MORE SCHOLARLY SUPPORT FOR MY READING OF 'AELI DRACONIS' ON THE ILAM PAN

[NOTE: Readers who find this blog post interesting may like the following one as well:

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2024/02/there-is-absolutely-no-evidence-for.html]

Rollout Photo of the Ilam Pan Rim Inscription, Showing AELI DRACONIS on the Far Right

... given the accepted date of 122 for the beginning of the construction of the Wall, all of the archaeological evidence of Periods 1 and 2 [Birdoswald stone fort] must have taken place between 122 and c. 140.

- BIRDOSWALD, EXCAVATIONS OF A ROMAN FORT ON HADRIAN'S WALL AND ITS SUCCESSOR SETTLEMENTS: 1987-92 TONY WILMOTT

https://www.academia.edu/65660156/Drawing_the_Line_A_military_surveyor_on_Hadrians_Wall_Ber_Bayer_Bodendenkmalpflege_62_2021_155_170?ri_id=981529

"Richard Petrovszky suggests a date between

AD 130 and 140 for the Ilam Pan."

24 January 76: Publius Aelius Hadrianus

11 August 117: Imperator Caesar Trajanus Hadrianus Augustus

10 July 138: natural death

By now, most of my readers know about my theory on the AELI DRACONIS portion of the Ilam Pan inscription.  The best, most recent blog piece on the subject may be found here:

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2023/11/aeliuss-dragon-at-bannabirdoswald.html

Subsequent to writing that, I decided to embark upon a quest to see if I could garnish any academic support for the idea that AELI DRACONIS might stand for the Dacian garrison at Birdoswald, the Banna Roman fort.  The following responses to my emailed query are being pasted here in unaltered form.  Some are not exactly ringing endorsements of my idea, but even those that are less enthusiastic at least admit the possibility that my reading may be correct.

"I think your proposition that ‘the Aelian dragon" is a reference to the Banna garrison and, by extension, the fort itself, is plausible. Each pan was an individual artistic expression, although they are of a ‘type’ they were not mass produced. More likely, it would have been made and sold by artisans along the Wall as a ‘type’ of commemorative vessel (which also retained an element of functionality too).

One which would be most popular as a commemoration of service itself, in other words something which a soldier or group of soldiers may have commissioned to represent their own time serving on the frontier at a particular spot.

Proving it beyond doubt is …. But it is a lovely theory."

Dr. Andrew Birley, FSA, FSA Scot

CEO & Director of Excavations

The Vindolanda Trust

Chesterholm Museum

"I believe (cf. "Souvenir or Votive? The Ilam pan" ARA Bulletin 20 (2010/11) pp.13-15; https://www.associationromanarchaeology.org/ARA_Bulletin20_page01to32.pdf) that these objects were essentially religious, bought perhaps at Carlisle where they were made from the frontier, perhaps at a temple on the limit of the civilized world, and were not official. So it is possible a fort was given the name it was popularly known by."

Revd. Professor Martin Henig, MA  D.Phil  D.Litt  FSA

https://www.classics.ox.ac.uk/people/revd.professor-martin-henig

"I have been thinking about your theory on the Ilam Pan inscription; it is an interesting take and I have been rolling it over. I agree with comments Birley sent you (i.e. that it is a possible interpretation, but being absolutely conclusive could be tricky). I think more corroboratory evidence is necessary and I have a theory on a data set which may really help support your theory.

The dragonesque brooch* from Roman Britain is rather particular and seems to have been a type of local manufacture with most thinking it was in production in the second century. Its distribution is particularly focused on the north and military contexts. This is an artefact group well attested, enigmatic and I think gives potential support to your theory. I think including the iconography and distribution of this object type as part of your argument could really help build the case."

*https://www.academia.edu/43974975/F_Hunter_Changing_objects_in_changing_worlds_dragonesque_brooches_and_beaded_torcs_In_S_Worrell_G_Egan_J_Naylor_K_Leahy_M_Lewis_eds_A_decade_of_discovery_Proceedings_of_the_Portable_Antiquities_Scheme_conference_2007_BAR_British_Series_520_Oxford_2010_91_107 

Dr. Jason Lundock

https://independent.academia.edu/JasonLundock/CurriculumVitae

"I think Petrianis is a nickname derived from the unit in garrison at Stanwix,in the fourth century, the Ala Petriana, and Stanwix  was originally known as Uxellodunum [Note that academic opinion is divided on Stanwix; most scholars have followed Rivet and Smith in their THE PLACE-NAMES OF ROMAN BRITAIN, where the authors say that "Petrianis is almost certainly a ghost-name, which probably arose because an early copyist found a gap after mention of the unit, the ala Petriana, and simply represented its name as a locative in -is."(1)] And I like the idea that ’the Aelian Dragon' refers to the Banna garrison and by extension the fort itself."

Mark Hassall

Emeritus Reader in the Archaeology of the Roman Provinces

Institute of Archaeology

"There are multiple possibilities for this curious inscription to which we can add your suggestion but get no further for the moment. I think you will have to be content with that for the meantime, and probably forever."

Mr. Guy de la Bedoyere

https://www.timeteamdigital.com/the-team/guy-de-la-bedoyere

"What you are suggesting is only a possibility."

Professor David J. Breeze OBE FSA FRSE HonFSAScot FRSA HonMIFA

NOTE: Prof. Breeze actually doesn't like the idea and thinks it "highly improbable." He has suggested the following course of action for future research into the problem of AELI DRACONIS: "to heighten your state of possibility/probability you need to find parallels. I work on a principle of 3: once is an occasion, twice is a coincidence, three is a fact. But that said 'once' is still possible if the evidence is sound."  The professor is the author, along with Dr. Christoff Flugel, of https://www.academia.edu/65658489/A_military_surveyors_souvenir_The_Ilam_Pan_Transactions_Cumberland_and_Westmorland_Antiquarian_and_Archaeological_Society_Ser_3_21_2021_43_62. I was able to counter the authors' claim that the making of the Ilam Pan could not correspond with the arrival of the Dacian unit at Birdoswald by showing that the 146 date for the unit could now be firmly put back to 127. To date, the only other comparable example I've been able to find to at least partially satisfy Prof. Breeze's test is the following:

https://dokumen.pub/romans-at-war-the-roman-military-in-the-republic-and-empire-9781612008851-9781612008868.html

"The Marian legionaries lived, fought and ate together, with each legion developing their own identity around the new aquila (eagle standards) introduced by Marius. Training was also regularised, with Marius insisting on regular fitness drills to ensure the legionaries were always physically fit. This was to ensure they could carry their own equipment on campaign, with the troops earning the nickname muli mariani (Marius’s mules)."

Under the later emperors the eagle was carried, as it had been for many centuries, with the legion, a legion being on that account sometimes called aquila (Hirt. Bell. Hisp. 30).

https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/De_Bello_Hispaniensi#30

http://juliuscaesar.altervista.org/en/spawar_book.html

"Erat acies XIII aquilis constituta"

"Their army consisted of thirteen legions"

That the draco had come to be seen as belonging to the emperor in the later period, at least, is best proven by the following passage on Julian:

Quo agnito per purpureum signum draconis, summitati hastae longioris aptatum velut senectutis pendentis exuvias, stetit unius turmae tribunus et pallore timoreque perculsus ad aciem integrandam recurrit.

For as he [Julian] was at once recognized by his purple standard of the dragon, which was fixed to the top of a long spear, waving its fringe as a real dragon sheds its skin, the tribune of one squadron halted, and turning pale with alarm, hastened back to renew the battle.

Ammianus  Book XVI, Chapter XII, 39.

While not in any sense direct parallels, there are other examples of cultural motifs being used for unit names.  For example, the Roman Legio V Alaudae were the "Larks", named for the lark wings on the helmets of the original Gallic recruits. The eagle was the most important Roman standard, and according to Roman tradition the very important Roman city of Aquileia was named for this bird (aquila). See https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0064:entry=aquileia-geo.  

The Roman legions were themselves often sybolized by animals or birds or even mythological creatures.   For a list of such, please see pp. 246-246 of Yann Le Bohec's IMPERIAL ROMAN ARMY:

https://books.google.com/books?id=IFWSAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA247&lpg=PA247&dq=roman+legions+bull+boar+stork&source=bl&ots=_ktAYC5KlA&sig=ACfU3U0zu5C52aUsvlHu8Km2eu30_JTRWw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjDsLC33MyFAxVWOzQIHSAUDtY4ChDoAXoECAQQAw#v=onepage&q=roman%20legions%20bull%20boar%20stork&f=false

It may well be that various emperors as founders of legions may have given those legions animal symbols.  See

https://bookreadfree.com/547183/13433383

That source tells us:

As mentioned above, it has frequently, but erroneously, been written that all legions raised by Julius Caesar carried the bull emblem. It has also been claimed that those which used Capricorn’s sea-goat as an emblem were raised or reorganized by Octavian. Neither assertion is supported by the facts. Of the legions that can be linked to Caesar, the majority actually carried emblems other than the bull. For example, of four legions known to have been raised by Caesar in Italy in 58–56 BC, the 11th to the 14th, not one used the bull emblem.

  Conversely, Keppie notes that at least three of Octavian’s legions which, in his words, did not derive from Caesar, did use the bull emblem. [Kepp., CVSI, N35, 2.2] Of those legions that did use the bull emblem, none had a numeral higher than 10. Yet Caesar raised many legions which carried numbers higher than 10. In fact, he raised as many as forty legions. Caesar himself never used the bull emblem; his personal motif was the elephant.

  In reality, the common denominator linking legions that used the bull emblem was not Caesar, but Spain. As mentioned earlier, Keppie suggests the strong possibility that republican Rome stationed legions numbered up to 10 in Spain for hundreds of years. Legions 5 to 10 seem to have been raised there subsequently.

  Even today the bull is a symbol immediately associated with Spain, where bullfighting has ancient roots. Both the Romans and the Carthaginians before them marveled that the native Celtiberean people of Spain had a tradition of fighting bulls; in those ancient contests in Baetica, bulls were given the death blow with a spear or ax. [Bon., B&B]

  In both the late Republic and early imperial era, the bull emblem was used by every legion numbered 4 to 10 except one; the 5th Alaudae, which adopted the elephant after Thapsus, may have used the bull prior to that. Only one other legion, the 3rd Gallica, is known to have used the bull emblem. This is possibly because the republican 3rd Legion served under Pompey in Spain between 59 and 49 BC. The 4th Flavia, which replaced the 4th Macedonica, took the Flavian lion emblem.

  It is likewise frequently written that all legions that used the sea-goat emblem of Capricorn were raised by or at least associated with Octavian/Augustus. This is another myth. Legions created long after the reign of Augustus, units such as the 22nd Primigeneia (raised by Caligula), 1st Italica (Nero), 1st Adiutrix and 2nd Adiutrix (Galba/Vittelius/Vespasian), 30th Ulpia (Trajan), and 2nd Italica (Marcus Aurelius), used the Capricorn symbol, but this is because Capricorn was the zodiacal birth sign of the legions in question. All legions displayed the sign linked to the time of their foundation. Capricorn, falling in the midwinter period, when many legions were raised in time for service starting in the upcoming spring, was the most commonly adopted of the twelve birth signs, and seems to have been considered lucky.

  It is true that the standards of a number of the legions in Octavian’s standing army from 30 BC carried the Capricorn emblem as their birth sign. These same legions also carried separate unit emblems. For example, the 2nd Augusta Legion used Pegasus, the flying horse, as its emblem and Capricorn as its birth sign. Both the 4th Macedonica and 4th Scythica legions used the bull emblem and the Capricorn birth sign. The 20th Valeria Victrix used the boar emblem and the Capricorn birth sign. And so on.

Roman standard-bearers could wear various animal skins/furs.  For details on this, see

https://www.academia.edu/37558456/How_to_Dress_a_Standard_bearer_Animal_Pelts_in_the_Roman_Army

When I have time, I will continue searching for the kind of thing Prof. Breeze says I need to help confirm the existence of the 'Aelian dragon.'

It is odd that the cups/pans we have all stop at Banna (if we assume aeli draconis is a reference to that fort's garrison and, by extension, the fort itself). But geography may be a factor here. Banna is in the Irthing Valley. Major tributary of the Eden, which empties into the Solway. So all of these forts may have been considered as a sort of regional section of the Wall.

I think that if we allow for these forts along the line of the Wall to be said to "belong" to the Aelian dragon, i e. to the Dacian milliaria garrison at Banna, then some kind of unusual relationship must have existed. Or it was a prideful boast, which I suppose is possible. At Uxellodunum/Stanwix, as you doubtless know, we had a similarly sized cavalry group.

My best guess is this claim of ownership of part of the Wall may point to the Aelius title for the Dacian unit. This title may have bestowed upon them a special distinction. After all, Hadrian was the original builder of the Wall.

My trouble with the two prevailing theories on the AELI DRACONIS of the Ilam Pan (that it should read either "Aelian vallum", i.e. Hadrian's Wall, or should be interpreted as a personal name Aelius Draco) can best be summarized as follows:

1) There is not another single example of a personal name being used on such items.

2) There is no evidence for the vallum being named for Hadrian.

3) To say "X forts along the line of the Wall belonging to Aelius Draco" makes no sense. Sure, the pan belonged to someone, but not the forts.

4) The next fort in the list would have been Banna, as on the other two cups.

5) Banna had an miliaria Aelian cohort as garrison.

6) This cohort was Dacian, a people known for their draco.

7) That the name Aelius Draco just happens to be in place of Banna where there is an Aelian cohort with special affinity for the draco is just too big a coincidence. Any other name and we would dismiss it as designating someone or something else. But in this context I don't think we can ignore its possible reference to the Dacian garrison. And, indeed, I think the chances of this name being there and not referring to the Dacian unit are astronomical. NOTE: There is no other instance of the Roman period name or word draco preserved in Britain. 

8) Yes, it's true that other eastern peoples had their own versions of dracos. Sarmatians and Thracians, for example (although the Dacians are thought to be related to the Thracians). And, eventually, one or more of these coalesced into a distinctly Roman draco standard. But there is no doubting that the Dacians were noted for their draco, as evinced in Roman art and coinage and an ancient ceramic fragment discovered in Romania depicting a wolf-headed serpent standard from the 2nd-1st centuries B.C. We have a dedication to the standards of the Dacian unit found at Birdoswald, showing veneration of these objects. Yes, the cohort was infantry, but it is Dacian infantry on Trajan's Column that has their version of the draco. We have evidence from the third century of the draco being used by Roman infantry.

Dr. David Breeze and Professor Roger Tomlin both hold to the view that the Dacians were not present at Birdoswald in the 2nd century.  Breeze sites very scanty evidence of a possible cavalry garrison in the period.  Tony Wilmott in his report of the archaeology of the site concludes regarding both the Tungrian presence and that of cavalry:

"This is very poor evidence... and it seems unlikely that this is relevant to the Birdoswald garrison."

"...the Martinus sherd inducates the presence of auxiliary cavalry at some point during the early phases of the history of Birdoswald."

Tomlin expressed his opinion on the early garrison thusly:

[The abandonment of Bewcastle in 139/42] "suggests that the Dacians were the first (Hadrianic) garrison of Bewcastle, taking part in its construction, and that when the frontier was advanced into Scotland in c.142, they went there with it. We don't know where they were until the reign of Severus, but their building-work then at Birdoswald suggests that they had just been posted there. They remained its garrison in the third and fourth centuries."

To which I responded:

"I've been reading Wilmott again. The evidence for a second century garrison at Birdoswald is woefully lacking. Also, quote, "There is no structural or stratigraphic evidence at all that the fort was abandoned during the occupation of the Antonine Wall, or indeed what effect the events of the latter second century might have had on the garrison... If there is no evidence from the excavated areas for Antonine abandonment, there is similarly no evidence for reoccupation in the latter second century."

Now, if we have the Dacians leaving Bewcastle in 139/142, and stone fort construction (following Wilmott) done at Birdoswald c. 140, we could easily have the Dacians take over as garrison. 

It does not matter that (again Wilmott) "No building activity took place" in the latter second century. "The evidence suggests, however that the site continued to be kept clean and maintained."

We don't know who did that, but there is no reason why it couldn't have been the Dacians.  It is perhaps significant in this context that the Roman road stretching from Birdoswald to Bewcastle went no further; the two forts are thus connected in a very special way.  See https://www.romanroads.org/gazetteer/cumbria/M865.htm#:~:text=The%20road%20adopts%20typical%20Roman,typical%20Roman%20setting%2Dout%20strategy.  It makes eminent sense that the unit would simply have been withdrawn from Bewcastle south to the new stone fort at Birdoswald. 

As for the surveyor business (/rigore/ of the inscription)... The pan is dated 130-140. Wall construction started in 122. One would assume the surveying for the line of forts would have happened early on.

Finally, there is no evidence for this Dacian unit on the Antonine Wall.

"My feeling is you take whoever is at Birdoswald north to the Antonine wall area and backfill with the garrison at Bewcastle just a few miles up the dedicated road. That happened to be the Dacians."

When I sent my response to Tomlin to Breeze as well, the latter responded simply: "I see your point."

Given all that, I still must hold to the idea that Aelius Draco may, indeed, be a reference to the Dacian presence at Birdoswald. And, indeed, I would go further in once again suggesting the Ilam Pan as an object served to commemorate the installation of the Dacian unit as the new garrison of Birdoswald.

(1)

Additional support Petrianis as a genuine locative, and for the possible existence of such a nickname for the Dacian unit and/or its garrison, may be gleaned from various studies which list Roman forts that are named for their garrisons or from part of the garrison name.  I would refer my readers to the following sources for more on this.  Doubtless more such names can be found after a comprehensive survey of the literature is performed.

Kennedy's article contains the illuminating sentence "It was not unusual for place names to be derived from the names of army units."

The Place-Name 'Arbeia'

D. L. Kennedy

Britannia, Vol. 17 (1986), pp. 332-333

Published by: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

The Numeri of the Roman Imperial Army

P. Southern

Britannia , 1989, Vol. 20 (1989), pp. 81-140

Published by: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

And see also:

https://www.academia.edu/65679558/Whats_in_a_Name_How_to_find_your_Outpost_on_the_Roman_Frontier_Current_World_Archaeology_106_2021_38_41

THE ARMENIA-LIBURNIA CHRONOLOGICAL GAP: A Logical Conundrum

NOTE:  Since writing this piece, I have been able to easily resolve the 'conundrum.' 

Why could Castus and his men not have stayed in Armenia or Cappadocia for some time?

This from M.C. Bishop's LUCIUS VERUS AND THE ROMAN DEFENCE OF THE EAST:

"A replacement for Artaxata was founded by Priscus at the 'new city' of Caenopolis and a Roman detachment was left there. Garrison posts will have been constructed for that portion of the force destined to overwinter, of the remainder, some may have headed back to Cappadocia with Priscus, while the western vexillation was needed for the next stage of operations in Osroene and then Syria."

Thus Castus could have been at Caenopolis, in any of the garrison forts or even in Cappadocia for a while.  If he remained in Armenia or returned to Cappadocia with no additional, intervening military action, there would be no need for him to put anything other than ADVERSUS ARMENIOS on his memorial stone.

This makes perfectly adequate sense.  Still, as a safety, I have discussed this possibility with Professors Tomlin and Keppie and will post their comments to the end of this note.  For now, I am satisfied that Castus went to Armenia with British legionary detachments, fought there, and then remained either in Armenia or Cappadocia until he was chosen as procurator for the province of Liburnia.  

***

Question to Tomlin:

If Castus stayed in Armenia or Cappadocia for a few years after the victory, and didn't see additional military action, he would not have had to add anything to his stone between ADVERSUS ARMENIOS and the procuratorship. Correct?

Tomlin's response:

"No need, I would have thought. Only if he had been given a new appointment – say 'procurator of Armenia', if you can imagine such a thing."

The Armenian War was over in 163. Best evidence from sources and archaeology says Liburnia was founded 168-170.

What did prefect Castus do in the interim? I mean, it doesn't seem reasonable to send him back to Britain to continue as prefect for 5-7 more years before, for some unknowable reason, he is chosen to be the Liburnian procurator.

My readers may recall Brian Dobson wondering if the PRAEFF of the Castus inscription was a shorthand way of saying he had been appointed prefect before Armenia, and then a second time after.

Otherwise, I'm unable to make sense of the 5-7 year gap.

When going from one position to another on a diploma, it always the case that we must see a natural step-by-step progression from rank to rank in this or that unit. The stone lists procurator after dux. It looks almost like he was immediately rewarded with procurator position. We can't have him remaining prefect in Britain for half a dozen years before he becomes procurator.

Now, Dobson has the prefect with an average tenure of 3 years. So here is our problem in a nutshell:

Castus is a prefect in Britain. We don't know how long he was that, but to be dux of the legionary force we must assume an experienced man who had been in his post for a while and who had achieved a certain standing. 161-3 is spent in Armenia. Then 5-7 more for the earliest possible date for the founding if Liburnia.

So, 8-10 years PLUS however long he had already been prefect before being made procurator. And right after the dux role, according to the stone's inscription, he is that procurator.

Note there is nothing on the stone to indicate he went on to fight anywhere else in the East after Armenia. We thus can't conjecture that more years were spent fighting in other countries or regions (e.g. Parthia, Media, Osroene, Syria).  The whole eastern conflict did last until 166 (maybe 167), and we kow forces from Armenia, after the victory there, moved on to Osroene, etc.  But if only ARMENIOS appears on Castus's stone, it is difficult to allow him to be fighting in several other areas subsequent to the victory in Armenia. 

It doesn't add up. Two possibilities, and only two:

1) The PRAEFF indicates he really did take a second prefect position with the Sixth after Armenia. After that term - another 5-7 years, he becomes procurator of Liburnia.

2) ARM[...]S does not stand for Armenios. 

I don't see how we can make a case for anything else. Why? Because if PRAEFF is an error for PRAEF, then he was prefect, dux and procurator, and we can't account for the 5-7 year gap between the end of the Armenian War and the founding of Liburnia.

We could have PRAEFF as an error for PRAEF only if Castus had been rewarded with the Liburnian procuratorship immediately after he was the dux against ARM[...]S, in which case ARM[...]S can't be Armenia.

I think this logic is pretty inescapable. And we must come to grips with it.

Of course, we have to bear in mind what Tomlin has said regarding PRAEFF:

"I don't think PRAEFF will bear the interpretation of 'prefect twice': it is not really Latin, and I think some phrase like praefectus iterum or bis praefectus would have been used for a second command with the same title. I am happy with the traditional interpretation that FF is a stonecutter's mistake, like his IM for IN in Britanicianarum."

I have sought the counsel of Professor Roger Tomlin and Professor Lawrence Keppie and will report back on what these scholars have to say on the matter.

An Expert in Roman Military Logistics on the Possibility That L. Artorius Castus Took Vexillations from Britain to Armenia

For some time now, whenever the idea is put forward on the very real possibility that L. Artorius Castus took British legionary vexillations from Britain to Armenia under the direction of the British governor Statius Priscus, Antonio Trinchese, a colleague of Dr. Linda A. Malcor, immediately cries foul, claiming that the distance makes such a troop movement highly improbable.   Trinchese continues to hold fast to his view, despite there being ample evidence that he is wrong.  I presented some of this evidence in the following recent blog posts:

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2023/12/statius-priscus-from-britain-to-syria.html

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2023/12/a-legion-from-rhine-goes-to-armenia.html

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2023/11/anthony-birley-on-officers-and-troops.html

As Trinchese has remained unconvinced, and keeps coming up with new reasons why such a transfer of detachments would most likely not have occurred (winter conditions, etc.), I thought it best to consult a scholar whose field of expertise was Roman military logistics - and, indeed, a man who had literally written the book on the subject:

Dr. Jonathan P. Roth is Professor of History at San Jose State University. He received his B.A. in Ancient Near Eastern History and Archaeology from the University of California, Berkeley, and his M.A. and Ph.D. from Columbia University. He has taught at Tulane University in New Orleans, New York University, and the University of California, Berkeley. Professor Roth has researched, written, and lectured extensively on ancient warfare and warfare in world history. He founded and serves as the Director of San Jose State's Burdick Military History Project. His book Logistics of the Roman Army at War, 264 B.C. to A.D. 235 was published in 1999, and his Roman Warfare, a survey textbook, was published in 2009. From 1983 to 1989, Professor Roth served in the New York Army National Guard. He rose to the rank of second lieutenant and served as a platoon leader, a chemical officer, and a mobilization officer. Professor Roth has been widely recognized for his scholarship and teaching. As a Fulbright Scholar, he studied at the Georg August University in Guttingen, Germany. In 2006, he was honored as San Jose State University's Outstanding Professor.

Because I have been accused repeatedly by Dr. Linda A. Malcor of "leading the witness" or unduly influencing the scholars I correspond with by submitting decidedly slanted/biased questions, I wanted to quote here the exact, unedited email I wrote to Professor Roth regarding the Castus expedition:

"There is consensus among scholars now (including Tomlin and Birley) that the Lucius Artorius Castus whose memorial stone is at Podstrana, Dalmatia took legionary vexillations to Armenia under the British governor Statius Priscus. I don't have trouble with this, especially as an entire legion from Bonn on the Rhine was sent there. Birley in his Viri Militares Moving from West to East in Two Crisis Years (Ad 133 and 162) demonstrated that this kind of thing happened on a regular basis.

Your opinion, if you would kindly give it?"

And Professor Roth's response:

"The Romans certainly would have been capable of making this sort of troop movement from one side of the empire to the other. After all, the Crusaders did it.  The latter, with far more primitive logistics,  marched, and didn't take riverboats, although either is possible in this case."

As for what route the British vexillations under Castus would most likely have taken, I have that from Anthony Birley's MARCUS ARUELIUS: A BIOGRAPHY (p. 126), in the context of Statius Priscus's transfer from Britain to Cappodocia:

"... having probably travelled rapidly up the Rhine and down the Danube, and through Thrace, Bithynia and Galatia."

Prof. Roth added:

"As for the route, we have to guess, of course. The river route is one possibility. After the Balkans one could march. The Romans did move troops across the Channel and the Mediterranean, so in theory they could sail down the coast to the straits and across the Middle Sea. Obviously, weather would be an issue. But long distance marching in the winter is certainly possible."

I, personally, am satisfied with Prof. Roth's answer to my question - and I hope my readers will be also.  We do not have to listen to anyone who states as a fact the extreme improbability of Castus's having taken British detachments to fight in Armenia.

 

Coming Soon: MORE SCHOLARLY SUPPORT FOR MY READING OF 'AELI DRACONIS' ON THE ILAM PAN

The Ilam or Staffordshire Moors Pan

I will soon be putting out a piece that adds significant weight to my argument that AELI DRACONIS on the Ilam Pan may be a reference to the draco-venerating Dacian-Aelian garrison of the Birdoswald/Banna Roman fort on Hadrian's Wall.  Included in this future post will be supportive opinions of some top scholars, as well as a lengthy list of Roman camps known to have been named for the units that manned them.  

This information, combined with the attested configuration of the ancient Dacian draco (something proven by a unique archaeological find; see https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-wolf-serpent-standard-of-dacians.html), would mean that we can make a good case for the Banna fort, with its sub-Roman/early medieval royal hall, being a site where the draco may have remained important into the Arthurian period. 

MY FINAL STATEMENT (!) ON THE LUCIUS ARTORIUS CASTUS MEMORIAL STONE

Proposed Approximate Timeline of the Career of Lucius Artorius Castus (from Zeljko Miletic's "Lucius Artorius Castus and Liburnia"):

fifty years of service at the age of about 70 podines retired to the peace of his estate,

outlived the province.

dies natalis c. 104

miles 121-135

centurio legionis III Gallicae 135-138

centurio legionis VI Ferratae 139-142

centurio legionis II Adiutricis 143-146

centurio legionis V Macedonicae 147-150

primus pilus legionis V Macedonicae 151

praepositus classis Misenatium 152-154

praefectus castrorum legionis VI Victricis 155-162

dux legionariorum et auxiliorum Britannicorum adversus

Armenians

162-166

procurator centenarius provinciae Liburniae 167-174

In a recent discussion with Antonio Trinchese on the Facebook page KING ARTHUR: MAN AND MYTH, I experienced an epiphany.

It occurred to me that, all along, the main point of contention regarding this stone was its date.  Plain and simple.  Now, that may seem like a 'Duh!' moment, but so many aspects of the inscription and its carving and its artistic motifs have been considered that sometimes the forest is lost through the trees.

One thing I have learned in my years of research (which included consulting the best minds on the subject) is that there can be fairly wide period-range estimates for these kinds of stones.  In fact, I not once encountered a single Roman epigrapher or Roman art historian or Roman military historian who would dare stamp a date on it that did not allow for +/- a quarter of a century. This kind of flexibility is necessary, as when we lack, say, a listing of the consuls for the year, or the name of a known father, we simply can't firmly fix the stone in time.

The problem with the Castus memorial stone is that the very ambiguity when it comes to date has allowed different parties to place it anywhere from the late Antonine/early Severan to after the reigns of either Caracalla or Alexander Severus.  For those who would like a good concise history of the dating of the stone, I suggest the excellent page by Christopher Gwinn

 (http://christophergwinn.com/arthuriana/lac-sourcebook/).

For many years, two scholarly views have prevailed regarding the proper dating for the stone.  First, some form of Armorica was believed to belong as a reading for the fragmentary ARM[...]S.  Those who subscribed to this notion automatically assigned the stone to the latter part of Commodus' reign, as there were problems with deserters in Gallia Lugdunensis (of which Armorica was a part).  The second school opted for Armenia, but made the error of choosing those conflicts that had happened under Caracalla and Alexander. Neither party, for a reason that is rather inexplicable (Anthony Birley communicated to me shortly before he died that he concurred with Roger Tomlin on the 160s date for Armenia, although he had earlier subscribed to periods under Caracalla and Alexander), remembered that the British governor Statius Priscus had gone to lead the campaign against Armenia.  And because they missed this, the earlier date for the stone was never considered.  We have no record at all of any British involvement in the Armenian ventures under Caracalla or Alexander.

Now, we cannot support Armorica (for several reasons I have discussed in previous posts).  We cannot support Armenia in the later periods.  Armatos is not a workable reading, although it does allow its adherents to put Castus where and when they want him to be.  And, I might add, make him into what they want him to be.  But despite all its other shortcomings, armatos does not allow for a precise dating of the stone. If we abandon the broad consensus view that the most likely time for Castus to have been made procurator was when the new province was founded on an emergency basis c. 168-70, we can have Castus fight armed men at any time.  Sure, we can pick and choose a time he may have fought them in Britain, but in doing so we are engaging in a purely imaginative exercise.  This fact - that we cannot properly date the stone by employing the reading of armatos - is the reason the originators of the armatos theory have worked so diligently to try and prove the precise date of the stone by other means.  Unfortunately, all these other means have failed.

Here's how the logic of the ARMATOS theorists works:

ARMATOS fits very nicely on the stone. As 'armed men' is eminently vague and nonspecific, we can choose to have them be whoever we want them to be. Initially, we chose the late 180s for Castus being the procurator of Liburnia because early scholars who favored Armorica for Castus's dux mission had put that event during the Deserters's War in Gallia Lugdunensis. If we put Castus at this time, then we could have him in Britain when the Sarmatians were there. And if he was there when the Sarmatians were there, we can link Arthurian story to Ossetian folktales. As Dr. Malcor the folklorist needs her Sarmatians, no time scheme that excludes Castus from interaction with the Sarmatians in Britain can be allowed. Furthermore, as ARMATOS provides us with the freedom to designate Castus's foes as anyone we want, we can choose any recorded event in the time period we have selected to PROVE that he actually belongs in that time period. And not only that, because we are choosing to ignore broad consensus opinion and Saxer's 42 instances of implied vexillations in inscriptions and are opting to read 3 full legions for the Castus stone, we can make this man into a governor of Britain. We are justified in interpreting his dux title this way despite universal rejection of the notion that an equestrian dux can be a governor of Britain in the second century. We have no evidence to support such a contention and don't need that, because we're right and they're wrong.

That pretty much sums up their process and rationale. 

When Antonio says "pre-dating the career of LAC, that Is absolutely void of any evidence and solid arguments" (just how does one pre-date something for which one has no baseline date?) , we can now, at last, understand what that otherwise nonsensical statement means: any attempt to date the stone to a time when Castus was not in Britain with the Sarmations will be summarily rejected. Not because it isn't valid, but solely because they have already made up their minds what date has to stand so that they can have their Sarmatian-commanding governor of Britain.

If we lock ourselves into a mindset for the date of the stone when we lack such a date, and then set about concocting a preferred scenario or, conversely, we first concoct a preferred scenario and then lock ourselves into a date for the stone that supports that scenario, WE ARE NOT ENGAGING IN TRUE SCHOLARSHIP.  And if we're not engaging in true scholarship, then not only aren't we really scholars (regardless of what degrees we might bandy about), but no one should pay any attention to our findings.  

The earlier dating for the stone, i.e. one that allows for Castus to have gone to fight in Armenia under Statius Priscus and then has him assume the very important role of procurator for the emergency founding of the new province of Liburnia in 168-170, fulfills all the conditions required for a reasonable reading of the inscription.  Other proposed readings do not meet the conditions and should, therefore, be dispensed with unless new evidence comes to light to change our minds.

I have no doubt that my opponents, the champions of the ARMATOS theory, will assail this brief piece as they have everything else I've written.  And that's okay.  I'm used to it.  But I'm also woefully tired of it, and here solemnly pledge to my readers that I WILL NOT PRODUCE ANY ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS CONCERNING THE CASTUS INSCRIPTION.  NOR WILL I OFFER ANY DEFENSE OF WHAT I'VE ALREADY WRITTEN.  FOR ME, THE MATTER IS CLOSED.

THE PRECISE ORIGIN POINT OF THE DARK AGE NAME 'ARTHUR': THE CARVORAN ROMAN FORT OF THE COHORS II DELMATARUM

If I am right and Uther Pendragon, the Terrible Chief-dragon, belongs at Birdoswald/Banna of the Roman period draco-venerating Dacians, where did Arthur's mother come from?  And where did the name Arthur originate (geographically, not etymologically)?

In the past, I wrote the following post on the possibility that the 2nd century L. Artorius Castus not only died in Dalmatia, but may have been born there.  Regardless of whether he was born there or not, we have ample evidence for the Artorii in the province.  For those who would like to read my argument for Castus' presence in Dalmatia, please see https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2020/10/lucius-artorius-castus-birth-and-death.html.

Now, the Carvoran/Magnis Roman fort just to the east of Birdoswald was garrisoned in the late period by the Cohors II Delmatarum, a unit originally raised in Dalmatia.  Remarkably, we have a tombstone from this site of a third century woman from Salona, a city known for its Artorii attestations.

https://romaninscriptionsofbritain.org/inscriptions/1828

When we combine the presence of  'Dalmatian' Carvoran near Birdoswald with the latter's *Artenses or Bear People ( = the Welsh eponym Arthwys, supposedly a great chieftain of the North) in the valley of the Irthing River  (the 'Little Bear'; see https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2020/12/breezes-article-on-etymology-of-irthing.html), and link those, in turn, with the propensity for the British to link Arthur's name with their word for bear, arth, it is logical to propose that Arthur's mother hailed from Carvoran and that the name Artorius was chosen for her and Uther's son precisely because a) it was traditionally Dalmatian, with a known famous representative of the Artorii gens having served in North Britain during the Roman period and b) it would naturally have been associated with the tribe and river names.

We don't really know the name of Arthur's mother.  Although in the past I have explored many possible derivations for both Geoffrey of Monmouth's Igerna and the Welsh version Eigr, the most sensible approach is to default to the old idea: as the story of Arthur's birth exactly parallels that of the Irish hero Mongan son of Fiachna (a hero later killed by Arthur son of Bicoir/Petuir/Petr of Dyfed), and Mongan's mother's name was Caintigerna, "fine/good/fair/beautiful lady", we may go with a borrowing from the Irish, wrongly truncated as [Caint]igerna. 

THE WOLF-SERPENT STANDARD OF THE DACIANS, NOW PROVEN TO EXIST FROM AT LEAST THE 2ND–1ST C. BC

NOTE: The following blog post is important because it goes to the heart of my contention that Arthur's father, Uther Pendragon, is to be sought at the Birdoswald/Banna Roman fort on Hadrian's Wall.  This fort was garrisoned for centuries by a Dacian-founded unit. I have elsewhere proposed that the AELI DRACONIS found on the Ilam Pan means 'Aelian dragon', a reference to the Aelian Dacian unit and, by extension, the Banna fort itself.  In this light, Uther Pendragon, the Terrible Chief-dragon, may owe his name/title to a peculiar traditional reverence at Banna for the draco standard.  Alternately, Pendragon may be a Welsh attempt to render the late Roman rank of magister draconum.  But even if this last is so, we might associate it with the Dacians and their draco.  

Photo Courtesy Dr. Alin Franculeasa

Not too long ago, Dr. Linda A. Malcor disputed the claim that the Dacians had a draco standard.  In her opinion, they had a wolf-headed standard with a mere windsock attached.  I was a bit surprised by her declaration, but found myself scrambling to find "proof" that the Dacian 'draco' actually existed!

Yes, we have a description of the draco as used by Julian in which the body is definitively described as reptilian (https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2023/12/the-dacian-wolf-serpent-standard-and.html). But Malcor could point to the images of the Dacian 'draco' on Trajan's Column, which lack the necessary scalation to prove a serpentine body.  There are some connecting hoops with streamers attached, but no pattern of scales on the windsock.

Although the Dacian standard everywhere is called a draco (and I mean in all the relevant academic literature), I didn't feel as if I could assume that they were right.  In my mind, although I resisted the notion, Malcor had made a good point.  Yes, we had Dacian bracelets which were serpentine, but also either decorated with animal heads (some of which could be wolves) and scales or fur, but we can't extrapolate from these that the Dacian standard was also a wolf-snake hybrid monster.

Furtunately, Romanian archaelogists have just completed an analysis of a ceramic fragment once thought to be a forgery, but now confirmed as genuine and as belonging to the 2nd-1st centuries B.C.  This fragment depicts a Dacian standard, complete with wolf's head and a serpent's body. The tail is divided up into streamers.

The serpent body would mean we can, in fact, define the Dacian standard as a draco.  And while we cannot dismiss the images found on Trajan's Column, it is always possible that different versions of the draco existed at one time or the other.  We can allow for different dracos for the Dacians, the Sarmatians and the Thracians.  And within those peoples we may have had specific "totems" that represented certain classes or tribal/kinship groups or even military units.  Eventually, once the draco was adopted into the Roman army, a "standardization" (pun intended) would naturally have occurred, leading to the use of a uniform type of draco.

For now, here is what the scholars say about the early Dacian draco on the ceramic fragment:

https://docplayer.net/58851756-13th-international-congress-of-thracology-ancient-thrace-myth-and-reality.html

20.Alexandru Berzovan (Iași Institute of Archaeology, Romania)

The Dacian standard (draco) on a clay vessel north of the Danube

Co-authors: Valeriu Sîrbu, Alexandru Berzovan, Alin Frânculeasa

So far, this is the only known representation ofthe Dacian standard from archaeological finds in pre-Roman Dacia and, as such, it is a very special item. The absence of the famous Dacian standard in the Geto-Dacian hoards of the 2ndc. BC –1stc. AD is inexplicable, given its notoriety, highlighted by the many representations on Trajan’s Column in Rome or by the written sources.The vessel fragment, probably from a cup, was found by V. Teodorescu in 1980, in the Dacian settlement from Vadu-Săpat-Budureasca. However, for reasons difficult to explain, there was insufficient focus on the extraordinary meaning of the representation. There was a genuine silentio stampa on the item, even the suspicion of forgery, perhaps because V. Teodorescu dated it to the 5th–4thc. BC, which goes far beyond the acceptedarchaeological and historical context of this representation. A new analysis of the item, including by means of an electron microscope, has shown that the Dacian standard was rendered on the vessel before the firing, namely on the crude paste, as there are deposits and calcifications inside the incision. Therefore, it is beyond any doubt that we are dealing with a genuine artefact and, implicitly, with a representation that, so far, is unique. For that reason, we aim to discuss this finding anew and to bring it back into the scientific circles, accompanied by all the available data, including that offered by the new technologies. A new analysis of the discovery conditions has led us to date it, most likely, to the 2nd–1stc. BC, and to discuss its meaning in the context of the figurative representations of the late Dacian art from that period. This finding carries a special meaning, as it confirms the written and iconographic sources attesting the use of the draco by the Geto-Dacians north of the Danube. The meaning of the Dacian standard has been analysed by renowned specialists, such as V. Pârvan, D. Tudor, S. Sanie and M. Eliade, to name just a few.We believe that this metaphorical creature – wolf head on a dragon/snake body – is a symbolic cross between two animals with profound meanings in Geto-Dacian mythology. The wolf is an apex predator (that is to say, an exemplary warrior) and the snake stands for regeneration (namely, immortality), thus pointing to the mythological side of their history, as M. Eliade so beautifully put it.

EVIDENCE FOR THE TEMPORARY EXISTENCE OF A ROMAN PROVINCE CALLED LIBURNIA

It has come to my attention recently that there are a handful of scholars who do not believe a Roman province of Liburnia ever existed.  This was a surprise, to be sure - even though I knew the evidence for the province was scant and, indeed, pretty much restricted to the proposed reading for the fragmentary LI- of the L. Artorius Castus memorial stone.

Fortunately, Professor Hrvoje Gračanin of the University of Zagreb, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Department of History, was able to provide me with very good information that supports the existence of the province of Liburnia.

"It is a testimony that the area of Liburnia was seen as a distinct region and continued to be viewed as

such, which is evident in the usage of the plural form of Dalmatia as Dalmatiae (which continued in

early medieval times as well).

In fact, there are many examples of the province's name in plural, especially in the Late Roman period and beyond. Basić lists the examples in his paper. It's definitely confirmed for Ostrogothic times where genitive Dalmatiarum is given in sources (Cassiodorus, Variae 7.24; 9.8.1)."

The paper the Professor is alluding to can be found here:

https://www.academia.edu/34309481/Dalmatiae_Dalmatiarum_a_study_in_historical_geography_of_the_Adriatic_in_the_light_of_the_new_inscription_from_C%C3%B3rdoba_

The conclusion of this paper is particularly enlightening, and I am posting it below in full.  Having gone over the author's argument very carefully, I personally do not feel that there is any reason to doubt that Liburnia was at one time in its history an actual province.

I would hastily add that if LI- is not for Liburnia (which as a geopolitical entity is just a little north of Castus' Pituntium, modern Podstrana, and Salona, modern Split, of the Artorii gens) there is only one other historically attested province if could be: Libya.  But Libya was divided into two separate provinces - Inferior and Superior - and this did not happen until the reign of Diocletian.  There is not a single Roman art expert in the world who will, on stylistic grounds, support a date that late for the Castus stone. 

NOTE: Basic, the author of the study cited, holds to Medini for the foundation of Liburnia in the 180s.  This position is quickly being abandoned and the earlier date of c. 168-170, as in Miletic, is now preferred. 

III. CONCLUDING REMARKS:

HOW MANY DALMATIAS?

The notion of Dalmatia existed over the centuries not

only as a constitutional, political or territorial term

within a single political authority, but also as a geographical

and cultural term unrelated to state borders.28

Although this was noticed only once in scholarly

literature,29 the anonymous cosmographer from Ravenna

actually explicitly equated patria Dalmatia (singular)

with Dalmatiae (plural): Item ponitur iuxta ipsum Illyricum

circa maris litora patria quae dicitur Dalmatia, iam

ex colpo pertinens occidentali. Dalmatiae plurimi descriptores

fuerunt philosophi, ex quibus ego legi praenominatos

Provinum, Marcellum et Maximum philosophos; sed non

aequaliter dabant nominandum ipsas Dalmatias; ego vero

secundum Maximum inferius dictas civitates eiusdem Dalmatiae

nominavi – „Along the coastline, next to Illyricum,

stretches a land called Dalmatia, and it begins already

in the western part of the bay. Many learned men

described Dalmatia, out of which I read Provinus, Marcellus

and Maximus. They did not give a unique description

of Dalmatias. I enumerated the undermentioned

cities of Dalmatia according to Maximus.”30 On the one

hand, the anonymous writer from Ravenna explicitly

equates the singular name of the province, Dalmatia, -ae,

with its plural version, Dalmatiae, -arum – accusative

plural ipsas Dalmatias is undoubtedly related to genitive

singular Dalmatiae from the previous sentence. On the

other hand, he was aware of the different definitions of

the province of Dalmatia in historical geography which

was at his disposal: territorial and geographical extent

referred to by the name Dalmatia and the historical

context in which the name was mentioned within the

sources used by the Cosmographer varied contradictorily

depending on the chronological scope of the sources.

All of this eventually created discrepancies in Cosmographer’s

understanding and led him to simply opt for

a variant he deemed the most appropriate (secundum

Maximum philosophum). This clearly illustrates not only

the contential and chronological compositeness of the

sources which the author of Cosmography used, but also

his often awkward attempts to compile and harmonize

disparate geographical and paleoethnographic data. The

terms used by the Cosmographer further reveal that the

two spatial and geographical terms – Dalmatia and Dalmatiae

– were used simultaneously and interchangeably,

depending on the different purposes and contexts, and

that they were not mutually exclusive.

Despite the fact that Medini’s considerations are wellestablished,

they lacked an explicit confirmation that

the dual name Dalmatiae, -arum dates back to the period

when the procuratorial province of Liburnia was in existence.

Such confirmation – and epigraphical one, now

exists (2.1). It is an honorary inscription discovered in

2001 in Cordoba. As far as I know, until now there was

no mention of it in scholarly literature concerning Roman

Dalmatia. The monument was erected in honor of

a certain Quintus Antonius Granius Erasinus:

Q(uinto) Antonio Granio Erasino v(iro) e(gregio) / |(centurioni)

frumentario canalic(u)lario / [pro]c(uratori) ad

familiam gladiatoriam / per Italiam Aemiliam Transpadum

/ Liguriam Pannonias Dalmatias / proc(uratori)

XXmae heredit(atium) provinciar(um) / duarum

Baeticae et Lusitaniae / Valerius Augg(ustorum) lib(ertus)

tabularius / magistro innocentissimo / ob meritis posuit

The inscription covers the front side of the base of an

equestrian statue in the shape of a square stone block

measuring 120 x 45 x 154 cm (on technical data see

Ventura Villanueva 2003: 184-186 and Canto 2007: 107).

The fact that Granius belonged to the order of knights

(ordo equester) was expressed by the abbreviation v(ir)

e(gregius), which came into use only after the rule of

Commodus, i.e. after 192. Besides that, Granius’ tribus

was not indicated, which helps us to date the inscription

back into the 3rd century when after Caracalla’s reform

Constitutio Antoniniana in 212 stating the tribe name

became superfluous since all the free inhabitants of the

Empire gained equal rights as Roman citizens.

Since the other services Quintus Antonius Granius performed

and his origin are not important for the purpose

of this paper, we are not going to discuss them further

but rather focus on the third service (in chronological

order) of his cursus honorum: procurator ad familiam

gladiatoriam per Italiam, Aemiliam, Transpadum, Liguriam,

Pannonias, Dalmatias, an office established dur-

ing the reign of Marcus Aurelius (161-180). However,

until the reign of Philip the Arab (244-249) the procuracy

ad familiam gladiatoriam per Italiam was separated

from the procuracy which encompassed the rest of the

provinces mentioned. Therefore it is not clear whether

Q. Antonius Granius performed this service at the time

when it encompassed all the seven provinces, or perhaps

before that, but in successive order (first for Italy

and then for the rest of the provinces) (Ventura Villanueva

2003: 192). Dating the inscription resolves the

dilemma. Dedicant of the inscription was a man called

Valerius, who was an imperial freedman. As a part of his

new status he adopted the imperial cognomen Valerianus.

He also specified that he was freed by the two ruling

emperors – Augg(ustorum duorum) lib(ertus). These

two facts taken together allow us to date the inscription

with relative precision: it was made during the period of

joint rule of emperors Valerian and Gallienus, between

253 and 259 (Canto 2007: 108). This is the way inscription

was dated when it was first published, and later researchers

(e.g. A. M. Canto and A. Ventura Villanueva)

accepted this dating. The inscription from Cordoba was

created at least four years after the rule of Emperor

Philip, at a time when the areas from which gladiators

were recruited were already formally united into one

single district which encompassed seven different provinces

of the Empire. Our Q. Antonius Granius honored

by the inscription could have performed the function

mentioned in late 40s or early 50s of the 3rd century,

and then move to performing other services. Palaeography

(elegant, narrow and elongated rustic capital with

curled arms and pronounced serifs, of scriptura actuaria

type) of the inscription, as well as its content correspond

to the above mentioned dating to 253-259. There

are other inscriptions from Cordoba whose epigraphic

and paleographic characteristics correspond to this inscription,

and all of them date back to the first part of

the 3rd century.

Dedicant Valerius, at the time employed as tabularius,

wanted to honor his superior (magistro) with the sculpture

and the accompanying inscription. At the moment

when he was mentioned in the inscription, Valerius’ superior

performed the function of the procurator vicesimae

hereditatium, i.e. collector of inheritance tax in the

amount of 5% for the fiscal district which encompassed

the provinces of Lusitania and Baetica as a administrative-

financial area (which is why the inscription is located

in Cordoba). For that reason we can assume that

Valerius worked as tabularius in that same regional tax

service (Ventura Villanueva 2003: 193; Canto 2007:

108) wherein he was hierarchically subordinate to Q.

Antonius Granius (even though it is equally possible

that he worked in the archive service of the provincial

governor). What supports this conclusion is the absence

of the formula locus datus decreto decurionum, which

means that the monument, although a public one, was

not exhibited in the space intended for municipal purposes.

Nevertheless, it could have been exhibited in

the premises of the official seat of procurator vicesimae

hereditatium, where a tabularium intended for lower officials

like Valerius, could have been located.31 Following

a number of other indications (Ventura Villanueva

2003: 185, 193), we can identify the location of that object

with the place of the discovery of the inscription

– a building opened towards the main city street (cardo

maximus) and separated from the new forum (located

south from the old main forum, the centre of Roman

Cordoba), only by one decumanus. All in all, it was a

building located in the city centre, used by the tax service

and furnished with public sculptures of monumental

proportions. This reveals the „official” character of

the monument and indicates that mistakes and terminological

freedom during the composing of inscription

are not very likely.

What is important for our context is the fact that the

fifth line of the inscription, among the provinces which

were governed by Antonius Granius Erasinus in the role

of a procurator ad familiam gladiatoriam, clearly states

Dalmatias, not Dalmatiam – accusative plural, not accusative

singular.32 Granius performed the service mentioned

in the early 3rd century in Dalmatias and that is

the first indisputable epigraphic confirmation that the

plural form was used as the name of the province during

the Late Principate. At the same time, the validity

of Medini’s thesis about the separateness of Liburnia as

the origin of that form is strengthened.

Besides that, we should bring attention to another

source which testifies that the plural Dalmatiae, -arum

(4.1) was used as early as the 3rd century. That is the

so called Anonymus Valesianus. While describing the

life of the Tetrarch Constantius Chlorus, the father of

Constantine the Great, Anonymus Valesianus mentions

this ruler served as praeses Dalmatiarum in his youth.

He performed the service of the governor of Dalmatias

approximately between 282 and 284, i.e. before

the Diocletian’s rise to the throne and before the administrative

reorganization as a part of which the province

of Praevalitana was established.33 That is another

proof that the plural form of Dalmatia has nothing to

do with Praevalitana because it is older than Praevalitana.

Therefore, we can conclude that the separateness

of Liburnia made impact on the name of the whole

province Liburnia was connected with through a long

shared history. Now we have a tangible written source

which proves this conclusion. All the more, it is likely

that such Liburnia generated a later Medieval custom of

naming Dalmatia – Dalmatias.

Until the discovery of the inscription of Quintus Antonius

Granius Erasinus, it was difficult to expect that

historiography would have at its disposal some tangible

historical testimony which would fully confirm the

thesis about Liburnia as one of Dalmatias. However,

even prior to this new find, through the process of enlisting

various other sources and arguments it was possible

to arrive at the conclusion that the administrative,

geographical and cultural separateness of Liburnia was

hidden behind the name of one of the Dalmatiae, -arum.

Honorary inscription from Cordoba can be, with due

caution, considered a material confirmation of this prior

conclusion.

For another article on Liburnia's provincial status, see https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/351248.

In addition, I have gathered the following statements from top Croatian scholars:

"The territory of Liburnia (northern Adriatic coastline from Istria to ancient Scardona (actually, as south as river Titus (modern river Krka)), was settled by Illyrian tribe of Liburni, and was unofficially, but culturally firmly, integrated into the Roman world, long before the formal creation of the province of Dalmatia (Nero’s or Vespasian’s time). Hence, although a part of an Augustan province of Illyricum, before the creation of the province of Dalmatia, Liburnia enjoyed a kind of privileged status, being romanised long before the rest of the eastern Adriatic littoral. Moreover, by the time of early Principate, Liburnia was overwhelmed by wealthy Italic settlers and Roman citizens (mostly from northern Italy).It would be redundant for me to explain the genesis and history of the whole territory. I believe that you will found the extensive explanation in the book of dr. Danijel Džino, which I am sending you…. However, bibliography about that particular subject is vast. Staring, in English and Croatian. If I can help with some additional answers, please, do not hesitate to ask..."

"...Two Dalmatiae are mentioned in late antique written sources, and copied in some of the medieval ones. There is on-going debate why are the sources mentioning two Dalmatias. There are two possible explanations, each more or less valid. First explanation is that sources are referring to, as you correctly assumed to former northern part of the province and the souther one, the whole divided into two (or better to say three) new administrative entities by the Diocletian’s administrative reforms. Thus, one Dalmatia would be Liburnia+central Dalmatia (ending south in the vicinity of Epidaurum, and the other would refer to new administrative entities established by Diocletian - provinciae Praevalitana and northern part of Epirus Nova, both formerly part of the province of Dalmatia. The other explanation (favoured by many historians with an interest primarily in the early Middle Ages) is that the late antique sources are referring to the something what will become reality in the Early Middle Ages, and that is existence of two separate entities - Liburnia and Dalamtia. They, in turn, rely on the rather common mentions of Croatian early medieval counts and kings as comes/rex Liburnorum and Dalamtiorum, which would imply that the territory of Liburnia became to be recognised as separate entity by the beginning of the 9th ct., most probably developed from a small nucleus called Liburnia Tarstaticensis (territory around Tarsatica, modern day Rijeka, ital. Fiume), a part of Claustra Alpium Iuliarum (founded rand 190 AD). As I said, both theories are based on convincing arguments…

I did not send my book, but one of the colleague Daniel Džino, But, that one is covering just the formation of Dalmatia. Do you want me to send you something about this second enigma - two Dalamatias in Late Antiquity?...

I am sending you probably the best paper on two late antique Dalmatias, by a brilliant colleague of mine from Split, Ivan Basić. I completely forgot that he wrote it in English. You can find all the references in his text. Most of the crucial literature is in Croatian (Julian Medini, Ante Škegro, etc.) or in Italian (Ferluga, etc.), but this one, the best one, is in English. I believe that you will find it interesting. 

Ivan Basić, DALMATIAE, DALMATIARUM: A STUDY IN HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY OF THE ADRIATIC (IN THE LIGHT OF THE NEW INSCRIPTION FROM CORDOBA)

https://www.academia.edu/34309481/Dalmatiae_Dalmatiarum_a_study_in_historical_geography_of_the_Adriatic_in_the_light_of_the_new_inscription_from_C%C3%B3rdoba_"

- dr. sc. Tin Turković izvanredni profesor

"The main issue is not the name of provinces and the logic behind their naming, but how and by whom they were administered. The procuratorial provinces, which existed during the principate, could be a temporary or an ad hoc solution, or be permanent, and were administered by equites. For example, another temporary procuratorial province was Judaea (from AD 6-41), then formedagain in AD 44, to become, in AD 70, a province administered by a senator (a legatus Augusti pro praetore), and was finally renamed and upgraded to a proconsular province in 135.

Liburnia was just an ad hoc measure and seems to have never become a full province in its own right but since the region was evidently regarded as a separate entity even within the province of Dalmatia (testified as late as the 6th century and beyond since even the Cosmographer of Ravenna knows of the provincia Liburnia) that could explain the use of the plural Dalmatia. The provinces of Dalmatia superior and Dalmatia inferior never existed in Roman times (as opposed to Illyricum superius / inferius), and only appeared in the Middle Ages but not in any official sense.

There are some PhD theses about Liburnia, one of which has been turned into a book (Mattia Vitelli Casella, La Liburnia settentrionale nell’antichità: geografia, istituzione e società, Studi di Storia della Rivista Storica dell’Antichità 21,Bologna 2022). You may find those PhD theses in attachment."

- prof. dr. sc. Hrvoje Gračanin

"Instead of going into long and complicated explanations why was Liburnia called Liburnia (and not Dalmatia Secunda or the like), I think it would be more practical to simply refer you to my paper (in English) published about a decade ago. You can find it here:

https://www.academia.edu/34309481/Dalmatiae_Dalmatiarum_a_study_in_historical_geography_of_the_Adriatic_in_the_light_of_the_new_inscription_from_C%C3%B3rdoba_

Izv. prof. dr. sc. Ivan Basić / PhD, Associate Prof.

WOS Researcher ID: D-7040-2017

ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4781-1292

Odsjek za povijest / Department of History

Filozofski fakultet / Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences

Sveučilište u Splitu / University of Split

REOPENING AN ARMORICAN CAN OF WORMS or COULD L. ARTORIUS CASTUS HAVE FOUGHT IN THE DESERTERS' WAR AFTER ALL?

It was once thought that ARMORICANOS should fit on the L. Artorius Castus memorial stone.  When this proved to be way too long to accommodate the fragmentary ARM[...]S, ARMORICOS was proposed instead.  But there was even loud oppposition about this word, which itself - it was claimed - simply wouldn't fit on the stone.  Until, of course, I showed that, in fact, it could:

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2021/06/the-lucius-artorius-castus-stone-with_14.html

Over the past few months, I've been going back and forth with scholars on the possibility that ARMORICOS was the location where Castus took his legionary vexillations.  My main conversation has been with Professor Roger Tomlin, who still thinks ARMENIOS is a better candidate.  However, he is the first to admit that ARM[...]S may be something else entirely.  As an example of how wrong we can be with this kind of reconstructive guesswork, he presented an example from his own researches.  I supply that here in full:

"We can only play with probabilities! It's good to suggest many possibilities, but ...

One of the Bath tablets was missing its top right-hand corner, but I could see its heading was centred:

      DOCI[

      BRV[

DEAE SAN[

So I read:

      DOCI[LIS

      BRV[CETI

DEAE SAN[CTAE

since Brucetus was a locally attested name, and deities are often addressed as sanctus.

Then I found the missing piece in the box of another tablet, and it now read:

      DOCI[LIANVS

      BRV[CERI

DEAE SAN[CTISSIME

The engraver had not centred Docilianus, he had mis-read the t of Brucetus in his draft, and mis-spelt the ending of sanctissimae.

You can't win!"

Tomlin only really has one objection to a reading that favors ARMORICOS as a reference to a purely regional outgrowth of the Deserters' War:

"This is a possible scenario, of course, but it involves assumptions that are not backed by the text – that Castus' opponents were nationalists, not 'deserters', and that they did not ravage (the whole of) Gaul.

If Castus had campaigned only in Armorica against a much wider-ranging opponent, than he might have said 'in Armorica', but he would have been perverse to call his opponent 'the Armoricans'."

Now, while this is logically sound, we might suppose that the deserters in Gaul (specifically Gallia Lugdunensis, which included Armorica) were the match that lit the fire, so to speak.  In other words, it could be that the deserter uprising brought about a full rebellion in Armorica - a true nationalist rebellion that was restricted to that sector of Gaul.

We know that Armorica gave Rome fits in the later period.  The following is from John Koch's CELTIC CULTURE: A HISTORICAL ENCYCLOPEDIA:

"In the later Roman period, Armorica was more than

once controlled by regional emperors, backed by the

Romano-British garrison, whose authority was not

recognized in Italy or the East—for example, Carausius

and Allectus (287–96), Maximus (Macsen Wledig;

383–8), and Constantine III (407–9). Intermittently

from the late 3rd century, Armorica slipped out of

Roman control altogether, as a result of a series of

uprisings by bacaudae (rebel bands made up of peasants

and disaffected soldiers). The Byzantine historian

Zosimus (6.5.2) relates concerning the events of ad 409:

. . . the barbarians from beyond the Rhine overran

everything at will and reduced the inhabitants of

the British Island and some of the peoples in Gaul

to the necessity of rebelling from the Roman Empire

and of living by themselves, no longer obeying

the Romans’ laws. The Britons, therefore, taking up

arms and fighting on their own behalf, freed the

cities from the barbarians who were pressing upon

them; and the whole of Armorica and other provinces

of Gaul, imitating the Britons, freed themselves

in the same way, expelling Roman officials

and establishing a sovereign constitution on their own

authority . . . (Trans. Thompson, Britannia 8.306).

A shaky Roman rule was re-established in 417 and

lapsed more than once before the mid-5th century. By

the 460s, we find a ‘king of the Britons’ with the

Brythonic name or title Rigotamus ‘supreme king’

and 12,000 men on the Loire, and Gallo-Roman

Armorica belongs to the past."

Might we not accept the possibility that under Commodus, when everything seemed to be going wrong, the Armoricans were encouraged by the deserter uprising to attempt to throw off the Roman yoke entirely?  And that help was sent for from Britain, with Castus answering the call?

This does not seem unreasonable to me.  In fact, as our only other possible candidate (according to a broad consensus in the academic world) is Armenia (with Castus having gone with the British governor Statius Priscus to that country in the early 160s), Armorica right across the Channel from Britain still looks quite attractive.  Even Tomlin agrees that Armenia was very far away.

I had researched British vexillations on the Continent in Saxer's work and found that the two instances we know about only went about halfway between Britain and Armenia.  Yes, we did have an entire legion taken from Bonn on the Rhine to Armenia, but all in all, speaking purely from a geographical perspective, Armorica is preferable to Armenia.

Of course, if we allow for ARMORICOS being the right rendering of the fragmentary ARM[...]S, that opens up another can of worms: the mission of the 1500 British spearmen to Rome to rid the Empire of the Pratorian Prefect Perennis.  There is continuing debate as to whether this mission was headed up by Castus or by the legate Priscus whose British troops tried to raise to the purple.  

The speculative reconstruction of Priscus' career, pieced together from badly damaged inscriptions, was undertaken by Tomlin.  His conclusion was that Priscus would have been immediately removed (perhaps with the other legates under Perennis' directive) and shipped to the Continent to head up an eastern legion.  He then took on a special mission (as praepositus) with either British detachments or German detachments (we can't be sure of which). But in my judgment - and Tomlin agrees - it seems highly unlikely that a man just removed from Britain would, within a short period of time, be given command of British troops on the Continent.  Plus, we have archaeological evidence that strongly suggests the Deserters' War involved Germany as well, so it makes more sense logistically for Priscus to have taken German troops against the enemy rather than British ones.  This is especially true as Priscus prior to leading these detachments was legate of V Macedonica, which was stationed at Potaissa in the province of Dacia Porolissensis (modern Turda). 

If the 1500 spearmen who went to Rome were, originally, fighting a rebellion in Armorica, then there are three ways to explain their subsequent conduct.  Firstly, as I've previously proposed, Dio might have confused an escort or honor guard sent from the main force to Rome to petition the Emperor for Perennis' removal with the entire force.  That is quite plausible.  We might also, should we choose to incorporate Herodian's account, have the British troops pursue Maternus to Rome.  Finally, we may accept the account at face value and allow for the victorious British legionaries coming to Rome to both recieve honors and to redress grievances.  As long as the force was not seen in any way as mutinous, it could have been granted free passage to the capital. It is possible, I suppose, that while the rebellion had been quelled in Armorica, there were still enough of the deserters in other districts to make traveling with a larger force necessary for the protection of the removed British legates. 

Do we find ourselves, then, once again with ARMORICOS as a feasible reading for the ARM[...]S of the L. Artorius Castus memorial stone? 

Actually, probably not.  Why?  Well, I will let Professor Roger Tomlin sum up his defense of ARMENIOS in the inscription:

"I think you must continue to abandon ARMATOS, since this is adjectival: it is used to define someone specific who is 'armed', whether a soldier who hasn't left his sword behind or a murderous civilian. Unless you find an instance, it can't be used by itself in the sense of 'terrorist', without specific reference. After all, whom can a soldier fight, if he isn't 'armed'?

As for ARMORICOS, of course they are possible. Your difficulty is that the passages you cite are more than two hundred years later, and history, even in Roman times, moved on. A second-century Roman general, if he was fighting deserters or rebels in north-west Gaul, would he use a geographical term for them, as if it was where the fighting took place that mattered, not whom? I find a second-century nationalist revolt difficult, and especially for a conventional Roman so to describe it, rather than to refer to 'rebels' (etc.). Is it not the case that he would have used a geographical term for someone outside the Empire, say Marcus campaigning against the 'Marcomanni' or Severus against the 'Caledonians'?

Can you find a career-inscription with action 'against' a (named) people who have been 'Romans' for centuries but have thrown off their allegiance?

I agree that Armorica is geographically convenient – just across the Channel – but I think you risk going against Roman usage, if you apply a geographical term to rebels or deserters without real support in your sources."

  
As an inscription of the sort he asked me about does not exist, I can only assume that he is correct in his assessment and we must continue to allow ARMENIOS as the best possible reading for the stone.