Article on the L. IX Hispana (Factual????)

[D B Campbell]

What I have done, however, since the previous debate, was go back to the primary archaeological evidence as recovered from Nijmegen, which appears central to the whole ‘transfer’ debate.

A very wise move. I like to check primary sources, too. Sometimes it's not possible, owing to language barriers or the limitations of library holdings. But research wouldn't be research if we didn't verify our sources. I agree entirely.

Like you, I tried to track down the primary publication of the Nijmegen material (for my "Fate of the Ninth" piece for Jasper's Ancient Warfare magazine). I based my views (partly) on Jules Bogaers' paper in the Sixth Limeskongress volume (Köln/Graz, 1967). (Maybe you were lucky enough to locate the 1960 Dutch excavation report? I wasn't.)

Despite what some historians and archaeologists have said in recent years, it is clear from the primary reports that none of the finds with the Ninths stamp on were recovered from sealed contexts, they are all residual / unstratified.

Hmmm, that's odd. First, there has only ever been one tile-stamp, as far as I know. (Perhaps our Dutch colleagues can confirm whether more tiles have been found?) But, as you know, one is often enough, if the context is right.

But second, in Bogaers' 1967 paper, he writes: "This piece [ i.e. the tile which carries the name of the Ninth Legion ] comes from the Period III level or from the destruction layer lying above it, and in fact from the third officer's house north of the large stone gate-building on the east side of the fortress".

In other words they cannot be tied to a phase of fort occupation or fort building, even though the excavator postulated that, as the tiles overlay the fort, they could indicate reoccupation of the site after the transfer away of its previous occupants, the Tenth Legion - No they don’t. They are unstratified pieces of archaeologically durable building tile. They indicate the Ninth (or part of them) were at Nijmegen, but critically not when.

It seems, on the contrary, that the tile can be tied to a particular phase of the Nijmegen fortress. Not only that; it can even be tied to a particular building within the fortress. Everything I know about Jules Bogaers suggests that he was a careful and insightful archaeologist. I don't think he would have misrepresented a stray find from topsoil (your claim). No; what he actually had was a securely stratified artefact.