increasing, sometimes in an exponential way. Until 1965, for instance, only seven ex-
amples were known from Britain. At present we have almost two hundred and fifty
(Tomlin 2002: 165; for a general corpus see Audollent 1904; cf. Gager 1992; for the
early examples from Spain, see Stylow 2005: 255, 261; for Germany, see Brodersen
and Kropp 2004). The increase in the case of Britain is exceptional, but the number
of Greek documents also grew by 100 between 1985 and 2001 (Gager 2001: 5).
As R. S. O. Tomlin and others have underlined, there are principally two different
types. On the one hand, there are spells intended to eliminate a rival by invoking a
demon and forcing it to act by writing its real name or by reciting words of power
(e.g. ILS3001, 8749). On the other hand, we have what should better be called
“judicial prayers” (the majority of the British ones are of this type). The author of
such a prayer, who often gave his name, voiced his grievance (usually theft) to a
god, treating him or her like a Roman official larger than life. The writer is asking
for justice (Tomlin 2002: 167f.).
Those tablets found in Great Britain are particularly well researched. Two hun-
dred of these almost two hundred and fifty tablets come from two sites: one was
originally urban and sophisticated – the great classical temple dedicated to Sulis Minerva
at the Roman spa of Bath. The other one was a rural shrine of a Celtic god at Uley,
twenty kilometers from the nearest town. It is important that apparently even in Bath,
according to the names and the objects stolen, the petitioners did not come from a
socio-economic elite. But it seems that they all wrote their own texts (probably after
consulting “experts” concerning the formulae necessary).
Tomb Inscriptions
Even if each burial was a sacral act and even if each tomb inscription marked a locus
religiosus, the number of inscriptions which give us insight into ritual and religious
aspects of these acts is quite restricted. The reason is that most tomb inscriptions
are brief and extremely formalized, too. After the introductory phrase D(is)
M(anibus), which we find quite regularly during imperial times, the name (and the
functions) of the deceased are mentioned (in the dative or genitive), in the later sec-
ond and third century often supplemented by a laudatory epithet such as dulcissimus
or incomparabilis. Then follows the name of the person or of the persons who arranged
the burial, with some indications concerning their relationship to the deceased. The
inscription normally closes with a formula referring to the erection of the tomb –
f(aciendum) c(uravit)or ex t(estamento) f(ieri) i(ussit)– or with one concerning
the burial – h(ic) s(itus) e(st)– or last, but not least, with good wishes – s(it) t(ibi)
t(erra) l(evis). We find these texts on a number of different and often regionally
specific forms of monuments: stelae, square stone slabs, put on edge, often with
a crowning gable and sometimes with an image of the deceased; altars, which can
only by their texts and the archaeological context be distinguished from arae
dedicated to gods and goddesses; ash-cists, typical of Rome and its surroundings;
sarcophagi, which were used in the western provinces with very few exceptions only
from the late second century on; etc.
186 Rudolf Haensch