7/4/2020:
After an exhaustive and lively discussion with Linda Malcor and her colleagues, I have come to the conclusion that the Armenios identification for the ARM- of the LAC inscription has a major problem of its own. This was pointed out to me by Antonio Trinchese. I can best present what this problem is by quoting from Anthony Birley's THE ROMAN GOVERNMENT OF BRITAIN:
"It may have been the sudden death of a recently appointed governor of
Britain (Gov. 28), or perhaps just the difficult military situation in the north of
the province, that led the emperors to transfer Priscus there soon after their
accession. As stated by the HA: ‘a British war was also threatening’ in 161 (M.
Ant. Phil. 8. 7) and had to be dealt with by Priscus’ successor (Gov. 30).⁷⁷ Priscus
can only have spent some months in Britain when a more serious crisis
occurred in the East: the defeat and death of the governor of Cappadocia and
the invasion of Syria by the Parthians.⁷⁸ Priscus was chosen to deal with this
crisis, and won a major victory, capturing the Armenian capital Artaxata (HA
M. Ant. Phil. 9. 1, cf. Verus 7. 1) and founding a new one, which he garrisoned
(Dio 71. 3. 1¹)."
It seems to me that if war was looming in Britain, detachments from three legions would certainly not have been removed to go with Priscus to Armenia. And this is exactly what Trinchese emphasized.
Because of this revelation, I'm still curious about those 1500 spearmen supposedly sent to Rome. In a previous post I explained how this number was perfect for three vexillations of 500 drawn from each of the three British legions. My readers may recall that I started out thinking those were LAC's. And there are certainly scholars who support this idea. These 1500 British troops may also have been sent to Armorica to deal with Maternus and, from there, went to deal with Perennis. This scheme has some merit. I suspect the way it must have happened, given the chronology detailed in Birley, is that the senatorial legate of the Sixth Legion at York - Priscus? - was removed, and this brought about the sending of the delegation to Rome. Priscus, in fact, may well have been offered the purple PRECISELY BECAUSE HE HAD BEEN REMOVED FROM OFFICE BY PERENNIS. Birley proposes the opposite, i.e. that he was removed in punishment for refusing the purple - which makes little sense to me. He should have instead been awarded for his loyalty, in that case. We could instead imagine this force being sent to Armorica under LAC. Then Priscus, still in Britain, is removed and offered the purple. He refuses, and orders LAC and his three legionary detachments to go to Rome to deal with Perennis. They kill Priscus and return home. Or return to Armorica to continue dealing with the Deserters' War. It is also reasonable to assume that such a large force had to be sent not only to lend the delegation weight, but to protect the delegate(s) from the chaotic conditions then present in Gaul.
I will be treating more fully of this possible justification for reading ARM- as Armoricos in a future post.
I will be treating more fully of this possible justification for reading ARM- as Armoricos in a future post.
***
NOTE: Since this post was published, the objection has been raised that ARMENIOS could not have been used by Lucius Artorius Castus if he were part of the "reconquest" of Armenia from the Parthians in 163 A.D.. But, in fact, there is a strong likelihood that this is exactly the way he would have worded the campaign. For because of what Statius Priscus accomplished in Armenia, Verus was awarded the title ARMENIACUS, 'Conqueror of the Armenians.' To claim his fair share of this honorific, LAC would not have missed the opportunity to use ARMENIOS in his own memorial inscription. In other words, LAC would have wanted to memorialize his role in a famous, successful military campaign which yielded the Armeniacus title for Verus.
From Anthony Birley's THE ROMAN GOVERNMENT OF BRITAIN:
Priscus was chosen to deal with this crisis, and won a major victory, capturing the Armenian capital Artaxata (HA M. Ant. Phil. 9. 1, cf. Verus 7. 1) and founding a new one, which he garrisoned
(Dio 71. 3. 1¹). These successes allowed L. Verus to assume the title Armeniacus in 163.⁷⁹
From Fronto - Selected Letters (https://books.google.com/books?id=WbAJAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA104&lpg=PA104&dq=fronto+selected+letters&source=bl&ots=jOy4Hmu16i&sig=ACfU3U2_uEBg6xZBjMcGVWjEn_M1WI0zQA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi_ueih0q_qAhXEIjQIHbhpBAIQ6AEwBnoECBQQAQ#v=onepage&q=armeniacus&f=false):
I emphasize the fact that Medicus and Parthicus were titles gained later by Verus.
I'm discussing this matter more fully with Professor Roger Tomlin and will report back here on any additional comments he may have.
NOTE TWO: 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)."
"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."
NOTE 3: Malcor and colleagues claim that the Procuratorship of Liburnia was not established until after 185. But this is not so, as proven by L. Medini in "Provincia Liburnia", Diadora, vol. 9, Zadar, 1980, page 433. Medini's treatment of the subject is discussed by Nicholas J. Higham in https://books.google.com/books?id=TPR0DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA29&lpg=PA29&dq=Provincial%20Liburnia%2BMedini&source=bl&ots=1pzRhYqF-5&sig=ACfU3U3osSspkelEY_V-s9mIQLrojWvR-Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwir5dq4lrHqAhWhKH0KHf5ZBWkQ6AEwAXoECAoQAQ&#v=onepage&q=Provincial%20Liburnia%2BMedini&f=false:
Miletic's article may be found here:
Julijan Medini's study may be found here:
This perfectly accords with LAC going to Armenia with British legionary vexillations in 163.
Map of Armenia and the Roman client states in eastern Asia Minor, ca. 50 AD, before the Roman–Parthian War and the annexation of the client kingdoms into the Empire
Professor Roger Tomlin has just summed up for me the reading ARMATOS for the Lucius Artorius description. His opinion matches that of all other Latin/Roman epigraphers I have consulted, who see ARMATOS as overly ambiguous and horribly nonspecific.
"I don't like the ARMATOS idea. Much too vague: it would assume that the Roman army sometimes campaigned against 'unarmed' persons. If 'dissidents' are meant, I would expect REBELLES."
Yet the ARMATOS reading is necessary if Malcor and her co-authors (Malcor, L.A., Trinchese, A., Faggiani, A., Missing Pieces: A New Reading of the Main Lucius Artorius Castus Inscription, Journal of Indo-European Studies, Vol. 47, no 3 & 4 Fall/Winter, 2019, pp. 415-437) are to place LAC at a time when he could have interacted with the Sarmatians in Britain. If the best and more sensible reading for the stone is chosen - that of ARMENIOS - then LAC is pushed back before the arrival of the 5,500 Sarmatians in Britain. And that means that we totally lose any supposed connection of the legendary Arthur to the Sarmatians.
ARMORICOS for ARM- both doesn't fit the space allowed on the stone (without resorting to an atypical CO ligature not evinced elsewhere on the stone) and is not otherwise found in a single Roman inscription. Roger Tomlin literally says "the seven letters required cannot be fitted into the space available." We also have no record of trouble in Armorica until the 3rd century.
The only thing that works is ARMENIOS. This name is found many times in various forms in the Roman corpus of inscriptions.
It seems, then, that rather than look to the Sarmatians, we should instead look to the Dalmatians. Professor John Wilkes once told me about the strong likelihood that the branch of the Artorii to which Lucius Artorius Castus belonged to hailed from Dalmatia, and that it made sense for him, therefore, to finish his career there, or at least for his family to have honored him there with a significant stone. We find Dalmatian troops serving into the late period at Carvoran/Magnis on Hadrian's Wall near Banna/Birdoswald and Camboglanna/Castlesteads (a fact I will turn my attention to at a different time).
From Professor John Wilkes (personal communication):
"Moreover, since there are several records of Artorii from Dalmatia, it seems probable that his military career was honoured in his native land."
Importantly, I find Birley discussing Statius Priscus, himself probably from Dalmatia, being hand-picked by Julius Severus OF DALMATIA (although, it should be noted, Anthony Birley places Priscus's birthplace in Italy; see Viri Militares Moving from West to East in Two Crisis Years (Ad 133 and 162) and Two Governors of Dacia Superior and Britain). This Priscus was governor of Britain, and went straight from there in an emergency mode to Armenia. He had a great victory there.
Why could we not have LAC, as prefect of the Sixth under Priscus, being chosen with detachments of legions to go with Priscus to Armenia? ARMENIOS as a reading for his stone would then work perfectly. After Armenia he was awarded the procuratorship of Liburnia IN DALMATIA as a reward for his service.
The only problem I can think of is that there seem to be (according to some) problems with the stone in the sense that 169+ would be too early for its style of writing. But is this indeed so? Not according to the best Latin epigraphers.
"I agree with you that the –S precludes any abbreviation of the people's name. The connection with Statius Priscus and the Armenians is the one I like too: I didn't want to push you in any direction, but I do advocate it in my Britannia Romana (2018), at pp. 155–7. If you mean the lettering of the stone, I don't think this is a problem. It looks 'Antonine' to me, and I am wary of close dating by letter-forms alone: stone-cutters must have learnt their style, and kept on doing it for quite a while, just like us with our handwriting."
I have the relevant pages from Tomlin's article below.
Ironically, I had entertained this notion a long time ago. I think it makes perfect sense of the LAC inscription. And, as I said below, takes into account the marvelous Dalmatian connection between Statius Priscus, Severus and LAC.
BRITANNIA ROMANA
ROMAN INSCRIPTIONS AND ROMAN BRITAIN
R S O TOMLIN
Published in the United Kingdom in 2018 by
OXBOW BOOKS
The Old Music Hall, 106–108 Cowley Road, Oxford, OX4 1JE
and in the United States by
OXBOW BOOKS
1950 Lawrence Road, Havertown, PA 19083
© Oxbow Books and the author 2018
https://www.scribd.com/read/371931269/Britannia-Romana-Roman-Inscriptions-and-Roman-Britain#
Pp. 155-7
7
MARCUS AURELIUS AND COMMODUS
Two officers of the Sixth Legion
Fifty years almost to the day separate the deaths of Antoninus Pius (7 March AD
161) and Septimius Severus (4 February AD 211). In this half-century the tide of
Roman rule in northern Britain continues to ebb and flow as on a darkling plain.
In AD 161 the new emperor Marcus Aurelius – like Hadrian at his accession – is
said by his ancient biographer to have been threatened by war in Britain.¹ His
new governor was the formidable general Statius Priscus, but Marcus sent him
to the East instead to cope with a much greater threat, the Parthian invasion of
Syria.² He also reinforced the eastern armies with three legions³ from the
Danube, and it is likely that he told Priscus to take legionary reinforcements
with him from Britain. The evidence is indirect, this tombstone from the eastern
Adriatic coast:
<7.01>Podstrana, Croatia (Epetium)
M(anibus)
D(is)
L(ucius) Artori[us Ca]stus (centurio) leg(ionis)
III Gallicae item [(centurio) le]g(ionis) VI Ferratae
item (centurio) leg(ionis) II Adi[utr(icis) i]tem (centurio) leg(ionis) V M[a]-
c(edonicae)
item p(rimus) p(ilus) eiusdem [leg(ionis)], praeposito(!)
classis Misenatium, [pr]aef(ectus) leg(ionis) VI
Victricis, duci(!) leg(ionum) [triu]m Britanici-
{mi}arum(!) adversus Arm[enio]s, proc(urator) centenario(!)
provinciae Li[b(urniae) iure] glad(i)I, vivus
ipse sibi et suis [… ex] t(estamento)
ILS 2770, with Loriot 1997
‘To the Shades of the Dead. Lucius Artorius Castus, centurion of the Third
Legion Gallica, also centurion of the Sixth Legion Ferrata, also centurion of
the Second Legion Adiutrix, also centurion of the Fifth Legion Macedonica,
also the first-ranking centurion of the same legion, acting-commander of
the Fleet at Misenum, prefect of the Sixth Legion Victrix, general of (de-
tachments of) the three British legions against the Armenians, procurator
at a salary of 100,000 (sesterces) of Liburnia with capital jurisdiction,
(provided for this tomb) by the terms of his will, for himself and his family
in his own lifetime.’
The lettering is very fine, but the draughtsman or the stone-cutter made some
mistakes. Although Artorius Castus (in the nominative) is clearly the subject,
the case shifts to the dative in noting his posts of praeposito, duci and
centenario, as if he had become his own dedicatee. praef(ectus) was cut as PRA-
EFF, although the repeated F should indicate a plural (‘prefects’), and BRI-
TANICIMIARVM is a blunder for Britannicianarum. It is incidentally an example
of the ‘continental’ spelling Britania (see note to 8.12). The inscription is un-
dated, 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).
Artorius Castus was an equestrian, but virtually governor of Liburnia, the
coast and islands of modern Croatia, the only one attested. His salary of
100,000 sesterces set him in the second grade of procurators, above those who
earned 60,000 (see note to 8.13), but he also exercised special authority: the
‘right of the sword’ (ius gladii) gave him jurisdiction in capital cases and the
power of ordering executions. This would have infringed upon the powers of
the senatorial legate of Dalmatia, of which Liburnia was part, and it is notable
that his previous mission was also of a kind more often entrusted to senators.⁴
This handsome slab is now broken into two pieces, with an irregular band
of letters lost in the gap between them, but the name of the deceased can be re-
stored with the help of another inscription from Epetium which names Lucius
Artorius Castus as first-ranking centurion (primus pilus) of the Fifth Legion
Macedonica and prefect of the Sixth Legion Victrix.⁵ This guarantees the
restoration of ARTORI[VS CA]STVS across the gap in the first line (not counting
D M, since it was cut outside the panel), and allows the gap to be measured: it
narrows to two letters in the fifth line, the beginning of [PR]AEFF, before it
widens again. In most lines some three or four letters have been lost, which
means that the name of the province, LIBVRNIAE, must have been abbreviated;
but, more importantly, that in the line above, only three or four letters have
been lost from the name of Artorius Castus’ opponents, the ARM[…O]S.⁶ His
post of dux legionum (‘general of legions’) means that he actually commanded,
not whole legions, but elements of them, a ‘task force’ consisting of detach-
ments drawn from the legions of a province. But who were his opponents?
At this crucial point the first editor, Carrara in 1850, read ARME[…], which
(since he did not read the right-hand piece and then restore Arme[nio]s) rather
suggests that he saw the remains of E in the broken edge; but if so, they have
since been lost. Mommsen, who did not see the original, restored it in CIL as
ARM[ORICANO]S, which would imply a campaign, not against the ‘Armenians’,
but the ‘Armoricans’ of Brittany. Since there is no other reference to such a
campaign, and the seven letters required cannot be fitted into the space avail-
able, Mommsen’s restoration is difficult to accept, let alone the idea it has since
inspired, the catalyst of much speculation, that Artorius Castus is the original
‘King Arthur’. Loriot was surely right to dismiss this as a modern myth when he
reasserted ARME[NIO]S, even though he worked from poor photographs and
(to repeat) there was no longer evidence of a decisive E.⁷ This campaign
‘against the Armenians’ has been attributed to the eastern wars of Caracalla or
Severus Alexander, but the inscription looks earlier than the third century, and a
more attractive attribution is to Statius Priscus’ invasion of Armenia in AD 163.
This was so successful that Marcus Aurelius and his colleague Lucius Verus,
the nominal commander-in-chief, assumed the title of Armeniacus (‘Conqueror
of Armenia’). Statius Priscus, as already said, had just been transferred from
governing Britain; that his army included British legionaries, under one of his
own senior officers in Britain, Artorius Castus, is a brighter suggestion than to
invoke the Celtic shades of ‘Arthurian’ legend.
And the following selection on Statius Priscus from Anthony Birley's THE ROMAN GOVERNMENT OF BRITAIN:
Statius Priscus’ governorship was very brief, not more than a year at most,
starting in summer 161. But his career throws a good deal of light on the workings of the military system. The name Statius is fairly common, and the other items in his nomenclature
are also too indistinctive to indicate his origin, except for the tribe
Claudia, found more frequently than elsewhere in regio X of Italy and in
certain communities of the northern provinces.⁶⁸ Northern Italy, where a
good many Statii are attested, or one of the cities of the Dalmatian coast look
likely areas for his home.⁶⁹ Colchester (Camulodunum) is also just possible: a
first-century legionary named Statius, with the tribe Claudia, derived from
there,⁷⁰ and Priscus’ first appointment, as prefect of the Fourth Cohort of
152 High Officials of the Undivided Province
⁶⁷ On the basis of the drawing, a different expansion of the missing parts of ll. 1–2 is given here to that in the original publication; and [leg. Augusto]r. is read in l. 3 in preference to [leg. Augustor. pr.p]r.
⁶⁸ Kubitschek, Imperium Romanum, 270.
⁶⁹ There are over 70 examples of the nomen in CIL v., including two Statii Prisci (1385, 4098), more than twice as many as in CIL ix. and x., more than three times as many as in CIL xi. The tribe Claudia and nomen Statius are well represented in Dalmatia and N. Italy: Alföldy, Konsulat, 314 f., proposes Dalmatia as Priscus’ home; Piso, Fasti, 73, favours N. Italy. ⁷⁰ CIL iii. 11233.
Lingones, stationed in Britain, would suit such an origin.⁷¹ Equally, the governor
who probably gave him his commission, Julius Severus (Gov. 21), was
himself from Dalmatia and perhaps offered him the post because he was a
fellow-countryman. He was no doubt taken from Britain to the Jewish war, for
service in which he received a decoration, by Severus. There is no need to
suppose that Priscus took his cohort to Judaea. More likely Severus promoted
him to be tribune in the Syrian legion III Gallica, which participated in the
war; he probably went on to serve as tribune in a detachment of the Upper
Pannonian legion X Gemina, also participating in the Jewish war. Since a
third tribunate followed, in another legion of Upper Pannonia, it may be conjectured that he returned to that province with X Gemina and was retained
there, as tribune of I Adiutrix.⁷² After this he finally entered the third militia, as
prefect of an ala in Cappadocia; and then moved to the procuratorial career
with a rather lowly post as sexagenarius, in charge of the vicesima hereditatium, the 5 per cent inheritance tax, in two Gallic provinces.⁷³ Thereafter he changed course markedly by entering the senate. It must be inferred that Antoninus Pius granted him the latus clavus. Priscus may have owed his advance to the patronage of Lollius Urbicus (Gov. 24), whose
influence in the 140s was no doubt considerable. But he did not receive any
remission (except that he was excused the vigintivirate), unlike many who
transferred from the equestrian career to the senate at other periods, such as
the reign of Vespasian or during the Marcomannic Wars. This reflects the
conservatism of the reign. Priscus must have been well over 30 when he
entered the senate as quaestor, and well over 50 when he became consul. Still,
once he had held the compulsory Republican magistracies, he had the type of
career enjoyed by men like Julius Agricola (Gov. 11), Julius Severus (21), and
Lollius Urbicus (24): only two posts, the first a legionary command, between
praetorship and consulship. His governorship of Upper Dacia, immediately preceding his consulship, is dated closely by diplomas, to 13 December 156 and 8 July 158, and a dedication he made at Apulum as consul designate can be assigned to autumn 158.⁷⁴ Governors from Antoninus Pius to Commodus 153
⁷¹ Suggested diffidently by A. R. Birley, EOS ii. 536, 538.
⁷² The order of legionary tribunates was interpreted otherwise in CP, no. 136, and by P. Bathololomew, CR 36 (1986), 279. For the order proposed above, see Devijver, PME S 78. A tribune of X Gemina, Sex. Attius Senecio, was ‘sent on the Jewish expedition by the deified Hadrian’, with a detachment (CIL vi. 3505; PME A 188; Ritterling, RE 12/2 (1925), 1685, was a little hesitant as to
whether Senecio took men from X Gemina, but was confident that it was involved in the war). On this interpretation, his decoration, a vexillum, was gained for service as tribune, hardly sufficient for this rank, but matching Hadrian’s practice (cf. n. 5 above). Piso, Fasti, 69 and n. 4, takes a different
view on Priscus’ equestrian militiae.
⁷³ Pflaum, CP, no. 136.
⁷⁴ CIL xvi. 107 (assigned to 156 or 157: but other consuls are now known for 157, P. Weiss, Chiron, 29 (1999), 165ff.); 108; CIL iii. 1061=ILS 4006=IDR iii. 5, 185, Apulum, discussed by Piso, Fasti, 70. Before that he had commanded the Carnuntum legion XIV Gemina, perhaps when Claudius Maximus, the friend of M. Aurelius, was governing Upper Pannonia (he is attested there in 150 and 154). Priscus’ consulship as ordinarius for 159 was a remarkable honour for a novus homo—only one other man of comparable background, the jurist Salvius Julianus, received similar distinction during this reign. One reason in Priscus’ case was no doubt his military success in Dacia, revealed by inscriptions from that province.⁷⁵ After his consulship he had a brief spell as curator of the Tiber, but before the end of 160 must have become governor of Upper Moesia, where he is attested in office on 8 February 161.⁷⁶ He was still there, not surprisingly, after the death of Pius the following month, as shown by his dedication in honour of M. Aurelius and L. Verus, set up after he had been appointed to Britain.
It may have been the sudden death of a recently appointed governor of
Britain (Gov. 28), or perhaps just the difficult military situation in the north of
the province, that led the emperors to transfer Priscus there soon after their
accession. As stated by the HA: ‘a British war was also threatening’ in 161 (M.
Ant. Phil. 8. 7) and had to be dealt with by Priscus’ successor (Gov. 30).⁷⁷ Priscus
can only have spent some months in Britain when a more serious crisis
occurred in the East: the defeat and death of the governor of Cappadocia and
the invasion of Syria by the Parthians.⁷⁸ Priscus was chosen to deal with this
crisis, and won a major victory, capturing the Armenian capital Artaxata (HA
M. Ant. Phil. 9. 1, cf. Verus 7. 1) and founding a new one, which he garrisoned
(Dio 71. 3. 1¹). These successes allowed L. Verus to assume the title Armeniacus
in 163.⁷⁹ The satirist Lucian alleges that a contemporary historian
described ‘how Priscus the general merely shouted out and twenty-seven of
the enemy dropped dead’ (How to Write History 20). Hardly serious evidence,
but perhaps Priscus had an aggressive style of leadership. The choice of
Priscus to be recalled from Britain to deal with a crisis in the East exactly
parallels the sending of Julius Severus (Gov. 21) to Judaea thirty years earlier.
Severus was described as ‘the foremost of Hadrian’s leading generals’ in that
154 High Officials of the Undivided Province
⁷⁵ CIL iii. 1416=IDR iii. 3, 276, Sub Cununi, is a dedication by Priscus to Victoria Augusta, and the inscription from Apulum cited in the previous note was made ‘for the safety of the Roman Empire and the courage of the legion XIII Gemina under Marcus Statius Priscus, consul designate’. See Piso, Fasti, 70f., properly dismissing arguments from this inscription that the governorship and command
of the legion were separate; he also stresses the reinforcements sent from Africa and Mauretania listed in the diploma of 158, CIL xvi. 108, as evidence for serious fighting.
⁷⁶ RMD i. 55.
⁷⁷ Licinius Clemens, prefect of cohors I Hamiorum, who dedicated two altars at Carvoran under Priscus’ successor Calpurnius Agricola, might have owed his appointment to Priscus, who bore the additional names Licinius Italicus. An officer called Licinius Nigrinus had served under him in Dacia
(CIL xvi. 108). Perhaps both were kinsmen.
⁷⁸ Birley, Marcus Aurelius2, 121ff.
⁷⁹ Ibid. 129.
connection (Dio 69. 13. 3, see Gov. 21). Priscus, after his success in Dacia in the late 150s, was no doubt equally highly rated. These two cases underline the
high military status of Britain and its governors. He is not heard of again, and may have died soon afterwards. No children are recorded, but M. Statius Longinus, governor of Moesia Inferior under Macrinus, might be a descendant.⁸⁰
