but we cannot suggest what might have preceded it.

g.2. seg]ọsi is not impossible.

h.2. This might be read as ]..quat.[, cf. c.9 note.

h.3. See a.4 note.

h.5. See b.4 note.

Download EpiDoc version using the CC license Creative Commons License and EpiDoc Schema v.5