Rollout of the Ilam Pan Inscription
Some of my readers may remember my analysis of the Ilam or Staffordshire Moor Pan a few years ago (https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2019/07/aelius-draco-dacian-and-bannabirdoswald.html).
In brief, I had suggested that perhaps the AELI DRACONIS of the pan's inscription stood for the Aelian Draco, a reference to the Dacian military unit serving at Birdoswald, the Cohors I Aelia Dacorum. Having discussed it with some of the world's best Roman military historicans and Latin epigraphers, I decided to abandon the idea in favor of the conventional views, i.e. the AEL either refers back to vallum as an otherwise unrecorded name for Hadrian's Wall, with DRACO left as a personal name, or Aelius Draco was the personal name in question. One scholar even found a decent candidate for an Aelius Draco, although Roger Tomlin was quick to add "The name 'Aelius Draco' is not very distinctive: there must have been dozens of auxiliary veterans called that."
I had promised myself, however, to return to the problem someday. Having just announced that the time had come to do just that (https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2022/06/a-question-from-fan-why-did-i-abandon_24.html), I made a fateful decision: to write with my earlier query to the scholars who had worked on the pan and who have produced the definitive studies of the object. The academics in question are the highly respected Professor David Breeze and Dr. Christof Fluegel. Their articles are:
Flügel, C. & Breeze, D.J., Drawing the line: a military surveyor on Hadrian's Wall?: Bericht der Bayerischen Bodendenkmalpflege 62 2021 pp.155-170
The Ilam Pan. An alternative explanation for the omission of Aballava (Burgh-by-
Sands) David J. Breeze, Christof Flügel and Erik P. Graafstal
(new paper submitted to the Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society)
Their reaction was interesting. First, they wrote:
"...having discussed your interesting proposal with David Breeze, we think, that interpreting Aeli Draconis as sort of a poetic allusion to Banna is not possible, although strictly grammatically (but not archaeologically) spoken „(castra) Aeli Draconis“ (the fort of the Draco of Aelius) could fit your proposal."
This seemed like a good start, but they quickly followed that up with an objection based on chronology:
"The Ilam Pan, according to the main specialist in the field of Roman bronze vessels, Richard Petrovszky, on the basis of the cast construction technique, dates some decades before 150 AD, as provincial vessels starting shortly before or around 150 AD are always made of bronze sheet. In the 2012 publication on enamelled bronze vessels all authors agreed that the Ilam Pan is the earliest in the whole series. A (poetic) refence to Banna in the inscription is therefore simply contradictory to the dating of the vessel itself, as the name „Aelia“ of the Cohors Dacorum only appears from 146 AD onwards."
As it happens, the 146 AD date for the Aelia honorific as it was applied to the Cohors Dacorum is incorrect. I had found that Paul Holder claimed (http://www.uni-koeln.de/phil-fak/ifa/zpe/downloads/1998/122pdf/122253.pdf) Aelia was granted to the unit in 127 AD (for the diploma in question, see http://www.uni-koeln.de/phil-fak/ifa/zpe/downloads/1998/122pdf/122253.pdf).
To quote from Holder's article:
"Raised in Dacia, this cohort is first attested with its honorific title on a diploma for Britain of 20th
August AD 127 as cohors I Ael(ia) Dac(orum) (milliaria).17 This evidence invalidates earlier
discussions of the origin of the unit.18 The diploma shows that the men discharged then would have
been recruited in AD 102 or a little earlier. There are a number of possible explanations for this. The
date might represent when the cohort was raised by Trajan from Dacians settled within the Empire. The
award by Hadrian would then have been a battle honour. The only opportunity for gaining such an
award would have been on the Lower Danube early in Hadrian’s reign if, indeed, the trouble was
serious enough. Alternatively the unit was raised by Hadrian early in his reign, hence the honorific title,
and those men discharged in AD 127 were part of the cadre around which the unit was formed. It is also
conceivable that, in origin, it was a numerus Dacorum raised by Trajan which was converted to a cohort
by Hadrian. (This question will be looked at in more detail below.)
By the third century AD it formed the garrison of Birdoswald on Hadrian’s Wall where it is attested
on a number of inscriptions. The earliest recorded date is the governorship of Alfenus Senecio, AD
205/8, from a building dedication (RIB 1909). It was still there when the Notitia Dignitatum was drawn
up (Not. Dig. Occ. XL,44).
On the diplomas for Britain of AD 145/6 (RIB 2401.10) and AD 158 (P. A. Holder, op. cit., (n. 13)
it is called cohors I Aelia Dacorum without any indication of size."
When I asked Roger Tomlin for confirmation of this, he replied:
"Holder is right, and I would think the other sources belong to a date before the Bulgarian diploma was found, when the earliest attestation of Aelia was in the diploma of 145/6 (CIL xvi 93). The Bulgarian diploma, as I call it, links up with the leaf published by Holder in ZPE 117. They are now Roxan and Holder, Roman Military Diplomas IV, No. 240, and the date is undoubtedly 20 August 127, when the cohort has the title Aelia.
Some inscriptions from Britain do not give it the title – for lack of space? – such as RIB 1365 from the Vallum. Before RMD IV, 240 was found, this prompted some to think that it gained the title later than Hadrian, from Antoninus Pius."
What this means, I feel, is that the Ilam Pan inscription may actually COMMEMORATE the posting of the Cohors I Aelia Dacorum to the Banna fort. According to English Heritage (https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/places/birdoswald-roman-fort-hadrians-wall/history-and-stories/history/), "Birdoswald’s history began when a wooded spur was cleared for the building of Hadrian’s Wall in AD 122. The fort, added to the Wall shortly afterwards..." It makes sense to propose, then, that once the fort was completed, the Dacians were assigned to it. The Ilam Pan would have been fashioned at this time.
The only drawback to this theory concerns the nature of the Dacian milliaria: it was an infantry unit, not cavalry. The draco standard was a cavalry emblem. Dr. Fluegel discussed the problem thusly:
"A Cohors Dacorum would not have had a Draco Standard but a simple vexillum: Draco standards, as known from the famous specimen of Niederbieber (Germany), were exclusively used during in cavalry competitions on the parade ground. It is true that for example in Trajan`s column draco standards are used to identify Dacian enemy units, but this is not true anymore for a Cohors Dacorum in Roman times (which was an infantry unit and therefore would not have used an standard used in equestrian games)."
He is not entirely correct about this.
Robert Vermaat (http://www.fectio.org.uk/articles/draco.htm) discussed the Roman infantry's use of the draco:
"It is not documented when exactly the draco was adopted as a normal standard for all troop types. However, sources mention the draco being used with the infantry. The Historia Augusta mentions that the mother of Severus (193-211 AD) dreamt of a purple snake before his birth, something very alike what we later hear of the Imperial standard[3]. But since this source was probably compiled later, we can't be sure this has any bearing on a dating. We are on more solid ground with the entry of the reign of Gallienus (253-268 AD), when legionary troops are said to have paraded with a dracon amongst the standards of the legions[4] and the troops of Aurelianus (270-5 AD) also had draconarii amongst the standard-bearers[5]. This may lead us to conclude that the infantry began using dracos during the late 3rd c. On the Arch of Galerius, which was built before 311 AD to commemorate Galerius' war against Persia in 290 AD, several dracos can be seen to his left and right, carried by infantry as well as cavalry."
J.C.N. Coulston (Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 2 1991 The ‘draco' standard):
"On Julian's acclamation a draconarius of the infantry Petulantes supplied his torquis as a diadem...
Copper alloy box panels from Ságvár (Hungary), dating to the 4th century, provide the last depictions of Roman dracones (Fig. 11).32 The scale is too small and the detail too slight to give a clear indication of the draco type, but, most importantly, the dracones are carried by infantry as well as cavalry...
Through the 2nd and most of the 3rd centuries, 'dracones' were seemingly confined to cavalry, but they spread to legionary and other infantry possibly in the later 3rd, and certainly by the 4th century. In addition, dracones were employed as the personal standards of emperors during the 4th century...
The key to understanding the use of infantry dracones may lie in Vegetius' assignment of one draco to each legionary cohors. This seems to be the first reference to a single, overall cohort standard. Traditionally there were none between the levels of centurial or manipular signa and legionary aquila.61 This is a curious absence if the cohors was the tactical unit in the Principate legio, and auxiliary units had their own cohors level standards.62 Perhaps the increasing tendency in the 3rd century to detach cohortes from parent legiones played a part in draco provision."
Now, admittedly, the evidence such as we have it indicates that infantry would have the draco only well after the time of the Ilam Pan and the establishment of the Dacian garrison at Birdoswald. However, we must bear in mind that we are talking about Dacians here. So far as we know, they were the originators of the draco. I don't think it's stretching credibility to allow the Birdoswald Dacians to have venerated their draco in the early period. I would once again point to RIB 1904 (https://romaninscriptionsofbritain.org/inscriptions/1904), which is a dedication to the standards of the unit.
NOTE:
Does the notion of Birdoswald/Banna being the Fort of the Draco have any bearing on my Arthurian research?
Well, if we are to allow Arthur's father, Uther Pendragon, to be linked to the draco standard (independently of Geoffrey of Monmouth; see https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2022/06/why-supposed-connection-between-uther.html), then we must pay attention to Birdoswald. Not only does Birdoswald show a Dark Age reoccupation of the Roman fort, but it lies in the Irthing Valley. This river-name probably derives from the Cumbric word for 'bear', and I have placed the *Artenses or 'Bear-people' there (the tribal designation is preserved in the Welsh eponym Arthwys).
Furthermore, Carvoran Roman fort is only several kilometers to the east of Birdoswald. The former was garrisoned by a Dalmatian unit. We have an inscription there recording the death of a woman from Salona. I have identified this fort, as well as York and its Praesidium (itself manned by another Dalmatian unit), as a primary candidate for an ethnic group that may have preserved/passed along the Roman/Latin name Artorius among its descendents. As far as Carvoran is concerned, the Artorii are known to have been present at Salona, and L. Artorius Castus was himself probably born in Liburnia. Certainly, he served as procurator in that province, and was buried there.
I would add that my identification of the Arthurian battle sites fits in very well with an Arthur towards the center of Hadrian's Wall. In addition, Camboglanna/Castlesteads, just to the west of Birdoswald and also in the Irthing Valley, is the best possibility for Arthur's Camlann. Lastly, his 'Avalon' may well be a reflection of the Aballava/Avalana 'apple-orchard' Roman fort at Burgh-by-Sands, not far to the west Castlesteads.
Another emblem of the Dacians found used by the unit posted at Birdoswald is the falx. From
J. C. Coulston, B.Sc., M.Phil., Archaeologia Aeli-ana 5th Series, Vol. 9, 1981:
“A Sculptured Dacian Falx from Birdoswald
The inscribed stone in question, R.I.B. 1914, was found in 1852 outside the wall of the south guard-chamber of the main east gate of Birdos-wald fort. It was set up under Modius Julius, governor o f Britannia Inferior in a. d. 219, by the cohors I Aelia Dacorum commanded by M. Claudius Menander. This regiment can hardly have been raised before Trajan’s Dacian Wars and was a regular unit by c. 130, when it was helping in construction work on the Vallum (1365). Under Hadrian it may have been sta-tioned at Bewcastle and by a. d. 205-8 it was at Birdoswald building a granary (R.I.B. 1909). The inscription is flanked on the dexter side by a palm branch and on the sinister side by a curved sword. The latter represents a falx of the single-handed type, with pommel and guard. This weapon was characteristically carried by Daci-ans, as depicted in sculpture and coins and oc-curring amongst small finds. This representation on a stone set up by a cohors Dacorum makes the identification almost certain. On the spiral frieze o f Trajan’s Column several Dacians are shown using with one hand, notably in Cichori-us Scenes LX V II, L X X II, X C V -X C V I, C X L V and C L I. The melee around Roman defence-works in Scenes X C V -X C V I includes no few-er than seven in action. These falces have either a long handle, as in Scene L X II, or a shorter handle with a long curving blade and guard ap-proximating to the Birdoswald example. Corrob-orative representations are seen on the Adamk-lissr congeries armorum frieze and on a denarius of Trajan; both examples have guard and pom-mel. One actual falx, 55 cm long, has been found at Kaloz in Rumania. Another, from Gradistea Muncelului, is 68 cm with a tapering tang. The double-handed falx was much longer. An exam-ple from Rupea (Cohalme) in Transylvania is 90 cm long, with a metal haft for just over half its length. The latter would have had a wooden sheathing, balancing the wicked curved blade which gives the weapon its name. The Adamk-lissi metopes depict these falces in use against Roman legionarii equipped with ocreae and manicae to protect their limbs. According to Ar-rian the Greek kopis, a single-handed sword not unlike the one-handed falx, was capable o f shearing off a man’s arm and shoulder with one blow. In the Metopes all the Dacians have falces, their Germanic allies being equipped with shields and javelins. Vulpe used this contrast with the depictions of Dacians on Trajan’s Col-umn to argue for an invasion of Moesia Inferior by Sarmatae, Buri and Eastern Dacians, unat-tested in the literary sources. The pedestal of the Column may, however, depict a large falx to the left of the doorway. In its double-handed form the falx often occurs when Dacian spoils are de-picted. Four Trajanic coin issues show the curv-ing blade and Scene LXXVIII on the Column may include them. A ferculum relief in the Museo delle Terme, Rome, and an unpublished relief in the Split Archaeological Museum, Yugoslavia, both have a falx with other weapons. The identi-fication o f the falx with the Sarmatian double-handed swords of Tacitus is not unreasonable. The small falx on the Birdoswald stone is repeat-ed on R.I.B. 1909, though there the palm branch and sword are transposed. In this example the handle is badly worn but the curve o f the blade shows clearly. The Birdoswald falces may indi-cate a unique regimental badge or the carrying of falces, instead of spathae, by the Dacian auxil-iarii. A jealously guarded regimental tradition such as is suggested would have a close modern parallel in the Gurkha soldiers with their kukris. A tentative comparison might be made with the ethnic dress o f the Chester ‘Sarmatian’; and, ac-cording to Hyginus, irregular Dacian units were used in the later second century. The use of fal-ces therefore bears consideration. It is certainly unusual for an auxiliary cohors to depict a regi-mental weapon or badge in sculpture.”
If the Dacians at Birdoswald were going to con-tinue to use their falx, either as an actual weap-on or at the very least as a regimental emblem for centuries, is it unreasonable to suppose they ascribed similar importance to their draco?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.