Arheološki vestnik 67, 2016, str. 277-275 259 The funerary stele of Petto from Ig Nagrobna stela za Petona z Iga Anja RAGOLIČ Izvleček Med arheološkimi izkopavanji leta 2014 na ledini Marof na Igu je bila poleg prvega doslej odkritega rimskega grobišča na tem območju odkrita tudi arhitektonska nagrobna stela. Napis na njej sporoča, da je bil nagrobnik postavljen za Petona in njegovo družino, katere člani nosijo tako rimska kot domača imena, značilna za ižansko območje: Petto, Cotiu (Otiu?), Bugia, Quarta, Rustius (Rusticus?) in Firmus. Stela je bila odkrita razbita na tri dele, ki so skupaj z drugimi obdelanimi kamni ležali v poznoantični jami. V članku je stela podrobneje opisana, napis interpretiran, predvsem pa so navedene možne interpretacije (načrtne?) depozicije rimskih kamnov v jami. Ključne besede: Slovenija, Ižansko, rimsko obdobje, epigrafika, ižanska osebna imena, nagrobne stele Abstract During archaeological excavations in 2014 in the meadow called Marof in Ig, in addition to the first Roman cemetery to be discovered in this area, an architectural funerary stele was also found. The inscription reads that the gravestone was erected for Petto and his family, whose members bore both Roman and local names characteristic for the Ig area: Petto, Cotiu (Otiu?), Bugia, Quarta, Rustius (Rusticus?), and Firmus. The stele was found broken into three parts and together with other dressed stones lay in a pit from Late Antiquity. The article describes the stele in more detail, interprets the inscription, and particularly provides possible interpretations for the (deliberate?) deposition of the Roman stones in the pit. Keywords: Slovenia, Ig area, Roman period, epigraphy, Ig anthroponymy, funerary stelae A SURVEY OF THE HISTORY OF THE IG AREA The present day village of Ig lies on a gravel plain along the southern edge of the Ljubljansko barje (Ljubljana Marshes) in the immediate vicinity of Krim Mountain. The earliest archaeological finds in the area of the village and the near vicinity were from the Stone Age,1 while the environs 1 Gaspari, Erič 2006, 16, 17. were settled, with interruptions, throughout all of prehistory.2 A hillfort from the Iron Age was probably located at Grajski hrib (Castle Hill) or Pungert,3 which rises above the former village nucleus called Studenec.4 A smaller settlement from the Late Iron Age perhaps existed below Pungert, and may have represented a station on the local 2 Velušček 2004, 79; Velušček 2005; Čufar, Velušček, Kromer 2013; Draksler 2014. 3 Šašel 1975, 180. 4 Gestrin 1994, 2; Hostnik 1997, 9; Šašel Kos 2009b, 108. 278 Anja RAGOLIČ road that on the one side connected Ig with the Ljubljana basin, Notranjska and Dolenjska, and on the other with the Adriatic Sea.5 On the other hand, very little is known about the Roman period settlement at Ig. In the past, its legal position was defined as a vicus, on the basis of an incorrect reading of a building inscription from Vrhnika (Nauportus).6 The Baroque writer Johann Ludwig Schönleben7 wrongly supplemented the abbreviation mag(istri) vici on the inscription as Magnus vicus, and thought that the name referred to neighboring Ig. In the second half of the 19th century, Alfons Müllner in fact even considered Ig the site of Roman Emona because of the large number of funerary monuments found, as few Roman monuments with inscriptions were then known from Ljubljana.8 His opinion nonetheless remained solitary. The Roman name for the settlements in the Ig region still remain unknown. Most probably more than one village existed in this area, and the peregrine communities would have lived in several (smaller) hamlets,9 which existed simultaneously, scattered throughout the vicinity of present day Ig. This is best shown by the finds from Iska Vas, where in front of the church of sv. Mihael (St. Michael) a small cemetery dated to the period from the 1st to the 4th centuries was excavated in 1985.10 Formally, these hamlets belonged to the administrative region of Emona, while the inhabitants lived through their own efforts. As is indicated by the images on stone monuments, the Roman-period inhabitants of Ig were involved in quarrying, forestry, and metalworking;11 with such natural resources and craft products they also supplied the colony of Emona along the water course of the Iscica River.12 5 RINMS, p. 255. 6 CIL I, 1467 = 12, 2286 = III, 3777 + add. 1729 = 10719: Q(uintus) Annaius Q(uinti) l(ibertus) / Torravius /M(arcus) Fulginas M(arci) l(ibertus) / Philogenes /5 mag(istri) vici de / vic(i) s(ententia) portic(um) f(aciundam) coir(averunt). Translation: Quintus Annaius Torravius, freedman of Quintus (and) Marcus Fulginas Philogenes, freedman of Marcus, village headmen, who according to the decision of the village assembly saw to the building of the colonnade (portico) (from: Sasel Kos 2004, 79). 7 Schonleben 1681, I 95, 216, cf. 218; RINMS, pp. 29-35, esp. 32. 8 Mùllner 1879. 9 RINMS, p. 255. 10 Pleterski, Vuga 1987. 11 Sasel 1959, esp. 122-123. 12 Sasel Kos 2009b, 108. Fig. 1: Marof at Ig on the edge of the Ljubljansko barje. Sl. 1: Marof na Igu na obrobju Ljubljanskega barja. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE The fallow land called Marof lies between the remains of an old stone wall surrounding Zidana gorica (residential area of Ig), and the fenced in area of the KIG factory (Fig. 1).13 The planned construction of the Logistics Center for ZRC SAZU and more than a hundred Roman inscribed stones that today are immured in the local farms and churches,14 as well as the fact that the Ig region is included in the cultural heritage registry as EŠD 11406: Ig - Roman period village settlement, were valid reasons that this site be investigated prior to construction. Preliminary archaeological excavations were carried out in May 2014 on lot no. 1857/18 of the Ig cad. dist., under the leadership of Primož Pavlin (ZRC SAZU, Inštitut za arheologijo).15 Of the five trenches excavated here, four were negative (no finds), while in one (the fourth) the archaeologists found three cremation graves. This was the reason and cause that excavations were expanded throughout a larger part of the meadow. 13 Grahek 2014a. The archaeological excavations and the individual finds were presented at the symposium Emona 2000: urbanizacija prostora - nastanek mesta on 16 April 2015 in Ljubljana, and will be published in part in the collected works of the symposium. The complete publication of the excavations with a more detailed description of the graves and finds is in preparation. 14 Sasel 1959; Hostnik 1997; RINMS, pp. 255-256 and RINMS 77-101. Several stone monuments from the Ig region in the 18th century were also immured in the Ljubljana Cathedral and Seminary, see Sasel Kos 1998. 15 Pavlin, Leghissa 2014. The funerary stele of Petto from Ig 279 Fig. 2: Marof at Ig, excavations in 2014. The southwestern part of the excavation area and the archaeological structures documented after the removal of turf. View to the southwest. 1 - pit with stone monuments; 2 - road; 3 - Structure 1. Sl. 2: Marof na Igu, izkopavanja l. 2014. Jugozahodni del izkopnega polja in arheološke strukture, dokumentirane po odstranitvi ruše. Pogled proti jugozahodu. 1 - jama s kamnitimi spomeniki; 2 - cesta; 3 - objekt. (Photo / Foto M. Lukic) The archaeological excavations that were carried out from the 8th of July to the 7th of October 2014, under the leadership of Lucija Grahek (ZRC SAZU, Institut za arheologijo), also covered the track of the future access road. The archaeologists assumed there were even more graves at that place and that the construction of the Logistics Center for the ZRC SAZU would endanger them. Therefore the objective was to determine the scope, structure and state of preservation of the cemetery, which had already been defined as Roman period according to the grave goods in the test trenches. In the further excavations, 25 cremation graves were discovered, which on the basis of the material and comparisons with the Emona cemeteries were preliminarily dated to the 1st and 2nd centuries AD. The cemetery, whose extent is still not known entirely despite the excavations, probably extended all the way to the local Ig-Staje road at the foot of Pungert, where in 2014 another small rescue excavation was performed because of the organization of an additional parking lot for the Zagorica residential block.16 In the southwestern part of the excavation field the cemetery road was documented (Fig. 2: 2). Three levels of the southeast-northwest running road could be identified (repair, leveling, and fill). 16 Vičič 1987, 257; Grahek 2014a, 55 pp.; Grahek 2014b. Wheel tracks were still visible, while along the road the drainage ditch for precipitation could also be recognized. To the west of the cemetery road the drain foundations were excavated of Structure no. 1, which was damaged by recent digging of a ditch for a water supply system (Fig. 2: 3). The square structure measuring 7.76 x 7.75 m was interpreted as the fence for a grave plot. All four inner corners contained circular pits, but their purpose is not completely clear. They may have been pits for beams that supported some additional structures on the grave parcel. A base was discovered on the inner side of the plot, where the funerary stele discovered not far away may have stood (see below). Geophysical investigations in the neighboring lot (lot no. 1857/20 cad. dist. Ig), where excavations were not performed, uncovered yet another structure of a similar size (ca. 7 x 7 m) only 6 m south of Structure 1.17 On the eastern side of the cemetery road an irregularly shaped pit was discovered, measuring 2.7 x 2.8 m and 0.95 m in depth (Figs. 2: 1; 3-5). The upper part of the pit fill already contained 17 Geo-electric mapping with measurement of electrical resistance was carried out on 29 August 2014 by Rok Plesnicar: Plesnicar 2014. 280 Anja RAGOLIČ Fig. 3: Marof at Ig. The pit with stone monuments. Sl. 3: Marof na Igu. Jama s kamnitimi spomeniki. (Photo / Foto M. Lukic) Fig. 4: Marof at Ig. The pit with stone monuments. The arrows indicate the top of the monument. Sl. 4: Marof na Igu. Jama s kamnitimi spomeniki. Puščici sta usmerjeni proti vrhu spomenika. The funerary stele of Petto from Ig 281 Fig. 5: Marof at Ig. The funerary stele for Petto and his family just after discovery. Sl. 5: Marof na Igu. Nagrobna stela za Petona in družino takoj po odkritju. (Photo / Foto M. Lukic) several fragments of pottery, while deeper in the pit along with Late Roman pottery were found numerous fragments of animal bones, several tiny pieces of glass and metal objects, and fragments of charcoal and burnt human bones. Several worked stones were also found in the pit. In addition to a fragment of a lintel with wedges,18 a fragment of an extension for a tombstone,19 and other stones,20 the pit also contained the tombstone broken into three parts (PN 202 + PN 200 = SE 308 + SE 309 and PN 211 = SE 317), which will be presented below. DESCRIPTION OF THE FUNERARY STELE The funerary stele in the form of an aedicula (Fig. 6),21 was made from local limestone that was quarried in the Podpec area.22 The stele was found broken into three parts, and the central part of the left and right columns with part of 18 Special find (PN) 130 = Stratigraphie unit (SE) 166. 19 PN 201 = SE 309. 20 PN 199, -205, -207, -208, -209, -210 = SE 316, -211 = SE 317, -212 = SE 318, -213 = SE 319, -214 = SE 320, -215, -216, and -217. 21 lupa 24391. H. 186; w. 76; d. 26.5 cm; h. of letters 3.8-5.4 cm. 22 For the macrolithological description ofthe tombstone see the contribution by Petra Žvab Rožič, Luka Gale, and Boštjan Rožič (2016) in this volume of Arheološki vestnik. the inscription field by them was chipped. In the profiled gable was a depiction of a male head with short strands of hair elaborated so that it gives the impressions of a head covering. The male relief has a smoothly shaven chin, the nose is broken off, and the lips are somewhat damaged. The partly visible lips are emphasized and the eyes are round. Dolphins swimming downwards are carved in the upper corners, but without the tail fin being depicted, as the tail ends before this at the edge of the tombstone. The inscription field is deepened, flanked by half-columns with Corinthian capitals with acanthus leaves in two rows. The bases of the columns have the form of five ribbed circlets. The shank for placement in the base is preserved. Two fragments of the implant surface or base for placement of the tombstone, which also lay in the pit with the stone monuments, do not correspond to the dimensions of the shank of the funerary stele.23 The inscription is carved on slightly over half of the inscription field, the empty space in the lower section was perhaps intended for a subsequent burial. The preservation of the letters is good, and the inscription (if the damage is ignored in lines 4 and 5 on the left and in lines 6 and 7 on the right) is almost entirely legible. Only the age of one of the deceased is missing. 23 Width of the shank 44 cm; w. of the opening of the first base 34 cm, w. of the opening of the second base 36 cm. 282 Anja RAGOLIČ TRANSCRIPTION OF THE INSCRIPTION AND COMMENTARY The inscription on the funerary stele has the following inscription carved (Fig. 7):24 Petto Firm^i' f(ilius), an(norum) L et Cotiu= ni an(norum) XL. Bugia [ett] Quarrt7a 5 filias feceru(nt). Rustius, Pet(t) = onis f(ilius), 0(obitus) an(norum) [..] et f(rater) Firmus, 0(obitus) an(norum) L. L. 1: I added by the stonecutter above M. L. 2 and 3: Cotiuni mistakenly in the dative instead of the nominative. Claudio Zaccaria reads the line as c(oniugi) Otiu/ni.25 L. 4: Quaria in place of Quarta. L. 5: The archaic nominative filias instead offiliae. L. 6: Probably Rusticus instead of Rustius. Petto with one T. L. 6-8: Probably a subsequent burial. L. 8: F(rater) and notf(ilius) correctly suggested by Claudio Zaccaria. Translation: Petto, son of Firmus, 50 years old and to Cotiu (!), 40 years old. Their daughters Bugia and Quarta erected (the tombstone). Rustius (Rusticus?), son of Petto, died aged ... and brother Firmus, died aged 50. As can be seen from the transcription, there were several grammatical and/or carving errors: - The name Petto was carved in line 1 with a double consonant T, while in line 6 it was carved with only one T; - As it seems, the name Quarta was written as Quaria and Rusticus as Rustius. As the anthroponymy of Ig is somewhat special and some names on the Roman inscribed stones from Ig are only attested here, the possibility must also be allowed that the deceased and one of the 24 The interpretation of the inscription, which was cited in the newspaper Delo on the 26th of September 2014, on page 11, was based on the preliminary transcription of the letters just after the discovery of the find. Lucija Grahek, the leader of the excavations, noted in the same article that this was a first reading with possible later changes or additions. 25 For valuable comments about the inscription I would like to thank prof. Claudio Zaccaria. Fig. 6: Marof at Ig. The funerary stele for Petto and his family. Sl. 6: Marof na Igu. Nagrobna stela za Petona in njegovo družino. (Photo / Foto M. Lukic) daughters who erected the monument perhaps were truly named as was carved on the tombstone. However, as Quarta and Rusticus are attested on several funerary monuments from the Ig region, the above amendment is also most likely. The correct form of the first name is Petto and not Peto. - In addition to the erroneous carving of the names on the tombstone, the stone carver also The funerary stele of Petto from Ig 283 Fig. 7: Marof at Ig. Detail of the funerary stele for Petto - the inscription field. Sl. 7: Marof na Igu. Detajl z nagrobne stele za Petona - napisno polje. (Photo / Foto M. Lukic) carved the archaic nominative filias instead of the correct Latin form filiae. A review of existing epigraphic databases (Heidelberg EDH, Salzburg lupa, Frankfurt EDCS, and Rome EDR) has shown that the use of the archaic nominative is otherwise rare, but was nonetheless attested on 16 inscriptions discovered both in Italy and in the provinces.26 - The next inconsistency was the contradictory use of the dative and nominative in the names of both parents. Both cases appear on tombstones to 26 (1) lupa 707 = RIU 3, 714 = HD038198; - (2) lupa 783 = CIL III 13374 = TitAq II, 750 = HD068719; - (3) lupa 2748 = TitAq II, 756 = AE 1965, 47 = AE 1967, 371 = AE 1969/70, 480 = HD014851; - (4) lupa 6049; - (5) AE 2010, 1416; - (6) AE 1978, 376 = HD013518 = EDR077200; - (7) CIL II 38 (p. 802); - (8) EDCS-40200222; - (9) RIU 3, 714; - (10) HD009497= AE 1988, 1005; - (11) HD033841 = ILJug 597; - (12) HD037160 = CIL III 10307; - (13) HD037371 = RIU 1227; - (14) HD042022 = AE 1963, 176; - (15) HD043062 = CIL III 12501; - (16) EDR153733 = AE 2012, 653. refer to the deceased, although separately. If the monument immortalized the deceased directly, hence noted who was buried, the name was carved in the nominative. If the tombstone was erected as a memorial to someone, the stone carver inscribed the name in dative. In the case of the funerary stele from Marof, the names of the first deceased, Petto, and both sons were carved in the nominative, while the name of the wife, Cotiuni, was written in dative. - Finally, the punctuation marks should also be noted, which are triangular in shape and consistently placed after each word or abbreviation, only in line 4 is the puncuation mark missing. Attention was drawn after the discovery of the stele by the mark (inasmuch that this was not merely damage to the stone at that spot, which is more likely) in the praenomen Cotiuni. It is placed after the letter C. The letter C is used in abbreviations on inscriptions for the name Gaius. Given the remaining text on the tombstone, such a reading is not possible in this case. Similarly, this letter cannot represent an abbreviation for the 284 Anja RAGOLIČ female name Gaia, which is always written out in inscriptions as a female cognomen. It should be added that only a few individuals possessed Roman citizenship in the Ig area. A third possibility would only theoretically exist, where C would represent an abbreviation for wife - coniux, which, however, never occurs in the Ig area inscriptions. However, as can be read on the inscription, the tombstone was erected by the daughters and not the husband for his wife. The word coniux on tombstones usually stands after the name, and the affiliation with the deceased is further expressed with the term eius - his/her. Neither is present on the funerary stele. An example of an incorrectly placed puncua-tion mark from the Ig region is further known on the funerary stele of Oppalo, which is immured in the southern wall of the Ljubljana Cathedral, and which was certainly discovered somewhere in the Ig area (in Strahomer or Ig).27 There are several reasons why mistakes occurred on Roman inscribed stones. The first reason is pronunciation: a given name that otherwise had two consonants could be spoken with an unemphasized second consonant and be carved in that manner on the monument. Another reason for mistakes could be the stonemason's knowledge of Latin or lack of it, with the result of his illiteracy being mistakes in the transcription of the template. A third possibility is that neither the phonetics nor the stone carver's knowledge were responsible, but simply that the mistake was in the template that the stonemason had received. The incorrect text on the template was hence copied unknowingly onto the stone, and the mistake of the customer was immortalized by the carving. It is difficult to say what exactly caused the superficial execution of the inscription on the funerary stele from Marof. As a peregrine community lived in the Ig area, which had taken over the Roman funerary formulas but still bore their indigenous names and perhaps pronounced Roman names in their own way, it is very possible that a combination of all three possibilities was responsible for the inscription errors. ANALYSIS OF THE PERSONAL NAMES The names will be described and analyzed according to the order in which they occur on the tombstone (Fig. 8). 27 CIL III 3866 = AIJ 192 = EDR136395 = lupa 3707. First comes the name of the deceased father, Petto. Petto is a hypocoristic formation (i.e. a diminutive form, created by shortening a longer name). In line 1 on the funerary stele from Marof the name was carved as Petto, in lines 6 and 7 in the variants Peto (in the genitive Petonis). According to Radoslav Katicic,28 the name appeared in Gaul as Peto, and as parallels he listed names taken from Alfred Hold-er.29 The name was also attested once at Ig. It can be noted in the manuscript of Avgustinus Tyfernus that in the sacristy of the church at Ig was a carved tombstone for Venix, son of Empeto. The inscription was lost from as early as the time of Valentin Vodnik, while Tyfernus' transcription was used by all later authors, including Andras Mocsy, although the inscription can now reliably be interpreted as Venixem(a) Petonis filia.30 Katicic's assumption that the pater familias must stand in the first place on the tombstone can now be refuted thanks to the discovery of the discussed funerary stele.31 Petto's wife was named Cotiu (or Otiu?, theoretically possible but less likely also Cotiunis/Otiunis), gen. Cotiunis/Otiunis. The name is a hapax legome-non in the Ig region, i.e. a name attested only once. It belongs among names ending in -u, gen. -unis, which mostly appear in Noricum,32 although they are also known, for example, from Iska vas (Tetiu )33 or Ig (Amatu).34 The name is attested as Cottia in Gaul35 (perhaps from the Gaulish *kotto- 'old')36 and once as Cottu (on the monument as Cotu) in Dacia.37 One of the two daughters who were responsible for erecting the tombstone was named Bugia. The name Bugia or Bucia is attested only four times.38 It appears on a tombstone immured in the Ljubljana Cathedral (transported from the Ig region),39 on a tombstone discovered in Celje,40 on a tombstone 28 Katičic 1966, 159; Katičic 1968, 91. 29 Holder 1962, 973 - today inadequate. 30 CIL III 3820 = lupa 4668; Mocsy 1959, 206. A new reading by Marjeta Šašel Kos in EDR148386. 31 See the contribution by Luka Repanšek (2016) in this volume of Arheološki vestnik. 32 Falkner 1948. 33 CIL III 3814. 34 ILJug 297 = lupa 4181= HD017539 = EDR148250. 35 Delamarre 2007, 76. 36 In terms of the Ig variants, see Repanšek 2016, 340. 37 CIL III 966 = lupa 14991 = HD044943. 38 OPEL I, 131; Mocsy 1959, 167. A similar distribution was also noted by Katičic 1966, 158; Lochner von Hüttenbach 1989, 38. 39 CIL III 3862 = AIJ 186 = lupa 3701 = EDR134951. 40 CIL III 5265 = AIJ 57 = lupa 3616 = HD067148. The funerary stele of Petto from Ig 285 Firmus oo Petto oo Cotiu ?/ Otiu ?* Firmus Rustius ?/ Rusticus ?*** Bugia Quarta Pettonis f. frater 0 soror (viva) soror (viva) the first son 0 the fourth child prvi sin 0** četrti otrok * I added Cotiu (?), since in view of other inscriptions from the Ig area, C as an abbreviation for c(oniugi) does not seem plausible. / Dodala sem Cotiu (?), saj glede na ostale napise z Ižanskega črka C zelo verjetno ne stoji kot okrajšava za c(oniugi). ** He bears the same name as his grandfather. / Ima isto ime kot njegov ded. *** I added Rusticus (?), because it is often attested in the inscriptions from the Ig area, while Rustius has not been documented to date at Emona and its territory. / Dodala sem Rusticus (?), saj se ime na napisnih spomenikih Ižanskega pogosto pojavlja, medtem ko Rustius doslej v Emoni in njenem upravnem območju še ni izpričano. Fig. 8: Family tree of the persons inscribed on the stele from Marof at Ig (kindley suggested by Prof. Claudio Zaccaria). Sl. 8: Družinsko drevo oseb, ki so imenovane na nagrobni steli z Marofa na Igu (po predlogu Claudia Zaccarije). from Diex near Völkermarkt in Austria,41 and on a tombstone from the Thal area near Graz in Austria.42 In addition to the tombstone from the Ljubljana Cathedral, the name appears in the Ig region another two times.43 According to Radoslav Katicic44 and Wolfgang Meid45 the name was defined as Celtic, while according to a recent analysis the name was most probably autochthonous to the Ig region.46 The other daughter had an undoubtedly Roman name. The female form of the name, Quarta, appears more frequently than the male Quartus, and this was also characteristic for the Ig region.47 The 41 CIL III 11579 = lupa 2465 = HD056422. 42 CIL III 5440 = lupa 1217 = HD038640. 43 Strahomer: CIL III 3788 = lupa 5563 = EDR148319 -Bucioni instead of Bugioni. Ig: CIL III 3797 = lupa 4655 = EDR148386. 44 Katičic 1966, 150 and 158; Katičic 1968, 72. 45 Meid 2005, 157, 158 and 179. 46 Repanšek 2016, 388 and pass. 47 Katičic 1968, 62; Stifter 2012, 261 (CIL III 3815 = AIJ 141 = RINMS 87 = lupa 3681 = EDR134931; - CIL III 3805 = lupa 4184 = EDR148392; - ILJug 1078 = lupa 4179 = HD013485 = EDR077176; - CIL III 3813 = EDR148399; - CIL III 3812 = EDR148402; - CIL III 10748 = lupa 4180 = EDR148403; - CIL III 3824 = lupa 4187 = EDR148425; - CIL III 10743 = lupa 3677 = EDR148334). name is attested throughout the entire western part of the Roman Empire, and is particularly common in northern Italy and Noricum.48 It designates a child who was born fourth into a family.49 This was a Latin cognomen, which at Ig was used in the function of a personal name (like Rusticus or Firmus, see below). According to different letter forms the names of the sons were probably carved later on the stele. The first, Rustius or more likely Rusticus, bears a Latin name that is frequent at Ig.50 (For the recorded -ius in place of the expected -icus, see above). The name of the second son was Firmus, the same as the name of his grandfather, the father of Petto. 48 OPEL IV, 16; Mocsy 1959, 186; Katicic 1968, 62; Alföldy 1969, 278-279; Lochner von Hüttenbach 1989, 128; Kakoschke 2012, 593-594. 49 Kajanto 1965, 74, 75, 77 and 293. 50 Katicic 1968, 62; Stifter 2012, 261 (CIL III 10745 = RINMS 81 = EDR134912; - CIL III 3800 = AIJ 132 = RINMS 85 = lupa 3672 = EDR134929; - CIL III 3813 = EDR148399; - CIL III 3812 = EDR148402; - CIL III 3804 = 10731 = AIJ 134 = lupa 3674 = EDR148271; - CIL III 3799 = 10730 = lupa 5564 = EDR148216; - CIL III 3808 = EDR148291; - CIL III 3861 = 10758 = lupa 4201 = EDR155653; - AIJ 195 = lupa 3709 = EDR136401). 286 Anja RAGOLIČ This Latin name is attested throughout the western part of the Roman Empire, and was particularly frequent in northern Italy.51 It was attested several times at Ig and was evidently popular.52 Iiro Kajanto classified the name (derived from the Latin adjective firmus) among the names that marked the power of an individual, who was spiritually and naturally robust, powerful, decisive, consistent, and coherent.53 On the tombstone are therefor documented on the one hand distinctly Roman names (cognomina), such as Firmus and Quarta, and on the other hand names of the autochthonus inhabitants of the Ig region: Petto, Bugia, and perhaps also Cotiu/Otiu. Until recently they were part of the collection of names from the Ig region that were incorrectly defined as Celtic (Gaulish), while recent analysis has shown that they should be interpreted as a special group within the northern Adriatic languages and onomastic areas.54 THE DATING OF THE FUNERARY STELE FROM MAROF According to analogous examples collected by Edisa Lozic in the Ig region, the funerary stele from Marof can be classified among the architectural stele of the aedicula type with a gable (A/III) or portrait niche (B/III).55 A more precise attribution to one of the hypothesized Ig workshops is more difficult. As was noted by the author, workshops may have existed at Strahomer, at Ig, and in Iska vas, all working at the same time, between the 2nd and 3rd centuries.56 The dolphins on the stele from Marof do not have triangular tail fins or incised lines marking the pectoral and dorsal fins that are characteristic for the Strahomer workshop. If the thickness of the stele is considered (26.5 cm), the tombstone from Marof could have been made at 51 OPEL II, 142; Mocsy 1959, 174; Alföldy 1969, 204; Lochner von Hüttenbach 1989, 79; Kakoschke 2012, 423, 424. 52 Katicic 1968, 62; Lochner-Hüttenbach 1965, 25 and 40; Stifter 2012, 261 (CIL III 3797 = lupa 4655 = EDR148386; - CIL III 3796 = lupa 4654 = EDR148387; - CIL III 3798 = RINMS 84 = lupa 4183 = EDR134927; - CIL III 3815 = RINMS 87 = AIJ 141 = lupa 3681 = EDR134931; - CIL III 3788 = 10727 = lupa 5563 = EDR148319; ILJug 299 = lupa 5570 = EDR148327; - CIL III 3866 = AIJ 192 = lupa 3707 = EDR136395. 53 Kajanto1965, 258. 54 Stifter 2012; Repansek 2016, 333-334. 55 Lozic 2009, 212, 210 Fig. 4. 56 Lozic 2009, 215. Iska vas,57 but also at the workshop in Ig, which is closest to the site of discovery. According to the data from the excavation, the stele was definitely discovered in a Late Roman pit (see below). Lucija Grahek connected the latter to abandonment of the cemetery road, Structure 1, and the cemetery. Perhaps the stele even adorned a grave plot, near which it was discovered. The graves were dated from non-pottery grave goods (coins of Vespasian and Antoninus Pius, a glass urn, a fibula of type Almgren 69, and a fibula of the Emona type) to the end of the 1st or beginning of the 2nd century.58 It seems logical that the stele from Marof should probably also be placed in the same chronological framework. The Devil's stones as the reason for the stele to be discarded? During the excavations it was established that the Roman stone monuments had been deliberately placed in the pit. The stone remains lay within the pit, mixed with Late Roman pottery, which on the basis of analogies was dated to the 4th and 5th centuries.59 Prior to deposition in the pit, the funerary stele was broken into two parts. They lay in the pit each facing in its own direction (Figs. 3 and 4: PN 200 and PN 202 + 211) with the inscription field turned downwards. Under the weight of the rest of the stone material, the larger part of the monument broke into two parts, so that at discovery the tombstone had already been broken into three parts (PN 200, 202, and 211). What was the reason for such a destruction of the funerary stele? What bothered the inhabitants of Marof in Late Antiquity to such an extent that they perhaps destroyed Roman stone monuments deliberately (?) and threw them into a pit? The rich deposits of limestone in the immediate vicinity of Ig (Podpec, Sv. Ana, Glinice, Staje, and Skopacnik),60 and numerous topographic names indicate the use of local limestone to extract lime,61 although in the example of the above described pit such an interpretation is less likely. Lime kilns 57 Lozic 2009, 212-214. 58 Grahek 2014a, 64, 65. 59 Such a dating was suggested shortly after the discovery of the find by Zvezda Modrijan, ZRC SAZU, Inštitut za arheologijo. 60 Ramovš 1990, 15-20; RINMS, pp. 18, 19, Fig. 3. 61 Ramovš 1990, 163-166. The funerary stele of Petto from Ig 287 were usually located in the vicinity of quarries, as large quantities of stone were necessary to make firing profitable.62 Similarly, it is less likely that the stone remains from the pit would have been used for building material. The reuse of Roman monuments is indicated by the numerous Roman tombstones immured in Ig houses, outbuildings, and churches, while at the same time the planned storage of Roman stone material is also shown by an example from Roman Emona. Walter Schmid during excavations in the city in 1911 in the so-called 'goldsmith's house' (House IV) in the vicinity of the southern Emona walls discovered several Roman monuments that had been deliberately set aside. The purpose of the house changed in Late Antiquity, and it then became some kind of warehouse where stone monuments were collected that could later be used as building material, and perhaps even for repairs to the town walls.63 Even if it is assumed that the stone monuments at Marof were intended for reuse, why would the 'collectors' make their work more difficult and bury the stone material in a pit? Additionally, even for the archaeologists today it was very difficult to remove the monuments from the pit, as it required the efforts of several people at once. Theoretically, the possibility would also exist that the tombstone (or its near vicinity) had been struck by lightning. Areas struck by lightning were ritually purified by priests, and the object that lightning had struck was ritually buried in a pit. The only example of such a lightning burial from Slovenia was discovered in 1901 on Rimski cesta (Roman Road) in Ljubljana.64 As there is no trace of burning on the monument from Marof (or it might not necessarily be visible at all), but an inscription is missing that would mark such an object that had become taboo, I consider the hypothesis about a lightening strike to be less likely.65 62 Bras 1977, 75. 63 Sasel Kos 2014, 90, 91. 64 RINMS 30; EDR129032; lupa 8884; EDCS-11300964: Fulg(ur) c(onditum). Translation: Buried lightning. Stored: NMS, inv. no. L 49. 65 Monuments with mention of the burial of lightning are known both from Italy and the provinces. See the most recently discovered example from the site of Todi: Fulgur Conditum, il sepolcro del fulmine [http://roma. repubblica.it/cronaca/2010/08/09/foto/fulgur_conditum--6175330/1/?refresh_ce] [last access 26. June 2016 ]. For the suggestion, I would like to thank Prof. Claudio Zaccaria and Prof. Fulvia Mainardis. It is more likely that the pit from Later Antiquity should in fact be related to Christianity. Traces of pagan beliefs were retained in Emona even up to the late 4th century.66 With the Edict of Milan in 313, Christianity became a faith with the same rights as the other religions in the Empire, while the Emperor Constantine (306-337) in his thirty years of rule radically acted against paganism: prohibiting the placement of images of the gods and commanding the destruction of pagan sanctuaries. His son Con-stantius II continued these policies, and in cases of negligence strictly punished provincial governors if they had not acted against paganism. In 392, Emperor Theodosius (379-392), an ardent Catholic, forbade paganism and customs associated with it. Temples were rarely destroyed to the end of the 4th century, but the decree of 399 required that temples throughout the state be destroyed. The systematic destruction of pagan statues and altars, as well as private sanctuaries, began in 407/408, particularly in the East.67 On the other hand, in the West not a single law is known that would have ordered the destruction of pagan religious buildings. Demolition of the pagan statues, inscriptions, and temples, in particular the religious monuments, took place in a milder form than in the East.68 Sources that describe or at least mention the destruction of pagan remains are rare. On the one hand it was related to local initiatives of small communities, while at the same time Christianity utilized such destruction for its own promotion.69 Mark the Deacon in his life of St. Porphyry (Vita Porphyrii), Bishop of Gaza in 395-420, clearly described what was the Christian attitude to the old beliefs. The monuments were not merely destroyed, but were also purposely reused: '...The bishop ordered that the remains of Marneon [pagan temple] be used for paving the square in front of the temple, so that on them could walk not merely men, but also women, pigs, dogs, and wild animals'.70 Some examples of the destruction of pagan monuments and in particular the re-use of the stone material are also known from 66 Bratož 2014, 48 and 302. 67 Pillinger 1985, 178, 179. 68 Bratož 2014, 303, 304. 69 De Vecchi 2012. 70 Marcus Diaconus, Vita Porph. 76: ra unoXsi