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.