Guild Document "dendrophori Salerni CIL 10, *00125"

Permalink https://gdrg.ugent.be/guilddocuments/3125
Document name dendrophori Salerni CIL 10, *00125
Name variant (this document) patron(us) / corpor(um) fabr(um) dendrophor(um) /
Standard name of the group dendrophori Salerni
English standard name tree-carriers
Standard reference CIL 10, *00125 (dubius)
References to other standard editions CIL 10, *00125 = InscrIt-01-01, *00003
Source type inscription
Type of inscription religious
Type of monument
Main location Salernum
Main province Italia: Regio 01, Latium et Campania
Main admininistrative district Latium et Campania (Regio I)
Post quem 41 AD
Exact date
Ante quem 250 AD
Notes on dating No firm dating criteria are available. The full name (including praenomen, filiatio and tribus would suggest a date not too far in the third century, but the high status of the dedicants and their prominence weaken that argument. The post quem date is determined by the 'dendrophori' being mentioned, who were established under Claudius.
Corporate designation corpus
Internal institutions
Protectors patroni
Collective action
Collective assets
Collective entitlements
Public recognition and privileges
Private duties and liabilities
Receive
Donate
Notes
Standard text of source
Libero patri / Sex(tus) Messius Sex(ti) f(ilius) Stel(latina) Titi/anus VIIvir epul(onum) IIIIvir / munic(ipii) / patron(us) / corpor(um) fabr(um) dendrophor(um) / et centonarior(um) / et M(arcus) Gavius M(arci) f(ilius) Stel(latina) Flac/cus IIIIvir{ir} curator q(uinquennalis) q() / d() d l(ocus) d(atus) d(ecreto) d(ecurionum)
Translation
To Liber Pater. Sextus Messius Titianus, son of Sextus, of the Stellatina tribe, septemvir epulonum, quattuorvir of the municipium, patron of the corporations of craftsmen, dendrophori and clothmen, and Marcus Gavius Flaccus, son of Marcus, of the Stellatina tribe, quattuorvir, curator quinquennalis … place given by decree of the decuriones.
Notes on the source
Known only from a manuscript by Ligorius and considered a forgery in CIL out of a general distrust against Ligorius. This may, however, be uncalled for in this case. Nothing in the text seems suspicious, apart from the IIIIvir curator qq perhaps. (cf. Cooley 2012: 393-394).
Mistakenly referred to in Liu 2009 as CIL 10, *00124 instead of CIL 10, *00125. The text here is from CIL 10, *00125.