[Since writing this piece, I recalled some earlier work I had done with Professor Roger Tomlin on the LAC stone.
What he came up with actually allows us to retain ARMENIOS as the most likely reading for the fragmentary ARM[...]S of the inscription:
If you have LAC commissioned directly into the centurionate and allow him to be in his mid-40s, rather than mid-50s, when he goes to Armenia in the early 160s, and then have him made procurator of Liburnia c. 168, he would then be around 50. Let him serve a decade or so (the Marcomannic Wars ended in 182), then retire. He may have made his stone anytime during the reign of Commodus, which is when the procurator centenarius formula first shows up. In 180 (when Commodus started ruling on his own), LAC would be in his early 70s. In 190, his early 80s. There is nothing far-fetched or unrealistic about this - even if we allow for LAC having retired prior to the end of the Marcomannic Wars. He still could have lived in retirement for enough years to take him to the time of Commodus and to have then carved his memorial stone.
Tomlin has pointed out to me that some soldiers' careers could be very long indeed. He cites Pflaum for Cn. Marcius Rustius Rufinus, who became centurion in the reign of Marcus, and proceeded through a series of posts like those held by LAC to become Severus' praefectus vigilum in c. 207, enjoying a 30-year career.
As ARMENIOS still makes the most sense with ADVERSUS (as we would expect terms other than ARMORICOS to be used for the Deserters' War of the 180s, given that it was not Armorica itself that was in open rebellion against Rome), and as the foundation date of Liburnia was almost certainly c. 169-170, and as the Roman governor of Britain Statius Priscus was sent to command the Armenia War, etc., the argument for Armenia remains very strong. While it is tempting to equate the 1500 British spearmen who went to Rome under Commodus with Castus' three legionary vexillations, the former are not said to fight against anyone and it is likely they were merely an honor guard escorting the senators who had been replaced by equestrians by Perennis' order. With the Deserters' War in full swing in Gaul and perhaps elsewhere, the size of the escort need not surprise us.
I ran Tomlin's proposed timeline for Castus by Dr. Salway. He responded merely by saying "Yes, all perfectly plausible."]
The L. Artorius Castus Memorial Stone
Stone with ARM[...]S Restored as ARMENIOS
Stone with ARM[...]S Restored as ARMORICOS
I've just had a wonderful discussion (via email) with Dr. Benet Salway regarding the probable age of the LAC stone. For information on Dr. Salway, please see his university page:
For the sake of intellectual honesty, I'm presenting our entire conversation unedited. The conclusion was, I must admit, rather unexpected. For as it turns out, Dr. Salway's dating of the stone fits the proposed ARMORICOS reading, and not that of ARMENIOS.
My contribution is in plain font, while Dr. Salway's is in italics.
Dear Salway:
I have been kindly referred to you by your colleague, Dr, Will Wooton. He thinks you may be able to help with the following matter.
I'm trying to pinpoint the age as accurately as possible for a Roman funeral memorial stone based on the style of carving and the use of specific artistic motifs. I realize this can be a hazardous undertaking and that what I'm seeking may not be possible. But as there is a critical fragment missing from the stone that would otherwise have allowed for much more precise dating, I thought taking a look at a possible date range based on other considerations might be beneficial.
May I send you a good photographic image of the stone in question? It concerns one Lucius Artorius Castus and was erected at Split, Croatia.
Dear Mr Hunt,
Yes, certainly. As Dr Wooton warns, dating by stylistic criteria is a very uncertain science but I am happy to have a look, if you want to send me the photo.
Here it is, Dr. Salway.
Without meaning to influence you one way or the other, the fragmentary ARM[...]S is the main
problem with the stone. If it reads ARMENIOS, as most think, then we are talking about this
prefect of the Sixth going with the British governor Statius Priscus to Armenia in the 160s (this
is the view of Tomlin and even Birley, just before the latter's passing). But with ligatures allowed
chronologically and geographically, ARMORICOS also fits the stone. This could refer to the
Deserters' War under Commodus, although no one thinks "against Armorica" is a likely rendering
for that event (as Armorica was not in open rebellion from the Empire and any number of other
terms designating Maternus and his bandits would instead have been used).
I will be very interested to hear your thoughts on the stone.
I should hastily add that the Liburnian procuratorship Castus held after the ARM[...]S mission may reflect the attested military reorganization of Dalmatia under Marcus and Verus at the onset of the Marcomannic Wars. This occurred after the completion of the Armenian and Parthian ventures.
It is difficult to posit the Liburnian position being created under Commodus, as he put an end to the Marcomannic Wars.
But that's really all I can think of in terms of dating the stone based on a theoretical reconstruction of the inscription.
Coming to the stone cold without any presuppositions and basing my opinion purely on the script, I would favour a date in the Severan period (AD 193-235) or up to a decade or so later. I base this on the high degree of ligaturing in the design.
I don’t think that this helps enormously in deciding where the British legionary troops may have been led in campaign to, except to say that there were obviously opportunities for action against the Armenians by British-based troops in the second Parthian War of Septimius Severus, the eastern campaigns of Caracalla, Severus Alexander, and Gordian III.
[ABOUT THE LIGATURES TO WHICH DR. SALWAY REFERS...
Allowing for an NI in ARMENIOS or both an IR and CO in ARMORICOS, there are 14 or 15 separate ligatures on the stone. In one case 3 letters are conjoined. This makes for a total of either 29 or 31 ligatured letters.]
Thank you!
Dio has 1500 British spearmen go to Rome to get rid of Perennis. As Castus takes detachments from the 3 British legions, and given legionary lancemen could be used for this purpose at this time, am I not correct that 500 men drawn from each British legion could well account for the 1500 who went to Rome?
This force has been associated with the Deserters' War as well.
Would the stylistic dating of the stone fit, say, in the 190s? Allowing for the Liburnian procuratorship AFTER the fall of Perennis and the stone's carving during Castus' retirement?
Tomlin points out the lack of evidence for British troops in the later Armenian wars.
I did find out that the 'proc cent' formula of the inscription cannot be found prior to the very end of Commodus's reign.
Final question...
Would the following reconstruction of the fragmentary ARM[...]S be satisfactory, in your opinion?
Note I did find other inscriptions in Croatia within the date spread of Antonine-Severan displaying the o in C ligature in text bodies that are otherwise similar or identical in style to that of the Castus stone.
Both supplements are possible in the space, as you demonstrate.
But Armenios is more plausible because there is no evidence from elsewhere on this stone that this particular drafter (ordinator) employs ‘nesting’.
Whereas there a several examples of ligaturing I by extending an upright.
Right.
I have found other stones, though, where nesting (of o in C) seems to be the only single example occurring
in the text.
Please see the following - I could be wrong about this! Let me know? Thank you again for spending all your time on this problem.
Examples of o within C ligatures (the first is from Roman Liburnia, in approximately the same time period as the LAC stone, while the second shows that larger o letters could be carved within a C):
Figure 1
CIL 03, 02809 = Grbic 00011]
Figure 2
ILAfr 00009 = ILTun 00001 = ILPBardo 00022 = D 09177 = LBIRNA 00332 = AE 1909, 00104 = AE 1986, 00704 = Kaschuba-1994, 00086]
Another example of CO ligature from around the time of LAC in Dalmatia:
From the splendid http://lupa.at/search site, when searching under the Antonine and Antonine-Severan periods in Dalmatia, I found another O inside a C ligature dated between 171 AD – 230 AD:
The same Website gives other examples from Dalmatia in the same time periods that demonstrate just how inventive such ligature could become:
(C inside the O!)
(with an E inside the C!)
(the O partly inside the C for consularis - to which we may compare the small o often found butted up against a larger C for the word cohors)
I don’t have much to add. Your comparanda indeed show that Armoricos is possible.
Thank you, Dr. Salway.
So... IF we go with Armoricos, for the sake of argument, and connect that with the Deserters' War and
the Perennis incident, and given the procuratorship in Liburnia following that (of several years duration?) and sufficient time in retirement, could the stone be realistically placed in the early 190s? And still work according to your ligature-use dating method?
Is that all acceptable?
Yes, that would be fine.
And lastly, if you are going to publish a reconstruction of the inscription, please note that those reconstructions of the last line with [ex te]st cannot be right. Given that Castus commissioned the monument while alive ‘vivus’ as it definitely says, it can’t also be ‘by his will’. So [posu]it or [fec]it is to be preferred in the last line.
[Roger Tomlin agrees with Salway on this point, saying "You might with great difficulty find someone in his lifetime expressly making arrangements 'by his will'. CIL iii 8727 (Salona) seems to be an example. But VIVUS SIBI by itself is so frequent and stereotyped that I am sure Benet is right."]
Good luck!
***
CONCLUSION
Armenia of the early 160s suddenly doesn't look so good for the LAC stone...
Miletic, a Croatian scholar, supplies the following hypothetical career chronology for Castus.
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
If Salway is right about the dating of the stone (and even Professor Roger Tomlin, in subsequent private communication on Salway's assessment of the dating of the epitaph on palaeographical grounds, has admitted he may well be! 1), then it is impossible, I would say, to extend the LAC inscription well into the 190s. Given that there is zero evidence to support the notion of British troops being used in the Armenian enterpises of later emperors, and given the presence of the 1500 spearmen in the Perennis episode (still the only recorded historical episode of the use of three British vexillations on the Continent in the period we are considering), the best argument for ARM[...]S continues to be ARMORICOS.
1
Tomlin:
"The letters are so well formed that I would rather see them as 'Antonine'. (But this may only be natural pessimism, a belief that letter-cutting declines in quality.) True, ligatures much increase in Severan inscriptions."
I followed that up with this last question to Dr. Salway:
So... no problem with the well-formed letters of the Castus inscription for a Severan inscription, Dr. Salway?
To which he replied:
"No, not at all."
After I did an extensive search for Dalmatian stones in the Severan period and sent quite a few examples with fine lettering to Tomlin, making the point that if we have nice lettering in the Severan, but few if any ligatures in the Antonine, then we must allow for the Castus stone being Severan.
His response?
"I don't see that you can get much closer with Castus than 150–200, but given the quality of the lettering, I would not insist on a Severan date."
In other words, he is admitting Severan is possible, after all. And that means ARM[...]S probably stands for ARMORICOS.
It is worth reminding my readers that the date for the Castus stone has been revised downwards in the relevant epigraphic databases. See
where the date range for the stone is 180 A.D. - 230 A.D.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.