[NOTE: Readers who find this blog post interesting may like the following one as well:
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
"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:
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."
Dr. Jason Lundock
"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:
"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).
"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:
It may well be that various emperors as founders of legions may have given those legions animal symbols. See
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
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:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.