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.