
Some weeks ago I spotted an online catalogue of an antiquarian book firm with among other items a most remarkable document, a rare Roman wooden tablet with an inventory for tutorship. Although I looked for other subjects for a post here, I kept returning to this valuable object. For me it is a very good example how it matters to study a subject not just in Roman legal texts, but also with material objects stemming as much from real life as those texts. After all, a key element in the longevity of Roman law is the way it proceeds from actual cases to argumentation about legal matters.
The object at the heart of this post is offered by the firm Adam Weinberger in New York in cooperation with the Dutch firm Konstantinopel in Enschede in their rare and fine books catalogue 2025 no. 18 as item no. 16 (pp. 16-17).
The material side of tutorship
Let me start with my admiration for the careful and insightful description of this item in the sale catalogue. The first thing to note is perhaps it is not a Roman wax tablet, but similar to the Vindolanda Tablets an inked tablet. The genre of Roman curse tablets is definitely something else. Another very visible element is the script itself which is not the older Roman cursive. The catalogue describes it as a very early example of Late Roman cursive. Interestingly, the inventory can be exactly dated to the year 282 CE.
The very precise date of this tablet is remarkable. The inventory refers to a testament made a year earlier by the father of Iulius Maianus. The tablet is said to be part of an archive of tablets. Alas the photographs atre not sharp enough for me to get clear sight of the writing and the specific letterforms. The catalogue entry ends with a reference to an upcoming study and edition by Peter Rothenhöfer, Rechtsdokumente des 2. bis 4. Jahrhunderts aus einem römischen Archiv in der Africa Proconsularis / Byzacena. Band II; to appear in the series Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte. Publications in this series since 2008 are accessible online in open access. The provenance of the tablet is not entirely complete: it comes now from the collection of an anonymous man from London, and stems from the Sfez family in Belgium who bought in the 1950s.

Surely more details are needed to qualify this object as an original tablet from the late third century. Is it indeed what it is said to be? External source criticism will have to establish the age of the wood, the nature of the dimensions and its consistency with similar objects, the quality of the ink and possible traces of a writing utensil. The text will have to be checked for its legal aspects, for the character of the Latin and the correctness of the terms used, and of the valuations of items given in the inventory, and the nature of the context given in the text concerning the inventory, its origin and purpose. It is not just the nature of the script that calls for this kind of investigation. You will also like to know more about the ancient archive it presumably once belonged to.
As for learning to read this script, there is at Vindolanda Tablets Online an introduction to Roman cursive script of the first and second century CE. Dutch readers can benefit from the PDF with the leaflet Cursus cursief Latijns schrift taken from J.A.D. Zeinstra, Romeinse schrijfplankjes uit Nederlandse bodem en andere epigrafica. De Iudici Ius-Tabula uit Velsen. De Tabula Sigillata van Tolsum et alia (Leeuwarden 2010).
A second tablet

For once a search with the inevitable Great Omniscient Tool leads you immediately to further relevant and surprising information. Another tablet, the third and last tablet of a testament by the father of a Iulia Ianuaria in the province Byzacena – now in Tunisia – and said to date from the early fourth century CE, is offered for sale at the Biddr platform by TimeLine Auctions. Its dimensions are quite similar to the New York-Enschede tablet, even the weight is indicated, but not the thickness nor the kind of wood. This item is advertised by TimeLine Auctions in Harwich as part of its December 2025 auction, lot 94.

The details about the provenance are similar but slightly expanded, and an affidavit from Peter Rothenhöfer authenticating the object has been added. There are references to two publications by Rothenhöfer concerning Roman testaments, including a very recent article, ‘Bemerkungen zum Testament des Pomponius Maximus aus dem Jahr 371 n. Chr.’, Zeitschrift der Savigny Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, Romanistische Abteilung 142 (2025) 200-232. References to literature about the Vindolanda tablets are included, too. From August 27 to December 10, 2025 the tablet is on display at the Harwich Museum. However, the Harwich Museum closed its doors temporarily for its winter break on November 30, 2025. The webpage of the online auction includes a statement that Interpol has been contacted about the possibilty of provenance from theft, but this is not the case.
TimeLine Auctions also published two years ago on YouTube a video with auctioneer Tim Wonnacott introducing briefly the tablet with the inventory (lot 141). The website of TimeLine Auctions, too, showed this tablet on auction with the video in 2023. The images on this website can be enlarged by hovering over them, and this helps to get a better view of the script or scripts used. Alas I could not download these images. The website states lot 141 was sold for £ 24,700.
Some object lessons
The disturbing thing for anyone wanting to buy these objects is first of all the probability of breaking possibly the ensemble of a coherent set of objects amounting to an ancient family archive. In fact of the two sale approaches I think it is wise to ask some questions. One of them is surely whether the tablet with the testament and the tablet with the inventory stem indeed from the same Roman family in North Africa? Hopefully the new publication by Rothenhöfer can shed light on this last question. Comparing the information about the two tablets I realized a description should be as complete as possible, even tiny details matter.
Anyway, looking here at two tablets offers food for thought and two unexpected examples of ancient documents probably stemming from North Africa. Had the images of the inventory been sharper, we could have compared more effectively the kind of Roman cursive used here; you can find a better image of the inventory at the entry given for it by AbeBooks on behalf of Konstantinopel which at least indicates the ink has very much faded.
Clearly we need the combined knowledge of Roman law, of Late Antiquity and the auxiliary historical sciences, in particular epigraphy, to study both tablets convincingly before introducing them with sound corroboration as valuable sources for Roman legal history. Unfortunately Rothenhöfer has not yet published a full-scale study about Iulius Maianus and his archive; there is only a one-page summary in Chinese of a paper he presented in 2019. Hopefully some fog around the two tablets, their recent and earlier provenance, and their context can be lifted soon. To me it seems interesting and valuable to investigate these tablets and their possible (historical) value.
























