Arheol. rad. raspr. 18 (2017), str. 79-93 I. Radman-Livaja, L. Lučić: A Curious Inscription on a Lead Tag From Siscia Ivan Radman-Livaja, Lovorka Lučić A CU R IOUS INSCR IPTION ON A LEAD TAG FROM SISCIA Ivan Radman-Livaja, PhD Arheološki muzej u Zagrebu Trg Nikole Šubića Zrinskog 19 HR – 10000 Zagreb E-mail: iradman@amz.hr UDK: 930.2:003.071(398Siscia) htp://doi.org/10.21857/mnlqgcj1py Original scientiic paper Lovorka Lučić, MA HR ‒ 10000 Zagreb, Gredice 4 E-mail: lovorka.lucic@gmail.com While almost all lead tags from Siscia share identical morphological characteristics and while most of their inscriptions correspond to deined paterns with some variations, there are exceptions and oddities such as the tag presented in this paper. Despite uncertainties as far as reading is concerned – the surface of the tag is badly scratched – the inscription clearly does not have a commercial character since there is no price, nor any abbreviations usually recorded on those tags, referring to dimensions, weights, dyes, garments, wool or any other trade items or service available in the textile craft. It must have been a personal note addressed to a person the author of the message seemingly urged to meet. Did somebody use the opportunity to slip a message to his sweetheart while meeting each other in a fullonica or a tinctoria? Key words: Siscia, lead tag, tessera, love message (Ključne riječi: Sisak, olovna pločica, tesera, ljubavna poruka) A monograph, i.e. a corpus of lead tags from Siscia was recently published but, as the author himself pointed out,1 that book should rather be considered as a starting point for the study of this material and certainly not as the deinite publication. As a mater of fact, when studying a corpus of inscriptions, especially a large collection, researchers can hardly cope with all the minutiae in just one single publication. While one should strive to give a comprehensive overview, it remains rather hard, if not impossible – unless your publisher authorises you to write as many volumes as you might wish – to deal thoroughly with every detail and issue the researcher may encounter. The case of the Siscia lead tags may be 1 Radman-Livaja 2014, 155. 79 Arheol. rad. raspr. 18 (2017), str. 79-93 I. Radman-Livaja, L. Lučić: A Curious Inscription on a Lead Tag From Siscia considered as a good example in this respect. The corpus is fairly large – 1123 lead tags, almost all of them inscribed – and while most inscriptions correspond to well deined paterns, there are quite a few exceptions and oddities which certainly deserve a careful analysis or in any case a more systematic study than the basic overview given in the corpus of lead tags from Siscia. All of those lead tags share basically identical morphological characteristics and most of their inscriptions correspond to a rather clear patern with some variations. Those small lead plates are of a more or less rectangular shape and are always pierced with a hole (occasionally even with two or three perforations) so that the tag could be atached to the merchandise. Almost all of them carry an inscription,2 sometimes only on one side, but usually on both sides. Most of the tags were reused several times and thus one can often discern traces of older inscriptions. Their inscriptions by and large follow the same model: one can read personal names on one side, duo nomina (far more rarely tria nomina) as well as single names, often followed by a patronymic, i.e. names of both citizens and peregrines, perhaps even slaves sometimes. The other side of the tag usually carries an inscription mentioning the merchandise, most of the time in an abbreviated form, as well as a price and quite often an indication of quantity or weight.3 Those inscriptions are always writen in capital leters or the older Roman cursive, sometimes even in a mixture of both.4 There are many diferent abbreviations on those tags but it would seem that most of them refer to garments and the textile craft. Besides words and abbreviations referring to diferent clothing items, one inds also abbreviations which mostly seem to refer to the dimensions and colours of those textile products. The prices present on most tags must have been indicating the value of the goods or the cost of a given service like cleaning, fulling or dyeing. It would thus appear that the vast majority of the Siscia tags kept in the Zagreb Archaeological Museum were used in the trade and production activities of textile professionals. The tag to be discussed in this paper – and whose possible reading will be suggested in the following paragraphs – does not, however, really conform to the patern described above (ig. 1-2).5 To tell the truth, it is not completely out of place in the corpus because it does not difer morphologically and it does have 2 There are only a few exceptions, tags which were discarded before being used or reused after the original inscription had been thoroughly erased; Radman-Livaja 2014, 595, cat. 25.33, 25.34. 3 Radman-Livaja 2014, 63-117. 4 Radman-Livaja 2014, 52-62. 5 Radman-Livaja 2014, 333, cat. 01.78. (inventory number AMZ A-12676). 80 Arheol. rad. raspr. 18 (2017), str. 79-93 I. Radman-Livaja, L. Lučić: A Curious Inscription on a Lead Tag From Siscia Fig. 1. Photography of the obverse of the lead tag A-12676. Sl. 1. Fotograija prednje strane olovne pločice A-12676. Fig. 2. Photography of the reverse of the lead tag A-12676. Sl. 2. Fotograija stražnje strane olovne pločice A-12676. an inscription on both sides. One side shows personal names as well, but the irst discrepancy compared to the usual patern starts already there. Names of individuals are a common occurrence on those lead tags, as a mater of fact at least 949 individuals were identiied in the inscriptions. The names of most of them conform to the regular onomastic practice in the Roman Empire - citizens with duo nomina (only rarely tria nomina), peregrines bearing a single name followed by a patronymic, as well as many people with just a single name. The later may have been either peregrines or citizens whose nomen gentile was omited due to the lack of space. While most labels clearly mention only one individual, presumably a 81 Arheol. rad. raspr. 18 (2017), str. 79-93 I. Radman-Livaja, L. Lučić: A Curious Inscription on a Lead Tag From Siscia client, i.e. his or her name using either a full or incomplete nomenclature, some inscriptions obviously or at least quite likely refer to several individuals.6 We may only speculate why one had to write down the names of several individuals, usually two, sometimes three, once even four. In certain cases, a second name could actually belong to an older but still highly visible and well incised inscription, in which case the names would be unrelated. However, in many cases the handwriting is clearly the same and all the lines of the inscription obviously appear to have been writen at the same time. We may then assume that two or more clients may have ordered together the same merchandise or the same service. Another not at all unlikely possibility would be that one of the names refers to the client while the other name (or names) refer to the craftsman (or craftsmen) in charge of the job, or more precisely in charge of one particular segment of the job not covered by the craftsman who took the order. For example, a fuller might have writen down the name of the tailor in charge of mending the client’s garment after the cleaning. One side of the studied tag bears three male names writen apparently at the same time and in the same handwriting. What was the exact link or bond between the three is a mater of speculation. They could have been involved all together in some kind of commercial transaction, presumably in the textile trade since other lead tags from Siscia were clearly primarily used in that context. Were they all clients? Or were they perhaps colleagues? Team workers? Each name is writen in its own line and absolutely nothing in the inscription points to their particular role. Be that as it may, there is no doubt that the inscription refers to three individuals whose names can be interpreted as peregrine single names, or perhaps as cognomina of citizens whose gentilicia were omited due to lack of space. The later assumption lies in the realm of conjecture but cannot be dismissed. The name Niger appears quite frequently on lead tags from Siscia, both as personal name or patronymic,7 which is hardly a surprise since it was a rather common name all over the Empire but more particularly so in Italy, the Iberian peninsula and Gallia Narbonensis.8 In contrast, Egirus, a name of likely Celtic origin, is extremely seldom encountered. The only known occurrence besides this inscription was found in Aquileia.9 The last name, Speratus, appears to have been rather popular 6 Radman-Livaja 2014, cat. 01.61, 01.67, 01.73, 03.08, 04.18, 06.01, 06.15, 08.14, 11.19, 12.08, 17.18, 19.111, 22.36, 23.37, 23.40, 24.02, 24.13, 24.19, 24.20, 26.10, 26.16, 26.18, 26.42, 26.70, 26.71, 26.113. 7 16 occurrences, cf. Radman-Livaja 2014, 139, 237. 8 Dean 1916, 40-41; Mócsy 1959, 183; Barkóczi 1964, 319; Kajanto 1965, 64, 228; Alföldy 1969, 253, s. v. Niger; Mócsy 1983, 201, s. v. Niger; Mócsy 1984, 210, 219; Abascal Palazón 1994, 439-440, s. v. Niger, Nigra; Solin, Salomies 1994, 368, s. v. Niger; OPEL III: 101-102, s. v. Niger; Minkova 2000, 220. s. v. Niger; Christol 2001, 31; Rémy 2001, 80, 169; Tataki 2006, 501-502; Radman-Livaja 2014, 237. 9 CIL V 727; OPEL II: 114, s. v. Egirvs; Delamarre 2003, 160, s. v. egi(no)-; Delamarre 2007, 94, s. v. Egirus. 82 Arheol. rad. raspr. 18 (2017), str. 79-93 I. Radman-Livaja, L. Lučić: A Curious Inscription on a Lead Tag From Siscia in Siscia since it is encountered on 6 tags.10 It was also far from being unpopular elsewhere, with most occurrences known from Africa, Noricum, the Rhine provinces, the Iberian Peninsula and the rest of Pannonia.11 The inscription preserved on the other side is unfortunately of not much help while aspiring to understand the role and whereabouts of these three men. Indeed, it is completely out of the ordinary as far as Siscia lead tags are concerned and it does not conform to any known patern of those inscriptions. It does not have an obvious commercial character since there is no price, nor any abbreviations referring to dimensions, weights, dyes, garments, wool or any other trade items. As a mater of fact, it is not even certain that it is related to the three men mentioned on the obverse since the handwriting does not appear to be identical. The later observation may remain a mater of discussion but it is nevertheless certain that this inscription does not correspond by its form to any known inscription found on a lead tag. At irst glance it appears to be some kind of personal message addressed by one person to another. Unfortunately, the surface of the tag is badly scratched, which impedes the reading. Nonetheless, the surface is not evenly damaged and three of the four lines can be read with rather high conidence, but the reading of the second line remains riddled with uncertainties. The surface of the tag is more particularly damaged there and traces of an older, mostly erased inscription could quite likely be present as well, making the interpretation even iddlier. We may assume though, according to what can be read, that this inscription could have been a private communication, presumably some kind of love message. The irst line is easily understandable, we may clearly read the word FORTISIME. It is undoubtedly the superlative form of the adjective fortis, -e, meaning “strong“, both physically and mentally.12 Thus, depending on the context, this adjective might also be translated as “powerful”, “vigorous”, “steadfast”, “brave”, “manly”, “tenacious” or “persistent”. One leter s is missing, which is unsurprising since in Vulgar Latin such simpliication after a long vocal or a diphthong is regularly encountered.13 This word may be interpreted in two ways. Firstly, it could be an adverb of the superlative form of the adjective fortis. Thus, we could 10 Radman-Livaja 2014, 267. 11 Holder, Alt-Celtischer Sprachschaz II, 1625 f.; Mócsy 1959, 21, 59-60, 191; Barkóczi 1964, 324-325; Kajanto 1965, 77, 297; Alföldy 1969, 300, s. v. Speratus; Ben Abdallah, Ladjimi Sebai 1983, 44; Mócsy 1983, 272, s. v. Speratus; Plaum et al. 1983, 88; Abascal Palazón 1994, 515, s. v. Sperata, Speratus; Solin, Salomies 1994, 406, s. v. Speratus; Minkova 2000, 256, s. v. Speratus; Raepsaet-Charlier 2001, 388-389; OPEL IV: 91, s. v. Speratvs; Radman-Livaja 2014, 267. 12 TLL, vol. VI.1. 1145-1166, s. v. fortis; OLD, 726, s. v. fortis. 13 Väänänen 1981, 59. 83 Arheol. rad. raspr. 18 (2017), str. 79-93 I. Radman-Livaja, L. Lučić: A Curious Inscription on a Lead Tag From Siscia translate it into English as “most strongly”, “most persistently” or “most boldly”, even as “very manly”. The other possible interpretation would be a superlative vocative of a masculine form. In that case the adjective, we may say quite a latering one, would certainly be referring to someone, whose name in vocative form should be in the second line. The beginning of the message would thus be interpreted as „you, who are very strong“, “very bold” or “most manly”. This interpretation would very likely atest that the recipient of the message was a male person. Obviously, this does not imply that the message was necessarily writen by a girl (or a woman), it could have been as well a message of one man to another. Depending on diferent possible interpretations, as we shall see, we may hardly claim with certainty that this was a message (love message?) from a girl to a boy or from a boy to a boy. As a mater of fact, if we opt for the irst interpretation, i.e. the adverb in the irst line, and not knowing precisely what is writen in the second line, it might have been a message from a boy to a girl as well, perhaps even a message from a girl to a girl. The reading of the second line is deinitely crucial for the interpretation but, as already pointed out, it is precisely this line which deies our understanding. We may presently surmise that it contains a verb and perhaps a personal name. Before returning to it, we shall present more thoroughly the third and fourth lines, whose interpretation may provide clues allowing us to solve the second line. The third line presents no major diiculties and we may read it as ME CVM, i.e. the pronoun EGO in the ablative singular, with the translation “I”14 and the preposition CVM, “with”15 . This preposition usually comes after the personal pronoun and conjoins with it in one word, just like in the present case, MECVM. 16 It is to be translated as „with me“. In the last, fourth line, we can read TE ESSE, obviously a construction known as accusative with ininitive17, in this case the verb “to be” (sum, esse, fui)18 with the pronoun “you” (tu)19. Accusative with ininitive however always requires a main verb, and we believe thus that this verb had to be writen in the second line. Be that as it may, the inscription seemingly appears to express somebody’s urge or desire to be with another person. How may we interpret the second line? We already pointed out that one would expect a verb in this line, considering the accusative with ininitive which 14 TLL, vol. V, 2. 250-278, s. v. ego; OLD, 595, s. v. ego. 15 TLL, vol. IV. 1339-1378, s. v. cum; OLD, 467-468, s .v. cum. 16 Gortan, Gorski, Pauš 1998, 58; Leumann, Hofmann, Szantyr 1977, 4613; Panhuis 2006, 32; Touratier 2013, 80. 17 Kühner 1912, 687-721; Panhuis 2006, 130-132; Touratier 2013, 176, 276-291. 18 OLD, 1865-1867, s. v. sum, esse, fui. 19 OLD, 1982-1983, s. v. tu. 84 Arheol. rad. raspr. 18 (2017), str. 79-93 I. Radman-Livaja, L. Lučić: A Curious Inscription on a Lead Tag From Siscia follows and a personal name would not be out of place either, especially if we accept the possibility that the word fortis(s)ime is an adjective in vocative. Nonetheless, a personal name could be present as well even if fortis(s)ime is employed as an adverb. So, we may reasonably presume that the second line is composed of two words. If we assume that the irst word is a verb, it would have to be in the irst or second person of the singular present, or in the second person of singular of imperative. We can probably rule out the irst person because the leter O is not to be seen, as the verb would normally end that way if it really was a irst person singular. The same conclusion can be reached if we try to read it as a second person singular, since it would require an S as the last leter, which does not appear to be the case. If it really is the main verb, it should probably be an imperative. There are thus several possible, more or less questionable interpretations. While the reading of some leters in the second line is hardly contentious, others remain rather puzzling. At irst, we thought that the second line starts with the leter R, followed by the cursive form of the leter E, i.e. II. Nonetheless, we could not dismiss either the possibility that the irst leter could in fact be an L and not a capital R, since the presumed “belly” of the R appears shallower and could thus perhaps be the trace of an older inscription. The third leter may likely be interpreted as a C or perhaps a G. The next leter appears at irst sight to be an I followed by an L, but this reading is far from being certain. One may actually see a shallowly incised stroke pointing to the right above the presumed I, while the presumed diagonal sloping down to the right which would make an L of that leter could simply be a scratch. We would rather be inclined to interpret the long stroke above the leter I as the trace of an older S which should have been present in the irst line, between the I and the S of FORTIS(S)IME, but as far as the leter L is concerned, we ind it hard to suggest a deinite reading. Instead of an I and L, could this be a clumsily incised R? It does not seem very likely, but it cannot be dismissed either. Another questionable interpretation would perhaps be the leter II, i.e. a cursive leter E. It does not get easier: after the presumed L, we may perhaps have an R followed by an I or would it rather be an I followed by the leters C and I? What follows seems to be less debatable: two leters S, i.e. SS, are almost certainly to be read there. The last leter could be an A, or perhaps a cursive E, i.e. II. Could the irst word be the verb regero, 3., more speciically the imperative of second person of singular: regere, which means “carry”, “bear” or “bring back”?20 Another interpretation might perhaps be the imperative of the verb regno,1., regna, 20 OLD, 1598-1599, s. v. regero, -rere, -essi. 85 Arheol. rad. raspr. 18 (2017), str. 79-93 I. Radman-Livaja, L. Lučić: A Curious Inscription on a Lead Tag From Siscia “rule” or “be in control”, if we assume that the leter N could have been omited by the scribe.21 The verb rego, 3. (rege) could perhaps be interpreted here as “guide”, “direct”, “manage”.22 If we interpret the irst leter as an L, lego, 3. might be a possible reading, as the imperative lege, “choose” or “select”.23 What appears to be a second word might also be an imperative, for example cris(s)a (from criso, 1.). In this context, a translation such as “move your haunches (as in coitus)”, i.e. an explicit sexual message, is not to be entirely excluded, but remains quite dubious, as there is almost certainly a redundant S.24 The last leters to be read as ISSE/ISSA may perhaps be interpreted as ipse/ipsa, a demonstrative pronoun.25 Coming to our mind was also the idea that this second line could have been composed of just one single word, maybe an imperative like recense, to be translated as “review” or “examine”, but with a redundant leter S – recensse (sic!).26 Nonetheless, all of the transcriptions and interpretations suggested above appear rather far-fetched, some even more than others. Not much could be gathered from observation (and we spent hours and days staring at the second line), but thanks to a collaborative project, we were able to have a second look at this tag using RTI – an image processing and visualization technology. We used digital tools provided by the Scholarly Digital Edition (SDE) Tesserarum Sisciae Sylloge (TSS), accessible to anyone on the website of the Archaeological Museum in Zagreb (htp://www.amz.hr). This SDE ofers the possibility to make the autopsy of our epigraphic objects, i.e. Siscia’s lead tags, through a set of digital tools. Those digital tools allow the users not only to visualize, but also to annotate and transcribe the inscriptions. Altogether, we call this the Digital Autoptic Process (DAP). This DAP is supported by the TSS Viewer, which provides a frame by frame inspection (with lighting from diferent directions) while the RTI Viewer simulates lighting of the object (from diferent directions as well) through image processing allowing beter examination of the tags. The DAP also includes an annotation and transcription process which is performed through MarkOut, a tool for tracing leters on the tag, as well as annotating and transcribing the inscriptions and discussing possible interpretations (ig. 3-4).27 21 OLD, 1600, s. v. regno, -are, -avi. 22 OLD, 1601, s. v. rego, -ere, -xi. 23 OLD, 1014, s. v. lego, -ere, legi. 24 OLD, 460, s. v. criso, -are, -avi; Adams 1982, 2, 136-138, 146. 25 OLD, 964-965, s. v. ipse, ipsa, ipsum. 26 OLD, 1580, s. v. recenseo, -ere, -ui. 27 Lamé 2015; Lamé, Sarullo 2015 86 Arheol. rad. raspr. 18 (2017), str. 79-93 I. Radman-Livaja, L. Lučić: A Curious Inscription on a Lead Tag From Siscia Fig. 3. TSS Viewer / Sl. 3. TSS preglednik. Fig. 4. TSS Viewer and MarkOut / Sl. 4. TSS preglednik i MarkOut program. 87 Arheol. rad. raspr. 18 (2017), str. 79-93 I. Radman-Livaja, L. Lučić: A Curious Inscription on a Lead Tag From Siscia Thanks to this digital framework, we may suggest a more credible reading of this inscription. Although the second line remained a hard nut to crack, leters were easier to discern and one could more easily distinguish traces of older inscriptions. It appeared that the second line almost certainly starts with the leter V. Leters that follow are quite well visible and can be read as I G I L. Since there is a verb vigilo, 1., meaning “to stay awake”,28 we assumed that this could be an imperative form of that verb, i.e. vigila, “stay awake” or “be awake”. As already pointed out, the last leters are likely to be read as ISSE/ISSA, perhaps to be interpreted as ipse/ipsa29, a demonstrative pronoun. We are more inclined to read it as ISSA. It obviously cannot be a vocative, since pronouns do not have vocative case but if it really is a demonstrative pronoun, in this particular case it might be interpreted as the feminine nominative related to the writer of the message (since we read it as ISSA). If so, she could have emphasized her desire to be with someone, perhaps a message to be interpreted as “I strongly and personally...” However, if we opt for this interpretation, how can we explain the imperative form vigila, i.e. the connection between the demonstrative pronoun nominative ipsa and the second person imperative vigila? Presuming that the inal M may have been omited, not an infrequent occurrence in Vulgar Latin,30 it could be an accusative, as part of an accusative with ininitive construction, meaning “You personally... “. It would also imply that fortissime has to be an adverb of the superlative form of the adjective fortis. Lastly, Issa might be a female name as well.31 Thus, we may suggest two possible or at least not completely implausible readings (ig. 5-6): FORTIS(S)IME VIGILA ISSA(M) (ipsam) MECUM TE ESSE Freely translated as „Stay awake persistently (untiringly) so that you may be with me personally (alone, by yourself, unaccompanied)“. If we accept this reading, the message must have been sent to a woman, either by a man or, perhaps, by another woman. 28 OLD, 2062, s. v. vigilo, -are, -avi. 29 OLD, 964-965, s. v. ipse, ipsa, ipsum. 30 Väänänen 1959,71-77; Väänänen 1981, 66-67 31 Delamarre 2007, 112, s. v. Issus. 88 Arheol. rad. raspr. 18 (2017), str. 79-93 I. Radman-Livaja, L. Lučić: A Curious Inscription on a Lead Tag From Siscia Fig. 5. Drawing of the obverse of the lead tag A-12676 (made by Hana Ivezić). Sl. 5. Crtež prednje strane olovne pločice A-12676 (izradila Hana Ivezić). Fig. 6. Drawing of the reverse of the lead tag A-12676 (made by Hana Ivezić). Sl. 6. Crtež stražnje strane olovne pločice A-12676 (izradila Hana Ivezić). 89 Arheol. rad. raspr. 18 (2017), str. 79-93 I. Radman-Livaja, L. Lučić: A Curious Inscription on a Lead Tag From Siscia If we accept the possibility that Issa is a personal name, presumably a female name, we may suggest the following interpretation: FORTIS(S)IME VIGILA ISSA MECUM TE ESSE „Issa, stay awake persistently (untiringly), so that you may be with me.” There is still no way to know if the message was sent by a boy or a girl, although we may assume that Issa was a female person. If we have to opt for just one interpretation, we would be more in favour of the second reading, i.e. a message addressed to a girl named Issa. Obviously, these are only suggestions. As long as we will not be able to read the second line with certainty, we will remain very cautious with our interpretations and conclusions. Nevertheless, we do not doubt about the purpose and general meaning of this inscription. It must have been a personal, we may actually say intimate message, addressed to a person the author of the message urged to meet. We will probably never know who was behind this love story (or was it just a sordid afair?) but we may imagine that somebody used the opportunity to slip a message to his sweetheart (or object of his lust) while meeting each other in a fullonica or a tinctoria. What a subtle way for an employee to court a client if both wanted to remain discreet in order not to raise the suspicion of parents or spouses… 90 Arheol. rad. raspr. 18 (2017), str. 79-93 I. Radman-Livaja, L. Lučić: A Curious Inscription on a Lead Tag From Siscia LITERATURE / LITERATURA Abascal Palazón 1994 Juan Manuel Abascal Palazón, Los nombres personales en las inscripciones latinas de Hispania, Murcia. Adams 1982 J. N. Adams, The Latin Sexual Vocabulary, London. Alföldy 1969 Géza Alföldy, Die Personnamen in der römischen Provinz Dalmatia, Heidelberg. Barkóczi 1964 L. Barkóczi, The Population of Pannonia from Marcus Aurelius to Diocletian, AArH 16, 257-356. Ben Abdallah, Ladjimi Sebai 1983 Z. Ben Abdallah, L. Ladjimi Sebai, Index onomastique des inscriptions latines de la Tunisie suivi de l’Index onomastique des inscriptions latines d’Afrique, Etudes d’antiquités africaines, Paris. Christol 2001 Michel Christol, Épigraphie et onomastique dans la cité de Nîmes du milieu du Ier s. av. J.-C. à la seconde moitié du Ier s. ap. J.-C.: analyse d’un échantillon, in: Dondin-Payre, Raepsaet-Charlier 2001, 17-38. Dean 1916 Lindley Richard Dean, A Study of the Cognomina of Soldiers in the Roman Legions, Princeton. Delamarre 2003 Xavier Delamarre, Dictionnaire de la langue gauloise, 2ème édition, Paris. Delamarre 2007 Xavier Delamarre, Noms de personnes celtiques dans l’épigraphie classique, Paris. Dondin-Payre, Raepsaet-Charlier 2001 Monique Dondin-Payre, Marie Thérèse Raepsaet-Charlier (eds.), Noms, identités culturelles et romanisation sous le Haut-Empire, Bruxelles. Gortan, Gorski, Pauš 1998 Veljko Gortan, Oton Gorski, Pavao Pauš, Latinska gramatika, 11. izdanje, Zagreb. Holder, 1962 Alfred Holder, Alt-Celtischer Sprachschaz, Leipzig, 1896-1913 (Nachdruck: Graz). Kajanto 1965 Iiro Kajanto, The Latin Cognomina, Roma. Kühner 1912 Raphael Kühner, Ausführliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache, Hahnsche Buchhandlung, Hannover. Lamé 2015 Marion Lamé, Primary Sources of Information, Digitization Processes and Dispositive Analysis, in: F. Tomasi, R. Rosselli Del Turco, A. M. Tammaro (eds.), Proceedings of the Third AIUCD Annual Conference on Humanities and their Methods in the Digital Ecosystem, ACM, article 18. htp://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2802645. Lamé, Sarullo 2015 Marion Lamé, Giulia Sarullo et alii, Technology and Tradition: a Synergic Approach to Deciphering, analyzing and Annotating Epigraphic Writings, Lexis 33, 9-30. Leumann, Hofmann, Szantyr 1977 Minkova 2000 Manu Leumann, Johann Baptist Hofmann, Anton Szantyr, Lateinische Grammatik, C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchandlung, München. Milena Minkova, The Personal Names of the Latin Inscriptions in Bulgaria, Studien zur klassischen Philologie, Band 118, Frankfurt am Main. 91 Arheol. rad. raspr. 18 (2017), str. 79-93 I. Radman-Livaja, L. Lučić: A Curious Inscription on a Lead Tag From Siscia Mócsy 1959 András Mócsy, Die Bevölkerung von Pannonien bis zu den Markomannenkriegen, Budapest. Mócsy 1983 András Mócsy, Nomenclator provinciarum Europae Latinarum et Gallia Cisalpinae, Dissertationes Pannonicae III, 1, Budapest. Mócsy 1984 András Mócsy, Lateinische Cognomina als Geschichtsquelle: zwei Typen der provinzialrömsichen Kultur, AArH 36, 197-222. OPEL II Barnabás Lőrincz, Onomasticon Provinciarum Europae Latinarum, Vol. II: CABALICIVS-IXVS, 1999. OPEL III Barnabás Lőrincz, Onomasticon Provinciarum Europae Latinarum, Vol. III: LABAREVS-PYTHEA. OPEL IV Barnabás Lőrincz, Onomasticon Provinciarum Europae Latinarum, Vol. IV: QVADRATIA-ZVRES. Panhuis 2006 Dirk Panhuis, Latin Grammar, The University of Michigan. Plaum et al. 1983 Hans-Georg Plaum (ed.), Index onomastique des „Inscriptions latines d’Afrique“, Etudes d’antiquités africaines, Paris, 51-90. Radman-Livaja 2014 Ivan Radman-Livaja, Plombs de Siscia, Musei Archaeologici Zagrabiensis Catalogi et Monographiae IX, Zagreb. Raepsaet-Charlier 2001 Marie-Thérèse Raepsaet-Charlier, Caractéristiques et particularités de l’onomastique trévire, in: Monique Dondin-Payre, Marie Thérèse Raepsaet-Charlier (eds.), Noms, identités culturelles et romanisation sous le Haut-Empire, Bruxelles, 343-398. Rémy 2001 Bernard Rémy, La dénomination des Viennois à l’époque impériale, in: Dondin-Payre, Raepsaet-Charlier 2001, 55-174. Solin, Salomies 1994 H. Solin, O. Salomies, Repertorium nominum gentilium et cognominum Latinorum, Editio nova addendis corrigendisque augmentata, Hildesheim, Zürich, New York. Tataki 2006 Argyro B. Tataki, The Roman presence in Macedonia. Evidence from personal names, ΜΕΛΕΤΗΜΑΤΑ 46, Athens. Touratier 2013 Christian Touratier, Lateinische Grammatik. Linguistische Einführung in die lateinische Sprache, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt. Väänänen 1959 Veikko Väänänen, Le latin vulgaire des inscriptions pompéiennes, Nouvelle édition revue et augmentée, Abhandlungen der Deutschen Akademie der Wissentschaften zu Berlin, Klasse für Sprachen, Literatur und Kunst, Jahrgang 1958, Nr. 3, Berlin. Väänänen 1981 Veikko Väänänen, Introduction au latin vulgaire, 3ème édition revue et augmentée, Paris. 92 Arheol. rad. raspr. 18 (2017), str. 79-93 I. Radman-Livaja, L. Lučić: A Curious Inscription on a Lead Tag From Siscia SAŽETAK Neobičan natpis na olovnoj pločici iz Siscije Većina tesera iz Siska dijeli iste ili vrlo slične morfološke karakteristike, a natpisi im uglavnom odgovaraju određenim obrascima – mada varijacije nisu rijetkost – no neki primjerci sasvim odudaraju od uobičajenog. To je slučaj i s olovnom etiketom predstavljenom u ovom radu. Unatoč dvojbama oko čitanja natpisa – površina tesere je vrlo oštećena i u značajnoj mjeri otežava čitanje – očito je da natpis nije bio komercijalnog karaktera. Nema, naime, cijene kao ni uobičajenih kratica koje se odnose na dimenzije, težinu, boje, vrste odjeće, vunu ili bilo koju vrstu usluge, odnosno svega onoga što redovito nalazimo u natpisima na ovim teserama. Po svemu sudeći je riječ o osobnoj poruci koju je autor natpisa uputio nekome koga je želio susresti. U prvoj objavi je dio natpisa ostao nepročitan, no zahvaljujući RTI snimanju bili smo u mogućnosti bolje razlučiti slova, posebice u drugom redu na reversu koji je predstavljao najveću poteškoću u čitanju i interpretaciji. Na žalost, još uvijek ne možemo tvrditi da je natpis pročitan s apsolutnom sigurnošću, no vjerujemo da su barem ponuđene donekle uvjerljive interpretacije. Treba naglasiti da natpisi na aversu i reversu vjerojatno nisu istovremeni ni međusobno povezani. Na aversu se spominju tri muška imena – Niger, Egirus i Speratus – no točna uloga tih ljudi nije poznata. Možda je riječ o klijentima koji su zajedno naručili neku robu ili uslugu? Ili su to pak kolege, odnosno suknari, bojadisari ili krojači koji su zajednički morali izvršiti neki zadatak ili ispuniti narudžbu? Za revers predlažemo dva moguća čitanja: FORTIS(S)IME VIGILA ISSA(M) (ipsam) MECUM TE ESSE U slobodnom prijevodu: „Ostani uporno (neumorno) budna, kako bi bila sa mnom osobno (sama, bez pratnje) “ . Ako prihvatimo mogućnost da je Issa osobno ime, za pretpostaviti žensko, možemo predložiti i slijedeću interpretaciju: FORTIS(S)IME VIGILA ISSA MECUM TE ESSE „Issa, ostani uporno (neumorno) budna, kako bi bila sa mnom”. Ukoliko bi se morali odlučiti za samo jednu interpretaciju, bili bi skloniji drugom prijedlogu, odnosno poruci upućenoj djevojci ili ženi imena Issa. Dokle god se drugi red ne bude mogao pročitati sa sigurnošću, ovo ostaju samo sugestije kojima treba pristupiti s oprezom. Ipak, nema stvarne dvojbe po pitanju smisla i svrhe ovog natpisa. Riječ je o osobnoj poruci upućenoj osobi s kojom je autor teksta priželjkivao susret. Nećemo vjerojatno nikad saznati detalje te (valjda) ljubavne priče, no možemo zamisliti kako je netko iskoristio priliku te dragoj osobi predao poruku prilikom susreta kod suknara ili bojadisara. 93