Binchester redux

The latest (which is to say, only the second) Epistula newsletter is out from the Roman Society. In it a note on the past season at Binchester including almost exactly the form of words used in Current Archaeology interpreting the inscription. So 'dedicated by' may come from David Mason and not be down to the editors of CA. It's still not right...

While I'm back on that subject: Sacellum? I've only the photo to go on, but after SAC we have a reversed E ligatured with another letter. Is there the lower bar of an L there? I thought perhaps we might just see the foot of an R. But... the context may fit sacellum better and without seeing it, I'd have to defer to RSOT (in fact I'd probably have to anyway!).

Recent Binchester inscription

Some initial comments by RSO Tomlin are reported in the article in Current Archaeology 263. He prefers Sace[llum, shrine, and the text might make more sense as recording the dedication of such. However, I must assume his comments have been simplified for publication - cui praeest does not mean 'dedicated by'. The formulation is surely going to require that the dedication, whether or not of a shrine, is made by the army unit in garrison, cui praeest [insert name] praefectus equitum, 'under the command of [unnamed] prefect