Friday, March 15, 2024

A KERFUFFLE OVER KAWELL or JUST HOW CAN THE UTHER ELEGY HELP US?

Hadrian's Wall

Only a week or so ago, I announced that the famed editor of the Uther Pendragon elegiac poem, Prof. Marged Haycock, had told me the word kawell - 'basket'- could be allowed to stand. This meant that I was free to theoretically link kawell to Ceawlin, as AS ceawl = 'basket.'

Unfortunately, I've continued discussing kawell with the professor. One of the things I was curious about was another word, cafell, which like cawell had been derived from L. cauellus. The word meant "sanctuary" or "temple", or even the Biblical Holy of Holies. I had asked Dr. Simon Rodway about it years ago.

To my surprise, she did not have a problem with cawell for cafell. And, indeed, cafell seemed a reasonable, common sense meaning for the phrase in question: pen cafell would be a title for God in the same line and would mean "Chief of the Sanctuary."

So:

It's I who's a leader in the darkness
May our God, Chief of the Sanctuary,
transform me
It's I who's like (or who's a second) kawyl in the gloom

While this is a decent reading for these lines, we haven't made much progress. For we lose kawell for Ceawlin and we are stuck wondering if Sawyl for kawyl (emended for kawyl through the copying process of eye-skip) can be retained.  For on May 9, 2023, Dr. Simon Rodway told me:

"Every line in this poem has end-rhyme.  Kawell forms proest (a type of half-rhyme) with tywyll, so that might be okay, although there are no other examples of proest in the poem.

Considering that double n is often written single in Middle Welsh, and that e for y is extremely common, I don’t see a great difficulty in reading kan(n)wyll for kawell.

n could have been written for nn in an exemplar with a suspension mark, and then the suspension mark omitted."

That kawell represents the only proest-style rhyme in the entire poem suggests pretty strongly the word is corrupt and that we are justified in seeking to emend it.  Doing so brings it in line with the end-rhyme scheme of the rest of the poem.  And the emendation is not a wild one, but a simple and allowable one.  Logic dictates that we accept such. 

We can go even further with this. It would make no sense for cannwyll, a frequent rhyme partner to the tywyll found at end of the line before kawell, to instead be placed mid-line after kawell. 

If kawell is kan(n)wyll and refers to God -

May our God, the Pen Cannwyll, transform me

- then the only other possibility for the following kawyl is, in fact, Sawyl.  And as the Biblical Samuel was responsible for the lamp of God within the Shiloh shrine, Pen Cannwyll as 'Chief of the Lamp' (lamp being one of cannwyll's attested transf. meanings) would be poetically apt. 

How do we decide between the various options?

It would, in this case, be logical to go back to two things: the name Arthur itself, and the Arthurian battles. 

Arthur is from Latin Artorius. The linguistics work. No other etymology works. The temptation, then, is to look towards Carvoran Roman fort on the Wall, where a Dalmatian unit was long in garrison and a woman from the Salona of the Artorii was buried. Carvoran was near Birdoswald, itself in the valley of the *Artenses or Bear-people. Birdoswald was manned by the draco revering Dacians and may even have been referred to as the fort of the Aelian dragon. We know there was an extraordinary royal hall there during Arthur's floruit.

L. Artorius Castus was prefect of the Sixth at York before he led some British legionary troops against ARM[...]S and then became procurator of Liburnia.  He may have been born in Dalmatia, but at the very least had Dalmatian connections and the Artorii in Dalmatia are probably descended from him. 

On the other hand, that a Sawyl ruled from the Ribchester of the Sarmatian veterans points to another possibility, viz. that Arm[...]s is for ARMORICOS, not for ARMENIOS.  The first would allow Castus to be in Britain when the Sarmatians were there.  The second puts him in Britain prior to the arrival there of the Sarmatians.

We might suppose, without too much of a stretch, that the Artorius name was known of and preserved for several generations at Carvoran.  While purely speculative, it does not strain credulity to have Arthur's mother hail from Carvoran and his father, the Terrible Chief-dragon (or magister draconum?), be the ruler at Birdoswald.

As I've mentioned many times, Camboglanna/Camlann is just west os Birdoswald in the same Bear-people's valley, and Aballava/Avalana/"Avalon" is not far west of Camboglanna.

But if Artorius used Sarmatian troops in Britain and possibly on the Continent (see below), his name might well have been remembered in the vicinity of Ribchester as well.  

We can even keep all the same northern sites while retaining Sawyl of Ribchester. Let's look at those before we return to our discussion of the Birdoswald-Ribchester dichotomy.

All of Arthur's battles are easily locatable in the North without going through linguistic contortions or creative translations. In addition, traditions recorded in the Pa Gur poem, annal entries and saints' lives from the Irish sources and additional medieval period folk-names argue rather forcefully for at least some of these battles being strictly northern. One Welsh story even firmly places Badon in the North (see below).

Of course, before we can "go" with all that, we must be willing to ignore a great deal of what would be spurious tradition in the South. Much of the early Welsh material would have to be accepted as the usual legend relocation that occurs when borders recede, and the Celtic fringe became all that was left after conquest. This kind of thing happened in Wales and Cornwall, and even in Brittany.

The biggest problem with someone like Cerdic of Wessex/Ceredig son of Cunedda as Arthur? Well, first, we can't demonstrate how Artorius as a name would have been transmitted to Ceredig. Or why it would have been substituted as a decknamen for a Celtic bear name. I mean, he has three immediate descendents in his pedigree who have Brittonic bear names. Why did none of them find it necessary to use a Latin derived bear name (like Ursius) or a Latin name they perceived to be a bear name (like Artorius)? This badly damages  - if not totally destroys - the concept that Artorius was chosen as a decknamen for Ceredig.

So what if Arthur is (for lack of a better way of putting it!) simply Arthur?  And Uther Uther?  What if most, if not all, of the traditional lore I've been treating of is misleading and useless when it comes to trying to trace a historical figure?

Well, as I've hinted at already above, it's not all useless. Instead of being able to provide a tentative connection to one of the ancient Welsh genealogies (which were, of course, often preserved in corrupt form, manipulated for various reasons and sometimes literally manufactured), we must confine ourselves to the following "facts":

1) Arthur is from the Roman name Artorius. While it is certainly possible there were other Artorii in Britain besides L. Artorius Castus who could have lent the name to a subsequent generation, the only man we know of was Castus.  Furthermore, he not only acquired very high position as an equestrian, he would have been renowned for his service in Armenia with British troops.  That he had strong Dalmatian connections and ended up in Dalmatia (where several Artorii have been attested), and that we have a Dalmatian garrisoned fort on Hadrian's Wall just a few miles east of Birdoswald may also be significant. Artorius may also have been preserved at Ribchester, which was the fort of the Sarmatian veterans and was always subject to heavy influence from Castus's York.  Commanders from York actually led groups of Sarmatian cavalry. 

2) If the draco is to be properly associated with Uther Pendragon, and given the presence at Dacian-garrisoned Birdoswald of the sub-Roman/early Medieval royal hall, we could make a case for Uther's origin lying at the Banna Roman fort. My previous idea - that Arthur may have originated from the Ribchester Roman fort of the Sarmatian veterans, loses some steam when we realize the Sarmatians did not, in fact, have a draco standard - something that I've aptly demonstrated. However, he could still have been there if we allow for the whole draco and dragon-star episode being concocted from Geoffrey of Monmouth via his misinterpretation of the epithet Pendragon as the Dragon's Head. 

4) In a corrupt Welsh TRIAD, Arthur Benuchel is made a son of Eliffer (who almost certainly belongs at York, his 'great retinue' being a poetic reference to the Sixth Legion based there, and his son Peredur being a Welsh attempt at Praetor - not *Pritorix; see Rachel Bromwich’s Triads of the Island of Britain, p. 561). This looks attractive, given Castus' being stationed at York, but when one examines the original TRIAD and understands how these kinds of corruptions occur, we can easily dispense with this possibility.  It is true, however (and I have this through extensive correspondence with Professor Roger Tomlin) that the PRAESDIUM of the "Notitia Dignitatum", manned by Dalmatian cavalry in the late period, may well have been just across the River Ouse from York. 

5) There is a fair amount of traditional and historical evidence for the placement of the Arthurian battles in the North. The Bassas battle conforms very well to Dunipace, both in terms of probable etymology and a double historical/folkloristic "fix" at the site. The same is true of the Tribruit battle, which the 'Pa Gur' quite specifically pinpoints as the trajectus at North Queensferry.  The Welsh story
(late though it is) "The Dream of Rhonabwy" describes Badon as being Buxton. The City of the Legion can be nothing other than York. In fact, there is no other legionary city in Britain that makes sense as the site of a battle against the English during Arthur's floruit. Breguoin is perfectly derived from Brewyn, the Roman Bremenium at High Rochester, and Agned or Agued is a reference to Catterick, a Roman fort in the "Gododdin" poem (a poem that compares one of the warriors at Catterick with Arthur).  All of that taken together with the acceptable identification of Guinnion (for Guinuion), the Celidon Wood with the Welsh Lowland forest of that name (centered on the Caddon Water), the mouth of the Glen with the mouth of the Northumberland Glen, and Dubglas in Linnuis with the Devil's Water at Linnels near Corbridge, makes it nigh impossible for us to dislodge Arthur's arena of military activity from the North.  All of these battles run up and down or to either side of the Roman Dere Street, extending north and south of the Wall.  The perfect control node for such a series of battles would be the central portion of Hadrian's Wall.  In other words, someplace exactly like Birdoswald.  

Now we can circle back to Sawyl vs. a chieftain at Birdoswald.

Sawyl has some advantages as a potential paternal candidate.  Firstly, we know his wife was an Irish princess.  This is vitally important, as all subsequent Arthurs belonged to Irish-descended dynasties in Britain.  The only way we can really explain this fact is if we allow the first, more famous Arthur to have been part Irish. The Irish would have then wanted to claim the name, while the British may have been chary to do so.  Second, it is difficult to dispense with Sawyl's son Madog Ailithir, when we are told Uther had a sone Madog and Madog a son Eliwlad.  Ailithir and Eliwlad certainly appear to be semantically identical or at the very least Eliwlad looks to have been fashioned to resemble Ailithir.  

Third, we have a tradition which I have shown wrongly identifies Uther Pendragon with a northern Sawyl. This came about because Illtud's Latin military ranks/titles could easily be rendered into Welsh as Uther Pendragon.  [An attempt to suggest Illtud was actually Uther was abandoned, as doing that once again imposed upon us an unworkable southern sphere of military activity.] Then we find Illtud and Sawyl exchanged for each other in a St. Cadog episode in the saints' Lives. Geoffrey of Monmouth compares Illtud (= Eldadus) with the Biblical Samuel. 

It is perhaps most likely that Uther Pendragon actually was originally a designation for Illtud. But when Illtud/Uther was poetically compared to the Biblical Samuel - in Welsh Sawyl - he was wrongly identified as Arthur's father because there was a Sawyl at Ribchester who really was Arthur's father. This may sound overly convoluted, but in the realm of legend formation such things happen.

We know Geoffrey took the gorlasar epithet of Uther and created from it an entirely separate character - Gorlois, Duke of Cornwall. So it does not take much for Uther Pendragon to take on individuality himself. Once he is said to be a second Sawyl, transformed by God into that form, he becomes hopelessly entangled with Sawyl of Ribchester, Arthur's father. And hence we end up with Arthur son of Uther Pendragon.

True, as mentioned above, Geoffrey knew of the Illtud-Samuel comparison. And that would seem to complicate my chain of reasoning. But as he either mistakenly or intentionally converted gorlasar into Gorlois, and then freely displays the relationsip between Uther and the gorlasar epithet by having Uther transform into the likeness of Gorlois, it wouldn't take much to have him use Uther as Arthur's father rather than Sawyl. In truth, the poem says that God transforms Uther into a second Samuel, while Geoffrey has Merlin/Myrddin transform Uther into Gorlois.  

One almost wonders if there were a decided effort on Geoffrey's part to force Illtud's cryptic name/title into the Arthurian canon precisely because by doing so he was able to have Arthur's father's origin in SE Wales next to his own Monmouth, rather than in Lancashire. I have shown that Illtud's "Llydaw" and father Bicanus are representative of Lydbrook and Bicknor ( = Llangystennin) near Ganarew/Little Doward close to Monmouth.

I should add that there is no Galfridian influence apparent in the MARWNAT VTHYR PEN.

While no one seems to much like that idea that L.  Artorius Castus fought in Armorica during the Deserter's War and had his procuratorship bestowed upon him by Cleander, there is nothing really wrong with the idea.  Yes, there is some evidence that Liburnia was founded c. 169/170 A.D., but it is not a requirement that Castus be the new province's first procurator.   It also remains true that the only literary account of a British mission to the Continent with the exact equivalent of three legionary detachments is the force said to go to Rome demanding the execution of Perennis.

On the whole, then, if we forsake Sawyl for the Birdoswald Arthur, we lose everything that is so attractive about the former. With Birdoswald, we do get a place that may have had a bear name, and we do get Dacians with a draco and Carvoran with its Dalmatians. Otherwise, we are, essentially, just depositing Arthur there because the site looks good and we can envisage someone like Arthur having been there. However, there is no genealogical trace, there is no Irish connection, and most critically we lose the Uther-Illtud-Sawyl comparison - a comparison that is pretty much impossible to ignore.

So where does all this leave us?

Well, the only clue we have to Uther's true identity lies in the PA GUR poem.  If my treatment of that poem is correct, Uther is either Illtud or Sawyl.  Illtud seems highly unlikely and reads like a misidentification.  Leaving us with Sawyl.  Had Sawyl been located somewhere other than Ribchester, the debate would be entirely different.  That a strong case has been made for his presence there bolsters the idea that the name Artorius was preserved in the region.  This could only have happened, it seems to me, had Castus been known to the Sarmatians who served under him.  It is difficult to sustain an argument that the Artorius name was taken by the Ribchester folk from York, despite the acknowledged ties between the two places. Why would the partly Sarmatian-descended population of Ribchester care about a Sixth Legion prefect who has served in Britain before they even arrived?  Especially after a couple of centuries had elapsed!

Admittedly, I have been seeking a way out of having to embrace the Sarmatian element in Arthurian theory.  And this is precisely because I feel it has been misapplied and grossly overdone - to the point where everything has been made out to be Sarmatian (or the allied Alanic).  Still, as my late father was prone to saying, "Don't throw the baby out with the bath water." 

At this point I am holding onto Sawyl, and leaving my book THE BATTLE-LEADER OF RIBCHESTER out there.  Until and if someone comes forward with evidence or good argumentation to change my mind, I'm letting the matter rest.   
















Wednesday, March 6, 2024

HOW TO GET CEAWLIN FROM COLINE: A LINGUISTIC ARGUMENT FOR CUINNID/CUNEDDA MAC CUILINN AS THE GEWISSEI CHIEFTAIN

-coline on the Wroxeter Stone

Ceaulin in the ANGLO-SAXON CHRONICLE

The following is taken from the WIKIPEDIA article on the West Saxon name 'Ceawlin:'

Since there is no obvious Old English or wider Germanic origin for Ceawlin,[5]: 4  commentators have frequently assumed that it must originate in the Celtic languages, like the name Cerdic borne by another early West Saxon king.[7]: 37 [8]: 513  However, no secure Celtic etymology has, as of 2019, been forthcoming:

In 1941, O. S. Anderson suggested that the names were both contractions of the Welsh name Cadwallon, with the addition of the diminutive suffix -īn in the case of Ceawlin.[4]: 64, 92 

While noting that no such name is found in the Celtic languages, Richard Coates cautiously suggested in 1989–90 that "It could be derived from a British *Cawolīnos or, better, a hypothetical Pr[oto]W[elsh] *Cawlīn", positing a relationship with the Welsh word caw ("skilled"), but lacking close parallels for the -līn element.[5]: 4 

Arguing that -lin was a diminutive suffix for names more widely in Old English, John Insley argued in 2019 that Ceawlin is a diminutive of Ceawa, but did not offer an etymology for that name.[6]

Unbeknownst to Insley, however, Ceawa had been etymologised by Gillis Kristensson as an Old English counterpart of Middle High German kouwe 'jaw, jawbone' (from West Germanic *kauwō-).[9] In this case, Ceawlin would be a name of Old English etymology.

I do not think any of these suggestions are correct.  In my book THE BEAR KING, I demonstrate that the great Cunedda of NW Wales was not British, and he did not hail from Manau Gododdin in the far North of Britain.  Instead, he is to be identified with a member of the Irish Ciannachta named Cuinnidh (and variations) Mac Cuilinn, 'son of Holly.'  He came from Drumanagh.  My argument for this identification is long and involved, but I think very strong.  

However, I did not stop there. It became apparent to me that Cerdic of Wessex, indisputably the British name Ceredig, was the prince of that name who was the son of Cunedda.  The connection was made through a variety of means, but of primary importance is the Wroxeter Stone pictured above.  I made the case for Cunorix of the stone being Cynric of the ANGLO-SAXON CHRONICLE, with his father Maquicoline being Ceawlin.  [Note there is a curious reversal of generations in the Gewissei of the Welsh sources and those of the English sources.]

Still, there remained one serious sticking point in what was otherwise a very comprehensive portrait of Irish federates or mercenaries fighting in southern England: I had to be able to show that Ceawlin could, indeed, come from Irish Coline.  

The solution to the problem came when I discussed the 5th century Coline with Professor Jurgen Uhlich of Trinity College, Dublin.  I alread knew from A LATE INSCRIPTION FROM WROXETER
by R. P. WRIGHT, F.S.A. and PROFESSOR K. H. JACKSON that Coline

"does not yet show the vowel change which would have been expected to turn it into Culini at some time in the later part of the fifth century"

Uhlich began by explaining to me that the form Cuilin was not germane to our discussion, as this change occurred

"Sometime in the 8th century, at a rough guess, i.e. when the habit of marking even internal consonants for colour gradually caught on. To be sure, this extra i is merely a ‘glide’ letter, with no additional pronunciation involved whatsoever."

We need to remember that Bede wrote c. 730, while the ASC was written in the 9th century.

Continuing his explanation of how this name could have changed through the centuries, Uhlich told me that

"au for u is merely a hypercorrect spelling in backward imitation of the 8th-century change of short au > u (such as in Cú Chaulin(n) > Cú Chul(a)inn, with the second word continuing what in Ogam spelling is attested as CALUNO-). This mechanical hypercorrection, however, went so far as to include even long ú (where a pre-stage *áu is impossible to assume), so you even find, say, cáu for cú, etc. As it happens, I have dealt with this in Ériu 46 (1995), §16."

His study can be found here:


I then noticed the spellings for cawl in the BOSWORTH AND TOLLER ANGLO-SAXON DICTIONARY, which included ceawl:


cawl
Noun [ masculine ]
 
cawl, caul, ceawl, ceaul, es; m. A basket; sporta, corbis, cophĭnus = κόφινος

 Linked entries
v.  caul ceaol ceawl cel ceofl ceol ceoul ceowl cewl.

I then proposed to Prof. Jurgen that a Caulin spelling for Culin was known by the West Saxons. Pronunciation is not important, as a scribe faced with Caulin could easily have 'Anglicized' that spelling to Ceawlin. According to Richard Coates, Ceaw- would be pronounced like Welsh caw, which is roughly the "chow" sound we need. I think Cau- could have been construed as having the same pronunctiation - as we can see in the entry for cawl above, where the spellings ceawl and caul are both found. 

It is true (in Coates' words) that "only WSax has the palatal affricate 'ch', but again, we are talking about a written form, not a spoken one.  Actual Irish phonology is not at issue here.  A WSax scribe with the name in front of him spelled C- would still have copied it as a C-, even if he pronounced it Ch-. 

Professor Jurgen's response?

"In short, your scenario could work technically, i.e. an AS scribe reading the hypercorrect spelling with <au> somewhere and then transposing this mechanically into an OE one."

I, personally, am more than content with this method of suggesting that the West Saxon Ceawlin might represent the secondary name of Cunedda.









Monday, March 4, 2024

AN UNEXPECTED REVELATION: WHY THE ALLOWED RETENTION OF A SINGLE WORD IN THE UTHER ELEGY CHANGES EVERYTHING

Tywyll, Pen Kawell and Kawyl in the 'Marwnat Vthyr Pen'

The Discussion of 'proest' in Jenny Rowland's EARLY WELSH SAGA POETRY, p. 335

Several years ago I thought I had made an amazing discovery: a single word in the ancient Welsh poem 'Marwnat Vthyr Pen' ("The Death-Song of Uther Pen[dragon]) had allowed me to definitively identify Arthur's father with Ceawlin of the ANGLO-SAXON CHRONICLE.  While the idea to some seemed outlandish, even crazy, I had before this shown that there was a strong likelihood the Arthurian battles as found listed in the HISTORIA BRITTONUM were, in fact, Welsh renderings of the Gewissei battles of the ASC.  Many other correspondences were forthcoming, and all of them seemed to be confirmed by my interpretation of the Uther elegy.

Alas, because I was assured by three preeminent Celticists that kawell couldn't stand as is, that the word must be emended to fit the end-rhyme scheme of the poem, I had to settle for W. kannwyll in this position for the relevant line.  Such a emendation forced me to abandon the notion that Uther = Ceawlin, and I was spun off in different directions for all subsequent future research and theorizing.  

Well, as it turns out, the scholars in question were mistaken.  I've only come to realize this recently, at the end of a long road of ongoing communication with other academincs specializing in early Welsh poetry.  My journey of rediscovery began with the following message from Dr. David Callander:

"I have not studied this specific example in detail, but of possible relevance to your enquiry is the Welsh poetic technique known as proest. With this, vowels of the same length can "rhyme" so e.g. "yll" and "ell". I believe that this is discussed as part of the metrical study in the introduction to Jenny Rowland, Early Welsh Saga Poetry."

I had not heard of proest before, and thought that pursuing that technique might bear fruit.  So, once again, I began writing queries.

I started with Dr. Simon Rodway.  In a two part question, I asked first if proest might be present in the Uther elegy, and second if kawell could be left when operating under such a principle.  He responded, respectively:

"This is a good point."  

and

"Perhaps."

I then heard back from Dr. Ben Guy on this issue:

"I'm glad to hear that you're using Marged Haycock's edition in her Legendary Poems from the Book of Taliesin, which is the best general guide on the poem. Regarding your specific question, it would be fine to keep tywyll together with kawell from the point of view of the metre (Sawyl is less important in this sense since it's not an end-rhyme) - the final consonant is the same in both (-ll) but the vowel varies (-y-, -e-), so it's 'proest' rhyme rather than full rhyme, but that's fine in poetry like this."

This gave me a glimmer of hope, and I once again reached out to Prof. Marged Haycock herself.  In the past, she had failed to respond to my query.  This time, however, she was kind enough to get back to me in a timely fashion:

"Kawyl is not at the end of the line so is not in this case involved in any prescribed rhyme  (tywyll, kawell are proest rhymes). The tywyll and kawell do not form a full rhyme, and are not strictly speaking a normal type of proest (which is a half rhyme where the vowels vary, but consonants match). This is because tywyll contains a diphthong -wy- whereas kawell just has simple vowel. However, some -wy- sounds can morph into a clear -y, in which case tywyll might form a sort of proest with kawell. It seems near enough to pass muster."

This statement is utterly authoritative.  While it is important to add that she went on to say -

"However, the slight irregularity might suggest to some an emendation to a word ending in -wyll, or alternatively the fem. form of tywyll which is tawell (that would give you full rhyme)."

- the important thing to recognize is that kawell is acceptable.  I would, of course, go well beyond that conclusion.  Why?

Because if we save kawell, and instead emend the following kawyl to kannwyll, we 1) follow the law of Occam's Razor, changing only one word instead of two (as otherwise kawyl has to be altered to Sawyl by proposing a copying error known as eye-skip, where the scribe accidentally transfers the k from kawell on the previous line to sawyl on the following line), and 2) emending kawyl to kannwyll allows us to have Uther transformed into a star (cannwyll has the transf. meaning of 'star"), and this would account for the Galfridian dragon-star which is said to be Uther himself.  

[Geoffrey of Monmouth used the gorlassar epithet which Uther applies to himself in the elegy to conjure an entirely separate personage - Gorlois, Duke of Cornwall - but then acknowledges that Gorlois is Uther by having the latter magically transform into the former!]

Reading the poem in this way would allow us to reject the emendation Sawyl entirely.  We would no longer have to seek some connection between Uther and Sawyl, whether this connection involves St. Illtud or any other figure, including Sawyl on the North.  In short, with Sawyl missing from the poem, and Uther as a star being present there instead, we are free to utilize kawell as a Welsh reference to Ceawlin.

Because of this, I will shortly be reissuing my book THE BEAR KING.  At this point, I do not anticipate having to do any future work on Arthur, as every important aspect of his story that could be treated of is dealt with in detail in this volume.  









Friday, February 23, 2024

FINAL STATEMENT ON THE EARLY FOUNDATION OF LIBURNIA PROVINCE



When I approached Prof. Anamarija Kurilic (Prof. dr. sc. Anamarija Kurilić, Sveučilište u Zadru / University of Zadar, Odjel za povijest  / Department of History) concerning the argument by Ivan Radman-Livaja, Nikola Cesarik and Ivo Glavaš that the two Dalmatian units were formed just prior to AD 170, she responded negatively as follows:

"The two Dalmatian cohorts stationed in the Salonitan area in my opinion had nothing to do with protecting NE Italy or with presumed province Liburnia, because if they had, then they should have been deployed where the action was, not far from it.  They were there to assist the Dalmatian governor in Salona, after the legions left the province, as Ivan Matijević has shown (OFFICIUM CONSULARIS PROVINCIAE DALMATIAE. Vojnici u službi namjesnika rimske Dalmacije u doba principata, Split, 2020.)"

Although I could not obtain the article she referenced, and Prof. dr. sc. Ivan Matijević has not responded to my query, I did note that Cesarik's second piece on the Dalmatian units was published two years after Matijevic's work.  I then reached out again to Cesarik.  He was kind enough to summarize for me his view on the date for L. Artorius Castus' Liburnian procuratorship:

"I can say that two cohorts, named cohortes I et II milliaria Delmatarum, were positively recruited several years before they were first recorded on the inscriptions from the walls of Salona. The main clue is found in the term "vice tertia" on the inscription mentioning the tribune of the 2nd Dalmatian cohort. You can read more about it in my paper "Cohortes I et II milliaria Delmatarum" which is written in English.

My intention was never focused on the establishment of Liburnia, but solely on the date of recruitment of these cohorts. I only connected my thoughts with the hypothesis of Miletic, and said that if L. Artorius Castus was acting as a governor of Liburnia during the joint reign of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, then it could be possible that his troops consisted of these two cohorts. Why? Because there is an inscription from Fons Timavi, mentioning the tribune of cohort I mil. Delmatarum, that could be dated to that period."

His two relevant papers are here:




When I asked him if he thought Matijevic was wrong about the formation date of the Dalmatian units, he responded:

"Matijevic's work is focused solely on Salona, and the first mention of these cohorts is found in inscriptions from Salona dated to 169/170 AD. Because of that, earlier authors thought that the year 169/170 was also the year when they were founded. Matijevic just cited earlier authors because his work was not focused on the problem we are talking about.

The explanation of the question of recruitment for these units can be found on page 210 of my paper:

"Imp(eratore) Caes(are) M(arco) Au/rel(io) Antonino /Aug(usto) pont(ifice) max(imo) tr(ibunicia) / pot(estate)XXIIII co(n)s(ule) III p(atre) p(atriae) / coh(ors) II |(milliaria) Del(matarum) ped(es) DCCC / in his turris I sub cura/ L(uci) Annaei Serviliani trib(uni) / vice tertia(e).4

The crucial fact is the expression vice tertia(e) in the lastline of the inscription. As shown by French scholars (Bérard 1995: 349-351; Demougin 2000: 132-133), the expression designates the fact that L. Annaeius Servillianus, while holding the post of a tribune of cohors II milliaria Delmatarum – which by all means represents the militia secunda in the well-known cursus of the equestrian officers (tres militiae equestres; cf. Devijver 1989; 1992) – is actually holding the post of militia tertia. That means that L. Annaeius Servilianus is holding his 3rd post in the tres militiae equestres system in the same post which actually represents the militia secunda (i.e. he is holding the post of a tribune of a milliary cohort for the second time which is to be equated with the post of praefectus alae). After this post, Annaeius has the right to say that he had tribus militiis perfunctus although he never held the “real” militia tertia (i.e. the prefecture of a quingenary ala).

This extraordinary promotion system of equestrian officers is very rare in the epigraphic material, and has to be linked either with the need caused by the war, or with the situations in which there were no vacancies for the posts of higher militia (whether secunda or tertia), so the commanders could advance by holding their current posts (Bérard 1995: 350; Demougin 2000: 132-133). The system had been established roughly during the reign of Marcus Aurelius, and was continued to the 3rd century (Demougin 2000: 133).

In the view of the establishment of two cohortes milliarae Delmatarum, the term vice tertia(e) on the Salona inscription is of special importance, because it gives a clue of the exact year in which they were raised. L. Annaeius Servillianus, most probably held the tribunate of cohors II milliaria Delmatarum for the 2nd time when the inscription was placed on the walls of Salona. Having that in mind, if we calculate an average length of the term of office in every post in the tres militiae equstres in the 2nd century AD – which is estimated to be approximately 3 to 4 years (Birley 1961: 137-138; Devi-jver 1989: 79; 1992: 213) – we come to the conclusion that these cohorts were probably founded at least 3 or 4 years before the date on the Salona inscriptions (if not one or two years more). So the latest possible date is the year 166/167 AD."

The most important part of this statement is the author's conclusion that the Dalmatian units were actually probably founded right at 166/7.  If L. Artorius Castus went to fight in Armenia, with that war lasting until 163, and he remained in the East in whatever capacity (perhaps in Cappadocia, where Statius Priscus was governor) until the end of the whole Eastern campaign (166), then his being made procurator in 166/7 would exactly match the formation date for the Dalmatian units.  As I pointed out in my blog article https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2021/02/the-date-of-lucius-artorius-castuss.html  it was at this time that according to the ancient literary sources Marcus and Verus militarily reorganized Illyricum and recruited soldiers from Dalmatia.  One of the primary tasks of a procurator like Castus was recruitment.

This reorganization and recruitment would mark the instituting of the new Liburnian province. 

No other similar set of circumstances historically present themselves, and placing Castus later (like in the 180s) cannot, therefore, be justified.

I shared this second article by Cesarik with Prof. Kurilic, hoping to elicit another contribution to the discussion.  She declined to write back to me. 

I then sent an email to Prof. Ivan Basic (Izv. prof. dr. sc. Ivan Basić / PhD, Associate Prof., Odsjek za povijest / Department of History, Filozofski fakultet / Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences Sveučilište u Splitu / University of Split), co-author with Tin Turkovic of a paper promoting a later foundation date (185-190) for the province of Liburnia.  I presented Cesarik's argument in favor of the 166/7 formation date for the Dalmatian units, and linked that with Castus in Armenia (given that ARMENIOS worked on several levels, and ARMORICOS does not).  Does this earlier appearance of Castus in Liburnia make sense?

His response:

"What you say seems cogent to me."

I am now confident that while there may still be a few holdouts among scholars when it comes to a preference for the later foundation date of Liburnia, given the other factors that lead us to favor the earlier period we can now safely say that the most probable period for the foundation of the province was at the beginning of the Marcomannic Wars, rather than at the end of that conflict. 











Wednesday, February 21, 2024

THE 'DALMATIAN CONNECTION' AND L. ARTORIUS CASTUS' EXPEDITION AGAINST ARMENIOS

Aequum of Julius Severus

Risinum of Statius Priscus (?) Near Salonae of the Artorii

Pituntium of Lucius Artorius Castus 

PART ONE

In past blog posts, I pointed out that the man who appears to have hand-picked Statius Priscus was Julius Severus.  And that, in turn, Statius Priscus may well have hand-picked L. Artorius Castus.  It is well known that Severus was born in Aequum, Dalmatia.  Statius could have been born in either Italy or Risinum, Dalmatia.  A case has been made for Italy based upon one family connection by marriage, but Professor Roger Tomlin has examined this argument and still sees no reason why Statius could not belong to the Statii attested in Risinum.  

The same debate continues as to where L. Artorius Castus was born. He could have been born in Italy or in Salona, Dalmatia, where the Artorii are attested.  But it is rather a moot point whether Castus was born in Dalmatia or not, as he could well have "founded" the family there when he was posted as procurator of Liburnia and retired to his estate in Pituntium.  

The question we must ask ourselves is whether these apparent Dalmation connections contribute significantly to the argument that Castus went to Armenia with the British governor Statius Priscus, just as it seems Statius Priscus had earlier gone to the East with Julius Severus.

I think they do.  

Professor Roger Tomlin wrote this to me about Priscus and Severus:

"I haven't read Alföldy's Konsulat und Senatorenstandwhich suggests (p. 314) a Dalmatian origin for Statius Priscus, but I suggest you check on this.

Birley, arguably, is over-reacting from his suggestion that Priscus had a British origin, but I don't see that the Luceria inscription proves any more than that Priscus married his daughter to the first Fufidius Pollio. Considering they were generals in adjoining provinces, this isn't a surprise. It was the family of Fufidius Pollio which came from Luceria, and remained there. No need for Priscus to limit his choice of a son-in-law to his own home town.

Statius Priscus could have come from Dalmatia despite the Camodeca inscription – which (I think) only shows that his daughter married into the Luceria family. SP had a very wide-ranging career, and must have made many contacts in the course of it, besides his spell at Rome as a senior senator.

And Birley is right to suggest that Severus may have chosen Priscus because they were both of Dalmatian origin."

The alternate reading for the fragmentary ARM[...]S on the Castus memorial stone is, of course, ARMORICOS.  But while I have tried my best to justify the reading, Professor Tomlin's wise assessment of the proposed Armorica keeps coming back to haunt me:

"I am not happy with 'Armoricans' as referring to the Deserters' War. Our sources are poor, but they insist it was spread across Gaul and Spain, and finished in Italy. If he was putting down an internal revolt, surely he would have used a term like 'hostes', 'defectores', 'rebelles', or even 'desertores'.

Or he could have simply said 'against Maternus.'

This is a possible scenario, of course, but it involves assumptions that are not backed by the text – that Castus' opponents were nationalists, not 'deserters', and that they did not ravage (the whole of) Gaul.

If Castus had campaigned only in Armorica against a much wider-ranging opponent, than he might have said 'in Armorica', but he would have been perverse to call his opponent 'the Armoricans'.

Two footloose Germans or a couple fleeing Britain might have joined them – it wouldn't then mean he was fighting against Germans or Britons. Your scenario only admits of fighting 'in Armorica'.

We can only balance probabilities. And Armenia is heavier than Armorica.

You would have to suppose that Armorica was 'garrisoned', centuries after conquest, by soldiers who were 'Armoricans'. And go against Herodian's narrative, who treats Maternus' followers as latrones – no hint of a 'nationalist' revolt. They ranged all over Gaul, recruiting convicts, and yet you must suppose that Castus applied a narrowly regional label to them, as 'Armoricans'."

This reasoning I find flawlessly convincing. Which means, of course, that we are once again back to a Castus who was in Britain prior to the arrival there of the 5,500 Sarmatians sent to the province in 175 A.D. by Marcus Aurelius.  

I would add in passing that there is nothing on the memorial stone to link the ADVERSUS mission with the 1,500 spearmen Cassius Dio says went to Rome from Britain to demand the execution of the Praetorian Prefect Perennis.  It is tempting to identify these two events, as Castus took three legionary detachments against ARM[...]S, and 1,500 men can be nicely divided into three legionary vexillations of 500 each.  But, again, there is simply no way to show from Castus' inscription that he had anything to do with the delegation to Rome.  

PART TWO

How can we reconcile a L. Artorius Castus in Britain before the Sarmatians with a sub-Roman Arthur born at the Ribchester fort of the Sarmatian veterans?  For I'm fairly confident that the Welsh tradition does preserve (albeit in a form distorted by the usual centuries-long legend-building process) a portrait of a war leader descended from Sawyl Benisel.

Granted, the name Arthur had plenty of time between the 2nd century and the 5th to find its way around Northern Britain.  If the name had proven popular, ostensibly because the Roman officer who was the prefect of the Sixth at York had gained renown by taking Britiah troops to fight in Armenia and had become a procurator, it cropping up at Ribchester may have nothing to do with the Sarmatians at all.  Instead, it would merely be related to the relationship that long existed between York and Ribchester.  We know from the famous Maponus stone at Ribchester, for example, that it was a centurion from the Sixth who commanded a numerus of Sarmatians. 

In "The Sarmatae, Bremetennacvm Veteranorvm and the Regio Bremetennacensis" by I. A. Richmond (The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 35, Parts 1 and 2, 1945, pp. 15-29, Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies), the author emphasizes the influence York had on the fort of the Sarmatian veterans at Ribchester:

"At Bremetennacum, on the other hand, we are in contact with a special settlement and garrison composed of those very barbarians whose failure to absorb Roman culture is considered to have sapped and weakened the Roman military virtue. It is thus particularly significant for official policy that successive commandants of the Ribchester fort and settlement, men of education and social standing, both could and did draw generously upon the resources of craftsmanship and religious allegory available or current at the York headquarters in order to establish the shrines and monuments of the regional centre upon the basis of the best conventions that they knew.

It is of some importance to recall that the cult of Maponus is one, patronized by legionary officers of the Sixth legion, from which Antonianus came, and, in particular, by so senior an officer as the praefectus castrorum, since this stamps the cult as one centred in York rather than in the auxiliary forts."  

Thus we can readily understand how a name that had achieved significant recognition at York might have, eventually, been transferred to the settlement at Ribchester, as the latter would always have been looking to York as the model for its own desired "Roman-ness."  This being the case, we do not have to insist on Castus personally having had anything whatsoever to do with the Sarmatians.

I feel this is a perfectly acceptable compromise, and one which will allow us to retain ARMENIOS for the reading the the Castus stone, and to have the Dark Age Arthur situated at Ribchester.











Saturday, February 17, 2024

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE FOR A SARMATIAN DRACO STANDARD

NOTE: Since writing this piece, I have been in contact with scholars who actually specialize in Sarmatian studies.  They were unable to produce a true Sarmatian draco.  I am quoting here their correspondence with me, and then attaching the images from the Orlat plaques and a coin, which along with that of the British Chester horseman comprise the only "evidence" for the use of the standard among the Sarmatians.  As it happens, the images plainly show that while the Sarmatians had a windsock, there was no dragon head attached to that.  Instead, the windsock has an open, framed end that was attached to the top of the pole with thongs. The tail of the body of the windsock is tasseled; it does not end like a serpent's tail, as with the Dacian wolf-headed draco.

I thus continue to maintain that we have no evidence whatsoever for the presence of the draco among the Sarmatians.

From Istvánovits, Eszter – Kulcsár, Valéria: Sarmatians through the eyes of strangers. The Sarmatian warrior. In: International Connections of the Barbarians of the Carpathian Basin in the 1st–5th centuries A.D. (ed.: E. Istvánovits – V. Kulcsár). Aszód – Nyíregyháza 2001.139–169.:

The Sarmatian dragon standard is perhaps the geographically most widespread
element of warfare. Evidence for its use extends from Central Asia (Orlat) (fig. 11: 1) to the British Isles (Chester) (fig. 14: I ). It also appears frequently in the hands of Dacians (allies of the Roxolani in the Dacian wars of Trajan), and later in depictions of the Roman military (fig. 14:4). A Roman depiction, the closest to Sarmatian territory comes from Ságvár, Pannonia (fig. L4:3) (Burger 1966, pl. XCV, but we see several of them on Roman Imperial monuments (Coulston 1991 - with detailed reference to literary sources), one in the Notitia Dignitatum (fig. 14:2) (Robinson 1975, 186, ltg. I9I ) showing one element (besides cataphracts, archers etc.) of the influence oí Sarmatian (Iranian) warfare on the Roman army (Makkay 1996,737-748 - with detailed references, Makkay 1998,I8-2I ). Germans adopted dragon standards - together with several other elements - from the Sarmatians too, and their use extended into the Middle Ages (e.g. the battle of Hastings , 1066 - Gamber 1964, 9).


Orlat Plaque


Warriors with contus, bow and dragon standard on the bone plate from Orlat (drawing by A.M. Savin and A.I .Semionov)

A coin of the Indo-Scythian king Azes II with equipment similar to that of the Orlat plaque.
Again, no dragon head atop the pole.  

***


Dacian Draco



Chester Cavalryman

Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 2 1991
101
The ‘draco standard
J.C.N. Coulston
"At some point in the 1st or early 2nd century AD, Roman cavalry started to use an entirely new type of military standard, the draco'."

All along, in treating of a possible connection between the Pendragon epithet, the dragon-star of Uther and his draco standards, I have assumed that both the Dacians and the Sarmatians have types of the draco.

But, I assumed this was the case only because I kept reading the assertion in the resource materials. Still, I was bothered by the utter lack of a Sarmatian draco on Trajan's Column, where several Dacian dracos are depicted. I recently confirmed the serpent-tail of the wolf-headed Dacian draco through ancient ceramic evidence from Romania.

For all we know, if the Sarmatians did eventually have a draco, they could well have borrowed it from the Dacians!

What, then, is the so-called evidence for a Sarmatian draco? 

1) Arrian tells us the Roman draco originated with the Scythians. Scholars have guessed these Scythians are Sarmatians.  But while closely related, the Scythians and Sarmatians were separate peoples. And, in fact, the Sarmatians eventually conquered the Scythians.

We could only conjecture that the Sarmatians took a draco from the Scythians, then, after conquering and, presumable, absorbing elements of Scythian culture.

The Dacians, on the other hand, are believed to have descended from the Thracians.

2) The Chester cavalryman is said to be either Sarmatian or Dacian. As the Dacians had infantry stationed in Britain, not cavalry, the Sarmatian theory has prevailed. I also think the figure exhibits a spangenhelm, not a Phrygian cap, a distinction that would point to a Sarmatian warrior. No detail reveals any indication of a Sarmatian's scale armor.

However, given the proposed 2nd century date for the Chester horseman, why could this not simply be a Roman cavalryman with a draco? And, more importantly, the fragmented condition of the relief carving shows only what appears to be a windsock or long, tapering banner. We can't say with any degree of certainty there actually was a draco head on this stone. The missing portion could well have been something else entirely.

Here are the recent arguments for the ethnic identification of the Chester cavalryman:

Pro-Dacian Argument:


Pro-Sarmatian Argument:


Note that the author of the Dacian argument had, like myself, searched for literary or archaeological examples of the Sarmatian draco and found none (personal communication):

"No, I searched for that just in order to see if it is not possible that the rider could be also Sarmatian. A did not find anything."

Prof. Dr. Lucretiu Birliba "Al. I. Cuza" University Iasi Faculty of History Department of Ancient Studies and Archaeology

If the Sarmatians did not have a draco, how does this affect my Ribchester Arthurian theory? For I have opted to put Uther Pendragon at the Sarmatian veterans' fort rather than at the Dacian garrisoned Birdoswald fort on Hadrian's Wall.

Not affected at all, fortunately. The whole Uther-Illtud-Sawyl Benisel argument depends on seeing 'dragon' in Uther's epithet as a Welsh poetic term for warrior or warriors - and it is this very meaning which allows for the identification of Uther with Sawyl of Ribchester.

Sure, it would be nice if the draco had indeed been held in special reverence at Ribchester. And that may even be true. But it is just as likely, if not more so, that the dragon-star and the two golden dracos is Galfridian fiction, derived from Geoffrey of Monmouth's  faulty interpretation of Pendragon as 'the dragon's head.'









Thursday, February 15, 2024

OPINIONS FROM ADDITIONAL ROMAN ART SPECIALISTS ON THE DATE OF THE L. ARTORIUS CASTUS MEMORIAL STONE


According to Dr. Linda A. Malcor and John Matthews in their new book ARTORIUS: THE REAL KING ARTHUR, the dates for L. Artorius Castus in Britain and Liburnia run as follows:

181 Praefectus of the VI Victrix twice. ["twice" is wrong; all professional epigraphers agree that if two terms were to be expressed on the stone,  PRAEFF will not bear the interpretation of 'prefect twice': some phrase like praefectus iterum or bis praefectus would have been used for a second command with the same title. As Professor Roger Tomlin stated, "I am happy with the traditional interpretation that FF is a stonecutter's mistake, like his IM for IN in Britanicianarum."]
187 Becomes Dux of the three legions of Britannia [another error; vexillations is implied here, as it is on 42 other stones (see Robert Saxer)]
191 Procurator Centenarius of Liburnia.

According to Malcor, Castus either died or was mortally wounded in the war between Septimius Severus and Albinus in Gaul, in the year 197, to be precise. She believes the stone could have been commissioned before he left for the war.
 
We may keep this date only because it is relevant to our treatment of the age of the stone below.  But the idea, proposed by Malcor and Matthews, that Castus left his procuratorship to fight in the civil war only to be mortally wounded or killed at Lugdunum is pure fancy.  There is no evidence to even suggest such a conjecture.  The reason for placing him at Lugdunum is so they can associate him with the Burgundy Avallon previously associated with Riothamus by Geoffrey Ashe. 

While the date itself of just prior to 197 is credible, Tomlin holds that "If VIVUS is to be taken literally, Castus' epitaph was composed by him in retirement, which could be as late as c. 180." This fits with the rough schema provided by Miletic:

Proposed Approximate Timeline of the Career of Lucius Artorius Castus (from Zeljko Miletic's "Lucius Artorius Castus and Liburnia"):

fifty years of service at the age of about 70 podines retired to the peace of his estate,
outlived the province.
dies natalis c. 104
miles 121-135
centurio legionis III Gallicae 135-138
centurio legionis VI Ferratae 139-142
centurio legionis II Adiutricis 143-146
centurio legionis V Macedonicae 147-150
primus pilus legionis V Macedonicae 151
praepositus classis Misenatium 152-154
praefectus castrorum legionis VI Victricis 155-162
dux legionariorum et auxiliorum Britannicorum adversus
Armenians
162-166
procurator centenarius provinciae Liburniae 167-174

Of course, we may also opt for ARMORICOS for the Castus memorial stone - something that I myself eventually settled upon.  This would push the date of the stone up slightly, with Castus being given the procuratorship of Liburnia by Cleander, Perennis' successor, in 185 or immediately after.

Opponents of the earlier date argue that to have a man around 70 years old is absurd, but this did happen in the Roman Empire.  These same opponents usually cite the average lifespan of a Roman soldier, but such an average includes the obvious fact that many soldiers died in service.  If a man survived his war years, he could certainly have lived longer - even much longer - than the average lifespan of a soldier.

The consensus on the age of the stone strictly from the standpoint of the style of carving and art is that it belongs to the 2nd century, i.e. to the Antonine.  There are a few scholars who will permit it to go beyond that into the very early Severan - but by far the majority prefer Antonine, and among those the late Antonine (defined roughly as the last quarter of the 2nd century).  

I have taken the trouble, once again, to contact experts in the fields of Roman art history and Roman funeral art and have asked them what they thought about the date of the stone.  I have added their responses below, and then pasted below their responses those I had garnished from other scholars in the past.  Note that this is NOT a selective list.  There were, of course, plenty of scholars who did not respond to my query, and others who were either noncommital or who referred me to colleagues they felt were better equipped to deal with the problem.  I received no dissenting opinions, i.e. educated guesses which put the stone well outside either the second or third centuries.  No one would put the stone as late as, say, Diocletian.  

"I've had a look at the photo and my instinct is that this is later second, rather than early third-century work. But it's only a personal sense, and, as I said before, it is notoriously difficult to distinguish Severan from later Antonine architectural ornament."

Dr Susan Walker FSA* 
Honorary Curator and former Keeper of Antiquities, Ashmolean Museum
Emerita Fellow, Wolfson College, University of Oxford

*Wife of John Wilkes, Emeritus Professor of Greek and Roman Archaeology at University College London.  Wilkes told me via personal communication that "In 1962, in company with my old friend Tony Birley, I travelled from Split a few miles south along the coast where we located the two halves of the text still incorporated in the roadside field wall at Podstrana di Jesenice. The part of the stone with the key letters ARM[...] was buried but we managed to excavate it from the grass verge and confirm that there were no traces of further letters to be seen."

"It wouldn’t be earlier than the second century, I don’t think, and it could go into the third.  In my opinion, the quality of the letters makes a date later than that range improbable. One way to go might be to consider the type of monument it belonged to. If it was a chamber tomb and this was the titulus set into the façade that would make a second-century date more likely, or early third."
Regina Gee, Ph.D.
Professor of Art History
CAA Leadership Fellow in the School of Art
Montana State University

"Really I cannot say how to decipher the letters ARM, but according to the type of sarcophagus it is quite sure that it belongs to the end of the 2nd or the very beginning of the 3rd century AD. It is the vertical strigili type and the pelte tabulla made of Proconnesian marble. This type of the sarcophagi was imported but finally done in Salona which was the port of import of such blocks and the workshop or workshops. This sarcophagus was pretty huge and expensive."

Prof. Dr. Sc. Nenad Cambi

"Dating from style of details like this is notoriously inexact and unreliable, especially in the provincial context. If I saw this for the first time and was guessing a date from the style of carving and the figural decoration alone, ignoring any other factors, I would say it's very nice and I would hesitate to out it a lot later than 200. But this really is an informed guess. A way to explore this aspect further would be to look for very similar elements in the decoration of Dalmatia stones and see if any of them have more secure dating criteria. However, even that would not be especially dependable.

If it were in the city of Roman then certain technical details and stylistic traits might help to narrow it but the tools don’t change, even though there is a growing casualness of drill use through the period (not conspicuous in this work, in fact), and the motifs are rooted in the early empire. I am perfectly happy for it to be Antonine, but if I didn’t know anything about it and was told it was Flavian I would not be perturbed.  Actually it’s the letter carving that’s potentially more illuminating, but in this case that seems to rather argue earlier, not late.

Without commenting on the historical arguments, which I haven’t looked into, but just considering whether on art-historical grounds the stone could have been carved in the last 30 years of the second century: yes, I have no problem with that."

Professor Peter Stewart
Professor of Ancient Art
Director of the Classical Art Research Centre
Fellow, Wolfson College
Ioannou Centre for Classical and Byzantine Studies

"I think I'd incline to a 2nd C date."

Professor Zahra Newby
Department of Classics and Ancient History
University of Warwick

"As you know, the inscription was already published in 1873. Based on the text, i.e. cursus honorum, it is dated to the years 180-230. For my part, I can add that the style is typical of the late Antonines, but it could have been continued under Severus. Likewise the lettering."

Prof. dr hab. Piotr Karol Dyczek

"The best comparison I can find is in Diana Kleiner's 1992 book on Roman Sculpture. p. 336, fig. 301, illustrates one panel of the Roman Arch of the Argentarii of A.D. 204. Made of travertine it seems to be a finer stone than the one you have. The side border has rosettes (floral patterns with 4 leaves) set between spiraling acanthus plants. The border pattern on your stone seems to have a simplified version of the same design. Based on this comparison, I would say you are in the ballpark for an Antonine date in the last quarter of the 2nd century."

Professor Mary C. Sturgeon

"I would go with Tomlin and Birley on the date (earlier, rather than later)."

Prof. Maureen Carroll, FSA
Professor of Roman Archaeology
Director MA Roman Archaeology
Department of Archaeology
University of York

* Older opinions, gathered a few years ago:

It has further been objected that the LAC memorial stone must be from 190.  This is insisted upon for stylistic considerations.  However, in Tomlin's treatment of the stone, he says:

"The inscription is undated, but the quality of the lettering and the well-executed band of lush orna- ment to left and right, twining scrolls inhabited by rosettes, would suggest it was Antonine (c. AD 140–90)."

When I asked him to elaborate on that published statement, he sent the following via private correspondence:

"I don't much like dating closely on ground of style, since it is unusual to get many closely dated inscriptions from which to conclude that such-and-such a letter form or ornament must belong to that narrow date-band. So yes, I see no reason to date the stone to 190. I am quite happy for it to be earlier; indeed, I would expect it to be so."

Of the several renowned Roman art scholars I have consulted on this question, the consensus is that the LAC memorial stone belongs to the Antonine period, but that it can’t be more precisely dated than that.  Here is a representative selection of their responses:

"Roger [Tomlin] has solved this. A pity I didn't see his book [ BRITANNIA ROMANA ROMAN INSCRIPTIONS AND ROMAN BRITAIN, 2018] before I wrote my article ("Viri militares...")."

- Anthony Birley on the ARM- of the LAC inscription as Armenia of the 160s

"Style of lettering and orthographic peculiarities can often provide a close dating. All I can say, and it is by no means definitive, is that the decorative framing motif is unlikely to be as late as 190 because it does not feature the deep carving and prominent use of the drill (vs. chisel) characteristic of that period. By the same criterion, the inscription may not even be as late as Antonine, because that is when that kind of carving/drilling begins. I'm attaching an inscription precisely dated to 161. I say "not definitive" because one has to take into consideration qualitative differences between master carvers and routine work. Nonetheless, on the basis of carving, your inscriptions are unlikely to be 190 but they also may be pre-Antonine."

- FRED S. KLEINER, Professor of History of Art & Architecture, Professor of Archaeology, Boston University

"One thing I can definitively tell you: none of the ornaments around the inscriptions can be dated within a timespan as short as 10 years. Both the type of ornament (i.e. the motifs) and the style of depiction (i.e. the way they are carved) are conventional over long periods of time. While style is a very difficult criterion to apply due to the fact that styles vary a lot at any given time depending on the workshop and/or quality of work, I would probably feel fairly confident to date both items (the stamp is impossible to date on any ‘artistic’ grounds) to the second half of the second to early third century. I would not hesitate to date the sarcophagus fragment even more precisely to the mid-Antonine to Severan period or to c. 160/70-220/30 roughly speaking. Yet any more precise dating on the basis of the ornaments would not be methodologically sound."


"The very nice scrollwork and flowers look high Antonine, nearer the middle of the 2nd century I would have thought. Yes, I would say on the basis of the ornament and relative lack of ligatures in the inscription it is round about the mid century."


“I've now had a chance to look at the objects in question.  I fully trust Roger's [Tomlin] verdict with regard to the dating of the inscription and the carving of the letters. Generally speaking, it certainly looks firmly 2nd century to me. As for the vegetal decoration, I would equally say that the shape of the flowers and tendril ornament do not support a date later than, roughly, the mid-2nd century AD (which includes the 160s). Although the pieces come from a provincial context, the ornament does not show any of the characteristics which we would expect for the Severan and later periods (i.e. a lot of drill-work and sharp contours).”


"I can assure you that Professor Roger Tomlin, whose work I know well, is a great authority on matters concerning Roman army and administration (as well as onomastics), so you can absolutely rely on his opinions and I would agree with what he told you. I can assure you that no Roman inscription can be dated 'precisely', unless it contains a dating by consuls or an exact imperial titulature."


"As to the decorative carvings on the major [LAC] stone, not much can really be said. There are those who think you can date these things precisely – but I’m not among them. They’re too often standard workshop products, and the designs don’t change that much or that often. Twenty or thirty years doesn’t seem to make much of a difference, as best I can tell.   However, the eastern [Armenian] campaign outlined by Tomlin seems to me preferable to a British conjecture."

-      Professor Michael Koortbojian