The 'Lac' stone with ARMENIOS restored for ARM-
[Some thoughts engendered during a lively discussion on the CASTUS SYMPOSIUM Facebook page:
I've been thinking long and hard about the proposed reading of ARMATOS for ARM- in the LAC inscription. Have even tried rather ridiculous ways to make the term more specific. Looked at the god Armatus in Dalmatia and the ancient Dalmatian Armistae tribe. Have even looked at the Bagaudae ('combatants'; X. Delamarre), and the followers of Maternus. I even tried to find a way to use armatos for the Praetorians of Perennis! But in every case the use of Armatos as a "translation" or generic term for some other group simply doesn't work. Not in the context of the LAC stone. ARMORICOS (although earlier sources prefer ARMORICANOS - if we allow for the loss of the original ARE- prefix spelling) could work, only that 1) such a CO ligature would be atypical for this stone 2) we know of no Armoricos problem in the period in any other source and 3) Armoricos does not appear on any other inscriptions.
So while the discussion regarding the ranks of LAC in terms of possible dating is certainly of vital importance, until we can get a firmer fix on ARM- I have to go with what makes the most sense. And that is ARMENIOS, which fits beautifully on the stone AND matches up with Statius Priscus, governor of Britain, being sent on an emergency footing to Armenia in the 160s. The problem with the ranks of LAC is that we simply don't know when they might have first been used. For all we know, they may have first been used in the mid second century. He may even be the first to have held some of these. I mean, the ranks in question had to be invented at some point. When precisely that happened we simply don't know. Lacking that information with any certainty, I have to go with what works in terms of known movement of personal from Britain in the time period we are considering (the Antonine). I would love to be able to link LAC to the 1500 spearmen sent on a delegation to execute Perennis and "save" Commodus. But I can't come up with anything for ARM- that works for that. Unless we allow for the same group being sent against the followers of Maternus, which some scholars have proposed. In which case we would expect - beyond a doubt - ADVERSUS MATERNUS - or 'against deserters', as this was known as the Deserters' War. No reason whatsoever to say 'against armed men/soldiers.'
The opposition's argument regarding LAC's ranks can be spelled out thusly: when we cull all examples of dux legionum/is and praepositus classis from the CIL database, we do not find any that can be precisely dated to prior c. 190 or c. 170, respectively. This is considered proof that Armenia is not possible for LAC, and that his tombstone must be dated to c. 190 and not to an earlier part of the 2nd century. They will not allow that inscriptions that contained these ranks in an earlier period may not have survived or that LAC's ranks may be the earliest example in the epigraphic record. This is not arguing from evidence, but from a convenient lack of evidence.
Roger Tomlin's response to this is significant:
"I am suspicious of these attempts to tie down the word praepositus. It is very common in Classical writers, simply in the sense of being 'appointed' to some command. Tacitus [first century], for example, uses it of provincial governors, fleet-commanders and legionary legates."
On the rank of dux, Tomlin shared his view (which is held by the majority of his colleagues):
"I think they are treating dux and praepositus as formal ranks (as indeed they are in the Late Empire) when they really mark acting appointments in emergency: 'in charge of' and 'leader (of)'.
I would take a closer look at Valerius Maximianus (AE 1956, 124) and Salvius Rufus (ILS 9200). Valerius Maximianus is praepositus of legionary vexillations and fleet detachments quite early in Marcus' reign, much the same time as Artorius Castus. While Salvius Rufus, having been 'prefect' of many legionary vexillations, heads an army in Africa to crush a revolt, duci exercitus Africae et Mauretanici ad nationes quae sunt in Mauretania conprimendas. His career extends from Vespasian to Trajan. Incidentally, he becomes procurator of Raetia with special powers, proc(urator) provinciae Raetiae ius gla[d]i. A nice early example for you of a procurator with 'ius gladii'."
[NOTE: Professor John Wilkes also spoke with me about the above-mentioned Valerius Maximianus.
With one or two exceptions, e.g. V Macedonica transferred from Lower Moesia to Dacia in AD 167, entire legions were not moved from permanent bases after Hadrian, while there is considerable evidence in the 2nd and 3rd centuries for ad hoc commands of task forces drawn from several legions and their associated auxiliary units under tribunes or more senior figures. Look up Valerius Maximianus under Marcus Aurelius."]
The notion that the ARMATOS or armed men/soldiers were some vague group or admixture of groups in Britain itself - the explanation preferred by Dr. Linda A. Malcor and colleagues - is impossible to sustain. It is simply too vague, ambiguous and nonspecific, and I've not found a single other top Latin epigrapher or Roman military historian who will accept it. Roger Tomlin has expressed what dissidents in Britain would be called (see below), and Tomlin's view that ARM- is Armenios is now universally accepted.
Antonio Trinchese, one of Malcor's co-authors of the paper on ARMATOS, has suggested that "armatos" as a word similar to "rebelles", defectores "," hostes publicos " - all used in similar inscriptions - has a more noble meaning, which gives more prestige to the person honored in the epigraph. To which I would respond: If LAC is providing us with a listing of his illustrious career, a resume of heroics, why in the world would he supply a vague term for an enemy that also conferred prestige on that enemy? If he is boasting of his command of legionary detachments (or entire legions, according to Malcor's interpretation), why would he wish to confer honorary status on those he fought against? Unless, of course, he respected them and felt badly about having to fight against them! That makes no sense to me, sorry.
If we are going to stick with ARMATOS, we are going to have to be able to show who they were, exactly, and where they were. And we can't. I contend that such information would not have been left off the stone, but HAS to be present in ARM- itself. Which means ARM- in the context of the LAC stone HAS to represent a geographical determinative.
CONCLUSION: We have to be careful in saying Armenios is unique in Roman epigraphy. Yes, true for that EXACT spelling - which, however, IS found in Latin literary contexts. Various other forms of indicating 'of Armenia' or 'conqueror of Armenia' and the like are quite common. ARMENIAM in CIL 06, 41142, for example. Nothing whatsoever for Armoricos, which in the early period ought to be Aremoricos or, better yet, Aremoricanos. I think we can safely dispense with this last.
That the Roman governor Statius Priscus would have left Britain BY HIMSELF and been shipped off to Armenia is unrealistic and, indeed, a bit ridiculous. It would have been quite natural for him to take with him a right-hand man like LAC, leader of the Sixth, along with some detachments. If nothing else as an escort. And, again, the emergency in the east was dire and extreme. We DO in this instance have a record of someone very important being taken from Britain to Armenia. No record of any other movement save the 1500 spearmen delegation sent to Rome during the reign of Commodus. Those are the two choices we have that are found in independent sources. Anything else is, frankly, imaginary. Unless we wish to go well beyond the Antonine period.
What follows is an earlier article on the subject of ARM-, prefaced by subsequent notes.]
NOTE ONE: Since this Appendix to my book THE ARTHUR OF HISTORY was first written, 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"
"... Verus received the triumphal cognomen, or surname, Armeniacus ('Conqueror of the Armenians')... Marcus initially refused the title of Armeniacus... After Verus' death in 169, he gave up the name, as well as the two other titles later gained by Verus: 'Conqueror of the Medes' (Medicus) and 'Conqueror of the Parthians' (Parthicus) (HA Marcus 12.9)"
I emphasize the fact that Medicus and Parthicus were titles gained later by Verus.
This is confirmed by multiple sources, including:
Here Armeniacus is said to have been used in 163-164, Parthicus Maximus in 165, and Medicus (for 'conqueror of Media') in 166-169. We find also 'Bello Armeniaco et Parthica'. Etc.
There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why LAC could not have referred to this campaign as 'ADVERSUS ARMENIOS.'
Roger Tomlin agrees with this assessment, saying
"It is a valid objection [that Parthia, rather than Armenia, should be on the LAC stone], but I think a pedantic one. After all, Verus took the title 'Armeniacus'. Later the title 'Parthicus' was given to him and Marcus. Statius Priscus captured Artaxata and a new capital was founded. Conquered Armenia appeared on the coinage with the legend REX ARMENIIS DATVS. This all implies a campaign 'against the Armenians' extended to Parthia. Perhaps Artorius Castus only served in the earlier stages, but I don't think he was going to split hairs about whom he had campaigned 'against'.
I would add, for the sake of comparison, that when Marcus Aurelius sends Calpurnius Agricola to Britain to sort out trouble in the north after the Antonine Wall had been given up, he is said to be sent adversus Britannos (Augustan History, Marcus 8)."
“I have no problem with ARMENIOS.”
While the exact spelling of ARMENIOS is not otherwise found on inscriptions, the word does occur in Tacitus:
Ann. ii 55 and 68, ad Armenios; 56, cultum Armeniorum; 60, Suri Armeniique et contigui Cappadoces; 64, regem Armeniis datum.
So, the spelling was used and is known, if only in literary sources.
The insistence on declaring that the absence of the precise phrase "adversus Armenios" in any other source is proof that we can't have that on the LAC stone is in error - and quite ridiculous.
One need only look to the coins themselves. We have many for Lucius Verus as ARMENIACUS, 'conqueror of Armenia'. On these very same coins we see Armenia seated in defeat and mourning, with ARMEN actually often written directly below the seated figure itself (https://www.vcoins.com/en/stores/athena_numismat-ics/18/product/lucius_verus_ad_161169__armenia_capta/673613/Default.aspx). We also have L. Verus Armeniacus coins showing Victory with palm erecting a trophy at the foot of which an Armenian stands, hands clasped in front, while another Armenian sits on the ground, clasping his left knee (http://legio-iiii-scythica.com/index.php/en/history-and-artifacts/history-of-the-legion/history-of-legio-iiii-scythica). Yet another coin has an Armenian captive seated at the foot of Victory (https://www.wildwinds.com/coins/sear5/s5406.html#RIC_1411). And there is one with a bond Armenian captive sitting at the base of a trophy (https://www.wildwinds.com/coins/ric/lucius_verus/Milne_2519.jpg). There may be other such examples; I have not made an exhaustive search.
All these coins plainly show that it was Armenia that was being fought against in the first phase of the war. ARMENIACUS would not be used, or the coins
showing Armenia defeated, bound, under trophies and the like, if it were not
assumed Roman forces had gone against Armenia and conquered it. Insisting on this being only a reconquest
of Armenia, and therefore disallowing ADVERSUS ARMENIOS, is splitting
hairs. If only Parthia were meant, we
would only have PARTHICUS. ARMENIACUS
would not be necessary as a title and would not have been applied.
Pacorus, although a Parthian, de-clared himself King of Armenia (see M.C. Fronto & M.P.J. Van Den Hout, A Commentary on the Letters of M. Cornelius Fronto, BRILL, 1999). This same Pacorus may actually have re-ceived Roman citizenship from Lucius Verus (D. Braund, Rome and the Friendly King: The Char-acter of the Client Kingship, Taylor & Francis, 1984). It was L. Verus who removed him from his throne during the Armenian campaign.
Finally, we have letters from Fronto to Lucius Verus. One of them specifically mentions the subduing of Armenia that was to occur shortly under Statius Priscus. This may be found in THE CORRESPONDENCE OF M. CORNELIUS FRONTO, Ad Verum Imp. Ii. 1 (see http://www.attalus.org/info/fronto.html). To quote from this invaluable source:
“… give up making speeches in the Senate and subdue Armenia (Armeniam subigite). Other leaders before you have subdued Armenia (Armeniam subegerunt)…”
My opponents who continually hammer away at the absence of ‘adversus Armenios’ in written sources of LAC’s time also have put forward as proof of their theory the ‘adversus Parthos’ found a few times in the letters of Fronto. But what they fail to mention is that of the three such examples (Ad Antoninum Imp. 3, Ad Verum Imp. 1 and 2), the phrase is used when discussing prior Roman wars against Parthia. Not what happened in the 160s.
The inscription CIL vi. 1497+1549=ILS 1094+1100=CIL vi. 41146, discussed on pp. 284-5 of A. Birley's THE ROMAN GOVERNMENT OF BRITAIN, has "bello Armeniaco et Parthico" or "the Armenian and Parthian war" in reference to the action taken in the East under Verus (and thus in part under Statius Priscus).
The same phrase “Armenian and Parthian War” is found on stones of M. Claudius Fronto (III 1457 = D. 1097 and VI 1377 + 31640 = D. 1098). As if this were not enough, Trajan is also said to have engaged in a ‘bellum Armeniacum et Parthicum.’ Caracalla (HISTORIA AUGUSTA 61) fought a ‘bellum Armeniacum Parthicumque.’
Thus it is obvious that the Romans themselves perceived of this as a war not just against Parthia, but against Armenia as well.
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)."
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
Miletic's article may be found here:
And Julijan Medini's study at this link:
This is LAC’s career as arranged by Miletic:
dies natalis c. 104miles 121-135centurio legionis III Gallicae 135-138centurio legionis VI Ferratae 139-142centurio legionis II Adiutricis 143-146centurio legionis V Macedonicae 147-150primus pilus legionis V Macedonicae 151praepositus classis Misenatium 152-154praefectus castrorum legionis VI Victricis 155-162dux legionariorum et auxiliorum Britannicorum adversus Armenios162-166procurator centenarius provinciae Liburniae 167-174
The conclusion reached in these studies perfectly accords with LAC going to Armenia with British legionary vexillations in 163.
NOTE 4: But what about the Sarmatians?
I’ve made a case in the body of this book proper for the 6th century Arthur being based at Banna/Birdoswald on Hadrian’s Wall, which was garrisoned for centuries by Dacians.
Dacia was centered in what is now Romania, and Romanian folklore associates meteors and comets with dragons - which remind us of Uther's comet-dragon.
So we ought not to look to the Sarmatians for things Arthurian, but perhaps, instead, to the Dacians.
NOTE 5: It is objected that troops would not have been taken from Britain with Statius Priscus to Armenia when, according to Dio, war was looming in Britain.
Tomlin, in response to this claim, says
"I would evade their point about war looming in Britain by saying that, if so, it was no time to be withdrawing an experienced and competent governor (Statius Priscus) for service elsewhere. That he was sent to Armenia rather suggests that it was felt safe to do so, and to send troops there as well from Britain.
[This is especially true as only vexillations would have been taken, leaving the bulk of the legions intact in Britain. It is also true that troops in Britain could have been replaced from elsewhere in fairly short order. A "looming" war is not the same as an actual war. It only means that trouble was expected from Britain - something that was a common state of affairs for that unruly province.]
Professor John Wilkes kindly referred me to
https://romaninscriptionsofbritain.org/inscriptions/1322. The stone describes the transfer of troops from Britain to Germany and thence back again c. 158.
From Wilkes (personal communication):
"Some time ago, I argued that the famous text excavated from the bed of the river Tyne at the beginning of the last century naming detachments from the three legions of Britain recorded their departure for the two German provinces, rather than as generally assumed their arrival back in Britain, as generally assumed since the time of Haverfield and Richmond. The date appears to be AD 158. What is relevant to Artorius is that this, in my view, suggests a pattern of use for the three legions based in Britannia, grossly disproportionate given the size of the province, as a mobile reserve for deployment elsewhere."
This reading of the stone has received consensus acceptance. It suggests that troops could be taken from Britain around 160 for use in Armenia.
The 1500 spearmen are a puzzle, and I like Alföldy's suggestion that they were the legionary vexillation commanded by Priscus the legionary legate later in his career, when he was given another legionary command. Not the same man as Statius Priscus, of course."
Even better than the example of troops being taken to Germany is one which has a legion (or part of a legion) taken from Britain to Judea by Julius Severus. It was this Severus under whom Statius Priscus served during the Judean action. Anthony Birley (THE ROMAN GOVERNMENT OF BRITAIN, p. 229 and footnote) promotes this explanation for the withdrawal of the IX Hispana from Britain. Commenting on this, Tomlin throws his weight behind the argument:
"It's quite possible, indeed likely. Birley was writing in the shadow of the old view that IX Hispana perished somewhere in the north of Britain – marvellous historical novel by Rosemary Sutcliffe, The Eagle of the Ninth – which was demolished by his father by showing that some of its officers survived after that date. It seems to have moved to the Rhine, and then 'quite possibly' was transferred to the East, being the unidentified legion which was annihilated out there."
In support of what Tomlin is saying above about Priscus, I offer here the listings on this man from Anthony Birley’s THE ROMAN GOVERNMENT OF BRITAIN:
35. c.184? Priscus
Dio 72. 9. 2a (Petrus Patricius, Exc. Vat. 122): The soldiers in Britain chose the legionary legate
Priscus as emperor, but he declined, saying that ‘I am as much an emperor as you are soldiers’.
From its position in the excerpta this must describe an event between 177, exc.
Vat. 121, on Marcus Aurelius’ return to Rome in 177 (Dio 71. 32. 1), and 189–90,
123, on Julius Solon’s entry to the senate (72. 12. 3). A passage in the HA points
to the early 180s: ‘Commodus was called Britannicus by flatterers when the
Britons even wanted to choose another emperor in opposition to him’ (HA
Comm. 8. 4). The offer to Priscus could then be dated to 184, when Commodus
became Britannicus (see under Gov. 33). The HA also transmits the response
tinguished career, including not least membership of a priestly college. Other possible ancestors are
the Augustan senator Cerrinius Gallus (Suet. D. Aug. 53. 3) and Martial’s friend Cerrinius, who wrote
epigrams (8. 18).
¹³⁹ CIL x. 7506+add.; PIR2 C 693.
¹⁴⁰ All communities in Pomptina were Italian: Kubitschek, Imperium Romanun, 271. Pflaum, Narbonnaise,
26f., pointed out that he was not a native of Volturnum.
to this abortive coup, although the connection is not made: the guard prefect
Perennis replaced legionary legates with equestrian commanders during the
British war, a measure which led to his own overthrow, in 185 (Comm. 6. 2) (see
under Gov. 33). Later in the HA Pertinax (Gov. 35) is said to have ‘deterred the
soldiers from mutiny, when they wanted anyone [else other than Commodus]
as emperor, especially Pertinax himself ’ (Pert. 2. 6), shortly after his arrival as
governor in 185. This is another possible context for the Priscus episode, but
Perennis’ measure makes the previous year more plausible. This legate could
be the Commodan general discussed below (36), who may have been called
Priscus among other names and possibly commanded VI Victrix at about this
time.
36. c.184? VI Victrix?, [ . . . J]unius [?Pris]cus Gar[gilius? . . .
?Qui]ntil[i]anus (cos. c.190)
G. Gregori, ZPE 106 (1995), 269–79=AE 1995. 231=G. Alföldy, CIL vi. 41127, Rome:
[ . . . I]unio, [ . . . f(ilio), . . . , Pris(?)]co |G.
ar[gilio(?) | . . . Qui(?)]ntil[i]an[o, co(n)s(uli), 4| sodal]i. Titiali
Fla[viali, | leg(ato) Au]g(usti) pr(o) pr(aetore) leg(ionis) II I. [talic(ae), | praep]o. sito vexill(ationum)
[leg(ionum) III (trium)? | Brita]Nnicar(um)(?), legato l.[eg(ionis) V 8| Macedo]nic(ae), leg(ato) leg(ionis) [VI
| Victr(icis)(?) pi]ae fidel(is), cur[atori | rei pub]lic(ae) Cirtens[ium, | iuridic]o per Aemil[iam, 12|
Liguri(?)]am, praetor[i, trib(uno) | pl(ebis)?, qua]est(ori), triumvi[ro | c]apitali. | [Huic s]enatus, auc.[tore 16|
Imp(eratore) Cae]s(are) L(ucio) Aelio Aur[elio | Comm]odo Pio Feli[ce Aug(usto, | statua]m i.n te.mpl.[o . . . |
. . . ponendam censuit (?)].
To . . . Junius, son of . . . , . . . , Priscus? Gargilius? . . . Quintilianus?, consul, sodalis Titialis
Flavialis, propraetorian legate of the Emperor of the Second Legion Italica, commander of
vexillations of the three? British? legions, legate of the Fifth Legion Macedonica, legate of the
Sixth? Legion Victrix? Pia Fidelis, curator of the commonwealth of the Cirtensians, iuridicus in
Aemilia and ?Liguria, praetor, tribune of the plebs?, quaestor, triumvir capitalis. The senate, on
the motion of the Emperor Caesar Lucius Aelius Aurelius Commodus Pius Felix Augustus,
decreed the setting up of a statue? to this man in the temple of . . .
This unusual career can be dated by Commodus’ names, a style first assumed
in 191.¹⁴¹ The restoration of VI Victrix as one of the legions which the honorand
commanded depends on Alföldy’s conjecture that he is identical with the
legate Priscus (LL 35). A summary may be offered of Alföldy’s discussion. This
legate was no doubt a novus homo, to judge from his start as capitalis. Without
being military tribune, he went on to the three usual urban magistracies. After
the praetorship he was iuridicus in North Italy, then curator of Cirta in N.
Africa, before his first legionary command, of a legion with the title pia fidelis,
perhaps VI Victrix. If this is right, and he was the Priscus whom the legionaries
tried to make emperor, he was removed from this post by Perennis. He
¹⁴¹ G. A(lföldy) on CIL vi. 41127, citing D. Kienast, Kaisertabelle2 (1996), 148; cf. PIR2 Q 18.
certainly went on to command another legion, V Macedonica, in Dacia: a
second legionary command indicates trouble where the second one was based
and there was warfare in Dacia under Commodus (HA Comm. 13. 5). There
followed command over detachments of several legions, restored as [Brita]nnicarum.
Alföldy convincingly proposes that this force was assigned to deal with
the so-called ‘deserters’ war’ and can be identified with the ‘1,500 javelin-men’
from the British army who lynched Perennis near Rome in 185 (Dio 72(73). 9.
22–4) (cf. under Gov. 33). His final appointment—before the consulship,
restored, but very probable¹⁴²—was as legate of yet another legion, II Italica,
exceptionally described as ‘propraetorian legate’. II Italica was by then
normally commanded by the governor of Noricum. As he is not called legate
of Noricum, the legion must have been operating outside the province, even
beyond the frontier in Commodus’ ‘third German expedition’, perhaps
datable to 188.¹⁴³ His names include [J]unius, then a cognomen ending [ ]cus,
which could of course be for example, [Atti]cus, [Flac]cus, [Fus]cus, [Tus]cus,
[Urbi]cus, to mention some of the many names of the right length, as well as
[Pris]cus.¹⁴⁴ His next name began Gar[ ], probably Gar[gilius], followed by
one ending [ ]ntil[i]anus, for which [Qui]ntilianus is more plausible than
[De]ntilianus. Alföldy infers from the name Gar[gilius] and the post as
curator of Cirta that the man may have come from North Africa.
***
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, 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'.”
ARMATOS as a designation of unknown armed men in an undesignated place is also not a date determinant. In other words, as there is no other explicit or implied date on the stone, whatever ARM- is must represent an event so significant that everyone who read the memorial stone would know to what time it belonged.
The same dating problem exists for the two other extant LAC inscriptions. One is a broken plaque giving his name and a couple of his ranks (https://edh-www.adw.uni-heidelberg.de/edh/inschrift/HD053922), while the other is a bronze die (CIL 15, 08090). On the date of the latter, Professor Roger Tomlin has told me:
"Since the annotation ('10 June 2003') is mirror-image, I take it that this is a bronze die with letters retrograde (for impressing into wax, clay or whaever), the photograph of which in the files has been reversed for our convenience? So I would call it a 'die' rather than a 'mold' (which is ambiguous, between the thing that makes the moulding and the moulding itself, if I may use the Anglo-spelling).
But to date the lettering precisely is absurd. You could only do this if you had a corpus of such things, preferably from the same workshop, and some of them independently dated. I would be happy to see it any time in the 2nd century, depending on the ability of the die-cutter."
The only thing that we have to go on for establishing a decent date for the stone, then, is the ARM- of the inscription. This would appear to be ARMENIOS (see below; a ME ligature in ARMENIOS is not required, as we could just as easily have a NI ligature). We know the British governor Statius Priscus was sent to Armenia and that he could easily have brought vexillations of the three British legions with him. LAC may well have been put in charge of these forces, as Priscus was given command of the entire army in Armenia. Ironically, if LAC wished to provide an IMPLIED date, he would have had to include some kind of well-known event. Such an event was the conquest of Armenia. It is not some unknown conflict in an unknown place against armed men.
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 (even when 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.
I have more on this from Tomlin (via personal communication):
"It strikes me that even –ORIC– would be a tight fit. IVRE in the next line implies that there was only room for three letters and a bit, not four. And I don't like your proposed ligature (although it exists, of course) since it is out of keeping with the style of ligatures elsewhere: the layout is very lavish, and apart from ITEM, the few ligatures there are are made by butting two letters together.
I suppose the form ARMORICOS has been discussed? I get the impression that the correct form of the name is AREMORICA, and that when it is reduced to ARMORICA (when?) the Notitia still uses the form ARMORICANVS. Is ARMORICVS / ARMORICVS post-Roman? This is a very careful inscription, and it would surely have used the form of name(s) current in the 2nd century."
This when combined with the fact that we otherwise possess not a single inscription bearing the name AR[E]MORICOS is rather damning.
The only thing that works for ARM- 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, as there are several St. attested there, 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."
Roger Tomlin allows for the possiiblity that Statius Priscus was from Dalmatia, not Italy (the latter being favored by Birley):
"Alföldy's Konsulat und Senatorenstandwhich (p. 314) suggests a Dalmatian origin for Statius Priscus. 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."
"It's a very rich collection, and confirms that Statius Priscus could have come from Dalmatia despite the Camodeca inscription – which 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."
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.
From Roger Tomlin just now (also personal communication):
"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. Tomlin has no problem with LAC being given a command (dux) of some detachments under the British governor Statius Priscus, who commanded the entire army sent into Armenia. This is in contradistinction to Dr. Linda Malcor, who wants LAC to be an equestrian raised to the level of dux only because the British legate had been removed by Perennis during the reign of Commodus.
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. As an afterthought, I should mention that Julius Severus, a Dalmatian, had a son named Julius Verus who also served as governor of Britain.
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)
D[is] M(anibus)
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 (detachments 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 PRAEFF, although the repeated F should indicate a plural (‘prefects’), and BRITANICIMIARVM is a blunder for Britannicianarum. It is incidentally an example of the ‘continental’ spelling Britania (see note to 8.12). The inscription is undated, but the quality of the lettering and the well-executed band of lush ornament 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 restored 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 detachments 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 available, 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.
This is the war against Parthia for which Pontius Laelianus (5.06) was decorated. Two future governors of Britain also distinguished themselves. Antistius Adventus, who came to Britain in c. AD 172, was decorated as commander of one of those Danubian legions which reinforced the eastern army of Lucius Verus. Helvius Pertinax, one of that army’s equestrian officers, came to Britain as governor in AD 185...
Tomlin had this to say to me regarding Birley’s placement of Lucius Artorius Castus in the reign of either Caracalla or Alexander Severus:
“The British legions contributed to Caracalla's German campaign, to judge by RIB 369, but I don't know any evidence that they contributed further east. Nor, I think, does Birley. He would surely have said so, and I don't know why he didn't suggest Lucius Verus as well.” [NOTE: Birley has since come around to acknowledging Tomlin's judgment on the date of the LAC stone. "Roger 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...")."]
And the following selection on Statius Priscus is 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
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 UpperPannonian 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
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.
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
