04-22-2010, 01:47 PM
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).............
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).............
