Shadows in the Mist: The Quest for a Historical King Arthur

Thursday, May 20, 2021

HOW THE FRAGMENTARY 'ARM[...]S' OF THE L. ARTORIUS CASTUS STONE BECAME A LOGIC PROBLEM

When I first started working on possible candidates for the fragmentary ARM[...]S of the L. Artorius Castus stone, my first task was to see what words representing ethnic groups, territories/countries or individuals would fit in the gap. Prior to the proposed reading of 'ARMATOS' by Dr. Linda A. Malcor, Antonio Trinchese and Alessandro Faggiani, the academic community had found itself divided on only two possibilities for ARM-: 'ARMENIOS' or some form of 'ARMORICOS.' I backed the ARMENIOS idea for quite some time, until Trinchese pointed out that the formulaic use 'proc centenario' for LAC's pay grade was not found on stones prior to the Severan period. I delved into that matter, and found an individual who had 'proc c.' in c. 190, i.e. during the reign of Commodus.

Because I had to change my thinking about the date of the stone, I was forced to let go of ARMENIOS for ARM-. Doing so meant I was pretty much stuck with ARMORICOS.

With the help of Faggiani and others (including Roger Tomlin), I could not properly fit any conceivable form of ARMORICOS onto the stone. It could only be made to fit with a rare o inside of C ligature, something of a style not otherwise demonstrated on the stone, and quite possibly being of later origin and geographical distribution.

From there I devolved to personal names or even outright inventions. No personal names of the kind one would have expected to be mentioned in the time period under question (given a person of note, who was powerful enough to have the Sixth legion and large detachments of the other two British legions being brought to bear against him) could be found in our extant historical sources. Imaginative creations such as *Are-/Ar-M[a]eatae were doomed from the outset, and rather quickly dispensed with.

And so, finally, I was forced to look at ARMATOS. And that is where the deductive reasoning came in.

1) Had the Roman governor Statius Priscus taken some British detachments with him to Armenia in the early 160s, those troops would indisputably have been under his command. There would have no need to appoint LAC as dux over the said troops.

2) As we know Priscus, one-ime legate of the Sixth, led British troops in the Deserters' War in the early 180s, and LAC's supposed command of British troops in Armorica has been associated with the same event, LAC would not have been called dux. Priscus was a senator and had been a governor and a legate. As praepositus of the British vexillations against Maternus, we cannot justify LAC's assuming of the title dux in this context.

3) Had LAC merely been dux in the sense of his transporting troops to Armorica, he would not have included ADVERSUS in his inscription. As dux of vexillations [see point 4 below] of three British legions against ARM-, he was telling us in no uncertain terms that he was the commander of this force in war. He was not taking them across the Channel as dux and then handing them to Priscus.

4) The omission of any mention of vexillations on the LAC stone cannot be considered an implied presence. I have not found a single additional inscription from this period or before that fails to include vexillations, even if written only in various abbreviated forms. This fact, taken in combination with points 1-3 above, forces us to accept the high probability that LAC led his own entire Sixth legion, supplemented by generous detachments from the other two British legions, in a conflict in northern Britain.

5) Given 1-4 above, the ARM- in question, taken to be ARMATOS, 'armed men', needs to be a shorthand form for the several tribes said to have broken through the Wall c. 180. As there was insufficient room on the stone to list all these tribes - and given the very real possibility that LAC may not even have known who all of them were - and needing to keep his inscription reasonably compressed, he had available to himself really only a couple of terms. I've already shown how it would be redundant to declare that he had been "dux of three British legions against Britons", as his fighting in Britain would have made it obvious who his opponents were. Assuming, of course, he did not specify that the enemy was composed of mutinous soldiers. Tomlin said "he might refer to HOSTES in Britain", but this is equally as vague as ARMATOS. Tomlin once joked about ARMATOS, saying that "Who else would he be fighting - inermes [unarmed men]?" But the same could be said of HOSTES. "Who else would he be fighting - a non-enemy?" Malcor and colleagues have proposed that ARMATOS refers to a mix of Britons and rebellious Roman soldiers, but in truth we are not told of a mutinous state of the British army until Ulpius Marcellus had won the British war c. 184. It is safe to say, then, that ARMATOS would be a concise way of referring to the several tribes who killed a general and troops in c. 180.

6) The nice thing about this reconstruction of events is that it allows LAC to have assumed the title of dux in an emergency around 180. At some point thereafter Priscus was appointed to replace the legate of the Sixth (the general who was killed) and LAC reverted to camp prefect of the same legion. At the completion of the war, the army tried to raise Priscus to the purple, but he refused. He was immediately transferred to the Macedonian legion. But he was not there for long, for the Deserters' War was heating up. He was appointed commander of British vexillations sent to help deal with Maternus, and among those serving under him in this capacity was LAC. As has been suggested by scholars before me, the 1500 spearmen sent to Rome to kill Perennis quite likely came from the British contingent that was already on the Continent and perhaps not too distant from Rome. While there are those who balk at the notion that these 'spearmen' were Sarmatian cavalry, the terminology in Dio Cassius used to describe them, as well as LAC's and Priscus's undoubted use of them in the British war, permits us to suggest without bending the rules of credibility that they were, indeed, Sarmatians.

There is no evidence whatsoever, on LAC's stone or elsewhere, that he was de facto governor between the offices of Pertinax and Clodius Albinus. Furthermore, the supposed gap between these two British governors is probably imaginary. It has been demonstrated (see https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2021/05/the-strategos-and-lucius-artorius.html) that the governorship of Ulpius Marcellus, who preceded Pertinax, lasted several years. Birley himself has said that "Albinus would have been in Britain for over five years by the time of Commodus’ death: not impossible..." Dio Cassius says that Albinus was governor in Britain when Pertinax as murdered.

7) My readers will know by now that I long resisted any supposed connection of the 5th-6th century British Arthur with Sarmatians. And this was true even though I had, some years ago, discovered what I believed to be a link between Arthur and the Roman fort of Ribchester, site of the settlement of Sarmatian veterans. Eventually, the more I worked on the problem of the sub-Roman Arthur, the more I came to realize that I couldn't continue to resist the obvious conclusion: the famous Arthur of romance did, in fact, seem to have hailed from Ribchester. And that meant, simply put, that the Artorius name had been preserved in the folk memory of the Dark Age descendents of the Sarmatian veterans at Ribchester. The name was passed down through the generations and given to a royal son precisely because L. Artorius Castus had made himself especially famous among the Sarmatian troops who had served with him in the British War, in the Deserters' War, and in the execution of Perennis.

My mind works in very rational, logical way. But it is also a deliberate (a better word than 'slow') and methodical mind. As things stand right now, my conscience is satisfied that I have reached the best possible solution to the 'LAC Problem.' There are no resources, to my knowledge (or at my disposal, at any rate!), that have been left unaccessed. And there are no alternatives/options left for me to consider. As I am not one to speculate based on a dearth of information, and try very hard to resist the temptation of ego-driven or taught bias or pre-conceived belief, I can say with full confidence that according to my limited abilities, there is nothing left for me to add to the LAC or Arthur debates.

WHY I AM ACCEPTING 'ARMATOS' FOR THE LUCIUS ARTORIUS CASTUS INSCRIPTION

ARMATOS in the LAC inscription 
(reconstruction courtesy Alessandro Faggiani)

Well, for the LAST time, I have explored every possible way of inserting a form/spelling of Armorica into the gap of the fragmentary ARM[...]S of the Lucius Artorius Castus inscription.

While there are a couple of methods that will make it fit - barely! - none of them are acceptable, as they rely upon ligatures of a style or date that are not otherwise evinced on the memorial stone.

The most probable date of the stone (the reign of Commodus at the earliest; see my and Antonio Trinchese's work on the proc centenario formula use) disallows us from defaulting to ARMENIOS (despite how well that word can be made to fit with perfectly allowable ligatures).  ARMENIOS would mean LAC was appointed dux of vexillations accompanying the British governor Statius Priscus in the early 160s.  There are several problems with this scenario.  Most notably, we would expect Priscus himself to have commanded these detachments.  No need, in other words, to appoint LAC as dux over them.  A dux was a junior officer who was given a special, temporary, independent command over troops. He would not be in this capacity second-in-command to a senatorial governor.  

Furthermore, another thorough scouring of the CIL database has not revealed to me another dux of this period who had left vexillations out of his inscription, while at the same time IMPLYING their presence.  Alas, I have not been able to obtain a copy of Robert Saxer's Untersuchungen zu den Vexillationen des römischen Kaiserheeres von Augustus bis Diokletian (1967), which I was advised to consult for legionary vexillations commanded by duces.  But, to be honest, I find it doubtful that we would find anything helpful in that volume.

As for the dux title of LAC being applied to him merely for the sake of transport of troops to the Continent, Tomlin was in agreement with my concern.  Had LAC only led troops to the Continent to be commanded by someone else, namely Priscus, he would not have said 'adversus' so and so.  ADVERSUS means he was the commander who had actually led legionary forces in war against ARM[...]S.

My conclusion is inevitable: LAC led legionary forces against ARM[...]S in Britain.  This had to have happened when the general and his troops (a legate with soldiers of his Sixth Legion) were killed c. 180.  The claim of dux of three British legions is justified on the basis that he led his own Sixth, supplemented by large detachments from the other two British legions.  These last were doubtless made necessary due to the losses the Sixth had sustained at the hands of the northern tribesmen.  

LAC's fighting in this emergency situation as dux does not preclude his later presence on the Continent for the Deserters' War and the execution of Perennis.  Priscus led British troops in the Deserters' War, and these troops are believed to have been drawn from the mutinous British army upon the completion of the war against the several tribes that had broken through the Wall. 

While many will object, there is no reason why we can't have LAC come across to fight under Priscus (especially as Priscus would have been appointed legate at some point during the British war, and would certainly have known the camp prefect of the Sixth, i.e. LAC).  We also are free to have LAC appointed head of the delegation to Rome, a delegation composed of 1500 Sarmatian cavalrymen.  Doubtless Sarmatians had proved instrumental in winning the war in Britain.  None of this would have appeared on his stone, for as soon as he had fulfilled his temporary command as dux, he would have reverted to his rank of camp prefect.  In addition, he was serving under Priscus on the Continent.

All of this would be in accord with my theory that the famous Dark Age Arthur was born at Ribchester, site of the Roman era settlement of Sarmatian veterans. We need only accept the possibility that LAC's fame among the Sarmatian troops had caused the name Artorius to be remembered and passed down among the descendents of the Sarmatians at Ribchester.  That name emerged as Arthur in the 5th-6th centuries A.D. 

While I hate to admit it (because by doing so I am literally going against the professional opinion of every good Latin epigrapher and Roman military historian I have consulted), ARMATOS may be the only possible reading for ARM[...]S.  It would be representative of the several tribes LAC had to fight in northern England/southern Scotland.  In effect, it would be a kind of shorthand - assuming, of course, that all the names of the said tribes were actually known to him!  While hostes in this context would be preferable, it is equally vague, and ARMATOS might simply be a 'one-off' occurrence on this particular memorial stone.  As vexillations is not present, readers of the stone would probably rightly have assumed that the fighting was in Britain, not elsewhere, and so ARMATOS would be understood as meaning 'Britons.'  Again, a statement 'dux of three British legions against Britons' would be silly.

NOTE: There is, I suppose, the slim possibility that in ARM[...]S we have preserved a personal name.  The problem is that if LAC is naming an individual, this particular person would have to be truly of a significant stature to warrant the use of a major legionary force being sent against him.  Our extant historical sources are mute on such a person.  Therefore, it is impossible to prove his existence, even from a purely hypothetical standpoint.  

Friday, May 14, 2021

STIRLING/"STRIVELIN": A THOROUGHLY BRITISH, NOT GAELIC, PLACE-NAME

Professor Thomas Owen Clancy is, at present, usually considered the man who has produced the best etymology for the obscure place-name Stirling. For his study on this topic, see http://www.clanntuirc.co.uk/JSNS/V11/JSNS11%20Clancy.pdf.

The idea is that Stirling or "Strivelin" is from Gaelic srib-linn, 'stream-pool.' This derivation has gained traction in recent years, despite the originator's own confession that srib "is not a common place-name element in either Ireland or Scotland". In addition, Clancy must account for why the name does not apply to Stirling Rock:

"The original srib-linn, then, would refer to this point on the river (perhaps then meaning ‘highest navigable point on an estuary’, or referring to a river-pool allowing harbourage), rather than any land feature such as the castle rock which overlooks it."

Northern British place-name expert Alan James, author of BLITON, commented thusly (via personal communication) on Clancy's proposed form:

"On the whole, I think it's quite doubtful, but in phonetic terms, it works."

Clancy's Gaelic etymology for Stirling allows him to suggest that the original British name for the place was Iudeu, a name I have recently been able to associate fairly strongly with Edinburgh (https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2021/04/bedes-urbs-giudi-and-udd-urfai-of-eidyn.html). In Clancy's words:

"I noted at the outset that this has consequences of a sort for a separate set of debates. These relate to the question of whether Bede’s urbs Giudi (and the forms in other texts related to it, such as Iudeu, Iuddew) was Castle Rock at Stirling (see most fully Fraser 2008). Whilst the present note does not directly address that question, it does clear away one problematic sub-argument, which is the suggestion that that location could not be Giudi because it already had a different, Brittonic name, the name lying behind Stirling. This note demonstrates that, whatever the location of urbs Giudi, the name Stirling was Gaelic, referred to the river Forth, and was not originally the name of Castle Rock."

Well, I think we can rather easily account for Stirling or Strivelin being a British name - and that we can, in fact, supply a known precedent from Wales in support of such a contention.

I had independently found some interesting place-names in Merionethshire: Streflyn, Strevlin, Ystreflyn, Ystrevlyn, etc. Alan James knew of these:

"I notice in AMR there is an Ystreflin in Llanycil, and Llysystreflin in Llanuwchllyn, both in Merioneth."

I went ahead and asked my friend James at Historic Place-Names of Wales (https://historicplacenames.rcahmw.gov.uk/) what the etymology of these places might be. He responded:

"According to our Merioneth Inventory, the correct form of Streflyn is Istreflyn, 'the lower holding by the lake'. Since two of the Commissioners were John Rhys and Edward Annwyl, I think we can be reasonably confident in that analysis."

From https://archive.org/stream/inventoryofanci06roya/inventoryofanci06roya_djvu.txt:

* The proper form of Streflyn is Istreflyn, ' the lower tref of the lake.' The name Llystreflyn occurs in Pub. Rec. Office : Land Rev. Misc. Books, vol. 236 ; but this may be an error, for Edward Lhuyd about the year 1700 does not give such a name amongst the houses of the parish. Maestron is so called in the same document, as also in the Survey of 7 Henry V (Rec. Caern., 262); but in Pub. Rec. Office : Rentals and Surveys, 24 Eliz., 91, 173, it is Maestrave (Maes-tref). The Is and Uwch mynydd refer to the Arenigs. Bedwarian [was formerly also a township of Llanycil parish.

I double-checked the spelling in the Melville Richards Archives (http://www.e-gymraeg.co.uk/enwaulleoedd/amr/cronfa_en.aspx):

ISTREFLYN LLANYCIL Meironeth IAMW INVENTORIES OF THE COMMISSION OF ANCIENT MONUMENTS IN WALES AND MONMOUTHSHIRE vi.145

The sense of Is Tref Llyn as applied to Stirling would doubtless be the town below Castle Rock next to the pool in the river. Such a derivation thus allows us to identify both the original settlement atop the Rock, as well as the town that grew up below it next to the said pool. In other words, Stirling was 'the lower town at the pool', the upper town being on the Rock itself.

Best of all, Istreflyn for Stirling adheres to the phonological requirements for the place-name as defined by Clancy. There is a problem with the constant [i] in Strivelin, rather than the [e] we would expect from tref. Twenty-two spellings with Striu- versus only two with Streu-. But I think it is reasonable to assume that a [I]stref would have been assimilated to srib by Gaelic speakers. Ironically, leading Clancy to deduce that srib must be the original first element of the place-name.

Tuesday, May 11, 2021

THE BATTLE OF ARGOET LLWYFAIN

Bonchester Hill Fort

NOTE: The Battle of Argoet Llwyfain

In the Taliesin poetry, we learn of a battle fought by Owein, son of Urien, supposedly against the English (although see below). A good English translation of the relevant passages on this battle can be found in http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/10352/1/10352_7146.PDF:

"In the morning of the day of Saturday there was a great battle,

From the time when the sun rises until it sets:

Flamdwyn hastened in four hosts:

Godeu and Rheged were mustering

to Dyfwy, from Argoed [Llwyfain] to Arvynyd."

Flamdwyn demanded hostages which Owain refused to give, calling

Flamdwyn the scourge of the east - which confirms the view that

Flamdwyn was an Angle, and Urien exhorted the Britons to attack ;

"And in front of Argoed Llfyfein

There were many corpses.

The ravens were crimson because of the warfare of men."

The location of Argoed Llwyfain, as well as those of Arvynyd and Dyfwy, are unknown. For Argoed Llwyfain, see James, Alan G., (2010) 'A Slippery Customer: IE *slei and its derivatives in some British place-names' Nomina 33, pp. 65–86. While there are a few candidates, the best for 'the forest in front of Llwyfain' is the Cumbrian Lyne.

But what of the others?

Dyfwy is also found spelled in the Taliesin poetry Deuwy. Looking in the area in question (broadly the Scottish Lowlands and Northumberland), I noticed the Teviot. Alan James has the Teviot etymologized as *ti- -m- -ja with the -ed suffix being added later. But I asked him if, instead, the name minus the suffix could originally have appeared in Welsh as Deuwy/Dyfwy.

His response?

"I don't see any obvious difficulty with that. It was called Tivy, Tividale by locals even in recent times."

If the Deuwy/Dyfwy is the Teviot, then Arvynydd may not be so difficult to situate. The name is from *Ar-monid/minid, 'in front of the mountain.' It describes, therefore, a region around Mynydd. As it happens, just a few miles north of the Teviot is Minto. The name may be from an original British Mynydd, with an English hoh appended later. As the Minto Hills are two conjoined hills, I suggested that this might be from Mynyddau. Alan James commented thusly:

"I agree Minto could be *mönïδ-öü. Not much of a name, though! I recorded the OE -hoh proposal as that's the only one that's been published, by Jessie Macdonald who was always reluctant to favour Brittonic or Gaelic etymologies. It's not well-documented, though, and the earliest record seems to be ecclesia de Myneton 1296, so it could be an OE -tun rather than -hoh."

I would guess that the land around the Minto is Arvynyd.

Flamdwyn or 'Flame-bringer' has not been identified. The entry on him from P.C. Bartrum's A WELSH CLASSICAL DICTIONARY runs as follows:

FFLAMDDWYN.

"The name means ‘flame-bringer’ (CB p.145). He is mentioned in two poems in the Book of

Taliesin (CT nos.VI and X) as a chieftain fighting against Urien and his son Owain. In the former, ‘The

Battle of Argoed Llwyfain’, he is said to have ‘advanced in four hosts’ and to have ‘shouted with great

bluster’. Urien and Owain appear to have won the victory. The other poem, ‘The Elegy of Owain’,

mentions that Owain killed Fflamddwyn.

According to the Historia Brittonum (§63) Urien fought against Hussa and Theodric, kings of

Northumbria. This suggests that Fflamddwyn, which is clearly not a real name, may be one of these

kings. W.F.Skene thought that it was Theodric son of Ida (The Four Ancient Books of Wales, I.232);

similarly John Rhys (CB p.145). For earlier guesses see John Morris-Jones in Cy. 28 (1918) p.154. On

the other hand Fflamddwyn might have been a chieftain of only local importance (PCB).

According to a triad (TYP no.80) the wife of Fflamddwyn was Bun, daughter of Culfanawyd

Prydain. She was one of the ‘Three Faithless Wives’ of Ynys Prydain, sister of Penarwan, the wife of

Owain ab Urien, and sister of Esyllt Fynwen.

From a poem by Cynddelw (Elegy on Owain Gwynedd, LlH p.92) it may be inferred that the

poet believed that it was at Argoed Llwyfain that Owain slew Fflamddwyn. There may have been a

tradition to this effect (John Morris-Jones, loc.cit. pp.169-170). So Lewis Morris (Celtic Remains, p.180 s.n. Fflamddwyn.

For references to Fflamddwyn by later poets, see TYP p.352."

The name of Flamdwyn's wife is especially important here. I believe she is an eponym for the great hillfort at Bonchester.

For this place-name, see https://spns.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/MayWilliamsonComplete.pdf:

"BONCHESTER (Hbk): (86, 2 B):

Bunchester, 1588 L Ch; Bonnechesterr, Blaeu. /58/ The first element may be the same as

appears in Bonjedward (No VI). OE bune, “dogweed”, may also be considered: cf Bumpstead

(PN ESS, 508) and Bonwick (PN YER, 80). Bonchester Hill bears a large pre-English

earthwork."

For the fort of Bonchester, see https://canmore.org.uk/site/55300/bonchester-hill.

Bonchester hillfort stands over the Rule Water, a tributary of the Teviot.

A map, then, of the sites as I have laid them out:

Now, whether this means Flamdwyn was English or British is hard to say. Welsh has a word bun meaning 'maiden, woman, sweetheart.' But the location of Bonchester is about right for an incursion by the Bernicians against Rheged and Godeu.

GODEU/GODDEU: AN IDENTIFICATION OF PLANT(S) AND PLACE

Gorse

Heather

Heather and Gorse

Many years ago, I suggested that the place-name and noun Godeu/Goddeu of Welsh poetry and myth was a sort of hypocoristic form for Gododdin, or perhaps a similar nickname for that kingdom. Alas, the old etymology for the Roman period tribal name, Votadini, which became first Guotodin in Welsh, then finally Gododdin, is no longer accepted. For the old etymology, I refer my readers to Rivet and Smith's THE PLACE-NAMES OF ROMAN BRITAIN. The relevant section is to be found pasted here:

"There can be no doubt that the proper form is Votadini, given the Welsh derivative Guotodin, later Gododdin. On the latter, important in the history of Welsh verse, see Jackson, The Gododdin (Edinburgh, 1969), especially 69-75, on the location of the Manau Guotodin of Nennius (62). Watson CPNS 28 says that in an eleventh-century Gaelic poem there appears Fotudain, which corresponds exactly to the Welsh forms. According to Watson the name can be compared with early Irish fothad 'support' ('Fothad, a mythical ancestor of an Irish people, perhaps derived from * Vo-tâdos' : O'Rahilly EIHM 10, note), with a suffix -in- as in many ethnic names. Th sense is not entirely clear, but seems preferable to others suggested by Holder II. 887. See also I. Williams, Canu Aneirin (Cardiff, 1938), xviii."

That etymology has now been universally rejected. Instead, we have the following proposed derivation, passed along to me by Dr. Simon Rodway of The University of Wales:

"Yes, the Rivet and Smith etymology doesn't work. Graham Isaac in his chapter on 'Scotland' in New Approaches to Celtic Place-Names in Ptolemy's Geography, ed. Javier de Hoz, Eugenio R. Lujan and Patrick Sims-Williams (Madrid, 2005), pp. 198-99 suggests < *wo-ta:di:- 'what is melted, smelted below', i.e. people connected with a certain technique of iron production."

Godeu (or Goddeu) can also not be related to Gododdin. In the words of notable British place-name expert Alan James (personal communication):

"'d' in OW - early MW orthography represented [ð], 'dd' in modern Welsh spelling. But 't' in OW represents [d], which is why Guotodin represents *Gwododdin. And [gwod-] is quite different from [goð-], there's no way they can be related.

The best recent discussion of godeu is by Marged Haycock in CELTIC LINGUISTICS, edited by Martin John Ball, "The Significance of the 'Cad Goddau' Tree-List in the Book of Taliesin." I am here posting as jpeg images her position on the best etymology for godeu:

Dr. Simon Rodway and Alan James both agree with the proposed etymology of "beneath/under" + "burning" is formally acceptable. However, this reading as applied to 'kindling-wood' and thence to 'wood' in general is considered by all authorities I have consulted as too much of a stretch. Instead, we need to make use of this etymology (from a presumed Proto-Celtic *uφo-*daw-je/o-) to identify a collective noun designating actual flowering plants that were somehow intimately associated with fire.

I seemed to recall reading at some point abotu so-called 'fire climax' species, i.e. those plants that when burned came back with renewed strength, and whose seed or too propagation could actually be improved by fire. It didn't ake much research to find the following:

In the GPC, I found this definition for goddaith:

"spot where burning of heather, gorse and bracken took place" →

When I asked Dr. Rodway about this word and its possible association with godeu, he responded:

"Yes, that is indeed etymologically related (if Haycock's etymology for goddau is correct). And it has the same prefix."

Taliesin is made of the flowers of trees and goddau. Both gorse and heather have flowers. Other phrases suggest goddau is something other than trees, but still a plant. Could goddau designate both heather and gorse as a collective noun?

I find in the following articles that gorse and heather in Britain ARE THE TWO FIRE-CLIMAX SPECIES.

Common gorse is described as one of 2 fire climax species in forests in Great Britain, along with a common associate, heather [51].

PLANT RESPONSE TO FIRE:

Common gorse responds to fire by sprouting from the basal stem region and by establishing from seed in the soil seed bank [5,42,74,92,98,99]. Postfire regeneration of common gorse can be prolific and rapid [42,80,82].

https://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/shrub/uleeur/all.html

On heather:

https://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/shrub/calvul/all.html

Given all this, I would propose that godeu/goddeu means 'that which is burnt beneath or under', i.e. the plants gorse and heather that readily grow from an area that has just been burnt, intentionally or otherwise. Ancient people would doubtless have found such plants to be miraculous - perhaps even sacred.

Now, does that definition help us in locating Godeu in relationship to Rheged? Where was the land or kingdom of heather and gorse?

Well, I can make a guess. The Welsh poem THE BATTLE OF GODDEU features a fort named for one Nefyn. Again, all those years ago, as various divine or heroic figures who belonged to Gwynedd were brought into the action of that poem, and the poem contained a reference to a fortress belonging to Nefyn the Tall, I had guessed the battle occured on the Lleyn Peninsula at or near Nefyn and the great nearby hillfort, Garn Boduan. Given the motif of the battle of the trees, and the presence of one Achren, (cf. Irish achrann, "thicket, tangled undergrowth"), and twigs or branches and such, I theorized that there might be a connection to the Roman period Gangani tribe and Ganganorum Promontorium of the Lleyn Peninsula. The derivation of Gangani is probably from a British word similar to Welsh cainc, 'branch.'

But we must bear in mind that there was another Nefyn in the North, the wife of Cynfarch and mother of Urien of Rheged!

It does not overly harm my argument that Caer Nefynhir may not be the Fort of Nefyn the Tall, but instead a reference to the Novantae tribe of Dumfries and Galloway. From Alan James (https://spns.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Alan_James_Brittonic_Language_in_the_Old_North_BLITON_Volume_II_Dictionary_2019_Edition.pdf):

"On the possibility that the eponym of Kaer Nefenhir in a poem to Llywelyn the Great by

Prydydd y Moch (c. 1215) is *Novantorix, 'ruler of the Novantae', see Haycock 2013 p.14."

So it is possible that Nefyn, wife of Cynfarch, rather than being a Welsh cognate of the Irish goddess name Nemhain (something which has generally been accepted), may be a reference to that tribe and show that Urien of Rheged descended from that tribe.

My best guess, therefore, is that Godeu/Godeu bordering on Rheged (whose nucleus was in Annandale; see https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2017/09/the-nucleus-of-uriens-kingdom-of-rheged.html) was a name for the old Novantae territory. Heather and gorse are ubiquitous in Galloway.

The presence of the Nefyn name in Lleyn probably led to the relocation of the Godeu name in legend.

NOTE: The Battle of Argoet Llwyfain

"In the morning of the day of Saturday there was a great battle,

From the time when the sun rises until it sets:

Flamdwyn hastened in four hosts:

Godeu and Rheged were mustering

to Dyfwy, from Argoed [Llwyfain] to Arvynyd."

Flamdwyn demanded hostages which Owain refused to give, calling

Flamdwyn the scourge of the east - which confirms the view that

Flamdwyn was an Angle, and Urien exhorted the Britons to attack ;

"And in front of Argoed Llfyfein

There were many corpses.

The ravens were crimson because of the warfare of men."

But what of the others?

His response?

"I don't see any obvious difficulty with that. It was called Tivy, Tividale by locals even in recent times."

I would guess that the land around the Minto is Arvynyd.

Flamdwyn or 'Flame-bringer' has not been identified. The entry on him from P.C. Bartrum's A WELSH CLASSICAL DICTIONARY runs as follows:

FFLAMDDWYN.

"The name means ‘flame-bringer’ (CB p.145). He is mentioned in two poems in the Book of

Taliesin (CT nos.VI and X) as a chieftain fighting against Urien and his son Owain. In the former, ‘The

Battle of Argoed Llwyfain’, he is said to have ‘advanced in four hosts’ and to have ‘shouted with great

bluster’. Urien and Owain appear to have won the victory. The other poem, ‘The Elegy of Owain’,

mentions that Owain killed Fflamddwyn.

According to the Historia Brittonum (§63) Urien fought against Hussa and Theodric, kings of

Northumbria. This suggests that Fflamddwyn, which is clearly not a real name, may be one of these

kings. W.F.Skene thought that it was Theodric son of Ida (The Four Ancient Books of Wales, I.232);

similarly John Rhys (CB p.145). For earlier guesses see John Morris-Jones in Cy. 28 (1918) p.154. On

the other hand Fflamddwyn might have been a chieftain of only local importance (PCB).

According to a triad (TYP no.80) the wife of Fflamddwyn was Bun, daughter of Culfanawyd

Prydain. She was one of the ‘Three Faithless Wives’ of Ynys Prydain, sister of Penarwan, the wife of

Owain ab Urien, and sister of Esyllt Fynwen.

From a poem by Cynddelw (Elegy on Owain Gwynedd, LlH p.92) it may be inferred that the

poet believed that it was at Argoed Llwyfain that Owain slew Fflamddwyn. There may have been a

tradition to this effect (John Morris-Jones, loc.cit. pp.169-170). So Lewis Morris (Celtic Remains, p.180 s.n. Fflamddwyn.

For references to Fflamddwyn by later poets, see TYP p.352."

The name of Flamdwyn's wife is especially important here. I believe she is an eponym for the great hillfort at Bonchester.

For this place-name, see https://spns.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/MayWilliamsonComplete.pdf:

"BONCHESTER (Hbk): (86, 2 B):

Bunchester, 1588 L Ch; Bonnechesterr, Blaeu. /58/ The first element may be the same as

appears in Bonjedward (No VI). OE bune, “dogweed”, may also be considered: cf Bumpstead

(PN ESS, 508) and Bonwick (PN YER, 80). Bonchester Hill bears a large pre-English

earthwork."

For the fort of Bonchester, see https://canmore.org.uk/site/55300/bonchester-hill.

Bonchester hillfort stands over the Rule Water, a tributary of the Teviot.

A map, then, of the sites as I have laid them out:

Friday, May 7, 2021

THE STRATEGOS AND LUCIUS ARTORIUS CASTUS: A SELECTION FROM PATRICIA SOUTHERN'S BOOK

There has been disagreement among Arthurian enthusiasts about the nature of the strategos mentioned in Dio Cassius' biography of Commodus. This man was killed along with troops when several British tribes poured across Hadrian's Wall in c. 180. It has been my contention that Birley is correct in opting to identify the strategos with the legate of the Sixth legion, rather than with the British governor. I have cited Birley, but few seem to have bothered to read his argument. To help remedy that situation, I am here offering a selection from the following work:

Hadrian's Wall: Everyday Life on a Roman Frontier

Patricia Southern

Amberley Publishing Limited, Feb 15, 2016 - History - 448 pages

["Patricia Southern is an acknowledged expert the history of ancient Rome. Her interest began very early, fostered by books and the wonderful epic films that they don't make any more. This obsession with the Romans has never waned, so whilst working full time as a librarian she studied for a BA degree in Ancient History with the external department of the University of London, and for an MPhil in Roman Frontier Studies at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne, where she was Librarian of the Archaeology Department for many years. She has written many books on Roman history and contributed numerous articles on Roman history to the BBC History website and the academic Roman studies journal Britannia."]

Southern very nicely summarizes current opinion on the strategos. He is important because I think it quite likely that his place was taken by Lucius Artorius Castus, prefect of the Sixth Legion. His command (dux) involved leading the depleted Sixth, supplemented by large vexillations from the other two British legions.

Hopefully, this posting will help alleviate some of the confusion (and rancor) surrounding this topic. For those who wish to read from the original Website, please see

https://books.google.com/books?id=bBitCwAAQBAJ&pg=PP156&lpg=PP156&dq=Hadrian%27s+Wall:+Everyday+Life+on+a+Roman+Frontier+strategos&source=bl&ots=IDhKshKOw_&sig=ACfU3U0kj2F-cqpOWv6ziV6zEu6XnGosow&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi0_YGNzrjwAhXKtp4KHWsYBfQQ6AEwGnoECAUQAw#v=onepage&q=Hadrian's%20Wall%3A%20Everyday%20Life%20on%20a%20Roman%20Frontier%20strategos&f=false

Wednesday, May 5, 2021

WAR ON THE WALL, A MUTINY AND THE EXECUTION OF THE PRAETORIAN PREFECT OF ROME: THE BRITISH CAREER OF LUCIUS ARTORIUS CASTUS

Hadrian's Wall

I. THE LUCIUS ARTORIUS STONE INSCRIPTION

First off, what the inscription does - and does not - say.

It does not say that LAC was camp prefect more than once. The PRAEFF has, by all authorities I've checked with, been easily accounted for as a correction of a stone-cutting error.

Prefect in this context is also not more than what it says. We know that because we have a stone in which prefect is used without castrorum and is listed together with another officer, the actual legate of the same unit. We can be sure, then, that he was Prefect of the Sixth - as stated. This does not amount to an abbreviation, as a prefect of the Sixth cannot be anything other than that, whether we add castrorum or not.

The VI after proc centenario does not designate 6 years. It is part of the following VVS. Again, I have this from all authorities. When years are mentioned on a stone, they represent the sum total years a soldier has served before retirement or death. The stone does not say he was procurator of Liburnia six times or for six years.

And the 'dux of three British legions' bit? Well, it has been customary to read into that an implied vexillations. But I have argued that there is nowhere another stone with such an implied meaning for a dux leggionum. Xavier Loriot, “Un mythe historiographique : l’expédition d’Artorius Castus contre les Armoricains” (Bulletin de la Société nationale des antiquaires de France‎, 1997), Pg. 85-86, pointed out

that CIL inscription 06 1645 was the first dated mention of a dux legg (ionum) (under Philip the Arab (244-249).

CIL 06, 01645 (p 854, 3163, 3811, 4725) = D 02773 = IDRE-01, 00019 =

EAOR-01, 00026 = AE 1965, +00223

Province: Roma

Locat:ion Roma

praef(ecto)]

veh[icul(orum) proc(uratori)]

lud(i) ma[gni proc(uratori)]

Lusit(aniae) trib(uno) p[raet(orianorum)]

Philipporum A[ugg(ustorum)]

p(rimo) p(ilo) duci legg(ionum) Dac(iae)

|(centurioni) corn(iculario) praeff(ectorum) pr(aetorio)

But this inscription does not allow us to assume vexillations are meant. By the mid-third century, dux had taken on the quality of an actual rank. It no longer designated merely an officer of lesser rank who had been granted ad hoc command on a temporary basis for a special, limited military purpose.

I have remarked at length how strange it would be, given the available space on the stone and the ability to abbreviate vexillations any number of ways, that a man who proclaimed he was alive when his stone was made (and could thus personally vouch for its accuracy) would intentionally leave out that information.

The only way I can account for the lack of vexillations on the stone is to propose the following scenario: LAC had assumed command of the Sixth after its legate was killed and a significant portion of it destroyed. This is exactly what we would expect a camp prefect to do in the event the senior officers of the Legion were lost in battle. And we know this exact thing happened in the early 180s under Commodus, when several tribes breached the Wall and killed a 'strategos' (Dio) and his troops. While the argument continues to rage as to whether this strategos should be considered a legate (doubtless of the Sixth) or a governor, Birley opted for the former. Were the strategos the governor, and the legate of the Sixth were still alive, there would be no need for the legionary prefect to take over.

A depleted Sixth may have been reinforced with generous vexillations from the other two British legions. In this sense, then, LAC would be justified in writing 'dux of three British legions.' The space required to write that he was dux of the Sixth (or dux "of the same", as he had just declared himself prefect of that legion) plus commander of vexillations from the other two British legions (which might have had to be named) was excessive. So he simply said commander of three British legions.

ARM[...]S of the inscription continues to bedevil us. The formula 'procurator centenarius' is first found in the reign of Commodus. [1] While pay grades are mentioned in inscriptions before that time, and are certainly found in earlier literary sources, if we accept the late Antonine and Severan periods for the stone's date range, then ARMENIOS (a reference to Statius Priscus' campaign there in the early 160s) is out. We could still opt for AR[E]MORICOS, an unprovable reference to the Deserters' War under Commodus, except for one obvious problem: we would have to have a prefect of the Sixth, based in the North of England, heading up three legionary vexillations to the Continent. Not only does it make little sense to send a camp prefect of the legion responsible for guarding northern Britain to the Continent, we are once again forced to accept the implied presence of vexillations on the stone.

Not to mention the fact that the war in Britain under the governor Ulpius Marcellus was not over until 184. Maternus is believed to have first rebelled c. 180, with the heaviest fighting of the Deserters' War happening in 186 and Maternus' death in 187 (https://journals.umcs.pl/rh/article/viewFile/9556/8305). The British army after Marcellus' victory was in mutiny. It continued in a mutinous state up through the governorship of Pertinax (185-187, according to Birley). Birley thinks that one of the ways the mutinous British troops may have been dealt with was to ship a bunch of them to the Continent to fight in the Deserters' War.

We have three remaining complicating factors in all this. One concerns the why Marcellus, after winning the war in Britain, was almost executed by Commodus "thanks to his peculiar excellence" (https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/73*.html). The second concerns the Priscus who was offered the purple by the British troops, and who may have led British troops after leaving the Sixth and serving with the Macedonian legion. The third had to do with the 1500 spearmen sent to Rome to execute Perennis. I will attempt to deal with each of these, one at a time.

Dio's account makes it sound like Marcellus was condemened to death, and later pardoned, for no other reason than Commodus was jealous of him - or perhaps feared him as the governor in charge of the British garrison. Birley thought that Marcellus got himself into trouble for causing the mutiny following the successful British war, and that the Perennis affair may also have had something to do with it.

But we need to look to Priscus as well. As Birley points out, the HISTORIA AUGUSTA tells us that Commodus was declared Britannicus at the same time the British troops wanted to make one of their own Emperor. So, quite literally, the British soldiers tried to raise up Priscus immediately upon the completion of the war.

Why did the soldiers mutiny?

The account of Dio is pretty straight-forward:

"The soldiers, accordingly, whenever any matter did not turn out to their satisfaction, laid the blame upon Perennis and were angry with him.

2a The soldiers in Britain chose Priscus, a lieutenant, emperor; but he declined, saying: I am no more an emperor than you are soldiers"

The lieutenants in Britain, accordingly, having been rebuked for their insubordination, — they did not become quiet, in fact, until Pertinax quelled them, — now chose out of their number fifteen hundred javelin men and sent them into Italy. 3 These men had already drawn near to Rome without encountering any resistance, when Commodus met them and asked: "What is the meaning of this, soldiers? What is your purpose in coming?" And when they p91 answered, "We are here because Perennis is plotting against you and plans to make his son emperor," Commodus believed them, especially as Cleander insisted; for this man had often been prevented by Perennis from doing all that he desired, and consequently he hated him bitterly."

The Augustan History adds an interesting detail:

"Yet in spite of his great power, suddenly, because in the war in Britain46 he had dismissed certain senators and had put men of the equestrian order in command of the soldiers,47 this same Perennis was declared an enemy to the state, when the matter was reported by the legates in command of the army, and was thereupon delivered up to the soldiers to be torn to pieces."

Tomlin thinks this substitution of equestrians for legates has been exaggerated, as we know of equestrians before Commodus (including during the reign of his father, Marcus Aurelius) who assumed positions normally reserved for senators. I think it should be taken into account, of course, when combined with the general discontent that found its focus, rightly or wrongly, in the person of Perennis.

It is also difficult to tell the exact sequence of events in terms of cause and effect. For instance, did the British troops try to make Priscus (almost certainly legate of the Sixth at the completion of the war) emperor because equestrians were replacing legates, or were legates replaced by equestrians as a result of their insubordination? For if you are worried about someone of senatorial class becoming emperor, you need only put in his place someone of the equestrian class, who cannot become emperor.

In any case, Priscus refused the dubious honor. What happened then? Birley claims he would have been removed from office. But we really know nothing else about this man unless we rely upon some very shaky reconstructive work of several verey fragmentary inscriptions. As Tomlin has noted, we don't even know if the relevant inscriptions even refer to the same man. But the inscriptions do seem to show us a man who was legate of the Sixth at the right time. For details, see Gregori's article here:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/20189321?seq=1.

I'm taking the liberty of offering here a very poor translation of a key portion of that article:

"Probably around 184, when ours could have held his first legation of legion, there was a military uprising in Britain, following which some of the soldiers acclaim their legate as emperor, of which only the surname Priscus is known... Our senator was at a certain point in his career in charge of detachments drawn from the probably British legions. Since the senators in command of legionary vexillations were often chosen from among the former legions of one of the legions involved and considering that the first legion to which ours was bound bears the appellations of pia fidelis, it does not seem impossible that he had exercised command of VI Victrix, honored with those titles since the time of Domitian and stationed in Eburacum... enough space to integrate the epithet Victrix, abbreviated to the first three or four letters. While acknowledging that Priscus a very common surname, then I wonder if it is too risky to identify our senator with the contemporary Priscus protagonist of the episode mentioned by Cassius Dio."

I've already mentioned that between his posting as legate of the Sixth Legion and his commanding British vexillations, his is found serving in the Macedonian legion. We have no idea how much time he spent with that second legion, but it has been surmised the British detachments were being used in the Deserters' War.

Gregori concludes with the following statement:

"The office of [praep] ositus vexill. [leg. Ill Brita] nnicarum could be framed in the years 185-186, at the time of the bellum desertorum, also for comparison with Dio 72, 9, 2-4 (in 185 the 1500 soldiers of the British troops arrived in Italy to ask for Perennis' death)."

In a footnote to https://journals.umcs.pl/rh/article/viewFile/9556/8305, the author states:

"Several hundred soldiers chosen from each of the three legions (l. II Augusta – Isca, l. VI Victrix – Eburacum, l. XX Valeria Victrix – Deva), which had stationed in Britannia, could have been delegated to these 1500 soldiers. Leaving for the continental part of the Roman state, they formed separate subunits (vexillationes), which is clearly presented by the inscription of Titus Caunius Priscus (Gargilius Quintilianus?), legatu legionis legio VI Victrix pia Fidelis / legatus Augusti. Cf. AE 1995, 231 (Roma) AD 191–192: ‘[praep]osito vexill(ationum) [leg(ionum) III?] [Brita]nnicar(um)?’; G. Gregori, Un nuovo senatore dell’età di Commodo?, ‘Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik’ 1995, 106, pp. 270, 273–274, 277; G. Migliorati, op. cit., pp. 201–206."

Birley has a wonderful discussion of Priscus in his THE ROMAN GOVERNMENT OF BRITAIN. I am pasting it here entire:

"This unusual career can be dated by Commodus’ names, a style first assumed

in 191.¹⁴¹ The restoration of VI Victrix as one of the legions which the honorand

commanded depends on Alföldy’s conjecture that he is identical with the

legate Priscus (LL 35). A summary may be offered of Alföldy’s discussion. This

legate was no doubt a novus homo, to judge from his start as capitalis. Without

being military tribune, he went on to the three usual urban magistracies. After

the praetorship he was iuridicus in North Italy, then curator of Cirta in N.

Africa, before his first legionary command, of a legion with the title pia fidelis,

perhaps VI Victrix. If this is right, and he was the Priscus whom the legionaries

tried to make emperor, he was removed from this post by Perennis. He

certainly went on to command another legion, V Macedonica, in Dacia: a

second legionary command indicates trouble where the second one was based

and there was warfare in Dacia under Commodus (HA Comm. 13. 5). There

followed command over detachments of several legions, restored as [Brita]nnicarum.

Alföldy convincingly proposes that this force was assigned to deal with

the so-called ‘deserters’ war’ and can be identified with the ‘1,500 javelin-men’

from the British army who lynched Perennis near Rome in 185 (Dio 72(73). 9.

22–4) (cf. under Gov. 33)."

The problem here, as pointed out by Tomlin, is that LAC's dux command and the praepositus command of Priscus are two separate commands. We can't have LAC in Armorica fighting deserters with British vexillations as dux and Priscus being commander of the same troops.

Who was it that sent the 1500 spearmen to Rome? Well, a mistranslation has led many to believe that it was 'lieutenants', i.e. senior officers, who were responsible. But as Brunt has shown in his study "The Fall of Perennis: Dio-Xiphilinus 72. 9. 2" (https://www.jstor.org/stable/638138?seq=1), it was actually the soldiers themselves. If this were the case, it is difficult to understand how 1500 soldiers who were not sent on the authority of the British governor would be allowed to cross the Continent and meet with the Emperor. Never mind demand Perennis be handed over to be slain! Note that the Augustan History instead implicates the legates in command of the army.

How, then, do we make sense of all this?

Here is what I think may have happened...

LAC becomes ad hoc commander of British legions in the Northern war. He is eventually replaced by Priscus, who is probably installed by Marcellus. The war is won, but the troops mutiny. They try to raise Priscus to the purple, but he refuses. He is transferred to a posting with the Macedonian. But the Deserters' War heats up, and reinforcement are sent for from Britain. Among them is LAC, but these troops are put under the command of Priscus.

The one-time legate of the Sixth finds himself saddled with still-mutinous troops. In order to get them under control, he decides to dispatch 1500 Sarmatian heavy cavalry to Rome under LAC. LAC had proven himself in the British war and would certainly have been known to the man who became legate over the Sixth. Priscus had previously proven his loyalty to the Emperor by refusing the purple, and he aim was to lay the blame for everything - including a conspiracy - at the feet of Perennis. With Perennis gone, policies would be reversed and the British troops would at least for a time be mollified.

The question remains as to why LAC would not have referred to the Rome delegation on his stone. We can only assume that the praepositus Priscus was thought to be responsible for this act. In other words, it fell under his command of the British units.

For LAC as dux [2] to be de facto governor, as some claim he was, we are supposed to assume that the governor was dead. But before a prefect of the Sixth would become the de facto governor of the province, literally EVERYONE who was senior to him - ALL THE LEGATES, ALL THE TRIB. LATICLAVII, FROM ALL THE LEGIONS, AND EVEN ANY VICE-GOVERNOR, ETC., WOULD HAVE TO BE DEAD. So if we are going to continue to push this position, we need for account for that. I don't believe we can, and for that reason I think the idea rather absurd.

A similar objection must be raised to the argument which seeks to associate Perennis' policy of replacing senators with equestrians with LAC's being made governor. An equestrian prefect of the Sixth might be made legate of the Sixth - but not until he wa admitted into the senatorial class. For this we can see the stone of Marcus Valerius Maximianus in the time of Marcus Aurelius (http://rimskelegie.olw.cz/pages/articles/legincz/mvaleriusmaximianus_en.html). Governors also had to be members of the senatorial class. If LAC has been raised to the senate and become a legate or governor, he would have put it on his stone. And, as Tomlin and others have remarked, the insistence on claiming that Perennis' trouble lay in his replacement of senators with equestrians was the only reason for his being killed is wrong. There is good evidence for this being done before. While used as an excuse for the anger felt against Perennis, it is far more likely he was blamed for failed policies and other troubles, and may even have been a scapegoat offered up by Commodus. Perennis was also accused of conspiracy against the emperor. So the notion that because we are told Perennis replaced senators with equestrians we can extrapolate that LAC the equestrian was made governor is ridiculous. This is an ill-founded theory and must be abandoned.

It is very tempting to say that ARM[...]S does, indeed, stand for AR[E]MORICOS - despite the fact that the regional name only can be made to fit with difficulty on the stone and is not found on any other inscription. [ARMENIOS, incidentally, is also not found on any other stone.] But, again, if Priscus did command British vexillations, he and LAC could not have been commanders of the same force at the same time. It also does not make sense for LAC to have his own detachments and Priscus to have his at the same time. We would be talking about way too many troops having been removed from Britain right after a major war and during a mutiny.

So... here we are again. What is ARM[...]S? Must we resort to ARMATOS, 'armed men, soldiers, troops', as proposed by Dr. Linda A. Malcor and associates, an apparent reference to a mix of native enemies and rebellious soldiers? While the stone's 'dux of three British legions against' would seem to suggest conflict against the tribes that broke through the Wall, it does not carry with it any indication that the entire Sixth legion and large detachments from the other two British legions were being brough to bear against fellow Roman soldiers in the province. If LAC did fight on the Continent in the Deserters' War, it was under the praepositus Priscus; he would not still have been dux. Nor would he have been dux had Priscus sent him on the delegation to Rome.

My own suspicion is that ARM[...]S may refer to a tribal or regional name in Britain, or even a personal name, that we otherwise have no knowledge of. This is a disappointing, frustrating and uncomfortable position to take, but I don't feel that I can honestly do otherwise. We do know of some Ar- place and personal names in Britain, such as Arfon (Ar-mona), Arfynydd (Ar-monid/minid; associated with Rheged, so in the North), Argoet (Ar-ceto) and Arnemetia ('She who is in front of the sacred grove'). There are a good number of Continental Celtic place-names of this formation (see http://docshare02.docshare.tips/files/28516/285161581.pdf), like Ar[e]morica, and even tribal names (like that of the Arverni, 'they who are in front of the alder'; the fact that their main city was called Augustonemetum proves that the alder was their sacred tree).

We might even be justified in concocting a name from, say, the Maeatae, a known federation of tribes in the North that show up during the reign of Septimius Severus. According to Rivet and Smith, the base of the name is probably something like British maios and it designated either the larger people or, more likely, those of the larger part. A maios or Maeatae derived place-name fronted by Ar- would refer to a geographical region that was adjacent to this tribal federation's territory.

Unfortunately, engaging in that kind of speculation is purely imaginative and no scholar worth his salt would be willing to consider it. I mention it only because it reinforces our awareness of the fact that we have very few British place-names or tribal names - and almost no personal names - preserved in the Classical sources. We can safely assume there are a great many names and place-names that have been lost.

One such may have been referred to on the memorial stone of Lucius Artorius Castus.

Still, as LAC is referring to legionary forces being brought to bear against an enemy in Britain, and this enemy may have been composed of disparate elements, we might provisionally accept ARMATOS. It does not seem entirely satisfactory, but it may, in fact, be the answer to the riddle of the fragmentary ARM[…]S.

[1]

C. Annius Flavianus. Ergänzungen zu AE 1980, 959

Gabriele Wesch-Klein

Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik

Bd. 77 (1989), pp. 151-154 (5 pages)

Published by: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH

Procurator c at 190 A.D. He is twice described as PROC C, and the second C has a tilde over it, indicating abbreviation, i.e. c(entenario).

We do have evidence for pay grades on inscriptions and in literary sources prior to Commodus, but no instance of procurator centenarius on a stone.

[2]

I am distressed that no matter how many times I myself or others (including top Latin epigraphers and Roman military historians) insist on trying to correct the miconceptions being promulgated regarding the role of the dux in the Romam army, those continue to be regurgitated. There is a stubborn resistance to acknowledging errors and the conclusions that derive from those errors.

To address this point, I have scoured the literature again. The best treatment of dux I could find is from this article, one I have confirmed as valid:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/20185810?read-now=1&refreqid=excelsior%3Aaa46c1414df409ba01481c5890961577&seq=11&fbclid=IwAR0h2jo_5OLYwmGCrN6TEs8diq1UoInjHOXynitd9gX233RJcY4ITy9qU04#page_scan_tab_contents

Dux, Praepositus

R. E. Smith