WHY THE 'ARMORICOS' READING FOR THE L. ARTORIUS CASTUS LACUNA LOOKS CORRECT AFTER ALL

Carnac Stones, Brittany

Dr. Linda A. Malcor and her colleagues, Antonio Trinchese and Alessandro Faggiani have sought to solve the problem of a prefect commanding all three legions by wrongly interpreting his dux rank as a reference to him being an equestrian governor.  They then plug him into the gap in governors for the years 187-191.  They have no evidence in support of either claim, of course, and I've found myself falling into the same trap when looking to support ARM.GENTES in the context of one of the two known Roman counter-offensives in the North during the time period we are considering (the first under Commodus, and the second under Severus).

The most recent assessment of the date of the Castus stone by Dr. Abigail Graham

(https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2025/02/the-most-recent-date-analysis-of-l.html) is quite convincing and agrees with the view put forth by Dr. Benet Salway.  Both scholars see the stone as Severan. I feel that they are right and this date must be preferred over the Antonine one offered by Professor Roger Tomlin.  ARMENIOS as a reading for the lacuna does not work, if this analysis of the stone is correct.

We could easily opt for ARMORICOS, if we could justify an outright rebellion of Armorica associated with the Deserters' War under Commodus.  Professor John Drinkwater, an expert on Roman Gaul, has no problem accepting the existence of such a rebellion:

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2025/01/armorica-rises-professor-john.html. I've often noted that it does not seem like a coincidence that the 1500 spearmen who go to Rome during the Deserters' War happen to be comprised of a number that would exactly equate to 500 men each from each of the three legions - a force that sounds suspiciously like the vexillations led by Castus.

Occam's Razor also favors a reading of ARMORICOS, as this is simply more likely than ARM.GENTES. Furthermore, ARMORICOS (as I have rendered it on the stone) actually fits better than ARM.GENTES (which seems a bit cramped).  Please compare the following two reconstructions.

It would seem that the only way to save ARM.GENTES would be to have Castus lead large detachments North against the British tribes.  This did not happen under Severus.  During those campaigns we are quite certain all three legions would have been employed in the North.  They would not have been under the command of a prefect.

But what about the Marcellus campaign?

Well, what little evidence we have suggests that the Marcellus counter-offensive was handled strictly internally, i.e. there was no use of forces brought in from outside of Britain to assist in the effort.  It is now believed (see Birley's THE ROMAN GOVERMENT OF BRITAIN) that the "general" killed on the Wall, an act which precipitated the Roman campaign, was probably the legate of the Sixth legion. If this happened when Castus was prefect, then until a senatorial replacement was found for the fallen legate, Castus would be in command of the Sixth.

Can we postulate that large detachments of the three British legions under Castus, probably accompanied by any number of auxiliaries, would have been satisfactory to at least launch a punitive expedition against the Northern tribes?  And that Castus was appointed dux for that mission by Marcellus?

Highly doubtful.  With a massive army, Severus was unable, ultimately, to accomplish his goals in the North.  And the account we have of his campaign there suggests Roman casualties were significant (although exaggerated).  My guess is that were mere detachments sent north these would have been annihilated.

Well, I put this question to Tomlin in long-form.  Here is a copy of my email query to him, which concentrates on the 'entire three legions' problem:

"There has always been my problem with the 3 legion literal reading.

So here are a couple of related questions that I hope you will answer. 

Here goes:

1)

For a prefect of the Sixth to be made dux of 3 entire legions, what conditions would have to apply?

Let's say Severus is going north. Simon Elliott plausibly suggests tge 3 legions go with Caracalla. Which means he's commanding that force. But even if Severus directly, in order for a mere prefect of the Sixth to claim to be commander of this force means the governor, the other legates and even the laticlavii tribunes were dead or missing. That makes no sense. Even less given that Severus had ample time and resources to backfill any vacant positions prior to his campaign.

Correct?

2) Even if we allow Castus to be an agens vice legati, i.e. acting legate of the Sixth (something not on his stone), we still have the governor above him, and equals in the other 2 SENATORIAL legionary legates, and the laticlavii and the Emperors also above him. Granted, a quasi-legate of the Sixth may well have been favored over other legionary legates for a campaign in the north, but how would Castus be justified in calling himself dux when surely this command belonged to any of the several superiors I just listed? If the legions were under Caracalla, for example, the emperor was commander, not Castus. At the most Castus agens vice legati would be commander only of his own Sixth Legion. 

Correct?

3) Birley believed the general who was killed on the Wall under Commodus was probably legate of the Sixth, not the governor.  If we go with this and we allow Castus to have temporarily replaced the slain legionary legate, the governor Marcellus would have commanded the legions on their push north. Castus would not be dux of the entire provincial complement in this instance, either.

Correct?

If we answer "Correct" to the previous 3 questions, then our only possible reading for the inscription is that vexillations are implied. Robert Saxer lists over 40 examples of inscriptions with implied detachments. So precedence for this is not a problem.

Where those vexillations were deployed is wrapped up in ARM[...[S, and we don't have to go there again."

His reply:

"If three whole legions had been assembled, and their commander-in-chief (the legate of the province) was suddenly a casualty, then one of the legionary legates would have taken his place.

Three whole legions – i.e. the provincial garrison – would only be commanded by the provincial governor or his acting-deputy.

If there were a major campaign in the north, like Severus', then all three legions would have been used, which would be too big a command for the equestrian prefect of only one of them, even if it were the Sixth.

Castus was not dux of three 'entire' legions. This is not what the term means, as you have demonstrated from Saxer. He was commanding a force drawn from all three legions, i.e. vexillations brigaded together.

Plenty of instances before 200 of procurators and prefects pro legato. Castus would surely have said so, if he had ever commanded the legion. Instead, he commanded detachments drawn from three legions."

When we put everything together - both the Severan date of the stone and the fact that Castus had to be leading vexillations - the only good reading for ARM[...]S is ARMORICOS.

Connecting a force sent to the Continent to fight the deserters with the 1500 spearmen who marched to Rome to demand the death of Perennis is problematic, of course. Dio seems genuinely puzzled how this force could have reached Rome without encountering any resistance.  And that Commodus was persuaded to hand over his Praetorian Prefect to be executed despite that fact that his own Praetorian Guard greatly outnumbered the British troops seems rather bizarre.

Various theories have been proposed to explain this oddity.  One of the most detailed - and reasonable - is found in John S. McHugh's THE EMPEROR COMMODUS: GOD AND GLADIATOR.  In his opinion the size of the force meant that it was a protective detail escorting the "cashiered" senatorial legates back to the capital through territory disrupted and made dangerous by the ongoing Deserters' War. The senators may have apologized to the Emperor for the British mutiny, but laid the blame for it on the policies of Perennis.  Cited as chief of these was Perennis' removal of the senators themselves and their being replaced by equestrians (like Castus).  But McHugh mentions other potential causes of the unrest, like insufficient donatives being offered to the troops after their victory against the Northern tribes.  Dio blames Marcellus for being an over-strict disciplinarian. There may have been many factors that contributed to the rebellious state of the army in Britain.  

Any assessement of the situation at this time must recognzie the complexity of events and the general chaos that seems to have been playing out.  All of these different problems were overlapping and related, either directly or indirectly.  To make matters worse, we have conflicting accounts in Dio and Herodian of the Deserters' War. What in our sources is real history and what is garbled, propagandist or even fictional history?

One thing we can say with certainty: the 1500 spearmen who came to Rome were not recognized as seditious or treasonous.  Had they been so, they never would have reached Rome.  They were an official delegation of some sort, and they had permission to go have an audience with the Emperor.  

Certainly, I do not have any problem with Castus and British troops being part of the operations to rid the Empire of Maternus.  The following paper

 (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351783693_Emperor_Commodus'_'Bellum_desertorum') nicely discusses the possibility:

"Therefore, in the following months of AD 185 and AD 186 coordinated

military activities aimed at Maternus and his ‘deserters’ were probably

taking place52, in which not only the soldiers of the VIII ‘Augusta’ legion,

commanded by Marcus Iuventius Caesianus (legatus legionis VIII

Augustae), but also legionaries from other units were partaking. For

participating in this operation Commodus would grant these legions the

right to titles which referred to: ‘Pia’ (pious) – ‘Fidelis’ (loyal) – Commoda(ae/

ianae) (of Commodus). Amongst these units was also the XXII ‘Primigenia’

legion which stationed in Mainz (Moguntiacum). It was commanded by

Quintus Aurelius Polus Terentianus (legatus legionis XXII Pr(imigeniae)

P(iae) F(idelis)). From this legion came Ianuarius [D]osenu(s), who has

already been mentioned, and who died at the hands of the ‘latrones’.

Amongst other soldiers and officers participating in the operation against

the ‘deserters’ were also T(itus) Fl(avius) Vitalis and Sextilius P[…]. They

both served as centurions. What is more, they could have been also joint

by the legionaries from the legion I ‘Minervia’ which stationed in Bonn

(Bonna). Amongst the soldiers of the latter unit one Vettius Rufinus (V[e]

ttius Rufi/nus), as a centurion, commanded a subdivision of the military

police (statores) from two legions. Melius Gervinus and Titus Glavius

Hospitalis who represented this unit were also of a rank of centurions.

Furthermore, soldiers from the XXX legion ‘Ulpia Victrix’ stationing in

Xanten could probably also have participated in fighting Maternus and his

‘deserters’. Importantly, it cannot be ruled out that these 1500 legionaries

from Britannia who came over to Italy in order to deal with Perennis could

also be sent to the operation of suppressing the rebellion of Maternus’

‘deserters’. Finally, the task of fighting against them (or quite literally:

capturing them) in the territories of Gaul (Lugdunensis, Aquitania) was

also given to Caius Pescennius Niger, whom Commodus had appointed

(the turn of AD 186 and AD 187) as an independent commander (legatus

contra rebelles) of this operation. More importantly, as it turned out, he

succeeded in fulfilling his task. Perhaps Tertius mentioned before, who

was killed by the ‘latrones’ near Lyon, could have been somehow linked

as a soldier with the operation commanded by Perscennius Niger53.

Supervision over war operation against Maternus’ deserters in Upper

Germania – but perhaps also in Raetia – was held by Marcus Helvius [Cle]

mens Dextrianus (legatus Augusti pro praetorae provinciae Germaniae

superioris). On the other hand, a unit assigned from the legion VII ‘Gemina

Felix’, stationing in León, could have operated in the Iberian Peninsula,

in the strip of the Pyrenees, fighting the ‘deserters’. This subdivision was

commanded by a centurion, Iunius Victor54.And thus, a mass offensive of the Roman troops, carried out

simultaneously in the territories of a few provinces, let to encircling and

breaking up the largest groups of the deserters. The heaviest fights could

perhaps end already in August of AD 186. In the following months that

same year, practically until spring of AD 187, the Romans will pursue

Maternus and his remaining companions. In the case of the ‘deserters’

who had been taken prisoners, their sentencing started already in August

AD 186. For a proper conduct of judicature, is was a key matter to separate

the authentic ‘deserters’ from people who had been arrested randomly

by soldiers. And then in the group of the ‘deserters’, it was important

to separate the Romans from all those who did not have the Roman

citizenship. The task of verifying the socio-judicial status of the prisoners

could most likely be given to the officers of lower ranks, deployed by the

supervisors who had the right to condemn people to death (ius gladii). After

making the division into the so-called ‘nostri’, i.e. the Roman citizens, and

‘reliqui’ – ‘peregrine’, and ‘dediticii’, who came from the provinces, the

courts of law could be started, during which the Romans were judged in

accordance with ‘lex de rapina’, i.e. regulations regarding plunder with

the use of force (rapina) and robbery/banditry (latrocinium). In relation to

people of a different status – exempting, of course, those who were proven

to be actively involved in violence – financial penalties were imposed55.

As Herodian emphasised, Maternus realised that a fight with the

regular Roman army – which was sent against him on such a large scale

– did not promise even the slightest chances of success. Therefore, he

decided to leave his people behind in the provincial territories and carry

out an attack on Commodus in Rome. In order to avoid the pursuit of

the Roman soldiers who hunted down the ‘deserters’, Maternus set off

with only a small detachment of companions. Heading south, he travelled

through sparsely populated territories, using rarely frequented routes

and trails. Having reached the strip of the Alps and having crossed them,

Maternus entered Italy – which took place probably at the beginning of AD 187 – and realising that the guard by Commodus was held by the

praetorians protecting the emperor in this way from assassination, he

decided that the most favourable day to attack him was the so-called ‘day

of rejoicing/joy’ (Hilaria), which took place each year on the 25th of March

as one of the ceremonies in honour of goddess Magna Mater and Attis.

It was on that day, on the occasion of Attis’ rebirth that the procession was

organised, in which objects symbolising wealth were carried in front of the

goddess’ statue. Participants of the parade dressed up, putting masks on

their faces. As Herodian emphasised, they could pretent to be people they

were not in reality. Maternus decided that on the day of this celebration

he would dress up for the procession as one of the praetorians. And then,

together with his companions, after mingled with the crown ‘hastiferi’,

he could not only mislead the praetorian guards but, getting closer to

Commodus by surprise, kill him. The plan of this assassination was,

however, revealed. Maternus was betrayed by a few of his companions

who did not want their commander to become the ruler of the Roman state

after Commodus’ overthrow. A few days before the commencement of the

celebrations in honour of Magna Mater, Maternus and his people were

arrested. It was on the 25th of March AD 187 when the celebration for the

‘day of joy’ (Hilaria) started that Maternus was probably beheaded and

his companions were to be deservedly punished. After making sacrifices

to the goddess and vowing the votive gifts, Commodus, in turn, led the

procession in her honour in a joyful mood. And the people of Rome

who participated in the celebration were eagerly rejoicing at the ruler’s

rescue. In turn, the text of the Athenian inscription dated to AD 187 has

an annotation about Commodus’ military victory, and more precisely –

as is suggested by James H. Oliver – about the final victory in ‘bellum

desertorum’ in Gaul. Information on this event could reach Athens in May

or June AD 187. The concluding end to operations against the ‘deserters’

could have taken place perhaps at the beginning of AD 18856."

Now, most have seen in the story of Maternus in Rome a literary creation of Herodian.  But it is interesting that during the period of the Deserters' War both the chief of the deserters and the 1500 spearmen from Britain who may have been sent to fight him in Armorica find themselves in Rome.  

To Dio's account, I would like to add here Birley's treatment of Ulpius Marcellus' "fall from grace", which pretty much coincided with the murder of Perennis:

"By the time of Marcellus’ victory, perhaps in reaction to his harsh methods,

there was a mutiny, recorded in a fragment of Dio (72(73). 9. 2a)¹⁴³: ‘The sol-diers in Britain chose Priscus, a legionary legate (Ëpostr3thgon) as emperor;

but he declined, saying: “I am no more emperor than you are soldiers”.’ The

dating is supplied by the HA: ‘Commodus was called Britannicus by flatterers

when the Britons even wanted to choose another emperor in opposition to

him’ (Comm. 8. 4). Priscus was clearly removed from his post (see LL 35), as

were, apparently, the other legionary legates. Again, the HA supplies some

information: ‘but this same Perennis [the guard prefect], although so powerful,

because he had dismissed senators and put men of equestrian status in

command of the soldiers in the British war, when this was made known by

representatives of the army (per legatos exercitus), was suddenly declared a public

enemy and given to the soldiers to be lynched’ (Comm. 6. 2). Perennis fell in

185, for ‘when [Commodus] had killed Perennis he was called Felix’ (Comm. 8.

1): Felix first appears in his titulature in that year.¹⁴⁴ As well as the legionary

legate Priscus, a iuridicus can be identified who served under Marcellus, Antius

Crescens, later acting-governor (Gov. 34). His appointment at a time when

the governor was heavily occupied in the north fits the theory that the British

iuridicus was not a regular official.

Yet another sign of the mutinous spirit of the army of Britain is Dio’s

account (72(73). 22–4, in Xiphilinus’ epitome) of Perennis’ fate: ‘Those [sc. the

soldiers]¹⁴⁵ in Britain then, when they had been rebuked for their mutinous

conduct (for they did not in fact quieten down until Pertinax quelled them)

now chose out of their number one thousand five hundred javelin-men and

sent them to Italy’; Commodus met them outside Rome, where they

denounced Perennis, alleging that he was plotting to make his son emperor.

Commodus, influenced by Cleander, handed Perennis over to them to be

killed. Other sources have different versions of Perennis’ fall; and it remains a

mystery what 1,500 soldiers from the British army were doing outside Rome.

One possibility is that they were part of a task force rounding up deserters,

whose activities had reached alarming proportions in Gaul and Spain, and

perhaps even had got as far as Rome. Their inclusion in such a force may have

seemed a good way of dealing with them after the mutiny.¹⁴⁶Dio does not make clear whether or not there was any appreciable interval

between Marcellus’ victory and his recall, but it is plausible to suppose that it

was the fall of Perennis, not to mention the mutinies, which led to Marcellus’

prosecution on his return. Of course, if he had really served uninterruptedly

from 177 to 185, his governorship would have exceeded even that of Julius

Agricola (Gov. 11), exactly a century earlier. The replacement of the legionary

legates by equestrian commanders would have meant that for a time the only

senatorial official in the province was the iuridicus, who was made acting governor."

Here is my very tentative outline of what might have actually transpired and how Castus and his legionary detachments could best be made to fit into this picture:

In 180, a general on the Wall is killed by the northern tribes.  This was probably the legate of the Sixth. The laticlave tribune of the legion, being senatorial, would have taken command until a replacement for the fallen legate was found.

The replacement legate is thought to have been Priscus, who was offered the purple during the mutinous period following the Roman victory under Marcellus in the North.  Although he wisely refuses the purple, he is removed and sent to a new position on the Continent (to later end up commanding some German detachments, mistakenly interpreted at one point in time for British units). In reaction to this threat, Perennis removes the British legionary legates and replaces them with equestrian officers. Equestrians, after all, could not become emperors. 

At this point Castus would become praefectus pro legato of the Sixth legion.  This appears to be reflected in the PRAEFF of his inscription, usually thought to be a carving error. I would see "prefects" in this context as compression for two different ranks, praefectus castrorum and praefectus pro legato. [1] 

I would see the sending of troops to Armorica as perhaps Marcellus' last major act as governor.  Commodus had made his call for all provinces threatened by the deserters to send troops, and as Gaul was involved, Britain would itself have been adversely affected.  Castus, who had replaced Priscus as commander of the Sixth, is given three legionary vexillations and sent across the Channel.  This act on Marcellus' part would demonstrate that he still had control over the province and was able and willing to obey the Emperor's commands. 

Operations in Armorica get under way, but mutiny in Britain continued.  It became untenable for Marcellus to remain as governor there, and so he crosses to Armorica where Castus' force is mopping up. The governor then commandeers the spearmen as an escort to Rome through areas still suffering from the rampage of the deserters.  [Note that the removed senators may have accompanied him; they lacked the authority themselves to lead the delegation.] Once in Rome he faces serious charges stemming from the conditions prevalent in Britain, but the blame is successfully shifted to Perennis, perhaps aided by charges of conspiracy being planned against Commodus (as per Herodian's account).  Marcellus is exonerated, while Perennis is handed over for execution.  Essentially, Perennis is made to play the scapegoat while appeasing the British army.  The victorious governor was spared and found his way back into the favor of the Emperor.

For his role in all of this, Castus is awarded the procuratorship of Liburnia.

We may allow Castus to have been made procurator in or shortly after 185, the date of the killing of Perennis.  He probably remained in that role until Severus succeeded Commodus in 193. With a few years in retirement and then having his memorial stone carved while he yet lived, we have our perfect Severan date for the inscription.  

ARMORICOS would seem to be the winner of the Castus Sweepstakes.  At least, after 5 years of study on the subject, this is the best that I personally can come up with.  While it was not my favorite candidate, I did have difficulty discounting the 1500 spearman (always in the back of my mind, pretty much haunting me!) and was the first one to demonstrate that the regional name would actually fit in the space allowed for the lacuna.

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2021/06/the-lucius-artorius-castus-stone-with_14.html

Professor Tomlin's response to this proposed scenario was succinct, but encouraging:

"I have no real objection to your reconstruction."

And Professor John Drinkwater's take on it:

"Yes, I can see where you are coming from here in terms of sewing together our (poor) textual and epigraphic information.  It makes a good story and connects events in Armorica with those in Rome."

[1]

From Roger Tomlin on this idea:

"It's a good idea, and quite possible that he progressed from being Camp Prefect to deputising for the legionary legate (dead or temporarily absent or removed). But I would like to see an inscription which spelt out this progression.

I am not happy with PRAEFF meaning 'prefect twice' [as proposed by Malcor et al]. I think this would be spelt out with 'bis' or 'iterum'. So far as I know, PRAEFF is only used of an officer who is on the staff of the prefects (plural), especially the (two) Praetorian Prefects. I don't think it is even used of an officer who proceeds from being prefect of one unit to being prefect of another. You would have to find examples even of this. Centurions, for example, who transfer from one legion to another simply repeat the term. He doesn't call himself 'centurions' (followed by a list of legions).

And I would expect you to find me an instance of AVGG meaning 'Emperor twice'!

There is an equally bad error only two lines below, in BRITANICI|MIARVM. It's easy to miss a typo when you are reading what you expect to read. 

It's even possible that the offending F was plugged with plaster which has since been lost. But I don't think so. Instead it would be a mistake which goes back to the original layout (in charcoal?), when PRAEF was drafted like PRAEP immediately above. But then the stone-cutter, who knew that PRAEF was intended, mistakenly attached an E to A, mis-reading the next letter (E) as the final F?

A mistake – essential a muddle between E and F in the draft, by the stone-cutter mis-reading the cartoon someone else had prepared for him – is easier to suppose than a unique instance of PRAEFF meaning 'prefect twice'."

THE MOST RECENT DATE ANALYSIS OF THE L. ARTORIUS CASTUS INSCRIPTION (WITH MENTION OF MY ARMATAS GENTES READING)

A few days ago I received a wonderful response to my query on the probable age of the L. Artorius Castus inscription from Dr. Abigail Graham (https://ics.sas.ac.uk/people/dr-abigail-graham).

As a follow-up, I asked her about my proposed ARM(ATAS) GENTES reading for the ARM[...]S lacuna. I've added her response to that at the bottom of the blog post.

Dear Daniel,

I have come across this before but not in detail. 

A few key points. 

Visual cues (like stop marks or ligatures) alone are seldom reliable indicators of date. However, combined with a series of other elements, they can be helpful. 

I know Benet Salway and Roger Tomlin. For the Antonine date, I think Roger subscribed to Miletic's theory, which is based on archaeology and historical evidence for camps. My issue is that there are several mistakes in Miletics assessments of the inscriptions, that suggest he is referring to them, rather than looking at them carefully. He wants the pieces to fit together, but that does not necc mean they do. https://storicamente.org/miletic_bekavac_castus_liburnia_italy

3. I note several issues, and I can see why Benet has gone for a later Severan date. 

A few caveats, I am not a specialist in epigraphy from this area, nor have I yet been able to find suitable parallel texts from the region to support what I'm about to say. I have been able to look at some texts from Serbia, Hungary, and relatively nearby (Salona and Split, Viminiacum). Dating by style alone is dangerous, but there are stylistic, spelling and practical features that are incredibly rare before a certain time. 

There are a few things that, in my mind, make it very hard to accept an Antonine date, at the earliest, one could say Commodus, but its a stretch. These have to do with a combination of visual features, ligatures, spacing, stops, textual organisation and spellings. 

Ligatures & Spacing. Ligatures can happen at any time for practical reasons: when cutters run out of space (often in the right hand margin). As texts become more complex, this happens more often. By the time of Septimius Severus, however, they also become decorative, and some seem deliberate, even artistic. Quite a few ligatures in this text happen early on in a line (ll 2-3, 5, 6) not as the carver ran out of space, and with the letter T. Two unusual ones of curved forms also fall beneath each other. ll. 7-8. Also line 9, there was no need for a ligature of 'TE" there was plenty of space (compare with a practical use of ligature NTE at the end of line 8). Ligatures of vowels and T form become popular under Sept Severus, and occur regardless of spacing. cf. Line 2 of this text from Britain. https://romaninscriptionsofbritain.org/inscriptions/1151.

Terms: "Duci" tends to be used in the 3rd c. CE. I found one use in Pannonia on a shield referring to Commodus (180-191). for [Vi]ctoria [re] duci . All other uses are Severan or later. 

Spellings: Another dating issue noted by Salway is the replication of letters "Legg" (or "Augg" ""praeff" to show a potential plural. I cannot find a single example of this anywhere in the empire before Sept Severus (201 CE), though it occurs frequently after.  

The lovely letters, the contrast between deep and light chisel cuts (for another example of this Severan from Pannonia cf. https://lupa.at/26913, also note the fine triangulate interpuncts), plus the double letters, the ligatures for decorative rather than functional use... As well as spelling and terminology all point to Severan or a bit later. At the earliest, this could be 180, but the issue is, it does not look anything like the parallel text cited by Miletic CIL 3. 11695 https://www.flickr.com/photos/156429244@N04/43444599171. A monumental text from this period (ca. 179/180) has no ligatures, and diff lettering style altogether. It is hard to believe that a man born in ca. 100, in his fifties by 154, as he claims, was commemorated in ca. 180-190. It is not impossible, but it would be incredibly rare. 

Where do the interpuncts fit in? You are right to observe these: this is a beautifully arranged inscription with skilled carving. Dating at text involves taking in the whole picture, and reconciling skill and message with the medium. Few texts are perfect and this had moments of difficulty, but it is beautifully rendered. The idea that all ligatures are from lack of talent does not hold, in theory or in practice. That double letters are a series of errors in common terms "legg". "praeff" is hard to accept, especially when these features emerge after 200 CE Legg= at least 22 cases, all dating to the 3rd. C. CE, most between 200-250. "praeff" 40+ cases, none dating before 200. I lean towards Benet Salway's date: Severan or later. I'm not sure one can rule out something from 180, but it would be an anomaly. It's a shame Miletic's archaeology/history and the dating don't align, but this happens often. 

We have to be very careful about seeing what is there, as opposed to what we want to see. 

Hope that helps,

Abigail 

Dear Daniel,

Yes, your reading does make sense, and I applaud it! 

When you make your case for the restoration, perhaps you should send a copy of it to Silvia Orlandi so that she can add or reference your version to the EAGLE database, where most people hunt for inscriptions... (this would also advertise your work to more scholars).

All the best,

Abigail 

WHAT TO DO ABOUT UTHER PENDRAGON or "THE ILLTUD PROBLEM"

St. Illtud's Church, Llantwit Major

Regardless where I put Arthur (chronologically or geographically), the only certain identification I've ever been able to make for his supposed father, Uther Pendragon, is one with St. Illtud.

I won't bore my readers with the many articles I wrote on this identification; they can look them up here themselves.  But given that I recently seem to have uncovered a lot of evidence (or at least have developed a plausible argument) for Arthur being based on the Roman officer L. Artorius Castus, it it necessary for me to come to grips with what I have come to think of as "The Illtud Problem."

The "Problem" has its roots in traditions associated with Illtud that exist in the early Welsh heroic poetry and in Geoffrey of Monmouth.  Place-name studies also contributed to the "Problem."

In brief, the Welsh PA GUR poem tells us that Mabon, one of the predatory birds of the River Ely in Glamorgan, was a servant (gwas) of Uther Pendragon. As St. Illtud, called the "terribilis miles", "magister militum", etc., in his Life, was commander of the troops in Penychen (either the Dinas Powys hillfort for the much grander Caerau, ancient oppidum of the Silures), and Mabon was present at Gileston (earlier Church of Mabon of the Vale), and the Glywysing of the region became confused with Gloucester, where Mabon in CULHWCH AC OLWEN is held prisoner, and Illtud in Geoffrey of Monmouth (Eldadus) is the bishop of Gloucester, I could draw no other conclusion than that Illtud = Uther.

[There is a lot more to it than that summary would suggest, of course; again, I urge interested readers to check out my other blogs on the subject.]

The "Problem" got worse when I realized the father Bicanus of Illtud, and his origin point of Llydaw (supposedly Brittany, which makes no sense, as traffic in the time period we are considering was in the opposite direction, i.e. Britons were bailing to Little Britain, not vice-versa) was actually Bicknor and Lydbrook in what had been the Kingdom of Ercing, which had several Arthurian associations.  Welsh Bicknor's original name was that of the Church of Constantine, and that name in the Galfridain tradition is said to be the father of Uther. 

Things got crazier still when I explored the Bicknor place-name.  It is not Welsh, but English, based on an English personal name.  I noticed that the same name was preserved at the Bican Dike at the Liddington Badbury.  Liddington derives from the same Lyd- stream-name as Lydbrook hard by Bicknor.  And the Welsh Annals (via the entry on the Second Battle of Badon) locates the famous Battle of Badon at Liddington Castle.

At this point in my Arthurian research I was rather ecstatic, and considered my work done.  But my euphoria did not last long...

I had to place the Arthurian battles for a hero who seemed descended from the Roman period Dobunni.  I couldn't do this without resorting to clever, but unconvincing identifications with the ANGLO-SAXON CHRONICLE's Gewissei battles.  I was also forced to search for a Camlan in any of several Cam- names in south-central England.  There are some good candidates, but no way to prove any one of them should be preferred over the others.

So, I found myself stuck with the perfect candidate for Arthur, yet with an early list of battles (from the HB and AC) that definitely seemed properly placed in northern England and Scotland.  

In an effort to reconcile the two apparent contradictions, I noticed what appeared to be a second problem.  We can call this "The Sawyl/Samuel Problem." One amended reading of a line in the MARWNAT VTHYR PEN has Uther claim he was transformed into a 'second Sawyl.'  This seemed to be reflected in a number of contexts in which Illtud was associated or confused/conflated with Sawyl of Ribchester in northern England (or the Illtud-Sawyl confusion/conflation had caused Sawyl of Ribchester to be relocated to southern Wales, as Sawyl of Ribchester had fathered several saints and could himself, conceivably, have eventually become a saint). 

Sawyl's son Madog, called Ailithir in the Irish sources, looked a lot like Madog son of Uther and Madog's son, Eliwlad.

Going with Sawyl of Ribchester as the REAL FATHER OF ARTHUR, a man who came to be wrongly linked to Uther/Illtud, allowed me to have the northern battles.  In fact, the Welsh tale THE DREAM OF RHONABWY situates Badon at Buxton of Bathamgate, and Camboglanna on Hadrian's Wall now again worked perfectly as the site of Arthur's death.

A couple minor problems remained.  First, the most northernmost battles looked like they belonged to either Artur of Dalriada or even L. Artorius Castus.  These were rather easily dismissed as mere intrusions into the Arthurian list - a list long suspected to contain a record of the battles of more than one Arthur.

A more serious issue had to do with the Artorius name (presumably from L. Artorius Castus) being preserved for a couple centuries in the Ribchester area. For the name to be famous enough to be used of a royal son at a site settled by Sarmatian veterans, it is reasonable to assume that the people there had some significant folk memory of Castus.  If so, we could not have ARMENIOS on the L. Artorius Castus memorial stone, as that would mean Castus was in Britain before the Sarmatians arrived there.  It seems unlikely the Arthur name would show up at Ribchester unless the Sarmatians had been utilized by Castus in some fashion.  Yes, it is true York of Castus and his Sixth legion had a very close relationship with Ribchester and a name popular at the former place could later have been adopted by the nobility at the former.  But, again, this does not seem very likely.  ARMORICOS ( = action in the Deserters' War under Commodus) for the Castus inscription's ARM[...]S suddenly became more attractive.

After all that, why did I abandon Sawyl as Arthur's father?

Two reasons:

1) the MARWNAT VTHYR PEN line where kawyl is emended to sawyl was better replaced with canwyl, a word that could figuratively mean 'star.'  This meaning not only matched a line occuring earlier in the poem, but would explain Geoffrey of Monmouth's claim that the dragon-star (comet) was Uther himself.  Geoffrey had taken the gorlassar epithet of Uther in the elegy and invented Gorlois, Duke of Cornwall, out of that.

2) The coincidence (?) of the Bicknor/Lydbrook and Bican/Liddington correspondence, along with the much earlier identification of Badon with Liddington in the AC (rather than relying on the very late literary tale from the MABINOGION for Buxton), pointed back to Illtud.

And that is where I sat with my Arthurian research until I began to wonder about (and doubt) whether the Welsh tradition regarding Uther was correct.

It was time, I decided, to look again at the Castus inscription's ARM[...]S.  Could anything else be made to fit in that gap?  The only recent effort, the proposed ARMATOS (Dr. Linda A. Malcor, Antonio Trinchese and Alessandro Faggiani), had been critically savaged from all quarters.  I had not been receptive of the new idea, either.  

A related question concerned what would have to be done to read the three legions command clause of the inscription as being literal, rather than implying vexillations.  The only way for that to happen, I reasoned, was if the legionary force were being led inside Britain.  

I was drawn to an inscription I perceived as being similar to that of Castus and discussed this in detail later, once I had proposed the ARM.GENTES reading:

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2025/01/why-armatas-gentes-is-not-too-vague-or.html

In Roger Tomlin's phrase, the location of these traitors and rebels is "geographically imprecise."  He described the inscription thusly:

"It is a statue base erected when he was governor of Lower Pannonia detailing his earlier career which included the command of Leg I Minervia in Lower Germany when he commanded detachments taken from both Germanies 'against defectors and rebels'."

We might assume, then, that the trouble was somewhere in or immediately adjacent to Germania Superior or Inferior.

ARMATAS GENTES, 'armed tribes', is no different.  The Sixth Legion was the guardian of the limes in Britain.  Its emphasis was always oriented northwards. Given that Castus was a prefect of the Sixth when he became dux of the legions, any armed tribes he took that force against must have been in northern Britain.  At least, I don't see how anyone reading his stone could interpret such a phrase any other way.

Once I had confirmed that such a reading was possible through precedents, and indeed, was deemed acceptable by scholars such as Benet Salway, I realized I had a new problem on my hand - a problem that once again involved the HB Arthurian battles.

For these battles were arranged in the North exactly as one would expect the Severan battles to be.

(See https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2025/02/coming-soon-where-armgentes-reading-for.html)

Additional work on the Celidon Wood battle and those of the Tribruit (https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2025/02/tribruit-of-arthur-trajectus-of.html)   and Bassas (never mind York as the City of the Legion) forced me to the conclusion that the legendary Arthur might be Castus after all.  When I discounted Badon (always problematic when it comes to the place being assigned to an already famous Arthur), and presented a decent argument for Camlan being a relocation of the Miathi battle of Artur of Dalriada (https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2025/02/camlan-as-folk-relocation-of-dalriadan.html ), the Welsh tradition for Illtud or Sawyl - or anyone else for that matter - began to lose its allure.  It began to feel more and more like spurious tradition.  The possibility that Uther was merely a place-holder name for a hero whose father wasn't known became more credible.

I was even able to suggest a mechanism by which we could explain how Castus could have been projected forward in time (https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2025/02/two-lupi-two-severi-mechanism-by-which.html).

My decision at this point in my Arthurian "career" is whether to back my new reading of ARM.GENTES or to play it safe and go with one of the more established readings.  If I do go with "armed tribes", then I can't confidently continue to argue for a Dark Age British Arthur.  The correspondence of the HB battle list with a Roman dux under Severus is just too strong.  We would have to propose a Dark Age Arthur who was fighting in the exact same places as Severus and that, I'm afraid, is absurd. 

Clearly, I have some serious thinking to do before I can settle on who Arthur may - or may not - have been.  

TWO LUPI, TWO SEVERI: THE MECHANISM BY WHICH ARTORIUS MAY HAVE BEEN PLACED ANACHRONISTICALLY IN BRITISH HISTORY

St Severus, painting on a pillar in Nave of the Church, Trier, 1429

Those of us who have studied the Arthurian period are familiar with the story of St. Germanus' two trips to Britain.  For those of my readers who aren't, here are the two relevant sources:

http://www.vortigernstudies.org.uk/artsou/constex.htm

https://origin-rh.web.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/bede-book1.asp

It will be noticed that Germanus brings a companion named Lupus his first time over from the Continent, and one named Severus the second time.  As I'd just been reading up on the Roman emperor Severus' British campaigns, I was struck by an incredible coincidence.

After Severus had defeated Albinus in 197, in Simon Elliott's words his response to the rebellion 

"... was to send military legates to Britain to bring the military back under his full control, and also to install his supporter Virius Lupus as the governor... However the Caledonians, soon to be joined by the Maeatae, lost no time in causing even more trouble and began agitating along the border again... With a new invasion across Hadrian's Wall now in prospect (and with no reserve troops to call upon given the emperor's current focus on Parthia in his second eastern campaign), Lupus had few options so opted to secure peace along his northern borders with massive payments of money. However this bought only a short period of stability, and the next developments as this paid-for peace collapsed fall within the remit of the direct build-up to the Severan incursions..."

The parallel is interesting, to say the least. Under Germanus, first a Lupus, then a Severus, come to Britain.  With Lupus, Germanus becomes a general of the Britons against the Saxons and the Picts, winning his great Alleluia victory. 

I would hastily add that Septimius Severus' son, Caracalla, under whom (according to Simon Elliot) Artorius would have led his legions in Britain, assumed the title GERMANICUS MAXIMUS in 213.

Caracalla, Augustus Germanicus

So to the title of this blog I suppose one could add "TWO GERMANI."

In the HB, the life of St. Germanus (admittedly very different from what we have in the actual hagiography and in Bede) ends at the head of Chapter 50, which goes on to speak of St. Patrick.  The account of Patrick then intrudes into the 'British history", continuing through Chapter 55.  Arthur appears after the break in Chapter 56. 

In Bede, a short Chapter 22 (of Book One) follows the Germanus story. It covers the period of 440-590 (the so-called Arthurian period) and descibes in very vague, general terms a period of "rest from foreign, though not from civil, wars."  Gildas is mentioned in the context of his sorrowful report of the "other unspeakable crimes" committed by the Britons upon themselves. This material in Gildas starts in Chapter 26 immediately after his mention of the Battle of Badon.

I would suggest that it was this concurrence of names and ordered sequence of events that led to the 3rd century L. Artorius Castus, who had fought under Severus (and perhaps served under Virius Lupus as well) - a man with legendary status in the North - being made subject to temporal displacment.  A Welsh monk, already in desperate need of an ethnic or national hero (a state of mind proven by the earlier borrowing of Ambrosius Aurelianus, a Gallic prefect conflated with his saintly son), either intentionally or accidentally decided Artorius, viz. Arthur, belonged to the time of Germanus.  

This is, in fact, exactly the way folklore and heroic legend works.  People naturally have trouble thinking that the Arthur of the HB cannot be anything other than historical precisely because they view the HB as historical.  Again, as I covered in an earlier blog

(https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2025/02/coming-soon-where-armgentes-reading-for.html), the HB is composed of cobbled together snippets of historical traditions.  It is replete with folktales (the Emrys story), hagiography (Germanus) and even outright "wonders"( the Mirabilia). 

There is absolutely no reason why a hero who had achieved a mythological level of importance in the North could not have been used anachronistically to produce the great champion of the Britons we now possess. 

DID ARTHUR FIGHT IN THE NORTH OR IN KENT?

As my readers know by now, some three decades of place-name work has convinced me that all of Arthur's battles, as those are found listed in the HB, are to be situated in the North.  There have been those who, however, disagree with this, and they generally cite the beginning of the HB chapter on Arthur as "proof" that he was fighting the Saxons in Kent.

While this is not really related to the matter I discussed in the main body of this post, it was something I'd always meant to treat of.  And so, I might as well take care of it here!

Eventually, I decided that it was time to allow an expert in the language to settle the debate.  What follows is my brief correspondence with Professor Rosalind Love of Cambridge on the subject:

Dear Professor Love:

I have been unable through context alone (not being a specialist in medieval Latin) to be abke to divine what us truly meant by the introductory Arthurian passage of the Historia Brittonum. 

Can we, strictly speaking, from structure, determine whether those whom Arthur is said to go against are Saxons IN GENERAL or is he said to oppose THOSE SPECIFICALLY IN KENT?

Or, is there no way to pin this down and either possibility might be referred to here? Yes, I do know the appended list of battles do seem to indicate a wide geographical range. But if we restrict ourselves only to the meaning if the intro...?

Thank you for any help you can offer.

Most sincere best wishes,

Daniel

56 In illo tempore Saxones invalescebant in multitudine et crescebant in Brittannia. mortuo autem Hengisto Octha filius eius transivit de sinistrali parte Britanniae ad regnum Cantorum et de ipso orti sunt reges Cantorum. tunc Arthur pugnabat contra illos in illis diebus cum regibus Brittonum, sed ipse erat dux bellorum.

Dear Daniel

Strictly-speaking from the structure of the Latin I don't believe it is possible to be sure whether 'contra illos' refers back to 'reges Cantorum' (kings of Kent) or further back to the 'Saxones'. 

All the best,

Rosalind

Professor Rosalind Love, FBA

Elrington and Bosworth Professor of Anglo-Saxon

Head of Department, Department of ASNC, 9 West Road, Cambridge, CB3 9DP.

Fellow and Deputy Warden, Robinson College, Cambridge, CB3 9AN.

www.asnc.cam.ac.uk/people/Rosalind.Love/ 

In other words, I am justified in interpreting the passage in question as referring to Arthur fighting in the North.  Granted, the backers of the Kentish campaign may claim the same thing.  But given that the battles cannot be located in Kent, and they can in the North, I think we must allow for the latter possibility being the most likely.

WHERE THE ARM.GENTES READING FOR THE CASTUS STONE HAS LED ME THUS FAR

  Caracalla Coin Showing a Trajectu9s

       Caracalla Coin Celebrating the           Emperor's Victory Over the Britons

PRELIMINARY DISCLAIMER:

Before I treat of the influence my proposed ARM.GENTES reading for the ARM[...]S lacuna of the Castus inscription has had on my interpretation of the HISTORIA BRITTONUM Arthur, I feel it's necessary to first state emphatically what I DO NOT subscribe to: the theory espoused by Dr. Linda A. Malcor and her colleagues, Antonio Trinchese and Alessandro Faggiani.

The Malcor Theory relies upon two and only two fallacies to prove that L. Artorius Castus was a governor of Briton under Commodus.

The Malcor Triad accomplishes this by making the following claims:

1) the "dux" of the Castus inscription equates to him being an equestrian governor of Britain

and

2) as there is a gap in our historical record from 187-191 for Roman governors in Britain, it naturally follows from 1) that Castus should be used to plug the gap.

Now, no one other than the Malcor Triad and a few fringe Arthurianists, sone of a neopagan persuasian, adhere to the governor reading for the stone. All the top Latin epigraphers and Roman military historians read it for what it says, i.e. a prefect of the Sixth legion was given a temporary command of legionary troops brought against ARM[...]S. 

When you listen to Malcor talk about the dux portion of the inscription, she will invariably refer to it as the dux of then egions or the dux of Britain. In other words, she intentionally omits the connected ADVERSUS clause.

Furthermore, Faggiano will throw at you examples of dux that are supposed to prove that the word meant governor in the 2nd century. None of his examples, upon critical examination, reveal this to be true. Yet despite this fact, the Malcor Triad will continue to insist that the best scholarship, which shows conclusively that the meaning they want for dux is not to be found until Diocletian, is wrong. They deny that even given how important his later procuratorship was to him (he bothered to cite his pay grade and his Emperor-bestowed right of the sword) he surely would have claimed a governorship of Britain with pro legato or agens vice legati.

As for making Castus the governor of 187-191, that is merely a historical application of the God of the Gaps argument. The latter can most simply be defined thusly:

"The God-of-the-gaps argument is a particular kind of argument known as an argument from ignorance. This is an informal fallacy. It takes the following structure:

Cause A is insufficient to produce Effect E.

Therefore, Cause B must have produced Effect E.

This is obviously fallacious. Just because we know Cause A isn’t sufficient to produce the effect, that doesn’t mean we know Cause B did it. We would need independent reasons to believe Cause B is capable of producing the effect. But that important premise is missing in this form of argumentation."

[Source: https://www.str.org/w/why-intelligent-design-isn-t-a-god-of-the-gaps-argument#:~:text=Argument%20Based%20on%20Ignorance,a%20misrepresentation%20of%20their%20argument.]

We can write out their argument as a logical formula:

WE HAVE A GAP IN THE GOVERNORS' LIST FOR BRITAIN IN 187-191

CASTUS WAS A GOVERNOR ( = DUX; A FALSE PREMISE) IN THE MID-ANTONINE PERIOD (TOMLIN) OR IN THE SEVERAN PERIOD (SALWAY)

THEREFORE, CASTUS WAS THE GOVERNOR OF 187-191 (THE CONCLUSION IS A LOGICAL FALLACY, NOT ONLY BECAUSE PREMISE 2 IS FALSE, BUT BECAUSE ANYONE WE HAPPEN NOT TO HAVE A RECORD OF COULD ALSO HAVE BEEN GOVERNOR OR ACTING GOVERNOR AT THIS TIME)

The Malcor Triad cannot tell us what event in the 187-191 gap would have necessitated Castus' use of three entire legions. Our sources are quite clear that only two major counter-offensives occurred in Britain during the time period we are considering: that under the governor Ulpius Marcellus and the later Severan campaigns. Neither event took place in 187-191.

The Malcor Triad also cannot adequately explain Castus' Liburnian procuratorship with ius gladii following 187-191. To begin, going from being governor for several years of one of the largest provinces in the empire with a massive army to a procuratorship of tiny Liburnia seems like a demotion. Second, scholars are united in their opinion that the enhanced procurator rank indicates an emergency situation for the Empire. There were only two such: the onset of the Marcomannic Wars and the barbarian invasions under Caracalla. No emergency of a similar nature is recorded after 187-191. 

The remainder of the Malcor Theory consists of wildly imaginative reconstructions of Castus' service in Britain that are, frankly, more at home in a historical (fiction) novel than they are in the academic arena. 

Taken as a whole, though, the Malcor Theory is then used to justiify the Malcor Triad's unshakable position that Artorius was the original "King Arthur."

Ironically, as a result of my own investigations, I now find that I agree with them on this last point - but on this point alone. 

I just happen to agree for an entirely different set of reasons.

***

Arthur's Battles (Excepting Camlan and Badon) Overlaid Upon Simon Elliott's Map of the Severan Campaigns in Northern Britain

I've spent the better part of three decades trying to prove, to the best of my ability, and without practicing any degree of intellectual dishonesty, and while being totally transparent as to my methods and failings, that the Arthur of the HISTORIA BRITTONUM and the ANNALES CAMBRIAE was an actual historical personage whose floruit was the early to mid 6th century A.D.  During much of that time, I was either ignorant of the Roman officer L. Artorius Castus or did not think him particularly important.

Well, after studying Castus himself now, pretty steadily, since 2019, and after having dispensed with several Arthurian "theories", I dared to propose an entirely new reading for the ARM[...]S lacuna of the Castus memorial inscription.  Up to that point, I had vacillated between the two readings accepted as possible by the majority of Latin epigraphers and Roman military historians: ARMENIOS and ARMORICOS.  Although I was the first person to show that ARMORICOS could fit on the stone with allowable ligatures, I ultimately found several reasons to reject that reading. 

I also argued vociferously for years that vexillations of legions were implied in the inscription.  And this is still possible (as Robert Saxer supposedly had over 40 examples of this occurring on inscriptions).  But if we were going to stick with Castus as the man whose Artorius name was remembered in Northern Britain and passed down to the Dark Age Arthur, it was difficult - if not impossible - to explain why Artorius would have been remembered had he not done something deemed quite remarkable in Britain.  Although his name may well have been linked to the Cumbric word for bear, and this would in part lend a sort of mythological power to the name, who in Northern Britain would care about an officer who went to fight in Armenia?  Or even, for the sake of argument, in Armorica?

No, it seemed to me that if Castus had left his Artorius name to subsequent generations of Britons, he must have performed great deeds in Britain.  That belief (for that is all it is, really) led me to explore optional readings for the ARM[...]S lacuna.  And the only such reading I could come up with, after several weeks of futile effort, was ARM(ATAS) GENTES.

This reading has been accepted by the academic community as plausible.  It would translate best in this context as 'armed tribes'.  My follow-up question to the experts had to do with whether it was possible for Castus to have actually led three entire legions north in a major campaign, rather than merely taking detachments with him.  The answer was yes (even from Professor Roger Tomlin, who prefers ARMENIOS for the lacuna).  That meant I could read the relevant line literally.  

Given that scholars would have Castus be dux between the middle of the Antonine period to the Severan period, there are only two major campaigns in Northern Britain to consider.  The first was fought by the governor Ulpius Marcellus under Commodus and the second by Severus and his sons.  If we accept the consensus view that Castus' Liburnian procuratorship with the right of the sword must have happened at a time of emergency, then only the action under Severus makes sense, as right after that his son Caracalla faced barbarian invasion in Europe for the first time since the onset of the Marcomannic Wars under Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus.

As everything now seemed to work, I was faced with an unconfortable truth: my identification of the Arthurian battles of the HB and the AC fit the campaigns of Severus to an uncanny degree.  In fact, I could no longer look at the two of them and consider them mere coincidence.  So that you can see what I mean by this, kindly take a look at the map I have prepared above.

Of course, I did have Badon and Camlan in the way.  Badon was not really a problem.  For a very long time people have tended to view Badon as a tag-on for Arthur.  If the actual victor of the battle was unknown, the famous Arthur might well have become attached to it.  While various candidates for Badon have been proposed over the years, I was able to show that the AC seemed to point to the Liddington Badbury (although linguistically Badon is the normal British reflex of English Bathum), the Welsh tale 'The Dream of Rhonabwy' opted for Buxton of Bathamgate.  Neither site made sense for an Arthur's whose other battles were all at or north of York.

Camlan seemed insurmountable, until I realized that the Welsh localization of the battle in NW Wales was most likely a relocation of the battle of the Dalriadan Artur against the Miathi.  See 

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2025/02/camlan-as-folk-relocation-of-dalriadan.html.

In my effort to constrain a Dark Age Arthur's martial activity to the Scottish Lowlands at the very least, I had found it necessary to resort to an unproven, totally hypothetical relocation of the Caledonian Wood from the Highlands to the Lowlands.  I now believe this to be an unjustifiable modification of the tradition.  

John Koch on the Caledones in his CELTIC CULTURE: A HISTORICAL ENCYCLOPEDIA:

The Geography of Ptolemy (2nd century ad) places

the Kalhdonioi in the vicinity of the Great Glen and

Loch Ness. The group name survives in three Gaelic

place-names from Perthshire, central Scotland: Dùn

Chaillean/Dunkeld ‘Fort of the Calidones’ (princeps Dúin

Chaillden Annals of Ulster 873, Dún Callden Book of

Deer), Ro-hallion ‘Rath of the Calidones’ near Dunkeld,

and Sìdh Chaillean/Schiehallion ‘Síd of the Calidones’.

Silva Calidonia ‘the Caledonian forest’ is mentioned

by Pliny (Natural History 4.102) and Calidonia silva by

Martianus Capella (6.666); Ptolemy likewise notes a

Kalhdonioj drumòj. Old Welsh cat Coit Celidon ‘battle

of the forest of the Calidones’, glossed ‘silva Celidonis’,

occurs in the 9th-century Welsh Latin Historia

Brittonum (§56) as Arthur’s seventh battle. In the

early Welsh poetry connected with the wild man

and prophet Myrddin, Coed Celyddon is the place

to which Myrddin flees for refuge and isolation after

the battle of Arfderydd. Since the battle site (Armterid

Annales Cambriae 573, now Arthuret) is only six miles

north of Hadrian’s Wall, it is sometimes assumed

that the Welsh Coed Celyddon must be further south

than the ancient Calidones. But this is not certain since

the Myrddin legend includes fantastic elements; therefore

the long-range flight of the battle-deranged bard

is not unthinkable, and the Welsh understanding of

the relative position of these northern places may have

been vague. In Culhwch ac Olwen, Kyleªon or

Kelyªon Wledic are apparently variant spellings of the

same character’s name, which might originally have

meant ‘sovereign of Caledonia’ or something similar.

Similarly, the Bassas and Tribruit battles seemed to belong to a different Arthur. If not to Artur of Dalriada, then to someone else who was wrongly associated with the HB Arthur in tradition.  I found myself making excuses for these "embarrassing" battle locations.  I "allowed" them to be "intrusions" into the battle list of a Dark Age Arthur.

But subsequent research led me in an entirely new direction:

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2025/01/arthur-and-miathi-artorius-and-maeatae.html

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2025/02/tribruit-of-arthur-trajectus-of.html

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2025/01/caracalla-and-liburnia-province-of-l.html

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2025/02/two-lupi-two-severi-mechanism-by-which.html

Suddenly, it looked as if we weren't talking about intrusions at all.  Instead, the HB Arthur was Artorius, dredged up from the 3rd century and dressed in the clothing of a Dark Age savior.

But why was I so surprised?  The Welsh had done the same with Ambrosius Aurelianus, a man who (as traces of tradition in the HB prove) was actually a fourth century personage.

I know that many of my readers will object to this revelation.  How, they will ask, can we possibly accept the idea that the folk memory of L. Artorius Castus is what we have in the legend of the great 6th century champion who fought and staved off the Saxons?

Well, I can only attempt to answer that in these terms:

We often mistake sources like the HB for historical documents. The HB is a loose collection of folk traditions disguised as history. When we go to Galfridian material, we are even worse off: literary invention has taken over. 

We must also consider the authors (and many copiers) of these early "sources" of history. They were Christian monks. When we read Gildas, for example, we must bear in mind that these same men created hagiography. The acts of St. Germanus in Wales sit alongside the Dinas Emrys folktale in the HB.  

In othe words, everything they wrote was meant to be of value in promulgating and preserving their own faith. Those who readily lied or exaggerated in order to reveal the Higher Truth had no problem with generating Church propaganda or didactic stories or miracles worked by saints. Where such bias exists, nothing produced can be trusted.

Monkish scribes would have no problem adapting folklore to fit their purposes. If one of those purposes was to find a hero from the past who could be converted into a Christian victor over the pagan barbarians, well, they would not have hesitated to do that.

What to do, though, about the Dalriadan Arthurs, and the Dyfed Arthur after them? I've always said that it was strange the only Arthurs after the HB chap belonged to Irish-founded dynasties in Britain.

I can I solve this riddle at last. 

The Britons of the Scottish Lowlands would have bore the brunt of the Maeatae and Caledonii incursion. L. Artorius Castus with his three legions and his perceived  bear name drove back this threat and then tackled the enemy in their Highland homes. 

As a result, Artorius achieved a high degree of fame and the story of his deeds was passed down among the Britons of Strathclyde. When the Dalriadan king Aedan (or Conaing?) took a British wife, the name they landed upon to express their much desired "Britishness" was Arthur.

It is not a requirement that the great hero Arthur flourished only a generation before Artur of Dalriada. We need only accept the very real possibility that stories of Artorius were still current among the Britons at the time of Artur's father.

If we also need to account for Arthur of Dumnonia, we need only remind ourselves that their were two Dumnonii tribes in Britain. One was in the SW. The other one was the tribe of the Strathclyde kingdom from which the Dalriadans obtained the name Arthur.

THE DISCOVERY OF THE MAEATAE

Ptolemy's Map of Britain Showing the Caledonii

0

Manau Gododdin (Map Courtesy John Koch)

The Miathi Hillforts and the Manau Place-Names

Research on the Maeatae (known as the Miathi in early medieval sources) has been scant. This is in large part because the name of the tribe itself, combined with Cassius Dio's claim that it was a confederation of tribes (a claim he repeats for the Caledonii), has led to the belief that its amorphous nature makes it impossible to pin down geographically.

Before I point out why I think that is faulty logic, here is Rivet and Smith's treatment of the Maeatae from their THE PLACE-NAMES OF ROMAN BRITAIN:

* Rivet & Smith, p. 404 :

SOURCE

- Xiphilinus 321 (summarising Cassius Dio LXXVI, 12) : Maiatai (= MAEATAE; twice);

- Jordanes 2, 14 (also quoting Cassius Dio) : Meatae

DERIVATION. Holder II. 388 thought the name Pictish, and it is discussed by Wainwright PP 51-52; it may survive in Dumyat and Myot Hill, near Stirling and thus north of the Antonine Wall. Watson CPNS 58 seems to take the name as wholly Celtic, as is surely right in view of the Continental analogues he cites for the second element or suffix : Gaulish Gais-atai 'spearmen' (*gaison 'spear'), Gal-atai 'warriors' (*gal 'valour, prowess'), Nantu-atai (-ates) 'valley-dwellers'; he notes also the presence in Ireland of the Magn-atai. See also ATREBATES, with further references. One might therefore conjecture that in this name at least the force of the suffix is 'those of. . . '. The first element might be the same as in Maia, probably 'larger', in which case a sense 'larger people' or more strictly 'people of the larger part' may be suitable. It is to be noted that Cassius Dio, as quoted by others, seems to say that Britain north of the Antonine Wall was divided between the Calidonii and the Maeatae, these having subsumed lesser tribes, and it could well be that the Maeatae were the 'people of the larger part'. The name was still in use in Adamnan's day : Miathi in his Life of St Columba, I, 8.

IDENTIFICATION. A confederation of tribes in the southern part of Scotland (the northern part being occupied by a similar confederation of Calidonii, q.v.). As noted above, place-namcs indicate that they extended into Stirlingshire and their northern limit was probably the Mounth, but their southern extent is disputed and depends on the interpretation of the statement of Xiphilinus that they lived 'near the cross-wall which cuts the island in two'. Collingwood (Roman Britain and the English Settlements, Oxford, 1937). 157) interpreted it as the Antonine Wall and in this was followed by Richmond (Roman Britain (Harmondsworth, !963), 57~59), but Frère (1974, 188) prefers Hadrian's Wall and attaches the Selgovae (q.v.) to them.

And the Maeatae mentioned by Rivet and Smith in the context of their treatment of the CALIDONII:

IDENTIFICATION. Ptolemy locales a specifie tribe of this name in the area of the Great Glen, but it may be significant that Tacitus never uses the tribal name as such but always a periphrasis (habitantes Caledoniam, etc.). In general classical usage the name came to be applied to all the inhabitants of Scotland north of the Forth-Clyde isthmus, but in the reference by Xiphilinus (= Cassius Dio) they are specifically a confederation of tribes occupying northern Scotland, as opposed to the Maeatae (q.v.) who occupied the south".

Now, assumptions or judgments made on such names can seriously lead us astray. There are, in reality, only four things we can say for certainty:

1) The name of the Maeatae may be simply a standard, boastful tribal designation. They called themselves the Greater Ones - with the obvious meaning that they considered themselves to be greater than their neighbors. Tribes could be quite small - something place-names and historical studies tell us when we look at Ireland, Wales, Scotland. Ptolemy did not say the Caledonii was a confederation. It is even quite possible that by claiming both the Maeatae and the Caledonii to be confederations, the size of Rome's enemies was amplified for the usual propagandistic reasons. Finally, just because Ptolemy didn't know of the tribe doesn't mean it didn't exist at his time. He might well simply not have known about them. The Ptolemaic place and tribal names for Britain represent only a fraction of the names that would have been used by the native Britons themselves. Most place-names are major centers on the Romam roads, for example.

2) The Maeatae were below the Caledonii.

3) The Maeatae were near a wall that divided the island in half. Given that the two Miathi forts are just north of the east end of the Antonine Wall, it makes no sense to seek them next to Hadrian's Wall. And to opt for the latter would mean accepting that the Maeatae as a confederation included among its members the Novantae, the Selgovae and the Votadini.

4) Artur of Dalriada is said to have perished fighting the Miathi. If he did (and I have elsewhere suggested a possible confusion with a tradition concerning an earlier Artorius), then he would have been fighting to the northeast, possibly close to the Antonine Wall (see below). He would not have been fighting near Hadrian's Wall.

Is this all is so, where were the Maeatae?

Well, before I answer that question, as the Miathi forts appear to be in the ancient region known as Manau Gododdin, it would benefit us to see if we can get a better geographical fix on the latter.

Conventional wisdom points to the Clackmannan and Slamannan place-names and defaults to a general region centered there. But Dalmeny (see below) needs to be considered in this context, as does the etymology of the Manau name itself.

To begin, let's take a look at possible derivations for Manau as these are discused in Alan James' BLITON:

*man-  

205 IE *mṇ- (zero-grade of *men- ‘jut, project’,  see mönïδ, *mönju and *mönǭg)  > eCelt *mon- > Br * Mon-, Man- (in p-ns), cf. (< IE participial *mṇ-t-) W mant ‘mouth, lip’; OIr Man- (in p-ns); cf. (< IE o-grade *mon-) O-MnIr, G moniu ‘upper back’; cf. (IE *men-) Latin mentum ‘chin’, prōmineō ‘I project’. The Indo-European status of this root is supported by Hittite and Avestan forms, see OIPrIE §18.5 at p. 298, but cf. Sims-Williams (2000) at pp 3-4.  See also mönïδ. The root implies ‘projecting’, especially of facial and other bodily features: in place-names, the sense is presumably ‘outstanding, prominent, high’. With the suffix –awā-, it is seen in the North in the territorial name Manaw HB14.62, CT59(V) (and probably CT29(XI)), and in OIr forms at AU[582]583, AT[579]583, AU[710]711, AT[710]711, but see LHEB §47(1), pp. 375-6, YGod(KJ) pp. 69–75, and  discussion of Clackmannan under *clog. Elsewhere, a similar form underlies the Isle of Man, Ellan Vannin (see PNRB pp. 410-11 and DMxPN p xi) and Ynys Môn, Anglesey (see PNRB pp. 419-20, DPNW p. 17). There are as many as fourteen related place-names in Ireland (Anglicised Mannin etc.: D Mac Giolla Easpaig at SNSBI Conference, Douglas IoM, 7.4.2001). Manaw, like Ynys Môn and some of the Irish places, is not outstandingly mountainous, and some other sense seems needed. A deity-name, perhaps associated with water, might be indicated – cf. the legendary personal name Manawydan/ Manannán (see PCB pp. 412 ets, DCML pp. 139-40, DCM pp. 2856) – or else an ethnic name: see Muhr (2002) at p. 41. The line o berth maw ac eidin CT29(XI) might be amended to include a place-name with pert[h] +  -Manaw (but see pert[h]). In mediaeval Welsh literature generally, especially in the poetry, Manaw is used of a more-or-less legendary location in the North that could equally well be the Isle of Man or Manaw Gododdin, but is best not equated with either; see Haycock (2013) pp.10 and 30-1 n44, and Clancy (2013), pp 160-1; this applies, for example, to mynaw in BT 59 (V), pace Williams at PT p. 63. For a full review and discussion of this name, see Tayor (2020), pp. 54-60.  The name Manaw may be preserved in:  c2) Dalmeny WLo  CPNS pp. 103-4 and 515 n104, PNWLo pp. 3-4  + dīn-: early forms may favour *man- with analogical Gaelic genitive sg. –an, but see also maɣn and -īn. The specifier may be a saint's, or other personal, name, see A. Macdonald, PNWLo loc. cit., also Taylor's discussion of Kilmany Fif, 2010 p. 457. However, the territory-name Manau is possible here in a Gaelic formation with genitive –an: contra Watson, CPNS p. 104, Dalmeny could have been close to the eastern end of that territory; but see Taylor (2020), pp. 54-5. Slamannan WLo CPNS p. 103, WLoPN p. 4, with sliabh ‘hill-pasture’, again with a Gaelic genitive form -*Mannan. Clackmannan, across the Forth from our area, is probably + clog-, Gaelicised clach-, again with analogical gen. sg. –an. Pace Watson and Macdonald (CPNS and PNWLo loc.cits.), there is no overriding reason why all three of these should not have been included in, or affiliated to, the territory of Manaw. The specifier –manyn occurs in the earliest forms for Dalmeny and Slamannan; it does occur also in the earliest form for Kilmany Fif PNFif4 pp. 456-7), which is most unlikely to have been associated with Manaw, but the origin need not have been the same in all cases. 

After reading that, I engaged in a long question and answer session with Alan.

Me:

What about an early borrowing of the following Latin word or a British cognate?

https://www.latin-is-simple.com/en/vocabulary/verb/4844/

https://www.nihilscio.it/Manuali/Lingua%20latina/Verbi/Coniugazione_latino.aspx?verbo=mano+&lang=EN_

mano, manas, manare A, manavi, manatum

Verb

Translations

to flow

to pour

to be shed

to be wet

to spring

According to Rivet and Smith, the Forth is believed to be from *Voritia, the 'slow running one'.

The other Manaws are islands in the sea. Surrounded by currents.

Suppose Manaw Gododdin is simply the region where the river flows?

In fact, I'm reading that Stirling is the tidal limit.  An early Welsh name forth the Firth of Forth is Merin Iodeo, or the 'sea of Iudeu', with the latter being (according to the consensus view) a name for Stirling.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jim_Hansom/publication/233239719_The_carse_of_Stirling/links/0deec5328552211d90000000/The-carse-of-Stirling.pdf

See map. Stirling rose from the middle of the carse lands.

If Manau (borrowed early from Latin, or a cognate?) refers to the sea rise and fall affecting the river, or to sea currents, where is it?

Alan James:

Yes, Stirling is still the limit, at least of spring tides. But in the early-mid  1st millennium, it would have flowed further up. I'm familiar with the tides in the North Channel, Solway Firth, Menai Straits etc., and very tricky they are. I'm also aware that the relative sea-levels on the west Coast/ Irish Sea side have dropped by about 1mm p/a since the last glaciation, but that news from the Forth came as a surprise. Undoubtedly the IoM and Ynys Mon have serious and complicated tidal flows. And of course Mannanan is Mac Lir, 'son of the sea' - though whether he's named after the IoM or v.v. is debated, and personally I think both may preserve an older deity-name - so, yes, it might be that Manau was named from such a sea-god.

I’m especially interested in archaeologist John Morris's finding that the mean high tide at Cambuskenneth at the time of the Battle of Stirling Bridge was a metre higher than today. Half a millennium earlier it would have been even higher, what’s now the Carse would have been regularly under water, and the Stirling Rock would certainly have dominated the head of the Firth, the Merin Iodeo. 

Me:

The Forth Estuary begins at Queensferry and ends at Kincardine.  In my Arthurian research, I have shown how the Welsh Manawyd is associated with the trajectus (Tribruit/Tryfrwyd) at Queensferry.

Looking at Slamannan and Clackmannan and drawing an imaginary line connecting the two, they do fit Kincardine.

Dalmeny, which you have shown me has an early form ending in the specifier -manyn, is at Queensferry, the beginning of the Estuary. 

The same exercise with the Miathi forts shows Stirling to be in Miathi territory.

We might propose this:

Manau is the Forth Estuary from Queensferry to Kincardine (or slightly farther west, given higher water levels in the Dark Ages). From that point west is the river and Miathi lands. Their chief citadel would be Stirling.

James:

That's about the way I think they may have been.

Me:

Dumyat looks over the Allan and Devon where they enter the Forth.

Stirling is on the Forth.

Myot Hill looks over Carron.

I think we could see in these fortresses the Maeatae border guarding sites in the east.

As Dio says the Maeatae were near the Antonine Wall, and we have Myot at the Carron, it seems reasonable to propose that the Maeatae occupied the Forth (including the Teith) and Carron catchment basins.

https://www.sepa.org.uk/media/74972/doc-12-river-carron.pdf

https://www.sepa.org.uk/media/74959/doc-11-river-forth.pdf

In addition, they would have held Strathallan and the River Devon.

James:

Indeed, I think at the time of Columba, that would have been the likely land of the Miathi. Also a good place for Artur of Dalriada to have fought them.

CONCLUSION:

Manau Gododdin would be that part of Gododdin territory that lay along the Forth Estuary, roughly between Queensferry and Kincardine. The remainder of Gododdin, at least in the Roman period, stretched from Edinburgh and North Berwick Law south past Traprain Law and thence to Hadrian's Wall. We do not know the extent of the kingdom in the Dark Ages, but as an army from Edinburgh was able to attack the English at Catterick, we might assume Gododdin covered basically the same area as had the Votadini.

If I'm right and the Maeatae kingdom was just north of the Antonine Wall, in the middle of the isthmus and running north to border on the Caledonii, then the Roman Emperor Severus and his sons were dealing with an incursion into Lowland Scotland. 

NOT, as some have hypothesized, with an invasion past Hadrian's Wall.

As Professor Roger Tomlin has confirmed, "The general view is that the Antonine Wall was likely abandoned soon after the death of Antoninus in 161."

But if this is so, a major force such as that employed by Severus would indicate that Lowland Scotland was still of interest to Rome - if for no other reason than the tribes there were considered allies or were client kingdoms.