Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Roman Collector, post: 7792205, member: 75937&quot;][USER=89514]@curtislclay[/USER]: I&#039;m swayed by <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/20187629" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/20187629" rel="nofollow">Ameling</a>&#039;s chronology as summarized on p. 161 of his paper. I think we&#039;re all in agreement that the <a href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/antoninus-pius-grandchildren-but-which-ones.314260/#post-3045521" class="internalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/antoninus-pius-grandchildren-but-which-ones.314260/#post-3045521">TEMPORVM FELICITAS COS IIII issue of Antoninus Pius does not depict twin boys</a>. You&#039;ll see I discuss (and accept) your interpretation of the identity of the children in that thread. However, I have subsequently read Ameling and his analysis has forced me to reevaluate this conclusion. As discussed in Ameling (esp. pp. 157-159) the little primary data we have from the Antonine period (the inscriptions in the Hadrian Mausoleum) suggests only two male children before the birth of Commodus and his brother in 161: T. Aurelius Antoninus and T. Aelius Aurelius. We also know from the Fasti Ostienses that a son was born in AD 152 and from a contemporary inscription excavated in Smyrna that a son was born in AD 157/8. That simply leaves no room for a son born between Domitia Faustina and Lucilla. Ameling supports the birth chronology with numismatic and sculptural depictions of the imperial family and I find Ameling&#039;s argument convincing. Now, your observation about Marcus not advancing his TR P year is an important one, but no contemporary sources explain why and we have to postulate a reason. You postulate it is because he was childless during that two-year period. That&#039;s not the only possible reason. What we know from the primary sources (again, I refer you to Ameling) suggests the alternative possibility that Marcus&#039; resumed advancing his TR P year in AD 151/2 because a male heir was born that year (not Lucilla). I post here for the casual reader Ameling&#039;s chronology given on p. 161 of his paper. I find his argument convincing and not incompatible with your discovery of the chronology of Marcus&#039; pause in advancing his TR P years.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1337643[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>Beckmann demonstrates through die-linkage that the IVNO aureus (i.e. <a href="https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_R-12585" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_R-12585" rel="nofollow">BMCRE 1043</a>) dates to AD 149. This is highly likely to depict two historical children. He devotes an entire chapter to this. Both are fully clothed, suggesting they were female (male children may -- not always -- be depicted nude on coins). He concludes -- quite reasonably so -- that they are Domitia Faustina and the infant Lucilla. </p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1337644[/ATTACH]</p><p>From Beckmann, p. 36:</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1337645[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>This is absolutely compatible with Ameling&#039;s chronology and, <i>pace</i> [USER=89514]@curtislclay[/USER], I use Ameling in my discussion&#039;s of Faustina&#039;s children in my Faustina Friday discussions.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in