摘要：A brief summary of the paper may present some conclusions that are doubtless and some theses that are not, notwithstanding the presented arguments. The following conclusions should be deemed doubtless: 1. The only confirmation of the alleged name Avendius of the Salonitan sarcophagus CIL 3, 6394a has resulted from some unfortunate circumstances (the original fragmentation of the inscription) and its misreading, and is to be replaced by the reading Aufidius. 2. The name Avendius (nomen gentile) is to be deleted as nonexistent from all repertoires of Roman époque names at the eastern coasts of the Adriatic Sea. 3. For the above reasons, the name is not to be used in reconstructions of other fragmented inscriptions, including the inscription CIL 3, 6394b. The theses that were attempted to be supported by various arguments, but that can be neither verified nor deemed "locked" would be the following: 1. The missing names in the inscription CIL 3, 6394b should be reconstructed with the names in the inscription 6394a (Iulia, M. Aufudius). This is supported by other information in the inscription, first of all the assumed dative case [m]atri. 2. Two inscriptions of identical contents could only be explained as parts of one and the same sarcophagus (see Fig. 1). The reasons of doubling the inscription should be sought in poor quality of the original façade (CIL 3, 6394a), the desire to achieve a unique concept, or positioning the monument in the sepulchral parcel in open space, free and visible from all sides. 3. The sarcophagus of Julia Rufina is a unique example of Salonitan production of local sarcophagi. Its complete analysis lacks its lateral sides.
