[image ALT: Much of my site will be useless to you if you've got the images turned off!]

A Two-Faced Latin Inscription

Front	Back
Certainly looks Roman, doesn't it?

Now let's do this in English:

The first inscription:

Transcribed:

1 5	C · CAESAR DICT · RVBICONE SVPERATO CIVILI BEL · COMMILIT · SVOS HIC IN FORO AR · ADLOCVT

Expanded:

1 5	Gaius Caesar dictator, Rubicone superato, civili bello commilitones suos hic in foro Ariminensi adlocutus est.

Translated:

2
1
4
3
9
6
5
7
8

The dictator
Gaius Caesar,
having crossed
the Rubicon,
addressed
his comrades-in‑arms
in the civil war
here
in the forum of Rimini.

The second inscription:

Transcribed:

1

5

10

SVGGESTVM
HVNC
VETVSTATE
COLLAPSVM
COSS ARIM
MENSIVM
NOVEMBRIS
ET DECEMB
M · D · LV
RESTIT

Expanded:

1

5

10

Suggestum
hunc
vetustate
collapsum
consules Ariminenses
mensium
Novembris
et Decembris
MDLV
restituerunt.

Translated:

5
10
2
1
4
3
6
7
8
9

The consuls of Rimini
repaired
this
speaker's podium
(that had fallen in ruins
due to age)
in the months
of November
and December
1555.

The site is Roman.
Half of the inscription might just possibly be Roman, although I think not.
The carving is 16th‑century.

In my diary at the time, I patted myself on the back for spotting this just from the front: after a second of "gee, here's a Roman inscription", I had a gut reaction.

On analyzing it back in my office in Chicago, the tipoffs seem to have been:

The lettering is wrong, just a bit too "spidery" to be Roman. (Other 16c inscriptions, if I ever get around to digging some up, would be useful examples, wouldn't they?)
In retrospect, considering who Caesar was for the rulers of the Empire, the wording seems unlikely.
Finally, that abbreviation AR in line 8 of the front is, so to speak, too little, too late: a dry scholarly amusement of the Renaissance, I think.

As usual, if I'm wrong and you have better information — drop me a line!