F. The Consul Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus of SEG XV.254

The date of SEG XV.254, which has been held to provide evidence of the existence of the Achaean League in 122, depends on the identification of the Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus, named as consul under whom the Achaeans who set up the dedication served. It has proven all too easy to assume that this Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus was the consul of 122^[44] —for we know that he fought in Transalpine Gaul. But this is a very spotty age for Roman prosopography, and it would be rash to assume that this was the only Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus to fight against Gauls or Gallic peoples (among whom the Scordisci north of Macedonia are to be counted).

[41] Wilamowitz, ad IG V.1. 1432, subsequently apparently accepted by Kolbe: p. xv, 311. Wilhelm, JÖAI 17 (1914) 71-103 (cf. Münzer, RE 15 [1931] 605 no. 3).

[42] Giovannini, RCMG , 115-22; Robert and Robert, REG 93 (1980) 375, no. 73; Habicht, Pausanias , 61.

[43] n Roman residents, see Wilson, Emigration , 150 n. 2. On calculations in denarii: Crawford, Coinage and Money , 270 and n. 21. See, however, the criticisms of Marchetti, RBN 125 (1979) 193-94, of Giovannini's argument regarding the ostensible appearance of the ius anuli aurei at lines 11-12, 37.

[44] Schwertfeger, Der achaiische Bund , 30-38, following the editio princeps, Kunze, (n. 45). But cf. Robert and Robert, REG 89 (1976) 470-71, no. 282.

For example, the suffect consul of 162, Cn. Domitius Cn. f. Ahenobarbus, must have received one of the two provinces vacated by the ordinarii , one of which was Gaul.^[45] In the state of our evidence, we do not know what province another Cn. Domitius Cn. f. Ahenobarbus, consul in 96, held, but we do know of military activity in Gaul in the following year.^[46] The letterforms can probably help only to exclude another date that has found less favor: 192.^[47] We have no reason to suppose that if we knew as much about the consuls of 162 and 96 as we do about the consul of 1221 the last would be the only candidate; the sad state of our evidence cannot be used to support conclusions of such weight.