OUR TWO CHOICES FOR THE DUX EXPEDITION OF L. ARTORIUS CASTUS

Roman Empire at the time of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus

Not really an article here - sorry!  Just a very brief summary statement of my long exploration of L. Artorius Castus' expedition as dux of British vexillations.  

While I once defended the Armenia reading for the LAC stone, several factors - not the least of which is simple logistics - forced me to abandon it.  Of the few records we have of troop movements from Britain to other locations, all identify Germany or the Rhine as destinations.  That a large legionary force would be taken from Britain all the way to Armenia seems rather incredible, once we weigh all the evidence.

I have drawn arrows on the above map to show the stark contrast in distance for vexillations leaving Britain for either Armorica or Armenia.  The question we need to ask ourselves when viewing this map is whether it is more reasonable to assume LAC's troops went with him to Armorica in Gaul (as we know the Deserters' War was being fought in Gaul and Armorica has been shown through archaeology to have suffered major destructive disruptions at this time) or all the way across the entire Empire to Armenia. 

For me, the formulaic expression 'procurator centenarius' on the LAC stone may well be the most important dating indicator.  Antonio Trinchese had informed me that the expression was found first on stones dateable to the Severan period.  But I did a more thorough search and found one firmly dateable to the reign of Commodus.  Now, we do have ranks and pay grades on stones from as early as Marcus Aurelius, but none betray the formula proc cent.  And the centenarius pay for a procurator is known from literary sources well before Marcus.  So it is possible for LAC to have used the terms after his retirement and even not long before his death, in which case he may have simply made use of an expression then current - but not current at the time he held the actual position.  We could thus still push his dux expedition back to 161-163.  But as it stands, the extant epigraphic evidence points to proc cent becoming a formulic expression that became fashionable under Commodus.  And that would mean Armorica for the expedition, not Armenia.    

On the whole, it seems much more probable that the troops were taken to adjacent Armorica, rather than to Armenia.  For ARMORICOS on the LAC stone, see https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2021/06/the-lucius-artorius-castus-stone-with_14.html.

ARMATOS: a Third Reading for ARM[...]S?

The ARMATOS reading for the fragmentary ARM[...]S of the LAC memorial monument, meaning nothing more than 'armed men', is being restricted to Britain itself, as the proponents of the word insist on rejecting the implied presence of vexillations in the inscription.  In their mind, three entire legions were mobilized within Britain to fight armed men.  Who these armed men were, or where they were  - if we accept ARMATOS on the stone - is not stated.  This vagueness allows the proponents to conjure any number of foes, a sort of smorgasbord of enemies and at a time of their choosing.  [Never mind that he was somehow ignorant of whom he was fighting!] While they will not allow implied vexillations (which all scholars I have discussed the problem with have no trouble supporting), they do claim that before LAC was dux he was prefect twice (the PRAEFF is a stonecutter's error, and may be checked with the record we have of the second LAC stone, which had merely praefectus), that one of the prefectures was of the Sarmatians in Britain (a purely imaginary construct), that his special temporary appointment as dux means that he was de facto governor of the province (if LAC had been governor or even acting governor he would have said so), and that the VIVVS in the inscription is a number plus an abbreviation for VIVVS (when all authorities, including Keppie and Tomlin, are quite certain it is exactly what it looks like - VIVVS, divided between lines as are other words in the inscription).

The proponents of the ARMATOS reading point to the word's use in several literary sources, but in each and every case such use is accompanied in the relevant text with additional information allowing us to identify the combatants in question.  No such details are provided for us on the LAC stone. Context is thus lacking.  As Roger Tomlin has made clear, an entire province's legionary complement is not going to be taken anywhere - even within the province.  It is conceivable LAC led the Sixth legion with large vexillations from the other two British legions and then used shorthand by saying 'three British legions' so that he could avoid saying ITEM for dux after prefect of the Sixth, plus a descriptive phrase listing the other two legions. But even this is a stretch and scholars are united in taking legionary vexillations as implied on the stone.

The proponents further state that ARMATOS is used because there were too many different types of armed men to be able to list them all on the stone.  They thus accept any number of different groups of armed men as being implied by the word ARMATOS. As they continue all the while, of course, to deny implied vexillations.  This is inherently illogical. 

The ARMATOS argument is, in fact, a classic instance of circular reasoning:

ARMATOS is the correct reading for ARM[...]S because LAC leads three entire legions within Britain

LAC leads three entire legions within Britain because ARMATOS is the correct reading for ARM[...]S

I will repeat one last time here Roger Tomlin's sage remarks on ARMATOS, and then I will not discuss the term again:

“I think armatos is a neutral term, and that a Roman general wouldn't have congratulated himself on fighting against 'armed men', any more than he would have recorded a campaign against inermes [unarmed men]. Truth is, 'armatos' is much too unspecific, and there are many inscriptions referring to the suppression of internal revolt, the language used being 'adversus rebelles', 'adversus defectores', 'adversus hostes publicos'. For example Dessau ILS 1140, Claudius Candidus, who was 'duci ... adversus rebelles'. The Romans hardly ever use armatos by comparison with hostes, but even hostes is a vague term, and I would expect LAC to give the enemy their name. Or at least to use a generic geographical term.

I don't believe in the vague ARMATOS. I think ARMATOS would have been used adjectivally, and a Roman writer would have specified who had taken up arms. Once again, there are many such terms, which could have been used on their own – REBELLES, LATRONES, HOSTES, DEFECTORES, DESERTORES.

If it were a matter of internal security, I would have expected a term such as this. That they were 'armed' would not need to be stated.”

For these reasons, ARMATOS should be rejected as a possible reading for ARM[...]S.

A Note on LAC and the Sarmatians in Britain

Obviously, if LAC went to Armenia 161-163 A.D., he was not in Britain when they Sarmatians were there (arrival 175).  On the other hand, we can postulate a Sarmatian connection if we select ARMORICOS for ARM[...]S.

My own personal bias enters in here (which is exactly why I'm bringing up the subject).  For my theory for a historical Dark Age/Sub-Roman Arthur involves a man born at the Ribchester Roman fort, site of the settlement of Sarmatian veterans.  While I was not looking to associate Arthur with the Sarmatians, once it seemed that he indeed did belong at Bremetennacum Veteranorum I had no choice but to explore the possibility.  It made sense to suggest that the Artorius name, preserved in the British Arthur, may have been passed down through the generations of the Sarmato-Britons at Ribchester.  If so, we would have to assume that an Artorius had impressed himself upon them significantly.  According to my tentative outline of LAC's career, he would not only have employed Sarmatian cavalry in the victorious British war during the reign of Commodus, but would also have included Sarmatians in the legionary vexillations he took to Armorica.  Furthermore, it is quite possible that while on the Continent he took 1500 Sarmatian contus-bearers to Rome to execute the Praetorian Prefect, Perennis.

Such actions, if they did include Sarmatian troops, may have caused his name to be remembered as a famous hero among the descendents of the Sarmatian veterans at Ribchester.

The proponents of three entire legions going against armed men in Britain do not consider the possible implications of LAC-Sarmatian interactions on the existence of a Dark Age/Sub-Roman Arthur.  If they were to associated the 2nd century officer and the 5th-6th century battle leader, they must rely on the supposed use of Sarmatian troops in whatever scenario they decide to invent.  Or (as hinted at already above), they make the baseless and unsubstantiable claim that LAC was prefect not only of the Sixth Legion, but of the Sarmatians. 

We, therefore, have not only a choice between Armorica and Armenia, but of Sarmatians being included in other legionary forces to fight armed men in Britain OR of Sarmatians being used against the tribes of the North that broke through the Wall, against the deserters, etc., of Maternus in Gaul and then being the sole agents in bringing about the downfall of the second most powerful man in the Roman Empire.

  

THE NORTHERN ARTHUR WINS HIS MOST IMPORTANT BATTLE

Bremetennacum Veteranorum Roman Fort, Ribchester

"A more common view, however, is that this poem [Geraint son of Erbin] should be understood against a background of legend containing traditions of the south-west into which Arthur has been introduced."

- Nerys Ann Jones, ARTHUR IN EARLY WELSH POETRY

I've at last had a chance to carefully consider all of my past research concerning the possibility of a Southern Arthur.  My findings for such were to be included in a major revision of my book THE ARTHUR OF HISTORY, but I've now decided to let those continue in article form on the present blog site.  Instead of again offering that volume, I have decided to only offer what I feel is my best theory for a Northern Arthur.  All of the material in support of the latter historical candidate can be found in my book THE BATTLE-LEADER OF RIBCHESTER.

Why, my readers will ask, did I ultimately forsake the Southern Arthur?

Because there was strong evidence in the earliest Arthurian sources for a northern chieftain.  In addition, the southern tradition seemed either to be dependent on the fiction of Geoffrey of Monmouth or was the result of folkloristic relocation, a process natural enough when one considers that the North had become totally English, while the Celtic "fringe" of Wales and Cornwall remained intact enough to receive and preserve the Arthurian story.  The same is even true of Brittany, where the Arthurian tradition enjoyed a sort of renaissance that led to the flowering of French Arthurian literature. 

My placement of Arthur at Ribchester of the Roman period Sarmatian veterans always answered a great many questions that had remained open for decades.  We were able to explain where his name came from, as memory of the 2nd century Roman prefect of the Sixth Legion, L. Artorius Castus, could easily have been passed down among the generations at Bremetennacum.  Castus, in turn, seems to have used Sarmatians for battle in Britain and on the Continent and, if I am right, he led 1500 of them to Rome to execute the Praetorian Prefect Perennis.  

My proposed father for Arthur at Ribchester - Sawyl Benisel, descendent of the dragon-standard bearing Sarmatians - permits us identify Uther Pendragon and his son Madog and grandson Eliwlad (= Madoc Ailithir son of Sawyl) and to show why all subsequent Arthurs belonged to Irish-descended dynasties in Britain (Sawyl married an Irish princess).  Uther's close connection to the god Mabon is a reflection of the Maponos worship at Ribchester.  And the Arthurian battles fit perfectly into a schema designed for a man born at Ribchester and fighting Saxons along the Roman Dere street.  Camboglanna and Aballava on Hadrian's Wall are, respectfully, almost certainly Arthur's Camlann and Avalon.

While the Southern Arthur is tempting, I now believe him to be a pale reflection of the real man who belonged to the North.  It is, unfortunately, true that the popular imagination is unable to disentangle itself from the Southern Arthur.  And anyone who allies himself with that tradition automatically not only gains a high degree of acceptance from the vast majority of Arthur "fans", but is able to tap into potential economic opportunities made available through exploitation of their enthusiasm.  I cannot allow myself to be guided by those things - not if I want to live with myself!  Certainly, I have no desire to be contrary for the sake of being contrary.  Still, I have to cling to what the current state of my research tells me is the most probable solution to the Arthurian mystery.  

I am reissuing my THE BATTLE-LEADER OF RIBCHESTER and will continue to periodically promote that title as my prevailing theory.  

THE PROBLEM OF LIBURNIA: LUCIUS ARTORIS CASTUS AND THE MARCOMANNIC WARS

The question has come up again about when the Roman province of Liburnia was founded, and whether its first procurator may have been Lucius Artorius Castus.  I wrote about this originally in this piece:

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2021/02/the-date-of-lucius-artorius-castuss.html

Now, I have been asked to revisit this issue, which I have conveniently dodged.  But here is the problem, simply stated:

1) The only recorded reorganization of Dalmatia, which was of a decidedly military nature, happened c. 168 under Lucius Verus and Marcus Aurelius.  This was a response to the Marcomannic Wars.

2) Lucius Artorius Castus is the only known procurator of Liburnia.  Many Roman historians think that Liburnia may even been a province only for a short time, and quite possibly was phased out of existence after LAC's tenure had expired.  In other words, there is a strong indication that Liburnia existed only as long as LAC was its procurator.

3) Any suggestion that Liburnia was formed later (given that its very formation was extremely unusual, and the powers invested in LAC also extremely unusual) runs up against a very serious and, in my mind, an insurmoutnable obstacle:  Commodus, who reigned after Marcus, was not interested in the Marcomannic Wars.[1]  In fact, he had a peace treaty signed with the enemies to the North.  So to suggest that he or an immediate succesor felt it necessary to create Liburnia does not ring true - AT ALL.  

4) If LAC became procurator of Liburnia c. 168, then he was not in Britain when the Sarmatians came there in 175. And that means that any supposed connection with the Sarmatians and an "Arthur" is an invalid proposition.

My readers will recall that because the 'procurator centenarius' expression on LAC's memorial stone is otherwise found at its earliest c. 190 towards the end of the reign of Commodus, that I decided it was unlikely the fragmentary ARM[...]S had originally read ARMENIOS.  I had made this decision despite the presence of pay grades linked to ranks on stones found belonging to the time of Marcus Aurelius (e.g. Domitius Marsianus, Marcus Valerius Maximianus) and the literary evidence, which made it plain from much earlier (at least Hadrian's time) that the pay of centenarius could belong to a procurator. I was not entirely happy with my decision, for as Professor Roger Tomlin put it:

"... this may be a case of Absence of Evidence = Evidence of Absence. Just because they can't find a centenarian procurator earlier than Commodus in an inscription, they conclude there is no such thing."

The implication here is that there may well be other such stones, either not discovered or destroyed.  But it is also distinctly possible that if LAC were appointed as a special procurator with profound powers of a newly formed Liburnia c. 168, he may well have been the trend-setter.  In other words, the procurator centenarius formula evinced on his stone may well have been the first such use of the term.

So here is what we are facing:  not only do we have an evidence problem (i.e. we know Dalmatia was reorgnazed c. 168, but have no evidence whatsoever that it was reorganized AGAIN later), but we have a logic problem.  For it is patently illogical to arbitrarily decide to ignore the reorganization c. 168 when we can't prove, in any way, shape or form, that there were events playing out in the region that would justify our assigning the foundation of Liburnia to a later period.

I would add that I have made inquires of various parties in Croatia about the possible spectrographic analysis of the LAC stone.  Our earliest authority for the stone's inscription, who has been discredited for his numerous mistakes in translation, claimed the M had been ligatured to an E.  While we can't know from an naked eye examination if he was right about this one point, it is worth investigating further.  Should such an analysis show that an E had been present, we would have solved the mystery of ARM[...]S.

What do I think - should that matter to anyone in the Arthurian Community (all of whom have their own strongly held beliefs, and often insupportable theories)?  Well, I think we must allow for the LAC stone to have one of the earliest surviving examples of the "procurator centenarius" formulaic expression.  And that ARM[...]S is for ARMENIOS, and that Liburnia was founded c. 168.  We already know that the British governor Statius Priscus was sent from Britain to Armenia to command the war there, and that he did not continue in the other phases of the war (the Parthian and the Median).  Scholars like M.C. Bishop have provided excellent reasons why this may have been so, and all other evidence (literary, coins and epigraphic.) show us that the emperors of the time took the ARMENIACOS ('conqueror of Armenia') in isolation from the subsequent added titles referring to victory in Parthia or Media.  The spelling ARMENIOS is known from multiple Classical sources, so there is no problem having this on the stone.  A simple NI ligature (compare the 17 other visible ligatures, two of them triple ligatures, on the stone) would suffice to make ARMENIOS fit really well.  Lastly, there is a Dalmatian element to the heritage of several leading men in Britain at the time, including, quite possibly, LAC himself, which would prompt us to prefer the earlier to the later period for his activity.  I have dealt with this in detail here: https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2020/10/lucius-artorius-castus-birth-and-death.html.

In Roger Tomlin's words:

"ARMENIOS I think more likely than ARMORICOS, both because it fits much more easily and because my guess is that 9 out of 10 Liburnians would have heard of 'Armenia', but only 1 out of 10 'Armorica'. That is bare assertion, of course, but I can't help feeling that LAC was expecting his readers to know what he was referring to."  

I will conclude with this challenge to my opponents:

Prove to my satisfaction - and to that of all other scholars - that the foundation of Liburnia CAN BE PROVEN TO BELONG TO A PERIOD AFTER 170 A.D. If you can do that, I will reconsider my position on the most probable date of the foundation of Liburnia, which is c. 168.  And you need also to provide me with evidence that I should avoid assigning LAC to c. 168 as the newly formed province's procurator with special powers.[2] 

Negating the “Gap” Argument

When I first broached the idea of LAC fighting in 161-163 and the being made procurator c. 168, a chronological point was brought against it.  How, it was asked, do we account for the five-year gap between his service as dux in Armenia and his being appointed the Liburnian procurator?

Well, to begin, we don’t know the circumstances of what may have happened in the said “gap.”  Some scholars have suggested that the disappearance of Statitus Priscus from our records after the victory in 163 should be explained by his probable death.  Others (like M.C. Bishop in his book LUCIUS VERUS AND THE ROMAN DEFENCE OF THE EAST) propose that not only did the building of the new Armenian capital by Priscus take awhile, but he may have been put in charge of setting up new garrisons for overwintering troops and may even have taken a force back to Cappodocia.  

Second, as LAC was still prefect of the Sixth even when appointed dux of the special expeditionary unit and would have continued as prefect afterwards – prior to assuming a procuratorship – the gap suddenly vanishes.  For the idea that a prefect of a legion only served a year or two is simply wrong.  I checked on this with the expert on the matter, Dr. David J. Breeze.  His response as to the length of tenure for a legionary prefect:

“There was no stipulated term for the office, unlike many other senior posts which appear to be of 3 years duration. The praefectus castrorum rose from the ranks of the centurionate and there was no time limit on their service, some continuing in post for decades. Similarly, the praefectus praetorio, although senior in status to the pf cas, had no time limit.”

Professor Roger Tomlin chimed in the with following helpful information:

“Bear in mind that LAC would only have specified a new post if there had been one. He may simply have continued as camp prefect, or even have retired from the army back to Dalmatia, where he was locally well-known – only to be 'dug out' when a local with administrative experience and important contacts was required to govern an improvised province. The decision was made by someone who knew him from Armenia. And I don't think he was required to add to 'adversus Armenios' all the other eastern peoples he had campaigned against. That was simply the name of the War.”

 

[1]

From Dio Cassius:

2 The Marcomani by reason of the multitude of their people that were perishing and the constant ravishing of their lands no longer had an abundance of either food or men. At any rate they sent only two of their chief men and two others of inferior rank as envoys to sue for peace. 2 And, although Commodus might easily have destroyed them, yet he made terms with them; for he hated all exertion and was eager for the comforts of the city. In addition to the conditions that his father had imposed upon them he also demanded that they restore to him the deserters and the captives that they had taken in the meantime, and that they furnish annually p75 a stipulated amount of grain — a demand from which he subsequently released them. 3 Moreover, he obtained some arms from them and soldiers as well, thirteen thousand from the Quadi and a smaller number from the Marcomani; and in return for these he relieved them of the requirement of an annual levy. 4 However, he further commanded that they should not assemble often nor in many parts of the country, but only once each month and in one place, and in the presence of a Roman centurion; and, furthermore, that they should not make war upon the Iazyges, the Buri, or the Vandili. On these terms, then, he made peace and abandoned all the outposts in their country beyond the strip along the frontier that had been neutralized . . .

https://penelope.uchicago.edu/.../texts/cassius_dio/73*.html

[2]

Because the 'proc centenario' on the LAC stone is said to belong at the earliest to the reign of Commodus (based on a c. 190 date for the stone of C. Annius Flavianus with its 'proc c'), we erroneously think that LAC could not possibly have been procurator in the late 160s to early 170s.  

First, to use Professor Roger Tomlin's phrase:  "I am worried that this may be a case of Absence of Evidence = Evidence of Absence. Just because they can't find a centenarian procurator earlier than Commodus in an inscription, they conclude there is no such thing."

In other words, there may have been proc cent stones in the reign of Marcus Aurelius; we just haven't found them yet or they have been destroyed.  It may even be the case that LAC's use of the term represents the first such use, and it may well have been coined during the reign of Marcus.

However, something that is never brought up (because it is inconvenient to do so) is that just because a proc cent on LAC's stone would seem to indicate a date in the reign of Commodus at the earliest, this doesn't preclude LAC having been procurator of Liburnia earlier.

How so? 

For a most obvious reason: he may well have been old and long retired when he had his stone fashioned. A man who had served as procurator from, say (to use Miletic's estimate) 167-174 might very well still be alive during the reign of Commodus, which started in 180. A memorial stone is not made in real time. By that I mean he didn't carve 'proc centenario' when he was made procurator. He would have carved it once his tenure had been completed, and at some point before his death.

The point is this: we can have a man who served as procurator in the late 160s to early 170s who adopted the formulaic use of proc c that was in fashion when he had the stone carved. We know centenarius may have seemed like a lot to him, but we know of equestrians in the reign of Marcus who made much more than that for similar ranks, and we know that the centenarian pay for many procurators was a common pay grade well before Marcus.

In fact, we could hardly expect LAC to have used antiquated or obsolete language for his rank and pay grade if at the time he had the stone carved he could utilize the current formula.

Thus the whole idea that proc cent - even if the terminology itself belongs to the reign of Commodus - must reflect that proc cent was the standard formula at the time LAC actually held the procuratorship is flawed from the get-go.

DISCONTINUING "PUBLIC DEBATES" ON ARTHUR AS OF 6/17/2021

Dear Blog and Facebook  Readers:

As of June 17, 2021, I will be discontinuing making any posts debating the possible historical candidates for the legendary Arthur.  I realize that for many who have been subjected to these kinds of things over the years, my announcement will be nothing other than sheer relief.  For those who enjoy the endless replication of circular arguments, the espousing of bogus "facts" and the expression of unduly biased opinions backed by spectral evidence, I apologize.  

It has always been my goal to strive for as honest an answer to the Arthur question as I can arrive at.  This has meant, of course, that I am forced due to new evidence or reaction to rival theory to constantly change my mind as to what is the most PROBABLE theory.  Alas, in the last decade or so, fueled especially by social media, the so-called Arthurian Community has generated a near infinite number of self-professed experts.  Few are that.  Precious few.  Yet they insist on presenting themselves, whether they have academic credentials or not, as the Bearers of the Only Truth.  Most are either simply naive (as they have not even a rudimentary knowledge of the disciplines that must be mastered before any kind of legitimate theory can be floated) or are driven by pre-conceived beliefs that necessitate generating imaginary supportive evidence.

As a result of this onslaught of mostly crazy or deluded or programmed or misdirected "authorities", I have had to direct way too much of my time and energy in combating various absurdities or assorted nonsense that in no way served the quest for legitimate answers.  Spread so thin, have I been, that my other future projects have been delayed.  I realize only now that I have been a "sucker" in the sense that I have allowed myself to be baited into futile discourse with people who have made up their minds about this or that regardless of evidence and sound judgment to the contrary.  I can no longer afford to engage in this kind of activity.  For, as the old saying goes, "Life is too short for bull****."

Those who still have interest in  my ideas are directed to https://mistshadows.blogspot.com or, if you have Facebook access, to my mirror page at https://www.facebook.com/groups/shadowsinthemist.

Thank you for following my progress over all these years, and I apologize if I disenchanted you by constantly updating my own theory or dwelling overlong on those that did not, frankly, deserve anyone's attention.

THE LUCIUS ARTORIUS CASTUS STONE WITH ARMORICOS RESTORED FOR ARM[...]S

The LAC Stone with ARMORICOS

[ITEM, with the ITE ligature, in Line 3, circled in red for comparison with the proposed RI ligature. For the CO ligature, see the text below and the photos at the bottom of the page.]

A few weeks back there was a "heated debate" here on the KING ARTHUR: MAN AND LEGEND Facebook group page concerning the possibility that ARMORICOS could fit quite nicely on the Lucius Artorius Castus memorial stone (an idea floated in https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2021/05/well-this-is-embarrassing-arms-can-in.html).  I faced strong resistence to the idea, even though Alessandro Faggiani was kind enough to attempt some computer simulations of what the inscription would look like with O, ligatured RI and ligatured CO plugged into the gap in ARM[...]S. 

I didn't see a problem with the fit, but Alessandro insisted that the relevant letters had to be resized, spacing made uniform, etc.  It was his opinion, therefore, that the word could not be ARMORICOS. 

Only today I have had a moment to go at this the old-fashioned way.  Because any kind of manipulation can take place when using a photo editing program, I used a method that cannot be questioned:  I printed out two exactly identical copies of the same image of the stone as it is typically reconstructed.  In one copy I carefully cut out the letters O, R and C from the appropriate lines, where size of letters exactly matched the size of letters used for ARM[...]S.  The R and C actually come from the ARM[...]S line itself, while the O comes from the line directly under the ARM[...]S line. [There is no O in the ARM- line. But I measured that line and the following, and the average height of the letters in those two lines is the same. Only in the following line (two under ARM-) do the letters again get smaller. The O was the best one available, but looks overlarge in the space in which it was inserted - despite it being from one line below ARM-. To the millimeter (using my printout, and a really good ruler!), I can say that the ARM- line and the one under it, between their respective top and bottom lines, are of identical distance. So taking the O from the line under ARM- for use in ARM- is perfectly acceptable.]  I then copied the style of the I in Line's 3's ITE ligature for ITEM, as the Rs all have fairly flush left-hand surfaces on their verticals. I simply used an ink pen to draw the small O inside the C, as that is not a factor in determining fit.  If, as some claim, the inscription had to be visible from below [1] and so an o in C ligature would not be visible, I would point out firstly that the ARM[...]S line is near the bottom of the inscription, and so would be nearer to the viewer, and such o letters inside C letters are found in varying sizes, from smaller to larger.  For the sake of fairness, I have opted for an o that is about average size - not too small, but also not too large (see figures 1 and 2 below).  

While all three proposed letters (two being ligatures) can be moved back and forth to some slight extent, I settled on what looked to be a good compromise, based on spacing of similar letter groups on the stone.  Spacing which, I repeat, is NOT uniform, despite what some claim. Both spacing and ligatures throughout the stone show the usual space-saving methods being employed.  Other than any ligature(s) we propose for ARM[...]S, there are 17 ligatures evident on the stone.  Two are triple ligatures. I have shown that the CO ligature was used during LAC's time, and in Dalmatia, on a stone of nearly identical style that otherwise does not display this feature a second time (see Figure 1).  There is no problem whatsoever with the RI ligature. To assure everyone that I have not "cheated" in any way, the O is a nice, big fat O, the C is the normal C, etc.  I have not compressed or stretched or downsized or upsized anything. 

There is now no doubt whatsoever in my mind that ARMORICOS fits just fine on the stone [2], and is to be vastly preferred to the proposed ARMATOS or 'armed men' reading - which every established, reputable Latin epigrapher and Roman military historian refuses to accept due to its vagueness and nonspecificity (as Roger Tomlin noted, wryly, "Did any Roman officer ever boast instead of marching against INERMES, 'unarmed men'?").

NOTE on Armorica from http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=armoricae:  

Armŏrĭcae (later form Arēmŏrĭ-cae , Aus. Ep. 9, 35; id. Prof. 10, 15), ārum, f., = Ἀρμορικαί [ar, Celt. and old Lat., = ar, on, and mor, Celt., = mare],

I.some of the northern provinces of Gaul, Bretagne, with a part of Normandy, Caes. B. G. 5, 53; 7, 75; Hirt. 8, 31; cf. Mann. Gall. 160.

Examples of o within C ligatures (the first is from Roman Liburnia, in approximately the same time period as the LAC stone, while the second shows that larger o letters could be carved within a C):

Figure 1

[http://db.edcs.eu/epigr/bilder.php?s_language=en&bild=$CIL_03_02809.jpg;

 CIL 03, 02809 = Grbic 00011]

Figure 2

[http://gensartoria.altervista.org/ligatures/inscription.php?i=1&alt=RI#;

 ILAfr 00009 = ILTun 00001 = ILPBardo 00022 = D 09177 = LBIRNA 00332 = AE 1909, 00104 = AE 1986, 00704 = Kaschuba-1994, 00086]

Another example of CO ligature from around the time of LAC in Dalmatia:

https://db.edcs.eu/epigr/bilder.php?s_language=en&bild=$CIL_03_12726.jpg

From the splendid http://lupa.at/search site, when searching under the Antonine and Antonine-Severan periods in Dalmatia, I found another O inside a C ligature dated between 171 AD – 230 AD:

http://lupa.at/8838?query=1051359368

The same Website gives other examples from Dalmatia in the same time periods that demonstrate just how inventive such ligature could become:  

http://lupa.at/23279?query=1051359368

(C inside the O!)

http://lupa.at/24432?query=1051359368

(with an E inside the C!)

http://lupa.at/24404?query=504878180

(the O partly inside the C for consularis - to which we may compare the small o often found butted up against a larger C for the word cohors)

The IR ligature is also found on stones.  Here are two examples of how this particular ligature could be carved:

http://gensartoria.altervista.org/ligatures/inscription.php?i=1&alt=RI

http://gensartoria.altervista.org/ligatures/inscription.php?i=3&alt=RI

And another example of the RI ligature, found from around LAC's time in Dalmatia:

https://db.edcs.eu/epigr/bilder.php?s_language=en&bild=$CIL_03_12727.jpg

[1]

From Professor Roger Tomlin (personal communication):

"Yes, I think the increasing height of the letters implies that the reader was expected to be looking up at it, but I wouldn't press this too far. For one thing, it was natural to increase the height of important lines. Compare the heights of lines 1 and 2: the proportion is much greater than between lines 2 and 3. Also consider the Caerleon inscription (RIB 330) which would have been high above you, on top of a gate. The second line, with Trajan's name, is the same height as the sixth, with the Legion's name. The intervening lines are lower. And then consider the great inscription at the base of Trajan's Column. The natural viewpoint is (say) five yards away, from where it would be easy to read it all without moving an eye; but for the letters all to appear the same height, you would have to stand at the base, and look straight up, when they would become distorted and you would have to scan to and fro. (I took this point from Richard Grasby's The Making of Roman Inscriptions, Study I).

So a matter of style, I guess, rather than exact mathematical calculation – but the mathematics are beyond me any way. I certainly don't think you can use the letter-heights to calculate how high the inscription would have been above you – only that it was above you. And think of the Classicianus inscription (RIB 12), where DIS MANIBVS is almost twice the height of succeeding lines which are all much the same.

Enlarging the first letters of an inscription is rather like entasis: to overcome the optical illusion of a column seeming to spindle is like making line 1 not seem smaller than the lines below, but (as I said) the mathematics are beyond me."

[2]

For the sake of intellectual honesty, it should be known that ARMENIOS also fits on the stone and only one ligature (NI) is required.  For a reconstruction of the memorial stone displaying ARMENIOS, see http://christophergwinn.com/arthuriana/lac-sourcebook/.

While I once defended the Armenia reading for the LAC stone, several factors - not the least of which is simple logistics - forced me to abandon it.  Of the few records we have of troop movements from Britain to other locations, all identify Germany or the Rhine as destinations.  That a large legionary force would be taken from Britain all the way to Armenia seems rather incredible, once we weigh all the evidence.

What follows is a map of the Roman Empire in the time of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus.  I have drawn arrows to show the contrast in distance for Armorica and Armenia for vexillations leaving Britain.  The question we need to ask ourselves when viewing this map is whether it is more reasonable to assume LAC's troops went with him to Gaul (where we know the Deserters' War was being fought) or all the way across the entire Empire to Armenia.  

To quote my friend Peter Verburgh, who has accumulated a wealth of knowledge on the Roman army:

"It begs indeed the question why vexillationes from faraway Britain would need to be sent to Armenia when at the time there were 10 legions on the Central Front/Limes ( the two Pannonias and two Moesias ), and another 6 legions on the Oriental Front ( Judaea, Syria & Arabia ) , apart from the two stationed in Cappadocia."

THE CAMLANN-AVALON PROBLEM: A GOOD EXAMPLE OF THE KIND OF DIFFICULTY FACING THE ARTHURIAN RESEARCHER

Map of Hadrian's Wall, Showing Proximity of Camboglanna to Aballava

One of the most difficult part about being an Arthurian researcher is the multiplicity of possible site identifications that are encountered.  A good example of what I'm talking about are Arthur's Camlann and Avalon.

In the last few weeks I have revisited my "theories" on a Southern Arthur. In doing so, I once again had to explore potential places Camlann and Avalon could be situated.  The result?  One can find some Camlanns (well, the only real ones, i.e. that etymologically match a proposed British *Camboglanna, are in NW Wales), but no good nearby candidate for Avalon.  We must for the latter default to Geoffrey of Monmouth's Gerdavalan on the Camel (anciently Cambula; see https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2018/03/the-avalon-of-geoffrey-of-monmouth.html) or to Glastonbury. 

And we must make one fateful (fatal?) decision: choose to ignore that Camboglanna Roman fort on Hadrian's Wall, along with the Aballava/Avalana Roman fort only a few miles to the west.  We must also refuse to accept or acknowledge the presence of Dea Latis at Aballava, a literal 'Goddess of the Lake'.  While some have interpreted her name as relating to beer, because extensive marshes lay at Burgh By Sands and a Dea Ratis or 'Goddess of the Fort' is found in the same region, it is fairly certain we do have in this deity an apparent prototype for the Arthurian 'Lady of the Lake.'

So when we look at places like Camboglanna and Aballava, and we pour over early Arthurian sources such as the PA GUR poem, we come to realize that the traditions concerning Arthur are quite schizophrenic.  For some portray a man who is decidedly of the North, while others feed into the Southern tradition, which remains popular to this day.  For the man of the North we must be cautious we are not looking at a fusion of the more famous, earlier Arthur with the later Arthurs of Dyfed and Dalriada.

How does one decide where to good when searching for the true, historical Arthur?  Does one opt to go North or South?

Well, I'm afraid it comes down to two things.  Personal bias, obviously.  And that bias can be based in regional or nationalist pride or any number of other motivators.  Secondly, what makes the most sense logically.  While the application of logic to the Arthurian Question is itself fraught with danger, as logic can be used to prove just about anything (especially when objectively obtained evidence is mostly or wholly lacking), it is a better guide than mere intuition (which all too often derives from preconceived, personal belief). 

For me, three elements of the Northern Arthur prompt me to go in that direction.  One is that I can identify the Arthurian battle sites rather simply, without having to "get creative" by seeking them in the South under the guise of Welsh renderings of English place-names or, worse yet, by resorting to "sound-alike" etymologies (a forbidden sin engaged upon by amateurs with no knowledge of toponomastics).  Two, I do not have to ignore things like Camboglanna and Aballava.  And, three, archaeological findings in the North, and most notably on and near Hadrian's Wall, supports the view that someone like Arthur was operating in the area (see the works of Dr. Ken Dark for a good summary of this).

Ironically, my deciding for or against the North depends almost entirely on the interpretation of only one word found in the MARWNAT VTHYR PEN, the elegy poem for Uther Pendragon.  That word is kawyl.  If I stick with the emendation favored by the Welsh experts (like Marged Haycock and Simon Rodway), we can read the word as sawyl, a reference not only to the Biblical Samuel, but to Sawyl Benisel of Ribchester.  Like Uther, Sawyl had a son named Madog, although we know this only because of Irish records.  Sawyl's son was called Ailithir, 'other land', a designation for a pilgrim, and this title may be present in the Eliwlad name for the son of Madog, son of Uther. I have in my book THE BATTLE-LEADER OF RIBCHESTER written on this Eliwlad in great detail, citing many famous Celticists who confirmed my idea.

A Sawyl name in the poem would allow us to easily translate the pen kawell in the previous line as 'chief of the sanctuary', an epithet for God in the same line.  The god at the shrine where the Biblical Samuel served was literally called the deity of the sanctuary, and in the famous passages of Samuel's calling the action takes place in the darkness of the shrine, when the light of the lamp had not yet gone out.  

Or I can put kawyl forward as an error for Welsh cannwyll, a word which can have the transferred sense of  "star".  This would be a reference to Uther's dragon-headed star in Geoffrey of Monmouth's pseudo-history.  If kawyl is for cannwyll (something requiring several more steps to get to sawyl, which only needs a simple eye-skip by the copyist), then our best direct connection with Sawyl Benisel is lost. We might also try to see in pen kawell something else - even a place-name (like the River Cale, anciently Cawel, not far east of Cadbury Castle in Somerset). 

This is how tenuous Arthurian theory can be.  And we must never forget that it is just theory.  Well, actually, not even that, as a theory by definition is something that can be scientifically tested for its validity.  Rather, I would define it as a reconstruction built upon reasonable speculation. 

What does my gut tell me - after some three decades of questing after Arthur?  Yes, you read that right: my gut.  For at this point I really have nothing other to go on than instinct.  Not that different from intuition, although I continue to try very hard to avoid allowing belief-fueled impulses to influence my decision (and cloud my judgment).  

And my gut tells me the Northern Arthur is the right fellow.  It is probable that as most of Britain fell under the dominion of the Saxons, the Scots, and later the Vikings and the Normans, Arthur's story came to reside chiefly in what was still predominatly Celtic Wales and Cornwall.  This would be an explicable folkloristic process. We know the Arthurian legends even made their way to Brittany, itself of bastion of late Celticism.  Over time, most of the tradition concerning the original Arthur of the North was lost.  The lands where he was once victorious over the Germanic invader went from being Cumbric to English. He was effectively erased from the landscape.  Only some snippets of lore in the early Welsh poems were preserved.  His ghost survived only in that ethereal realm.    

My candidate for a historical Arthur will, therefore, remain the son of Sawyl Benisel of Ribchester.  If any new information should be forthcoming in the future that causes me to change my mind, I will  utilizie that in any reformulation of my prevailing "theory."

  

DINAS EMRYS, CUNEDDA AND ARTHUR: SOME ANSWERS TO READERS' QUESTIONS

Dinas Emrys Hillfort in Snowdonia, Wales

Having just tentatively proposed that Uther Pendragon is a Welsh folk etymology for the magister utriusque militiae rank of the 5th century British general Gerontius (a rank applied erroneously to a later Geraint namesake in Dumnonia), I have been asked several difficult questions concerning my earlier identification of Arthur with Ceredig son of Cunedda (= Cerdic of the Gewessei) and Cunedda's association with Dinas Emrys.  Essentially, these questions can be stated as follows:

1) Do I still hold to the notion that Dinas Emrys was the fort of Cunedda?  And that Dinas Emrys was also the Caer Dathal linked to Arthur twice in Welsh tradition?  It would appear Geoffrey of Monmouth's Tintagel was a substitute for Caer Dathal.  Eliwlad the eagle in the oak, son of Madog son of Uther, placed at a Madog's Wood in Cornwall, actually belonged at the Madog's Wood in Lleu's Nantlle in Snowdonia.

2) Have I decided to ignore the fact that Ceredig/Cerdic has three bear names among his immediate successors, all apparently related to the Bear River in his Welsh kingdom of Ceredigion?  Tied to this is the idea that Arthur (indisputably from Artorius) is a decknamen for an earlier Irish or Welsh 'bear-king' name.

3) If I abandon the idea that Ceredig/Cerdic was Arthur, how do I account for the fact that all the subsequent Arthurs belonged to Irish-descended dynasties in Britain?  After all, I had successfully shown that Cunedda was Irish and did not hail from the extreme North of Britain (Manau in Gododdin having been substituted for Drumanagh). 

These are genuinely tough problems to address.  I don't have to do so, of course.  But, truth be told, they continue to bother me as well.  Either we have a Dumnonian Arthur fighting in the South of England or a Hiberno-British Arthur fighting in the same place.  Which Arthur is a historical reality and which a construct?

To begin, I must confess that the weakness of the Cunedda = Uther Pendragon argument lies in the simple fact that the latter can't be shown to be something like Gerontius' magister utriusque militiae. We must instead view it as a heroic title applied to the former due to his association with the red dragon of Dinas Emrys.  And how do we do that?

Well, I explored that possibility in several articles here on my blog site.  But to summarize: 

The "Emrys" or Ambrosius of Dinas Emrys is a thoroughly legendary figure.  And, indeed, the Ambrosius placed at Wallop near Amesbury in the HISTORIA BRITTONUM is himself likely not a historical figure.  If he is, he is based on the Gaulish governor of that name, the father of St. Ambrose, who was a contemporary of the Emperor Constans who visited Britain in the 4th century.  As such, his being placed in the time of Vortigern is anachronistic.  Some vestiges of this temporal displacement remain in the HB (e.g. Ambrosius is said to have fought Vortigern's grandfather Vitalinus at Wallop).  

The transferrence in folk tradition of the supposedly historical Ambrosius, linked erroneously to Amesbury, to Dinas Emrys is difficult to account for.  We must delve into things Continental.  St. Ambrose and Magnus Maximus are connected in history with Aquileia.  While this latter place-name does not, in fact, derive from the Latin word for eagle - aquila - it may well have been seen that way.  As such, Eryri, the Welsh name for Snowdonia, which may derive from the Welsh word for eagle or at least been interpreted in that way (see Koch in CELTIC CULTURE), was substituted for Aquileia.  Magnus Maximus the tyrant was replaced at Dinas Emrys by Vortigern, who was called (through a mistaken interpretation of a passage from Gildas) the 'Fiery Pharaoh.'

The story of Emrys/Ambrosius and the two vases containing wrapped dragons is even more complicated.  Originally, these were cremation urns containing the wrapped bones of cremated chieftains that had been interred at Dinas Emrys.  It is possible the 'crossed serpent' insignum of nearby Roman Segontium may have influenced the account. To make matters worse, the two serpents became representative of the opposing genii (which took snake form in Roman religion) of the Britons and the Saxons.  Finally, St. Ambrose is said to have dug up two saints, one of whom was named Celsus.  Celsus in the Latin means exactly what Irish uachtar means, and according to Koch and others, Uther evolved from a British cognate of Irish uachtar.  

Emrys himself, as the boy who is to be made into the foundation sacrifice for the walls of Dinas Emrys, and as the 'Immortal/Divine One' (the meaning of ambrosius in Latin), appears to have been conflated with the Gwynedd god Lleu, who is the Lord of Gwynedd in the MABINOGION.  Lleu appears as an eagle (because of the Eryri interpretation mentioned above) in Nantlle of Snowdonia.  Geoffrey of Monmouth then decided to further identify Emrys/Ambrosius with the northern Myrddin (Merlin), and chose to identify Dinas Emrys with Amesbury and its Stonehenge.

Yet Geoffrey wasn't done yet!  He has Uther Pendragon (under the orders of Ambrosius), with the assistance of Merlin, build Stonehenge.  When he dies, the Terrible Chief-dragon is buried within the precincts of Stonehenge, thereby bringing events full circle or, rather, back to their beginning.  How so?  Because the dragon in the vase exhumed for Emrys at Dinas Emrys is not only in a sense St. Ambrose's Celsus, it is also Uther Pendragon.

Believe me, I know; this is all very confusing and even confounding in some ways.  But I am convinced this is the way the material developed.  

From this point on things get more interesting, at least from a possible historical perspective.  As Ambrosius at Dinas Emrys is a fiction, we are justified in asking to whom the fort actually belonged.  Well, we know Vortigern did not (as the HB says) give Dinas Emrys and all of Gwynedd to Ambrosius.  Who, then, might he have given it to (using the word 'given' with all due caution in this context)?

History tells us that at Vortigern's time, Gwynedd was taken or already in the possession OF CUNEDDA AND HIS SONS.  I have suggested that the lost Caer Dathal fort, twice connected with Arthur in the Welsh tradition, is most likely Dinas Emrys.  Dathal is an Irish personal name, the first element of which means 'quick', 'swift' and the like.  The name appears to be extent in a Latin replacement term at Beddgelert, in the parish of which Dinas Emrys stands.  Gelert or Celert is from the Latin celeritas, 'speed' (something I confirmed with Professor Dr. Peter Schrijver).  Some early spellings or pronunciations of Tintagel make its second component very similar to that of Caer Dathal.

If Uther were one of the men whose remains were found in a cremation urn, we need ask if there is any other suggestion that the fort may have belonged to him.  There may be.  Ambrosius has among its meaning 'eternal', and we are told in the HB that his unnamed father wore the purple.  In Welsh tradition, Cunedda's father was named Edern, i.e. Aeternus, and Edern's father was Padarn Pesrudd, from a Latin Paternus ('fatherly') and the epithet 'Red Tunic.'  It is possible, then, that lying under Ambrosius and his father wearing the purple lurks Edern son of Padarn Pesrudd.

As I already knew that Ceredig son of Cunedda was Cerdic of Wessex, and the two men had identical floruits, and I could show that the battles of Cerdic belonged to those of Arthur, with the remainder of Arthur's battles belonging to Cerdic's Gewessei successors, and because there were also three bear names in Ceredig's succession list, with a Bear River in his kingdom of Ceredigion, it seemed perfectly natural to identify Ceredig/Cerdic with Arthur.

Why did I go away from that theory?  Why did I look for an Arthur in the North - and only just recently another one in the South who descended from the Dumnonian royal line?

For no other reason than EVERYONE seemed to be dissatisfied with my identification of Arthur with Ceredig/Cerdic.  They could not get their heads around the idea that a man who fought with the Saxons against Britons could be the hero we have all come to cherish.  They did not want to accept that Arthur's 'dux' title was a perfect Latin rendering of the ealdorman title applied to Cerdic of Wessex.  And they did not want to acknowledge that the best way to explain the Artorius name was to relate it to what was obviously a bear cult in the Kingdom of Ceredigion.  Most still cling to the idea that it should be related to the 2nd century Roman prefect of York, Lucius Artorius Castus - and this despite the insistence by scholars in all fields that the transmission of Castus' name to someone in the 5th-6th centuries is highly improbable if not downright impossible.

And, thus, here we are. At a crossroads. Myself, I think Ceredig son of Cunedda was Artri or Arthri, and that name or title was dropped in favor of the Roman-sounding Artorius/Arthur.  Professor Roger Tomlin thinks that something like this happened, and he provided me with the following inscription as an example:

Trier (CIL XIII/1.1, no. 3909)

HIC QUIESCIT IN PACE URSULA . . . ARTULA MATER TIT(ULUM) POSUIT

In this case mother and daughter have the same name, the mother still in Celtic, the daughter already in the Roman tongue.  [See https://books.google.com/books?id=VgBtaDT-evYC&pg=PA90&lpg=PA90&dq=%22ursula%22%2B%22artula%22&source=bl&ots=7-P0UquCgY&sig=ACfU3U1LtSXRV9nJOHHZx0kj3Z9sqweFHA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi485Cw1ZXxAhXO854KHXTkAZ0Q6AEwEXoECBMQAw#v=onepage&q=%22ursula%22%2B%22artula%22&f=false]

In the case of both the Gwynedd and Dyfed Dark Age royal genealogies, we have clear and certain evidence that Roman names were substituted for the Irish.

With Ceredig as Arthur, and with him being of known Irish descent through his father Cunedda (of the Ciannachta), we can also account for why the subsequent Arthurs all belonged to Irish descended families in Britain.  Other attempts to account for this strangeness have failed.  One, pitched by a famous scholar of the era (Higham), claims that the bear name had become taboo among the Britons and so they avoided it, while the Irish had no problem picking it up.  Alas, the Irish were Christian from pretty early on, and we have plenty of Arth- names recorded for Welsh rulers during the Dark Ages.  

The question comes down to this: do we opt for Cunedda as Uther Pendragon or Geraint?  Arthur's placement in Dumnonia and his being related to that kingdom's royal line may well have been a secondary feature in the development of Arthurian legend. In fact, it may have become necessary.  As it stands, we have the ANGLO-SAXON CHRONICLE telling of Cerdic's victories in places where the Welsh claim Arthur won.  Clearly, both men could not have been victors in the same battles if they were on different sides!  Probably, then, it was found expedient to associate Arthur with Dumnonia so that his military exploits could be projected against the neighboring nucleus of southern Wessex in such a way as to make him seem the enemy of Cerdic of Wessex.  When, in reality, he was Cerdic of Wessex.

Truth be told, this effort on the part of the myth-makers may well have crippled my research for some time, as I was constantly being forced away from the notion that Arthur might have been fighting against other Britons - even if he were doing so on behalf of a high-king like Vortigern.  That Cerdic would have been a hero to the Welsh is made plain by the tombstone of Cunorix son of Maquicoline found at Wroxeter/Viroconium, an important Dark Age power center.  Cunorix is the ASC's Cynric, and Maqui-coline is second name of the Irish Cunedda, and corresponds to the ASC's Ceawlin.  While in this instance genealogies in the respective sources seemed to have been oddly reversed, a honored place of burial for one of the Gewessei (a tribal designation derived from the supposed meaning of Cerdic's own name) at the high-king's capital would imply that the Gewessei were in alliance with Saxons against British enemies of the king who ruled from Wroxeter.