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.