FINAL STATEMENT ON THE EARLY FOUNDATION OF LIBURNIA PROVINCE

When I approached Prof. Anamarija Kurilic (Prof. dr. sc. Anamarija Kurilić, Sveučilište u Zadru / University of Zadar, Odjel za povijest  / Department of History) concerning the argument by Ivan Radman-Livaja, Nikola Cesarik and Ivo Glavaš that the two Dalmatian units were formed just prior to AD 170, she responded negatively as follows:

"The two Dalmatian cohorts stationed in the Salonitan area in my opinion had nothing to do with protecting NE Italy or with presumed province Liburnia, because if they had, then they should have been deployed where the action was, not far from it.  They were there to assist the Dalmatian governor in Salona, after the legions left the province, as Ivan Matijević has shown (OFFICIUM CONSULARIS PROVINCIAE DALMATIAE. Vojnici u službi namjesnika rimske Dalmacije u doba principata, Split, 2020.)"

Although I could not obtain the article she referenced, and Prof. dr. sc. Ivan Matijević has not responded to my query, I did note that Cesarik's second piece on the Dalmatian units was published two years after Matijevic's work.  I then reached out again to Cesarik.  He was kind enough to summarize for me his view on the date for L. Artorius Castus' Liburnian procuratorship:

"I can say that two cohorts, named cohortes I et II milliaria Delmatarum, were positively recruited several years before they were first recorded on the inscriptions from the walls of Salona. The main clue is found in the term "vice tertia" on the inscription mentioning the tribune of the 2nd Dalmatian cohort. You can read more about it in my paper "Cohortes I et II milliaria Delmatarum" which is written in English.

My intention was never focused on the establishment of Liburnia, but solely on the date of recruitment of these cohorts. I only connected my thoughts with the hypothesis of Miletic, and said that if L. Artorius Castus was acting as a governor of Liburnia during the joint reign of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, then it could be possible that his troops consisted of these two cohorts. Why? Because there is an inscription from Fons Timavi, mentioning the tribune of cohort I mil. Delmatarum, that could be dated to that period."

His two relevant papers are here:

https://www.academia.edu/97846819/Cohors_I_Alpinorum_vel_cohors_I_milliaria_Delmatarum

https://www.academia.edu/36732143/Cohortes_I_et_II_milliaria_Delmatarum

When I asked him if he thought Matijevic was wrong about the formation date of the Dalmatian units, he responded:

"Matijevic's work is focused solely on Salona, and the first mention of these cohorts is found in inscriptions from Salona dated to 169/170 AD. Because of that, earlier authors thought that the year 169/170 was also the year when they were founded. Matijevic just cited earlier authors because his work was not focused on the problem we are talking about.

The explanation of the question of recruitment for these units can be found on page 210 of my paper:

"Imp(eratore) Caes(are) M(arco) Au/rel(io) Antonino /Aug(usto) pont(ifice) max(imo) tr(ibunicia) / pot(estate)XXIIII co(n)s(ule) III p(atre) p(atriae) / coh(ors) II |(milliaria) Del(matarum) ped(es) DCCC / in his turris I sub cura/ L(uci) Annaei Serviliani trib(uni) / vice tertia(e).4

The crucial fact is the expression vice tertia(e) in the lastline of the inscription. As shown by French scholars (Bérard 1995: 349-351; Demougin 2000: 132-133), the expression designates the fact that L. Annaeius Servillianus, while holding the post of a tribune of cohors II milliaria Delmatarum – which by all means represents the militia secunda in the well-known cursus of the equestrian officers (tres militiae equestres; cf. Devijver 1989; 1992) – is actually holding the post of militia tertia. That means that L. Annaeius Servilianus is holding his 3rd post in the tres militiae equestres system in the same post which actually represents the militia secunda (i.e. he is holding the post of a tribune of a milliary cohort for the second time which is to be equated with the post of praefectus alae). After this post, Annaeius has the right to say that he had tribus militiis perfunctus although he never held the “real” militia tertia (i.e. the prefecture of a quingenary ala).

This extraordinary promotion system of equestrian officers is very rare in the epigraphic material, and has to be linked either with the need caused by the war, or with the situations in which there were no vacancies for the posts of higher militia (whether secunda or tertia), so the commanders could advance by holding their current posts (Bérard 1995: 350; Demougin 2000: 132-133). The system had been established roughly during the reign of Marcus Aurelius, and was continued to the 3rd century (Demougin 2000: 133).

In the view of the establishment of two cohortes milliarae Delmatarum, the term vice tertia(e) on the Salona inscription is of special importance, because it gives a clue of the exact year in which they were raised. L. Annaeius Servillianus, most probably held the tribunate of cohors II milliaria Delmatarum for the 2nd time when the inscription was placed on the walls of Salona. Having that in mind, if we calculate an average length of the term of office in every post in the tres militiae equstres in the 2nd century AD – which is estimated to be approximately 3 to 4 years (Birley 1961: 137-138; Devi-jver 1989: 79; 1992: 213) – we come to the conclusion that these cohorts were probably founded at least 3 or 4 years before the date on the Salona inscriptions (if not one or two years more). So the latest possible date is the year 166/167 AD."

The most important part of this statement is the author's conclusion that the Dalmatian units were actually probably founded right at 166/7.  If L. Artorius Castus went to fight in Armenia, with that war lasting until 163, and he remained in the East in whatever capacity (perhaps in Cappadocia, where Statius Priscus was governor) until the end of the whole Eastern campaign (166), then his being made procurator in 166/7 would exactly match the formation date for the Dalmatian units.  As I pointed out in my blog article https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2021/02/the-date-of-lucius-artorius-castuss.html  it was at this time that according to the ancient literary sources Marcus and Verus militarily reorganized Illyricum and recruited soldiers from Dalmatia.  One of the primary tasks of a procurator like Castus was recruitment.

This reorganization and recruitment would mark the instituting of the new Liburnian province. 

No other similar set of circumstances historically present themselves, and placing Castus later (like in the 180s) cannot, therefore, be justified.

I shared this second article by Cesarik with Prof. Kurilic, hoping to elicit another contribution to the discussion.  She declined to write back to me. 

I then sent an email to Prof. Ivan Basic (Izv. prof. dr. sc. Ivan Basić / PhD, Associate Prof., Odsjek za povijest / Department of History, Filozofski fakultet / Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences Sveučilište u Splitu / University of Split), co-author with Tin Turkovic of a paper promoting a later foundation date (185-190) for the province of Liburnia.  I presented Cesarik's argument in favor of the 166/7 formation date for the Dalmatian units, and linked that with Castus in Armenia (given that ARMENIOS worked on several levels, and ARMORICOS does not).  Does this earlier appearance of Castus in Liburnia make sense?

His response:

"What you say seems cogent to me."

I am now confident that while there may still be a few holdouts among scholars when it comes to a preference for the later foundation date of Liburnia, given the other factors that lead us to favor the earlier period we can now safely say that the most probable period for the foundation of the province was at the beginning of the Marcomannic Wars, rather than at the end of that conflict. 

THE 'DALMATIAN CONNECTION' AND L. ARTORIUS CASTUS' EXPEDITION AGAINST ARMENIOS

Aequum of Julius Severus

Risinum of Statius Priscus (?) Near Salonae of the Artorii

Pituntium of Lucius Artorius Castus 

PART ONE

In past blog posts, I pointed out that the man who appears to have hand-picked Statius Priscus was Julius Severus.  And that, in turn, Statius Priscus may well have hand-picked L. Artorius Castus.  It is well known that Severus was born in Aequum, Dalmatia.  Statius could have been born in either Italy or Risinum, Dalmatia.  A case has been made for Italy based upon one family connection by marriage, but Professor Roger Tomlin has examined this argument and still sees no reason why Statius could not belong to the Statii attested in Risinum.  

The same debate continues as to where L. Artorius Castus was born. He could have been born in Italy or in Salona, Dalmatia, where the Artorii are attested.  But it is rather a moot point whether Castus was born in Dalmatia or not, as he could well have "founded" the family there when he was posted as procurator of Liburnia and retired to his estate in Pituntium.  

The question we must ask ourselves is whether these apparent Dalmation connections contribute significantly to the argument that Castus went to Armenia with the British governor Statius Priscus, just as it seems Statius Priscus had earlier gone to the East with Julius Severus.

I think they do.  

Professor Roger Tomlin wrote this to me about Priscus and Severus:

"I haven't read Alföldy's Konsulat und Senatorenstandwhich suggests (p. 314) a Dalmatian origin for Statius Priscus, but I suggest you check on this.

Birley, arguably, is over-reacting from his suggestion that Priscus had a British origin, but I don't see that the Luceria inscription proves any more than that Priscus married his daughter to the first Fufidius Pollio. Considering they were generals in adjoining provinces, this isn't a surprise. It was the family of Fufidius Pollio which came from Luceria, and remained there. No need for Priscus to limit his choice of a son-in-law to his own home town.

Statius Priscus could have come from Dalmatia despite the Camodeca inscription – which (I think) only shows that his daughter married into the Luceria family. SP had a very wide-ranging career, and must have made many contacts in the course of it, besides his spell at Rome as a senior senator.

And Birley is right to suggest that Severus may have chosen Priscus because they were both of Dalmatian origin."

The alternate reading for the fragmentary ARM[...]S on the Castus memorial stone is, of course, ARMORICOS.  But while I have tried my best to justify the reading, Professor Tomlin's wise assessment of the proposed Armorica keeps coming back to haunt me:

"I am not happy with 'Armoricans' as referring to the Deserters' War. Our sources are poor, but they insist it was spread across Gaul and Spain, and finished in Italy. If he was putting down an internal revolt, surely he would have used a term like 'hostes', 'defectores', 'rebelles', or even 'desertores'.

Or he could have simply said 'against Maternus.'

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'.

Two footloose Germans or a couple fleeing Britain might have joined them – it wouldn't then mean he was fighting against Germans or Britons. Your scenario only admits of fighting 'in Armorica'.

We can only balance probabilities. And Armenia is heavier than Armorica.

You would have to suppose that Armorica was 'garrisoned', centuries after conquest, by soldiers who were 'Armoricans'. And go against Herodian's narrative, who treats Maternus' followers as latrones – no hint of a 'nationalist' revolt. They ranged all over Gaul, recruiting convicts, and yet you must suppose that Castus applied a narrowly regional label to them, as 'Armoricans'."

This reasoning I find flawlessly convincing. Which means, of course, that we are once again back to a Castus who was in Britain prior to the arrival there of the 5,500 Sarmatians sent to the province in 175 A.D. by Marcus Aurelius.  

I would add in passing that there is nothing on the memorial stone to link the ADVERSUS mission with the 1,500 spearmen Cassius Dio says went to Rome from Britain to demand the execution of the Praetorian Prefect Perennis.  It is tempting to identify these two events, as Castus took three legionary detachments against ARM[...]S, and 1,500 men can be nicely divided into three legionary vexillations of 500 each.  But, again, there is simply no way to show from Castus' inscription that he had anything to do with the delegation to Rome.  

PART TWO

How can we reconcile a L. Artorius Castus in Britain before the Sarmatians with a sub-Roman Arthur born at the Ribchester fort of the Sarmatian veterans?  For I'm fairly confident that the Welsh tradition does preserve (albeit in a form distorted by the usual centuries-long legend-building process) a portrait of a war leader descended from Sawyl Benisel.

Granted, the name Arthur had plenty of time between the 2nd century and the 5th to find its way around Northern Britain.  If the name had proven popular, ostensibly because the Roman officer who was the prefect of the Sixth at York had gained renown by taking Britiah troops to fight in Armenia and had become a procurator, it cropping up at Ribchester may have nothing to do with the Sarmatians at all.  Instead, it would merely be related to the relationship that long existed between York and Ribchester.  We know from the famous Maponus stone at Ribchester, for example, that it was a centurion from the Sixth who commanded a numerus of Sarmatians. 

In "The Sarmatae, Bremetennacvm Veteranorvm and the Regio Bremetennacensis" by I. A. Richmond (The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 35, Parts 1 and 2, 1945, pp. 15-29, Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies), the author emphasizes the influence York had on the fort of the Sarmatian veterans at Ribchester:

"At Bremetennacum, on the other hand, we are in contact with a special settlement and garrison composed of those very barbarians whose failure to absorb Roman culture is considered to have sapped and weakened the Roman military virtue. It is thus particularly significant for official policy that successive commandants of the Ribchester fort and settlement, men of education and social standing, both could and did draw generously upon the resources of craftsmanship and religious allegory available or current at the York headquarters in order to establish the shrines and monuments of the regional centre upon the basis of the best conventions that they knew.

It is of some importance to recall that the cult of Maponus is one, patronized by legionary officers of the Sixth legion, from which Antonianus came, and, in particular, by so senior an officer as the praefectus castrorum, since this stamps the cult as one centred in York rather than in the auxiliary forts."  

Thus we can readily understand how a name that had achieved significant recognition at York might have, eventually, been transferred to the settlement at Ribchester, as the latter would always have been looking to York as the model for its own desired "Roman-ness."  This being the case, we do not have to insist on Castus personally having had anything whatsoever to do with the Sarmatians.

I feel this is a perfectly acceptable compromise, and one which will allow us to retain ARMENIOS for the reading the the Castus stone, and to have the Dark Age Arthur situated at Ribchester.

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE FOR A SARMATIAN DRACO STANDARD

Two more experts on the Sarmatians have chimed in on the total absence of evidence for a draco among the Sarmatians.  I have the following from Dr. Lara Fabian of UCLA:

"The question of the Draco is an interesting one, because it seems to be an example of adoption by the Romans of something that they perceived to be related to their “nomadic” neighbors. The problem, as you identify, is that we have so, so little evidence for what these neighbors actually did, that the whole discussion becomes a bit circular. We have, of course, the Roman depictions of this practice which I am sure you know well (among them the funerary stele from Chester (though unfortunately damaged and worn in the critical areas), depictions of Dacia on coins, and of course the visual material from Trajan’s column, sarcophagi and so on). Among this material, I suppose the examples from modern Hungary and Romania are of most interest. But all of this is generated within the Roman cultural context.

What about material from the “Sarmatians” or “Scythians”? Here, we run into a few problems.

The first, as you point to, is the problem of how diverse the “Scythian” groups were—a note that is true for Sarmatians as well. The question of to what degree there ever was a cohesive group of Sarmatians is very open. I tend to the position that Valentina Mordvintseva argued in her 2013 article “The Sarmatians: The creation of archaeological evidence,” which suggests that the archaeological landscape of the supposed Sarmatian homeland is not indicative of this type of coesiveness, but rather suggests a tremendous diversity of communities in the North Pontic and into the steppe. So: problems identifying who is who all around.

But ok: what happens if we just take a step back and look for evidence of these types of mythological animal standards from the world of the steppe more generally?

I looked through material from the Bosporan world, as well as the wider N. Pontic, and specifically the Alan material (what of it there is) and checked some of the other depictions of soldiers we have from the Parthian world (graffitti from Dura-Europos and Artashat in Armenia), and in no cases are standards depicted.

There is, however, the supposed Simurgh head in the Hermitage Museum in Petersburg, Sasanian in date, which is said to come from the region near Khanty-Mansiysk in Russia, and which some think is a standard (but who knows?). If we look beyond dragon-heads, there are, as you note, there are the depictions of windsocks on the Orlat plaque and on the Indo-Scythian coins, but that doesn’t quite get us to a Draco.

That said: we do have images dragons in metalwork and other media from the steppe and neighboring regions—it is a fairly common motif. There is a bone plaque from Georgia, for example, that shows a dragon slaying scene, and there are numerous “animal style” dragons on metal objects. But in these cases, there is not anything that speaks particularly to the idea of the Draco standard."

And then this from Maciej Marciniak:

"I find your question very disturbing. Indeed I cannot recall any definitely Sarmatian draco. Not from the antiquity. There are some depictions from the Caucasus as I remember, but those are from Middle Ages. Supposed those are of the descendants of Alans.

Check the Tarim Basin paintings. Those are from VI to VIII century, but as I recall their are depictions of Central Asian nomads with draco. 

Closest thing are some doubtful iconographic representations from Georgia from descendants of Alans (present Ossetians). But they are from the 9th-10th century."

***

NOTE: Since writing this piece, I have been in contact with scholars who actually specialize in Sarmatian studies.  They were unable to produce a true Sarmatian draco.  I am quoting here their correspondence with me, and then attaching the images from the Orlat plaques and a coin, which along with that of the British Chester horseman comprise the only "evidence" for the use of the standard among the Sarmatians.  As it happens, the images plainly show that while the Sarmatians had a windsock, there was no dragon head attached to that.  Instead, the windsock has an open, framed end that was attached to the top of the pole with thongs. The tail of the body of the windsock is tasseled; it does not end like a serpent's tail, as with the Dacian wolf-headed draco. [1]

Another author (https://www.academia.edu/37610668/_Caesar_quo_agnito_per_purpureum_signum_draconis_) claims that "an aureus commemorating the military campaigns of Marcus Aurelius against the Marcomanni andSarmates (AD 175–177)" shows a draco, but I have viewed this coin (see below) and others like it and the so-called draco in this context has the upright, perfectly curved shape of a carnyx and lacks a pole or spear attached to the head.  Numismatic experts rightly identify this 'draco' as a carnyx. 

I thus continue to maintain that we have no evidence whatsoever for the presence of the draco among the Sarmatians.

***

From Istvánovits, Eszter – Kulcsár, Valéria: Sarmatians through the eyes of strangers. The Sarmatian warrior. In: International Connections of the Barbarians of the Carpathian Basin in the 1st–5th centuries A.D. (ed.: E. Istvánovits – V. Kulcsár). Aszód – Nyíregyháza 2001.139–169.:

The Sarmatian dragon standard is perhaps the geographically most widespread

element of warfare. Evidence for its use extends from Central Asia (Orlat) (fig. 11: 1) to the British Isles (Chester) (fig. 14: I ). It also appears frequently in the hands of Dacians (allies of the Roxolani in the Dacian wars of Trajan), and later in depictions of the Roman military (fig. 14:4). A Roman depiction, the closest to Sarmatian territory comes from Ságvár, Pannonia (fig. L4:3) (Burger 1966, pl. XCV, but we see several of them on Roman Imperial monuments (Coulston 1991 - with detailed reference to literary sources), one in the Notitia Dignitatum (fig. 14:2) (Robinson 1975, 186, ltg. I9I ) showing one element (besides cataphracts, archers etc.) of the influence oí Sarmatian (Iranian) warfare on the Roman army (Makkay 1996,737-748 - with detailed references, Makkay 1998,I8-2I ). Germans adopted dragon standards - together with several other elements - from the Sarmatians too, and their use extended into the Middle Ages (e.g. the battle of Hastings , 1066 - Gamber 1964, 9).

https://sogdians.si.edu/orlat-plaque/

http://www.transoxiana.org/Eran/Articles/mode.html

Orlat Plaque

Warriors with contus, bow and dragon standard on the bone plate from Orlat (drawing by A.M. Savin and A.I .Semionov)

A coin of the Indo-Scythian king Azes II with equipment similar to that of the Orlat plaque.

Again, no dragon head atop the pole.  

***

Dacian Draco

Chester Cavalryman

Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 2 1991

101

The ‘draco standard

J.C.N. Coulston

"At some point in the 1st or early 2nd century AD, Roman cavalry started to use an entirely new type of military standard, the draco'."

All along, in treating of a possible connection between the Pendragon epithet, the dragon-star of Uther and his draco standards, I have assumed that both the Dacians and the Sarmatians have types of the draco.

But, I assumed this was the case only because I kept reading the assertion in the resource materials. Still, I was bothered by the utter lack of a Sarmatian draco on Trajan's Column, where several Dacian dracos are depicted. I recently confirmed the serpent-tail of the wolf-headed Dacian draco through ancient ceramic evidence from Romania.

For all we know, if the Sarmatians did eventually have a draco, they could well have borrowed it from the Dacians!

What, then, is the so-called evidence for a Sarmatian draco? 

1) Arrian tells us the Roman draco originated with the Scythians. Scholars have guessed these Scythians are Sarmatians.  But while closely related, the Scythians and Sarmatians were separate peoples. And, in fact, the Sarmatians eventually conquered the Scythians.  Furthermore, Arrian had fought the Alans, and most scholars believe these are the Scythians he is referring to. [2]

We could only conjecture that the Sarmatians took a draco from the Scythians, then, after conquering and, presumable, absorbing elements of Scythian culture.

The Dacians, on the other hand, are believed to have descended from the Thracians.

2) The Chester cavalryman is said to be either Sarmatian or Dacian. As the Dacians had infantry stationed in Britain, not cavalry, the Sarmatian theory has prevailed. I also think the figure exhibits a spangenhelm, not a Phrygian cap, a distinction that would point to a Sarmatian warrior. No detail reveals any indication of a Sarmatian's scale armor.

However, given the proposed 2nd century date for the Chester horseman, why could this not simply be a Roman cavalryman with a draco? And, more importantly, the fragmented condition of the relief carving shows only what appears to be a windsock or long, tapering banner. We can't say with any degree of certainty there actually was a draco head on this stone. The missing portion could well have been something else entirely.

Here are the recent arguments for the ethnic identification of the Chester cavalryman:

Pro-Dacian Argument:

http://cisa.uaic.ro/saa/SAA15.pdf

Pro-Sarmatian Argument:

https://www.academia.edu/46018076/The_Cavalryman_of_Chester_a_Dacian_or_Sarmatian_Warrior

Note that the author of the Dacian argument had, like myself, searched for literary or archaeological examples of the Sarmatian draco and found none (personal communication):

"No, I searched for that just in order to see if it is not possible that the rider could be also Sarmatian. A did not find anything."

Prof. Dr. Lucretiu Birliba "Al. I. Cuza" University Iasi Faculty of History Department of Ancient Studies and Archaeology

If the Sarmatians did not have a draco, how does this affect my Ribchester Arthurian theory? For I have opted to put Uther Pendragon at the Sarmatian veterans' fort rather than at the Dacian garrisoned Birdoswald fort on Hadrian's Wall.

Not affected at all, fortunately. The whole Uther-Illtud-Sawyl Benisel argument depends on seeing 'dragon' in Uther's epithet as a Welsh poetic term for warrior or warriors - and it is this very meaning which allows for the identification of Uther with Sawyl of Ribchester.

Sure, it would be nice if the draco had indeed been held in special reverence at Ribchester. And that may even be true. But it is just as likely, if not more so, that the dragon-star and the two golden dracos is Galfridian fiction, derived from Geoffrey of Monmouth's  faulty interpretation of Pendragon as 'the dragon's head.'

[1]

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-wolf-serpent-standard-of-dacians.html

[2]

"The earliest description of this standard may be found in

Arrian of Nicomedia. Around AD 136 he wrote:

“Τὰ Σκυθικὰ δὲ σημεῖά ἐστιν ἐπὶ κοντῶν ἐν μήκει συμμέ-

τρῳ δράκοντες ἀπαιωρούμενοι. ποιοῦνται δὲ ξυρραπτοὶ ἐκ

ῥακῶν βεβαμμένων, τάς τε κεφαλὰς καὶ τὸ σῶμα τᾶν ἔστε

ἐπὶ τὰς οὐρὰς εἰκασμένοι ὄφεσιν, ὡς φοβερώτατα οἷόν τε

εἰκασθῆναι. καὶ τὰ σοφίσματα ταῦτα.

ἀτρεμούντων μὲν τῶν ἵππων οὐδὲν πλέον ἢ ῥάκη ἄν ἴδοις

πεποικιλμένα ἐς τὸ κάτω ἀποκρεμάμενα, ἐλαυνομένων δὲ

ἐμπνεόμενα ἐξογκοῦται, ὥστε ὡς μάλιστα τοῖς θηρίοις ἐπε-

οικέναι, καί τι καὶ ἐπισυρίζειν πρὸς τὴν ἄγαν κίνησιν ὑπὸ τῇ

πνοῇ βιαίᾳ διερχομένῃ”3.

Arrian classifies the draco as a Scythian standard. However,

we may suspect that he meant the Alans instead of the

Scythians, whom he fought while holding the post of the

Prefect of Cappadocia and the commander of the legions on

the Armenian border."

https://www.academia.edu/37610668/_Caesar_quo_agnito_per_purpureum_signum_draconis_

OPINIONS FROM ADDITIONAL ROMAN ART SPECIALISTS ON THE DATE OF THE L. ARTORIUS CASTUS MEMORIAL STONE

According to Dr. Linda A. Malcor and John Matthews in their new book ARTORIUS: THE REAL KING ARTHUR, the dates for L. Artorius Castus in Britain and Liburnia run as follows:

181 Praefectus of the VI Victrix twice. ["twice" is wrong; all professional epigraphers agree that if two terms were to be expressed on the stone,  PRAEFF will not bear the interpretation of 'prefect twice': some phrase like praefectus iterum or bis praefectus would have been used for a second command with the same title. As Professor Roger Tomlin stated, "I am happy with the traditional interpretation that FF is a stonecutter's mistake, like his IM for IN in Britanicianarum."]

187 Becomes Dux of the three legions of Britannia [another error; vexillations is implied here, as it is on 42 other stones (see Robert Saxer)]

191 Procurator Centenarius of Liburnia.

According to Malcor, Castus either died or was mortally wounded in the war between Septimius Severus and Albinus in Gaul, in the year 197, to be precise. She believes the stone could have been commissioned before he left for the war.

 

We may keep this date only because it is relevant to our treatment of the age of the stone below.  But the idea, proposed by Malcor and Matthews, that Castus left his procuratorship to fight in the civil war only to be mortally wounded or killed at Lugdunum is pure fancy.  There is no evidence to even suggest such a conjecture.  The reason for placing him at Lugdunum is so they can associate him with the Burgundy Avallon previously associated with Riothamus by Geoffrey Ashe. 

While the date itself of just prior to 197 is credible, Tomlin holds that "If VIVUS is to be taken literally, Castus' epitaph was composed by him in retirement, which could be as late as c. 180." This fits with the rough schema provided by Miletic:

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

Of course, we may also opt for ARMORICOS for the Castus memorial stone - something that I myself eventually settled upon.  This would push the date of the stone up slightly, with Castus being given the procuratorship of Liburnia by Cleander, Perennis' successor, in 185 or immediately after.

Opponents of the earlier date argue that to have a man around 70 years old is absurd, but this did happen in the Roman Empire.  These same opponents usually cite the average lifespan of a Roman soldier, but such an average includes the obvious fact that many soldiers died in service.  If a man survived his war years, he could certainly have lived longer - even much longer - than the average lifespan of a soldier.

The consensus on the age of the stone strictly from the standpoint of the style of carving and art is that it belongs to the 2nd century, i.e. to the Antonine.  There are a few scholars who will permit it to go beyond that into the very early Severan - but by far the majority prefer Antonine, and among those the late Antonine (defined roughly as the last quarter of the 2nd century).  

I have taken the trouble, once again, to contact experts in the fields of Roman art history and Roman funeral art and have asked them what they thought about the date of the stone.  I have added their responses below, and then pasted below their responses those I had garnished from other scholars in the past.  Note that this is NOT a selective list.  There were, of course, plenty of scholars who did not respond to my query, and others who were either noncommital or who referred me to colleagues they felt were better equipped to deal with the problem.  I received no dissenting opinions, i.e. educated guesses which put the stone well outside either the second or third centuries.  No one would put the stone as late as, say, Diocletian.  

"I've had a look at the photo and my instinct is that this is later second, rather than early third-century work. But it's only a personal sense, and, as I said before, it is notoriously difficult to distinguish Severan from later Antonine architectural ornament."

Dr Susan Walker FSA* 

Honorary Curator and former Keeper of Antiquities, Ashmolean Museum

Emerita Fellow, Wolfson College, University of Oxford

*Wife of John Wilkes, Emeritus Professor of Greek and Roman Archaeology at University College London.  Wilkes told me via personal communication that "In 1962, in company with my old friend Tony Birley, I travelled from Split a few miles south along the coast where we located the two halves of the text still incorporated in the roadside field wall at Podstrana di Jesenice. The part of the stone with the key letters ARM[...] was buried but we managed to excavate it from the grass verge and confirm that there were no traces of further letters to be seen."

"It wouldn’t be earlier than the second century, I don’t think, and it could go into the third.  In my opinion, the quality of the letters makes a date later than that range improbable. One way to go might be to consider the type of monument it belonged to. If it was a chamber tomb and this was the titulus set into the façade that would make a second-century date more likely, or early third."

Regina Gee, Ph.D.

Professor of Art History

CAA Leadership Fellow in the School of Art

Montana State University

"Really I cannot say how to decipher the letters ARM, but according to the type of sarcophagus it is quite sure that it belongs to the end of the 2nd or the very beginning of the 3rd century AD. It is the vertical strigili type and the pelte tabulla made of Proconnesian marble. This type of the sarcophagi was imported but finally done in Salona which was the port of import of such blocks and the workshop or workshops. This sarcophagus was pretty huge and expensive."

Prof. Dr. Sc. Nenad Cambi

https://www.info.hazu.hr/en/clanovi/cambi-nenad/

"Dating from style of details like this is notoriously inexact and unreliable, especially in the provincial context. If I saw this for the first time and was guessing a date from the style of carving and the figural decoration alone, ignoring any other factors, I would say it's very nice and I would hesitate to out it a lot later than 200. But this really is an informed guess. A way to explore this aspect further would be to look for very similar elements in the decoration of Dalmatia stones and see if any of them have more secure dating criteria. However, even that would not be especially dependable.

If it were in the city of Roman then certain technical details and stylistic traits might help to narrow it but the tools don’t change, even though there is a growing casualness of drill use through the period (not conspicuous in this work, in fact), and the motifs are rooted in the early empire. I am perfectly happy for it to be Antonine, but if I didn’t know anything about it and was told it was Flavian I would not be perturbed.  Actually it’s the letter carving that’s potentially more illuminating, but in this case that seems to rather argue earlier, not late.

Without commenting on the historical arguments, which I haven’t looked into, but just considering whether on art-historical grounds the stone could have been carved in the last 30 years of the second century: yes, I have no problem with that."

Professor Peter Stewart

Professor of Ancient Art

Director of the Classical Art Research Centre

Fellow, Wolfson College

Ioannou Centre for Classical and Byzantine Studies

"I think I'd incline to a 2nd C date."

Professor Zahra Newby

Department of Classics and Ancient History

University of Warwick

"As you know, the inscription was already published in 1873. Based on the text, i.e. cursus honorum, it is dated to the years 180-230. For my part, I can add that the style is typical of the late Antonines, but it could have been continued under Severus. Likewise the lettering."

Prof. dr hab. Piotr Karol Dyczek

https://www.archeologia.uw.edu.pl/en/piotr-dyczek-2/

"The best comparison I can find is in Diana Kleiner's 1992 book on Roman Sculpture. p. 336, fig. 301, illustrates one panel of the Roman Arch of the Argentarii of A.D. 204. Made of travertine it seems to be a finer stone than the one you have. The side border has rosettes (floral patterns with 4 leaves) set between spiraling acanthus plants. The border pattern on your stone seems to have a simplified version of the same design. Based on this comparison, I would say you are in the ballpark for an Antonine date in the last quarter of the 2nd century."

Professor Mary C. Sturgeon

https://art.unc.edu/people/art-history-faculty/mary-sturgeon/

"I would go with Tomlin and Birley on the date (earlier, rather than later)."

Prof. Maureen Carroll, FSA

Professor of Roman Archaeology

Director MA Roman Archaeology

Department of Archaeology

University of York

* Older opinions, gathered a few years ago:

It has further been objected that the LAC memorial stone must be from 190.  This is insisted upon for stylistic considerations.  However, in Tomlin's treatment of the stone, he says:

"The inscription is undated, but the quality of the lettering and the well-executed band of lush orna- ment to left and right, twining scrolls inhabited by rosettes, would suggest it was Antonine (c. AD 140–90)."

When I asked him to elaborate on that published statement, he sent the following via private correspondence:

"I don't much like dating closely on ground of style, since it is unusual to get many closely dated inscriptions from which to conclude that such-and-such a letter form or ornament must belong to that narrow date-band. So yes, I see no reason to date the stone to 190. I am quite happy for it to be earlier; indeed, I would expect it to be so."

Of the several renowned Roman art scholars I have consulted on this question, the consensus is that the LAC memorial stone belongs to the Antonine period, but that it can’t be more precisely dated than that.  Here is a representative selection of their responses:

"Roger [Tomlin] has solved this. A pity I didn't see his book [ BRITANNIA ROMANA ROMAN INSCRIPTIONS AND ROMAN BRITAIN, 2018] before I wrote my article ("Viri militares...")."

- Anthony Birley on the ARM- of the LAC inscription as Armenia of the 160s

"Style of lettering and orthographic peculiarities can often provide a close dating. All I can say, and it is by no means definitive, is that the decorative framing motif is unlikely to be as late as 190 because it does not feature the deep carving and prominent use of the drill (vs. chisel) characteristic of that period. By the same criterion, the inscription may not even be as late as Antonine, because that is when that kind of carving/drilling begins. I'm attaching an inscription precisely dated to 161. I say "not definitive" because one has to take into consideration qualitative differences between master carvers and routine work. Nonetheless, on the basis of carving, your inscriptions are unlikely to be 190 but they also may be pre-Antonine."

- FRED S. KLEINER, Professor of History of Art & Architecture, Professor of Archaeology, Boston University

"One thing I can definitively tell you: none of the ornaments around the inscriptions can be dated within a timespan as short as 10 years. Both the type of ornament (i.e. the motifs) and the style of depiction (i.e. the way they are carved) are conventional over long periods of time. While style is a very difficult criterion to apply due to the fact that styles vary a lot at any given time depending on the workshop and/or quality of work, I would probably feel fairly confident to date both items (the stamp is impossible to date on any ‘artistic’ grounds) to the second half of the second to early third century. I would not hesitate to date the sarcophagus fragment even more precisely to the mid-Antonine to Severan period or to c. 160/70-220/30 roughly speaking. Yet any more precise dating on the basis of the ornaments would not be methodologically sound."

- Professor Barbara Borg  (https://humanities.exeter.ac.uk/classics/staff/borg/)

"The very nice scrollwork and flowers look high Antonine, nearer the middle of the 2nd century I would have thought. Yes, I would say on the basis of the ornament and relative lack of ligatures in the inscription it is round about the mid century."

- Professor Martin Henwig (https://www.classics.ox.ac.uk/people/revd.professor-martin-henig) 

“I've now had a chance to look at the objects in question.  I fully trust Roger's [Tomlin] verdict with regard to the dating of the inscription and the carving of the letters. Generally speaking, it certainly looks firmly 2nd century to me. As for the vegetal decoration, I would equally say that the shape of the flowers and tendril ornament do not support a date later than, roughly, the mid-2nd century AD (which includes the 160s). Although the pieces come from a provincial context, the ornament does not show any of the characteristics which we would expect for the Severan and later periods (i.e. a lot of drill-work and sharp contours).”

- Dominik Maschek (https://www.classics.ox.ac.uk/people/dr-dominik-maschek)

"I can assure you that Professor Roger Tomlin, whose work I know well, is a great authority on matters concerning Roman army and administration (as well as onomastics), so you can absolutely rely on his opinions and I would agree with what he told you. I can assure you that no Roman inscription can be dated 'precisely', unless it contains a dating by consuls or an exact imperial titulature."

- Marjeta Sasel Kos (https://iza2.zrc-sazu.si/en/sodelavci/marjeta-sasel-kos-en#v)

"As to the decorative carvings on the major [LAC] stone, not much can really be said. There are those who think you can date these things precisely – but I’m not among them. They’re too often standard workshop products, and the designs don’t change that much or that often. Twenty or thirty years doesn’t seem to make much of a difference, as best I can tell.   However, the eastern [Armenian] campaign outlined by Tomlin seems to me preferable to a British conjecture."

-      Professor Michael Koortbojian

(https://artandarchaeology.princeton.edu/people/faculty/michael-koortbojian)

What a Roman Unfamiliar With the Military Career of L. Artorius Castus Would Say Upon Viewing the Latter's Memorial With ARMATOS

The L. Artorius Castus Stone with ARM[...]S Reconstructed as ARMATOS

(as per the theory of Dr. Linda A. Malcor, Antonio Trinchesse and Alessandro Faggiani)

What a Roman unfamiliar with the military career of L. Artorius Castus would say upon viewing the latter's memorial with ARMATOS written for the inscription's fragmentary ARM(...)S:

I'm a passerby looking at LAC's funeral stone.  Or maybe I've come over for lunch to see the family that lives there, a generation or two later.  I see this nice stone and it tells me that a prefect of the Sixth Legion led three legions against armed men.  So I think to myself, hmm... Three entire legions led against an enemy and he doesn't bother to tell us who they were or anything?  Armed men? Who else would he be fighting - inermes, unarmed men? If I read it literally, rather than assuming detachments are implied, I would doubtless be thinking this must have been in Britain, although I would also know all three entire legions in Britain would not have been taken together against someone.  Sure, the Sixth, as he was its prefect.  But we are surely talking generous vexillations from the other two?  I mean, we don't empty an entire province's legionary bases of its legions all at once.  But even so, who were the armed men?  If this were so huge and important an undertaking, one which appears to have landed him the nice procuratorship, why doesn't he trouble himself to identify his enemy?  I mean, he wanted to preserve his life's deeds for  posterity and make his reputation a record for the ages. Well, armed men just doesn't cut it in that context.  He goes to great lengths to tell us how much he got paid for his procuratorship and that he held the right of the sword in that capacity, but doesn't think it important to tell us who was fighting as a commander? Surely he wasn't a stupid man.  To think he was ignorant of whom he was fighting is ridiculous. Were they a tribe or tribes? Mutinous troops? Brigands? He could have identified his enemy as DEFECTORES, REBELLES, LATRONES, HOSTES PVBLICOS, PRAEDONES, DESERTORES... Then we would have known exactly whom he was fighting. Maybe he was confused. He and his legionaries went against so many different enemies that he gave up trying to remember them all or separate them out in his own mind. So to him, in the endless haze of battle, they just amalgamated into an indistinguishable mass of armed men. A sort of tribute to PTSD. Or maybe he wanted people to think he had gone against every conceivable enemy to make himself seem greater, and so he defaulted to the generic, vague, nonspecific, catchall armed men. The minds of those reading the phrase could then conjure any enemy or place or combination of enemies and places they wished, and place these imaginative constructs at any time they pleased. Oh, but maybe he didn't have room on his stone to name his adversaries.  But, wait, this is a very large and very expensive stone, with very nicely rendered lettering and decoration.  Did the idiot not plan the inscription before he went to get a stone of the right size for it?  Does he not know how to abbreviate or ligature the names of his adversaries?  No, I find it impossible to believe he would leave them out because he was so stupid as to get a stone the wrong size for the pre-planned inscription (or fail to properly design an inscription for a stone he had already procured).  I mean, come on, he says himself he was alive when he had this made.  So... he was happy with armed men?  What else can I say?  Just plain dumb. No one, even in Castus' own time, if they didn't know him or know of him, would have any idea whom ARMATOS was. Would you put something that asinine on your memorial? I shall have to ask someone around here if they happen to know who the armed men were!

Final Word on the Dux Title of L. Artorius Castus

So, just this morning, as we continue to be bedeviled by the proposal by Dr. Linda A. Malcor and colleagues that the dux title for the 2nd century legionary prefect L. Artorius Castus equates functionally to a governorship (despire overwhelimg evidence and broad scholarly consensus to the contrary), I felt I should seek to put the matter to rest by communicating my thoughts one last time to Professor Roger Tomlin.

My email to him (unedited) is pasted below along with his (unedited) response:

"There is still a group of Arthurian scholars who are insisting Castus, as dux, was dux of Britain, and thus a sort of governor.

I pointed out to them that he does not call himself Dux Britanniarum (as with that title after Diocletian). If he did just say he was dux of 3 legions and that's all, then we might pause and wonder what he meant.

But he says he was dux of 3 legions (legionary detachments) that he took against someone somewhere. That very statement precludes the possibility he was claiming to be dux of Britain.

Is my reasoning not sound here?

If he had been dux of Britain, would he not have said so by calling himself Dux Britanniarum?

Thanks, Roger."

"Yes, I think you are right.

dux Britanniarum is a much later title – late third-century if not fourth-century – meaning commander of the armed forces in Britain. Not (civil) governor. Castus does not claim any of this: he is acting-commander of legionary detachments drawn from the army in Britain which were temporarily combined to be a mobile expeditionary force."

I've decided that this "problem" is no longer such, and I will not be treating of it again in the future.

A Side-By-Side Comparison of Two Arthurian "Theories" and Why I've Selected One as the Winner

Ribchester Roman Fort

Birdoswald Roman Fort

In 2019, I was invited by Dr. Linda A. Malcor to attend a L. Artorius Castus symposium in Split, Croatia.  While I am honored to have had the opportunity offered to me and owe a great debt of gratitude to Dr. Malcor, it was also made plain to me at the time that I was to be the "resident outsider."  In other words, everyone at the conference with the exception of myself (and fellow Arthurian scholar Chris Gidlow) were staunch adherents and defenders of Malcor's own 'Sarmatian theory.'  You might say I was the token opposition.  And I was absolutely fine with my role.

Since then, I did additional work on my own theory - one which relied on the second century Castus not as "THE Arthur", but as the man whose name may have been preserved in northern Britain and passed down to the famous Arthur the British sources claim had his floruit in the 5th-6th centuries. Many years of research had led me to abandon the quest for a southern Arthur, primarily because the HISTORIA BRITTONUM's Arthurian battles were so easily placed in the North. Equally intensive research into Castus pointed to his having gone to Armenia with the British governor Statius Priscus and to have been granted the Liburnian procuratorship at the time of its most likely founding, i.e. c. 168-170. If that was Castus' career, then he was in Britain before the Sarmatians arrived there and any attempt to connect the later Arthur with the Sarmatian veteran fort at Ribchester had to be relinquished.

If any currency could be given to Uther Pendragon and his dragon star and draco standard, I could point to the Birdoswald Roman fort on Hadrian's Wall, with its draco-venerating Dacian garrison.  As Castus could have been born in Dalmatia, or at least engendered the family attested there in the Roman period, it did not seem like a coincidence that the Dalmatian-manned fort of Carvoran lay just a couple miles to the east of Birdoswald.  The latter fort is known for its remarkable sub-Roman/early Medieval royal hall.

Now, that all seemed fine (allowing for several assumptions, such as the name Arthur actually deriving ultimately from Castus) until I made another discovery. While exploring the true identity of Uther, I found that it seemed fairly certain that his name/title was a straight-forward Welsh rendering of military terms used for the warror-saint Illtud of South Wales. What led me in that direction were the three 'predatory birds' of Elei/Elai.  Elai, the modern River Ely, had on its west the Dark Age fortress of Dinas Powys, and the VITA of Illtud made it clear that the saint had been the captain of the soldiers of the chieftain there. Alas, nothing else in the life of Illtud pointed to his being Arthur's father.  He was Arthur's cousin, to be sure, but he had put away his wife when he became a religious and no children are mentioned.

At this point I was despairing of making sense of what I was sure was an Illtud-Uther identification. I flirted with the idea that Geoffrey of Monmouth, the great story inventer, had merely "borrowed" Illtud/Uther and made him Arthur's father.  

But then I looked more closely at the problem, trying to find something I might have missed.  As it turned out, I had neglected to take into account a curious correspondence: in the Welsh poem MARWNAT VTHYR PEN, Uther says that he was transformed by God (not into Gorlois, Geoffrey's fictional character created out of the gorlassar epithet beloning to Uther in the same elegy) into a second Samuel (W. Sawyl).  Going to Illtud's story, I found him not only confused with a Samuel in the Vita of St. Cadog, but in Geoffrey of Monmouth (Eldadus = Illtud) compared to the same Biblical figure.  

As it happens, there was a famous Sawyl among the Men of the North in Welsh tradition, the head of a family of princes.  Independently, and years before, I had proven that this northern Sawyl's name was preserved at Samlesbury hard by the Ribchester Roman fort of the Sarmatians.  But then some more "coincidences" starting piling on. This Sawyl had a son named Madog, as did Uther. Madog became an Irish saint and was given the epithet Ailithir, ''other land", a term for a pilgrim. Uther's son Madog had a son named Eliwlad, whose story paralleled another Welsh didactic poem featuring a pilgrim.  The very name Eliwlad, when analyzed, was semantically identical to the Irish Ailithir.  Even better, Sawyl had married an Irish princess.  That alone would account for why all subsequent Arthurs belonged to Irish-descended dynasties in Britain.  And, finally, the Sarmatians were fond of their own draco, and so there was no reason why an Uther Pendragon could not belong to the Ribchester fort.  Current excavations at Ribchester are showing a continuation of occupation into the sub-Roman period (although any official report on this has not yet been published).

Suddenly, I was forced to acknowledge the possible veracity of the Welsh tradition as it pertained specifically to Uther's true nature and place of origin.  And that meant, in turn, that if we continued to go with Arthur as a name descending from Castus then we needed to have the latter in Britain at the same time as the Sarmatians.  Which meant, obviously, that the fragmentary ARM]...]S of the Castus inscription had to stand for ARMORICOS, and we would be talking about the prefect of the Sixth, in his capacity as dux/commander, leading British legionary detachments against the deserters in Armorica.  We also must consider the very real possibility that the 1,500 British spearmen who went to Rome to eliminate the Praetorian Prefect Perennis was this same force.  And, indeed, 1,500 equates to 500 spearmen each drawn from the three British legions.  THE ACCOUNT OF THE 1,500 BRITISH SPEARMEN IS THE ONLY ACCOUNT OF SUCH A MISSION FOUND IN THE LITERATURE OF THE PERIOD.  WHILE WE CAN OPT FOR ARMENIA, THAT REMAINS SO ONLY IF THE STONE'S ARM[...]S ACTUALLY STANDS FOR ARMENIOS.  IN THE CASE OF ARMORICOS ON THE STONE, WE CAN POINT TO THE 1,500 BRITISH SPEARMEN WHO WERE ON THE CONTINENT AT THE RIGHT TIME TO BE CASTUS'S FORCE.  Thus in one case we have no independent source of historical confirmation, while in the other we do.

There is no problem having Castus made procurator after the fall of Perennis, for Dio tells us that Perennis' successor, Cleander, was bestowing many procuratorships. 

So which way to go?  Well, I will be perfectly candid about this: I personally have long detested the 'Sarmatian Theory'.  Why?  Because its proponents are not good scholars.  They have proven time and time again to instead be fanatics who have decided, through magical thinking, to conjure a speudo-academic argument in order to convince people to subscribe to what they want to be believe.  They consistently refuse to accept evidence or good argumentation to the contrary, and have gone out of their way to repeatedly besmirch the expert opinions of the world's top Roman miliary and art historians, epigraphers and archaeologists.  They continue to make absolute statements that are not in any way supportable and to declare impossible anything that threatens their own views.  From my standpoint, the most galling aspect of how the Sarmatian Theorists treat Arthurian speculation is by insisting all major Arthurian motifs found in medieval literature can be traced to Sarmato-Alanic tradition.  They do this despite our ability to show that all such motifs, when not pure invention of the romance authors, can be derived from a combination of Classical, Christian and Celtic sources. 

Still, as my late Dad often said, "Don't throw the baby out with the bath water." A very old expression, but quite apt in this case.  I cannot justify dispensing with 

1) The Welsh tradition concerning Uther Pendragon, which I cannot help but see as pointing directly at Sawyl of Ribchester

and

2) The independently recorded account of the march of the 1,500 British spearmen 

To forsake those two valid argument points in exchange for an "Armenian maybe" does not feel like a wise decision to me.  And if I'm to be truthful, during those intervals when I was steadfastly promoting an Arthur at Birdoswald, I continued (sometimes subconsciously, and even in my dreams) to be haunted by Eliwlad the Eagle son of Madog son of  Uther.  Yes, this sounds rather crazy, but a mind at war with itself on these kinds of complex concepts can manifest its preference for this or that belief in strange ways.

For, as always with us humans, no matter how much we profess objectivism, we tend to rationalize whatever course of action we wish to pursue.  I am not immune to this human proclivity.  

Despite that caveat/disclaimer/qualifier, I am now ready, at last, to publicly state that my Arthurian theory maintains that the Dark Age Arthur's father, Uther Pendragon, was quite possibly Sawyl of Ribchester.  As a result, I will be reissuing my book THE BATTLE-LEADER OF RIBCHESTER in the coming days.

COMING SOON: An Itemized, Side-By-Side Comparison of Two Arthurian "Theories" and Why I've Selected One as the Winner

Contus Bearing Sarmatian from Ribchester RIB000595

No Sarmatians for L. Artorius Castus on the March to Rome: Legionaries Vs. Auxiliaries, Etc.

I've just finished a discussion with Professor Roger Tomlin on whether or not the epigraphic evidence for L. Artorius Castus proves the existence of or, at the very least, allows for the including of, Sarmatian cavalry among the forces he led against ARM[...]S. 

Even though Tomlin was well aware of the centurion from the Sixth Legion who is found listed as commander of the Sarmatian numerus at Ribchester, his profound knowledge of the Roman military structure led him to issue the following proclamation:

"We can speak of these auxiliaries being 'attached' to the legions, but only in the sense of being in the same army. They did not contribute to the legions. That they were commanded by a legionary centurion is irrelevant. It does not mean they were 'legionaries' – he was only seconded to command them ad hoc, as praepositus. As often happened to auxiliary cohorts.

Castus did not directly command auxiliaries. He commanded legionaries. It would be a pure guess to suppose that auxiliaries were added to his command. There is no direct evidence, and the implication is otherwise."

In other words, when Castus tells us he led three legionary vexillations (it is now accepted by all respected Roman military historians that vexillations is implied in the inscription, as it is in 42 such inscriptions according to Robert Saxer in his magisterial "Untersuchungen Zu Den Vexillationen Des Romischen Kaiserheeres Von Augustus Bis Diokletian"), he is referring to legionaries. We thus cannot equate these troops with Sarmatian heavy cavalry attached to a legion or legions.  The 1500 spearmen who show up in the account of the British force that goes to Rome to destroy Perennis have also been

seen as Sarmatian, as the word used by Dio for them is derived from the Greek word contos, a word used for the extra-long lance of the Sarmatian cavalry.  But John S. McHugh's analysis of these spearmen as standard lanciarii is well-argued (COMMODUS: GOD AND GLADIATOR, p. 99):

"It is more likely that these 1,500 javelin men were drawn in equal numbers from each of the three British legions and were elite soldiers. It was during this period that legions were creating a specialized unit of lanciarii made up of 500 legionaries armed with 1 metre long javelins who were used for fast mobile attacks and filling in gaps between units in the battle line."

What this all means is that if Castus did impress himself upon the Sarmatians, it would have happened not on the Continent, but in Britain when he might well have used them when Ulpius Marcellus fought the northern British tribes and Commodus took the title of Britannicus. There was also mutiny under Ulpius and it may well be that the Sarmatians were employed in helping to suppress that as well.  If Castus did something to endear himself to them, it certainly was not fighting on the wrong side!  Castus appears as a loyal prefect of the Sixth and was rewarded for his service against ARM[...]S by being granted the procuratorship of Liburnia.  

R.I. Richmond (in "The Sarmatae, Bremetennacvm Veteranorvm and the Regio Bremetennacensis") emphasizes the very close relationship that existed between Sarmatian Ribchester and the York of Castus' Sixth Legion.  We have seen above that a centurion of the Sixth commanded the Sarmatian garrison at Ribchester.  We do not need to involve the Sarmatians in the Continental feats of Castus to account for how his name might have been preserved through the generations at Ribchester.

As for the troublesome ARM[...]S... In the above-outlined scenario, it has to be Armorica.  John S. McHugh says simply:

"Some have interpreted this as Castus leading British troops across the empire to Roman Armenia; clearly this is not logical as greater concentrations of troops would be far nearer and the province of Britain was suffering unrest itself."

I have in the past presented an excellent series of arguments that actually show Castus could have gone to Armenia.  These include the fact that the British governor, Statius Priscus, was sent to command the war in Armenia in the early 160s.  I have also been able to show, pretty convincingly, that Liburnia was founded c. 168-70 on an emergency basis due to the threat of German invasion at the outset the Marcomannic Wars.  But it is also true that 

"...Cleander [Perennis's successor], raised to greatness by the favour of Fortune, bestowed and sold senator­ships, military commands, procurator­ships, governor­ships, and, in a word, everything.

https://penelope.uchicago.edu/thayer/e/roman/texts/cassius_dio/73*.html

We can, therefore, easily make the case that Castus was rewarded for his service by Cleander by being granted the Liburnian procuratorship.

What I keep coming down to time and time again is this:  

The only British mission in the time period we are considering in the literature is that of the 1,500 spearmen to Rome.  The number 1,500 also matches perfectly what would be 3 500 men detachments drawn from the 3 British legions (something found on the Castus stone). Unless we allow the Castus memorial stone's fragmentary ARM[...]S to stand for Armenia, it is a logical choice to instead opt for Armorica.  This is especially so because we know the Deserters' War was raging in Gallia Lugdunensis, a province largely composed of Armorica:

Et Pescennius quidem Severo eo tempore quo Lugdunensem provinciam regebat amicissimus fuit; 4 nam ipse missus erat ad comprehendendos desertores, qui innumeri Gallias tunc vexabant.

"Now Pescennius was on very friendly terms with Severus at the time that the latter was governor of the province of Lugdunensis.12 4 For he was sent to apprehend a body of deserters who were then ravaging Gaul in great numbers."

https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Historia_Augusta/Pescennius_Niger*.html

https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/L/Roman/Texts/Historia_Augusta/Pescennius_Niger*.html

The Tomlin-supported argument against Armorica - that Castus would have used instead terms such as DEFECTORES, REBELLES, LATRONES, HOSTES PVBLICOS, PRAEDONES, or even DESERTORES for his enemy, is, in my humble opinion, countered by Picard's studies of the actual nature of the Deserters' War:

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2020/06/picards-revolt-of-maternus-rough-google.html

If the Deserters' War really was a large-scale rebellion centered in Armorica, then there is no reason why a prefect of the Sixth, made a dux of legionary detachments and sent to Armorica to help quell the rebellion, would not have used ARMORICOS in his diploma.