WHY YOU CAN'T WIN FOR LOSING IN ARTHURIAN STUDIES: ON SWEEPING 1,500 SPEARMEN UNDER THE RUG

Sarmatians from Trajan's Column

So once again I have been taken to task - politely, though firmly - by an interested reader whose criticism of my decision to abandon Sawyl of Ribchester as Arthur's father for an unnamed chieftain at Birdoswald runs as follows:

"I respectfully point out that you seem to have completely forgotten about the 1,500 spearmen sent to the Continent and what you suggest was a honor guard or escort of a delegation to the Emperor derived from that force (https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2023/02/reconciling-l-artorius-castus.html).  I'm speaking of the delegation that brought about the execution of Perennis, the Praetorian Prefect.  Have you decided this just didn't happen on the basis that there are some different accounts of the fall of Perennis?  You didn't have trouble with these varying accounts earlier, and wrote the following blog post on why you thought they were not, in fact, actually at all  contradictory: https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2022/10/the-three-accounts-of-slaying-of.html.  Would you care to address this oversight for those of us who are puzzled by the omission?  Thank you in advance!"

Well, to be honest, I feel a bit as if I've been caught with my pant's down!  However, I do have to admit that the 1,500 spearmen have continued to trouble me, at least on a subconscious level.

There is really no reason to disbelieve that 1,500 British troops (the perfect number to represent three legionary detachments) came from Britain at the time stated in the sources.  It would have come, of course, not for Perennis, but because of the Deserter's War then raging on the Continent, including in Gaul.  We can excuse Dio for mistakenly having all 1,500 spearmen come to Rome.  As has been amply explained by top Roman military historians, this simply is not possible for a number of reasons.  Still, we can easily have the force come over to fight in Armorica, and then have a delegation sent from it to Rome, either guarding the displaced senators or their representatives.  None of this strains the possible or even the probable.

So why, when I recently reconsidered Sawyl as Arthur's father, and decided to instead settle on Birdoswald of the Dacian garrison as the most likely origin point for our hero, did I not bother to go into a necessary justification for my ignoring the 1,500 British spearmen?

Partly, it was because I had become so fixeted on the foundation date of Liburnia being earlier rather than later that I did not hear Dr. Linda Malcor's statement to the effect that L. Artorius Castus could have been chosen as procurator of Liburnia later, rather than earlier.  This is absolutely correct, of course.  He does not have to have been the first procurator of the newly formed province.  But by insisting that he was, I was able to bolster my contention that the ARM[...]S of the LAC memorial stone MUST properly read ARMENIOS.  For it LAC became procurator when Liburnia was founded (in the late 160s), then he MUST have gone to ARMENIOS.  He could not have gone to Armorica, possibly with Sarmatian heavy lancers, at the time of Perennis and the Deserters' War.

And this is how easy it is for us Arthurian (independent) scholars to deceive ourselves into believing what he want to believe, rather than presenting something that, for the moment, at least, seems unpalatable for some reason.

In answer to my well-meaning critic I must proclaim myself GUILTY OF THE CHARGE of unintentionally/inadvertently sweeping the 1,500 spearmen under the rug.  I was content with throwing it off as an event that must have been performed by someone other than LAC.  Who that might have been, frankly, was of little interest to me.

Thus I now stand here, contrite, and ask for the forgiveness or leniency of my readers.  For, truth be told, the mission of the 1,500 to the Continent during the Deserters' War (as I have oft repeated in the past) is the only complete record of such a special military mission composed of the right number of British troops that could easily be represented by what we find on LAC's memorial stone. 

Let me quickly add that it does not matter that Dr. Linda Malcor and her colleagues refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence (literelly dozens of examples according to Saxer) that allows for vexillations being implied in inscriptions.  The notion that Castus led three entire legions against anyone, anywhere, is absurd.  Why?  Because even if he did lead a legionary force, say, to the North, as prefect of the Sixth he might have taken the entire legion based at York, but he would have supplemented that only with detachments from the other two legions.   He never would have stripped all three legionary bases of their legions.  To say that he commanded the legions and was, therefore, governor (something not found for dux until Diocletian - a fact supported by the sources and by all the top Roman historians) might have some credence if only that statement were made on the stone.  But, instead, we have that he commanded the force AGAINST an enemy.  And that automatically means he had been given a special temporary command of legionary vexillations that were sent somewhere to fight someone.  The very words ADVERSUS ARM[...]S prove, succinctly, that even if we allow for dux in the late 2nd century to means governor, it cannot mean such on LAC's stone.

Where to go from here, then?

Well, the predicament I find myself in is simple and straight-forward.  If I insist on LAC being procurator when Liburnia was founded, the stone must read ARMENIOS.  But I can only do that if I decided to dismiss the story of the 1,500 spearmen on the Continent. Or I can allow LAC to have served as procurator later and retain the 1,500 spearmen.  This last would allow me to retain an Artorius-Sarmatian connection in Britain, and thereby continue to promote Sawyl of the Sarmatian veteran fort of Ribchester as Arthur's father.  The same Sawyl who would have had strong associations with the draco and the god Maponus/Mabon, who had a son named Madog (like Uther), whose wife was an Irish princess (explaining why all subsequent Arthurs come from Irish-descended dynasties in Britain), etc.  

If I opt instead for an unnamed man at Birdoswald as Arthur's father I can, indeed, point to the Dacian garrison there, who also almost certainly venerated the draco.  And I would have Camlann/Camboglanna nearby, with Avalon just a little farther west.  

The Birdoswald Uther can be countered, though, by remembering that men from York (Gwrci and Peredur, sons of Eliffer/Eleutherius) died fighting at Caer Greu/Carrawburgh on the Wall, and had previously been present (at least in heroic legend) at Arthuret in NW Cumbria.  Hence Arthur's presence on the Wall may have had less to do with his being based there, and defending territory there, as his fighting someone there who was trying to break through the Wall and/or expand east along the Wall.  A nascent Rheged is a good candidate for his opponent there.

Thus, if I'm completely honest with myself - and much as I hate to assign any significane to the theory of Sarmatian (or Alanic) influence on Arthurian story, for the reason that I have failed to find evidence of such - I must admit that it may well have been L. Artorius Castus who led the legionary detachments to Armorica.  

And that would mean the memorial stone's ARM[...]S must stand for ARMORICOS. 

If so, do I offer only the Ribchester book, and unpublish the Birdoswald one?  Or do I allow both to remain published, so readers can make up their own minds about which theory they wish to adopt? 

I will make up my mind on this score in the next few days.  

Wilmott, Ruscu and Tomlin on the COHORS I AELIA DACORUM at Birdoswald

Trajan Decius (obverse) with Dacia holding a draco (reverse)

From Tony Wilmott's Cohors I Aelia Dacorum: A Dacian Unit on Hadrian's Wall (ACTA MVSEI

NAPOCENSIS 38/1 CLVJ-NAPOCA 2001):

There has been much discussion on the origin of the cohort. Holder22 , Petolescu23

and Jarrett24 have all suggested that cohors I Aelia Dacorum was originally raised very

13 F. Haverfield, /nscriptions Preserved At Birdoswa/d, Transactions of the Cumberland Westmorland

Antiquarian Archaeological Society, O Ser 15, 1898, 197-200.

14 F. Haverfield (n. 2).

15 J. Horsley (n. 5), 253.

16 RIB 1981-83.

17 J. Horsley (n. 5), 256.

18 R. P. Wright, E. J. Phillips, Roman lnscribed and Sculpted Stones in Carii sie Museum, Carlisle 1975, 21.

19 T. Wilmott, Birdoswald Excavtions of a Roman Fort on Hadrian's Wali and its Successor Settlements;

Excavations 1987-92, English Heritage Archaeological Reports 14, London 1997, 189-91.

20 J. C. Bruce, The Roman Wall3, Newcastle 1867, 297.

21 I. A. Richmond, E. B. Birley, Excavations on Hadrian's Wali in the Birdoswa/d-Pike Hi/I Sector, 7 929,

Transactions of the Cumberland Westmorland Antiquarian Archaeological Society, N Ser, 30, 1 930,

169-205.

22 P. A. Holder, The Roman Army in Britain, London 1 982, 70.

23 C. C. Petolescu, Dacii în armata romana, Revista de Istorie 33, 1 980.

24 M. G. Jarrett, Non-Legionary Troops in Roman Britain: Part One, The Units, Britannia 25, 1994, 35-77.

106 Tony Wilmott

soon after the conquest of Dacia by Trajan, and was probably transferred almost

immediately to Britain. Spaull disagrees, believing that if this was the case the cohort

would have been designated Vipia, on the model of the cohort attested in Syria, the

cohors I Vipia Dacorum. He favours the idea that the cohort was raised under Domitian

as a quingenary unit, after his Dacian wars25 • The cohort worked on the building of the

Vallum of Hadrian's Wall under Hadrian, as attested by a building stane recording the

century of Aelius Dida of cohors I Dacorum (No. 34 ), found near Benwell. Their first

known garrison was at Bewcastle where they are again attested simply as cohors I

Dacorum (No. 35). The editors of RIB suggest that the Bewcastle inscription is

Hadrianic because Aelia îs omitted. Jarrett26 suggests that the title was a battle

honour, though it has been suggested that units may have received such honorifics

when milliary status was granted27 • Spaull's idea is that this occurred during the move

of the cohort from Bewcastle to Birdoswald but, as we will see, it is highly unlikely that

this took place under Hadrian. lf the fort at Bewcastle was built for this cohort28 , then

the large size of the fort clearly suggests that the unit already had a milliary

establishment, despite the lack of any milliary indication on No. 35. Holder29 has

demonstrated that the issue has been solved by the diploma of 20th August AD 1 27,

which gives the style coh(ors) I Ael(ia) Dac(orum) (milliaria), including the milliary

symbol. He suggests that the men discharged in AD 1 27 were recruited in AD 1 02 or

a little earlier, perhaps from Dacians settled within the Empire. Those discharged would

have been part of the cadre around which the unit was originally formed. They would

have included the Dacian soldier who received the diploma, one ltaxa, son of Stamilla

(ITAXAE STAMILLAE F DAC0)30• The award by Hadrian of the epithet Aelia might have

been a battle honour awarded on the lower Danube, alternatively the unit may have

originated as a numerus Dacorum under Trajan, and been made a cohors by his

successor. Though Holder further suggests31 that the cohort accompanied Hadrian to

Britain on his visit in AD 1 22, the tact that the cohort achieved the title and milliary

status before AD 1 27 at the latest, does not automatically mean that either or both

of these were granted before the unit came to Britain.

lt is not known how long the cohort served at Bewcastle, though it is likely that

it did not appear at Birdoswald until the late second or early third century, as we will

see. For the middle and later second century it is referred two on two diplomas and

an inscription. On the diplomas of AD 14632 and AD 15833 , no milliary symbol is given.

However, the diploma of AD 1 46 does not give a milliary symbol for other units which

are known to have been of this strength, such as cohors I Fida Vardullorum milliaria.

This does not mean that these units were not milliary, and Birley34 has noted that only

25 J. Spaull, Cohors2 : The Evidence for, and a Short History of the Auxilliary lnfantry Units Of The

Imperial Roman Army, BAR lnt. Ser. 84 1 , Oxford 2000, 345-346.

26 C. C. Petolescu (n. 23 ).

27 V. A. Maxfield, The Military Oecorations Of The Roman Army, London 1981, 234; also by J. Spaull

(n. 25).

26 P. S. Austen, Bewcastle and Old Penrith, a Roman Outpost Fort and a Frontier Vicus: Excavations

1977-78, Cumberland Westmorland Antiq Archaeol Soc Res Ser. 6, Kendal 1991, 43-44.

29 P. A. Holder, Auxiliary Units Entitled Ae/ia, ZPE 122, 1998, 255-257.

30 J. Noile, Militărdiplom fur einen in Britannien entlassenen "Daker", ZPE 117, 1997, 269-276.

31 J. Noile, op. cit., 262.

32 CIL XVI 93.

33 P. A. Holder, A Roman Military Diploma From Ravenglass, Cumbria, Buii. John Rylands Library

Manchester 79, 3-41.

34 E. B. Birley, Alae and cohortes milliariae, in Corolla Memoriae Erich Swoboda Dedicata, Romische

Forschungen in Niederosterreich, Graz 1 966, 61.

COHORS I AELIA DACORUM: A DACIAN UNIT ON HADRIAN'S WALL 107

in diplomata where some units are referred to specifically as milliary should the

absence of such a reference for other units recorded as milliary elsewhere be

considered significant. Holder suggests that the cohort was reduced in size by the

detachment of a vexillation, and that this is alsa the reason for the lack of any milliary

reference on the two diplomas. This author reached a similar conclusion to account for

the tact that no milliary symbol appears on any of the third century /OM altars35 , and

yet the commanders are almost always tribuni. Margaret Roxan has suggested that the

symbol might be omitted simply because the status of the unit was well enough known

and established for its use to be unnecessary. The only epigraphic source to accord

the cohort its tuli style, coh(ortis) mil(liaria) Ael(ia) Dacor(um) is from Lambaesis in

Libya. This gives the career of the equestrian officer Ti. Claudius Proculus Cornelianus,

who served his militia secunda as tribunus of the cohort, probably during the reign of

Antoninus Pius36• The peculiarity of this inscription is that it omits the numeral, though

there is little doubt that aur cohort is referred to.

The earliest of the inscriptions of cohors I Aelia Dacorum from Birdoswald may be

No. 1 9, an altar which was rediscovered in 1 990. This records a tribunus called Domitius

Honoratus. Roger Tomlin37 has suggested that if this was L. Domitius Honoratus,

prefect of Egypt under Severus Alexander, his tribunate would have been around the

reign of Septimius Severus. This can, however, nat be much earlier than the horreum

building inscription found during 1 929 (No. 1 ), which dates to AD 205-208. The

construction of the horrea within the fort was part of a very major late first and early

second century building programme at Birdoswald, which alsa saw the alteration of the

troops' accommodation. The north-western barrack was divided into two buildings. The

men's quarters, divided into contubernia, remained largely unaltered, but the

centurion's quarters in the projecting section at the west end was detached to form a

separate square suite of rooms, including a private privy, and at least one room which

was equipped with a hypocaust38• lt seems likely that these widespread changes might

have been occasioned by the arrival of a new unit, and it is difficult to avoid the

conclusion that the unit concerned was the Dacian cohort. Spaull's39 argument that the

cohort took part in the initial construction of the stane fort is based on his

interpretation of No. 30, a centuria! stane. The tact that this was found ex situ, reused

in the wall of Birdoswald tarmhouse, invalidates Spaull's interpretation.

The unit, and the names of many of its commanders (all either tribuni or

centurions in temporary command), appear on a large series of altars dedicated to

Jupiter Optimus Maximus. lt has long been suggested40 that they originate from a

ceremonial burial deposit on the parade ground. The group seems to be a dispersed

example of a deposit of altars of a kind found in situ at Maryport41 • lt was originally

thought that the altars were dedicated as part of the official religious observances of

35 T. Wilmott (n. 19), 196.

36 H.- G. Pflaum, Deux carrieres equestres de Lambese et de Zana, Lybica 3, 1955, 123-54; idem, Les

carrieres procuratoriennes equestres sous le Haut-Empire Romain, Paris 1961; AE 1956, 123.

37 R. S. O. Tomlin, //. /nscriptions, in S. S. Frere, R. S. O. Tomlin, Roman Britain in 1990, Britannia 22,

1991, 309.

38 T. Wilmott, Birdoswald, in P. Bidwell (Ed.), Hadrian's Wali, 1989-1999, Newcastle Upon Tyne 1999,

1 51-1 54.

39 M. G. Jarrett (n. 24 ).

40 R. W. Davies, The Training Grounds of the Roman Cavalry, AJ 125, 1 968, 79.

41 RIB 815-837; L. P. Wenham, The Garrisoning Of Maryport, Transactions of the Cumberland

Westmorland Antiquarian Archaeological Society, N Ser 39, 1939, 19-30; M. G. Jarrett, G. R.

Stephens, The Roman Garrisons Of Maryport, Transactions of the Cumberland Westmorland

Antiquarian Archaeological Society, N Ser 87, 1987, 62.

108 Tony Wilmott

the garrison, on the fort's parade ground at the votorum nuncupatio each year on

January 3rd. Honourable burial would either take place on the dedication of the new

altar, or at a periodica! lustrum. Of the Birdoswald group, many altars were found

either reused in the fort or further afield, but five were found to the east of the fort

at Wiliowford (Nas. 4, 13, 20, 21, 22), and one at nearby Underheugh (No. 23) (PI.

3, 1 ). Two of these altars, one (No. 1 7) found in the cliff above Underheugh, and the

other ploughed up 'nearer to milecastle 49 than to Birdoswald fort' (No. 11 ), may

have been found in their original positions42 • The Maryport paraliel has been invoked

to suggest that the Birdoswald altars came from a parade ground, and that this lay

between the Wali and the river on the east side of the fort43 • This area, however, was

limited in extent by the river and the Wali, and the interpretation of a parade ground

site here has never been very satisfactory. Recent geophysical survey has nat

supported the idea but has, on the contrary, suggested the existence of a parade

ground to the north of the Wali, near the north gate of the fort44 • The context of the

location of the Maryport altars, which were found in 1 870 buried in pits, has recently

been questioned45 as there is no evidence for a parade ground in the vicinity of their

discovery. Again a parade ground has been identified in a different place, this time to

the south of the fort. Peter Hili46 has invoked the paraliels of rows of altars found in

military shrines at Osterburken and Sirmium to suggest a similar context for the

Maryport altars. David Breeze47 has concurred, concluding that the Maryport altars

were located near a shrine to Jupiter, burial being practised when the available space

had been filied, in order to aliow for the erection of new altars. A similar context is

more logical for the Birdoswald group alsa. The location of the reused altars, focused

on Underheugh and Wiliowford (PI. 1, 2), together with the discovery of two examples

in situ near to milecastle 49, and in the cliff above Underheugh is suggestive. Firstly

it is likely that shrine was located near milecastle 49, and secondly that the altar

deposit has been severely eroded by the retreating river cliff, aliowing altars to fali

down slope and to be reused in the nearby farm. The possibility that further altars

remain to be found in this area, however, is a strong one.

The relationship of the Maryport altars to official „State Religion" has alsa been

questioned by John Mann48 • He emphasises that the dedication of the altars by army

units and their commanders were individual or corporate personal actions, and that

this explains the examples of altars which were either dedicated by the unit without

mentioning the commander or vice versa. Of the other two religious inscriptions from

Birdoswald, which are nat dedicated to /OM, the inscription on a statue base to the

Signis et Numini Augusti (No. 28) may have come from a statue in the aedes of the

principia. The dedication to Mars ·(No. 27) by a military unit requires no comment.

The altars (Table 1) cover the whole of the third century. As discussed, the

earliest may be No. 19, which gives the name of Domitius Honoratus. lf so, there is

evidence for two Severan tribuni, the other being Aurelius Julianus, who built the

42 C. M. Daniels (ed.), The Eleventh Pilgrimage of Hadrian's Wali, Newcastle Upon Tyne 1978, 198.

43 P. Bidweli, N. Holbrook, Hadrian's Wali Bridges, Hbmce Archaeol Reps 9, London 1989, 85, 95.

44 J. A. Biggins, J. Robinson, D. J. A. Taylor, Birdoswald Geophysical Survey, in P. Bidweli (ed.),

Hadrian's Wali 1989-1999, Newcastle Upon Tyne 1999, 1 55-157.

45 D. J. Breeze, The Regiments Stationed at Maryport and Their Commanders, in J. R. A. Wilson (ed.),

Roman Maryport and lts Setting: Essays in Memory of Michael Jarrett, Kendal 1 997, 68-69.

46 P. R. Hili, The Maryport A/tars; Some First Thoughts, in J. R. A. Wilson (ed.), Roman Maryport And

lts Setting: Essays ln Memory Of Michael Jarrett, Kendal 1997, 92-104.

47 M. G. Jarrett, G. R. Stephens (n. 41 ), 70.

48 J. C. Mann, A Note On The Maryport A/tars, in J. R. A. Wilson (ed.), Roman Maryport And lts Setting:

Essays ln Memory Of Michael Jarrett, Kendal 1997, 90-92.

COHORS I AELIA DACORUM. A DACIAN UNIT ON HADRIAN'S WALL 109

horreum between AD 205-208 (No. 1 ). During Julianus' tribunate at Birdoswald his

son, Aurelius Concordius, died at the age of one year and five days and was buried in

the fort cemetery (No. 31 )49 • Subsequent altars can be dated by the imperial honorific

titles granted to the unit, and one (No. 5) by reference to a consulship (Table 1 ). ln

addition to the altars, the building inscription from the porta principalis dextra (No. 2)

records the cohort working in AD 21 9 under the tribunus Claudius Menander. The

latest inscription is an altar dated by the imperial honorific title Probiana to AD 276-

282 (No. 11 ).

AII but one of the datable inscriptions recording the name of the cohort give

tribuni as commanding officers, and the names of seventeen of these are now known.

The latest datable inscription from the site (RIB 1912), a building dedication of AD

297-305 which does nat specifically name the cohort, gives one Flavius Martinus, a

centurion, as the praepositus in temporary command. The single inscription of the

cohort from its previous base at Bewcastle (No. 3 5) records that it was under the

temporary command of an un-named centurion of legio li Augusta. Two other

centurions in such positions are listed an the Birdoswald cohors I Aelia Dacorum altars;

Aurelius Saturninus (No. 1 3 ), and Iulius Marcellinus of legio li Augusta (No. 17). A

fragmentary altar (RIB 1907) upon which the cohort name is nat apparent (and which

therefore does nat appear in the catalogue) records L. Vereius Fortunatus of legio VI

Victrix Pia Fidelis who may be in an analogous position to Saturninus and Marcellinus.

Marcellinus' appointment affords one of two known examples of centurions from

Britannia Superior being employed in the northern province50• During the reign of

Maximinus Thrax (AD 235-238), the cohort was under the command of a former

evocatus of the First Praetorian Cohort, Flavius Maximianus (No. 4). Command of an

auxiliary unit for a praetorian is by no means unprecedented in Britain as well as

elsewhere, and three such commanders were stationed at various times at

Bewcastle51 • Such postings were an alternative to promotion to the position of

legionary centurion52• Although mast of the inscriptions are to /OM alone, the exPraetorian

dedicates to lovi Optimo Maximo Dolicheno. This may reflect a personal

devotion to this eastern aspect of Jupiter, and it is nat stretching the evidence to

suggest that Maximianus might have formed such devotion during his service in Rome.

He does, however, dedicate the altar an behalf of the cohort, and this seems to

demonstrate a personal, but corporate, dedication of the kind suggested by Mann. The

precise date of AD 237 for No. 5, with its consular date, demonstrates that the

tribunus Aurelius Faustus was probably Maximianus' direct successor, and that the

former praetorian thus commanded in AD 235-236. The un-named commander who

dedicated for cohors I Aelia Dacorum Gordiana (AD 238-244) (No. 6) would surely

have been Faustus' direct successor. Another group of more closely dateable altars

appear some two decades later. Marcius Gallicus, the only case where we have two

dedications by one commander, dedicates once to /OM alone (No. 9), and once to /OM

et numini Augusti (No. 8). lt is interesting that the first of these uses the honorific

title Postumiana for the cohort, while the second does nat. The lack of the title an an

altar which is alsa, uniquely in this series, dedicated to the numini Augusti, is surely

significant. lt seems likely that Gallicus' command spanned the period of Postumus'

49 T. Wilmott, The Roman Cremation Cemetery in New Field, Birdoswald, Transactions of the

Cumberland Westmorland Antiquarian Archaeological Society N Ser 93, 79-85.

50 P. A. Holder (n. 22).

51 C. C. Petolescu (n. 23), 47.

52 D. J. Breeze, The Organisation of the Career Structure of lmmunes and Principa/es of the Roman

Army, BJ 174, 1974, 251-254.

11 O Tony Wilmott

usurpation and that No. 8 should be dated to shortly before AD 259, when the

succession was in doubt, and No. 9 shortly after. lf this was the case, then Gallicus'

successor, might have been Probius Augendus (No. 7), who alsa dedicates for cohors

I Aelia Dacorum Postumiana. lt may be significant in terms of context that the two

Postumi an altars were found together '1 00 yds east of Birdoswald', though this

context remains obscure. Spaull53 suggests that the only altar which gives the cohort

the title Augusta (No. 14) may have been dedicated at a similar time of dispute over

the succession, possibly around AD 268-270.

Catalogue No Commanders Honorific/ dating Date

3 ANTONINIANA AD 213-222

4 Flavius Maximianus MAXIMINIANA AD 235-238

5 Aurelius Faustus cos Perpetuus [ +Cornelianus] AD 237

6 GORDIANA AD 238-244

8 Marcius Gallicus 7c. AD 258-259

9 Marcius Gallicus POSTUMIANA AD 259-268

7 Probius Augendus POSTUMIANA AD 259-268

10 Pomponius Desideratus TETRICIANORUM AD 270-273

11 Aurelius Verinus PROBIANA AD 276-282

Table 1. Summary of dated /OM altars from Birdoswald in probable chronological order.

lf Holder's view of the origin of the cohort is correct, it had been in Britain for

several generations by the time it is first recorded at Birdoswald, and it would have

been normal practice to make up numbers from the local British population 54 • Despite

the probability that this occured within cohors I Aelia Dacorum, there is clear

evidence that the Dacian character was not entirely dissipated, and was certainly not

forgotten. The evidence for this is twofold. Firstly the appearance of falces on the

two building inscriptions (Figs. 2, 3), and secondly the use of Dacian personal names.

The use of the falx in this epigrahic context is unique to the Birdoswald inscriptions,

and this writer is not aware of any other case where ethnic weaponry is displayed on

inscriptions of auxiliary units. Whether this was merely a regimentai badge, or

whether it depicts part of the actual equipment of the cohort is not known. John

Coulston's55 discussions of this issue come to no clear conclusion, though he favours

the idea of a regimentai badge. He does, however, raise an interesting potential

parallel; that of the Gurkha troops whose regiments form an integral part of the

modern British army. These soldiers have been recruited into regiments under British

officers from the Himalayan kingdom of Nepal since 181656 , and their mast recent

combat role was as part of the task force in the Anglo-Argentinian conflict over the

Falkland lslands (Malvinas) in 1982. The Gurkhas have a traditional edged weapon - a

fearsome curved knife known as the kukri - with which they are still equipped on

parade, in combat, and in their martial dances which are performed at military

displays. Every Gurkha regiment has as its badge a pair of crossed kukris. To press

53 M. G. Jarrett (n. 24 ).

54 B. Dobson, J. C. Mann, The Roman Army in Britain and Britons in the Roman Army, Britannia 4, 1973,

191-205.

55 J. C. N. Coulston, A Scu/ptured Dacian Falx from Birdoswald, Archaeol Aeliana 5 Ser, 9, 1981, 348-

350; J. C. N. Coulston, E. J. Phillips, Corpus Signorum Imperii Romani: Great Britain 16. Hadrian's Wali

West of the North Tyne, and Carlisle, Oxford1987, 106.

56 P. Mason, A Matter of Honour. An Account of the Indian Army, lts Officers and Men, London 1974, 137.

COHORS I AELIA DACORUM: A DACIAN UNIT ON HADRIAN'S WALL 111

this parallel îs, however, probably taking the comparison between British India and the

Roman Empire too far57 •

The second piece of evidence for an ethnic Dacian character at Birdoswald îs the

presence of at least one Dacian name. ln 1752 a tombstone was found to the west of

the fort, where the fort cemetery lies (No. 32). This was set up to the memories of

two children, Decibalus, who lived only a few days, and Blaesus. The Dacian origin of

the name Decibalus îs obvious, and it seems likely that the father of the two boys was,

therefore, a Dacian soldier. Unfortunately the tombstone îs very plain, and shows no

design which might be dated stylistically58• The presence of this tombstone at

Birdoswald shows that it îs likely to have been late second or early third century în

date at the earliest, as that îs when the Dacian cohort probably arrived. The fact that

Decibalus died after only days of life further shows that the name was given at this

time. lt was tenuously suggested59 at the seminar that two further names were Dacian

în origin. These were centurions; Aelius Dida (No. 34) was în charge of the century

building the Valium at Benwell. This was a Hadrianic building operation, and the use of

the name Aelius suggests a centurion who had been granted citizenship rather

recently, though this may fit happily with the notion that the cohort came to Britain

with Hadrian. The second îs Decius Saxa (No. 30), who appears on a centuria! stane

at Birdoswald60•

The falx inscriptions and the Decibalus tombstone are the sole evidence which

definitely indicates some kind of ethnic Dacian influence at Birdoswald. The falx

inscriptions are internally dated to the early third century, while the date of the

Decibalus tombstone îs inferred from the probable arrival date of the cohort at this

time. The inscriptions show Dacian identity being asserted about a century after the

unit was raised, and therefore after one might assume several drafts of new, local

recruits had taken place. AII of the original Dacian recruits must have been discharged

by the time of the diploma of 1 27, the generation of the veteran ltaxa. lf the cohort

arrived at Birdoswald around 200, then Decibalus' father can hardly have been one of

the original, Trajanic, founder-recruits of the cohort. This îs the best of evidence we

have for the possibility of continued recruitment from the Dacian homeland, but it

must be treated with caution. lt remains possible that the name was given by a local

recruit as a nod to the heritage of the unit.

There îs no other evidence for Dacian recruitment to this cohort into the third

century. Excavation of around 21 % of the fort interior has provided no evidence of

any sort of characteristic material culture, which might have identified the cohort as

„different". One place where one might expect this to be apparent îs în the fort

cemetery, but excavation here has hitherto been extremely small în scale61 • ln the

third century, the fort at Brougham în north-western England was the base of the

Numerus equitum Stratonicianorum62• The report on the excavation of its cemetery îs

57 Cf. R. Hingley, Roman Officers and English Gentlemen: The Imperial Origins of Roman Archaeology,

London 2000, 1 59-160.

58 J. C. N. Coulston, E. J. Phillips (n. 55), 92.

59 By Prof. Nantris.

60 This author is no linguist. Whether or not these names are Dacian in origin awaits expert comment.

A. Mocsy et al., Nomenclator Provinciarum Europae Latinarum et Gallia Cisalpinae, Dissertationes

Pannonicae, Ser 3, 1, Budapest 1983, lists one other example of the name Saxa, from Gallia

Lugdunensis, and Dida twice in Gallia Cisalpina, and once each in Hispania, Gallia Belgica or Germania

and Moesia.

61 T. Wilmott (n. 49), 79-85; T. Wilmott, forthcoming, Excavation and Survey at Birdoswald, 1996-

2000, English Heritage Archaeological Reports, London.

62 RIB 780; C. C. Petolescu (n. 23 ).

112 Tony Wilmott

approaching publication, and Hilary Cool has demonstrated that the foreign, în this

case Danubian, character of these troops and their dependants would have been very

clear from their dress and personal adornment63• There îs no evidence that this was

true of cohors I Aelia Dacorum. Having said that, the very uniqueness of the device of

the falx and the palm frond îs characteristic enough, and the possibility cannot be

dismissed that the father of Decibalus was a Dacian recruited to a specialist unit armed

with the falx6 4 • The only way of proving this would be to find such a weapon în

excavation.

lf Dacian recruitment really was the case up to the early third century, it probably

stopped very soon after, as the falx appears on none of the /OM altars throughout the

third century. The final reference to cohors I Aelia Dacorum îs în the Notitia

Dignitatum. This later fourth century list of offices and units în the empire shows at

least that a unit called cohors I Aelia Dacorum was still în garrison at Birdoswald.

However, even if Dacian recruitment had survived into the early third century, there îs

no evidence at all that this continued throughout the century. lt would not, în any

case, have survived the abandonment of the tria Daciae at the end of the third

century. One must conclude that during the fourth century cohort was certainly a

locally recruited unit of limitanei which was similar to the others on Hadrian's Wali: a

unit whose ethnic heritage was only discernible în its name. [1]

From Dan Ruscu's The Supposed Extermination of the Dacians: The Literary Evidence:

And Roger Tomlin's thoughts on the Dacian unit at Birdoswald:

"So many other auxiliary units are recruited from recently-conquered peoples – and then carefully sent to other provinces to get them out of the way – that I can't think this didn't happen in Dacia as well. The diploma of AD 127 (RMD IV.240) is very helpful, in showing that cohors I Aelia Dacorum was already part of the British garrison, and in being issued to a 'Dacian', even if he belonged to another unit. The Vallum inscription (RIB 1365) surely confirms it was there then, even if the Aelia title is omitted for lack of space.

It is surely right to suppose that the cohort was not recruited exclusively from Dacians, but not right to exaggerate the literary evidence into supposing that it contained no Dacians. The falces at Birdoswald are a good argument to the contrary.

An argument ad absurdum. If the cohort consisted only of aggressive Roman colonists, why wasn't it simply kept in Dacia to keep an eye on the three Dacian teenagers who survived the conquest?

I would have been surprised to find Sarmatians in a 'Dacian' unit. [2] Not surprised to find Thracians, though, on the assumption that some had settled across the Danube. For what it's worth, the centurion of RIB 1365, Dida, has either a Thracian or Dacian name and he belonged to the Cohors I Aelia Dacorum [https://romaninscriptionsofbritain.org/inscriptions/search?qv=dida&submit=]."

[1]

While it may be true that a speficially Dacian cultural identity had been lost by the late period at Birdoswald, we must remember that the Dacian draco (https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2019/03/the-draco-standard-by-jcn-coulston.html) was incorporated into the Roman army and so this particular Dacian artefact may have continued to be of significant value to the inhabitants of Birdoswald - including the sub-Roman inheritors of the site. 

It may even be that the draco was so sacred to the Dacian unit garrisoned at Birdoswald that the fort was referred to as the 'Aelian Dragon', a distinction due entirely to the unit's affinity with the draco standard.  See

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2019/07/aelius-draco-dacian-and-bannabirdoswald.html

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2022/06/birdoswaldbanna-fort-of-draco-of-aelius.html

[2]

From Julian Bennett's Trajan: Optimus Princeps, P. 167:

The Roxolani, of Wallachia and Moldavia, on the other hand, had proved consistently

hostile to Rome. They had supported Decebalus in the insurrection of 105, and now

found as much as half of their traditional southern grazing grounds incorporated into the

Roman province of Dacia. In their case a similar confrontation over land rights was

averted by diplomacy. While the Romans had needed to occupy the vast and featureless

Wallachian and Moldavian steppes in order to attack Dacia from the east, the territory

was not necessary for the subsequent development or protection of the province. True,

the steppes were useful in their own right, as prime grazing land, but it was also realized

that they could not sustain settled occupation, and would be almost impossible to hold and

control permanently without the deployment of several cavalry units, backed by a

network of established forts and linear obstacles.16 Consequently, as archaeological

excavations have shown, most of the forts in Wallachia and Moldavia may well have been

quickly abandoned after the province was formed, a few being retained as outposts,

indicating that these territories, the transdanubian extension of Moesia Inferior, were

restored to the Roxolani. Oltenia, however, was retained, to secure the right flank of the

province, in return for which Trajan granted a subsidy to the tribe.17

FORSAKING SAWYL BENISEL AS ARTHUR'S FATHER or HOW I GOT THAT WRONG

As a result of my final decision to go with the ARMENIOS reading for the fragmentary ARM[...]S of the L. Artorius Castus memorial stone, I was forced with having to forsake what I had proposed was a Sarmatian connection for Arthur's father.  In this brief blog piece, I want to try and account for how I might have made a blunder that huge.

If anyone has read my articles on Sawyl Benisel of Ribchester as a theoretical father for the early Medieval Arthur, they know that the road to this personage was a bumpy one, full of many a proverbial twist and turn and dead-end.  

To summarize the process briefly:

1) I looked at Mabon of the River Ely in the PA GUR heroic poem.  He is said there to be the servant of Uther Pendragon (https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2023/05/mabon-on-river-ely-glywysing-and-glevum.html).

2) I noticed that the warrior monk St. Illtud had served as captain of the soldiers for a chieftain whose lands embraced the lower part of the Ely Valley.  Illtud, in his VITA, held a number of Latin ranks/titles which, when combined, could easily have been rendered into Welsh as Uther Pendragon (as the Terrible Chief-warrior or Chief of warriors; se Rachel Bromwich).

3) Illtud made no sense as Arthur's father.  He was Arthur's cousin, put away his wife and is not recorded as having any children.

4) However, in the Welsh poem 'The Death-Song of Uther Pendragon", the father of Arthur is poetically referred to as 'a second Sawyl (= Samuel)', an allusion to the Biblical hero.  Geoffrey of Monmouth knew of this (or created the idea in the first place?), as he has his St. Eldad (= Illtud) compared to Samuel in his fictional history.

5) There was a Sawyl of the North whom I had pretty firmly situated right next to the Ribchester fort of the Sarmatian vetereans. He had a son Madog, as Uther was said to have, and Uther's grandson Eliwlad might be a variation on Ailithir, the Irish epithet given to Madog son of Sawyl.  This all looked quite promising, and I ran with it - as long as I could insist that the ARM[...]S of the LAC inscription was suppoaed to read ARMORICOS.  Armoricos allowed me to have LAC in Britain when the Sarmatians were there.  The alternate reading, ARMENIOS, did not.

And that's where things rested for a number of years.  My book THE BATTLE-LEADER OF RIBCHESTER is proof enough of that.

But I also knew there were problems with the theory.  Madog as son of Uther could have been drawn from the Madog found as son of Emyr Llydaw in a Welsh genealogy.  Emyr is "Emperor", and Llydaw is Brittany.  Uther is said to have come from Brittany, and various personages have been identified with Emyr.  

Eliwlad, given that he appears in the form of a spectral eagle in an oak tree, was best rendered as 'Grief-Lord', not as something akin to Irish Ailithir ('Other Land', i.e. Pilgrim).  This fit the theme of  gloomy darkness attending the dead Lleu in the Mabinogion, and I was able to demonstrate that at Nantlle in Gwynedd where stood Lleu's oak tree were Madog place-names that perfectly matched those of the Cornish wood the poem claims as the site.

So, there is an easy way out of this difficulty. We just have to switch things around.  If we allow for Uther Pendragon being the ruling title of a chieftain at the old Dacian Roman fort of Banna, quite possibly the Aelian Dragon of the Ilam Cup, and a place where the draco would have been just as sacred as it was at Ribchester, and we acknowledge what is already well-known, i.e. there was a strong tendency for the Welsh to relocate British heroes from other places to Wales, then we can propose that Uther of Banna was at some point in the development of the tradition wrongly identified with Illtud, given his Latin military ranks.  And once that was done, we need not concern ourselves with whether it was first Uther or Illtud who was compared with the Biblical Samuel. In neither case was this an actual reference to a Sawyl of the North.  

Personally, I am content with this explanation.  Banna was hard by Carvoran/Magnis, a fort which in the late period was manned by a Dalmatian unit.  I have already taken great pains to show that LAC, who ended up in Dalmatia as procurator, may have been born there.  Furthermore, the Statius Priscus who took him to Armenia is now thought to be a Dalmatian, as was the man who had hand-picked Priscus. A woman from Salona was buried at Magnis, and we know Artorii are attested from Salona. 

Camboglanna/Camlann is in the same river valley as Banna/Birdoswald, and Aballava/Avalana (= Avalon), with its Dea Latis or 'Lake Goddess' was just a few miles to the west.  All the Arthurian battles spread out to the north and south, roughly along the old Roman Dere Street, which would mean Banna was pretty much right in the middle of the military theater.

I am now putting out a slight revision of my earlier book, THE BATTLE-LEADER OF THE NORTH, available in ebook, paperback and hardcover formats.  As far as I can tell, this will be my last major work on Arthur. 

Ironically, it's the theory I held when I went to Croatia in 2019, and the subject of the paper I presented there at the Artorius symposium.  Things have gone full circle, indeed!

New Evidence that L. Artorius Castus Was Appointed Procurator of Liburnia in 168 A.D.

NOTE: Since writing this piece, I have given more consideration to what I mention at the end of it, viz. there is no longer any reason not to accept as the most reasonable time for the appointment of Artorius to the procuratorship of Liburnia as the period 168-170 A.D. If I do this it is with full awareness that ARMENIOS must be adopted for the reading of ARM[...]S on the L. Artorius Castus memorial stone. And that would mean, by extension, that Artorius was never in Britain with the Sarmatians. My older book THE BATTLE-LEADER OF THE NORTH would take precedence over subsequent work. Hadrian's Wall would once again before the focal point for the Dark Age Arthur, and any supposed connection with Sawyl of Ribchester must be abandoned. Banna/Birdoswald, with its Dacians (and their own draco!), would be the most logical Arthurian center, with Camboglanna/Camlann nearby in the same river valley and Avalon just a few more miles to the west at the Burgh-By-Sands Roman fort (Aballava/Avalana, with its Dea Latis or Goddess of the Lake). This would be an ironic development for me as a researcher/writer, as years ago (2019) at the Artorius symposium in Croatia I presented my case for an Arthur at the Wall, whose father Uther Pendragon, the Terrible Chief-dragon, may have been a reflection of a regional leader descended from Daco-Britons who still held the draco stnadard sacred or whose name was actually a Welsh translation of the late Roman rank of magister draconum. I had proposed that the Aeli Draconis found on the Ilam Cup was for the Aelian Dragon, i.e. the Banna fort, and received acknowledgment from scholars that this could be the correct reading. We know that some aspects of Dacian culture continued to be observed at Banna for some time, at least symbolically, as Roman stones there show the Dacian falx or curved sword.

Some serious thinking to do now on how to go about letting go of the Sarmatian Connection in favor of an Arthur who is independent of that group's influence.

Roman Liburnia within the boundaries of Roman Dalmatia (created by A. Kurilić and Z. Serventi for https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306134397_Buried_far_away_Easterners_in_Roman_Liburnia/download)

I was just reading Anthony Birley's MARCUS AURELIUS: A BIOGRAPHY when I ran into this on p. 165:

"The dislodgement of the Marcomanni and Quadi and their allies from northern Italy and the Alpine provinces was more difficult, however, and must have been a protracted task. Communications between Marcus' headquarters and Rome by the land route would have been extremely tenuous for some months, and it is therefore not surprising to find evidence that in 170 the port of Salona, chief city of the province of Dalmatia, was fortified by detachments of the new Second and Third legions. It was essential to maintain the alternative sea-link with Italy: the crossing from Split to Ancona is a short one."

The passage has a endnote (17), that reads:

"Four newly raised cohorts of Dalmatae played an even larger part in building; cf. J.J. Wilkes, DALMATIA (1969) 116 ff."

As it happens, I have that volume by Wilkes.  He discusses the units there and the refortification of the region in the time of Marcus:

Artorii are attested in Salona (Wilkes, p. 251).  From p. 328 of his book on Dalmatia:

"The Artorii owned property in the Poljica area of the Salona territory..." Pituntium, specifically.

Now, all of this dovetails very nicely with my contention, approved of by several notable scholars, that the most probable foundation date for Liburnia was at this exact time.  Note that on p. 117, Wilkes alludes to this when Marcus Aurelius "made soldiers of the bandits (latrones) in Dalmatia and Dardania." 

For details on the recruitment of Dalmatians into the Roman army, and the reorganization of Illyricum, once again see my previous post https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2021/02/the-date-of-lucius-artorius-castuss.html.

I have pointed out in the past that there is growing consensus that Statius Priscus was himself from Dalmatia.  This is discussed in several of my past posts, and is agreed upon by Professor Roger Tomlin. Anthony Birley thought it possible as well. 

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2021/11/statius-priscus-from-anthony-birleys.html

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2021/06/the-problem-of-liburnia-lucius-artoris.html

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2020/10/lucius-artorius-castus-birth-and-death.html

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2021/11/english-translation-of-zeljko-miletics.html

From Birley:

"The name Statius is fairly common, and the other items in his nomenclature are also too indistinctive to indicate his origin, except for the tribe Claudia, found more frequently than elsewhere in regio X of Italy and in certain communities of the northern provinces.⁶⁸ Northern Italy, where a good many Statii are attested, or one of the cities of the Dalmatian coast look likely areas for his home.⁶⁹ Colchester (Camulodunum) is also just possible: a first-century legionary named Statius, with the tribe Claudia, derived from there,⁷⁰ and Priscus’ first appointment, as prefect of the Fourth Cohort of  Lingones, stationed in Britain, would suit such an origin.⁷¹ Equally, the governor who probably gave him his commission, Julius Severus (Gov. 21), was himself from Dalmatia and perhaps offered him the post because he was a fellow-countryman."

From Tomlin:

"Alföldy's Konsulat und Senatorenstandwhich (p. 314) suggests a Dalmatian origin for Statius Priscus. I don't see that the Luceria inscription proves any more than that Priscus married his daughter to the first Fufidius Pollio. Considering they were generals in adjoining provinces, this isn't a surprise. It was the family of Fufidius Pollio which came from Luceria, and remained there. No need for Priscus to limit his choice of a son-in-law to his own home town."

In commenting on https://www.academia.edu/36801644/The_Statii_of_Risinium, Tomlin continues:

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

And from Wilkes himself, prior to his passing (via personal communication):

"Moreover, since there are several records of Artorii from Dalmatia, it seems probable that his military career was honoured in his native land.

Importantly, I find Birley discussing Statius Priscus, himself probably from Dalmatia, as there are several St. attested there, being hand-picked by Julius Severus OF DALMATIA (although, it should be noted, Anthony Birley places Priscus's birthplace in Italy; see Viri Militares Moving from West to East in Two Crisis Years (Ad 133 and 162) and Two Governors of Dacia Superior and Britain). 

This Priscus was governor of Britain, and went straight from there in an emergency mode to Armenia. He had a great victory there." 

Now the question we must ask ourselves is this: as scholars of the stature of Tomlin and Birley have no problem with the idea that some British troops went to Armenia from Britain with Statius Priscus (probably a Dalmatian), and the Armenian War was completed in 163, with Liburnia being created in 168, it it not logical to assume that LAC was appointed procurator of the new province in 168 or thereabouts?

In any case, we cannot dispense with ARMENIOS as a good reading for the ARM[...]S of the LAC stone.  Arguments can be made in support of either LAC having taken troops to Armenia or for his having taken troops to Armorica (= the 1500 spearmen of the Perennis story).  If the former, he had no association with the Sarmatians in Britain.  If the latter, we can allow that.

At the moment, for me, at least, the jury is out.  While Sawyl of the Sarmatian veteran fort of Ribchester does seem to be suggested as Arthur's father in the Welsh legendary material, it may well be that the Dark Age Arthur should rather be sought at York or even at Banna/Birdoswald on Hadrian's Wall (an idea I once pitched in an old book, and presented at a symposium on Arthur in Split, Croatia).  We do not need the Sarmatian Connection in order to place Arthur in the north, in other words.  The Dacians at Birdoswald with their own draco, and my proposed reading of the Aeli Draconis on the Ilam Cup as 'the Aelian Dragon', a reference to the Banna Roman fort on Hadrian's Wall, would adequately account for a Terrible Chief-dragon at that location.  In the same river valley we find Castlesteads/Camboglanna, Arthur's Canlann, and a few miles farther west the Roman fort of Aballava/Avalana, the 'Avalon' of Arthur. A corrupt Welsh Triad makes Arthur a son of Eliffer of York.  

There are alternatives, then, to the Sarmatian Connection.  In future weeks I will be once again considering which might be the best one to opt for.  

THE END OF 'ARMATOS' AS A READING FOR 'ARM[...]S' IN THE L. ARTORIUS CASTUS INSCRIPTION

Several years ago now, Antonio Trinchese, co-author of "Missing Pieces" ("Missing Pieces: A New Reading of the Main Lucius Artorius Castus Inscription”, Journal of Indo-European Studies, Volume 47, 2019, pp. 415-437, by Linda A. Malcor, Antonio Trinchese and Alessandro Faggiani), sent me all the various examples of the word ARMATOS that he had managed to cull from Roman epigaphic and literary sources. His reason for doing so was to demonstrate to me and others why ARMATOS could be - and almost certainly was - present on the L. Artorius Castus memorial stone. This reading is also at the heart of the argument proposed by Dr. Malcor and co-author John Matthews in their new book ARTORIUS: THE REAL KING ARTHUR (Amberley Publishing, March 15, 2023). 

At the time, I treated of each and every one of the instances of ARMATOS cited by Trinchese, both in the Facebook group KING ARTHUR: MAN AND MYTH, and here in a separate blog post. Unfortunately, and as usual, my explanation as to why each and every one of the uses of ARMATOS supplied by Trinchese failed to justify the use of ARMATOS in the LAC inscription fell on deaf ears. Malcor and colleagues continued to repeat the same claim and either did not understand the point I was trying to make and were steadfastly refusing to understand it.  They continue to do so to this day. 

For this reason, I've decided to repost "MY REBUTTAL OF ANTONIO TRINCHESE'S SUPPORT OF 'ARMATOS' FOR 'ARM[...]S'" here.  But instead of leaving my conclusion for the end, I am offering it here at the beginning of the piece.  It is my hope that the repost will finally put to rest the invalid nature of the proposed ARMATOS reading for the LAC memorial stone.  We can then get on with examining ARM[...]S as either ARMORICOS or ARMENIOS.  Our current level of knowledge does not permit other alternatives.  We would have to entertain the notion of an otherwise unknown regional, tribal or personal designation.  

***

ARMATOS in the LAC inscription tells us nothing at all other than that the enemy happened to be armed.  IN EVERY EXAMPLE Antonio Trinchese PROVIDED AND WHICH I WILL TREAT OF BELOW IN SOME DETAIL, THE CONTEXT OF THE PASSAGE TELLS US EXACTLY WHO THE ARMED MEN WERE AND WHAT ROLE THEY WERE PERFORMING AS ENEMIES.  THE LOCATION OF THE ENEMY IS ALSO NOT LEFT IN DOUBT. 

ARMATOS IS A NEUTRAL TERM, AND TELLS US NOTHING, AND THEREFORE WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN USED IN ISOLATION ON THE STONE.

AS ROGER TOMLING WRYLY OBSERVED ABOUT THE PROPOSED USE OF THIS VAGUE. NONSPECIFIC TERM: "a Roman general wouldn't have congratulated himself on fighting against 'armed men', any more than he would have recorded a campaign against inermes."  INERMES ARE 'UNARMED MEN.' TOMLIN HAS WRITTEN EXTENSIVELY ABOUT HIS REJECTION OF ARMATOS FOR THE CASTUS STONE, BUT HIS SUMMARY STATEMENT IS MORE THAN ADEQUATE: 

"Castus is so explicit elsewhere in his great inscription that I can't think he would have been so vague at the highpoint of his career. There are so many specific terms he might have used: DEFECTORES, REBELLES, LATRONES, HOSTES PVBLICOS, PRAEDONES, even DESERTORES. I think of Tib. Claudius Candidus, legate of Hispania Citerior, et in ea duci terra marique adversus rebelles hostes publicos.

Armatus, unlike all the nouns I have quoted above, is an adjective – it is used of a person doing something illegal (but specified), and worse than this, doing it 'under arms'. Can you find armatus being used by itself in the sense of 'illicitly armed'? I had a quick look at the dictionary, but I couldn't find it in this sense – only neutrally, 'having arms' and then explicitly, being a 'soldier'.

In other words, I wonder if armatus is used in the sense of doing something which is not only illegal but done 'with weapons'. But what this is, must be specified. For example, armed robbery. You fight 'armed men', but if only if they are enemies of the State in some way and are defined as such."

My own personal conclusion regarding ARMATOS is this: for a career soldier and prefect of a legion to make a big deal of saying that he had fought some armed men is, well, more than a bit ridiculous, really.  Frankly, it is so obvious an assertion as to be patently absurd.

ARMATOS is used by Malcor and colleagues as a catchall term to describe any force or admixture of forces they wish to identify as LAC's opponents in Britain.  They believe this includes anything from rebel soldiers to invading tribesmen. Yet in failing to name who they are, we must subscribe to the belief that LAC was CONFUSED OVER OR IGNORANT OF THE IDENTIY OF HIS ADVERSARY/ADVERSARIES. They are also relying on the action being restricted to Britain by the mere fact that British legionary detachments were used.  In their minds, the nonspecificity problem entailed by the use of ARMATOS in isolation is alleviated by the naming of the province to which the legionary detachments belong.

On the other hand, it is not reasonable to say that LAC simply didn't have room on the stone to write down the name or names of his adversary/adversaries, and so took a shortcut by employing the word ARMATOS.  There was no more important event in his military career than the command of the three legionary detachments.  To think he would not have made space on his stone to highlight this fact by including the name/names of his adversary/adversaries is not worth considering.  His vanity is quite well-displayed on the stone and this is not information he would have left unstated.

He would never have left his future audience - his posterity - left guessing who he had fought and where - and hence why.  He wanted his fame to right down the ages, and no one is going to celebrate the fact that a soldier fought some armed men.

In closing, Trinchese has failed to offer one single example of the use of ARMATOS which could act as a precedent in supporting his contention that ARMATOS belongs on the LAC stone. 

***

This following response to Antonio Trinchese's support of ARMATOS was posted in the Facebook KING ARTHUR: MAN AND MYTH group page.  My passages of rebuttal are all in Italics. 

The word "armatus" as a noun has been used many times by Latin authors. Julius Caesar, for example, uses it in this passage:

“Ei repentino malo perterriti diffugiunt ad sua praesidia; quae nostri ut viderunt, acrius contra armatos incitati neminem ex eo numero vivum capi patiuntur. Profugit inde cum paucis Lucterius nec se recipit in eastra.

"They were panic-struck by the sudden blow, and fled helter-skelter to their own detachments. When our men saw it they dashed the more fiercely against the armed men, and suffered not one of the number to be taken alive. Lucterius fled away from the spot with a few followers, and did not return to the camp”

In this context, we are informed exactly who the armed men are. Here is a bit fuller version of the account:

35 Having collected great store of corn, Drappes and Lucterius established themselves not more than •ten miles from the town, intending from this point to convey the corn into the town by degrees. The commanders divided the duties between them: Drappes stood fast with part of the force to guard the camp, Lucterius escorted the train of animals to the town. Having posted several detachments thereabout, he began about the tenth hour of the night to carry the corn into the town by narrow paths through the woods. The camp sentries noticed the noise thereof, and scouts, being sent out, reported what was afoot; so Caninius moved speedily with  p565 cohorts (which had stood to arms) from the nearest forts and attacked the corn-carriers just before dawn. They were panic-struck by the sudden blow, and fled helter-skelter to their own detachments. When our men saw it they dashed the more fiercely against the armed men, and suffered not one of the number to be taken alive. Lucterius fled away from the spot with a few followers, and did not return to the camp.

36 After his success Caninius discovered from the prisoners that a part of the force was with Drappes in camp not much more than •twelve miles away.

In Tacitus we find examples of both the use of "adversus armatos" as “against well armed men, soldiers” and of the word "armati" as a synonym for "mutiny soldiers":

Tacitus, Annales, 1, 59, “non enim se proditione neque adversus feminas gravidas, sed palam adversus armatosbellum tractare.

For he practised war, not by the help of treason nor against pregnant women, but in open day and against men who carried arms”.

Once again, the context tells us exactly who the armed men are. And the fuller passage:

59 1 The report of Segestes' surrender and his gracious reception, once it became generally known, was heard with hope or sorrow by the advocates or opponents of war. Arminius, violent enough by nature, was driven frantic by the seizure of his wife and the subjugation to slavery of her unborn child. He flew through the Cherusci, demanding war against Segestes, war against the Caesar. There was no sparing of invectives:— "A peerless father! a great commander! a courageous army! whose united powers had carried off one wretched woman. Before his own sword three legions, three generals, had fallen. For he practised war, not by the help of  p345 treason nor against pregnant women, but in open day and against men who carried arms. In the groves of Germany were still to be seen the Roman standards which he had hung aloft to the gods of their fathers. Let Segestes inhabit the conquered bank, and make his son once more a priest — to mortal deities:11 one fact the Germans could never sufficiently condone, that their eyes had seen the Rods, the Axes, and the Toga between the Elbe and the Rhine. Other nations, unacquainted with the dominion of Rome, had neither felt her punishments nor known her exactions: seeing that they had rid themselves of both, and that the great Augustus, hallowed as deity, and his chosen Tiberius had departed foiled, let them never quail before a callow youth,12 before a disaffected army! If they loved their country, their parents, their ancient ways, better than despots and new colonies, then let them follow Arminius to glory and freedom rather than Segestes to shame and slavery!"

The armed men are, obviously, his Roman enemy.

Tacitus, Annales, 1, 32:

“Cassius Chaerea, mox caede Gai Caesaris memoriam apud posteros adeptus, tum adulescens et animi ferox, inter obstantis et armatosferro viam patefecit.

Cassius Chaerea, soon to win a name in history as the slayer of Caligula, then a reckless stripling, opened a way with his sword through an armed and challenging multitude”.

This episode took place during a mutiny of the Roman troops in Germania.

Which once again proves the point: the context tells us who the armed men are.

The word "armatus", in its various cases, is widely used also in Latin epigraphy. There are 73 examples in the Clauss-Slaby database: in many cases they are personal names; in two cases, precisely in Dalmatia, they indicate a local divinity (Daniel Hunt was the first to point out this evidence to me); in other cases, finally, they indicate "armed men" or "troops".

And in not one of these instances in ARMATOS used the way you are proposing it is used in the LAC inscription.

An example of the use of the word "armati" in epigraphy is given by the epigraph CIL 02-05, 01022, containing the so-called "Lex Ursonensis", granted by Marcus Antonius in 44 BC.

“...103. Quicumque in colonia Genetiva IIvir praefectusve iure dicundo praerit, eum colonos incolasque contributos quocumque tempore coloniae finium defendendorum causa armatoseducere decuriones censuerint, quot maior pars qui tum aderunt decreverint, id ei sine fraude sua facere liceto. Eique IIviro aut quem IIvir armatispraefecerit idem ius eademque animadversio esto, uti tribuno militum populi Romani in exercitu populi Romani est, itque ei sine fraude sua facere liceto ius potestasque esto, dum it, quot maior pars decurionum decreverit, qui tum aderunt, fiat.

Whenever a majority of the decurions present at any meeting determine to draft armed menfor the purpose of defending the territories of the colony, it shall be lawful, without prejudice to themselves, for every duumvir or prefect charged with jurisdiction in the colony Genetiva Julia to draft under arms colonists, resident aliens, and "attributed" persons. And the said duumvir or any person placed in command of such armed forceby the duumvir shall have the same right and the same power of punishment that belongs to a military tribune of the Roman people in an army of the Roman people; and he shall exercise lawfully and properly such right and power without prejudice to himself, provided that all acts performed are in accordance with the decree of a majority of the decurions present at the said meeting”.

Particularly interesting is the example of the inscription, which contains instructions from the praetorian prefect to the governor of the province Macedonia, not far from Dalmatia, referring to previous provisions specifically concerning "armed men".

And yet again, we are specifically told who these armed men are. The LAC inscription does not.

In addition to the geographical proximity, the dating of the epigraph in the year 192 is interesting, given that the dating proposed by us for the epigraph of Lucius Artorius Castus is the year 197:

SEG-53, 00617 = AE 2014, 01178: “Exemplum epistu(lae) [scrip]tae Messalae Rutiliano a praef(ecto) prae[torio. Ci]rca armatoset circa ceteros comme[antes sat]is provinsum est principalibus consti[tutionib] us, qua certum est te non ignora[re, ut si s]ecumdum ea partibus tuis functus [sis, nequ]e diplomatibus commeantes neque [coloni] vel stabularii iniuriam patientur = Copy of the letters to Messala Rutilianus written by the pretorian prefect. Concerning those bearing arms and other travellers, the imperial constitutions, which you surely know, take ample care of; if you perform your duties accordingly, neither those travelling with a diploma nor the peasants nor the station personnel will suffer any wrong”.

This is an intentionally vague reference, as it is written about laws pertaining to whoever happens to be armed and may be encountered by travelling. Using this example for comparison with a supposed ARMATOS on the LAC inscription is arguing apples and oranges.  No one could possibly know who all the armed men are wondering about, and so there is no effort to tell us who they are.  This is mere common sense.  You can't be specific if you are speaking in general terms ON PURPOSE.    But we do know who is being spoken about here.  So in that sense, we are not kept in the dark.

In those years many "armed men" toured the Empire, legally or not. "Armati" is, notoriously, also a synonym for "soldiers", and during the last years of Commodus' reign and during the subsequent civil wars for the conquest of the throne, there were soldiers mutinied to their commanders, but faithful to the emperor, or vice versa, or real deserters constituting almost a regular army, even with claims to the imperial throne, in the well-known case of Maternus:

Herodian [1.10.1] “But before long another plot was organized against Commodus. It involved a former soldier named Maternus, who had committed many frightful crimes.He deserted from the army, persuading others to flee with him, and soon collected a huge mob of desperadoes. At first they attacked and plundered villages and farms, but when Maternus had amassed a sizable sum of money, he gathered an even larger band of cutthroats by offering the prospect of generous booty and a fair share of the loot. As a result, his men no longer appeared to be brigands but rather enemy troops”.

Have you bothered to look up 'enemy troops' in Herodian? You need the Greek text here. But, in any case, we are once again looking at an enemy CLEARLY IDENTIFIED IN THE LITERARY ACCOUNT. We have no doubt who these armed men are: they are the armed men who follow Maternus.

No one would put on his stone that he had fought armed men. As Tomlin has pointed out, who else would he have fought? Inermes (unarmed men)? Unless you specify on the inscription whose armed men they are, the term is so obvious as to not require stating. 

You are consistently confusing true literary sources with inscription texts.  For example, you claim that such a use of ARMATOS on the LAC stone would not be at all unlike the use of "rebelles hostes publicos" in Tiberius Claudius Candidus's inscription.  But 'rebelles hostes publicos'   (against supporters of Albinus, opponent of Severus in 196–7; see  https://dokumen.pub/image-and-reality-of-roman-imperial-power-in-the-third-century-ad-the-impact-of-war-0815353731-9780815353737.html) is a very specific description.  We would presume, of course, that they were armed!  

For those who wish to inspect the Candidus inscription themselves, I would send them to 

https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/G_1994-0122-2

There it is revealed just how specific the use of the terms discussed above really are:

duci terra marique adversus rebelles hh(ostes) pp(ublicos) item Asiae item Noricae

"governor of the province of Hispania Citerior for the two emperors, as well as military commander on land and on sea against rebels and enemies of the State in the same province, also (against rebels and enemies) in Asia and Noricum"