Tablet 603

description (a) 50 x 24 mm. (b) 46 x 24 mm.
Archaeological data. Location: SG (bonfire site). Period: 3.
Two fragments of an account each composed of three joining pieces, incomplete at all margins. It seems likely that they belong to a diptych with an account in two columns. The text is written along the grain. Both fragments have a trace of a descender from a previous line at the top. The backs are blank.
The hand is an unremarkable cursive, not identifiable with any of the hands in the other texts mentioned above.


. . . . . . . .
] . [
] Ṣeptẹmbres c̣lauorụm traces (?) [ n
[i]ṇ calciamentis Rẹṇati traces(?) n
]… iṇ gaḷḷịcụlịs Ta..… [ n
5 in [campa]g̣onibus Floṛenti [ n
] ṣ ṇ(umero) xxvi [ n
] traces [
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
traces n
in gallic̣ụlis traces (?) n
Arc̣ano . [.] . a .. [ n
c̣ḷạuos . [ ] traces (?) n
. . . . . . . .


'[Date in] September (or August), of nails ..
in respect of the sandals of Renatus (?)
in respect of the shoes of Taurus, number 20+ (?)
in respect of the boots of Florenti-
nails (?), number 26+

in respect of the shoes
to Arcanus in respect of the shoes (?)
nails '


i.2. This line clearly begins with a date, cf. 604.i.1, ii.1. The loss at the left will easily have accommodated c.6 letters (see line 5). There may be traces at the right before the break but they are too faint to suggest a reading. One might suppose a quantity of nails by number or weight, then broken down by individual allocations in the lines following. The final m has a long horizontal stroke to the right.

i.3. calciamentis: This is presumably followed by a name in the genitive. This certainly begins with r but we do not think that Rheni (cf. 346.ii.3 and 657.B.2) is persuasive. Rẹṇati suits the traces much better although it is a rarer name and one not so far attested at Vindolanda. There are possible faint traces of writing following this: we would expect n(umero) and some digits. TLL VI 1681.52ff. quotes Rufinus, Orig.princ. 4.2.18 (17) to the effect that calciamenta are shoes without nails, but this text clearly contradicts this, as does 604.i.3; cf. 602.2 note.

i.4. The traces preceding iṇ do not seem to be compatible with item but we have no other suggestion to offer. ga is certain but the three letters after that are badly abraded. The best reading looks like gaḷḷịcụlịs, with some intrusion of dirt on the surface of the tablet; only is really difficult. We presume that this is followed by a personal name, as in the other entries. We could envisage taụṛ, but it is difficult to read ịṇị (cf 604.i.2) at the end; we tentatively suggest Taụṛị, perhaps followed by ṇ(umero) x̣x̣[.

i.5. The restoration seems secure; for campagones see 604.ii.2 and note. The reading of the name is reasonably clear but it is uncertain whether the elongated i indicates the final letter, in which case the name will be Florentius; the alternative is to suppose that it continued over the fold as Floṛenti[ni. This name occurs in 641.ii.6, 692 and perhaps in 657.B.4.

i.6. If this is a continuation of the entry which began in line 5, the most likely restoration is clauo]ṣ which could have been indented.

ii.1-2. For this entry cf. 605. ii.1-3. That the form of the entries is different from those in col.i is indicated by the dative name in line 3. So we might perhaps have a name in the dative in line 1 and the quantity of nails after in gallic̣ụlis in line 2.

ii.3-4. Arc̣ano: we are confident of the reading. The name occurs in 162.2, 333.1, 641.back 3, as the sender of the letter which also refers to Florentinus (see above i.5 and note) and 697. c̣ḷạuos is compatible with the traces in line 4 and there seem to be clear traces of 2 or 3 letters before it. These are indeterminate but perhaps compatible with ḷịṣ and we suggest that the whole entry might be read as Arc̣ano ị[n] g̣aḷḷ[icu- / ḷịṣ c̣ḷạuos.

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