forum.nationalwellsindex.org.uk

As Tomlin, if I recall correctly, points out in his preamble to his curse tablet catalogue in Cunliffe 1988 (Cunliffe, B. 1988. The Temple of Sulis Minerva at Bath. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology Monograph), there are names that are inscribed on the tablets that are not ‘normal’ Latin prenoms etc, but rather appear to be translations of names drawn from other linguistic traditions. This (see also the variation in inscribed forms) suggests there perhaps there was a class of some description writing on behalf of individuals who were not sufficiently articulate in Latin, commonly suggested as ‘British’ though I suppose a wholly illiterate Roman could have been at work, likely given the numbers of local Brits versus the number of illiterate Romans locally and Bath’s status as a pre-Roman cult centre that one imagines still attracted local interest into and beyond the 1st century. Some obviously bypassed this system, hence tablets signed merely with an X suggesting that the individual just saw the act of inscription as suitably talismanic in itself. If the query relates to the term Celtic, I concur, this is a much misused and wholly un-diagnostic term. In short be careful about saying Tomlin calls this a Roman tradition, as this misunderstands his far more complex argument.

Also I would like to point out my doctoral thesis currently being published lists all British lead/tin defexiones and offers a new interpretation of their role in wet environments including Bath and as such covers exactly this argument in great depth.