The LAC Stone with ARMORICOS
[ITEM, with the ITE ligature, in Line 3, circled in red for comparison with the proposed RI ligature. For the CO ligature, see the text below and the photos at the bottom of the page.]
A few weeks back there was a "heated debate" here on the KING ARTHUR: MAN AND LEGEND Facebook group page concerning the possibility that ARMORICOS could fit quite nicely on the Lucius Artorius Castus memorial stone (an idea floated in https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2021/05/well-this-is-embarrassing-arms-can-in.html). I faced strong resistence to the idea, even though Alessandro Faggiani was kind enough to attempt some computer simulations of what the inscription would look like with O, ligatured RI and ligatured CO plugged into the gap in ARM[...]S.
I didn't see a problem with the fit, but Alessandro insisted that the relevant letters had to be resized, spacing made uniform, etc. It was his opinion, therefore, that the word could not be ARMORICOS.
Only today I have had a moment to go at this the old-fashioned way. Because any kind of manipulation can take place when using a photo editing program, I used a method that cannot be questioned: I printed out two exactly identical copies of the same image of the stone as it is typically reconstructed. In one copy I carefully cut out the letters O, R and C from the appropriate lines, where size of letters exactly matched the size of letters used for ARM[...]S. The R and C actually come from the ARM[...]S line itself, while the O comes from the line directly under the ARM[...]S line. [There is no O in the ARM- line. But I measured that line and the following, and the average height of the letters in those two lines is the same. Only in the following line (two under ARM-) do the letters again get smaller. The O was the best one available, but looks overlarge in the space in which it was inserted - despite it being from one line below ARM-. To the millimeter (using my printout, and a really good ruler!), I can say that the ARM- line and the one under it, between their respective top and bottom lines, are of identical distance. So taking the O from the line under ARM- for use in ARM- is perfectly acceptable.] I then copied the style of the I in Line's 3's ITE ligature for ITEM, as the Rs all have fairly flush left-hand surfaces on their verticals. I simply used an ink pen to draw the small O inside the C, as that is not a factor in determining fit. If, as some claim, the inscription had to be visible from below [1] and so an o in C ligature would not be visible, I would point out firstly that the ARM[...]S line is near the bottom of the inscription, and so would be nearer to the viewer, and such o letters inside C letters are found in varying sizes, from smaller to larger. For the sake of fairness, I have opted for an o that is about average size - not too small, but also not too large (see figures 1 and 2 below).
While all three proposed letters (two being ligatures) can be moved back and forth to some slight extent, I settled on what looked to be a good compromise, based on spacing of similar letter groups on the stone. Spacing which, I repeat, is NOT uniform, despite what some claim. Both spacing and ligatures throughout the stone show the usual space-saving methods being employed. Other than any ligature(s) we propose for ARM[...]S, there are 17 ligatures evident on the stone. Two are triple ligatures. I have shown that the CO ligature was used during LAC's time, and in Dalmatia, on a stone of nearly identical style that otherwise does not display this feature a second time (see Figure 1). There is no problem whatsoever with the RI ligature. To assure everyone that I have not "cheated" in any way, the O is a nice, big fat O, the C is the normal C, etc. I have not compressed or stretched or downsized or upsized anything.
There is now no doubt whatsoever in my mind that ARMORICOS fits just fine on the stone [2], and is to be vastly preferred to the proposed ARMATOS or 'armed men' reading - which every established, reputable Latin epigrapher and Roman military historian refuses to accept due to its vagueness and nonspecificity (as Roger Tomlin noted, wryly, "Did any Roman officer ever boast instead of marching against INERMES, 'unarmed men'?").
NOTE on Armorica from http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=armoricae:
Armŏrĭcae (later form Arēmŏrĭ-cae , Aus. Ep. 9, 35; id. Prof. 10, 15), ārum, f., = Ἀρμορικαί [ar, Celt. and old Lat., = ar, on, and mor, Celt., = mare],
I.some of the northern provinces of Gaul, Bretagne, with a part of Normandy, Caes. B. G. 5, 53; 7, 75; Hirt. 8, 31; cf. Mann. Gall. 160.
Examples of o within C ligatures (the first is from Roman Liburnia, in approximately the same time period as the LAC stone, while the second shows that larger o letters could be carved within a C):
Figure 1
CIL 03, 02809 = Grbic 00011]
Figure 2
ILAfr 00009 = ILTun 00001 = ILPBardo 00022 = D 09177 = LBIRNA 00332 = AE 1909, 00104 = AE 1986, 00704 = Kaschuba-1994, 00086]
Another example of CO ligature from around the time of LAC in Dalmatia:
From the splendid http://lupa.at/search site, when searching under the Antonine and Antonine-Severan periods in Dalmatia, I found another O inside a C ligature dated between 171 AD – 230 AD:
Here is a very unusual ligature - a C placed inside the terminal O of a preceding and separate word:
The same Website gives other examples from Dalmatia in the same time periods that demonstrate just how inventive such ligature could become:
(C inside an O again!)
(with an E inside the C!)
(an I inside a C - a bit later in the Severan period)
(the O partly inside the C for consularis - to which we may compare the small o often found butted up against a larger C for the word cohors)
The IR ligature is also found on stones. Here are two examples of how this particular ligature could be carved:
And another example of the RI ligature, found from around LAC's time in Dalmatia:
[1]
From Professor Roger Tomlin (personal communication):
"Yes, I think the increasing height of the letters implies that the reader was expected to be looking up at it, but I wouldn't press this too far. For one thing, it was natural to increase the height of important lines. Compare the heights of lines 1 and 2: the proportion is much greater than between lines 2 and 3. Also consider the Caerleon inscription (RIB 330) which would have been high above you, on top of a gate. The second line, with Trajan's name, is the same height as the sixth, with the Legion's name. The intervening lines are lower. And then consider the great inscription at the base of Trajan's Column. The natural viewpoint is (say) five yards away, from where it would be easy to read it all without moving an eye; but for the letters all to appear the same height, you would have to stand at the base, and look straight up, when they would become distorted and you would have to scan to and fro. (I took this point from Richard Grasby's The Making of Roman Inscriptions, Study I).
So a matter of style, I guess, rather than exact mathematical calculation – but the mathematics are beyond me any way. I certainly don't think you can use the letter-heights to calculate how high the inscription would have been above you – only that it was above you. And think of the Classicianus inscription (RIB 12), where DIS MANIBVS is almost twice the height of succeeding lines which are all much the same.
Enlarging the first letters of an inscription is rather like entasis: to overcome the optical illusion of a column seeming to spindle is like making line 1 not seem smaller than the lines below, but (as I said) the mathematics are beyond me."
[2]
For the sake of intellectual honesty, it should be known that ARMENIOS also fits on the stone and only one ligature (NI) is required. For a reconstruction of the memorial stone displaying ARMENIOS, see http://christophergwinn.com/arthuriana/lac-sourcebook/.
While I once defended the Armenia reading for the LAC stone, several factors - not the least of which is simple logistics - forced me to abandon it. Of the few records we have of troop movements from Britain to other locations, all identify Germany or the Rhine as destinations. That a large legionary force would be taken from Britain all the way to Armenia seems rather incredible, once we weigh all the evidence.
What follows is a map of the Roman Empire in the time of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus. I have drawn arrows to show the contrast in distance for Armorica and Armenia for vexillations leaving Britain. The question we need to ask ourselves when viewing this map is whether it is more reasonable to assume LAC's troops went with him to Gaul (where we know the Deserters' War was being fought) or all the way across the entire Empire to Armenia.
What follows is a map of the Roman Empire in the time of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus. I have drawn arrows to show the contrast in distance for Armorica and Armenia for vexillations leaving Britain. The question we need to ask ourselves when viewing this map is whether it is more reasonable to assume LAC's troops went with him to Gaul (where we know the Deserters' War was being fought) or all the way across the entire Empire to Armenia.
To quote my friend Peter Verburgh, who has accumulated a wealth of knowledge on the Roman army:
"It begs indeed the question why vexillationes from faraway Britain would need to be sent to Armenia when at the time there were 10 legions on the Central Front/Limes ( the two Pannonias and two Moesias ), and another 6 legions on the Oriental Front ( Judaea, Syria & Arabia ) , apart from the two stationed in Cappadocia."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.