THE ARM- OF THE ARTORIUS INSCRIPTION: AN ARGUMENT AGAINST ARMORICOS

The LAC Memorial Stone

In my recent article https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2020/07/artorius-and-three-british-legions.html, I more or less settled for a reading of ARMORICOS for ARM- on the Lucius Artorius Stone.  However, further intensive discussion with Professor Roger Tomlin has forced me to reconsider my position.

Here are to the two most salient points raised by Tomlin in objection to an ARMORICOS reconstruction:

"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.

Tomlin, in response to the claim that as war was looming in Britain forces would never have removed from there at that time, says 

"I would evade your 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 the unruly province.]

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."

What Tomlin is talking about is detailed by Anthony Birley in his THE ROMAN GOVERNMENT OF BRITAIN. I provide the relevant entries from that book here:

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

260 High Officials of the Undivided Province

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

Legionary Legates 261

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.

So what are to make of all this?

I've come to deeply respect Professor Tomlin's opinions.  Having worked with him in the past on the Uley lead curse tablets (a project he is in charge of), I've come to realize just how amazingly proficient he is at dealing with ancient epigraphy.  My respect for his knowledge and critical acumen is profound. When he takes a careful, dispassionate look at the LAC inscription and says that AR[E]MORICOS doesn't work, I have to believe him.  When he likewise tells me that ARMATOS makes no sense (for the several reasons I have provided in earlier posts), again, I have to consider and weigh his opinion.

Once again, my readers are asking: why does it matter?  Well, it matters because if LAC belongs to a period in which he went to Armenia with Statius Priscus, then he could not have had anything to do with the Sarmatians.  On the other hand, if the stone can read Armoricos, then we can connect him with the Deserters' War and allow for his involvement with Sarmatians.  That is pretty much what it all comes down to.

Myself, well, I really don't care which way we go on this issue.  I have two books prepared.  They are essentially identical, with one exception: Arthur's birthplace in one is Ribchester of the Sarmatian veternas and in the other the Irthing Valley of Banna and Camboglanna.  My own preference is to link the name Arthur (ultimately from Artorius) with the Cumbric word for bear (arth), and to suggest that he was named such because his father was of the *Artenses (Welsh Arthwys), the People of the Bear.  The bear in question is a reference to the Irthing, a Bear River.  Uther Pendragon with his draco would, then, be a leader at the Dacian garrisoned fort of Banna, and not Sawyl Benisel of Ribchester. The battles of Arthur do not change either way, although the legendary burial at Avalon (the Aballava/Avalana Roman fort on Hadrian's Wall at Burgh By Sands not far west of Camboglanna/Castlesteads) is hard to reconcile with a war-leader hailing from Ribchester.  

Two of my linchpins in the argument in favor of Sawyl rest on very shaky ground.  First, the presence of Sawyl as an emendation in the Uther elegy poem is rendered doubtful by the better emendation of kanwyl, a word which could mean 'star' and probably accounts for the dragon-star/comet of Geoffrey of Monmouth's story. Cannwyll in the relevant line was my idea from prior research. Second, Eliwlad son of Madog as Eilwlad, a word matching the meaning of Irish ailithir, found in St. Madog Ailithir son of Sawyl, is better seen as my proposed *Eiliw-[g]wlad, 'Grief-lord'.  Celticists and Welsh linguists accept this etymology, while they do not like Eilwlad as showing an Eli- to Eil- metathesis.  If I abandon Sawyl and Eilwlad, then the Sarmatian Ribchester origin theory for Arthur crumbles.

The reading of ARMENIOS for ARM- does, in fact, work perfectly.  In fact, it is the only reading that does.  Those who hold to ARMATOS or AR[E]MORICOS make many arguments concerning assumed peculiarities of the inscription.  But when I approach Latin epigraphers and top Roman military historians on these points, they all collapse due to a relative paucity of information.  In other words, in many cases conclusions drawn from an examination of the stone rest on premises that are faulty or that are subject to equally as valid alternate explanations.  One can easily get lost in the plethora of scholarly conjectures, all based on a only a few extant inscriptions used for comparative dating.  The worst flaw of all in the chain of reasoning is to consider this or that rank as arising at a certain specific time when we simply lack sufficient confirmatory examples. We cannot even rely on the insistence that the three legions on the stone necessarily represent anything other than vexillations, as there is simply no way three legions would ever be moved from their bases, whether externally or internally.  Thus even if we insist on their use within Britain, we must allow for vexillations being used and not entire legions.  According to Tomlin, at the very least we might allow for the Sixth being moved, supplemented by vexillations from the other two British legions.  The reading of three legions, then, must infer the use of detachments. 

The consensus regarding the LAC stone is that it is Antonine.  Within this classification, it is deemed impossible to pinpoint the date.  Those - like Birley - who prefer to put the stone after the Antonine period - are now decidedly in the minority.  Other than Birley, I have not myself communicated with a single expert who would place LAC in the reigns of either Caracalla (215) or Severus Alexander.  For neither of these later emperors do we have any evidence of British troops being used in Armenia.

The only thing, then, that we have to go on, unfortunately, is the ARM- of the inscription.  This would appear to be ARMENIOS (a ME ligature 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.  Granted, there is no date on the stone, and no way to precisely date it - except to put it in the Antonine period. 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. 

If this is so - and I feel the possibility is compelling - then LAC had nothing whatsoever to do with the Sarmatians.  My own comprehensive research into the presence of Sarmatian derived folklore motifs in the Arthurian corpus has failed to reveal such (see my posts on subjects such as the Sword in the Anvil/Stone, the deposition of Excalibur in the lake, the thoroughly Celtic nature of the various Grail kings, etc.).