Saturday, March 27, 2021

THE LOST NAME OF THE TERRIBLE CHIEF-DRAGON: SAWYL IN THE UTHER ELEGY

Shiloh Tabernacle (Artist's Reconstruction)

When I first began exploring the possibility that Eliwlad son of Madog (son of Uther, father of Arthur) could be a Welsh reflection of Matoc Ailithir, son fo Sawyl Benisel of Ribchester, I happened upon the currently accepted emenation of 'kawyl' in the Uther elegy.  This happened to be Sawyl [1]. 

While initially delighted with the correspodence, it also occurred to me that kawyl could be from kan(n)wyl(l), a word that could mean 'star' (like Uther's dragon-star) or, figuratively, 'leader.' Dr. Simon Rodway said that Sawyl "is marginally better, as it involves less emendation." 

I had not returned to the subject until the other day, when a further examination of the line in question suggested a contextual problem exists with cannwyll.

Once again, here are the relevant lines from the elegy:

a’m rithwy am dwy pen kawell.

May our God, chief of the sanctuary, transform me.

Neu vi eil Sawyl yn ardu:

It’s I who’s a second Sawyl in the gloom [or 'who's like Sawyl in the gloom']

If we assume for the sake of argument that kawyl is supposed to be cannwyll, which has both the meanings of 'star/sun/moon/planet' or candle, etc., AND fig. 'leader',  what sense would the 'eil' make here?  I mean, it seems to me that in typical poetic language, Uther would have said he was a star or a leader in the gloom.  He would NOT have said he was like a star/leader or he was a second star/leader.  I feel I am right in this assessment.  'Eil' in this instance would serve only to diminish Uther's magnificence - and that would run contrary to the purpose of the praise poem.  

For examples of what I mean, we need only go to either the Irish 'Song of Amergin' or to the Welsh 'Cad Goddeu.'  There we find many examples of the poets referring to themselves as being literally this or that object, element, etc.  



For Amergin, see John Carey's translation from The Celtic Heroic Age (2003) http://celticmythpodshow.com/Resources/Amergin.php.

I am a wind in the sea (for depth)
I am a sea-wave upon the land (for heaviness)
I am the sound of the sea (for fearsomeness)
I am a stag of seven combats (for strength)
I am a hawk upon a cliff (for agility)
I am a tear-drop of the sun (for purity)
I am fair (i.e. there is no plant fairer than I)
I am a boar for valour (for harshness)
I am a salmon in a pool (for swiftness)
I am a lake in a plain (for size)
I am the excellence of arts (for beauty)
I am a spear that wages battle with plunder.
I am a god who forms subjects for a ruler...

If, then, Sawyl is the best reading for kawyl, God as 'chief of the sanctuary' (kawell for cafell) would be a reference to the Biblical sanctuary at Shiloh.  And this would point directly to the Biblical Samuel, who received his calling as God's prophet at Shiloh.  And, indeed, if kawyl is not for Sawyl, it is difficult if not impossible to apply any relational significance to God's epithet in the previous line.  

All of which would be confirmation that the Terrible Chief-dragon = Sawyl Benisel of Ribchester, a chieftain considered to be like Samuel or even a second Samuel. 

Sawyl as Arthur's father doubtless represents the original, historically accurate Welsh tradition that was later submerged by the fictional account of Geoffrey of Monmouth. 

[1]

From Marged Haycock's "Legendary Poems from the Book of Taliesin", Note to line 7 of the elegy:

eil kawyl yn ardu G emends kawyl > Sawyl, the personal name (from Samuelis
via *Safwyl). Sawyl Ben Uchel is named with Pasgen and Rhun as one of the
Three Arrogant Men, Triad 23, as a combative tyrant in Vita Cadoci (VSB 58);
and in CO 344-5. Samuil Pennissel in genealogies, EWGT 12 (later Benuchel),
Irish sources, and in Geoffrey of Monmouth. Other Sawyls include a son of
Llywarch, and the saint commemorated in Llansawel: see further TYP3 496,
WCD 581 and CO 104. Ardu ‘darkness, gloom; dark, dreadful (GPC), sometimes
collocated with afyrdwl ‘sad; sadness’ (see G, GPC).


Monday, March 22, 2021

CHAPTER ONE from THE AVALON BIBLE I: SACRED GROVE






CHAPTER ONE:

What is Avalon?


The nature of the fruit of the Biblical Tree of Knowledge would seem easy to determine, as the author(s) of Genesis appear to make use of a clever literary device that would seem to identify it: they have Adam and Eve cover their shameful nakedness with fig leaves. This would appear to be a supreme irony. The adherents of the fig theory find it necessary to explain why the fig was replaced by the apple in Europe, i.e. because the former fruit was unknown there until quite late in history, while the native apple had acquired its own unique mythological traits.

As we shall see, though, there is a very good reason for defaulting to the apple, and no good reason based upon the sources from which the Biblical authors drew their material to choose the fig. 

But what of the Tree of Life?  

Well, countless studies have been written on that subject.  Egyptian and Mesopotamian prototypes have been proposed.  The truth is, though, that we do not have to go beyond the Bible to be able to put a name to this tree.

In the Introduction, I mentioned that the Tree of Life is found both in the Genesis account of the Garden east of Eden and in Revelation.  In the latter, the tree is found along both sides of a river that flows from the throne of God in New Jerusalem.  

As it happens, this same river and same tree is described in Ezekiel 47.  There the prophet is continuing to engage in visions of the Temple.  He tells us that water, which becomes a river, flows from below the threshold of the temple toward the east:

“… and the water was flowing down from below the south end of the threshold of the temple, south of the altar… and the water was coming out on the south side…

…I saw on the bank of the river a great many trees on the one side and on the other… they will bear fresh fruit every month… and their leaves for healing.”

Note that the word used for ‘threshold’ here is Hebrew miptan, which actually stands for the podium upon which the royal throne is placed, as well as the raised surface on which a divine statue could be erected.  Hence the river in Ezekiel’s vision issues from the same place as the river in Revelation.

When we go back to Chapters 40 and 41, the prophet is recounting yet another vision of the Temple.  During the course of this episode, the date palm tree (Phoenix dactylifera) is listed many times (Ezekiel 40:16, 22, 26, 31, 34, 37 and 41:18, 19, 20, 25 and 26). It is present in the Temple as an architectural or decorative motif, and in several instances the tree is said to be at or near gates and guarded by cherubim. We may compare these guardians to the angels who guard the 12 gates of New Jerusalem. 

No other tree is mentioned in Chapters 40-41.

A closer comparison of the two visions is elucidating. For example, in 40:26 the palm trees on the south of the Temple match the location of the water coming out of the south side of the Temple to form a river in 47:2.  

Revelation 7:9 tells us that the multitude standing before the throne of God in New Jerusalem hold “palm branches in their hands.”  

The presence of the palm in the Temple is confirmed in 1 Kings 6:29, where Solomon carves

“… the walls of the house all around about with carved engravings of cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers, in the inner and the outer rooms.”

Perhaps more telling, Genesis 22 informs us that God placed a cherubim as a guard over the Tree of Life.  

Finally, John 12:13 tells of the palm branches people used to greet Christ as he entered Jerusalem for the Passover.  This act of devotion gave birth to the Church festival of Palm Sunday.

Having thus established – at least to my own personal satisfaction! – that the Biblical Tree of Life is the date palm, why was Phoenix dactylifera the symbol of immortality?  And how was immortality achieved by Christ when he was crucified on a Cross that symbolized an apple tree said to be descended from the original one planted in the Garden east of Eden?

Both questions are deceptively easy to answer.  The date palm was the tree sacred to Inanna/Ishtar of Mesopotamia, whose divine lover Dumuzid/Dumuzi the Shepherd (the later Tammuz) dies and is reborn annually. Dumu-zi(d) is "Righteous Son”. Inanna is understood (by the Babylonians) as (N)in-an-a(k) "Lady of the Sky/Heavens".

I asked Emeritus Professor Jo An Scurlock of Elmhurst University about the most recent opinion on Inanna and her consort:

“The date palm is associated with Inanna/Ištar.  She is the goddess of liminality not of fertility as such (she brings the soul in from the Netherworld to be born in human babies).  As such, she is associated with tall trees which most cultures round the world understand as connections between heaven and earth.  Since the date palm is the tallest tree you have in Southern Mesopotamia, she is associated with it and her planet Venus is supposed to have its exaltation at the time when the dates are being harvested.

The obvious thought about the date clusters is that they refer to her jewelry which is the source of her power as may be seen from the myth of her Descent to the Netherworld.  Dates begin to be harvested in Iraq (so they are ripe) in the month of her exaltation, Virgo, which is her month of greatest effectiveness and as they are harvested her power wanes in Scorpio.  At the time of composition of this myth, the autumnal equinox was in Araḫšamna (Scorpio).

We heard a wonderful talk by a botanist at one of our meetings on the subject of the Assyrian sacred tree (which is the image usually represented as the tree of life).  What our botanist argued quite convincingly is that the sacred tree motif is a schematic  representation of a palm grove.  Date palms do not produce fruit that far north outside of gardens, so the grove replaces the single palm as the Ištar symbol.  Trees in such a grove are not grown from seed but are reproduced by taking shoots from a female palm and planting them round the mother tree.  The grove is all female and new trees can readily be planted as the old trees die.  What is interesting about this is that the trees in such a grove are clones, meaning that in a properly maintained grove you essentially have one tree that never dies.

In Northern Mesopotamia, the date palm is replaced by what is called the Sacred Tree.  On either side of this tree you often see rearing goats.  It is this goat that represents Dumuzi.”

Tammuz is mentioned once in the Bible (Ezekiel 8:14):

“Then he brought me to the entrance of the north gate of the house of the Lord; women were sitting there weeping for Tammuz.”

One of Dumuzi’s names was Ama-ushumgal-anna.  We see in this formation the same ushumgal, ‘snake, dragon’, used for the god Ea/Enki.  Professor Andrew George of SOAS, University of London (private communication) says that the full name means "(The child's) mother is a dragon of the sky/heaven", rather than “The Lord (is a) Great Dragon of Heaven.”

Now, I readily admit that people have been pointing out for years that Christ is just another example of a long line of dying/resurrecting gods in the ancient Near East. The religious resist this conclusion, of course.  Militant atheists forcibly and relentlessly make their case. But good, objective scholars are content with noting factual correspondences.  They do not deny that the cults of Tammuz and Christ bear striking resemblances to each other.  At the same time, they do not make the mistake of identifying the two gods with each other. 

But the parallel between Christ and Tammuz does beg the question: if you are going to put forward a method whereby Man may acquire the immortality he was denied when he was expelled from the Garden, how do you accomplish this feat? Well, first you rid him of the Original Sin which effectively blocks him from immortality.  Then you transform him into a god like Tammuz, who was immortal because of his association with the goddess’s date palm/Tree of Life.  

The goddess Venus (= Inanna/Ishtar) is present at Christ’s Crucifixion in the guise of Mary, mother of Jesus, Mary’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary Magdalene.  In my book CHRIST AND REVELATION: A SIMPLE DECODING OF SOME NEW TESTAMENT SYMBOLISM, I used a star program to show that Christ, the three Marys and the two thieves of the Crucifixion are the sun, Venus and Mercury (god of thieves; Clopas is Greek for ‘Thief’), respectfully, all rising close together on 4 April 32 AD (Julian calendar). 

Utilizing the best and most current resources, I have compiled the following list of the relevant dying/resurrecting gods and their matching dates: 

Adonis' death - March/April (see 'Woe for Adonis': But in Spring Not Summer, Matthew Dillon, Hermes 131. Jahrg., H. 1 (2003), pp. 1-16).  In the words of Tryggve N.D. Mettinger (The Riddle of Resurrection "Dying and Rising Gods" in the Ancient Near East): “Behind Adon(is) we found Baal of Byblos (bel gbl ), a god whose epithet 'dn developed into a proper divine name, Adon(is).”

Baal – In the words of Biblical scholar John Day of Oxford, “It would be most natural to think that Baal’s death was associated with the cessation of the rain in Syria/Palestine about April and the resurrection of Baal with the return of the rain in September/October.”

Attys' death - March 22, Self-Mutilation, March 24, Death, March 25, Resurrection (Roman festival of Hilaria)

Astral Dumuzi - associated with the Zodiac sign of the Ram (Aries), he rose on the Autumnal Equinox and set (in death) at the Vernal Equinox, which falls in the Hebrew month of Nisan (private communication Scurlock).

Terrestrial Dumuzi - Sometime after the Old Babylonian period, he descends to the Underworld in the month of Dumuzi, which corresponds with Hebrew Nisan (March-April). By the Neo-Assyrian period, he comes up for three days at the end of Dumuzi and then goes back down herding the ills of mankind off with him like so many sheep (Scurlock). I had Professor Scurlock explain this to me in more detail, as I was confused by the presence of the Hebrew month Tammuz at the Summer Solstice:

“Because of the phenomenon known as the precession of the equinoxes, whereby equinoxes (and solstices) inch backwards over the millenia, in our earliest texts the Vernal Equinox was in the month Simanu.  In Sumerian times it was in Ayyaru and by the old Babylonian period it was in Nisannu. The celebrations that were attached to equinoxes and solstices can be dated by which month they choose to celebrate them in for those that could not move for one reason or another.  The Summer solstice festival was stuck in Abu because of coordination with the star Sirius. They noticed that the Summer solstice was now in Du’uzu, so they appended a return of ghosts (a feature of the Abu summer solstice festival) to it.  The Vernal Equinox Festival got moved from Simanu to Ayyaru, leaving only a fossil behind.  Later it got moved again to Nisannu at Babylon, wheras Nippur who had anchored it to the setting of the Pleiades refused to move it.  So Tammuz is indeed Du’uzu, and it was the Summer solstice, even though Du’uzu had once been the Vernal Equinox.”

It will be noted that all these original dates match that of the Nisan death and resurrection of Christ. 

A final brilliant touch was applied to Christ as Tammuz.  Rather than having the god remain stuck in an endless cycle of life and death as a sort of Spirit of the Sacred Year, which meant constantly descending into and ascending out of the Underworld, Jesus was allowed after his Resurrection to take up permanent residence in Heaven. This was a necessary step, as otherwise his followers would have remained pagan-style Nature worshippers and would have found themselves subject to death.  The only true eternity was now that which God himself enjoyed and that eternity did not exist on earth.

This all casts the eating of Christ’s body and the drinking of his blood at the Last Supper in a whole new light. For if he were the embodiment of the gnosis-fruit then whoever consumes him symbolically partakes of the same fruit that led to Adam and Eve’s Expulsion from the Garden.  Becoming thus one with him, they are the god who mounts the Cross, erasing Original Sin, who then dies, is resurrected and wins eternal life.  The sole purpose of their remaining physical life is to strive to join Christ in Heaven by remaining free of the sin Christ took from them with his sacrifice.  With Communion, they become Christ the Man in the flesh.  Upon death of the body, they become Christ the God in spirit. 

As it happens, it is Inanna and Dumuzi who also help us decide in favor of the apple as the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, rather than the fig.  In a hymn to the goddess, we are told that

“You are she who creates apples in their clusters(?)… You are she who creates the date spadices in their beauty.”

Dumuzi’s sacred tree is the apple, as we find out in the famous “Inanna’s Descent to the Nether World:”

“Holy Inana answered the demons: "Outstanding Lulal follows me at my right and my left. How could I turn him over to you? Let us go on. Let us go on to the great apple tree in the plain of Kulaba."

They followed her to the great apple tree in the plain of Kulaba. There was Dumuzid clothed in a magnificent garment and seated magnificently on a throne. The demons seized him there by his thighs. The seven of them poured the milk from his churns. The seven of them shook their heads like ....... They would not let the shepherd play the pipe and flute before her (?).

She looked at him, it was the look of death. She spoke to him (?), it was the speech of anger. She shouted at him (?), it was the shout of heavy guilt: "How much longer? Take him away." Holy Inana gave Dumuzid the shepherd into their hands.

Those who had accompanied her, who had come for Dumuzid, know no food, know no drink, eat no flour offering, drink no libation. They never enjoy the pleasures of the marital embrace, never have any sweet children to kiss. They snatch the son from a man's knee. They make the bride leave the house of her father-in-law.

Dumuzid let out a wail and turned very pale. The lad raised his hands to heaven, to Utu: "Utu, you are my brother-in-law. I am your relation by marriage. I brought butter to your mother's house. I brought milk to Ningal's house. Turn my hands into snake's hands and turn my feet into snake's feet, so I can escape my demons, let them not keep hold of me."

Utu accepted his tears. (1 ms. adds 1 line: Dumuzid's demons could not keep hold of him.) Utu turned Dumuzid's hands into snake's hands. He turned his feet into snake's feet. Dumuzid escaped his demons. (1 ms. adds 1 line: Like a sajkal snake he .......) They seized .......”

Now Kuluba is used in the poetry as a synonym for the Inanna’s city of Uruk.  In ‘Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta’, we are told

“Before the land of Dilmun yet existed, the E-ana [Inanna’s temple] of Unug [Uruk] Kulaba was well founded, and the holy jipar [priestly residence] of Inanna in brick-built Kulaba shone forth like the silver in the lode.”

The word for plain used in conjunction with Kulaba is edin, and much has been made by those searching for the Mesopotamian prototype for the Biblical Eden. I have suggested instead the small kingdom of Bit-Adini, Biblical Beth-Eden, in my book THE REAL MOSES AND HIS GOD.  But the presence of Dumuzi at the Kulaba apple tree in the form of a snake is telling. 

Professor Scurlock has the following to say regarding the apple in Mesopotamian tradition:

“The apple tree under which Dumuzi is sitting is indeed related to the tree of knowledge with a special focus on carnal knowledge since apples are everywhere (and also in Mesopotamia) a love charm.  Dumuzi is looking pretty and ready for love whereas everybody else has been mourning Ishtar’s absence.  In one tradition, the love he was ready for was not with her but with the palace women whom he had been enjoying in her absence, which is enough to make any woman rather upset.”

Dumuzi is not only portrayed enthroned at the apple tree, he is metaphorically identified with the apple tree. For example, in ‘The song of the lettuce: a balbale to Inana and Dumuzid (Dumuzid-Inana E)’, we are told that the god is Inanna’s “first-class fruitful apple tree.”

If the palm tree is Inanna’s Tree of Life, whose date clusters represent the jewelry of the goddess Venus, what are we to make of her apples - bearing in mind that the type of apple native to Mesopotamia in this era was  Malus orientalis with its yellow pomes?

It would appear the apple tree, in the Dumuzi myth, at least, served as a seasonal marker. 

Professor Scurlock has explained above why the Vernal Equinox started out in the month of Du’uzi, but ended up in the month of Nisanu.  In the Babylonian astronomical treatise MUL.APIN, we are told that “In Nisannu, on the 1st day, the Hireling appears.”  The Hireling, again, is the sign of Dumuzi, the later Aries the Ram.  As Inanna had been searching unsuccessfully for Dumuzi prior to finding him under the apple tree at Uruk, I would surmise that this marks his appearance as the constellation on the Vernal Equinox.  At this time the sun is at the junction of the ecliptic and the celestial equator, and this would make for a very nice location of the golden apple tree. Scurlock also told of the “chase” beginning in Simanu, with the god’s going down to the nether world in Du’uzi. 

Apple trees in Mesopotamia blossomed in Simanu (May-June).  Their fruit was ripe and ready to pick in Ululu/Elul. (August-September). In a medical text the apple tree is associated with the Furrow-star (Virgo), which was the sign of Elul. There is one reference to the apple tree in tablet BM 33535, assigned to "Cancer of Sagittarius," which is the 8th micro-zodiacal part (Cancer) of the 9th zodiacal sign (Sagittarius). [Each zodiacal sign (30 degrees out of the 360-degree zodiac circle) may be further divided into 12 or 13 micro-zodiacal divisions (30÷12 degrees or 30÷13 degrees each).]  Cancer ordinarily covered the month of Tammuz, including the Summer Solstice.   An Akkadian tablet has the apple in the month of Kislimu (November-December) or Sagittarius. 

We may compare this seasonal progression to that of the crabapple in Britain, which flowers in April-May (Beltaine) and ripens in October to early November (Samhain). 

I would say that Dumuzi’s presence at the apple tree at the moment of the onset of the chase indicates that the month is Simanu.  The signal for the chase to begin was the blossoming of the apple tree. 

In Greek mythology, the fleece of the ram in the oak (= sky/heaven) of Aries (= the Hireling/Astral Dumuzi) is golden because the Vernal Equinox sun was found within it. Its removal from the tree by Jason may be emblematic of the transference of the equinox from Aries to Pisces in 68 B.C. The golden apples of the Hesperides are symbolic of solar fruit. 

By now my reader will be wondering what any of this can possibly have to do with Arthur’s Avalon!  Fair enough.

Simply put, when we get to the apple in European pagan tradition an amazing transformation has occurred.  For we are suddenly confronted by a symbolic object that possesses qualities of a fruit derived not from the Tree of Knowledge, but instead from the Tree of Life.

The best way to illuminate this radical alternation of the apple tree motif is by exploring the ancient Irish myth of Connla.  

This famous son of Conn of the Hundred Battles encounters a woman of the sidh (fairy hill), who invites him to come with her to the Land of the Living Ones, a paradisical Otherworld of eternal life. For awhile he resists, although he eats only of the ever-replenishing apple.  Finally, her allure is too powerful for him and he departs with her forever from the world of men. 

We know Connla’s apple bestows eternal youth because of a sort of sequel featuring a hero named Tadg.  When Connla gives the latter the apple and he eats of it, neither age nor decay come upon him.  The apples of the Norse goddess Idunn conferred immortality on the gods. 

Now, paradoxically, this apple represents both death and eternal life.  For the fairy mound is not only a symbolic representation of the Otherworld (or, at the very least, a portal to it), it is a barrow mound, a grave or funeral monument.  Thus to go to the Land of the Living Ones is also to die in the world of mortals.  In this light, to eat of the apple is to simultaneously die and be reborn into eternal life. The price of one is to submit to the other. 

You can’t enter the Otherworld until you have eaten of the apple. 

Was the Celtic apple also meant to be the sun?  Was it a god of seasonal death and rebirth?  Was consumption of the apple comparable to Communion?

Well, there is some evidence for rebirth (or reincarnation) involving apples and barrow mounds in Norse tradition.  In the Volsunga Saga, King Rerir is sitting on a mound when a valkyrie (probably the goddess Frigg/Venus) in the shape of a crow dropped an apple in his lap. Eating of this fruit allows Rerir’s wife to become pregnant.  While rebirth isn’t explicitly stated in this episode, Olaf the Holy in Flateyjarbok is rumored to be Olaf ‘the Elf of Geirstad’ reborn from a howe from which Hrani took a belt.  This belt is placed around the waist of Asta and she becomes pregnant. At the beginning of Helgakvida Hjovardssonar II, a man is named for a previous Helgi by a valkyrie as he sits upon a mound.  The earlier, famous Helgi was said to have been reborn.     

The apple tree, blooming in the Spring and bearing ripe fruit in the Fall, is the sacred tree of the Summer half-year – for us here in the mortal world, at least.  In the Otherworld, the Summer half-year of the apple is not a seasonal occurrence, it is not cyclic. Instead, it never ends. 

And that is why the Celtic Otherworld bears among its various names Avalon, the Apple Orchard. 

***End of Free Sample of THE AVALON BIBLE I: SACRED GROVE***

Projected Volumes in THE AVALON BIBLE:

I. Sacred Grove

II. Gods and Goddesses

III. Merlin

IV. Lady of the Lake

V. Arthur

VI. Excalibur

VII. Holy Grail


Lucius Artorius Castus and Warfare in Britain

Hadrian's Wall

According to my final theory, the prefecture of Lucius Artorius Castus over the Sixth Legion can first be dated to the governorship of Statius Priscus.  I base this solely on the probability that LAC, with legionary detachments from Britain, accompanied the governor to Armenia in the early 160s.  

The action in Armenia was completed, so far as can tell, in 163.  Had LAC and his men proceeded to the next phase of the war in Parthia, he would have put this on his stone.  We also know that after his Armenia victory, Statius Priscus "is not heard of again, and may have died soon afterwards [Anthony Birley, THE ROMAN GOVERNMENT OF BRITAIN]."  It is reasonable to assume that LAC returned to Britain with his men and resumed his duties with the Sixth.

Because the Dark Age Arthur (British form of the Latin Artorius) appears to have been born at Ribchester, site of the Roman fort of the Sarmatian veterans, we can really only explain the survival of the name there by postulating the fame of the 2nd century Lucius Artorius Castus among the Sarmatian troops sent to Britain by Marcus Aurelius in 175.  Professor Roger Tomlin has expressed his opinion that had LAC been commissioned into the centuriate, he could well have still be serving in Britain in 175.  He did not think we could further extend LAC's tenure as prefect of the Sixth to 185, the time of the deputation of British troops to Rome and their execution of Perennis.

This leads us, naturally, to wonder what action LAC may have seen inside Britain.  While anything we come up with for this is speculation, we can at least establish a fairly detailed chronology which contains within it several possible major military events.  To discover what these events were, I will quote here from passages on several British governors from Anthony Birley's THE ROMAN GOVERNMENT OF BRITAIN.  References to war in Britain are highlighted.  Note that the references we have are presented to us in very general terms.  No specifics are given.  Trying to "flesh out" these references, while an amusing imaginative exercise, cannot be viewed as anything more than possibilities, some of which we may deem as being more plausible than others. Efforts to define LAC's role during this time period in detailed terms that are presented to us as a factual account should be discounted as impassioned fictions.   

I hasten to add that while there are those who would try to make more out of LAC than a prefect of the Sixth, and even to try and fill one of the "gaps" in the governor list with LAC as acting governor, there is no evidence for this, and no good argument for it, either.  The attaining of either legate status or the assuming of the role of governor would have been mentioned on his memorial stone.  As they are not, this simply did not happen, and claiming that they did is not only indefensible, but utterly fanciful.

161 Marcus Statius, Marci filius, Claudia, Priscus Licinius
Italicus (cos. ord. 159)

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 [Statius] 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).⁷

161/2–163– Sextus Calpurnius Agricola (cos. 154)

Agricola’s consulship, once assigned to 159, can now be dated to September
154.⁸⁴ He is next recorded as governor of Upper Germany in 158, probably
soon after the beginning of his term of office.⁸⁵ The context of the sentence in
the HA which refers to his dispatch ‘against the Britons’ suggests that he was
replaced in Germany by Aufidius Victorinus and transferred to Britain in
autumn 161 or early 162 at the very latest.⁸⁶ It indicates that there were hostilities
 in progress in Britain (already referred to in HA M. Ant. Phil. 8. 7, quoted 
under Gov. 29).⁸⁷ A mention in Polyaenus’ Strategica (6, pr.) of ‘the Britons 
being defeated’ may refer to this war, since the work was dedicated to 
Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus in 162. From the inscription at Ribchester 
it can be inferred that he took some extra cavalry from Germany with him—unless
they had been sent under one of his predecessors.

The dedication at Corbridge firmly dates his governorship to the year 163
and has already disposed of the possibility that he was the predecessor of
Priscus, rather than his successor.⁸⁸ The distribution of his inscriptions, at
Carvoran on Hadrian’s Wall, and Vindolanda, just south of the wall, as well
as at Corbridge, also at Ribchester, and perhaps at Hardknott, in north-west
England, indicates that Hadrian’s Wall and the Pennines were occupied at the
time. It now seems clear that the Antonine Wall had been given up under
Julius Verus several years earlier (see under Gov. 27).

At least one unknown governor must be postulated between Calpurnius
Agricola and Antistius Adventus.

c.172–174/5? Quintus Antistius Adventus

His governorship of Lower Germany is the latest post recorded on the cursus inscription 
from Thibilis. His presence is recorded in the province by his dedication at Vectio to a series 
of deities appropriate to the troubled times.¹⁰⁵ If he did go to Lower Germany 
c.169 or 170, he probably moved to Britain— by this period a sequence of offices 
for which there was ample precedent— about three years later. At least one 
unknown governor must be postulated in the interval between Calpurnius 
Agricola and Adventus, whose governorship may be tentatively assigned to 
c.172–5 or 173–6. The HA refers to ‘the threat of a British war’ (M. Ant. Phil. 22. 1), 
apparently a second one under Marcus Aurelius, in a context that seems to 
refer to the early 170s.¹⁰⁶ Further, Adventus may have had the task of absorbing 
into the army of the province the 5,500 Sarmatians sent to Britain following 
M. Aurelius’ armistice with that people in 175 (Dio 71. 16. 2). The need for 
the governor to give attention to the military districts of the province may explain 
the appointment of a iuridicus, datable to the period c.172–5, Sabucius Major (iurid. 5).

32. c.174/5–177? (Caerellius) (cos. a. inc.)

His governorship of Britain would then run from c.175 to 177—for in the latter 
year, at latest in the autumn, it may now be argued that Ulpius Marcellus (Gov. 33) 
had taken over in Britain.

28 March 178, 184 Lucius(?) Ulpius Marcellus (cos. c.173?)

However, the new Antonine Wall seems only to have been occupied for 
about twenty years and Hadrian’s Wall, with a few outposts forts to its north, 
became the frontier again from c.158 (see under Gov. 27). Further fighting in 
the north is attested under Marcus Aurelius (see Gov. 29–30). Soon after Commodus’
accession the province was invaded by the northern peoples ‘crossing the
Wall’, who killed a Roman general. The war was ended by Ulpius Marcellus
(Gov. 33) in 184, when Commodus took the title Britannicus.


  

Friday, March 19, 2021

HAVING OUR CAKE AND EATING IT, TOO: LUCIUS ARTORIUS CASTUS IN ARMENIA AND IN BRITAIN C. 175

Armenian Artaxata with Mount Ararat in the Background

My readers know now that for months I have been struggling with the following dilemma: how do I reconcile reading ARMENIOS [1] on the LAC stone when I am fairly certain the sub-Roman Arthur was born at Ribchester of the Sarmatian veterenas?  The problem has to do with chronology, as it is claimed LAC could not have both gone to Armenia in 163 and been in Britain in 175 when the 5,500 Sarmatian troops were sent there.

As is so often the case, I have been operating in ignorance or, to be more precise, I have been relying on unreliable information.  I've just had a lengthy discussion with Professor Roger Tomlin, who strongly prefers the ARMENIOS reading.  What I asked him was simply whether LAC as camp prefect of the Sixth could have gone with a task force with Statius Priscus to Armenia in 163, and then returned to Britain to finish out his service.  The corollary to this question is whether LAC could have been in Britain in 175.  What follows is his response to these questions:

"As a centurion proceeding to even more senior posts, LAC would not have been confined to 25 years' service.  It is quite possible that he returned to Britain after his command in Armenia. After all, the troops he commanded must have returned!

I can't put weight on the double F of PRAEF. On the stone, it looks so much as if someone drew PRAFF (as if a mistake for PRAEF) and then inserted E ligatured to A. If he were really Prefect twice, I am sure he would have said ITERVM. But normally he would go to another legion.

It is possible that LAC was directly commissioned ex equite Romano into the centurionate, and was thus comparatively young when he became Prefect. You needn't suppose he serv ed 12+ years in the ranks before becoming centurion.

Look in Pflaum at Cn. Marcius Rustius Rufinus, who became centurion in the reign of Marcus, and proceeded through a series of posts like those held by LAC to become Severus' praefectus vigilum in c.207. This is a 30-year career.

If you commission LAC directly into the centurionate, say in the mid-150s, he need only be in his mid-40s in 175. But it becomes difficult to give him a re-run, another field command, ten years later."

In other words, LAC was probably not still in Britain in Perennis was executed in 185.  However, he could well have been there in 175 when the 5,500 Sarmatians were deposited on the island. As camp prefect of the Sixth, the legion responsible for the troubled North, he doubtless would have had significant interaction with them.  

We would have to leave the 1500 British spearmen who marched on Rome to deal with Perennis to someone else - perhaps to Priscus, whom I have discussed before at some length (see https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-problem-of-priscus-loyal-legate.html). 

This is, I think, a rather elegant solution to the problem posed by the fragmentary state of the LAC memorial stone.  

In any case, once we accept LAC as dux of British vexillations taken to Armenia, we need not worry about the 1500 spearmen. He does not mention them on his stone. Tomlin is himself in some doubt as to the veracity of Dio Cassius' account on this "deputation" to Rome, and his reservations are reinforced by our possession of alternate versions of Perennis' end (e.g. Herodian).  


[1] The only good reading for the ARM[...]S of the Lucius Artorius Castus memorial inscription is ARMENIOS, either with a ligatured ME (which was reported by Carrara, but is no longer visible) or a ligatured NI.  AR[E]MORICOS OR AR[E]MORICANOS does not work not only because it is otherwise unattested on inscriptions, but because it would require a rare C/o ligature that does not seem to occur prior to the Severan period and is not in keeping with the style of the stone's lettering.  ARMATOS has been rejected universally as an unacceptable reading.




Thursday, March 18, 2021

AN END TO ARMATOS IN THE LUCIUS ARTORIUS CASTUS INSCRIPTION

Fragment of a Second Lucius Artorius Castus Stone

More intense conversation with a half a dozen top epigraphers and historians on the possibility that ARMATOS should be the word in the LAC inscription represented by ARM[...]S has now reached its conclusion.

The result, nicely summarized by Professor Roger Tomlin only just this morning:

"[Caius Julius Septimius] Castinus specifies just where his troops came from, and this is typical of vexillation-inscriptions. That is what he thought mattered. His opponents were men who had taken up arms outside the law – and I don't think armatos can carry such a force. It simply means 'armed men'. I made a casual search after the phrase, and I found Tacitus, Ann. i 59, which reports a speech made by Arminius mocking a major campaign by the Romans which achieved only the capture of his wife who was pregnant. Whereas he had destroyed three Roman legions and fought against armed men, he said, not pregnant women: sibi tres legiones, totidem legatos procubuisse; non enim se proditione neque adversus feminas gravidas, sed palam adversus armatos bellum tractare.

I think armatos is a neutral term, and that a Roman general wouldn't have congratulated himself on fighting against 'armed men', any more than he would have recorded a campaign against inermes. 

Claudius Candidus is another general like your Castinus. He was legate of Hispania Citerior, et in eo duci terra marique adversus rebelles h(ostes) p(ublicos) (Dessau ILS 1140). It is the nature of the command that matters, and that the opposition were (internal enemies) armed illegally; not that they were armed men, period."

To date, I have failed to find a single scholar who will support the ARMATOS reading.  It is, therefore, with reluctance that I must abandon the possibility.

ARMENIOS is only possible if LAC was in Britain as prefect of the Sixth well before the advent there of the 5,500 Sarmatians.  This is precluded if I'm right about the sub-Roman Arthur being born at Ribchester.  As the supportive argument (most would call it "evidence") for this is quite strong, I am not willing to let go of it. The temptation is there as well to link LAC with the 1500 British troops said to march on Rome and execute Perennis.  While we can't know for certain, the fact that all 1500 are armed with the same weapon, a kontos, at least suggests these may have been Sarmatian cavalrymen.

So that leaves something else for ARM[...]S.  ARMORICOS would seem fine, and would doubtless refer to the Deserters' War, except that the necessary C-O ligature does not fit the style of lettering on the stone and our earliest example of this rare ligature appears to be Severan.  I'm exploring the possibility of a different kind of truncation for ARMORICOS, and have not yet given up on finding an as yet unknown alternative reading.  

In conclusion, I offer Tomlin's last thoughts on the LAC stone inscription:

"I am committed, as you know, to the 'Armenian' interpretation of LAC's career.

But perhaps you should play with the published photographs of his inscription, and see just how many letters can be fitted into the gap. There is some use of ligature, but like you, I am not happy with 'o' within 'C'. But I don't think ARMORICOS can be abbreviated, quite apart from the embarrassment that the term was properly – as you, a Celticist would know – AREMORICOS. I think if the stone-cutter was saving space, he wouldn't have used ADVERSVS. CONTRA would have saved him two letters. The use of ADVERSVS rather suggests that he wasn't using abbreviation here."

Tuesday, March 16, 2021

ARM[...]S IN THE LUCIUS ARTORIUS CASTUS INSCRIPTION: THE ARGUMENT FOR ARMORICA

NOTE: Since writing this piece, I have revisited the problem of fitting ARMORICOS on the LAC stone.  The problem is that the required C-O ligature appears to be quite rare.  According to Alessandro Faggiani, he has found only a couple instances so far.  This fact combined with the otherwise quite normal lettering of the inscription leds doubt to the notion that ARMORICOS should be the intended reading - which, of course, is why Dr. Linda Malcor and associated have preferred ARMATOS.

Tomlin told me (via private communication):

"I would agree that ligature doesn't suit the style of the stone. I don't know how rare it actually is, but I would have expected it to be later, Severan at least."

And:

"There is some use of ligature, but like you, I am not happy with 'o' within 'C'. But I don't think ARMORICOS can be abbreviated, quite apart from the embarrassment that the term was properly – as you, a Celticist would know – AREMORICOS. I think if the stone-cutter was saving space, he wouldn't have used ADVERSVS. CONTRA would have saved him two letters. The use of ADVERSVS rather suggests that he wasn't using abbreviation here."

I will be continuing to work on this problem over the next few weeks.  For now, I consider the ARM[...]S question unresolved. 



ARMORICA

LAC Stone with ARMORICOS
(courtesy Alessandro Faggiani)

It has become unfashionable to consider ARMORICOS as the proper reading for the fragmentary ARM[...]S of the LAC inscription.  This is simply because ARMENIOS is preferred - something I wrote about at length.  At one time I favored the ARMENIOS reading.  This changed when I realized I could not divest myself of the Eliwlad-Ailithir equation, something that demonstrated a connection between the sub-Roman Arthur and the Sarmatian veterans who had settled at Ribchester in the Roman period.  And so I took it upon myself to seriously consider ARMATOS, a new reading proposed by Dr. Linda Malcor and her colleagues.

Alas, after a lengthy analysis and having checked with all the best epigraphers and historians, ARMATOS simply doesn't seem to work.  

What does that mean for our understanding of LAC's military career?

Well, if I'm right and he does belong to a time when the Sarmatian troops were in Britain, the only other possible alternative is ARMORICOS.

To see if such a reading made any sense in light of current research, I consulted a fairly new book by Thomas Grunewald - Bandits in the Roman Empire Myth and Reality (Routledge, 2008).  This volume contained a good summary of research that had been done on Maternus and the Deserters' War and its localization, at least in part, in Armorica.  I here quote from the most important discussion of the geographical evidence:


Crucial for deciding on the plausibility of a link between Maternus and
the Bagaudae is the question as to whether Maternus’ movement really,
as Herodian claims, covered wide parts of Gaul, the Germanies and Spain.
Scholars, deeply sceptical about what Herodian says, have long regarded
the extension of the revolt as controversial; and indeed, Herodian is not
above having inordinately exaggerated its dimensions.153 In the end, he had
to make out Maternus to be a serious challenger to Commodus. G. Alföldy
has, on the basis of epigraphical evidence, located the centre of the uprising
in Upper Germany and the dependent territory of the Agri Decumates.
Reference has already been made to the inscription honouring C. Vesnius
Vindex who, as tribune of Legio VIII, survived a ‘recent siege’. Added to this
can be the wax writing tablet from Rottweil, also already touched upon in
relationship with Maternus’ rebellion.154 This mentions sentences under
martial law (of deserters?) by M. Iuventius Caesianus, legate of Legio VIII.
Beyond the region of the upper Rhine there was, at least according to
Alföldy, no unrest connected with Maternus.155 A revolt confined to Upper
Germany can scarcely be seen as the expression of a protest movement across
Gaul and even beyond.

Meanwhile, archaeological finds have continued to stimulate discussion.
As early as 1956, S. Szádeczky-Kardoss, on the basis of coin hoards, pointed
to destruction at Juliobona, at the mouth of the Seine, previously dated to
the reign of Marcus Aurelius, as an indication of the Bellum Desertorum.
156 In 1982, G. Mangard published his reconstruction of the building inscription
of a temple in Bois l’Abbé (Eu, Haute-Normandie), probably constructed
during the Severan period. The dedicator, L. Cerialius Rectus, cites in the
enumeration of his municipal positions that of ‘officer in charge of controlling 
banditry’ (pra[efectus latro]cinio [arcendo]).157 Contrary to what Mangard
proposes, this post has nothing in particular to do with Maternus. It describes those 
local Gallic officials charged as a matter of course to act against
latrones. This has already been seen in Chapter 1.158 Mangard further points
to a remarkable concentration of regional coin hoards dating to late in
Commodus’ reign.159 Independent of this, on the basis of an accumulation
of archaeological evidence for serious damage in the territory of the Pictones
(south of the Loire mouth, modern Poitou), G. Ch. Picard was able to
identify a destruction horizon stratigraphically dated to the period spanning
Marcus Aurelius’ Marcommanic wars and the reign of Commodus.160 Among
other sites, the civitas-capital, Limonum (Poitiers), had suffered harm so
severe as to be explicable only as the result of war. North of the mouth of
the Loire, and so north of Pictonian territory, comes Aremorica, which
then runs along the Channel coast to the mouth of the Seine, and includes
Juliobona. Into association with the destruction sites among the Pictones G.
Ch. Picard brings possible contemporary military activity action in Aremorica
as evidenced by the funerary inscription of a certain L. Artorius Castus.161
An officer who had proved himself in a number of postings, in his personal
account of his own achievements he made much of the fact that he had led
two British legions together with auxiliaries ‘against the Aremoricans’.162
On the basis of chronological indicators in the history of the Roman army in
Britain, Castus’ command is dated after 181.

Given the close chronological and geographical proximity of the unrest in
Aremorica and Maternus’ rebellion, A.R. Birley had, indeed, before Picard,
already suggested a connection between the two.163 Picard adopts this
approach, and links all locations designated as having thrown up evidence
typical of military activity – such as destruction, coin hoards and inscriptions – 
to form a theatre of war in which a single integrated conflict might
have taken place: the revolt of Maternus.

In the current state of our knowledge we can, therefore, make out a
number of different centres of military unrest in Gaul and the Germanies of
the early 180s – in Upper Germany, and north-western and western Gaul. If
all the evidence is connected to Maternus, the geographical and chronological
extent of the Bellum Desertorum emerges as very wide indeed. Herodian’s
reference, apropos the wide distribution of the trouble spots, to Gaul and
Spain, seems more trustworthy; and the idea of some sort of link between
Maternus and the Bagaudae receives significant confirmation since the evidence 
for destruction in north-west Gaul, most recently pointed up by Picard,
fits in well with the notion of this area’s being the heart of the Bagaudic
movement.

Now this series of incidents, strung together to form a chain of evidence,
may well indicate that a number of regions in the general area of Gaul and
the Germanies suffered warlike incidents under Commodus, probably the
result of military threat, political instability and social crisis (whether real
or perceived). Maternus’ rebellion may, without doubt, be seen as manifestation 
of this last. However, there is no proof that all these trouble-spots were
linked to the revolt; and, what is more, contemporary symptoms of crisis are
certainly to be found even further afield in Gaul. To name just one example:
around the time that Commodus succeeded Marcus Aurelius, Trier received
its first city wall, still evidenced by its mighty North Gate, the ‘Porta
Nigra’.164 Since Trier had been granted colonial status under Augustus, the
construction of this wall can hardly be explained symbolically – as marking
the rank of colonia. And even if the wall was built close to the time of
Maternus’ rising, without further evidence no one would dream of supposing 
that it was erected just because of it. It is more likely that ‘general
unrest on the frontiers of the Rhine and Danube made the Treveri think it
advisable to adorn their tribal capital with a circuit-wall’.165 Contributory to
this ‘general unrest’ were, no doubt, numerous smaller incidents on the lines
of that of Maternus. Together with the new Germanic threat, they increased
the severity of the coming overall ‘Crisis’ of the third century, of which they
may be said to have been the harbingers. Thus it seems unlikely, and in
any case unproven, that Maternus’ revolt grew to such a size that it extended
from the upper Rhine to the far north-west of Gaul.

The only link between Maternus and the Bagaudae is the three inscriptions of 
C. Iulius Septimius Castinus, each alike almost to the letter.166 As
commander of a detached force of men seconded from the four German
legions, under the Severi, Castinus had directed operations ‘against renegades 
and rebels’ (adversus defectores et rebelles). Given the hundred years or so
that separated Maternus and the Bagaudae, the unique evidence of this
inscription should, from the start, be called upon as a link between the two
only with great circumspection. That the renegades and rebels mentioned
were insurgent provincials, deserters, runaway slaves and other marginal
figures, who still consciously saw themselves as continuing a movement
put down in 186, is not particularly plausible and anyway lacking in hard
evidence. The suppression of a provincial uprising involving units from
four legions would probably have found greater mention in the sources.
On the other hand, the explanation that Castinus and his force proceeded
against supporters of Clodius Albinus is convincing in terms of context and
chronology.167

Since it cannot be proved that Maternus was the instigator of all unrest
indicated in Gaul and the Germanies in his period, and since Castinus’
inscriptions are questionable as linking elements, it would seem best to steer
clear of any assumption of a basic connection between Maternus and the
Bagaudae.

In the second part of his report on the activities of the deserters, Herodian
first describes Maternus’ alleged intention of overthrowing Commodus and
claiming the imperial throne for himself.168 The planning and failure of
this attempt at usurpation form the conclusion of the account.169 The initial
uprising was crushed only after the involvement of the respective provincial
governors, ordered by Commodus to take active countermeasures after 
complaining about their negligence in combating the rebellion. That Pescennius
Niger was put in charge of putting down the revolt should be seen as an
invention of the author of the Historia Augusta, to support the credibility of
his claim of friendship between Niger and Septimius Severus, at that time
governor of Gallia Lugdunensis.170 If the wax writing-tablet from Rottweil
refers to the Bellum Desertorum, it follows that in the Agri Decumates the
revolt was quelled at the latest by August 186.171 As already mentioned, this
document refers to sentences passed by Iuventius Caesianus, legate of Legio
VIII. 

Given these kinds of troubles in Armorica at this point in time, it would not be at all unreasonable for LAC to have been sent to the Continent with legionary vexillations to help deal with the problem. Whether the instigator or leader was Maternus or someone else (if we wish to restrict the former's activities to Germany) need not detain us.  What is important is that Armorica seems to have been subject to major unrest and assistance was required from across the Channel.

For me to retain the 'Sarmatian connection', I must, through process of elimination, opt to read ARM[...]S as ARMORICOS.  

This does not, obviously, help us with the 1500 spearmen who marched to Rome to destroy Perennis.  We must assume that if LAC led the spearmen, it happened after his force had finished fighting in Armorica.  This is entirely possible. The sequence of events involving Priscus, legate of the Sixth legion, and the war is difficult to parse.  I have discussed Priscus in several blog posts, most recently this one: https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-problem-of-priscus-loyal-legate.html.  The case has been made that Priscus was fighting against the deserters and that he was the one who led the 1500 spearmen to Rome.  An analysis of the stones that may be related to him indicates that he may have been praepositus of some British troops after he served with the Macedonian legion.  And it was before he served with that legion that he was legate of the Sixth in Britain.

My own feeling is that Tomlin is right and the uncertain double N in the Priscus inscription may mean that these troops being led by Priscus were from German legions, not British ones.  I say this because after Priscus refused the British attempt to raise him to the purple, he would have been rewarded for his loyalty by being made legate of the Macedonian legion.  And, of course, it would have been considered wise to remove him from Britain.  To then think that he would have at some point be put back into the command of British troops makes no sense at all.  For this reason, I take him out of the British sphere as far as the praepositus rank is concerned. 

It will be noticed in the above account of the Maternus revolt that there are now thought to be chiefly two theaters in which trouble was occurring:  Germany and Armorica.  I would propose, then, that LAC was sent with British troops to help in Armorica, while Priscus was sent with German troops to help in Germany.  

If so, this leaves us with the question of who led the 1500 British spearmen to Rome.  As I have removed Priscus from the picture, there is no good reason why to not settle on LAC as the commander of this mission to remove Perennis from power. 










 

ARMATOS STILL DEEMED UNACCEPTABLE

LAC Memorial Stone Showing ARM[...]S

The verdict on the use of ARMATOS in the LAC inscription as a reference to the leading of British troops against Perennis at Rome has not been well received by the top Latin epigraphers and Roman historians.  In fact, I have failed to garnish support from even one of these scholars.  My idea was that armatos might in the context of the LAC stone represent an intentionally vague or oblique, perhaps even diplomatic effort at referring to the action that led to the execution of Perennis.

No one bought this.  If Commodus gave up his Praetorian Prefect, either being convinced of the conspiracy charges levied at Perennis or as a means of appeasing the British army, the man who had removed such a man would have declared one of two things: either he would have named the man or he would have used 'hostis publicus' or similar.  This is especially true if LAC had been rewarded for the killing of Perennis with the Procuratorship of Liburnia.  In short, we cannot reconcile his wanting to
both claim the successful mission on his stone and a need or desire to avoid naming or directly implicating Perennis.  

And we still have the same problem with ARMATOS that we've had all along: its nonspecific nature.  Yes, sure, we find the phrase ADVERSUS ARMATOS in Tacitus.  But it is found in a context that allows us to know exactly what armed men are being referred to, as well as where the armed men are to be found and who they are fighting for  Here is the relevant passage in the original Latin and in English translation.  I have highlighted the relevant passage:

TACITUS, ANNALS, I.59:

59. Fama dediti benigneque excepti Segestis vulgata, ut quibusque bellum invitis aut cupientibus erat, spe vel dolore accipitur. Arminium super insitam violentiam rapta uxor, subiectus servitio uxoris uterus vaecordem agebant, volitabatque per Cheruscos, arma in Segestem, arma in Caesarem poscens. neque probris temperabat: egregium patrem, magnum imperatorem, fortem exercitum, quorum tot manus unam mulierculam avexerint. sibi tres legiones, totidem legatos procubuisse; non enim se proditione neque adversus feminas gravidas, sed palam adversus armatos bellum tractare.

59. The report of the surrender and kind reception of Segestes, when generally known, was heard with hope or grief according as men shrank from war or desired it. Arminius, with his naturally furious temper, was driven to frenzy by the seizure of his wife and the foredooming to slavery of his wife's unborn child. He flew hither and thither among the Cherusci, demanding "war against Segestes, war against Caesar." And he refrained not from taunts. "Noble the father," he would say, "mighty the general, brave the army which, with such strength, has carried off one weak woman. Before me, three legions, three commanders have fallen. Not by treachery, not against pregnant women, but openly against armed men do I wage war. 

Armatos is so disliked by scholars that I have had Tomlin recently remark, "Did any Roman officer ever boast instead of marching against INERMES [unarmed men]?"  The problem has to do with the fact that it would have been assumed an enemy being fought against was armed and so quite unnecessary to describe one's enemy that way.

For now, I find myself in a quandary: the sub-Roman Arthur does seen to have been born at Ribchester, where the Sarmatian veterans were settled in the Roman period.  That suggests that the name Artorius had been preserved by the descendants of those settlers.  And that would have happened only if Lucius Artorius Castus had somehow been seen by the Sarmatians in Britain as a notable figure and one who was involved with them in some special way.  The possibility that the 1500 British spearmen who went against Perennis might well be Sarmatian cavalry would provide us with that connection.  

But if all this is so, what to make of ARM[...]S?  The only candidate available would appear to be ARMORICOS, and that is not entirely satisfactory, for reasons which have been discussed before.

It is possible I am wrong about the Eliwlad-Ailithir equation, of course.  And that would leave open ARMENIOS, placing LAC in Britain before the Sarmatians were sent there.  We could then not propose any association of LAC with Sarmatians.  The 1500 sent against Perennis would have been commanded by someone else - perhaps the Priscus I have discussed before in great detail.

Over the next week or so, I will be taking yet another look at ARM[...]S.  There may be other possibilities we have missed.  For example, an inscription from Dalmatia to the god Armatus reads on the first line ARMAVG S for Armatus Augustus.  Although ARM[...]S can only have a few letters missing, they could be, conceivably, letters of another abbreviated word, with ARM being separate from them.  

Stay tuned... I will post any new finding or eventual conclusion.  


Sunday, March 14, 2021

THE PROBLEM OF PRISCUS THE LOYAL LEGATE: A GOOD EXAMPLE OF A FRAGMENTARY RECORD

Commodus Dressed as Hercules

Over the past several weeks I have been discussing the Priscus who is offered the purple by British troops during the reign of the Emperor Commodus.  A number of assertions have been made about this man, and some of these are being passed off as factual statements.  With Professor Roger Tomlin's help, I have gained a real appreciation for the difficulty involved in piecing together a long military career from a series of incomplete sources.  Tomlin has kindly pulled everything together and produced the following narrative, which I will comment upon later in this post.

"Our basic problem, as you know, is whether we can pull all these inscriptions together and refer them to the same man – (1) Titus Caunius Priscus, legate of III Augusta who is about to become consul (but we don't know when); (2) the legate of III Augusta called ]CO LEG[, who is in post under Commodus; (3) the consul of Commodus in c.191 who is called ]VNIO ... [...]CO. Identifying (3) with (2) depends on seeing his latest command as III Augusta, not II Italica (as in Birley p. 261, following Gregori and Alföldy). From what I can see of the stone, this is possible, and better suits his titulature.

If you do identify the three, you get a long and interesting senatorial career crowned by the consulship at the end of Commodus' reign. In ascending order:

legate of VI Victrix (but bear in mind that this is a restoration – we only know for sure that it was a legion with P F in its titulature)

legate of V Macedonica

field-commander of vexillations drawn from a provincial army ending in –NNICARVM , which again must be reconstructed as the 'British' legions. The first N is doubtful – could it be 'Germanicarum' instead?

legate of III Augusta (which depends on a re-reading of the Rome inscription)

consul, c. 191

If this is seen as the career of Caunius Priscus, which I think is reasonable (but not certain), then you get a tight chronology if you try to fit it to the second-rate literary record.

Priscus is legate of VI Victrix in 184, when Commodus becomes Britannicus and the British army tries to proclaim the legate Priscus. He is promoted for his loyalty, and also to get him out of Britain – becomes legate of V Macedonica. As such, he is made acting-commander of a field force perhaps (but not necessarily) drawn from Britain. In any case, he would not have needed to go to Britain to command a field-force operating on the Continent.

He is successful in this command – i.e. he kills Maternus – and as a reward gets the plum post of III Augusta which is a provincial governorship as well; and naturally leads to the consulship. One complicating factor is that the Historia Augusta says that Pescennius Niger distinguished himself in Gaul against the deserters[1], while Herodian has Maternus slipping away from Gaul when a force is concentrated against him, and being arrested and executed in Rome.

I suppose it would be safe to assume that more than one field force was mobilised against the deserters, since the uprising was so widespread.

I think you can squeeze it all together, since his legionary command in Britain would have ended with his refusal to become a usurper, and he could have commanded the vexillations during his next post, the command of V Macedonica.

I leave it to you to decide whether the vexillations were 'British' or to be identified with the 1500 spearmen who killed Perennis, let alone whether LAC had anything to do with all this."

This astute summary of the extant materials on Priscus reveals what a tricky business reassembling a personal history can be.  There aren't too many scholars with the acumen capable of treating of these complex and confusing matters in a way that commands admiration and respect.  

Tomlin is still content with the ARM[...]S of the LAC inscription as ARMENIOS, and remains "happy to see him as already procurator of Liburnia" when the Perennis affair plays out.

My only question concerning Priscus is whether it is logical to assume he would have been given command of British troops on the Continent shortly after members of the British army had tried to raise him to the Purple.  This seems rather counter-intuitive.  Allowing for the inscription to read GERMANICARUM thus makes more sense.  We know that Maternus attacked Argentoratum in Upper Germany in 185 A.D.  Gaul, Spain and Germania were involved in the Deserters' War (see https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiptavb3LP7AhWrGDQIHV5LAAsQFnoECCIQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F351783693_Emperor_Commodus%27_%27Bellum_desertorum%27&usg=AOvVaw1Nnz0NcpGFDzs-QASY8g_U , T. Grünewald, Bandits in the Roman Empire. Myth and Reality, London/New York

The story of the deputation of the 1500 British spearman is highly suspect, and it is likely that this is a garbled account of soldiers coming instead from Illyricum (see https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2022/11/no-1500-spearmen-from-britain-better.html).

[1]


Now Pescennius was on very friendly terms with Severus at the time that the latter was governor of the province of Lugdunensis.12 4 For he was sent to apprehend a body of deserters who were then ravaging Gaul in great numbers...




Friday, March 12, 2021

NO EVIDENCE (OR GOOD ARGUMENT) FOR LUCIUS ARTORIUS CASTUS AS LEGATE OR GOVERNOR OF BRITAIN

Lucius Artorius Castus Stone with Proposed ARMATOS Reading
(Courtesy Alessandro Faggiani)

Because it is probable that the sub-Roman Arthur was born at the fort of the Roman period Sarmatian veterans in Britain, I have provisionally agreed to accept the ARMATOS reading for the LAC stone - despite unified scholarly resistance to the idea.  I have also found it highly likely that LAC as an equestrian acting for the legate of the Sixth Legion was assigned to lead a deputation against Perennis. This deputation was composed of 1500 Sarmatian contus-bearers drawn from the three British legions. 

But the further claim tha LAC became either legate or governor of Britain, presumably filling the gap between Pertinax and Albinus, is not something I can support.  And here's why...

Firstly, there is no evidence he became such.  Secondly, that he became procurator of Liburnia after leading the legionay detachments of Britain does not prove that he had to be governor.  We have an equestrian in the time of Hadrian who was made procurator of a part of the newly divided Dacia.  So there is precedent right there.  Secondly, had he been legate or governor - even acting-governor - these are distinctions that he would never have omitted from his memorial stone.  'Dux' in the context of someone leading three legionary detachments refers in the Antonine period to a junior officer being given a special military task - and that's all.  It does not imply that he was legate or a governor.  

No equestrian became governor in the period prior to or during the Antonine period.

The notions that Commodus may have appointed LAC governor as a reward for his getting rid of Perennis, or because there was a shortage of senators for the post due to plague happening at the time (both suggestions being made by Dr. Linda Malcor), are appealing, even tempting.  But if LAC had been officially appointed governor, once again we can be assured he would have claimed this on his stone.  He goes into great detail about his procuratorship, and governorship of a province, as the highlight of his military career, would not have been left out.  The same holds true for the rank of legate.

We do have a record of an equestrian becoming governor of two provinces in the Severan period, Titus Cornasidius Sabinus (193-211 AD).  But these were small provinces.  The following information, though found on Wikipedia, is drawn from Adrian Goldsworthy's 2003 book THE COMPLETE ROMAN ARMY:

"In the imperial administration, equestrian posts included that of the governorship (praefectus Augusti) of the province of Egypt, which was considered the most prestigious of all the posts open to equites, often the culmination of a long and distinguished career serving the state. In addition, equites were appointed to the governorship (procurator Augusti) of some smaller provinces and sub-provinces e.g. Judaea, whose governor was subordinate to the governor of Syria."

Needless to say, Britain was not a small province. 

There is one overriding, indisputable fact about Lucius Artorius Castus's memorial stone and that is this: the highest rank he achieved prior to the procuratorship of Liburnia was prefect of the Sixth Legion. We can say this with certainty, for that is all he tells us.  He does not supply us with his rank of legate or with his rank of governor.  The dux designation has been abused enough by those wishing to see more in it than is there.  Prior to the mid-third century, it was not used as a formal rank.  It merely showed that a junior officer had been given a special temporary mission.  Whatever we decide ARM[...]S represents in the inscription, the legionary detachments he led against the person, place or thing were led by a prefect acting as the agent of a legate. 

No Roman military man is going to leave off his very large and very expensive and very beautiful memorial stone the most important and highest ranking titles of his career.  Anyone who tries to convince you he would, and that a term used on the inscription has either a different meaning than we know it had, or has an implied meaning that is not otherwise evinced, is in error. 

This sentiment is echoed in Tomlin's quote, which I only just included in my post a few days ago at https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2021/03/a-confusion-of-sarmatians-or-what.html:

"The Valerius Maximianus inscription is almost the same date. He is careful to specify that he was raised to the senate before being made a legionary legate. LAC never says this.  LAC never pretends to be anything other than a prefect of a legion."

[1]

Professor Roger Tomlin on the PRAEFF on LAC's stone:

"PRAEFF is such an easy stonecutter's error that I don't like to overload it with the sense that LAC was prefect twice. He would surely have said so, in the way that a primus pilus for the second time is proud of being iterum."