Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Article on the L. IX Hispana (Factual????)
#31
Hi Nathan
Good to hear from you - God, I'd hate to be thought of as part of some 'Goveite conspiracy', especially as self same government department seems to be trying to destroy the British University system (and arts / humanities programmes in particular)! I agree with your sentiments and wish that governments (and the previous administration was just as guilty) would stop tinkering with subjects like history, especially when they try to make it fit some pseudo-nationalist agenda. I was always annoyed that 'History' as a subject at schools seemed to start with the Tudors, very little, if any, consideration being given to earlier times or indeed of parts of the UK outside of England (or at least the Home Counties). I'm also afraid that, as an archaeologist, I always try to put archaeological evidence first (then see if the historic framework fits - rather than looking at the history and seeing whether any archaeological finds can be made to 'flesh it out'), but then I suppose that's partially because I disliked history at School (as it was mostly about 19th century poor law reform).

I think I've probably strayed massively off topic....

Anyhow, just to say that I think that inspiring stories have their place, but certainly not at the expense of themes and the solid analysis of evidence.

Now, where were we.....?

M
Reply
#32
Fascinating discussion, and though directly prompted by the articles in the UK papers (and the BBC) those were themselves spawned by the Hollywoods film Centurion and The Eagle.

In this respect these films do serve a useful purpose by stimulating such discussions. (I beleive Gladiator did the same and so too Saving Private Ryan.) The only down side is that the vast majority of the viewing public will not see these discussions and will continue to believe that the Imperial Roman SAS Confusedhock: :roll: was destroyed in the wilds of Scotland, that Commodus was killed fighting in the arena, and that the Persians used armored rhinos at Thermopylae (among other enduring 'facts')

As I have said before, not a week goes by that I do not learn something new from this Forum.

:wink:

Narukami
David Reinke
Burbank CA
Reply
#33
Salvete omnes,
Having watched the documentary 'Rome's lost legion', and i must say really enjoyed it,I thought i would relay my response.

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 [/quote]

Quote:Aswell as The IX/VIIII was one of Rome most crack units & Premier, elite units in the roman army
I am reasonably confident that the schedule and budget of the documentary didn't exactly help Dr Russell in putting over the evidence or rather lack of evidence, but for the programme to explain
Quote:All evidence points to the legion being destroyed in britain
then later go on to say
Quote:The absence of evidence suggests the IX/VIIII was destroyed
doesn't really help.

As for the 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 Tacitusc tells us that
Quote:Agricola ordered his men to draw up in rank and file of 8,000 auxillary infantry formed the core of his formation supported by 3,000/5,000 cavalry spread out on the flanks
Quote:As Agricola's intention from the start ,along with his choice of auxillaries in preference to the classic dense shield wall of the legions
(Duncan B Campbell)
The size of the legionary force is unknown but again Tacitus says Agricola deployed the legionary vexillations as a reserve in front of the roman camp.(Duncan B Campbell).

Having aired my views i must commend Dr Russell on, if not the historical accuracy on parts of the documentary and his eventual conclusion,(we all see things differently) but sharing his opinions and his interpretation on this subject

Valete omnes
Quadratus
Reply
#34
Quote:Anyone claiming a 'definite' answer to the mystery of the ninth legion is clearly being antihistorical - but nobody actually is!
I guess you were mis-quoted when you said they were killed in a brutal ambush.
** Vincula/Lucy **
Reply
#35
Quote:
Miles Russell post=285573 Wrote:Anyone claiming a 'definite' answer to the mystery of the ninth legion is clearly being antihistorical - but nobody actually is!
I guess you were mis-quoted when you said they were killed in a brutal ambush.

That was me actually, Lucy!

Quote:Having watched the documentary 'Rome's lost legion'...
Quote:The IX/VIIII was one of Rome most crack units & Premier, elite units in the roman army

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... :-D

Quote:i must commend Dr Russell on, if not the historical accuracy on parts of the documentary and his eventual conclusion,(we all see things differently) but sharing his opinions and his interpretation on this subject

All I can find of the documentary online is the little introductory trailer, so I can't comment on the content. But, Dr Russell - lose that trooper helmet! :wink:

- Nathan
Nathan Ross
Reply
#36
Nathan Ross wrote:

Dr Russell - lose that trooper helmet


What? - lose my valued paper-weight......?

Miles
Reply
#37
Quote:
Miles Russell post=285573 Wrote:Anyone claiming a 'definite' answer to the mystery of the ninth legion is clearly being antihistorical - but nobody actually is!
I guess you were mis-quoted when you said they were killed in a brutal ambush.

Quote:That was me actually, Lucy!

I think it was in the report of the TV show.
** Vincula/Lucy **
Reply
#38
How does a brutal ambush differ from a nice ambush?
Reply
#39
Quote:What? - lose my valued paper-weight......?

So long as you don't wear it in lectures.

Quote: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. 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. Given that we know, from contemporary accounts, that elements of the Ninth were taken out of Britain by Domitian to fight the Chatti, why can’t the pieces date to the mid AD 80s?

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?

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 the earlier dating - like the tiles overlaying the fort.

Could you clarify what you mean?

- Nathan
Nathan Ross
Reply
#40
[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12752497][/url]
Quote:I think it was in the report of the TV show.

It's certainly mentioned in the intro to the BBC News Magazine feature:

The disappearance of Rome's Ninth Legion has long baffled historians, but could a brutal ambush have been the event that forged the England-Scotland border, asks archaeologist Dr Miles Russell, of Bournemouth University.


Did you write 'brutal ambush', Dr Russell, or was that the flourish of a BBC editor?
Reply
#41
Quote:How does a brutal ambush differ from a nice ambush?

Only in the degree of hyperbole employed in its reporting ;-)

There are two intriguing things that emerge from the welter of evidence for the supposed fate of the Ninth Legion, both of them related to military equipment (and thus, by definition, far more interesting than putative massacres :-) ).

First the much-discussed tile stamps can be turned on their figurative heads - the Ninth could have started stamping when on the continent and then brought the die(s) back to Britain and continued at Scalesceugh. Stamped tile at Nijmegen implies construction work there by the legion (or a part of it) so they need to be fitted into the scheme of things for the site, which is not easy before of departure of X Gemina. Participation in any number of foreign wars is a possibility (it doesn't need to be one for which we happen to have a career inscription), including Trajan's Dacian Wars, and the return to Britain of a detachment with one or more 'VIIII' dies and the subsequent deployment of a works detail to Scalesceugh might explain why mostly 'IX' stamps come from York (Wright's types 1 and 2 dies - from ?Aldborough and York - are possibly 'VIIII' stamps, but their identification as Ninth stamps is at best tenuous). Whatever, it is likely (but no more) that the Nijmegen and Scalesceugh stamps were close in date. Interestingly, a move from Nijmegen to Britain after the Dacian shindig would then provide a mechanism for the early appearance of the Newstead type of armour (eeek - and possibly also armguards!) at Carlisle, which could have housed said detachment - the latest piece of kit brought back from one of the biggest legionary get-togethers since the civil war in 69 (so plenty of opportunity for cross-fertilisation of ideas).

Second, there is that pendant from Ewijk. It is, so far as I am aware, the only horse pendant with a legionary ownership inscription marked punctim. Whilst it was a common practice for an owner to mark his equipment in this fashion with his century/turma and name, sticking the unit on is very rare (the helmet from Burlafingen with the legionary inscription is one example). It is possible that the owner's name was on the accompanying phalera - we know pendants and phalerae were paired at the time of manufacture from the marks on the suspension hinges of the Xanten and Doorwerth fittings - but it is still an oddity. Of course, there is absolutely no necessity for the Ewijk pendant and the Nijmegen tile stamps to be contemporary.

Mike Bishop
You know my method. It is founded upon the observance of trifles

Blogging, tweeting, and mapping Hadrian\'s Wall... because it\'s there
Reply
#42
Hello Dr Russell,
Quote: Hi everyone.
Thought, as I’d been mentioned a bit in recent posts, that I ought to sign in and, at the very least, add my six-pennies-worth on the current debate about the Ninth Legion.
Indeed, and my thanks for the worthwhile replies.
Quote: Vortigern Studies wrote:
he's turning things around: it was the 'legend' of the Ninth disappearing in Scotland which became a fact over the years, without a shred of evidence.
Yes - exactly right, I agree.
OK, I’m glad we cleared that one. I guess this sentence belongs to an overeager BBC journalist then?
Quote: I find it odd that so many seem to cling on to the ‘transfer’ theory.
Agreed. However, you have suggested a destruction in Britain as a result of an uprising, but also without providing evidence.
Your solution that the Sixth was a replacement for the destroyed Ninth might seem a solution, but it is still extremely close to the supposed destruction of the Ninth.

I mean, given that the Sixth arrived in 122, and that the Ninth was destroyed at that time (possibly even in 121 at the time of Hadrian’s visit, or even the year before that) Aemilius Karus would have been either a survivor of the destroyed legion, if his service with the legion would date back to 122. Following that, the Ninth can hardly have been gone by the 110s, but must have been destroyed before 122 (when the Sixth arrived), or just a very short time before that (when Karus serves there). Novius Crispinus’ tribunate (‘as late as the mid-120’) might even postdate the arrival of the Sixth in 122, meaning that the Sixth could not have been a replacement of a destroyed Ninth.

Of course, any one of these men may have been a survivor, but to me it would be a bit strange that officers who survive a destroyed legion (a tribune no less) go on to have very distinguished careers, instead of suffering the shame of a lost eagle etcetera.

Any which one of these cases to me presents, although indeed like you say ‘possibly’, more evidence of a Ninth legion serving outside Britain, while being replaced by the Sixth in 122, than a destroyed legion between the late 110s and 122. We are however in full agreement that there is no firm evidence about the final fate of the Ninth.
Quote: Vortigern Studies wrote:
In fact he's wrong on more facts. According to Dr Miles, the historians claim about the Ninth is that "sometime before AD 160, they were wiped in out in a war against the Persians.” Of course, that should be 'the Parthians', but who paying attention to detail, really?
Well if you want to be really pedantic the Parthians WERE part of the Persian Empire and therefore are culturally (if not ethnically or politically) Persian. I guess if you say ‘Parthian’ to the general public they’ll counter with ‘er…?’ (same with Sassanid or Seleucid I guess) but ‘Persian’ strikes a chord (even if there’s a feeling with most people today that it only applies to Iran).
I’m sure I’m not the only one who can’t follow you in this. Pedantic or not, the fact that the Parthians were once part of the Achaemenid Persian empire does not make them Persians at all. Of course they claimed to be the successors to the Achaemenids, but that does not make them Persians, linguistically, culturally nor politically. Persians were ethnically just a part from this empire, as were the Sassanid Persians after them. Their language was related but different. Etcetera. Nor were the Seleucids, who were defeated by the Parthians, Persians. They were the Hellenist successors to Alexander, ruling over Persians, but very different.
If we would make such comparisons when discussing the Roman empire, we could suggest that the Franks (or the Goths, the Saxons, or any number of successor states) were in fact Romans, because they were once part of the Roman empire, and ‘therefore’ culturally (if not ethnically or politically) Roman.

I know ‘Persian’ strikes a chord with the general public, but I don’t think that we should provide them with the wrong information, even though they may not recognize that information. The newspapers are already full of such nonsense, and I think it’s our task to educate, not participate in the dumbing down of the general public.
Quote: Vortigern Studies wrote:
Dr . Russell seems to advocate this idea about the Ninth in his publications. I did not read his 'Bloodline' book
Perhaps you should? I can’t claim that you’ll like it (in fact I suspect you won’t) but then I read lots of stuff on a daily basis that I don’t like or don’t actually agree with, just so I know what arguments are ‘out there’ in order to debate or argue against more successfully.
Oh, I certainly should, I fully agree with you. It’s just that I have a small mountain of books and articles to read, and no spare time to accomplish that any time soon. I promised Jasper 2 reviews 2 years ago.. Cry We should have spare lives, or gadgets like Harry Potter, to read and at the same time do other things in a parallel universe..

Why would you suspect I would not like it? I collect Arthurian stuff (novels and theories), and I like everything one that’s well written or well argued. I also publish theories on my website (Vortigern Studies) which I don’t agree with, as long as they are not utter nonsense.
Quote: Vortigern Studies wrote:
So far, I think this 'growing academic support' is limited to dr. Russell.
Well, we obviously move in different academic circles as no one I’ve spoken to over the last year seems supportive of the ‘transfer theory’ – guess we’ll have to agree to disagree there and draw a line under it.
I have no doubt that we do! Big Grin
But have any of these academics also published their opinions? I’d like to read some of their ideas (if I can ever get through the aforementioned mountain).
Of course we can agree to disagree, we can discuss the various reasons behind our opinions though.Wink
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#43
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
Reply
#44
Quote: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.)

Quote: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".

Quote: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.
posted by Duncan B Campbell
https://ninth-legion.blogspot.com/
Reply
#45
Quote: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.)

Worth pointing out, perhaps, that many past papers relating to Nijmegen are available online as PDFs, that of Bogaers mentioned by Duncan being accessible here. It is in German but includes a drawing of the stamp in question (p.63), as well as the stamped mortarium from Holdeurn - these should require no translation.

Mike Bishop
You know my method. It is founded upon the observance of trifles

Blogging, tweeting, and mapping Hadrian\'s Wall... because it\'s there
Reply


Forum Jump: