¹ Spratt, T. A. B., Forbes, E., Travels in Lycia, Milyas and the Cibyratis I (1847), H on their plan (facing p. 273)Google Scholar.

² Petersen, E., von Luschan, F., Reisen in Lykien, Milyas und Kibyratis II (Vienna, 1889), 180–83Google Scholar.

³ Heberdey, R., Kalinka, E., Bericht über zwei Reisen im südwestlichen Kleinasien (Denkschr. Akad. Wien, phil.-hist. Kl. 45) II (Vienna, 1896), 41 no. 60Google Scholar. The inscr. is one of the latest examples of stoichedon. Our Pl. XVI(a) shows the top of col. VI.

⁴ Wilhelm, A., Arch.-epigr. Mittheilungen XX (1897), 77 ff.Google Scholar; Dessau, H., Zeitschrift für Numismatik XXII (1900), 199–205Google Scholar.

⁵ Cagnat, R. (ed.), IGR III 500Google Scholar.

⁶ Groag, E. et al. , PIR (2nd. ed., Berlin, 1933– )Google Scholar s.v. Licinnius Longus, Licinnia Flavilla, etc.

⁷ Stein, A., Der römische Ritterstand (Munich, 1927), 181 ff., 223 ff.Google Scholar; Larsen, J. A. O., “TAM II 522 and the dating of Greek inscriptions by Roman names”, JNES V (1946), 55–63Google Scholar. Jameson, S., “Two Lycian families”, AnSt XVI (1966), 125–37Google Scholar, with stemma. MacMullen, R., “Women's power in the Principate”, Klio LXVIII (1986), 434 ffGoogle Scholar. at 441–2 = id., Changes in the Roman Empire: Essays in the Ordinary (Princeton, 1990), 175–6; Wörrle, M., Stadt und Fest im kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasien (Munich, 1988), 35, 62 ff., 70 ff., 98 f.Google Scholar, 103, 142, 200, 220 f., 250.

⁸ For such tombs in general see Cahill, N., AJA 92 (1988) 485–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fedak, J., Monumental Tombs of the Hellenistic Age (Toronto, 1990) 19, 66–71, 87, 127, 158–9, 176–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hesberg, H. v., Römische Grabbauten (Darmstadt, 1992) 182–9Google Scholar. The following list of temple tombs in southwest Anatolia, to which later footnotes will refer back, is based on that given by Hallett, C. H., AnSt XLIII (1993) 54–5, n. 39Google Scholar.

1. Balboura, , East Tomb. Hallett, C. H., AnSt XLIII (1993) 41–63Google Scholar.

2. Cambazlı, , Great Tomb. MAMA III 34–5, fig. 54Google Scholar.

3. Cambazlı, , Southeast Tomb. MAMA III 35, fig. 56Google Scholar.

4. Döşene, , Prostyle Tomb. Machatschek, A., Mélanges Mansel I (1974) 252–5, 260–1, figs. 51–3Google Scholar. Another similar, ibid. 252.

5. Döşene, , Two-storied Tomb. Machatschek, A., Mélanges Mansel I 255–9, 261, figs. 54–6Google Scholar.

6. Döşene, , two In-antis Tombs. Machatschek, A., Mélanges Mansel I 252Google Scholar.

7. Elaioussa Sebaste, six Arched Recess Tombs T3–5, T7–9. Elaiussa Sebaste 92–6, 108–9, pl. 40–1, 48–50, fig. 61–6, 70.

8. Elaioussa Sebaste, four Simple Temple Tombs T1 2, T12–13. Elaiussa Sebaste 91–2, pl. 38–9, figs. 59–60.

9. Elaioussa Sebaste, two Prostyle Tombs T10–11. Elaiussa Sebaste 97–8, pl. 51–3, figs. 67–9.

10. Ephesos, Tomb of Claudia Tatiane. Keil, J., JÖAI XXVI (1930)Google Scholar Beib. 7–12.

11. Gelcik, Tomb I. Swoboda-Keil, 114–16, figs. 25–7.

12. Gelcik, Tomb II. Swoboda-Keil, 116–18, figs. 28–30.

13. Isaura, Large Tomb in Necropolis II. Swoboda-Keil, 139–41, fig. 69–72.

14. Kanytela, Tomb T6. Elaiussa Sebaste 92–6, 108–9, pl. 45–7.

15. Kanytela, Tristyle Tomb. Elaiussa Sebaste 116–17, pl. 56, fig. 71.

16. Kremna, Temple Tomb. Lanckoronski, II, 172, fig. 142.

17. Lydai, , North Tomb, (a) Bent, J. T., JHS IX (1888) 84Google Scholar; (b) Roos, P., Opuscula Atheniensia IX (1969) 77–80Google Scholar.

18. Lydai, , South Tomb, (a) Bent, J. T., JHS IX (1888) 84Google Scholar; (b) Roos, P., Opuscula Atheniensia IX (1969) 77–80Google Scholar.

19. Myra, Corinthian Tomb, (a) Texier, III 236–7, pl. 213–14; (b) Myra, 61–3.

20. Oinoanda, , Doric Tomb. Coulton, J. J., AnSt XXXII (1982) 45–60Google Scholar.

21. Patara, Small Temple Tomb. Texier, III 197, 227, pl. 189.

22. Patara, , Hexastyle Tomb. Colvin, H., Architecture and the Afterlife (New Haven/London, 1991) 80–3, figs 72–3Google Scholar.

23. Rhodiapolis, Tomb of Opramoas. Petersen-von Luschan, 76–81.

24. Sarıcık, Temple Tomb. Petersen-von Luschan, 151–3, fig. 67, 69–72.

25. Selge, , Temple Tomb. Machatschek, A., Schwartz, M., Bauforschungen in Selge (= Denkschr Wien CLII, Vienna, 1981) 97–8, pl. 21Google Scholar.

26. Side, Temple Tomb in West Necropolis. Mansel, A. M., Die Ruinen von Side (Berlin, 1963) 177–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar, figs 145–52.

27. Sidyma, Corinthian Tomb. Benndorf-Niemann, 78, pl. 22 left.

28. Sidyma, Doric Tomb. Benndorf-Niemann, 78, pl. 22 right.

29. Termessos, Prostyle Tomb HW VIII. Heberdey-Wilberg, 204–5, fig. 79–80.

30. Termessos, Tomb of Claudia Perikleia. Heberdey-Wilberg, 205–6, fig. 81–3.

31. Termessos, Prostyle Tomb, Lanckoronski, II 118–120, fig. 88–9.

32. Çeşme, Topaların, (two Temple Tombs). MAMA III 30, pl. 14, fig. 44–5Google Scholar.

33. Ura, , Temple Tomb. MAMA III 84–5, pl. 14, fig. 44–5Google Scholar.

34. Xanthos, , Fellows' Tomb. Rodenwaldt, G., JHS LIII (1933) 181–4Google Scholar.

35. Xanthos, , X Tomb. Coupel, P., Demargne, P., Mélanges d'histoire et d'archéologie offerts à Paul Collart (Lausanne, 1976) 103–15Google Scholar.

⁹ The stylobate width would have been rather greater, but still probable less than the width of 9·76 m. given by Petersen-von Luschan, 180. A prostyle porch (see below) would increase the length by about 2·5 m.

¹⁰ The distyle in antis tomb at Sarıcık has antae projecting c. 2·1 m. (note 8 no. 24); two tombs at Cambazlı with distyle in antis façades (note 8, nos. 2–3) have antae projecting 4·1 m. and 2·15 m. Nos. 6 and 32 also have façades in antis.

¹¹ e.g. note 8, nos. 4, 5, 9, 15, 17, 18, 22, 23, 29 31, 33, and probably nos. 19, 21, 25.

¹² So apparently in the porticoes and Boukonisterion on the Agora at Oinoanda (Coulton, J. J., AnSt XXXVI (1986) 70, 76Google Scholar); the tomb near Myra (note 8, no. 19) must also have had columns whether prostyle or (less plausibly) in antis.

¹³ Elaioussa Sebaste Tombs T3–5, 6–9; cf. Kanytela Tomb T6 (note 8, nos. 7 and 14).

¹⁴ See note 8, no. 5.

¹⁵ Heberdey-Wilberg, 191–3, Lanckoronski, II 116–17, fig. 86–7 (Termessos), 125, fig. 98 (Ariassos [“Cretopolis”]); cf. Elaiussa Sebaste 84–5, pl. 37a, fig. 56.

¹⁶ TAM II 71, p. 88 (no. 247) with sketchGoogle Scholar.

¹⁷ It was not easily visible beneath the heaped rubble, and it is possible that it was rather a joint in an east-west stylobate.

¹⁸ The prostyle tombs at Cambazlı, Döşene, Rhodiapolis, Sidyma, and Termessos (note 8, nos. 2–5, 27, 30–31) all have Attic-Ionic anta bases. The tomb at Sarıcık (no. 24) has a simpler moulding. The tomb near Myra (no. 19) has blocked out bases.

¹⁹ The ratio of façade width/anta width is as follows: Lydai (no. 17) c. 15·8; Myra (no. 19) c. 13·7; Patara (no. 21) c. 13; Rhodiapolis (no. 24) c. 14·9; but Döşene (no. 4) c. 10–11.

²⁰ Compare the cornice profile of the Northeast Portico and West Arch of the Agora at Oinoanda (Coulton, J. J., AnSt XXXVI (1986) 70–71, 73, fig. 9(d))Google Scholar.

²¹ Along the west side of the South Heroon at Lydai (note 8, no. 18) there is just a simple bevel cornice with no architrave or frieze, and even that is suppressed across the back of the tomb; yet Bent recorded Corinthian pilasters and an inscribed frieze across the front.

²² Coulton, J. J., AnSt XXXVI (1986) 67–70Google Scholar; Ling, R. J., AnSt XXXI (1981) 34–6Google Scholar.

²³ Their drawing opposite p. 42 is published at a scale slightly larger than 1:20.

²⁴ Heberdey-Kalinka 41.

²⁵ The sarcophagus niches were c. 6·0 m. wide in the tomb of Claudia Tatiane at Ephesos (note 8, no. 10).

²⁶ Note 8, no. 19.

²⁷ Note 8, nos. 10 and 30.

²⁸ Note 8, nos. 19, 21, 29. Alternatively the entrance passage and west recess could have been vaulted separately, with an intersecting vault or barrel vault over the central space. The North Heroon at Lydai is described by Bent (JHS IX (1888) 84Google Scholar) as domed, by Roos, P. (Opuscula Atheniensia IX (1969) 77Google Scholar) as cross-vaulted. No groin is visible in the photograph (Roos, op. cit., fig. 32), where the masonry visible between the two recesses looks more like a pendentive. But the construction here is of rubble and mortar, of which there is no trace in the tomb of Licinnia Flavilla.

²⁹ Heberdey-Kalinka 41.

³⁰ A depth of curvature of 0·013 m. would fit the presumed recess, whereas voussoirs of similar width belonging to an arched east façade would have a depth of curvature of c. 0·007 m.

³¹ See the list in Hallett, C. H., AnSt XLIII (1993) 54 n. 39Google Scholar (including nos. 1, 2, 5, 9 (T11), 11, 17–19, 21, 24, and 27 in note 8 above); for the term hyposorion see Kubinska, J., Les Monuments funéraires dans les inscriptions grecques de l'Asie Mineure (Warsaw, 1968) 81–4Google Scholar.

³² e.g. note 8, nos. 17–19, 24, 27; the hyposorion of tomb T11 at Elaioussa Sebaste (note 8, no. 9) has a simple moulded frame round the small door in the side of the podium.

³³ Tombs T3–T9 (note 8, nos. 7, 14).

³⁴ Sarcophagi, e.g. at Balboura, Money, D. K., AnSt XL (1990) 30Google Scholar; tombs, e.g. at Sarıcık (note 8), where the bottom step is treated as a bench, and at Termessos where several tombs have either a bench or the front step treated as a bench (Heberdey-Wilberg, tombs II–IV, VII).

³⁵ The arched recesses in the tombs at Elaioussa Sebaste are 3·5 to 5·4 m. high and 1·8 to 1·9 m. deep (note 8, nos. 7, 14), but a lower, shallower size would suit the less prominent location of the recess at Oinoanda.

³⁶ The North Tomb at Lydai had two brackets in the upper part of the sarcophagus recess (Roos, P., Opuscula Atheniensia IX (1969) 77–8 fig. 33Google Scholar).

³⁷ Cf. the following springing heights: Lydai, North Tomb, 3·08 m.; Myra, Tomb, c. 4·10 m.; Patara, Corinthian Tomb, 4·125 m.; Termessos, Prostyle Tomb (Heberdey-Wilberg, tomb VIII), 2·35 m. (for a recess only 2·71 m. wide).

³⁸ Measurements noted by R. Heberdey.

³⁹ Col. V. is about 0·95 m. wide, col. IV is about 1·33 m. wide, col. III about 0·97 m. at the top, narrowing to about 0·92 m. below, and col. II about 0·88 m. at the top, widening to about 0·97 m. below.

⁴⁰ Cf. Wörrle, , SuF, 72Google Scholar. The fact that at the date of Inscr. I Lic. Flavilla's children are both unmarried and that one brother is perhaps unmarried, the other married but without children (Inscr. I), suggests that she was close in age to, perhaps even younger than, FI. Diogenes' mother (child married twice, with children; one brother married with children, the other unmarried). However, Lic. Flavilla's husband Aelius Aristodemos could have been of the same generation as her father, since Aristodemus' mother was also married to Flavilla's father's uncle.

⁴¹ Heberdey-Kalinka, 48 and no. 64, finding the gentile name Septimius and the fact that Septimius Flavillianus won victories in games called Severeia (Alexandreia) conclusive proof against identity.

⁴² IGR III p. 193 n. 16Google Scholar.

⁴³ See Hall-Milner, pp. 15, 28, 38–9, inscrs. nos. 5, 30–32, also published by Hall, A. S., JHS XCIX (1979), 161 nos. 1–4Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ Cf. n. 94 below on the variability of the choice of names used in the inscr.

⁴⁵ Heberdey-Kalinka, 49 no. 64, Hall, A. S., JHS XCIX (1979), 161 no. 1Google Scholar, Hall-Milner, p. 38 no. 30.

⁴⁶ See Robert, L., Documents de l'Asie Mineure méridionale (Geneva-Paris, 1966), 101–5Google Scholar, on the rewarding of athletic victors with Roman citizenship by or in the name of Roman Emperors.

⁴⁷ See n. 45.

⁴⁸ She is theoretically two generations older than Flavianus Diogenes, but on the possibility of skewed generations in a family like this see note 40. Lic. Flavilla's second cousin, Cl. Agrippinus Iulianus, was born about this time, cf. Wörrle, , SuF 60 n. 48Google Scholar.

⁴⁹ CIL VI 32329.26, with new frag, published by Romanelli, P., Notizie degli Scavi VII ser. 6 (1931) 341 (tab. 10) line 26, with comm. p. 323Google Scholar. She was married to the otherwise unknown Cornelius Optat[us] or -[ianus], PIR ² C 1409, whose consulship will have fallen probably in the first decade of the third century. He is omitted by Leunissen, P. M. M., Konsuln und Konsulare in der Zeit von Commodus bis Severus Alexander (Amsterdam, 1989)Google Scholar.

⁵⁰ PIR ¹ S 730.

⁵¹ Data from A.S. Hall, notebook. Block 1 was not refound. Block 4 has been broken right and below since Heberdey's time, with the loss of c. 5 letters per line including the final nu and vacat in the last line.

⁵² i.e., the eponymous high-priest of the Lycian League (not Asian, because Platonis having married an Oinoandan lived in Oinoandan territory). His year, which dates the genealogy of Flavia Platonis precisely, is A.D. 151, from IGR III 712 xii cap. 46 ffGoogle Scholar. (Rhodiapolis). As Flavia Platonis was presumably of the same generation as her husband Licinnius Thoas, one of the ambassadors to Trajan in A.D. 124, and also of the same generation as C. Iulius Demosthenes (cf. Wörrle, SuF), she would have been elderly in A.D. 151: therefore, the genealogy is perhaps dated as at her death.

⁵³ Assuming that the month was of 31 days, in which case the first of the month was “Sebaste”, the second, the “1st”, etc. See Wörrle, , SuF 33Google Scholar.

⁵⁴ [χρησμόν], “oracle”, is the obvious supplement. The oracle of Apollo at Delphi, for example, played a significant rôle in validating Greek colonisation, cf. Malkin, I., Religion and Colonization in Ancient Greece (Leiden, 1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The founding of Kibyra by Spartans is mythical however, cf. Robert, L., “Les Dioscures et Ares,” BCH CVII (1983) 564Google Scholar; though the myth was good for establishing Kibyra's Hellenic credentials at the Panhellenion founded by Hadrian, cf. Wilhelm, A., Arch.-epigr. Mittheilungen XX (1897) 78Google Scholar on IG XIV 829Google Scholar (Puteoli) = IGR I 418Google Scholar, cf. J., and Robert, L., REG LXXXV (1972), 396 no. 139Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ Compare the heading written above the text of the local genealogy on the east face.

⁵⁶ Apoll., Bibl. 3.10.3Google Scholar.

⁵⁷ See LIMC VI.1 p. 65Google Scholar, s.v., and Weiss, P., “Lebendiger Mythos: Gründheroen und städtische Gründungstraditionen im griechisch-römischen Osten,” Würzburger Jahrbücher für die Altertumswissenschaft n. F. X (1984) 179–208Google Scholar, esp. 188–89, 202 n. 56, 204 n. 89, arguing that Kleandros appears on Kibyra's coinage in the second and third centuries A.D.

⁵⁸ This would depend how far it extended in width like Lic. Flavilla's. A single-line genealogy can be quite brief, as Matthew I.1–16 shows (forty odd generations from Abraham to Christ in 16 short verses).

⁵⁹ Block (a) is known only from the notes and squeeze of Heberdey, held in the Kleinasiatische Kommission in Vienna. We are pleased to thank Dr. Georg Rehrenböck of the Kommission for a copy of the notes and for entrusting the squeeze to us.

⁶⁰ Heberdey and Kalinka (V.S. 86 (b)), revised by N.P.M. The interlinear spacing of the right column is slightly wider than that of the left column; it is not possible fully to show this typographically. Please assume that lines 1–6 of the right column occupy the same space as lines 1–7 of the left.

⁶¹ Save perhaps in line 6 where we envisage the names of probably two parents, a ref. to the birth of (at least) one daughter, and her marriage to the named Modestus (whose name might have been in shorter or longer style).

⁶² Cf. Wörrle, , SuF 140Google Scholar

⁶³ Cf. IGR III 524 ffGoogle Scholar. See Wörrle, , SuF 59Google Scholar.

⁶⁴ Hicks, E. L., JHS X (1889) 58Google Scholar, TAM II p. 45Google Scholar.

⁶⁵ LGPN I.

⁶⁶ The heroic name, meaning “war-enduring”, commemorates the Argive-Rhodian king and son of Herakles who was either killed by Sarpedon at Troy (Homer, Il. 5.659Google Scholar), or killed Sarpedon in Lycia (local saga), cf. R. Janko, comm. ad Il. 16.416. Among the C. Iulii of Lydai, which faces Rhodes across the strait, the Rhodian associations may have been uppermost.

⁶⁷ LGPN I.

⁶⁸ Ibid. I and II. There are a few hellenistic examples from Athens and the Greek islands, notably again Delos and Kalymnos, and Keos, and an imperial instance on Cyprus.

⁶⁹ LGPN I and II.

⁷⁰ Leschhorn, W., Antike Ären, Historia Einzelschriften 81 (Stuttgart, 1993), 390 ffGoogle Scholar. Elsewhere in the inscr., however, dating is by eponymous high-priest of the Lycian League.

⁷¹ LGPN I and II report a couple of imperial examples from Athens and another from Thasos.

⁷² Ibid. II.

⁷³ According to Zgusta, L., Kleinasiatische Personennamen (Prague 1964) § 1097.6Google Scholar, Oplon is potentially an epichoric name, variant of Oples, itself an epichoric coinciding with a Greek name. But see W. Pape, Benseler, G. E., Wörterbuch der griechischen Eigennamen³ (1911)Google Scholar, s.vv. Οπλων and Οπλης, Bechtel, F., Die historischen Personennamen der Griechischen bis zur Kaiserzeit (1917), 351Google Scholar, and LGPN II s.v. Οπλων (Athens, 3rd. c. B.C.).

⁷⁴ C. Licinnius Thoas (no. 5 in Jameson's stemma) married Flavia Platonis, daughter of Flavius Aristokles of Kibyra. On the other hand the two fragments together may deal with the connexions of Licinnia Flavilla's maternal grandmother and Flavianus Diogenes' great-great-grandmother Marcia Lykia of Balboura.

⁷⁵ IGR IV 914, 915Google Scholar: Q. Veranius Philagros (from the site of Kibyra); SEG XIX (1963) 245 no. 778Google Scholar: Astrania (from Boğaziçi in the Eren Çay valley).

⁷⁶ Demostheneia Festival inscr. line 47: Veranius Komon.

⁷⁷ Cf. Balland, A., Xanthos VII (1981) 282Google Scholar.

⁷⁸ See PIR ² M 229 with stemma, and C 947 with stemma maius; Naour, C., ZPE XXIX (1978) 111 f.Google Scholar; IGR IV 912Google Scholar.

⁷⁹ Wörrle, , SuF 42–43Google Scholar. The dates given by Cagnat after Heberdey in IGR are erroneous.

⁸⁰ Cf. Robert, L., Les gladiateurs dans l'Orient grec (1940), 149 no. 113aGoogle Scholar.

⁸¹ It appears that Pamphylia was temporarily annexed to Galatia, while Lycia enjoyed some months of autonomy in A.D. 68–69, which were terminated by Vespasian who (re?)appointed Sex. Marcius Priscus as governor. See R. Syme, “The Rank and Repute of Lycia,” in id., Anatolica, Studies in Strabo (Oxford 1995) 270 ff. at 274–80. According to W. Eck, ZPE VI (1970), 65 ff., Pamphylia was reunited with Lycia only in A.D. 74.

⁸² Cf. Balland, A., Xanthos VII 283Google Scholar. Marcius Titianus was co-aeval with C. Iulius Demosthenes of Oinoanda (PIR² I 288Google Scholar), who was born c. A.D. 45–50. Like Demosthenes, Titianus was Lyciarch later in life, after his army career was over, when he returned home, and after the statue erected by his fellow-Balbourans, IGR III 472Google Scholar, cf. 500 eastern inscr. col. III 30 ff. His son T. Marcius Deioterianos (PIR ² M 229) belonged to the same generation as C. Iulius Antoninus (PIR ² J 677), the son of Demosthenes who married Licinnia Maxima; her brother C. Licinnius Marcius Thoantianos Longus (PIR² L 209Google Scholar), Lyciarch in A.D. 132, married Deioterianos' sister Marcia Lykia. Deioterianos' daughter Marcia Tlepolemis was probably born between A.D. 90 and 110. Cf. N. Milner and Mitchell, S., “An Exedra for Demosthenes of Oenoanda and his Relatives,” AnSt XLV (1995) 91–107Google Scholar on the family of Demosthenes, and Wörrle, SuF ch. 4.

⁸³ Roman governors were personally involved in the selection of army recruits, cf. Davies, R. W., Service in the Roman Army (Edinburgh 1989) 3–30Google Scholar. Presumably, a Lycian aristocrat of suitable age and physical and mental calibre who desired a commission as a centurion in the legions was not likely to be refused on account of his citizenship. Veg. Mil. I.7 says that the Roman army ought, if possible, to recruit those of “honest birth”, a view which was traditional; cf. Tac., Ann. IV.4.4Google Scholar.

⁸⁴ Cf. IGR IV 907Google Scholar = OGIS 495, calling her son Ti. Claudius Polemon, Asiarch, the ἔκγονος (=great-grandson/grandson) of Flavius Krateros and Marcius Deioterianos, Lyciarch.

⁸⁵ Wörrle, , SuF, 97–100Google Scholar. Vespasian's reorganization seems to be attested in several different provinces, see Fishwick, D., The Imperial Cult in the Latin West I.2 (Leiden 1987), 298Google Scholar. But Dr. B. Levick suggests (per litt.) that instead of the government imposing cult, there was a rush to get in favour with the new Emperor and one province imitated another. On Lycia Vespasian merely reimposed a governor and taxation.

⁸⁶ Halfmann, H., Die Senatoren aus dem östlichen Teil des Imperium Romanum bis zum Ende des 2. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. (Göttingen, 1979), 149CrossRefGoogle Scholar. His son, Marcia Tlepolemis' grandson, Ti. Claudius Celsus Orestianus (PIR² C 829Google Scholar) was Lyciarch at the end of the second century.

⁸⁷ Kearsley, R. A., “A Leading Family of Cibyra and some Asiarchs of the First Century,” AnSt XXXVIII (1988), 43–51Google Scholar. See also Friesen, S. J., Twice Neokoros: Ephesus, Asia and the Cult of the Flavian Imperial Family, Religion in the Graeco-Roman World 116 (Leiden 1993), App. II p. 215–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar, refuting Kearsley with epigraphical, as opposed to prosopographical, arguments.

⁸⁸ The name is very rarely attested in epigraphy: no examples in IGR I, III or IV, nor LGPN I–II, nor SEG index 1976–85, nor Solin, H., Die griechischen Personennamen in Rom II (1982) 861 ffGoogle Scholar. But it is clearly a feminine form corresponding to Euelthon, cf. IGR III 582, 598, 621Google Scholar, meaning “welcome”. We accentuate it as an oxytone, cf. εὐπλοκαμίς, and Chandler, H. W., Greek Accentuation (1881 ²) 202 § 713Google Scholar. That this is not a high-class name, cf. Solin, loc. cit., and yet can be found in a senatorial family from the second century, is one index of social mobility in the Empire.

⁸⁹ Bearing in mind that first cousins were called ἐξάδελϕοι in Roman Lycia and in our inscr. (cf. eastern inscr. col. II lines 43 ff.), only the above proposed solution will allow Claudia Tlepolemis, daughter of Claudius Iulianus, to be the ἀνεψία—“niece”—of Ti. Claudius Polemon, Asiarch, as in IGR IV 910Google Scholar. Halfmann's solution (p. 149) that Ti. Claudius Polemon married a sister of Claudius Iulianus, would make Claudia Tlepolemis (a word of root πενθερ— or γαμβρ—, e.g.) his πενθεριδῆ, (?)πενθερά, γαμβροτιδῆ. or γαμβρά. Groag, , sub PIR² C 947Google Scholar, doubtless because of the name “Orestianus” for Polemon's son Ti. Cl. Celsus Orestianus, reasonably suggests that Polemon married a daughter of Cl. Orestes, and that Polemon had a sister Claudia who married Cl. Orestes' son Cl. Iulianus. We reject the alternative possibility that Claudia Euelthis married Cl. Orestes the father of Cl. Iulianus on age grounds, because that would leave Polemon erecting gravestones for his mother, his uncle, his brother, and his sister's granddaughter at a time when her son (his great-grand-nephew) was already in the senate, cf. IGR IV 906, 909, 910, 912Google Scholar.

⁹⁰ See stemma XV in Raepsaet-Charlier, M.-T., Prosopographie des femmes de l'ordre senatorial (I^er-II^e siècles) II (1987)Google Scholar.

⁹¹ M.-T. Raepsaet-Charlier, vol. I (1987), 228 no. 253.

⁹² The gentilicia are not wholly reliable, cf. Halfmann, H., Tituli V (1982), 635Google Scholar, cited by Raepsaet-Charlier, 228 n. 1.

⁹³ Unless we should read, <Ἰ>ο[υλιανῷ]?

⁹⁴ Many, if not most, of the persons named in the genealogy were actually polyonomous. There being insufficient room to give all their names, only those most frequently used, or of greatest diacritical value, were inscribed. Thus the “Claudius Titianus” of the inscr., husband of Claudia Helene, was also called Ti. Claudius Flavianus Titianus Q. Vilius Proculus L. Marcius Celer M. Calpurnius Longus, see Halfmann, op. cit. (n. 86) 184 no. 107. “Licinnius Longus” was also called C. Licinnius Marcius Thoantianos Longus (see PIR² L 209Google Scholar). As well as abbreviating names in this way, the inscr. is not always consistent in its choice of names: (Flavianus?) Flavillianus' half-brother is called “Flavianus Diogenianos” at col. IV, line 14 and “Diogenianos Eirenaios” at col. VI, line 5. Flavianus Diogenes' second wife is called “[Flavil]la alias Theano” in the eastern inscr., col. IV 15 ff., and “[?Anas]sa Flavilla” in the western (see Inscr. 3 (d) below). “Claudia Androbiane” in the eastern inscr., col. IV, line 13 is “Claudia Androbiane alias Lykia” at col. VI, line 1.

⁹⁵ So Raepsaet-Charlier, M.-T., in Eck, W. (ed.), Prosopographie und Sozialgechichte: Studien zur Methodik und Erkenntnismöglichkeit der Kaiserzeitlichen Prosopographie, Kolloquium Köln 1991 (Cologne, 1993), 150 n. 23Google Scholar.

⁹⁶ Cf. Halfmann, op. cit. (n. 86) 149–151, no. 61 “Claudius Orestes”; Raepsaet-Charlier, op. cit. (n. 90) I 196, no. 211 “(Claudia)”, ib. 228 no. 253 “Claudia Tlepolemis”.

⁹⁷ Cf. Jameson, S., AnSt XVI (1966) facing p. 137Google Scholar. As a “Flavia Flavilla” would be somewhat surprising for the reasons outlined earlier, Flavia Anassa is less likely to be identical with [Anas]sa Flavilla, and is mentioned mainly to provide parallels from the names of contemporary relatives. Also, it would appear that the new inscr. swaps the order of marriages precisely to expatiate on the exogamous alliance with Claudia Androbiana, and the lacuna in the eastern text, col. IV, line 15, is too small for “Anassa” to be included with “Flavil[la”. On the other hand, she is of the same generation as Flavianus Diogenes, and what is more, his first cousin, and so well qualified for marriage to him in the family tradition.

⁹⁸ Wörrle, , SuF 76 n. 149Google Scholar.

⁹⁹ See Bowersock, G. W. apud Eck, W., Chiron, (1983), 171 n. 415Google Scholar; cf. Wörrle, , SuF 43Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁰ Cf. Wörrle, , SuF 40Google Scholar.

¹⁰¹ Kubinska, J., Les Monuments funéraires dans les inscriptions grecques de l'Asie Mineure (Warsaw, 1968) passimGoogle Scholar. Exceptions are TAM II 611 (Tlos)Google Scholar: a tomb for parents (on right), self and wife (on left), and dependants in hyposorion; TAM II 865 (Idebessos)Google Scholar: a sarcophagus for parents, husband, children and descendants; BSA XVII (1910–1911) 238 no. 18 (Perge)Google Scholar: a sarcophagus for mother, self and wife; and TAM III 742 (Termessos)Google Scholar: a sarcophagus for the mother alone.

¹⁰² Lic. Flavilla appears as a point of reference six times, at III 49, 55, 62, 67, VI 15, and VII 12, Fl. Diogenes only three times, at IV 11, 12, and VI 22.

¹⁰³ Cf. n. 40 above.

¹⁰⁴ That this might have appeared miserly or ungallant to some is not an argument against it.

¹⁰⁵ He thus follows in the tradition of such luminaries as Opramoas of Rhodiapolis and Iason of Kyaneai, who were active in League politics 50 years earlier.

¹⁰⁶ As well as consulars, the eastern inscr. includes those related to imperial pretenders, namely the son-in-law and grandchildren of Avidius Cassius, who rebelled against M. Aurelius in A.D. 175, and the grandmother or great-grandmother of Sulpicia Dryantilla, wife of P. C[… ] Regalianus, who rebelled against Gallienus in A.D. 259. Mommsen identified Cassius' son-in-law Ti. Cl. Antoninus, Dryantianos in “Depitianus” at CJ 9.8.6.Google Scholar Sulpicia Dryantilla “belonged to an influential nexus of families from Lycia, long since intermarried with the best names in the Antonine nobility: Q. Pompeius Sosius Falco (cos. 193) had for wife Sulpicia Agrippina.”—Syme, R., Emperors and Biography: Studies in the Historia Augusta (Oxford, 1971), 197–8Google Scholar. See stemma in PIR² C facing p. 166Google Scholar. On Regalian, see Fitz, J., Ingenuus et Régalian (Coll. Latomus LXXXI) (Brussels, 1966)Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁷ See Mart., Ep. 4.40Google Scholar, Pliny, HN 35.6Google Scholar, Sen., Ben. 3.28.2Google Scholar. Writing under Hadrian, Juvenal satirised the custom in Sat. 8, asking, “Stemmata quid faciunt?” Some 260 years later, Ammianus 28.4.7 placed it among the characteristic vices of the Roman nobility.

¹⁰⁸ See Wiseman, T. P., “Legendary genealogies in late-Republican Rome,” Greece and Rome XXI (1974), 153–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. also Wikander, Ö., “Senators and Equites v: Ancestral pride and genealogical studies in late Republican Rome,” Opuscula Romana XIX (1993), 77–90Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁹ Cicero, Brut. 62Google Scholar, Plutarch, Numa 21.4Google Scholar. Julius Caesar delivered one such for his aunt Julia in 69 B.C., praising her genealogy which descended from kings on her mother's side (Ancus Marcius), and the gods on her father's (Venus), Suetonius, DJ 6.1Google Scholar.

¹¹⁰ Matthew 1, 1–16.

¹¹¹ The names of Avidius Cassius and his daughter Alexandra are passed over in silence at east face col. II 79–80.

¹¹² Noting (per litt.) that the ladies were Lévi-Straussian links between the families, Dr. B. Levick wonders if they set store by Herodotos I 173.4 on the (mythical?) Lycian terminology of lineage through the female line.