140 APPENDIX.—SEPULCHRAL REMAINS. 
I am indebted to Dr. Bruce, the learned historian of the 
Roman wall, and a most accurate investigator of Roman 
inscriptions, for elucidating what has, from the first, been 
the chief difieulty in this inscription, ..e, the word 
PRINCIPIA in the fourth line, which was at first read 
PRIMARIUS, and the word PROVINCLE, or PRE- 
TORIUM also suggested. A knot in the stone, (which is 
not quite accurately given in the plate), at the top of the 
risht limb of the N, between it and the C, which is only 
faintly traceable, occasioned the diffieulty. Dr. Bruce has 
given the following valuable remarks on the inscription 
which I here insert from the Archeological Journal, (No. 
45, p. 93.) “The first question that arises here is re- 
specting the Emperor specially addressed. I find that the 
names and epithets used in this inseription are in others 
applied both to Caracalla and Heliogabalus, with the excep- 
tion of the word invictus, and in no other instance that 
I can find is this applied to either of these Emperors. 
I incline to Mr. Frank’s opinion, that Heliogabalus 
is the person here intended, for the following reasons:— 
1. On the murder of Heliogabalus, his name seems 
to have been erased from inscriptions, or the slabs them- 
selves thrown down. This stone having been used to 
cover a tomb, must have previously been removed from 
its original position. 2. From the indistinctness of some 
of the letters, the inscription seems not to have been 
deeply carved, this, together with the omission of the A in 
Cxsaris, and the occurrence of tied letters, seems to indicate 
the later rather than the earlier period. 3. Had Caracalla 
been the person intended, one of his well-known epithets, 
such as Parthieus, Britannieus, or Germanicus, would pro- 
bably have occupied the place ofinvietus ; so far as I have 
noticed Heliogabalus had gained no such distinctions : his 
