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

[Miles Russell]

Hi Duncan

Duncan Campbell wrote:

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.

Quite, I didn't actually say that there was more than one stamp recovered, merely two pieces of stamped tile (the one stamp stamping both pieces) plus one mortarium (unless more have been found since 1986, which is entirely possible) and the unstratified inscribed metal piece from elsewhere.

Duncan Campbell wrote:

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".

Again exactly right. Looking at the reports it’s quite clear that the destruction levels are indeed (at least partially) composed of topsoil, containing as they do considerable amounts of post Roman finds. Even if the tiles had, in any case, been recovered from a secure destruction level, sealed by later activity, they would only confirm that the tiles were around at the time the fort was subjected to a period of levelling (as per the stamped finds of the Tenth Legion in this level) and not that the Ninth were at Nijmegen at the time of the forts destruction nor that they followed the Tenth Legion in the occupation of the fort, only that they were there at some stage prior to the destruction. Two tiles is an awful lot to hang a whole occupation upon and, given both their durable form and unstratified context means they cannot be used to tie the Ninth to a particular period of activity.

Duncan Campbell wrote:

It seems, on the contrary, that the tile can be tied to a particular phase of the Nijmegen fortress.

Sorry, but that’s stretching the interpretation way beyond the limits of archaeological inference – topsoil is topsoil, even if it contains destruction debris from an earlier level.

Duncan Campbell wrote:

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).

Sorry but again you’ve misunderstood my comments as I never made any such claim. I have said nothing detrimental about Jules Bogaers who, from what I can gather was indeed an insightful and careful archaeologist; the fault lies with those who have misrepresented the importance of the finds since their discovery.

Best wishes

Miles

[D B Campbell]

I didn't actually say that there was more than one stamp recovered, merely two pieces of stamped tile (the one stamp stamping both pieces) ... Two tiles is an awful lot to hang a whole occupation upon and, given both their durable form and unstratified context means they cannot be used to tie the Ninth to a particular period of activity.

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.

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.

I'd like to think (although I cannot prove) that an archaeologist of Jules Bogaers' considerable experience probably knew the difference between the final destruction layer of a site and the overlying topsoil. I haven't been able to lay my hands on any sections from the excavations -- have you? --, but when he says that the Ninth Legion tile (I'm not sure that it was in two pieces as you said, but maybe it was subsequently broken) was "from the Period III level or the overlying destruction layer", he probably means that.

The archaeological context reported by Bogaers strongly suggests that the officers' houses, originally built by the Tenth Legion, were being re-roofed. The fact that there's a tile of the Ninth Legion from this location suggests (to me, at any rate) that it was the Ninth Legion who were doing the re-roofing.

As I said before, I am drawing upon Bogaers' 1967 report and subsequent comments by Jan Haalebos. It sounds from your remarks that you have consulted the original excavation report. Perhaps you could quote a little from that, so that we know exactly what we are dealing with?

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.

I am glad to see that you accept the presence of the Ninth Legion at Nijmegen. But I cannot see how the evidence, as reported by Bogaers, supports your wide range of dates. As you know, archaeological interpretation is a lot more complicated than analysing one tile-stamp. Whatever interpretation you place upon the tile-stamp must make sense within the wider context of the site. Surely nobody would suggest that the Ninth Legion were present on the Hunerberg "in the late 60s" or "in the early 40s".

Even if the tiles had, in any case, been recovered from a secure destruction level, sealed by later activity, they would only confirm that the tiles were around at the time the fort was subjected to a period of levelling (as per the stamped finds of the Tenth Legion in this level) and not that the Ninth were at Nijmegen at the time of the forts destruction nor that they followed the Tenth Legion in the occupation of the fort, only that they were there at some stage prior to the destruction.

Again, the tile-stamp cannot be analysed in a vaccuum. Your interpretation of it must make sense within the wider context of the site, the province, and the Roman empire. In my opinion, Bogaers and Haalebos were quite right to suggest that the only time the Ninth Legion can sensibly be fitted into the Nijmegen context is in the early second century, following the departure of the Tenth Legion.

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.

That is certainly true, although my understanding of the much beloved Occam's Razor, seeking the simplest interpretation, would suggest that one departure of the Ninth Legion from Britain is quite enough. If they came back again, we need to find some other mechanism to get rid of them again! :wink:

[PhilusEstilius]

The two tiles with the Ninth stamp from Scalesceugh were found in association with a tile of the Twentieth Legion, which might imply a small detatchment of both legions working together at this place.
It has also been said that they were supplying these tiles to Carlisle some 5 miles to the north.

[mcbishop]

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.

That is certainly true, although my understanding of the much beloved Occam's Razor, seeking the simplest interpretation, would suggest that one departure of the Ninth Legion from Britain is quite enough. If they came back again, we need to find some other mechanism to get rid of them again! :wink:

Actually, m'lud, I would submit that Occam's Razor would demand the simplest link be between the Scalesceugh and Nijmegen dies and requires that they be contemporary, near contemporary, or contiguous, particularly given the similarity in the form of the G of LEG in both cases. The meme of additive numbering (VIIII - Wright types 3 to 5) is unlikely to be used, discarded in favour of subtractive numbering (IX - Wright types 6 onwards), then re-adopted for a move from or to Nijmegen. Frere & Tomlin, in their introduction to the tile stamps of the Ninth (RIB 2462 in RIB II Fasc 4, 168) say

The legion did not start to stamp its tiles before the closing years of the first century.

so a Chattan war origin seems unlikely (F&T have the advantage over me that they have read Ian Betts' thesis on the brick/tile industry in York which includes scientific fabric analysis). The Carlisle Millennium report includes two possible 2462.16 stamps (which match a couple of others, unknown to Wright, from Annetwell Street - the other end of the Millennium barrack buildings - and these are also of the VIIII type).

Intriguingly (get that Razor ready) a VIIII stamp (2462.16.iii) comes from Stanwix which, of course, is a Hadrianic foundation (first in turf/timber then in stone); moreover, Ian Caruana reckons all of the Scalesceugh/Carlisle/Stanwix stamps are from the same die. Go figure...

The two tiles with the Ninth stamp from Scalesceugh were found in association with a tile of the Twentieth Legion, which might imply a small detatchment of both legions working together at this place.

A good point. The pairing of legions at both Carlisle and Corbridge is a recurrent theme for those two sites (and the XX stamp is of a type - 2463.2 and .3, with one V above the other - that is unique to the north-west with finds from Scalesceugh, Carlisle, Old Penrith and... wait for it... Stanwix!)

As for another mechanism, why has no-one mentioned alien abduction? hock:

Mike Bishop

[Narukami]

As for another mechanism, why has no-one mentioned alien abduction? hock:

Mike Bishop

The Aliens are, at present, busy destroying Santa Monica and the greater Los Angeles area, but don't worry -- They will be over to deal with you and your Roman Friends soon enough.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9otTzrO9Bfw

:?

Narukami

[D B Campbell]

Actually, m'lud, I would submit that Occam's Razor would demand the simplest link be between the Scalesceugh and Nijmegen dies and requires that they be contemporary, near contemporary, or contiguous,

I must have expressed myself poorly, because you are, indeed, "preaching to the converted". My preferred scenario would see the Ninth Legion moving their tile production from Scalesceugh to Nijmegen. (I imagined, obviously mistakenly, that you were advocating a move from York to Nijmegen and back to Scalesceugh, a sequence which is unnecessarily convoluted imho.)

The legion did not start to stamp its tiles before the closing years of the first century.

A point which I had forgotten. (Peter Warry makes the point in his recent article on tile production in Britannia.) Many thanks for drawing attention to an important factor, and further demonstrating that an artefact (in this case, the Nijmegen tile) cannot be analysed properly without addressing the wider context.

[mcbishop]

My preferred scenario would see the Ninth Legion moving their tile production from Scalesceugh to Nijmegen. (I imagined, obviously mistakenly, that you were advocating a move from York to Nijmegen and back to Scalesceugh, a sequence which is unnecessarily convoluted imho.)

Sort of yes and no. Why? Because I can see no reason why part of the Ninth couldn't have gone Nijmegen (on their way back from somewhere, perhaps the Dacian Wars) -> Scalesceugh/Carlisle -> wherever, just as easily as Scalesceugh/Carlisle -> Nijmegen -> wherever. There certainly appears to be two stamping traditions in operation at the same time, but with such crummy dating evidence that could be illusory.

Of course, playing devil's advocate, that part of the legion that stamped IX might have been wiped out and only the VIIII bunch survive to stamp again. :twisted:

Mike Bishop

[Steve Eckersley]

I am still of the opinion that we dont know!
I portray a centurion in the ninth legion between 60 ad and 100 ad and focus mainly on the Battle of Mons Graupius.
I am interested in the debate of whether the legion were battle hardend veterans or a weak legion!
I am aslo interested as whether after Mons Graupius that the relationship between the 3 legions and the Texalli would have meant that all the Marching camps would have been abandoned especially the closest to any pick up point to Classicus Brittanicus would have been Peterhead with its natural harbour and inlets. Having met Lawrence Keppie in the past his view is that supplies from the sea to north were at Crammond and this would have indeed supplied the Gask ridge Forts but its too far north for supplying. Durno/pitcaple and Kintore and the closest would have been Peterhead or Sandend which is not far away from where the Carnyx was found. about 6 miles away.
Very few artifacts have been found around Oyne (Suggested site of Mons Graupius) but quite a few have been found on the outskirts of Peterhead including Patera. The relationship between the Texalli and the Ninth is known to have been good (Tacitus) so why would they March back south if going to Germany when they would have been picked up on the North east coast?
I look forward to being enlightened. I walk the potential fields of Mons Graupis at least once a month and still find it fascinating as to the relationship between the Celts and the Romans in this area in this period.

[Nathan Ross]

I am still of the opinion that we dont know!

I think everyone else is as well, if they're honest! :wink:

I am interested in the debate of whether the legion were battle hardend veterans or a weak legion!

I was semi joking when I suggested above that they might have been a weak legion! The ninth were certainly unfortunate, but even the real 'elite' units of the Praetorian Guard suffered fairly frequent defeats.

I am aslo interested as whether after Mons Graupius... the Marching camps would have been abandoned especially the closest to any pick up point to Classicus Brittanicus would have been Peterhead with its natural harbour and inlets...so why would they March back south if going to Germany when they would have been picked up on the North east coast?

Marching camps are temporary by their nature - they could have been occupied for a longish period during the campaigning season, but I doubt a Roman commander would have put his men sub pellibus during a northern winter in hostile territory. The fortress at Inchtuthill was intended to be permanent, but was abandoned c.86, giving us a good end-date for Roman occupation in the area. Any troops still remaining further north would surely have been pulled back at the same time.

Having met Lawrence Keppie in the past his view is that supplies from the sea to north were at Crammond and this would have indeed supplied the Gask ridge Forts... Very few artifacts have been found around Oyne (Suggested site of Mons Graupius) but quite a few have been found on the outskirts of Peterhead including Patera.

Very interesting! Perhaps you could add this bit of info to the thread on the Classis Britannica in Scotland?

The relationship between the Texalli and the Ninth is known to have been good (Tacitus)

I've never heard that idea before! Can you provide a quote or reference?

- Nathan

[Nathan Ross]

Just a quick extra note on the 'shreds of evidence' for the later life of IX Hispana, or lack thereof...

I've been going through James Robert Summerly's PhD thesis Studies in the Legionary Centurionate (1990), and he makes a few interesting points about career inscriptions of centurions from the legion. As he points out, while senatorial officers of IX have been discussed in relation to the legion's fate, their juniors often have not. Duncan's article in AW mentions Aelius Asclepiades, also discussed by J.C. Mann. Summerly goes into a bit more detail:

CIL X 1769 (is) the tombstone of a man called Aelius Asclepiades who served eight years in IX Hispana and who was nati(one) Cil(ix). As Professor Mann states, it is difficult to see how a native of Cilicia could be recruited into VIIII Hispana unless the legion spent some time in the east, and the nomen Aelius suggests eastern enfranchisement on recruitment in the reigns of Hadrian or Pius. (Summerly 1990, p.56)

...Mann suggested IX Hispana may have gone east for Trajan's Parthian War and stayed in the east to be destroyed in the Jewish revolt of c132-c135.(ibid p149)

The thesis goes on to cite two further inscriptions, which I'd never heard of, firstly Claudius Vitalis:

The sixth transfer of Claudius Vitalis was from XX Valeria to IX Hispana and must have occurred in Britain, while the seventh transfer, from IX Hispana to VII Claudia may have taken place in the east. Claudius Vitalis seems to have served only eleven years and his second centurionate was in I Minervia in the second Dacian War of Trajan so his last transfer can hardly fail to have been within the Parthian War of Trajan. VII Claudia was in the east during the Parthian War of Trajan. (Summerly 1990, p149)

VII Claudia also sent a vexillation to Cyprus to crush the Jewish revolt there in 117, I think, so they were certainly in the area. Then there's L. Servaeus Sabinus:

Sabinus was transferred from IX Hispana to III Augusta at an unknown date. (He) was the son of a primipilaris from Savatra in Galatia and Dr. Dobson has suggested primipilares from the east do not come through until the Flavian period. The career of Servaeus Sabinus could therefore be Trajanic and if IX Hispana went east for the Parthian War of Trajan it is possible that the transfer into III Augusta occurred at that time as a vexillation of III Augusta fought in the Parthian War. (Summerly 1990, p150)

Circumstantial, maybe, but interesting... If IX Hispana went east in c.113 for the Parthian war, they could have stopped at Nijmegen on the way for a bit of building work, perhaps? :grin:

- Nathan

[D B Campbell]

CIL X 1769 (is) the tombstone of a man called Aelius Asclepiades who served eight years in IX Hispana and who was nati(one) Cil(ix). As Professor Mann states, it is difficult to see how a native of Cilicia could be recruited into VIIII Hispana unless the legion spent some time in the east, and the nomen Aelius suggests eastern enfranchisement on recruitment in the reigns of Hadrian or Pius. (Summerly 1990, p.56)

As noted in my article, Lawrence Keppie has a plausible get-out for Aelius Asclepiades.

The thesis goes on to cite two further inscriptions, which I'd never heard of, firstly Claudius Vitalis: ...

Shame on you, Nathan. Claudius Vitalis was in the Ancient Warfare Special Issue 2010, in "Backbone of the Legions: Some centurions and their careers", p. 17-18.

Then there's L. Servaeus Sabinus: ... Sabinus was transferred from IX Hispana to III Augusta at an unknown date. ... The career of Servaeus Sabinus could therefore be Trajanic and if IX Hispana went east for the Parthian War of Trajan it is possible that the transfer into III Augusta occurred at that time as a vexillation of III Augusta fought in the Parthian War.

If the career is Trajanic ... if Ninth Hispana went east ... if the transfer occurred in Parthia ... rather a lot of "if"s! ;-)

[Nathan Ross]

As noted in my article, Lawrence Keppie has a plausible get-out for Aelius Asclepiades.

He does indeed. But even if the man came through the fleet he would have been recruited under Hadrian, and presumably served several years before reaching the ninth, so providing another late-ish date for their continued existence...

Shame on you, Nathan.

Ach - suitably shamefaced here, Duncan, as I still haven't read your article :oops: ... one reason being that I promised myself I'd get through Summerly's rather hefty thesis first... but now I have, I shall... mile:

If the career is Trajanic ... if Ninth Hispana went east ... if the transfer occurred in Parthia ... rather a lot of "if"s! ;-)

Yes, it wouldn't really stand up in court, that one... more a raised eyebrow than a shred of anything!

- Nathan

[D B Campbell]

As noted in my article, Lawrence Keppie has a plausible get-out for Aelius Asclepiades.

He does indeed. But even if the man came through the fleet he would have been recruited under Hadrian, and presumably served several years before reaching the ninth, so providing another late-ish date for their continued existence...

Keppie makes the astute observation that a man enfranchised by Hadrian upon his enlistment in a legion may be expected to have taken the name P. Aelius Whatever, whereas our tombstone apparently ("apparently", because it has been lost and is known only from a sketch) commemorates a D. Aelius Asclepiades. So there may be no Hadrianic connection at all. :?

[Nathan Ross]

Whatever, whereas our tombstone apparently ("apparently", because it has been lost and is known only from a sketch) commemorates a D. Aelius Asclepiades. So there may be no Hadrianic connection at all. :?

Hmm! My listing of that inscription doesn't mention a praenomen - any chance the D was a misreading of a P? Also, was Aelia Seleria his daughter, or maybe his wife? Supposedly found in Puteoli, so suggests a fleet link - but the guy was 42 and only served 8 years. What was he doing until age 34? Is Keppie's suggestion that a former fleet soldier may not mention his naval service, preferring only to list his more prestigious time in the legion?

Edit* - come to think of it, wasn't the Misenum fleet used in Trajan's Parthian war (or against the Jewish rebels at around the same time), and later in some connection with the Bar Kochba revolt? Could be a way for 34-yr old sailor Asclepiades from Cilicia to find himself drafted into IX Hispana, perhaps, if they were in the east at the time?...

- Nathan

[Epictetus]

This is slightly off-topic and speculative, but could this Aelius Asclepiades have been a military physician? "Asclepiades" brings the god of healing "Asclepius" to mind, and based on Aelius Aristides' Sacred Tales the name "Asclepiades" seems to have been regularly taken by priests to the god as well as physicians in Asia Minor. Smith's old Dictionary of Greek Names says it seems to have been more of an honorific than a normal personal name.