New evidence for annihilation of Ninth Legion in Britain?

[Epictetus]

Thanks! I figured the answer would be obvious once someone told me. And yes, it looks like this Loeb was first printed in 1920 and revised in 1929, so Haines was writing some time ago.

[Nathan Ross]

Someone heard my call! The 'Massacre...' page has now been updated and the ref to Bloodline removed.

Nope, it's back again: [url:26nu5pmv]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Ninth_Legion[/url] hock:

Some curious business going on here!

[Robert Vermaat]

Someone heard my call! The 'Massacre...' page has now been updated and the ref to Bloodline removed.

Nope, it's back again: [url:19yfi2uq]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Ninth_Legion[/url] hock:
Some curious business going on here!

When I just rfead it, the page only referred to the Boudica revolt, and mentioned an end presumably in the East. There's a ref to Duncan's book there..

I guess there are strong forces currently at work on this very webpage... :wink:

Anyway, I think that we have established that mr Russell did not know his sources, or cared to check.

[Nathan Ross]

I guess there are strong forces currently at work on this very webpage... :wink:

It seems there are!

[ParthianBow]

There are others who know that the Ninth did not get annihilated in Scotland too... :mrgreen:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2 ... man-legion

[Nathan Ross]

There are others who know that the Ninth did not get annihilated in Scotland too... :mrgreen:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2 ... man-legion

And if you read on through the next couple of 'notes and queries' sections:

[url:2eb28ofe]http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2010/mar/24/notes-queries-who-owns-moon[/url]
[url:2eb28ofe]http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2010/mar/31/origin-of-the-orange[/url]

you'll find the subject being batted around even further, including the 'romanscotland' view...

It is extraordinary that people can still become so exercised about what could otherwise be a rather scholarly matter of archeological speculation and interpretation. IX Hispana, after all, was only one of several Roman legions to vanish from the records. Leaving aside the three lost under Varus, we have the famous V Alaudae, XXI Rapax and XII Deiotariana, plus no doubt a good many more in later and less well annotated eras. In each case, historians have enjoyed the conjecture of their possible fate - was V Alaudae destroyed in the Batavian revolt, or in Dacia under Fuscus? Does the Adamklissi memorial record the names of the legionaries of the fifth? Was Rapax annihilated by the Sarmatians, or disbanded in disgrace following the revolt of Saturninus? Was Deiotariana lost in Judea, or Armenia? Etc. All intriguing stuff, but we have so very little to go on.

In none of these cases, however, as far as I know, is there the same popular animosity to the academic consensus of opinion as there is in the matter of the ninth. Do Romanian nationalists fervently contest with the Dutch the 'honour' of eliminating the famous Alaudae? Do the Hungarians (or whoever the ancestors of the Sarmatians might be these days!) make a big deal out of their victory over Rapax? And are there stories told in Israel today of the destruction of Deiotariana by the patriots of Bar Kochba? (although perhaps in the latter case, there are already enough historical episodes to commemorate...)

Quite apart from Rosemary Sutcliff's book, which cemented in the popular consciousness (assuming that such a thing exists nowadays) the idea of the loss of the ninth and its eagle in foggy Caledonia, there does seem to be a quite determined desire on the part of certain Britons to insist on the destruction of the legion in their homeland - almost a willful sense of entitlement. When facts challenge this, or at least undermine its probability, there appears a noticeable element of pique.

Does this happen elsewhere, or is it a peculiarity of British (perhaps Anglo-Scots) historical appreciation?

- Nathan

[Jona Lendering]

Does this happen elsewhere, or is it a peculiarity of British (perhaps Anglo-Scots) historical appreciation?

No, it is more common than you think. There's the debate whether the Macedonians were Greeks; Iranians will get mad at you when you explain that the Cyrus Cylinder is not a human rights charter; Frisians don't like it when you point out that the ancient Frisians are not their ancestors; and I can leave the Zionist claim to Palestine undiscussed. It all has to do with nationalism.

I would not be surprised if the VIIII Hispana affair is an attempt to gove Scotland its own Arminius + Teutoburg Forest + national myth, lauding the destruction of the legion as the founding of the nation. Mens sana qui mal y pense.

[Nathan Ross]

I would not be surprised if the VIIII Hispana affair is an attempt to gove Scotland its own Arminius + Teutoburg Forest + national myth, lauding the destruction of the legion as the founding of the nation. Mens sana qui mal y pense.

Also, I think, a continuation of the perennial struggle between history and 'heritage' - history being what we believe probably happened in the past (based on evidence, debate and method), and 'heritage' being what we would like to have happened in the past (because it makes us feel good about ourselves).

I see on wikipedia that this Miles Russell cites Fronto as a source for a disaster of some sort in Britain.

He's not the first to do so by any means - I notice that Thomas Hodgkin, in his History of England from the Earliest Times to the Norman Conquest, cites the quote from Fronto in connection with the ninth legion (although even he doesn't draw a certain parallel)... Hodgkin was writing in 1808 :wink:
'New' evidence must be sought elsewhere.

One other point springs to mind about disappearing legions - it's assumed that legions were struck from the lists only after disbandment for some heinous offence or total destruction in battle. In the latter case the eagle would be lost, although even then the legion could be reconstituted if enough men survived (as happened, I think, with V Alaudae at one point and XII Fulminata too). Since there are no occasions for legion disbandment between the last mention of the ninth in Britain and their absence from the list in 162, we must assume destruction in battle. In the cases that I can think of, however, when legions were destroyed and their eagles (presumably) captured, vigorous action seems to have followed to recover the lost standards: the various campaigns into Germany following the Varus disaster, up to Claudian times, for example, or the depiction of Fuscus' eagle in the Dacian camp on the column of Trajan (implying its recovery soon afterwards). If the 'Roman standards' scratched on the walls of a cave in Judea do indeed depict booty captured by the Bar Kokhba rebels, they cannot have kept the prizes in their keeping for long; the legion supposedly destroyed at Elegeia in 161 may have been revenged by Cassius very soon afterwards in his sack of Ctesiphon.

In the case of the 'losses in Britain' mentioned by Fronto, however, no such campaign of recovery seems to have taken place. Instead, we see a period of consolidation along the frontier. If an eagle really had been lost to the Caledonians early in Hadrian's reign, would the Romans really have been content to let the captors hang onto it?

- Nathan

[Miles Russell]

Dear all
Apologies for interceding at such a late date (but have only just been pointed to this thread by a colleague), but I hope you’ll accept (or at least consider) some corrections to a few factual issues with regard to Bloodline – the Celtic Kings of Roman Britain..

Vortigern Studies said:
Russell's book is one in a series of recent books which take up a very old theme, namely that of Geoffrey of Monmouth.

Er…actually no it isn’t. The blurb on Amazon, where I presume you got the Geoffrey of Monmouth reference from, is not actually correct (I don’t know where this blurb was concocted but I will get it amended). If you look at / read the book you’ll notice that Geoffrey of Monmouth is not mentioned once…not ever…not even in the index or preface

Vortigern Studies said:
Old Geoff advocated the view that Britain was never conquered, but that British kings remained British nobles, and soon played first fiddle again in Roman Britain.

He may well have done, but that’s not in my book

Vortigern Studies said:
Next we see British 'Roman' emperors at the head of 'British' armies, etc. etc

Ok, but again that’s not my theory and neither has it anything to do with Bloodline

Vortigern Studies said:
I have not seen any evidence of any turning academic tide when it comes to the descruction of VIIII Hispana on British soil.

Neither have I particularly….I don’t believe that I’ve ever talked about ‘turning academic tides’ with regard to the IX Legion (nor any other aspect of Roman Britain) in the book or anywhere else. I wouldn’t dare to presume that I know what the great seething mass of academia is thinking or indeed believing. Bloodline sets down my point of view and I do not speak for anyone else.

Vortigern Studies said:
Much less that 'strong evidence' quoted in that book!

Have you read the book? I’m more than happy to discuss the evidence (which is ultimately no stronger than that suggesting that the Legion was posted East and died out in some atrocity there). It’s a point of view and all the ‘strong evidence’ (again, not something that I claim) is in the public domain, although it is just rarely debated. Ultimately it’s discussion, debate and serious consideration that I’m trying to instigate. I make no big claims beyond that.

Trouble is, as I note in Bloodline, comparatively few archaeologists have dared raise their heads above the parapets of orthodoxy for fear of either being savagely mauled by their colleagues or being branded ‘pseudo’, ‘alternative’ or ‘fringe’. I am not, of course, saying that everything that has been said about Roman Britain in the past is wrong; far from it. It is my firm belief that Sheppard Frere’s book Britannia is one of the greatest books written about the province (if not one of the greatest books on any period in British history). My problem is that readers are not aware that “other interpretations of the dataset are possible”. The archaeological and historical evidence for Roman Britain, such as it is, has in the last three decades, frequently been presented as a single and largely coherent story. Unfortunately, the evidence itself, when one looks at it closely, is easily capable of supporting multiple, alternative versions of ‘the truth’.

In any case, the disappearance of the IX is only a (very) small part of my book (p180-2). Ultimately it is only one of a series of so-called Established Truths concerning Roman Britain that I draw attention to: areas where supposition has become a theory, where theory has then become the basis for a model and where the model has, before long, become a FACT. FACTS, once ESTABLISHED in print are almost impossible to disprove or otherwise argue against. They are the large immovable objects, the great certainties of historic discourse, even if they are ultimately unprovable.

Other gems considered in the book include whether 4 legions came ashore in the invasion of AD 43 (there is no evidence for this); whether the invasion was centred on Kent (again, no firm evidence – anywhere from the Solent to the Thames Estuary is a fair target) the Catuvellauni were Rome’s main enemy (evidence suggests quite the contrary) the druids co-ordinated resistance to Rome (there’s no evidence that the druids co-ordinated anything beyond the confines of Anglesey) Boudicca’s army sacked only Colchester, London and St Albans (despite the evidence from Silchester and Winchester) Agricola was the first Roman to venture into Scotland (not according to archaeological and historical evidence) Mons Graupius ended British Resistance to Rome (despite evidence to the contrary)….etc etc. None of these ‘facts’ are ever fully considered to see if they are, in fact, ‘facts’ at all.

Vortigern Studies said:
I bet it's Mr Russell himself (or perhaps his publisher) who wrote that on Wiki.

Or someone who has read the book and liked it…stranger things have happened.

D B Campbell said:
We're not quite on the lunatic fringe, but getting close.

Ouch! That’s a tad unfair.

D B Campbell said:
Dr Miles Russell is apparently an expert in Neolithic, Bronze Age, Iron Age, Roman and Dark Age archaeology

Well my first degree is in Roman Archaeology, my PhD is in Neolithic and Bronze Age Archaeology and I have been teaching, researching and excavating Neolithic, Bronze Age, Iron Age, Roman post Roman archaeology now for 22 years….of course this is no guarantee that I’m an expert in any of these areas (and in fact I don’t believe that I’ve ever claimed to be), but I do at least possess some relevant experience.

D B Campbell said:
and his interests include "extra-terrestrial archaeology".

Indeed yes. The extraterrestrial archaeology aspect stemmed from a session I organised at the 1997 Theoretical Archaeology Conference. The proceedings were published (Russell, M. (ed) 2002 Digging Holes in Popular Culture: Archaeology and Science Fiction. Oxbow Books. Oxford). The two main thrusts of both conference and book were the ways in which archaeologists are portrayed in popular culture (in a more light-hearted vein) and the ways in which archaeologists can be involved in the debate about extraterrestrial life so that the fringe theories concerning Faces / Pyramids / Cities on Mars etc can be effectively countered. NASA, in its wisdom, has exo-biologists, exo-geologists etc, but no exo-archaeologist. The inclusion of someone like this on their payroll could help stem the increasingly bizarre claims of the UFO-ologists out there that alien civilsations somehow left their imprint on Mars / Venus (or even earth for that matter). My interest in the subject is therefore to try and stem unqualified (fringe) debate, not become a part of it.

D B Campbell said:
I've seen his name linked with some other questionable theories

Sorry, but that’s a wee bit damning – what questionable theories in particular have I been involved with?

D B Campbell said:
so his involvement with the "mystery Ninth Legion" does not surprise me.

But I’m not advocating a ‘questionable theory’ here. As noted, I’m attempting to initiate a full and proper discussion of the existing evidence, not brush aside any evidence that I don’t like / am not happy with or feel ‘doesn’t fit’my theory.

Ross Cowan said:
Another Wiki page, 'Massacre of the Ninth Legion', appeared (I think) over the weekend:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_o ... nth_Legion

Actually no, it appeared in January (according to the 'History' section of the page) and I can’t claim credit for that either I’m afraid

Ross Cowan said:
It concludes with the statement that "the ninth Legion was finally destroyed, almost certainly in Britain, early in the reign of the emperor Hadrian", and refers to Russell's book as the source.

So? I believe that people do have a right to say what they think (unless it’s inciting hate). I do agree with you that there is much on Wikipedia that is problematic, but that doesn’t mean I feel the desire to delete everything that I disagree with. Sometimes I might add a different point of view so that anyone reading a particular page can see alternative evidence and therefore make their own minds up (rather than being preached to), but I would definitely not subscribe to editing out (or deleting) other points of view. The advantage of being in a free country is that we have freedom of speech, not overt censorship of ideas.

Ross Cowan said:
Wiki has imposed a ban on my ISP. Hopefully someone else will make a suitable correction to the page.

Correction is fine. Total deletion is a different matter entirely. By all means criticise and / or deride the tome once you’ve read it, but don’t seek to impose an arbitrary form of censorship upon those who have or indeed upon anything that you think may (or may not) be in the book.

Nathan Ross said:
It is extraordinary that people can still become so exercised about what could otherwise be a rather scholarly matter of archaeological speculation and interpretation.

Exactly…good point. By all means let’s speculate and interpret (and debate).............

[Matthew Amt]

Ave and Welcome, Mr. Russell!

I for one am thoroughly impressed by your response. I probably won't read your book, simply because I'm focused on other things these days, but being a proponent of the Low Chronology for the Late Bronze Age I can very much sympathize with the problems of pointing out shaky "facts". "...comparatively few archaeologists have dared raise their heads above the parapets of orthodoxy for fear of either being savagely mauled by their colleagues or being branded ‘pseudo’, ‘alternative’ or ‘fringe’." You can say that again! Granted, I'm an amateur, so I can get away with most anything, but that just means I have a smaller range of influence. And like I always say, Good research questions the answers more than it answers the questions!

Thanks and best wishes,

Matthew

[D B Campbell]

D B Campbell said: We're not quite on the lunatic fringe, but getting close.
Ouch! That’s a tad unfair.

D B Campbell said: Dr Miles Russell is apparently an expert in Neolithic, Bronze Age, Iron Age, Roman and Dark Age archaeology
Well my first degree is in Roman Archaeology, my PhD is in Neolithic and Bronze Age Archaeology and I have been teaching, researching and excavating Neolithic, Bronze Age, Iron Age, Roman post Roman archaeology now for 22 years….of course this is no guarantee that I’m an expert in any of these areas (and in fact I don’t believe that I’ve ever claimed to be), but I do at least possess some relevant experience.

D B Campbell said: and his interests include "extra-terrestrial archaeology".
Indeed yes. The extraterrestrial archaeology aspect stemmed from a session I organised at the 1997 Theoretical Archaeology Conference. The proceedings were published (Russell, M. (ed) 2002 Digging Holes in Popular Culture: Archaeology and Science Fiction. Oxbow Books. Oxford). The two main thrusts of both conference and book were the ways in which archaeologists are portrayed in popular culture (in a more light-hearted vein) and the ways in which archaeologists can be involved in the debate about extraterrestrial life so that the fringe theories concerning Faces / Pyramids / Cities on Mars etc can be effectively countered. NASA, in its wisdom, has exo-biologists, exo-geologists etc, but no exo-archaeologist. The inclusion of someone like this on their payroll could help stem the increasingly bizarre claims of the UFO-ologists out there that alien civilsations somehow left their imprint on Mars / Venus (or even earth for that matter). My interest in the subject is therefore to try and stem unqualified (fringe) debate, not become a part of it.

D B Campbell said: I've seen his name linked with some other questionable theories
Sorry, but that’s a wee bit damning – what questionable theories in particular have I been involved with?

D B Campbell said: so his involvement with the "mystery Ninth Legion" does not surprise me.
But I’m not advocating a ‘questionable theory’ here. As noted, I’m attempting to initiate a full and proper discussion of the existing evidence, not brush aside any evidence that I don’t like / am not happy with or feel ‘doesn’t fit’my theory.

Dear Miles,

As you know, I recently enquired per e-mail about your academic credentials, and we have had a brief exchange of messages. My posts to this thread pre-dated that exchange, and were based on the available information from your own web page on the Bournemouth University web site.

I shall state at the outset that I view with scepticism any opinions on Romano-British archaeology voiced by a Neolithic expert, simply because of the complexity of our respective study areas. I emphasize "with scepticism", as I would not wish to deny you the opportunity for free speech. But I, in turn, must be allowed to hold an opinion on any contributions you may make to "my field". (If the shoe were on the other foot, and I found myself in the unlikely position of having formed a hypothesis about the Neolithic in Britain, I would expect to hear from you, as a Neolithic expert.)

(1) Anyone who "has argued very strongly [5] that the ninth legion was indeed destroyed in Britain" qualifies, to my mind, as approaching the lunatic fringe. There is no evidence to support a "very strong" case, and an archaeologist ought to realise this. (I apologise if you have been misquoted on the Wikipedia site.)
(2) I misunderstood your Bournemouth University web page entry, but I'm sure that, with all due humility, you would confess to being at least a Neolithic expert.
(3) Again, I misunderstood your Bournemouth University web page entry, which states baldly that you are interested in "extra-terrestrial archaeology", without further explanation. I am sure you can imagine how that might contribute to a general impression of "lunatic fringery".
(4) Questionable theories: in particular (and I apologise if I am wrong to attribute these to you), the idea that a Roman consular governor of Britain might be the son of a native Briton; and the idea that Togodumnus survived the Claudian invasion to become "Cogidubnus" at Fishbourne. In my opinion, these are fine topics for historical fiction, but they are quite definitely speculation, rather than reasoned hypothesis.
(5) From the tenor of your post, it seems that your name has been hijacked by elements of the Wikipedia fraternity as a handy peg on which to hang Ninth Legion speculations. To my mind, there has been a full and proper discussion of the evidence, but it has been forgotten (or has never been consulted) by the current generation of "Ninth Legion bashers".

[Narukami]

Greetings Professor Russell, and welcome to the conversation.

You're not late, in fact you're right on time. No doubt the questions about the 9th Legion and their fate will become a "hot" topic this Fall with the release of the films Centurion and Eagle Of The Ninth. Nothing like a Hollywood Epic (even those not made in Hollywood) to stir everyone up.

If nothing else those discussions should prove to be amusing and if we are lucky, even informative.

We can hope.

Once again welcome to the Forum.

:wink:

Narukami

[Miles Russell]

Hi Matthew, Duncan and Narukami
Thanks for your response, and greetings - good to hear from you all. Apologies for delay in getting back but have been in meetings all day. Here’s a brain-dump (apologies for any spelling or grammar issues!)

Narukami said:
No doubt the questions about the 9th Legion and their fate will become a "hot" topic this Fall with the release of the films Centurion and Eagle Of The Ninth. Nothing like a Hollywood Epic (even those not made in Hollywood) to stir everyone up.

Indeed they will. Look forward to the events unfolding on the news, arts programmes and the web. I expect also to see a surge in numbers of people wanting to do Classics or Roman History at university, just as Archaeology seems to benefit universities every time Lara Croft / Indiana Jones or the Mummy franchise gets an outing!

Matthew Amt said:
Good research questions the answers more than it answers the questions

Quite so, - Every year I sympathise with those first year undergraduates who, when they realise that archaeology in itself does not provide any definitive answers (only generates more questions) start to hold their heads in despair

D B Campbell said:
I shall state at the outset that I view with scepticism any opinions on Romano-British archaeology voiced by a Neolithic expert, simply because of the complexity of our respective study areas. I emphasize "with scepticism", as I would not wish to deny you the opportunity for free speech. But I, in turn, must be allowed to hold an opinion on any contributions you may make to "my field". (If the shoe were on the other foot, and I found myself in the unlikely position of having formed a hypothesis about the Neolithic in Britain, I would expect to hear from you, as a Neolithic expert.)

Yes, to some degree, fair point - I can understand your concerns and initial scepticism – as I think I noted before, my PhD was in Neolithic Archaeology, but my first degree was in Roman archaeology at UCL and I have been teaching Roman Archaeology for 17 years now at Bournemouth University. I don’t claim to be an expert in the subject, but neither, do I feel that I’m a complete novice. Interestingly, when I first worked in field archaeology, after uni, I found myself directing largely Neolithic sites. When I came to write up the first of these I must admit that I was taken aback by the overtly negative response from certain sections of the archaeological community which can be broadly summarised as "what do you know about prehistory anyway, you're a Romanist". I have to say that, 2 decades on, it was rather bizarre to be in the reverse situation at a conference, after presenting a paper on Roman villas to be told by a member of the audience "what do you know about Roman Britain anyway, you're a prehistorian"! Ah well…I would actually be quite pleased to hear any views that you may have formed about Neolithic Britain as, in some areas of the country at least, we’ve had the same old interpretation being trotted out for decades and the subject needs a hefty kick in the posterior, but such a ‘reboot’ is sadly not likely to come from any period specialist working within the subject area.

…I’m digressing…

D B Campbell said:
Anyone who "has argued very strongly that the ninth legion was indeed destroyed in Britain" qualifies, to my mind, as approaching the lunatic fringe. There is no evidence to support a "very strong" case, and an archaeologist ought to realise this.

Well is it really approaching lunacy? I know that a lot of frankly silly things have been said about the disappearance of the ninth, and let me just reiterate that I’m not one who believes they marched north to be swallowed up in the swirling mists of the Great Caledonian Forest (quite why anyone thinks the Roman government would have sent a single Legion northwards to its doom is beyond me)

But I still come back to the following suggestive (if by no means conclusive) points:

1) The Legion does not appear to have been involved in the construction of Hadrian’s wall in the early 120s AD, its last testified activity in the province being in the stone rebuild of the legionary fortress at York (Eburacum) in AD 107-8, arguments that they may have constructed the turf sections (where inscriptions may not have survived) seem like special pleading..

2) There is evidence that the Legion was at Nijmegan at some point between AD 117 and 121, but we do not know whether this constitutes the whole Legion, or merely detatchments of it (sections of the ninth having served abroad before when the main body of the Legion was in Britain and, of course, other Legions (such as the eighth) having sporadically sent vexillations to Britannia)

3) large numbers of (unamed) units were lost in Britain early in the reign of the emperor Hadrian as Marcus Cornelius Fronto, writing in the 160s AD, noted: “what great numbers of soldiers were killed by the Jews, what great numbers by the British” (Fronto Parthian War 2, 220). The Jewish wars of course we know about, thanks to numerous contemporary references, but the number and extent of British losses remain shrouded in mystery. Fronto’s reference must relate to a significant event (otherwise why would he have mentioned it?) and it probably involved Legions, for auxilliary losses would not, I think, have registered on the imperial radar.

4) Early on in Hadrian's reign for we hear that when he “took over the government” in August AD 117, he discovered that “the Britons could not be kept under Roman control” (Scriptores Historiae Augustae Hadrian, 5, 1). The geographical vaguary is annoying, but the Britons being refered to are described in the same breath as the Moors, the Sarmate and “those peoples Trajan had subjugated”, his major spheres of conflict being against the Dacians and the Parthians. The ‘Britons’ refered to in the Scriptores Historia Augustae are therefore unlikey to be those occupied by under any recent Roman military initiative (there being little evidence that Trajan had any real interest in the province in any case).

5) The general asumption has been that the trouble mentioned within the Scriptores relates to a war, possibly defensive, stemming from an barbarian invasion of Roman held territory, thus precipitating Hadrian’s personal visit to Britain in around AD 122 and the subsequent construction of a wall. Is it perhaps more likely, given the phrasing that “the Britons could not be kept under Roman control”, that the reference is to a rebellion or uprising within existing, possibly even long-held, Roman teritory? Certainly the annoymous author of the Scriptores does not mention an invasion per se and neither does he refer to barbarian involvement (although to be fair the reference is hardly detailed). Is it reasonable then, given the phrasing, that the Britons who could not be kept under Roman control were operating within the province of Britannia: say Brigantia or somewhere further south?

6) Some evidence of conflict may be supplied by a fragmentary tombstone from Vindolanda (dating to the very early second century) commemorating Titus Annius, centurion of the First Cohort of Tungrians, who had been “killed in the war”. Shame it’s not a bit more specific about which war.

7) Further afield, a tombstone from Ferentinum in Italy set up to Titus Pontius Sabinus, records that he had commanded detachments of the VII Gemina, VIII Augusta and XXII Primigenia Legions on the “British expedition”. To me, this implies the taking of much-needed reinforcements to Britain after (or even during) a major conflict. Were they to aid existing troops in the putting down of a revolt / invasion or to reinforce Legions that had been badly mauled? Mention of the “deified Trajan” within the text of Sabinus’ memorial suggests that the expedition may have occurred late in Trajan’s reign (AD 98 – 117) or early in Hadrian’s (AD 117 – 138).

8) The place of the ninth at York was taken by the VI Victrix Legion, around AD 122, probably arriving with the new governor Aulus Platorius Nepos - was the ninth being completely replaced after transfer out of the province (which would be perhaps bizarre given the hints of internal problems) or after a mauling so severe that it couldn’t realistically be reinforced with troops or recruits from elsewhere (unlike perhaps the second and twentieth)?

9) Although no tribal area is mentioned with regard to the troubles, and, although generally placed in the north, the “Britons” of the Scriptores could, in the absence of secure archaeological evidence, just as plausibly have been causing problems for the Roman administration, disrupting communication, trade, taxation and lines of supply, in the South. In this respect, the severed bronze head of the emperor Hadrian, recovered from the River Thames, in 1834, is perhaps of interest. The piece has been removed from a full statue with some force before being deposited (or simply dumped) in the river. This could represent a piece of later (Christian?) religious iconoclasm, or alternatively it could be representative of the troubles that affected 4th and 5th century Britain. It is worth noting, however, that the violent removal and subsequent deposition of the head is similar to that of the decapitated portrait of the young Claudius/Nero found in the River Alde in Suffolk. The Alde piece is, of course, associated with the Boudiccan sack of Colchester in AD 60, but the Hadrianic portrait is unassociated with any such bloody event, unless of course there WAS a period of instability afflicting London and the south early in Hadrian’s reign. Remember that London itself suffered from a near catastrophic fire at this time (often simply referred to as the Hadrianic Fire) – was this accident or the product of instability and uprising? Was it here that the Britons proved they could “not be kept under control”?

All this issues, to me at least, suggest a situation in which a Legion could be ambushed / attacked / mauled or otherwise heavily put upon (as the ninth had in the earlier rebellion of AD 60/61) that it could not seriously recover…?

D B Campbell said:
(I apologise if you have been misquoted on the Wikipedia site.)

Yes, the problem may ultimately stem, as you suggest, with what appears on Wikipedia. It isn’t an academic journal of course, therefore it’s not housing vast chunks of my own (or other) authors original work and none of us really have any control over what goes up. If someone thinks that I’ve put forward a “very strong” case then that’s up to them…I don’t recall putting it quite so definitively in the book, but there you go!

D B Campbell said:
I misunderstood your Bournemouth University web page entry, which states baldly that you are interested in "extra-terrestrial archaeology", without further explanation. I am sure you can imagine how that might contribute to a general impression of "lunatic fringery".

Indeed - I ought to get the Uni to amend (or at least clarify) that particular entry! As, in its present form, it’s almost as bad as saying that I’ve seen a Yeti in my kitchen.

D B Campbell said:
Questionable theories: in particular (and I apologise if I am wrong to attribute these to you), the idea that Togodumnus survived the Claudian invasion to become "Cogidubnus" at Fishbourne.

No, you are quite right to attribute this to me as it was first put forward in 'Roman Sussex' published in 2006 and, independently, by J.G.F. Hind in his article “A. Plautius’ Campaign in Britain — An Alternative Reading of the Narrative in Cassius Dio” published in the journal Britannia for 2007 (vol 38, p93-106). As Hind notes “Togodumnus in Cassius Dio and Cogidumnus in Tacitus’ Agricola, are taken to be the same individual, who after defeat was reconciled to be Claudius’ client-ruler”. As with all things, it’s a theory, but one based on a retranslation of Dio Cassius (Roman History LX, 20) in which it is not Togodumnus the man who is killed at the battle of the Thames in AD 43. When Dio Cassius’ describes the events of the Thames River crossing in AD 43 he doesn't state specifically that Togodumnus was killed, but destroyed. Without going through the whole translation and interpretation again (it’s all in Bloodline and I can forward the chapter to you electronically), it may therefore be Togodumnus’ army that is being destroyed in the swamps by the enemy (barbarian) faction led Caratacus. It is not the man being ‘killed’, but the Keltoi / Celtic army of native friendlies. Togodumnus / Togidubnus / Cogidumnus are all variant garbled forms of the same man (similar I suppose to the variant forms we get of Boadicea / Boudicca / Bodika etc)

D P Campbell said:
From the tenor of your post, it seems that your name has been hijacked by elements of the Wikipedia fraternity as a handy peg on which to hang Ninth Legion speculations.

Quite possibly. I ought to do a search to see where else my name occurs, just to make sure I haven’t been hugely misquoted elsewhere!

Cheers!
Miles

[jkaler48]

Hello Professor Russell and welcome to RAT ;

[Miles Russell]

Hi John
Thanks for the heads up on this. Should I find any such original doccumentation on this summer's fielwork programme, I'll be sure to tell you first.
Hope the advisors for Centurion got their facts straight with RAT before they commenced filming...
Cheers

Miles