04-23-2010, 06:29 PM
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
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
