11-04-2014, 10:52 PM
The two parts of this inscription are listed as CIIP-01-02, 00715. You can look it up on Clauss Slaby by typing that into the 'publication' field. Their version of the text is as follows:
Imp(eratori) Cae[sari divi Traiani] / Parthic(i) [f(ilio) divi Nerv]ae nep(oti) / Traiano [Hadri]ano August(o) / pont(ifici) ma[x(imo)] trib(unicia) pot(estate) XIIII / c[o(n)s(uli)] III p(atri) p(atriae) / l[eg(io) X F]reten[sis Antoninia]na{e}
As you can see, the last word is reconstructed from the final 'na' (!!) - I've seen other transcriptions that mention that this word was apparently added in a different hand, presumably later.
However, as Duncan mentions above, the actual inscriptions seem only to have the 'reten' part of the legion title. I don't know if the rest is too faint to be seen on the photograph...
![[Image: %24CIIP-01-02_00715.jpg]](http://db.edcs.eu/epigr/bilder/%24CIIP-01-02_00715.jpg)
![[Image: %24CIIP-01-02_00715_1.jpg]](http://db.edcs.eu/epigr/bilder/%24CIIP-01-02_00715_1.jpg)
Imp(eratori) Cae[sari divi Traiani] / Parthic(i) [f(ilio) divi Nerv]ae nep(oti) / Traiano [Hadri]ano August(o) / pont(ifici) ma[x(imo)] trib(unicia) pot(estate) XIIII / c[o(n)s(uli)] III p(atri) p(atriae) / l[eg(io) X F]reten[sis Antoninia]na{e}
As you can see, the last word is reconstructed from the final 'na' (!!) - I've seen other transcriptions that mention that this word was apparently added in a different hand, presumably later.
However, as Duncan mentions above, the actual inscriptions seem only to have the 'reten' part of the legion title. I don't know if the rest is too faint to be seen on the photograph...
Nathan Ross
