Towards the 
Interpretation of the 
Latin Inscription on a 
Fragment of a Roman 
Jug from the Territory 
of Ancient Nauportus
Luka Repanšek*
Recently, a yet unpublished inscribed fragment of a Roman ceramic 
jug recovered from the Ljubljanica river near the ancient Roman 
vicus of Nauportus (present-day Vrhnika) came under renewed 
attention of archaeologists and epigraphers.1 Due to its squat lower 
1 The ceramic jug was found in the Ljubljanica river near Vrhnika (ancient 
Nauportus) in the late nineteen-eighties, at which point the drawing of the 
inscription and the sherd itself was made by Dragica Knific Lunder. I was 
approached by Asst. Dr. Tina Berden to inspect the inscription in November 
2023. Unfortunately, the paleographic and linguistic analysis had to be per-
formed with the help of the drawing alone since the jug is currently missing 
and could so far not be relocated among the inventory held by the National 
Museum of Slovenia. Since, for this reason, an autopsy was impossible, I am 
careful about making any assumptions about the second inscription applied 
to the bottom of the pot (seemingly ante cocturam as is typical of potters’ 
signatures), that one badly damaged. What can be established is that it uses 
the capitalis and that the last letter is t, so it almost undoubtedly represents a 
verb in the 3rd person singular. Based on the numerous parallels, the likeliest 
candidate is fecit, but judging from the drawing, the antepenultimate letter 
form can hardly represent a <c>. What can be established with certainty 
is that the two inscriptions do not belong together and form two separate 
units. They were applied in two different chronological phases, two different 
techniques, and two different Roman scripts. Typologically, the co-occur-
* University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Arts, Aškerčeva 2, 1000 Ljubljana; 
luka.repansek@ff.uni-lj.si. The author acknowledges the financial support from 
the Slovenian Research Agency (research core funding No. P6-0218).
doI: https://doi.org/10.4312/clotho.6.2.57-69
LUKA REPANŠEK58
body, the jug can be broadly dated to the period between the last 
third of the 2nd century BC and the first half of the 1st century 
AD: since the neck and mouth are missing, as is the handle, a more 
precise date is impossible to establish. No local varieties of such 
vessels are on record, so the jug almost undoubtedly represents an 
Italic import.2
The bottom of the jug bears a Latin graffito arranged in an al-
most perfect semicircle (see Fig. 1). The inscription is exceptionally 
well preserved, with slight damage at the rightmost edge, where 
the upper part of the last letter has been broken off. Enough cha-
racteristic traits of the damaged letter form are still intact, however, 
for it to be undoubtedly recognized as an <s>. 
The inscription consists of three words separated by two 
mismatching word dividers (represented in the transcription 
as = and –, respectively) scratched post cocturam in Old Roman 
cursive (i.e., cursive majuscule) and can be roughly dated to the 
1st century AD. This is supported by the shape of the letter <a>, 
which is of the archaic, three-bar type with the medial articulus 
still attached to the right oblique hasta,3 the equally archaic- looking 
single-stroke <s> with a nondetached upper curve (prevalent in 
inscriptions dating to the period between the 1st c. BC and 2nd 
c. AD), and further corroborated by the conservative four-stroke 
<m> (1st c. BC–2nd c. AD), three-stroke <n> (1st c.–2nd c. AD), 
two-stroke <u/v>, all three with unattached strokes, the primitive 
bow-shaped <c>, and non-slanted <s>. These live side-by-side with 
the non-archaic lambda-like two-stroke <r>, which was gaining 
rence of cursive or non-cursive inscriptions with potters’ signatures is not 
uncommon.
2 I wish to thank Boštjan Laharnar (National Museum of Slovenia), Tina Berden 
(Institute of Archaeology, Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Scien-
ces and Arts), Jure Krajšek (Celje Regional Museum), Janka Istenič (National 
Museum of Slovenia), and Jana Horvat (Research Centre of the Slovenian Aca-
demy of Sciences and Arts) for their invaluable insights into the archaeologi-
cal context of the find, as well as Michael Weiss (University of Cornell) and 
Reinhold Wedenig (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften) for valuable 
comments on the first draft. All opinions and errors remain entirely my respon-
sibility.
3 Note that this is not necessarily conclusive, as can be suspected based on the 
individual specimens of the three-bar <a> in later inscriptions reaching up to 
the beginning of the 3rd century AD (see Bakker and Galsterer-Kröll, Graffiti auf 
römischer Keramik, 13–14, and Wedenig, “Graffiti,” 554 (Fig. 117, No. 94)).
LATIN INSCRIPTION ON A FRAGMENT OF A ROMAN JUG 59
ground in first-century Roman cursive inscriptions and became 
well-established by the 2nd century.4 
The second, almost s-like <i> that extends into a prominent 
leftward tail is paleographically rather remarkable. Given that the 
first word is unambiguously a genitive singular of a male personal 
name, however, the reading <i> seems incontrovertible. Somewhat 
problematic is the last letter but two, which resembles the first <i> 
characterized by a short horizontal headmark. The fact that here the 
horizontal stroke cuts through the vertical hasta could, however, speak 
in favor of a <t>. The type of <t> with a short intersecting vertical 
hasta is well-attested in ancient graffiti.5 However, in the case of the 
graffito from Ljubljanica, this would be the lectio difficilior, given that 
such a minimalistic representation of a <t> stands in stark contrast 
to the sixth letter form, which is marked by a pronounced vertical 
line (as is generally typical of Roman Cursive) and undoubtedly 
represents a <t>. 
The reading can be established as an owner’s mark formulated as 
the so-called “speaking object” inscription (“I am the x of y”):
amianti = svm – cvrtoṣ
Typologically similar graffiti can be found on the bottom of coarse 
ware from all around the Roman empire, e.g., Helueiti  sum (CIL 
1, 2376 = 15, 5925, Rome),6 Hyalissi  sum (CIL 15, 5926, Rome), sum 
Marti(a)lis (CIL 15, 5927, Rome), Philerotis sum (CIL 15, 5928, Rome), 
Epaphroditi sum (CIL 10, 8055.14, Pompeii),7 Paris sum (EDR 177101, 
Aquileia), Romuli sum (AE 1968, 304 = EDCS-09701573 = 54600377, Lu-
gudunum),8 Tiburtini sum (AE 1958, 53 = EDCS-13500186, Peyrestortes),9 
4 Cf. the typology of Old Roman Cursive used in Pompeii (CIL 4, p. 273), the 
tabellae defixionum discussed by Bartoletti, “La scrittura Romana,” 43 (Fig. 1), 
Schiaparelli, La scrittura, 39–105, and the discussion of ORC used in the Roman 
writing tablets discovered in Vindolanda (Bowman and Thomas, Vindolanda, 
51–71). Cf. also Mallon, Paléographie romain, and De Robertis, “Old Roman 
Cursive.” For a periodization of the letter shapes typical of graffiti on Roman 
ceramic vessels, see Bakker and Galsterer-Kröll, Graffiti auf römischer Keramik, 
13–28.
5 See Schiaparelli, La scrittura, 99, Fig. 1, No. 7.
6 The entire inscription reads Noli me tollere. Helueiti sum ‘Do not steal me. I 
belong to Helveitus.’
7 Epaphroditi sum. Tangere me noli ‘I belong to Epaphroditus. Do not touch me!’
8 Romuli sum. Kaue fur ‘I belong to Romulus. Beware, thief!’
9 Tiburtini sum. Fur, caue malum ‘I belong to Tiburtinus. Be careful, thief!’
Fig. 1: The Latin inscription scratched on the bottom of the 
Roman potsherd from the Ljubljanica river. Drawing: Dragica 
Knific Lunder, © Narodni muzej Slovenije 
LATIN INSCRIPTION ON A FRAGMENT OF A ROMAN JUG 61
Maximini sum (EDCS-48800014, Matrica),10 Gaii sum peculiaris (RIB 
2502.2, Londinium), Nat(alis) sum (RIB 2303.352, Bremetennacum), 
[---]i · sum [---] or [---a]e sum [---] (Wedenig 2000, No. 34, p. 56). In 
all of the enumerated cases, the object’s designation is elided – clearly 
because it would have been obvious and could be supplied at any 
moment. Owner’s marks of this type (i.e., consisting of a genitive of 
a personal name, usually the cognomen, and the verb sum ‘I am’) 
in which the speaking object explicitly names itself indeed seem to 
be an exception rather than the rule,11 and there are barely any that 
one could directly compare to the graffito attested on the potsherd 
from Ljubljanica. There is an example of a decorated drinking vessel 
from Ercavica (Hispania) that claims [---]n(a)e pan(n)a sum (EDCS-
03700466) ‘I am the panna of [---]na’,12 while the plate from Iuvavum 
(Wedenig, Geschirrgraffiti, 321, Fig. 3–4) is ambiguous and relevant 
to our case only if the reading is to be interpreted as Luciaes Q. uas 
sum (or, potentially, Luciae SQ. uas sum) ‘I am the dish of Lucia Q.’ 
rather than the equally probable Luciaes Quas. sum.13 Additional two 
cases of a structurally parallel formula seem to be Euces sum p[atera] 
(CIL 1, 3405b) and [---]cnnidi sum po[culum] (Agostiniani, Iscrizioni 
parlanti, No. 601, p. 244).
The Roman cognomen Amiant(h)us,14 here attested in the possessive 
genitive Amianti ‘of Amiantus,’ is most widely attested in central Italy, 
particularly in Rome and at Pompeii, with sporadic occurrences in 
Venetia et Histria, Noricum, Dalmatia, Belgia, Germania, Hispania, 
and Africa proconsularis.15 The spelling Amianthus predominates and 
is about two times more commonly attested in Roman inscriptions 
than its varia lectio Amiantus.16 The geographical distribution of the 
10 Maximini sum. Refer me. ‘I belong to Maximinus. Give me back!’
11 But contrast this with the (equally rarely attested!) type panna Balbi, Donati 
urciolus, or Pacuui olola (see Vavassori, “La personalizzazione,” 94–99).
12 [---]n(a)e pan(n)a sum. Pone. ‘I am [---]’s panna. Put (me) down!’ vel sim.
13 The inscription panna Uerecundaes empta uiges from Flavia Solva (Noll, 
Sigillataschüssel, 149–52, cf. Wedenig, Geschirrgraffiti, 327) is irrelevant as a 
potential typological parallel, given that it is not in fact conceived as a “speak-
ing object” inscription and rather refers to the price at which the vessel was 
bought.
14 The cognomen itself is based on a Greek personal name (see Pape, Wörterbuch, 
73; Solin, Sklavennamen, 411; Solin, Die griechischen Personennamen, 785).
15 For the attestations see OPEL 1 s.v.; EDH s.v.; EDCS s.v.; Alföldy, Dalmatia, 147; 
Lochner von Hüttenbach, Steiermark, 15; Kakoschke, Germania, 98; Kakoschke, 
Noricum, 250). 
16 For Latin <th> see Leumann, Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre, 159–63.
LUKA REPANŠEK62
spelling variants does not seem to form any significant patterns.17 
However, the genitive singular Amianti is nearly always attested 
with a <t> (eight out of eleven examples harvested by the EDCS read 
Amianti rather than Amianthi). 
Much less straightforward, and the real crux of this inscription 
is the word curtos <cvrtos> that follows the copula sum. Given the 
typology of the inscription, the syntax here requires a nominative 
singular, but in an inscription datable to the 1st century AD, a nomi-
native singular ending -os is entirely out of order in a word like curtos. 
In the Classical Latin period (1st c. BC to late 3rd c. AD), -os would 
only be expected and/or justifiable in a Latin transcription of a Greek 
word and in native words after consonantal u (i.e., the seruos, saluos 
type).18 One could potentially think of some embryonic Vulgar Latin 
development since a putative curtos < *curtus would be the expected 
outcome of the development of Latin (unaccented) u to Vulgar Latin 
ọ,19 but even so, curtos would be a unique example of such a spelling. 
There are only three examples of Latin (i.e., non-Greek) nominative 
singular -us (after consonants other than u /w/) being spelled <-os> on 
the wall graffiti from Pompeii (all male personal names), viz. Habitos 
(CIL 14, 6709),20 Uenustos21 (CIL 4, 3959), and Seueros22 (CIL 4, 8956),23 
the majority of <os> being again limited to cases like seruos (once even 
spelled seruo with final s-drop) for Classical Latin seruus.24 
Nevertheless, even if the unexpected and, on the whole, an excepti-
onally sparsely attested ending -os in curtos were explained along the 
17 Note that none of the immediately adjacent attestations (both nominatives) 
has this variant; Waldstein, see CIL 3, 2362: Iulius Dii lib(ertus) Amianthus, and 
Aquileia, see Lettich, Aquileia, No. 120: Amianthus an(norum) V.
18 See Leumann, Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre, 49; 423. The territory of 
Emona itself has two examples of this phenomenon, viz. Flauos (CIL 3 10775 = 
Šašel Kos, Roman Inscriptions, No. 51 = Šašel Kos, Emona, No. 78), dated to the 
first third of the 1st c. AD, and Primitiuos (CIL 3, 3893 = Šašel Kos, Emona, No. 
235), which is datable to the second century AD.
19 See Lausberg, Romanische Sprachwissenschaft, 204; Väänänen, Latin vulgaire, 
36–37.
20 Questionable since marked as already invisible by CIL 4, though on record in 
EDCS (EDCS-27400100), EDR (EDR-180552), and AGP.
21 Note the coexistence of apparent -us > -ọs in the unaccented final position with 
the absence of simultaneous lowering of accented u > ọ, exactly like in curtọs < 
*curtus. 
22 If not, in fact, Seuero s(alutem) as tentatively suggested by CIL.
23 Väänänen, Inscriptions pompéiennes, 28–29.
24 Väänänen, Inscriptions pompéiennes, 77–81.
LATIN INSCRIPTION ON A FRAGMENT OF A ROMAN JUG 63
lines of incipient Vulgar Latin pronunciation of the type observable 
in Pompeian Uenustos, the central problem remains that Latin curtus 
does not seem to be attested in substantival use in any of the extant 
sources. The TLL 4.7 (s.v. curtus) gives the meanings ʻtruncated, cut 
(off), short, low; mutilated, shattered, brokenʼ (“truncus, lacer, frac-
tus”), all of which derive from the basic meaning ̒ cut, shortenedʼ and 
are chiefly used to describe broken or damaged vessels (“praecipue de 
uasis”). In the eight attested examples, however, curtus is always used 
adjectivally:
(1)  Juvenal, Satires 3.270/71: rimosa et curta uasa ʻcracked and 
broken potsʼ
(2)  Lucilius, Satires 13.467: Samio curto catino ʻon a broken 
Samian plateʼ
(3)  Lucretius, De Rerum Natura 4.1026: dolia curta ʻchamber-
potsʼ < ʻlow potsʼ 
(4)  Martial, Epigrams 1.92.6: curtus calix ʻa broken cupʼ
(5)  Martial, Epigrams 3.82.3: curta testa ̒ from a broken/cracked jarʼ
(6)  Martial, Epigrams 12.32.13: matella curto rupta latere meiebat 
ʻa broken chamberpot (matella curta) was leaking through 
its shattered side (curto latere)ʼ
(7)  Propertius, Elegies 4.75 curto uetus amphora collo ʻan old 
amphora with broken neckʼ
(8)  Ovidius, Fasti 2.645 curto testu ʻon a potsherdʼ < ʻ(piece of) 
broken earthenwareʼ
Since the jug is broken off right after curtos, the inscription might 
have been originally longer, terminating in a substantive, to which 
curtos would be the attributive adjective (e.g., curtus uasus vel sim.). 
If, however, the apparent nearly perfect semicircular organization 
of the inscription is premeditated, one would then have to reckon 
with something like a substantivized (via ellipsis) curtus to designate 
a specific type of short vessel, for which there does not seem to be 
any substantial proof in the attestations (except for dolium curtum 
ʻchamberpotʼ). 
Another option, then, is to think along the lines of curtus being 
used metonymically for ̒ potʼ (cf. Old Church Slavonic črěpъ ̒ earthen-
ware, pot; shardʼ or Slovene črep and črepinja ʻidem ,̓ which go back 
etymologically to ʻ(pot)sherdʼ).25 However, based on the available 
25 See Bezlaj, Etimološki slovar, 87–88 s.v. črep, Snoj, Slovenski etimološki slovar, s.v. 
črep.
LUKA REPANŠEK64
evidence, such a possibility, even though theoretically still within the 
realm of plausibility, remains unsubstantiated for Latin, and neither 
does it seem to be supported by the linguistic data from Romance 
languages.26
Be that as it may, the fact is that in our inscription, the object 
possessed by Amiant(h)us explicitly names itself. In contrast, typo-
logical parallels on Arretine pottery show that this was not usually 
the case but that the obviousness of what was owned rather obviated 
the need to express it. This would support the idea that <curtos> is 
not, in fact, the obvious or indeed, the common designation of the 
object at hand.
Since -os in post-second-century inscriptions can be most 
straight forwardly explained along the lines of a Latinate tran-
scription of an Ancient Greek word, as already pointed out above, 
an additional possibility presents itself, namely that <curtos> stands 
for Greek κύρτος ʻweel, fish trapʼ (cf. κύρτη).27 Greek upsilon (υ) 
was regularly transcribed as <u> in Latin borrowings up to the 
Augustan era, which finally saw the introduction of <y> (along-
side <z>), but the use of simple <u> for <υ> was still commonly 
used well into the 1st c. AD,28 so that <curtos> for <cyrtos> should 
not be too surprising.29 One can imagine ceramic pots being (re-)
used as fish or, more specifically, eel traps. However, what seems 
to be inferable from the archaeological finds, combined with the 
depictions of fishing gear on Roman mosaics and supported by 
modern-day practices in the Mediterranean, is that fishing pots 
were used predominantly to catch octopus and cuttlefish.30 Since 
an ordinary clay jar used as a fishing pot would not be specifically 
marked as such (none of the preserved pots bear any comparable 
inscriptions), a repurposed ceramic jug might be unconventional 
enough to have merited the designation. The main problem with 
this is that the shape and size of such pots do not match the find 
from the Ljubljanica river. Based on the low and squat, somewhat 
26 See Meyer-Lübke, Romanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, 225, for the attesta-
tions across Romance.
27 I owe the suggestion to Michael Weiss, University of Cornell (E-mail correspon-
dence, 12/12/2023).
28 Väänänen, Inscriptions pompéiennes, 32–33.
29 For typological reasons at least, it is significantly less likely that this could be a 
Latinate spelling of the Greek adverb κυρίως <curios> ʻlegitimately, properlyʼ 
(with <i> as the lectio facilior, for which see above).
30 See Montebelli, Halieutica, § Ollette fittili, and cf. Bernal-Casasola, “Fishing 
Tackle in Hispania,” 124–26.
LATIN INSCRIPTION ON A FRAGMENT OF A ROMAN JUG 65
globular body and a broad ring base, the vessel was probably 
a Roman single-handled jug similar to a lagynos, which would 
typically terminate in a longish vertical neck and rounded mouth.
The only remaining solution would be to assume that the graffito 
does not terminate after <curtos> and abandon the lectio diffici-
lior in favor of <curios>. This opens the possibility of reading the 
inscription as a bi-partite sequence and restoring curios[e] ʻwith 
care, carefully ,̓ which was probably followed by an imperative, 
cf. the inscription poni curiose ʻPut me back/down with careʼ 
from Gaul (CAG 2, 492, EDCS-42000208), and – for a less striking 
typological parallel – Pone me. Domnae sum ‘Restore me / Put me 
down! I belong to Domna’ (AE 2003, 1145 = EDCS-68300116, Latara). 
If our inscription is interpreted to stand for something like Amianti 
sum. Curios[e pone] ‘I belong to Amiantus. Put me back with care’ 
vel sim., this would neatly obviate the problem presented by the 
apparent substantive use of curtos, its dubious lexical meaning, the 
issues around the unexpected ending -os, and the fact that there 
are very few convincing parallels in the typologically comparable 
inscriptions to support the syntactic structure ʻI am the x of z.ʼ 
BIBLIOGRAPHY
AGP = The Ancient Graffiti Project: A Digital Resource for Studying the 
Graffiti of Herculaneum and Pompeii. Available online. 
AE = L A̓nnée épigraphique, Paris, 1888–.
CAG 2 = Carte archéologique de la Gaule. Vol. 2, L’Aisne. Paris: Académie 
des inscriptions et belles-lettres, 2003.
CIL = Mommsen, Theodor et al., eds. Corpus inscriptionum Latinarum. 
Berlin: De Gruyter, 1862–.
EDCS = Epigraphik-Datenbank Clauss / Slaby. Available online.
EDH = Epigraphische Datenbank Heidelberg – Epigraphic database 
Heidelberg. Available online.
EDR = Epigraphic Database Roma. Available online.
OPEL 1 = Lörincz, Barnabás, ed. Onomasticon Provinciarum Europae 
Latinarum. New ed. Vol. 1, ABA–BYSANVS. Budapest: Martin Opitz 
Kiadó, 2005.
RIB = Collingwood, R. George, and Richard P. Wright. Roman In-
scriptions of Britain. Stroud: Sutton, 1990–95. 
TLL 4.7 = Thesaurus linguae Latinae. Vol. 4, bk. 7, cur–cyulus. Leipzig: 
B. G. Teubner, 1991.
LUKA REPANŠEK66
Agostiniani, Luciano. Le “iscrizioni parlanti” dell I̓talia antica. Flo-
rence: Leo S. Olschki editore, 1982.
Alföldy, Géza. Die Personennamen in der römischen Provinz Dalmatia. 
Heidelberg: Winter Verlag, 1969.
Bakker, Lothar, and Brigitte Galsterer-Kröll. Graffiti auf römischer 
Keramik im rheinischen Landesmuseum Bonn. Cologne: Rhein-
land-Verlag GMBH, 1975.
Bartoletti, Guglielmo. “La scrittura romana nelle tabellae defixionum 
(secc. I a.C.–IV d.C.): Note paleografiche.” Scrittura e civiltà 14 
(1990): 7–47. 
Bernal-Casasola, Darío. “Fishing Tackle in Hispania: Reflections, 
Proposals and First Results.” In Ancient Nets and Fishing Gear: 
Proceedings of the International Workshop on ‘Nets and Fishing 
Gear in Classical Antiquity: A first approach,’ Cádiz, November 
15–17, 2007, edited by Darío Bernal Casasola and Tønnes Bek-
ker-Nielsen, 83–137. Cádiz: Universidad de Cádiz and Aarhus 
University Press, 2010.
Bezlaj, France. Etimološki slovar slovenskega jezika 1: A–J. Ljubljana: 
Mladinska knjiga, 1976.
Bowman, Alan K., and John David Thomas. Vindolanda: The Latin 
Writing Tablets. London: Society for the Promotion of Roman 
Studies, 1983.
De Robertis, Teresa. “Old Roman Cursive.” In The Oxford Handbook 
of Latin Palaeography, edited by Frank T. Coulson and Robert G. 
Babcock, 39–59. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020.
Kakoschke, Andreas. Die Personennamen in den römischen Provin-
zen Germania inferior und Germania superior. 2nd ed. Vol. 2, 
bk. 1, Cognomina ABAIUS-LYCHNIS. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & 
Ruprecht, 2021.
Kakoschke, Andreas. Die Personennamen in der römischen Provinz 
Noricum. Hildesheim: Olms-Weidmann, 2012.
Lausberg, Heinrich. Romanische Sprachwissenschaft. 3rd ed. Vol. 1, 
Einleitung und Vokalismus. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1969.
Lettich, Giovanni. Itinerari epigrafici Aquileiesi: Guida alle iscrizioni 
esposte nel Museo archeologico nazionale di Aquileia. Trieste: 
Editreg srl, 2003.  
Leumann, Manu. Lateinische Grammatik. New ed. Vol. 1, Lateinische 
Laut- und Formenlehre. Munich: C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuch-
handlung, 1977.
Lochner von Hüttenbach, Fritz. Die römerzeitlichen Personennamen 
der Steiermark: Herkunft und Auswertung. Graz: Leykam, 1989.
LATIN INSCRIPTION ON A FRAGMENT OF A ROMAN JUG 67
Mallon, Jean. Paléographie romaine. Madrid: Consejo superior de 
Investigaciones Científicas, Instituto Antonio de Nebrija de 
Filología, 1952.
Montebelli, Christina Ravara. Halieutica: Pescatori nel mondo antico. 
Pesaro: Museo della Marineria Washington Patrignani Pesaro, 2009.
Noll, Rudolf. “Eine Sigillataschüssel mit Eigentumsvermerk und 
Preisangabe.” Germania 50 (1972): 148–52.
Pape, Wilhelm, and Gustav Eduard Benseler. Wörterbuch der griechi-
schen Eigennamen. 3rd ed. Braunschweig: Friedrich Vieweg, 1884.
Schiaparelli, Luigi. La scrittura latina nell e̓tà romana. Hildesheim: 
Georg Olms Verlag, 1979. First published 1921 by Ostinelli (Como).
Snoj, Marko. Slovenski etimološki slovar. 3rd ed. Ljubljana: Založba 
ZRC, ZRC SAZU, 2016.
Solin, Heikki. Die griechischen Personennamen in Röm: Ein Namenbuch. 
2nd ed. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2003. 
———. Die stadtrömischen Sklavennamen: Ein Namenbuch. Stuttgart: 
Franz Steiner, 1996. 
Šašel Kos, Marjeta. Emona. Ljubljana: Narodni muzej Slovenije, 2024.
———. The Roman Inscriptions in the National Museum of Slovenia / 
Lapidarij Narodnega muzeja Slovenije. Ljubljana: Narodni muzej 
Slovenije, 1997.
Vavassori, Marina. “La personalizzazione della ceramica domestica.” 
Sylloge Epigraphica Barcinonensis 10 (2012): 81–99.
Väänänen, Veikko. Introduction au Latin vulgaire. 3rd ed. Paris: 
Klincksieck, 1981.
———. Le Latin vulgaire dans les inscriptions pompéiennes. 3rd ed. 
Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1966.
Wedenig, Reinhold. “Graffiti aus den Grabungen 1997–1999 im vicus 
Ost von Mautern a.d. Donau.” In Forschungen im vicus Ost von 
Mauthern-Favianis: Die Grabungen der Jahre 1997–1999, edited 
by Stefan Groh and Helga Sedlmayer, 541–65. Vienna: Verlag der 
Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2006.
———. “Geschirrgraffiti mit Frauennamen aus Noricum.” In Instru-
menta inscripta Latina II: Akten des 2. internationalen Kolloquiums 
Klagenfurt, 5.–8. Mai 2005, edited by Manfred Hainzmann and 
Reinhold Wedenig, 317–27. Klagenfurt: Verlag des Geschichts-
vereines für Kärnten, 2008.
———. “Ritzinschriften auf Gefäßkeramik aus der römischen Siedlung 
von Gleisdorf.” In Gerhild Jeschek, Die grautonige Keramik aus 
dem römischen Vicus von Gleisdorf, edited by Thuri Lorenz, 35–76. 
Vienna: Phoibos-Verlag, 2000.
LUKA REPANŠEK68
ABSTRACT
A Latin possessor inscription was discovered scratched on the bottom 
of a Roman potsherd (datable to the period between the Late Republic 
and the Julio-Claudian dynasty) recovered from the Ljubljanica river 
near Vrhnika. The inscription reads amianti sum curtos in Old Roman 
cursive. Based on paleographical characteristics, the inscription can 
be tentatively dated to the 1st c. AD. Several good typological parallels 
of possessor inscriptions consisting of a genitive of a personal name and 
the verb sum are found on ceramic vessels across the Roman empire. 
However, the type in which the object explicitly names itself is rare. 
The Roman cognomen Amiant(h)us is well attested, especially in Italy, 
so the only problematic part of the inscription is curtos. Given that the 
pot is damaged, it is possible that the inscription was originally longer 
and that curtos stood in attributive position to a word like calix/uasus/
urceus et sim. If this is not the case, however, it can only be understood 
as a substantivization, potentially signifying something like a ʻ(pot)
sherdʼ > ʻpotʼ. In support of this, however, Latin epigraphical and 
literary sources are silent. An additional problem is raised by the final 
-os, which in the Classical period would only be justifiable after u. The 
attested form curtos for expected curtus could potentially be explained 
as a reflex of Vulgar Latin development of us to -ọs, which is sporadi-
cally attested in Pompeian graffiti, or assumed to be a letter-for-letter 
Latin transcription of the Ancient Greek word κύρτος ̒ (fish)trapʼ. The 
latter solution runs into the problem of the pot from Ljubljanica not 
matching what we know of ceramic pots used for fishing in terms of 
shape and dimensions. Given its shape, the vessel was probably a sin-
gle-handled Roman lagynos. Allowing for the fact that the inscription 
does not terminate after <curtos> and that the <t> should be read as 
an <i>, which indeed seems to be the lectio facilior, another possibility 
is to restore curios[e] ̒ with care, carefullyʼ and assume a bipartite text 
such as Amianti sum. Curios[e pone] vel simile.
keywoRdS: Latin epigraphy, possessor inscriptions, paleography, 
Old Roman cursive
LATIN INSCRIPTION ON A FRAGMENT OF A ROMAN JUG 69
K interpretaciji latinskega napisa na odlomku  
rimskega vrča z območja antičnega Navporta 
IZVLEČEK
Na dnu rimskega keramičnega vrča, datiranega med poznorepu-
blikansko in klavdijsko obdobje, ki je bil odkrit v reki Ljubljanici v 
bližini Vrhnike, je vpraskan dobro ohranjen latinski napis v starejši 
rimski kurzivi amianti sum curtos, ki se ga da na podlagi paleograf-
skih značilnosti datirati v 1. stol. po Kr. Napis ima številne tipološke 
paralele na rimski keramiki, vendar v lastninskih napisih tega tipa, 
torej takih, ki vsebujejo osebno ime v rodilniku in glagol sum, predmet, 
ki je v posesti, samega sebe praviloma ne omenja eksplicitno. Rimski 
kognomen Amiant(h)us sicer prednjači v Italiji, a je dobro izpričan po 
celotnem imperiju, tako da kot izrazito problematična ostaja le beseda 
curtos. Ker je dno vrča poškodovano, je teoretično mogoče, da je curtos 
prvotno stal v atributivni poziciji, npr. curtos (calix/uasus/urceus …), 
sicer pa bi ga bilo treba razumeti v posamostaljeni funkciji (eventualno 
ʻčrepinjaʼ > ̒ posodaʼ), a za to v latinskih epigrafskih ali literarnih virih 
ni vzporednice. Poleg tega ostaja odprto vprašanje končnice -os, ki bi 
jo v klasičnem obdobju dejansko pričakovali zgolj v položaju za u. 
Obliko curtos za pričakovano curtus bi bilo sicer mogoče razložiti kot 
odraz vulgarnolatinske glasovne spremembe us > -ọs, kakršna je že v 
1. stol. po Kr. izpričana na pompejanskih grafitih, ali pa sklepati, da 
gre v resnici za latinsko transkripcijo starogrške besede κύρτος ʻpast 
(za ribe)ʼ. Ob taki rešitvi sicer nastopi težava, da vrč iz Ljubljanice 
tipološko ne ustreza vrčem, ki so bili v rimskem obdobju v uporabi 
za lov na hobotnice in sipe, saj gre najverjetneje za enoročajni rimski 
vrč tipa lagynos. Če sprejmemo možnost, da je napis poškodovan, ter 
zadnjo ohranjeno besedo interpretiramo kot curios[e] ʻprevidnoʼ (ob 
upoštevanju dejstva, da po paleografskih značilnostih <t> v odnosu 
do branja <i> dejansko predstavlja lectio difficilior), bi ga bilo mogoče 
razumeti tudi kot dvodelno besedilo, npr. Amianti sum. Curios[e pone] 
ali podobno.
ključne BeSede: latinska epigrafika, lastninski napisi, paleografija, 
starejša rimska kurziva