of the Greco-Roman Era in certain ancient Sites of Asia Minor. 39 
The foregoing observations lead to a probable adjustment of dates. I should 
be inclined to fix that of the inscription (which was most probably coeval with the 
construction of the portal) to the period when the Sapor invaded Mesopotamia, and 
threatened the Roman possessions in the east, to oppose whom Constantius took 
the field in person.* It appears from an inscription to which I have already 
adverted as having been published both by Mr. Fellows and Professor Béckh, 
that this emperor had been instrumental in erecting defences about Aphrodisias. 
The date assigned therein is the Eighth of the Indiction, that is, of a period of 
fifteen years commencing with the year 312 of our era. The addition of two 
indictions to this brings us to 342-343, the first year of the third indiction, 
the eighth of which accordingly fell upon the year 349-350, also remarkable for 
a brief termination of the struggle between the powers of Rome and Persia.t 
In the inscription upon which I have enlarged there occurs no precise date ; 
at least if any were mentioned, it has disappeared, by the mutilation of the 
monument. But the year I have already referred to, that is, of the renewal of 
the contest by the Sapor, by invading Mesopotamia, affords a probable epoch, 
on the ground that it formed part of the policy of Constantius to encourage by 
every mean in his power the construction of defences along so important a 
frontier as Asia Minor. 
This brings us to about the third year of the fourth Indiction, or 359-360 
after Christ. 
It now remains to assign the date of the erasure of the name of the Cesar. 
If it be granted that this Casar was Julianus, we have our choice of two 
dates, each in itself probable. The first is 361, A. C., when matters had pro- 
ceeded to the last extremity between him and Constantius, and he was required 
to surrender his imperial powers to officers appointed by the court of the 
Augustus.{ This haughty demand would doubtless be followed by unequivocal 
demonstrations of contempt and revenge on the part of the adherents of the 
latter, and this we are now considering may have been of the number. 
But it appears to me more probable that the indignity originated with the 
* See Ammianus, xx. 11. (Vol. i. p. 240, ss. Bipont.) Gibbon, Decline and Fall, etc., c. xix. 
p- 426. 
See Gibbon, c. xviii. p. 378. Univ. Hist. b. iii. e. 26, from Zonaras, tom. ii. lib, 13. 
4 
{ Gibbon, ubi supr. c. xxii. p. 91, s. 
