03-21-2011, 03:39 PM
Hi all
Andy Lambert wrote
I am not sure that they can proclaim, as the documentary does, that the mystery of the IX/VIIII has been solved when the expert evidence was littered with phrases such as quote]my guess, very likely, may have been, assume, imagine, possible, looks like, could be and strongly suggest
Therein lies the problem, as I’ve noted before, that until someone finds a mass grave / scatter of military artefacts (as per the Varian ambush) or new inscriptional information, no one will ever SOLVE the ‘mystery’, we can only debate it and discuss possible scenarios. The key thing I’ve tried to make clear is that pushing forward the ‘lost in Britain’ theory is a way of addressing the balance which has been very firmly in the ‘transferred from Britain’ theory (usually stated as FACT in most books / works / articles on Roman Britain). Neither the lost in Britain nor the transferred from Britain scenario is FACT, neither is definitive and we need to keep that in mind when discussing LIKELY scenarios (and that’s obviously when the fun starts).
The thing about TV of course is that it is a form of communication that requires immediate results. That’s why some people have issues with Time Team and other archaeological programmes because you can’t have any ambiguity (although to be fair Time Team does often have heated debate and disagreement, although it still needs a DEFINITIVE answer at the end of day 3 / the programme otherwise people ask ‘what was the point of that?’). Hence no one would watch a programme that stated in its brief watch ‘The Mystery of the Ninth Legion’ in which the makers state “we can’t provide definitive answers because none have yet been found archaeologically”.
Andy Lambert wrote
As for the assumption, by the documentary, that the IX/VIIII actually engaged in the fighting at Mons Graupius AD83 is, as far as I can conclude, incorrect.
Same problem really. The Ninth were of course heavily involved in the fighting BEFORE Mons Graupius, being attacked in their camp at one point, but Tactitus makes the point that the battles such as this were greater victories than normal if no Roman blood was spilt, the Legions taking no part in the final killing of the final battle (although we may presume that, as they were lined up that the Ninth was certainly, at least in part, there at Mons Graupius). It’s one of those points in documentaries where, much as you would like, you can’t give the audience every last bit of information; otherwise it becomes a lecture and runs the risk of alienating the viewer. Things have to be simplified but without the risk of dumbing down. Key, of course, is to get people interested and, if they are, they will (hopefully, though I’m not sure that anyone has PROVED this) do their own ‘further reading’.
It’s a tricky business, and I know that I’ve sat in front of a number of TV documentaries on Roman Archaeology (the recent one on York’s gladiators being a prime example) where I’m ranting at the screen “you can’t say that” / “that’s wrong” or “the archaeology isn’t that clear cut”, but then I’m not the intended audience, so I let it go. At the end of the day (without sounding like a football manager) I’m just pleased that archaeology / ancient history gets an airing on TV, otherwise I would be fearful of its future.
Nathan Ross wrote
The ninth seem to have been far from 'elite'! Maybe Tacitus' note about them being 'the weakest' (maxime invalidam) during Agricola's campaign actually referred to their low morale and general poor quality? Maybe they were disbanded because they weren't very good
Exactly. You could argue that, after events such as the Boudican mauling and the night ambush on the Agricolan campaign, that they weren’t all that good (or contra, that they were thrown into the thick of fighting AND suffered defeats because Rome thought they were good, or at least better than they were in reality) but I don’t know whether people would watch a programme called “Rome’s Worst” or ‘Lost (and not very good) Legion’. You have to take the line that, as a Legion, they were part of the elite, but that this elite comprised 30 Legions (on average). I suppose it’s all about qualifying statements, which you can in a publication, but which is trickier in a TV programme.
Nathan Ross wrote
I don't really understand what you're saying here. I'm no archaeologist, but surely if the tiles overlaid the fort, it would indicate they were deposited later than the fort? Are you implying that the excavator was mistaken, and they don't overlie it? Or that they were possibly reused in later construction?
This is the crux of the matter for, technically yes, the tiles (and pottery) were found OVERLYING the fortress at Nijmegen, but only in the sense that they were in topsoil. These were, therefore, unstratified finds, they were not derived from a sealed or datable layer / pit fill, but a general layer of soil containing Roman, Medieval, Post Medieval and modern finds, all mixed up together. The tiles, in themselves, therefore provide no dating evidence. All they say is that the Ninth (or a detachment of them) were at Nijmegen, and engaged in building activity, but they do not tell us what buildings and critically they don’t tell us WHEN. The excavators originally made the point that, as the finds were fragmentary and were not found in datable features relating to the occupation of the fort by the Tenth Legion, that they could relate to a later occupation, following the departure of the Tenth. Now that’s fine as far as it goes, as long as you keep in mind that it’s just a theory and has no solid archaeological dating foundation on which to support the hypothesis.
In short, therefore, we can say with absolute certainty that the Ninth were at Nijmegen BUT we cannot say whether that was in the early 2nd century, after their withdrawal from Britain, or in the mid 80s, when their recorded fighting in the Chattan War, or in the late 60s, when detachments were withdrawn to aid Vespasian’s campaign to be emperor, or in the early 40s, prior to their incorporation in Claudius’ invasion of Britain, or indeed at any other time in the 1st or early 2nd century. The finds themselves are undated and undatable. All I’ve been trying to say (perhaps not very successfully) is that they do not definitely support the theory that the Ninth were taken out of Britain (and at Nijmegen) in the 120s AD. I mentioned the Chattan War of c. 82/3 because Nijmegen is in the (presumed) general area affected by the Chatti in the 80s AD and we know that part of the Ninth was engaged in fighting / building operations. This fits the finds, although is, as I happily admit, by no means a certainty.
Nathan Ross wrote
Evidence of the ninth operating on the continent actually comes from the inscription of Roscius Celer (CIL 14, 03612 - trib(uno) mil(itum) leg(ionis) IX Hispan(ae) vexillarior(um) eiusdem / in expeditione Germanica), and this is usually dated to the Chattian war of c.82. But this is not a certain date either. Surely the Nijmegen excavator (or subsequent scholarship) would be aware of this, and would have considered it, Occam's razor-like, as the obvious source for the tiles? That they haven't suggests evidence to contradict the earlier dating - like the tiles overlaying the fort.
There’s another problem. The tiles are solid and archaeological durable. So far no one has found stamped tiles with the Ninth stamp in a bathhouse / fort building at Nijmegen, just bits of tiles in topsoil. I’d like to think that “subsequent scholarship” would (should) have questioned the context and dating associations of the tiles, but they didn’t. There’s just (sadly) been a general acceptance that the finds mean the Ninth were at Nijmegen AFTER they were taken out of Britain and en-route to the East, but the evidence (at least in its current form) does not and cannot support this. When someone finds tiles like this in a building dated to the 120s or in datable sealed contexts (associated with coins or clear pottery forms) or perhaps an inscription that post dates that from York, then I’ll concede that there is indeed new evidence and that the theory they were withdrawn is now the most acceptable one.
Richard McGill wrote
Did you write 'brutal ambush', Dr Russell, or was that the flourish of a BBC editor?
That’s not one of mine I’m afraid. It’s another good example of what Mike Bishop has noted as the “degree of hyperbole”. I agree. An ambush is an ambush, but the application of ‘brutal’ perhaps appeals to the more curious or bloodlusty. ‘Ambush’ itself doesn’t really need qualifying (much as today I heard on Radio 4 a report on the Frome hoard of Roman coins where it was described as being “extremely unique”. Is that MORE unique than ‘averagely unique’ I wonder?)
John Maddox Roberts wrote
How does a brutal ambush differ from a nice ambush?
A nice ambush is when people surprise you with cake.
Cheers
Miles
Andy Lambert wrote
I am not sure that they can proclaim, as the documentary does, that the mystery of the IX/VIIII has been solved when the expert evidence was littered with phrases such as quote]my guess, very likely, may have been, assume, imagine, possible, looks like, could be and strongly suggest
Therein lies the problem, as I’ve noted before, that until someone finds a mass grave / scatter of military artefacts (as per the Varian ambush) or new inscriptional information, no one will ever SOLVE the ‘mystery’, we can only debate it and discuss possible scenarios. The key thing I’ve tried to make clear is that pushing forward the ‘lost in Britain’ theory is a way of addressing the balance which has been very firmly in the ‘transferred from Britain’ theory (usually stated as FACT in most books / works / articles on Roman Britain). Neither the lost in Britain nor the transferred from Britain scenario is FACT, neither is definitive and we need to keep that in mind when discussing LIKELY scenarios (and that’s obviously when the fun starts).
The thing about TV of course is that it is a form of communication that requires immediate results. That’s why some people have issues with Time Team and other archaeological programmes because you can’t have any ambiguity (although to be fair Time Team does often have heated debate and disagreement, although it still needs a DEFINITIVE answer at the end of day 3 / the programme otherwise people ask ‘what was the point of that?’). Hence no one would watch a programme that stated in its brief watch ‘The Mystery of the Ninth Legion’ in which the makers state “we can’t provide definitive answers because none have yet been found archaeologically”.
Andy Lambert wrote
As for the assumption, by the documentary, that the IX/VIIII actually engaged in the fighting at Mons Graupius AD83 is, as far as I can conclude, incorrect.
Same problem really. The Ninth were of course heavily involved in the fighting BEFORE Mons Graupius, being attacked in their camp at one point, but Tactitus makes the point that the battles such as this were greater victories than normal if no Roman blood was spilt, the Legions taking no part in the final killing of the final battle (although we may presume that, as they were lined up that the Ninth was certainly, at least in part, there at Mons Graupius). It’s one of those points in documentaries where, much as you would like, you can’t give the audience every last bit of information; otherwise it becomes a lecture and runs the risk of alienating the viewer. Things have to be simplified but without the risk of dumbing down. Key, of course, is to get people interested and, if they are, they will (hopefully, though I’m not sure that anyone has PROVED this) do their own ‘further reading’.
It’s a tricky business, and I know that I’ve sat in front of a number of TV documentaries on Roman Archaeology (the recent one on York’s gladiators being a prime example) where I’m ranting at the screen “you can’t say that” / “that’s wrong” or “the archaeology isn’t that clear cut”, but then I’m not the intended audience, so I let it go. At the end of the day (without sounding like a football manager) I’m just pleased that archaeology / ancient history gets an airing on TV, otherwise I would be fearful of its future.
Nathan Ross wrote
The ninth seem to have been far from 'elite'! Maybe Tacitus' note about them being 'the weakest' (maxime invalidam) during Agricola's campaign actually referred to their low morale and general poor quality? Maybe they were disbanded because they weren't very good
Exactly. You could argue that, after events such as the Boudican mauling and the night ambush on the Agricolan campaign, that they weren’t all that good (or contra, that they were thrown into the thick of fighting AND suffered defeats because Rome thought they were good, or at least better than they were in reality) but I don’t know whether people would watch a programme called “Rome’s Worst” or ‘Lost (and not very good) Legion’. You have to take the line that, as a Legion, they were part of the elite, but that this elite comprised 30 Legions (on average). I suppose it’s all about qualifying statements, which you can in a publication, but which is trickier in a TV programme.
Nathan Ross wrote
I don't really understand what you're saying here. I'm no archaeologist, but surely if the tiles overlaid the fort, it would indicate they were deposited later than the fort? Are you implying that the excavator was mistaken, and they don't overlie it? Or that they were possibly reused in later construction?
This is the crux of the matter for, technically yes, the tiles (and pottery) were found OVERLYING the fortress at Nijmegen, but only in the sense that they were in topsoil. These were, therefore, unstratified finds, they were not derived from a sealed or datable layer / pit fill, but a general layer of soil containing Roman, Medieval, Post Medieval and modern finds, all mixed up together. The tiles, in themselves, therefore provide no dating evidence. All they say is that the Ninth (or a detachment of them) were at Nijmegen, and engaged in building activity, but they do not tell us what buildings and critically they don’t tell us WHEN. The excavators originally made the point that, as the finds were fragmentary and were not found in datable features relating to the occupation of the fort by the Tenth Legion, that they could relate to a later occupation, following the departure of the Tenth. Now that’s fine as far as it goes, as long as you keep in mind that it’s just a theory and has no solid archaeological dating foundation on which to support the hypothesis.
In short, therefore, we can say with absolute certainty that the Ninth were at Nijmegen BUT we cannot say whether that was in the early 2nd century, after their withdrawal from Britain, or in the mid 80s, when their recorded fighting in the Chattan War, or in the late 60s, when detachments were withdrawn to aid Vespasian’s campaign to be emperor, or in the early 40s, prior to their incorporation in Claudius’ invasion of Britain, or indeed at any other time in the 1st or early 2nd century. The finds themselves are undated and undatable. All I’ve been trying to say (perhaps not very successfully) is that they do not definitely support the theory that the Ninth were taken out of Britain (and at Nijmegen) in the 120s AD. I mentioned the Chattan War of c. 82/3 because Nijmegen is in the (presumed) general area affected by the Chatti in the 80s AD and we know that part of the Ninth was engaged in fighting / building operations. This fits the finds, although is, as I happily admit, by no means a certainty.
Nathan Ross wrote
Evidence of the ninth operating on the continent actually comes from the inscription of Roscius Celer (CIL 14, 03612 - trib(uno) mil(itum) leg(ionis) IX Hispan(ae) vexillarior(um) eiusdem / in expeditione Germanica), and this is usually dated to the Chattian war of c.82. But this is not a certain date either. Surely the Nijmegen excavator (or subsequent scholarship) would be aware of this, and would have considered it, Occam's razor-like, as the obvious source for the tiles? That they haven't suggests evidence to contradict the earlier dating - like the tiles overlaying the fort.
There’s another problem. The tiles are solid and archaeological durable. So far no one has found stamped tiles with the Ninth stamp in a bathhouse / fort building at Nijmegen, just bits of tiles in topsoil. I’d like to think that “subsequent scholarship” would (should) have questioned the context and dating associations of the tiles, but they didn’t. There’s just (sadly) been a general acceptance that the finds mean the Ninth were at Nijmegen AFTER they were taken out of Britain and en-route to the East, but the evidence (at least in its current form) does not and cannot support this. When someone finds tiles like this in a building dated to the 120s or in datable sealed contexts (associated with coins or clear pottery forms) or perhaps an inscription that post dates that from York, then I’ll concede that there is indeed new evidence and that the theory they were withdrawn is now the most acceptable one.
Richard McGill wrote
Did you write 'brutal ambush', Dr Russell, or was that the flourish of a BBC editor?
That’s not one of mine I’m afraid. It’s another good example of what Mike Bishop has noted as the “degree of hyperbole”. I agree. An ambush is an ambush, but the application of ‘brutal’ perhaps appeals to the more curious or bloodlusty. ‘Ambush’ itself doesn’t really need qualifying (much as today I heard on Radio 4 a report on the Frome hoard of Roman coins where it was described as being “extremely unique”. Is that MORE unique than ‘averagely unique’ I wonder?)
John Maddox Roberts wrote
How does a brutal ambush differ from a nice ambush?
A nice ambush is when people surprise you with cake.
Cheers
Miles
