THE EPIGRAPHERS REACH CONSENSUS ON THE CASTUS STONE

I've had an interesting - and surprising - turn of conversation with Dr. Benet Salway, who not long ago came out with a Severan date for the L. Artorius Castus memorial inscription. 

The determining factor in what should be read for the ARM[...]S lacuna of the inscription remains the most probable foundation date and date-range for the province of Liburnia: c.170 to 180. Essentially the duration of the Marcommanic Wars. Tomlin still holds to this view:

"The Armenian War and the new province of Liburnia do seem to fit neatly into sequence, quite close together. Castus is a procurator who is promoted to virtual governor, suggesting that this was an expedient anticipating what would become a new province."

Also, Armenia is a recorded war. There is still difficulty in equating the Deserters' War with a hypothetical full-scale Armorican rebellion. This fact makes reading ARMORICOS rather unattractive, despite Roman Gaul expert Dr. John Drinkwater's belief that such a rebellion could have been sparked by Maternus' actions (https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2025/01/armorica-rises-professor-john.html?m=1).

Basically, what has happened is that Tomlin and Salway seem to be on the same wavelength, although they came at the problem from slightly different directions. And Armenios continues to look like the winner of the emendation contest.

To begin with Benet Salway on the Castus stone date:

"Coming to the stone cold without any presuppositions and basing my opinion purely on the script, I would favour a date in the Severan period (AD 193-235) or up to a decade or so later. I base this on the high degree of ligaturing in the design."

Commenting on Dr. Abigail Graham's opinion of the stone

(https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2025/02/the-most-recent-date-analysis-of-l.html?m=1), which follows Salway with a Severan date, Tomlin said:

"Abigail's treatment I thought was sensitive and well-informed – I would rather not start tackling it in detail since it would involve so much looking-up and checking. Despite the ligatures, I am not happy with the idea that this inscription – one of such quality – cannot therefore be Antonine. This may only be my epigraphic pessimism and my tendency to over-generalise from RIB 1340 (https://romaninscriptionsofbritain.org/inscriptions/1340), which shows Hadrian quite happy with ligatures and one letter squeezed inside another."

And from Salway on the Castus ARM[...]S lacuna:

"Your comparanda indeed show that Armoricos is possible. So both supplements are possible in the space, as you demonstrate.

But Armenios is more plausible because there is no evidence from elsewhere on this stone that this particular drafter (ordinator) employs ‘nesting’ (o within C).

Whereas there a several examples of ligaturing I by extending an upright."

Roger on that comment:

"I hadn't thought of Salway's point about O nesting within C, but it's a good one, when you consider how the stone-cutter treated the O within PROVINCIAE."

[See the conjoined RO of PROVINCIAE

in the second to the last line.]

My proposed use of ARMORICOS, with o nesting in C:

[ARMENIOS with ligatured NI.]

My question to Salway went as follows:

"If you have LAC commissioned directly into the centurionate (something Roger Tomlin has assured me is quite possible), and allow him to be in his mid-40s, rather than mid-50s, when he goes to Armenia in the early 160s, and then have him made procurator of Liburnia c. 168, he would then be around 50. Let him serve a decade or so (the Marcommanic Wars ended in 182), then retire. He may have made his stone anytime during the reign of Commodus, which is when the procurator centenarius formula first shows up (c. 190). In 180 (when Commodus started ruling on his own), LAC would be in his early 70s. In 190, his early 80s. There is nothing far-fetched or unrealistic about this - even if we allow for LAC having retired prior to the end of the Marcomannic Wars. He still could have lived in retirement for enough years to take him to the time of Commodus or even a bit beyond and to have then carved his memorial stone.  

Tomlin has pointed out to me that some soldiers' careers could be very long indeed. He cites Pflaum for Cn. Marcius Rustius Rufinus, who became centurion in the reign of Marcus, and proceeded through a series of posts like those held by LAC to become Severus' praefectus vigilum in c.207, enjoying a 30-year career.

Reasonable conclusion?"

His response:

"Yes, all perfectly plausible."

It then only remained for me to circle back to Graham to see if ARMENIOS in this context worked for her.

Her reply?

"Yes,  I think that would be plausible, too."

So, from seeming an impossibility at the outset of my discussion of ARMENIOS for Castus, we've gone to uniform acceptance.

Given that ARMATOS and ARM(ATAS) GENTES don't work for the lacuna, and neither does ARMORICOS, mere process of elimination now heavily favors ARMENIOS.