I've contacted a Professor in Europe who was doing research in this area and pointed him to the page. What I genuinely need is someone to spot check a few of the attributions. I can send you a list of the ones I think are the most likely to be good. 1. Laepoca / Laepocus — Piquentum, Venetia et Histria (1–50 AD)
Three family members: two women (Laepoca Regilia, Laepoca Tuia) and a man (Metellus Laepocus). The nomen appears in both feminine and masculine forms in the same inscription, pointing to a
genuine local gentilicium, likely of Istrian or Liburnian origin.
https://new.roman-names.com/#edcs_id=EDCS-04200530
It looks like my auto-translation and summarization layer is hallucinating on this entry, but the extraction appears correct. I'll flag it for the next run. 2. Tocernius — Eraclea Veneta, Venetia et Histria (3rd c. AD)
Father (C. Tocernius Hermeros) and son (C. Tocernius Maximianus), the latter a soldier of Legio II Italica. Probably a Venetic name surviving into the imperial period.
https://new.roman-names.com/#edcs_id=EDCS-04200461
Here, the auto-translate and summary worked as intended. It does garble the dedication into the status. 3. Laulenia — Thibilis, Numidia
Two sisters, Laulenia Matrona and Laulenia Naxina, daughters of the same Marcus. The name looks Berber/Numidian in origin. (I should note that our pipeline transcribed the nomen as
Lauzenia — the raw EDCS text reads Laulenia, which is probably the correct form.)
https://new.roman-names.com/#edcs_id=EDCS-13500401
The auto-translate and summary layers do not make this error, only the name extraction layer does. I have flagged the entry and am diagnosing it. 4. Kanulanius / Nansinia — Flavia Solva, Noricum
Father (C. Kanulanius Eumitus) and son (C. Kanulanius Nepos, a soldier of Ala III Thracum). The K-spelling may reflect local Celtic orthographic convention. The wife's nomen, Nansinia,
also appears unattested in standard sources and may be a second find in the same inscription.
https://new.roman-names.com/#edcs_id=EDCS-14500644
Here there is an issue where I think in the processing for the web I am feeding interpreted text into the raw extraction field as my displayed raw text seems to be expanded from EDCS.
Mine:
Caius Kanulanius Eumitus vivus fecit sibi et Nansiniae Verecundae coniugi et Caio Kanulanio Nepoti filio militi alae III Thracum annorum XXV stipendiorum VI loco et impensa Anni FestiEDCS:
C(aius) Kanulani/us Eumitus / v(ivus) f(ecit) sibi
et / Nansiniae / Verecundae con(iugi) / et C(aio) Kanulanio / Nepoti
f(ilio) mil(iti) alae III / Thrac(um) an(norum) XXV stip(endiorum) VI /
loco et impensa / Anni Festi
6/14/2026
at
5:03:56 AM
What exactly are you trying to go for with status? It seems it mostly records filiation, but I don't think that's an intuitive use of the word. Knowing what you're actually going for would be helpful.Also, you might want to include the source from EDCS. #3 above comes from ILAlg, and EDCS has a key for all the collections and their abbreviations. This will help someone be able to track down the original inscription more easily.
1. That first one is rough, and the translation is broken (it doesn't even translate Surus' name), but you got the people down. Regilia is just a guess, though.
3. Yep, Laulenia is the original name. Seems like AI is hallucinating here.
4. Have you thought about code that strips the parenthesis first, instead of letting AI do it? Also, loco et impensa is something like "grave site and expense", not "expense and initiation." Locus means "place", and in epitaphs often just refer to the burial place.
by cwnyth
