THE SKINNY ON THE ARM[...]S OF THE L. ARTORIUS CASTUS INSCRIPTION

Having completed several years of research on the L. Artorius Castus inscription, I felt it would be a good idea to offer a succinct summary of my results.  To do this, I am going to list all the possible alternate reconstructions for the ARM[...]S of the inscription, followed by the positives and minuses of each example.  Hopefully, this will help fill in some gaps for students of Arthuriana or at least help counter some of the silliness that is being bandied about in connection with the memorial stone's reading. 

1) ARMENIOS

A very plausible emendation for ARM[...]S.  It would not be (given the great distance between Britain and Armenia) were it not for the fact that the British governor Statius Priscus is sent there as a commander of the army at a time that can fit a proposed chronology of Castus.  Armenia also seems to work because the only known reorganization of Dalmatia happened a few years after the Armenia War, and that is the best time for the formation of Liburnia, over which Castus was procurator. None of the stone dating techniques that have been put forward as evidence of a forced later date for the inscription hold up to scrutiny.  

The main drawback for ARMENIOS, of course, is that we lack any supportive material that mentions British troops being sent to Armenia.  We must resort to assuming that detachments from the three legions would have attended Priscus or followed in his wake.  

2) ARMORICOS

Although there are those who continue to insist ARMORICOS can't fit on the stone, they are quite wrong. A reconstruction employing proper ligatures allows it to fill the space just fine.  

What we are left with is supposing that Castus took troops to Gaul to fight in the Deserters War.  Alas, there is no supportive material mentioning any such troop movement.  It used to be thought that there were British troops involved, serving under the Priscus (NOT Statius Prsicus!) who refused the purple while he was legate of the Sixth in Britain.  But a new appraisal of the fragmentary stones referring to this Priscus suggest instead that he was leading German troops and, indeed, no one would ever remove a man from a province where the troops wanted to proclaim him Emperor and then turn around and give him British troops on the Continent.

3) ARMATOS

As applied to an unknown enemy, this reading is universally rejected.  It is considered too vague, non-specific, etc.  I am others have included a great many arguments against it and every top professional Latin epigrapher and Roman military historian I have consulted on the possibility has viewed it negatively.  Certainly, the term does not work as it has been applied to a presumed mix of hostile tribesmen and rebellious troops in Britain.  

However, if we do not wish to accept either ARMENIOS or ARMORICOS, there is a way to make ARMATOS less unpalatable.  The only account we have of detachments from all three British legions being present on the Continent during the time period we are considering for Castus is the one that has the 1500 spearmen march to Rome to demand the execution of Perennis.  This fact remains true despite the purely speculative notions put forward by other theorists. 

In asking how Castus might have referred to the command over the 1500 spearmen, we have Professor Roger Tomlin's statement which best represents what would have been the reality of the situation:

"No one would boast on their tombstone of having fought 'Praetorians', but Perennis might have slipped into the record as an hostis publicus."

However, as I showed in https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2022/10/the-1500-british-spearmen-ride-again.html, the Praetorians could be referred to as armatos. They could also be referred to by other Latin words that meant simply 'soldiers' and the like.  If using the term Praetorians was too politically charged or carried undesirable connotations, then is it unreasonable to wonder whether Castus might have referred to them simply as ARMATOS?

I am leaning in this direction myself.  I probably would not do so (as I am not a fan of the "Everything Arthurian is Sarmatian" club) were it not for my book THE BATTLE-LEADER OF RIBCHESTER.  I will be reissuing this title soon, as it makes a strong argument in favor of a Dark Age Arthur originating from Ribchester of the Sarmatian veterans.  For if Castus did lead those 1500 spearmen, and the spearmen themselves were actually Sarmatian cavalry, then it is entirely conceivable that the Artorius name became famous among the British Sarmatian troops and was passed down through the generations at Ribchester to be given to a 5th-6th century royal son.  

4) A PERSONAL NAME? NEW GEOGAPHICAL DESIGNATION? NEW TRIBAL TITLE?

None hitherto discovered.