DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4679#0317
4. ANNIA FAUSTINA. 291
names (none of which have praenomen Aur.)1. This inscription is
dated in the year 182, which must be interpreted as dated by the
Cibyratic era (the use of which in this valley is assured by other
cases, cp. inscr. 99 &c, and is confirmed by the measuring of distances
on the milestones from Cibyra as caput viae). It belongs therefore
to a.d. 207-8.
This inscription should be compared with the following, which is
almost contemporary with it (though probably a few years earlier).
128. (P. 1884): Sterrett no. $$ from our joint copy, [erovs . . . virep
crwJTTj/ii'as' 'Avvias (pavcrreivqi /cat 8i]fJ.ov 'Op/irjXecoi' etti 'AfiaaK&vTov
Trpay/xarevTov: then follows a list of names on three sides of the
stone. In the notes on this text in App. I, it is shown, by a list of
some of the persons common to it with other inscriptions, that it dates
about a.d. 200.
In the first of these two inscriptions (dated a.d. 207) the owners of
the Pisidian estates are Annia Faustina and Tiberius Claudius, while
in the second, about 200, the owner is Annia Faustina. This seems
to imply that the right belonged to Annia Faustina, while Claudius
who appears after her in 207, but not in 200, had been married to her
in the interval, and appears only as husband of the heiress who was
rightful owner. It is obvious that this Annia Faustina cannot be the
Annia Aurelia Paustina who as a young woman owned the estates in
217 ; and we must therefore suppose them to be mother and daughter.
We thus find from the inscriptions that Annia Aurelia Faustina, whom
we have been led to identify with the wife of Elagabalus, was daughter
of Annia Faustina and Ti. Claudius. Now it is known that the father
of the empress was Ti. Claudius Severus,—another striking coinci-
dence.
Again from the fact that the father of the historical Annia Faustina
bore none of her names we might infer that she got them from her
mother; and we now find that, if our hypothesis is correct, her mother
was Annia Faustina. We also find a complete explanation of her
three names. Her father was grandson of M. Aurelius, and her mother
was descended from his sister; and with this doubly noble descent,
her father's humbler name Claudius was merged in that of Claudius's
mother's family Aurelius.
One more inscription remains, which presents yet another remark-
able coincidence.
129. (R- 1886): Sterrett no. 41. 'AyaOrj Tv-^-q ■ 'irovs............
virep o-wrripias avr&v Kal orcorripias Zefirjpov xal <t>avtTTeiV7]S kolc S-qfiov
1 See the notes on the text, App. I.
TJ 2
names (none of which have praenomen Aur.)1. This inscription is
dated in the year 182, which must be interpreted as dated by the
Cibyratic era (the use of which in this valley is assured by other
cases, cp. inscr. 99 &c, and is confirmed by the measuring of distances
on the milestones from Cibyra as caput viae). It belongs therefore
to a.d. 207-8.
This inscription should be compared with the following, which is
almost contemporary with it (though probably a few years earlier).
128. (P. 1884): Sterrett no. $$ from our joint copy, [erovs . . . virep
crwJTTj/ii'as' 'Avvias (pavcrreivqi /cat 8i]fJ.ov 'Op/irjXecoi' etti 'AfiaaK&vTov
Trpay/xarevTov: then follows a list of names on three sides of the
stone. In the notes on this text in App. I, it is shown, by a list of
some of the persons common to it with other inscriptions, that it dates
about a.d. 200.
In the first of these two inscriptions (dated a.d. 207) the owners of
the Pisidian estates are Annia Faustina and Tiberius Claudius, while
in the second, about 200, the owner is Annia Faustina. This seems
to imply that the right belonged to Annia Faustina, while Claudius
who appears after her in 207, but not in 200, had been married to her
in the interval, and appears only as husband of the heiress who was
rightful owner. It is obvious that this Annia Faustina cannot be the
Annia Aurelia Paustina who as a young woman owned the estates in
217 ; and we must therefore suppose them to be mother and daughter.
We thus find from the inscriptions that Annia Aurelia Faustina, whom
we have been led to identify with the wife of Elagabalus, was daughter
of Annia Faustina and Ti. Claudius. Now it is known that the father
of the empress was Ti. Claudius Severus,—another striking coinci-
dence.
Again from the fact that the father of the historical Annia Faustina
bore none of her names we might infer that she got them from her
mother; and we now find that, if our hypothesis is correct, her mother
was Annia Faustina. We also find a complete explanation of her
three names. Her father was grandson of M. Aurelius, and her mother
was descended from his sister; and with this doubly noble descent,
her father's humbler name Claudius was merged in that of Claudius's
mother's family Aurelius.
One more inscription remains, which presents yet another remark-
able coincidence.
129. (R- 1886): Sterrett no. 41. 'AyaOrj Tv-^-q ■ 'irovs............
virep o-wrripias avr&v Kal orcorripias Zefirjpov xal <t>avtTTeiV7]S kolc S-qfiov
1 See the notes on the text, App. I.
TJ 2