# Duncan B. Campbell's case against the loss of Legio VIIII Hispana in Britain Working copies of the raw downloads cited below by file name are not included in this folder. Reading conventions used in this report: **[FULL]** = the whole text was obtained and read; **[PART]** = only an excerpt/snippet/secondary description was obtained; verbatim quotations are in quotation marks; page numbers are given only where the source itself prints them. --- ## (a) What was obtained, and from where ### 1. The book — Duncan B. Campbell, *The Fate of the Ninth: The Curious Disappearance of One of Rome's Legions* (Bocca della Verità Publishing, Glasgow 2018) — **NOT OBTAINED (no text)** Bibliographic facts established: - Paperback: ISBN 978-1-7917-6833-1 / 1791768334; published 16 December 2018; "Independently published" (Amazon KDP; "Bocca della Verità" is the author's own imprint name); 167 pages per Amazon and Google Books ("166 pages"), 155 pages per Open Library ("pagination: 167"), "p/b 155pp £11.99" per the Classics for All review; OCLC 1084475785; Open Library OL40828680M / work OL29679900W (`openlibrary_isbn.json`, `ol_search.json`: `has_fulltext: false`, `ebook_access: no_ebook`). - Google Books record: volume id `9AoiwAEACAAJ`, `viewability = view_no_pages`, `embeddability = not_embeddable` (`gb_feeds.xml`, obtained from the GData endpoint `https://books.google.com/books/feeds/volumes?q=isbn:9781791768331`). The Books API v1 (`googleapis.com/books/v1/...`) returned HTTP 429 "quota_limit_value: 0" on every call (`gbapi_isbn.json`, `gbapi_title.json`, `gbapi_vol.json`); the Google Books web front-end (`books.google.com`, `books.google.co.uk`, `google.com/books/edition`) returned HTTP 403 "Sorry..." from this IP (`gb_vid.html`, `gb_uk.html`, `gb_edition.html`). Since the volume has *no* preview at all, no page text or "search inside" snippets exist to be recovered. - Kindle edition: ASIN B086YD16LF, published 8 April 2020, 127 pages (`amazon_kindle_dec.html`). Campbell announced it on RomanArmyTalk on 10 April 2020: "The Fate of the Ninth is now available for download to Kindle ... (I also added some bonus material. Just because.)" (thread tid=31269). This 2020 Kindle release is the only "revised" edition found; no 2019 revised edition surfaced anywhere (Open Library lists one edition only; Amazon lists paperback + Kindle only). - Structure, as far as it can be reconstructed from the author's own references and from citations by others: an Introduction on sources/epigraphy/prosopography (quoted in a Goodreads review); "chapter 3" sketches the early history of the legion (author's blog, 28 July 2019); ch. 8 concerns Sutcliff's *Eagle of the Ninth* (de.wikipedia citation); ch. 11 concerns Nijmegen/Lower Germany (en. and de.wikipedia citations); ch. 12 concerns the end of the legion — Bar Kokhba or Parthian war (en./de.wikipedia citations); the Elegeia hypothesis is examined at "Campbell 2018, 134–39" (Juntunen, *Arctos* 54 [2020] 168 n. 7); RIB 673 (Duccius Rufinus) is illustrated on p. 18, RIB 665 (York gate slab) on p. 21, the Nijmegen tile on p. 122 (author's blog, 2 August 2025); the book has 324 footnotes (author's blog, 17 August 2019) and "comes in at 140 or so pages" of text (author's blog, 20 July 2025); it has "illustrations, time line, footnotes and indices" (Spooner review). - Archive.org advanced search: no item (`ia_search.json`, `ia_search2.json`); HathiTrust catalog and full-text search: HTTP 403 from this IP (`hathi_cat.html`, `hathi_ft.html`); WorldCat search page fetched (`worldcat.html`) but it is a JS shell with no contents note; Amazon "Look inside"/"Read sample" exists (`https://read.amazon.com/sample/1791768334`) but is a JavaScript reader that cannot be fetched; the old SITB search endpoint returns 404 (`amazon_sitb.json`); Amazon customer-review pages are login-walled (`amazon_reviews.html`, `amazon_uk_reviews.html` — 0 reviews parsed; amazon.co.uk and amazon.com.au serve a bot page). - What *was* obtained about the book: the publisher's blurb and the printed endorsements (A.R. Birley, J.E. Lendon, A. Spooner, A. Goldsworthy, R.J.A. Wilson, A. Fear, R. Cowan, N. Hodgson, J. Corke-Webster) from Amazon.com and the author's "Books" page (`amazon_editorial_reviews.txt`, `blog_books_page.txt`) [FULL]; the Classics for All review by Adrian Spooner, posted 15 January 2019 (`classicsforall_review.txt`) [FULL]; eight Goodreads reader reviews (`goodreads_reviews.txt`) [FULL], one of which quotes the Introduction verbatim; the Wikipedia articles' chapter-level citations (`enwiki.txt`, `dewiki2.txt`) [FULL]; Kai Juntunen's *Arctos* 54 (2020) article (`arctos54.pdf`, actually a UTF-8 text file from helda.helsinki.fi) [FULL], which cites the book's pp. 134–39. ### 2. The author's blog, ninth-legion.blogspot.com — **ALL 57 POSTS OBTAINED [FULL]** - Blogger JSON feed `https://ninth-legion.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?max-results=500&alt=json` → `blogger_feed.json` (755 KB; `openSearch:totalResults = 57`, 57 entries). Every post saved as `blog/_.txt` (plain text) and `.html`. The static "Books" page saved as `blog_books_page.html/.txt`. - Posts that bear on the legion's fate (all read in full): "The Lost Legion" (15 Jul 2019); "A tribune of the Triumphant Ninth" (28 Jul 2019); "A View of Ancient History" (17 Aug 2019); "True and false at Mons Graupius, Part One" (10 Feb 2023); "Roman spelling again" (4 Mar 2023); "An unreliable history of Roman Scotland" (27 May 2023); "What soldiers of the Empire?" (10 Jul 2023); "Caledonia, land of cold and rain" parts 1–3 (26–27 Dec 2024, 1 Dec 2025 — a bande-dessinée précis, not argument); "Aesop, Aesop..." (20 Jul 2025, one sentence on the book's length); "Fours and nines and Roman numerals" (2 Aug 2025); "A Spanish disquisition" (7 Feb 2026, one paragraph on a primus pilus of VIIII Hispana); "When is a siege not a siege?" (25 May 2026, one sentence). No post responds to Hodgson 2021, Graafstal 2025 or Elliott. ### 3. Campbell's articles and forum posts - **"The fate of the Ninth: the curious disappearance of Legio VIIII Hispana", *Ancient Warfare* 4.5 (2010) 48–53 [FULL]** — the text extraction `campbell2010_aw.txt` (29,427 chars, six pages, with page markers; columns partly out of order but complete) was read in its entirety. The Wayback Machine CDX confirms three archived copies of the publisher's PDF (`cdx_kw2.json`, `cdx_aw.json`: karwansaraypublishers.com/schrijfsels/... 2021/2022 and ancient-warfare.com/pdf/web/AWIV-5/fateoftheninth.pdf 2011, identical digest). The publisher's blog post "The fate of the Ninth" (February 2011; Wayback 2022 capture, `wb_kw_fate_blog.txt`) [FULL] says only: "The evidence does not support this theory, however, and alternatives have been put forward long ago. Duncan Campbell published an overview of the debate in Ancient Warfare IV.5." - **No later article by Campbell on the Ninth was found.** Searched: Google Scholar (`scholar*.html`; only the 2010 article is indexed, "Cited by 2"), Crossref (`crossref_dbc.json`: only his OCD "legion" entry), Semantic Scholar author search (`s2_author.json`: no Ninth-related title), the Karwansaray site (Cloudflare 403) and Wayback CDX of its blogs (only the 2011 post and a 2024 podcast page "Ancient Warfare Answers (316): The Fate of the Ninth Legion" in which "Murray [Dahm] presents his theory" — not Campbell; `wb_kw_awa316.html`). Campbell states on his blog (25 May 2026) that his Ancient Warfare "The Debate" series ran "fifteen years ago"; the 2010 piece is the only Ninth-Legion instalment. - **RomanArmyTalk (MyBB forum at romanarmytalk.com/rat) [FULL for every post by Campbell found]:** the forum's own search was used with author = "D B Campbell" (Campbell's account, joined April 2004, 3,629 posts) for the keywords Ninth, Hispana, Nijmegen, "legion Hadrian" (`rat_r_dbc_*.html`), plus keyword searches "Hispana Nijmegen", "Hodgson Ninth", "Ninth Legion" (`rat_r_*.html`). All relevant threads were fetched in full (tid 16740 [7 pages], 18481 [5 pages], 4845 [2 pages], 2919, 14136, 30804, 31269 [2 pages], 31887, 31963) and every post by "D B Campbell" extracted to `rat_campbell_posts.txt` (25 posts, 2010–2026); all 235 posts of those threads are in `rat_all_posts.txt`. Threads: "New evidence for annihilation of Ninth Legion in Britain?" (April–October 2010, the Miles Russell/BBC story); "Article on the L. IX Hispana (Factual????)" (March–April 2011, on Nijmegen and CIL X 1769); "Legio IX Hispana origins" (2018); "The Fate of the Ninth" (2020–21, the Kindle announcement); "9th Legion in Derbyshire" (2025, Hodgson discussed by others — no Campbell post); "The Disappearance of Legio IX Hispana: Evidence and Hypotheses" (January–February 2026, Campbell's two posts responding, indirectly, to Hodgson 2021). ### 4. Responses to Hodgson 2021 / Graafstal 2025; academic reviews - **No published response by Campbell** to Hodgson (Britannia 52, 2021) or Graafstal (Britannia 56, 2025) exists as far as every index consulted shows: Crossref filtered to *Britannia* since June 2021 (`crossref_brit.json`: only Graafstal 2025 and a Hodgson book review); Google Scholar; his blog (silent); RomanArmyTalk (only the two short 2026 posts quoted in §B.4 below). - **No academic journal review of the book** was found (Bryn Mawr Classical Review search: 0 hits, `bmcr_search.html`; Crossref: nothing; Scholar: nothing). The only formal review is Adrian Spooner's for Classics for All (15 Jan 2019). Adrian Goldsworthy's assessment is printed as an endorsement (source not stated). Hodgson himself endorsed the book before 2021 ("An engaging and indispensable guide to the fugitive traces of the famous Ninth legion" — printed on Campbell's Books page) and, according to Nathan Ross's quotation of Hodgson 2021 on RomanArmyTalk (18 Feb 2026), Hodgson's paper says in a footnote that the "evolution of historical thought on this subject is meticulously traced in a recent fine scholarly monograph on the fate of the Ninth Legion by Duncan Campbell (2018)". (The local copy of Hodgson 2021 contains only abstract and bibliography — `hodgson2021_fitz.txt` — so this footnote could not be verified directly.) Graafstal 2025 n. 10: "An exhaustive historiography in Campbell 2018"; n. 207 cites "Campbell 2010, 52" as a recent example of the view that the whole legion came to Nijmegen. - Search-engine access was poor: DuckDuckGo (connection reset), Mojeek/Qwant (403), Yahoo (500), Bing (served irrelevant results), Google web (redirect page), Brave (one 200, mostly 429); Google Scholar and the Blogger/RomanArmyTalk/Wayback/Crossref/OpenLibrary endpoints worked. --- ## (b) Campbell's arguments, source by source ### B.1 *Ancient Warfare* 4.5 (2010) 48–53 [FULL] — "The fate of the Ninth. The curious disappearance of Legio VIIII Hispana" Standfirst (p. 48): "But was it really destroyed in Britain during the reign of Hadrian? Or have we fallen for a myth that should have been laid to rest fifty years ago?" **p. 48 — The York slab (RIB 665).** Found 7 October 1854; "the last testimony of the presence of the Ninth Legion in Britain. Dated to AD 108"; it "probably celebrated the construction of the gateway, built by the emperor per legionem VIIII Hispanam". **p. 49 — Horsley, Borghesi, Mommsen.** Horsley (1732) "could find no trace of it. Last mentioned in AD 82 by the historian Tacitus (in Agricola 26.1)... 'it might possibly be broke', he wrote..., 'or incorporated with the legio sexta victrix'". Campbell: "Unfortunately, there was no record of a legion having been 'broke', as happened, for example, in AD 161, when the Parthians, 'completely surrounding an entire Roman legion stationed under Severianus at Elegeia, a place in Armenia, shot it down and annihilated it with its officers' (Dio, Roman History 71.2.1). Horsley did not consider the obvious solution, that the Ninth Legion had been withdrawn from Britain and transferred elsewhere." Borghesi, from the career of L. Burbuleius Ligarianus (CIL X 6006 = ILS 1066, cos. 135, "probably served with the Ninth Hispana towards the end of Trajan's reign, perhaps around AD 115") and the legion's absence from the list of legions (CIL VI 3492 = ILS 2288, "shortly before AD 165"), "proposed that the Ninth Legion had been overwhelmed in a rebellion and had been replaced by the Sixth, a solution that seemed perfectly acceptable to his nineteenth century contemporaries." Mommsen (Römische Geschichte Book 8, 1885) is quoted: "Under Hadrian, there was a terrible catastrophe here, apparently an attack on the fortress at Eburacum and the annihilation of the legion stationed there, the very same Ninth that had fought so unluckily in the Boudican revolt." After RIB 665, Mommsen "announced that the disaster had occurred 'undoubtedly soon after AD 108', adding that 'this was probably not caused by an enemy invasion, but rather by a revolt of the northern allied peoples, particularly the Brigantes'." Also p. 49: the Pontius Laelianus inscription (CIL VI 1497+1549 = ILS 1094+1100), tribune of VI Victrix "cum qua ex Germania in Brittaniam transivit", dated to "the early AD 120s"; "It seems more than coincidental that a new governor, Aulus Platorius Nepos, had arrived in Britain from Lower Germany during the summer of AD 122, so he perhaps brought Pontius Laelianus and the Sixth Legion with him." **p. 50 — "A British war?"** Mommsen's two literary passages: HA Hadr. 5.2 ("the Britons could not be kept under Roman control") and Fronto, *On the Parthian War* 2 ("Under the rule of your grandfather Hadrian, what a number of soldiers were slain by the Jews, what a number by the Britons"). Campbell: "Hadrian's Jewish war was a major event, proved by archaeology and coin studies. The supposed British war, on the other hand, is more ephemeral." Weber (1907) "decided upon a revolt which had been crushed by AD 119." The coins: "there is only circumstantial evidence for a British war. Some of Hadrian's coins carry the figure of Britannia..., and these have been taken to imply warfare in Britain; specifically warfare during the years AD 117-119. But their evidence is problematic. Major changes in Hadrian's coinage occurred only in AD 119 and 128, but coin expert Harold Mattingly believed that he could differentiate certain coins within this period on stylistic grounds" — Mattingly's Britannia coins "celebrate the restoration of peace in the North after the revolt under Trajan, in which the ninth legion was destroyed". Campbell: "if Mattingly was wrong in his stylistic analysis, the coins could then fall some years later (though still pre-AD 128), and might celebrate a different event in Britain. For example, the emperor's own visit (normally dated to AD 122, but perhaps later)... Yet, to this day, many scholars still assume that Hadrian's coinage proves that a war was won in Britain in AD 119." Ritterling (RE 12, 1925) is quoted at length, ending: "Whether VIIII Hispana had already met its end, or only several years later, around AD 125, remains unknown." Campbell: "As Ritterling astutely realised, there was no guarantee that the transfer of the Sixth Victrix Legion was occasioned by the destruction of the Ninth Hispana Legion. This had simply been an assumption first proposed by Borghesi and followed by Mommsen. But if the Ninth Legion was still in the province, fully operational, then clearly Hadrian had intended temporarily to increase the provincial army to four legions." On T. Pontius Sabinus' *expeditio Brittanica* (ILS 2726): "it should be clear by now that there was never any direct linkage between the disappearance of the Ninth Legion and Hadrian's 'British campaign'. Nor, indeed, was there any compelling evidence to date the campaign to AD 119. This particular link was based on Mattingly's subjective assessment of the coins. So the arrival of these massive reinforcements could equally have been linked with Hadrian's decision to build his Wall in the years following AD 122." CAH 11 (Weber 1936) quoted; Campbell leaves the "British war" to "its own Ancient Warfare debate". **pp. 50–51 — "Legionary tribunes" (Ritterling's prosopography).** "Ritterling harboured doubts about an early destruction of the Ninth Legion. His reasoning was based on prosopography. He saw that the careers of certain officers seemed to have peaked too late for their service in the Ninth Legion to be restricted to the Trajanic period. The legion had surely survived into the early years of Hadrian's reign at least." - **L. Aemilius Karus** (CIL VI 1333 = ILS 1077): "This former tribune of the Ninth Legion was governing the praetorian province of Arabia in AD 142, the task of a man in his mid- to late-thirties (...; a recently discovered diploma confirms the date of his Arabian governorship)." Syme's identification with the "Lucius Aemilius" consul of 144; "Ritterling suggested a date 'only after AD 120' for Karus' service in the Ninth Legion, for it ought to have been at roughly the same time as Laelianus' service in the Sixth Legion." - **L. Novius Crispinus Martialis Saturninus**, consul 150 after commanding III Augusta: "As he was probably born in around AD 105, he was thus a little younger than Aemilius Karus and Pontius Laelianus. Ritterling realised that Crispinus' service in the Ninth Legion 'could not reasonably have fallen before AD 123'. Destruction in a British war of AD 119 was out of the question. Ritterling's only mistake lay in not stressing this logical conclusion. Instead, he simply advised that 'we should reckon on the possibility that a second British revolt broke out towards the middle or in the second half of the AD 120s, to which the legion fell victim.'" Parker (1928) "wrote, with misplaced confidence: 'the Roman legions were unable at first to cope successfully with the [British] revolt, and IX Hispana was destroyed not later than AD 122.'" **p. 51 — "An ignominious defeat?"** "A British war was universally believed to have occurred in AD 119, despite both the absence of direct evidence and the fragility of the circumstantial evidence. And the Ninth Legion was universally believed to have been destroyed in that war, despite Ritterling's warning." Eric Birley (1948) "proposed two possible scenarios. Either the Ninth Legion had been transferred from Britain under Trajan in connection with the Parthian war... Or else the Sixth Legion was brought over to Britain, not to replace the Ninth Legion, but to supplement the garrison during the building of Hadrian's Wall. (In this case, the Ninth Legion might have been transferred from Britain at a later date, perhaps in connection with Hadrian's Jewish War, which certainly saw other legionary transfers.)" Richmond (Roman Britain 1955) quoted ("That the legion was cashiered, there is no doubt... But the unit was not annihilated. Some of its officers at least survived..."); Campbell: "The extent to which theory had become fact in his account is astonishing. And thus, the carefully weighed caution of Ritterling and the perceptive theories of Birley were swept aside by the pre-eminent Roman military scholar of the day." "Richmond's fantastical theory". Sutcliff's foreword quoted; her source "was probably the Cambridge Ancient History". **pp. 51–52 — Nijmegen.** 1959: the Hunerberg fortress excavation "unearthed a roofing tile which bore the ownership stamp of the Ninth Legion. This was not an isolated find. Earlier excavations at the legionary pottery and tile-works, located at De Holdeurn less than 5 km from the fortress, had turned up the stamped rim of a mortarium... stamped LGVIIIIHIS, clearly an abbreviation for l(e)g(io) VIIII His(pana)." X Gemina left for the Dacian wars ("mentioned as still operating in Lower Germany in ca. AD 101/102"). "The next most common tile-stamp from Nijmegen reads VEX BRIT... Most scholars now follow Bogaers in assuming that, during the early years of the second century, the vacant Hunerberg fortress was occupied by mixed troops detached from the garrison of Britain. However, Bogaers realised that such a vexillation would be unlikely to have stamped their products with the name of the Ninth Legion. His solution was to suggest that the Ninth Legion took up residence in the Hunerberg fortress after the vexillation had returned to Britain, and continued the production of ceramics at the Holdeurn tilery. Unfortunately, no firm date could be applied to these events, except that they were broadly 'early second century'." Brian Hartley: York "under reduced occupancy in the early second century, whereas stamped tiles of the Ninth Legion were being produced at Scalesceugh, around 5 km south of Carlisle." The spelling argument: "Intriguingly, stamped tiles of the Ninth legion discovered in York were invariably marked LEG IX HISP, whereas those from Carlisle and Scalesceugh (and indeed from Nijmegen) were marked LEG VIIII HISP. It seemed possible to Bogaers that the legion had brought its distinctive Scalesceugh tile-stamps over to the Holdeurn tilery near Nijmegen, to continue production there." The Ewijk pendant: "found some 10 km west of the Nijmegen camp, near the site of a Roman villa; its inscription, LEG IX HISP, suggests that its owner had learned the 'York' version of the legion's name, rather than the 'Carlisle/Nijmegen' version." **p. 52 — The Aachen altar (AE 1968, 323).** "Further evidence supported the case that the Ninth Legion was quartered in Lower Germany. An altar to Apollo, discovered near the Roman spa of Aquae Granni (Aachen, Germany), was set up by Lucius Licinius Macer [sic — the article prints 'Licinius'; the man is L. Latinius Macer], primus pilus ('chief centurion') of the Ninth Legion, who had been promoted to the highly prestigious position of praefectus castrorum ('prefect of the camp', AE 1968, 323). Eric Birley believed that 'the praefectus castrorum could not have been serving with a mere vexillation', but in theory he could have been commanding one. Of course, only the presence of the aquilifer would be a cast-iron guarantee that the entire legion was there, but it would have been odd for the primus pilus to receive a promotion while absent in charge of a vexillation." **p. 52 — Florentinus and Numisius Iunior.** "Lucius Aninius Sextius Florentinus was known to have moved from the post of legatus legionis VIIII Hispanae... to the proconsulship of Gallia Narbonensis, and finally to the governorship of Arabia, but the dating had always been uncertain. Then, in the 1960s, a newly discovered papyrus finally showed that his governorship fell around the year AD 127. Such a man ought to have held his legionary command no more than five years earlier." "And the German classicist Werner Eck lent his considerable authority to the dating of another legionary tribune, Quintus Numisius Iunior, to around AD 140. The discovery that this man was consul in February AD 161 should have closed the issue, once and for all. It is unthinkable that his glowing career (CIL XI 5670) could have begun as long ago as AD 119, for this would mean that he only achieved the consulship at the age of sixty!" "And so, a new chapter in the Ninth Legion's history was taking shape during the 1970s. It seemed that, if the legion was already forming a stop-gap in Lower Germany, it might be called upon to fulfil other duties further along the frontier. Trajan's Parthian War had caused some dislocation of units, and Hadrian's Jewish War would do the same." **p. 53 — Asclepiades; Watson; "Fresh doubts"; conclusion.** "So it is interesting to note that a previous soldier of the Ninth Legion, Aelius Asclepiades, hailed from the east, in present-day Turkey (CIL X 1769). Other explanations are possible, but both Bogaers and Birley thought it significant that the man bore Hadrian's family name, Aelius, which he might have taken on enlistment to the legion in his native Cilicia." Watson (1969) quoted: "the loss of IX Hispana ... probably during the Jewish War of AD 132-5 ... or even in Armenia in 161." Then: "Nevertheless, archaeology is an inexact science. Most theories can be objected to, at some level... For example, the destruction of the Ninth Legion in a British war at the beginning of Hadrian's reign is a very weak theory. There is no direct evidence for any of the required elements. And yet, the idea has exerted such a hold on the popular imagination that it is difficult to dispel the myth. The logical alternative, that the legion continued to exist at least until AD 140, in order to accommodate the tribunate of Numisius Iunior, has even been questioned. Professor Lawrence Keppie has suggested that the consul of AD 161 was actually the son of the tribune of the Ninth Legion. He has also doubted that Aelius Asclepiades was recruited to the legion while in his native Cilicia, preferring to see him transferred from the Italian fleet at Misenum. Clearly this is a debate which is destined to rumble on. Whether the Ninth Legion met its end in Hadrian's Jewish War, or with the ill-fated Severianus at Elegeia in 161, or somewhere entirely different, we can only hope that further epigraphic discoveries will bring clarity." Further reading: Haalebos 2000 ("has references to the earlier works of Birley, Bogaers, Eck, and Keppie"). **Stated position in 2010:** destruction in Britain early in Hadrian's reign = "a very weak theory"; the legion was at Nijmegen (whole legion, following Bogaers/Birley, "early second century") and survived at least into the 120s (Karus, Crispinus, Florentinus) and probably to c. 140 (Numisius); end in the East — Jewish war or Elegeia — with **no preference expressed** between them, and "somewhere entirely different" left open. He does not, in 2010, argue that a loss in Britain in the mid/late 120s is impossible; he reports Ritterling's own allowance for "a second British revolt... in the second half of the AD 120s" and answers it only with the positive evidence for the legion's presence abroad and the later officers. ### B.2 The book (2018 / Kindle 2020) — what can be said without the text 1. **Author's own characterisations.** Blog "The Lost Legion" (15 Jul 2019): "The destruction of the Roman Ninth Legion at the hands of the wild Caledonian tribes north of Hadrian's Wall is one such idea... I wrote The Fate of the Ninth in order to try and explain where this idea came from. And also why, in my opinion, it's 'a bad idea'. I've also suggested a different scenario to explain the curious disappearance of the Ninth Legion." Blog "A View of Ancient History" (17 Aug 2019): "If you read my book, you will find a closely argued, meticulously documented study of how and why scholars and researchers ever assumed that the Ninth Legion had been destroyed in Britain, with an accurate and reliable account of why this was — and remains — an unlikely conclusion to draw from the available evidence." Blog "A tribune of the Triumphant Ninth" (28 Jul 2019): "My book The Fate of the Ninth describes the journey of discovery, from the eighteenth century to the present, that finally revealed the likely explanation for the curious disappearance of Rome's Ninth Legion." Books page: "Like a detective, Campbell cuts through the layers of myth and assembles the facts, piecing together the unfolding solution to the age-old mystery of the lost legion." Note the tension between "the likely explanation"/"unfolding solution" (author) and "there is no fixed conclusion" (Goldsworthy, below). 2. **Book's Introduction (verbatim, via Goodreads reviewer):** "The 'Fate of the Ninth' is a story told through Roman inscriptions [i.e., epigraphy] … Epigraphy is the study of ancient inscribed texts, chiefly, but not exclusively, those carved onto stone … The Roman army were amongst the most prolific generators of inscriptions, from the tombstones that listed a man's military career to the building inscriptions that recorded the erection of some archaeologically identifiable structure. Roman epitaphs, dedications, honorary texts, and administrative decrees abound. As an added bonus, military building inscriptions generally invoked the reigning emperor... This is important because the erection of the inscription can often be closely dated by the combination of titles or offices held by the emperor during a particular period of time." Also quoted from the book: "[the] science of prosopography, which is the study of persons and their careers from the evidence of inscriptions", and the Mommsen passage (same translation as 2010). 3. **Reviewers' summaries of the conclusion.** Spooner (Classics for All): "presents all the evidence (mainly epigraphic, and with the minimum of speculation), explains it, and presents us with the most likely conclusion about what became of the Ninth. But if you think that this book is the last word on the fate of the Ninth, think again. And this is C.'s main point. The book is most importantly a history of epigraphical and prosopographical scholarship... Nevertheless, the conclusion, as far as it goes, is state of the art, even if not accepted by all. The legion is represented on tile and mortarium stamps after it was supposedly wiped out; their commanders had lengthy careers thenceforth; the legion appears in later eastern campaigns. As ever, it seems far easier to show what didn't happen than what did." Goldsworthy (endorsement): "Legio VIIII Hispana (who usually chose to spell their title that way, rather than using the more familiar IX as numeral)... Campbell traces the way the matter has been studied and how the idea of a legion lost in the mists of northernmost Britain was created and gathered a momentum of its own... This is not an author parading a pet theory and forcing the evidence to fit... I do not think it is giving the game away to state that there is no fixed conclusion - no solving every mystery - and instead we are taken as far as the evidence will go." A.R. Birley (endorsement): the book "traverses the Roman Empire searching for the 'lost' Ninth legion: after Lincoln, York and Carlisle, to Nijmegen in Holland, Aachen in Germany, the Bay of Naples, Rome itself and other parts of Italy, Petra in Jordan, Timgad in Algeria, and elsewhere... former officers of the legion - Burbuleius Ligarianus, Novius Crispinus, Aemilius Karus, Sextius Florentinus, and new discovery Quintus Numisius Junior - are all carefully discussed here." Goodreads readers: "In Duncan's work a case is made that the Legion most likely last[ed] past 118-120 AD and left Britain to disappear in the East, possibly Israel or in Armenia... The case is based off the presence of IX Legion stamped tiles in Njimegen Holland years after the Legions' supposed destruction. There are also records of IX Legion soldiers in the East too"; "he decimates the theory, but his evidence on what really happened to Britain's lost legion is inconclusive"; "I was disappointed that the author did not end the book with a satisfying conclusion. Rather than assert a single scholarly opinion, the author pointed to the fact that more remains are likely to be found"; "Perhaps the only conclusion that can be made about the efficacy of the author's arguments concerning the Ninth's ultimate fate is that it wasn't in Britannia during a tribal revolt. Other than that, it remains tantalizingly vague and may have occurred much farther away on the Empire's eastern frontier." 4. **Chapter-level citations by others.** en.wikipedia (citing ch. 11): "successive inscriptions of IX Hispana were found on the site of the legionary base at Nijmegen..., suggesting the Ninth may have been based there from c. AD 120"; "The evidence for the presence of senior officers such as Macer convinced several scholars that the Ninth Legion as a whole was based there between 121 and 130"; (citing ch. 12): "Suggestions include the Bar Kokhba revolt (AD 132–135) or Marcus Aurelius's war against Parthia (AD 161–166) in Armenia." de.wikipedia (citing "Kap. 11" together with A.R. Birley p. 228): "Vermutlich wurde die Legion aber 122 von Eboracum (York) nach Luguvalium (Carlisle) verlegt, wo sie bis um 125 blieb. Die Legion wurde spätestens 130 auf das Festland verlegt"; (citing "Kap. 12" with Keppie): "Vielleicht wurde sie bereits während des Bar-Kochba-Aufstandes von 132 bis 135 zerschlagen, doch ist auch ihr Fortbestehen bis 161 möglich"; (citing "Kap. 3"): the legion certainly no longer existed by the first years of Marcus Aurelius; (citing "Kap. 8"): Sutcliff. **These are Wikipedia editors' paraphrases, not Campbell's words.** Juntunen, *Arctos* 54 (2020) 168 n. 7, on the Elegeia hypothesis (E. Birley 1971; supported by A. Birley, Eck 1972; opposed by Keppie 1989/2000, Mitford, Speidel, Rémy): "For detailed examination of this theory and the arguments for and against it, cf. Campbell 2018, 134–39." Juntunen's own conclusion is that Xiphilinus' στρατόπεδον at Elegeia meant "either a general armed force or a camp" and "There appears to be very little to support an idea of a legion lost in battle." 5. **Page-anchored details from the author's blog (2 Aug 2025):** RIB 665 "on p. 21 of my book"; RIB 673 (Duccius) "on p. 18"; "The tile from Nijmegen (illustrated on p. 122 of my book) certainly reads LEG VIIII." So the Nijmegen chapter falls around p. 122 and the Elegeia discussion at pp. 134–39, i.e. at the very end of c. 140 pages of text. ### B.3 Blog posts bearing on the fate (post by post) [FULL] - **"The Lost Legion" (15 Jul 2019).** Quoted in B.2.1. Adds nothing on evidence. - **"A tribune of the Triumphant Ninth" (28 Jul 2019).** Early history (ch. 3): the epithet *Hispana* "points to service in Spain, no doubt during Augustus' wars there from 25 BC until 19 BC"; L. Aquillius Florus Turcianus Gallus, *trib. mil. leg. VIIII Mac(edonicae)* (AE 1919, 1, Corinth), re-dated: his tribunate "must have fallen around AD 40, with the legion firmly established in Pannonia", *Macedonica* "perhaps a local conceit to give the legion a link with Greece". Not about the fate. - **"A View of Ancient History" (17 Aug 2019).** Responds to de.wikipedia's label "populärwissenschaftlich": the book "is fully annotated (though footnote-averse readers are encouraged to ignore all 324 of them)"; "a closely argued, meticulously documented study of how and why scholars and researchers ever assumed that the Ninth Legion had been destroyed in Britain, with an accurate and reliable account of why this was — and remains — an unlikely conclusion to draw from the available evidence." - **"True and false at Mons Graupius, Part One" (10 Feb 2023).** Defends Tacitus' account of the night attack on the Ninth (Agr. 26) against Andrew Tibbs' podcast; the enemy "entered by the gates"; not about the 2nd-century fate. - **"Roman spelling again" (4 Mar 2023).** On ILS 1077: "the memorial set up by Gaius Julius Erucianus Crispus 'to his excellent friend' Lucius Aemilius Karus... One vitriolic Amazon reviewer has written, 'PS It's Carus not Karus, the Romans didn't use Ks — a rather unprofessional mistake'... it's perfectly clear from the above image that this particular Roman preferred to spell his cognomen Karus, not Carus (on the first line)." The slab "remained unavailable to me" for illustration in the book. - **"An unreliable history of Roman Scotland" (27 May 2023)** — the fullest post-book statement of his position, in a review of John Reid, *The Eagle and the Bear* (ch. 8 "Exit the IXth"). Reid attacks "the 'currently accepted view (...) that the IXth Hispana did not come to an ignominious end in northern Britannia'" and "the eastward drift of the IXth". Campbell: "when he condemns the 'almost universal rejection of the previous positions of Mommsen, Ritterling and Richmond, and the dismissive repudiation of Sutcliff's work as pure fantasy' (p. 85), he has failed to explain why Mommsen's belief in the legion's destruction by the Brigantes inside the fortress at York is no longer credible; he has failed to explain why Ritterling's reliance on Mommsen for the historical background is no longer acceptable; and he has failed to explain why Richmond's offhand comment about the cashiering of the legion after an ignominious defeat does not constitute a credible theory." And: "He informs his readers that 'convincing evidence for the legion's move to the East and subsequent annihilation at the hands of the Parthians or Jews simply does not exist' (p. 87). (It is interesting that he adds 'or Jews', since nobody in the last 40 years has suggested such a thing, whereas Cassius Dio records the destruction of a legion by the Parthians.) Mr Reid might equally have written that convincing evidence of the legion's destruction in Caledonia simply does not exist, since evidence of the legion's departure from Britain does at least exist, whereas there is no evidence that it remained." — This is the clearest indication of a leaning: Campbell treats the Bar Kokhba option as effectively abandoned ("nobody in the last 40 years") and points to Dio's Parthian destruction (Elegeia) as the recorded event; but even here he claims only that evidence of departure "does at least exist", not proof of the end. - **"What soldiers of the Empire?" (10 Jul 2023).** On Simon Elliott: "legio IX Hispana is listed as 'possibly destroyed in the reign of Hadrian during the Bar Kochba rebellion in Judea' — this from the writer who has claimed elsewhere that '... the most likely hypothesis regarding the loss of legio IX Hispana is with it being lost in some dramatic event in the north of Britain'." - **"Fours and nines and Roman numerals" (2 Aug 2025).** Fact-checks a reviewer's claim (cf. Goldsworthy's endorsement) that the legion "called itself legio VIIII Hispana, by preference": "it certainly looks as if VIIII and IX were used interchangeably throughout Roman imperial history. Neither one was preferred over the other." Inscriptions with VIIII: RIB 665, RIB 673, Florentinus (CIL III 14148,10), Karus (CIL VI 1333), Crispinus (CIL VIII 2747); with IX: Ligarianus (CIL X 6006), L. Roscius Celer (CIL XIV 3612). "The tile from Nijmegen (illustrated on p. 122 of my book) certainly reads LEG VIIII. But the tiles from northern England (two of them are illustrated here) use the 'subtractive' method." He now declines to rest anything on the numeral: "we should be wary of such an argument". - **"A Spanish disquisition" (7 Feb 2026).** Incidental: M. Cocceius Severus "promoted from primuspilus legionis VIIII Hispanae... to praefectus legionis X Geminae, demonstrating the normal advancement of senior centurions to the post of praefectus castrorum" — the same career logic he applies to Latinius Macer. - **"Caledonia, land of cold and rain" (3 parts)** — a précis of the Corbeyran/Despujol comic in which "Lucius Aemilius Karus" leads the doomed legion; no argument. **"Aesop..." (20 Jul 2025):** "The Fate of the Ninth comes in at 140 or so pages." - No post mentions Hodgson 2021 or Graafstal 2025 (Hodgson is named only in "When is a siege not a siege?", on Burnswark). ### B.4 RomanArmyTalk posts by "D B Campbell" [FULL] **April–October 2010, thread "New evidence for annihilation of Ninth Legion in Britain?" (tid 16740)** — on the Miles Russell/BBC claim: - (18 Apr 2010) "We're not quite on the lunatic fringe, but getting close." (22 Apr 2010, to Russell) "Anyone who 'has argued very strongly [5] 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... To my mind, there has been a full and proper discussion of the evidence, but it has been forgotten (or has never been consulted) by the current generation of 'Ninth Legion bashers'." - (25 Apr 2010, on the Britannia coin) "it is not explicitly a 'victory' coin. It simply indicates that Britain was 'in the news' during Hadrian's reign... Strictly speaking, the coin could have been minted as late as AD 128 (after which he tends to call himself Pater Patriae, unlike the titulature on this coin)." - (25 Apr 2010, on A.R. Birley's dates for Karus [left the Ninth c. 122], Crispinus [mid 120s], Florentinus [Hadrian's first years]) "Of course, Birley only mentions these dates as termini post quem. It is interesting that, as an epigrapher/prosopographer par excellence, Eric Birley thought that one of these... was probably as late as AD 140, until he realised the implications. In other words, if there had been no pressure to remove the legion ca. AD 120, we would most logically have seen it surviving up to ca. AD 140." - (25 Apr 2010, on Stanier 1965) the coins "should properly be dated 'AD 119/128' and includes no explicit victory issues"; Pompeius Falco's Asia "was the result of a ballot of qualified consulars, so it should not be attributed to any specific military success." - (29 Apr 2010) "That's the tile-stamp(s) from Nijmegen. Why manufacture roofing tiles unless you're planning to be there for a while?!" **March–April 2011, thread "Article on the L. IX Hispana (Factual????)" (tid 18481)** — on Nijmegen and Asclepiades: - (21 Mar 2011) "there has only ever been one tile-stamp, as far as I know... 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'... 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... what he actually had was a securely stratified artefact." - (22 Mar 2011) "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... 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." On the idea that the dies went from Nijmegen back to Scalesceugh: "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!" - (23 Mar 2011) "My preferred scenario would see the Ninth Legion moving their tile production from Scalesceugh to Nijmegen." He accepts the point that "The legion did not start to stamp its tiles before the closing years of the first century" (Warry). - (16 Apr 2011, CIL X 1769) "As noted in my article, Lawrence Keppie has a plausible get-out for Aelius Asclepiades." "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... commemorates a D. Aelius Asclepiades. So there may be no Hadrianic connection at all." Then, after checking CIL X: "It seems that the man was simply called Aelius Asclepiades. Keppie expected the praenomen Publius for anyone who had been enfranchised by Hadrian. This, like everything else to do with this inscription, is conjecture." (Text and translation of CIL X 1769 given.) On Summerly's other men (Claudius Vitalis; Servaeus Sabinus transferred to III Augusta): "If the career is Trajanic ... if Ninth Hispana went east ... if the transfer occurred in Parthia ... rather a lot of 'if's!" **31 Mar 2018 (tid 30804):** on Keppie: "he has made a lifetime's study of the legions, so I think we ought to value what he writes"; the legion's origin ("Keppie suggests that it had been formed in 41-40 BC"); ironic close: "as we all know, it was utterly and mysteriously destroyed by the Picts". **10 Apr 2020 (tid 31269):** Kindle announcement with "bonus material". **21 Dec 2020 (tid 31376):** A.R. Birley "generously wrote a glowing endorsement of my little book about the Ninth Legion." **February 2026 (tid 31963, "The Disappearance of Legio IX Hispana: Evidence and Hypotheses")** — Campbell's only recorded reaction to Hodgson 2021. (14 Feb 2026) "This might help:" [link to the book]. Nathan Ross (17–18 Feb) summarised Hodgson: "a fairly plausible hazing of the permissible dates for the various officers..., with Aemilius Karus and others brought back to somewhere around the mid 120s... Numisius Junior is still the major outlier, but Hodgson goes with the suggestion that the consul of 161 was the son or grandson of the legion tribune... That leaves the Cilician Aelius Asclepiades... The paper remains sceptical about a move of the legion to the east, pointing out that all the bases of the eastern legions are well known, and there are no gaps." Campbell (20 Feb 2026), quoting that last point: "This is probably the biggest red herring. We need to be aware of unknown unknowns! How many forts/fortresses in Cappadocia can you name? (Exactly!)" — i.e. his answer to Hodgson's "no vacant eastern base" argument is that the Cappadocian frontier's legionary/fort geography is too poorly known for the argument from silence to work. He did not engage the officer re-datings there. ### B.5 Topic index — Campbell's positions with sources - **Nijmegen tiles/mortarium/pendant:** whole legion at the Hunerberg after the *vexillatio Britannica* left, "broadly 'early second century'" (2010, 52), following Bogaers 1967 and Haalebos; the single 1959 tile is "securely stratified" in Period III/destruction layer of an officer's house, implying the Ninth re-roofed X Gemina's buildings (RAT 2011); production moved from Scalesceugh to Holdeurn (2010; RAT 2011); "Why manufacture roofing tiles unless you're planning to be there for a while?!" (RAT 2010); the book (ch. 11, tile on p. 122) apparently dates the presence c. 120s (Wikipedia paraphrases: "from c. AD 120", "between 121 and 130"). He no longer relies on the VIIII/IX spelling (blog 2025). He has never engaged Haalebos's 104–120 redating in the obtained texts — the 2010 article cites Haalebos 2000 only as further reading; Hodgson's use of it is answered (2026) only with the Cappadocia remark. - **Aachen altar (AE 1968, 323):** primus pilus promoted to praefectus castrorum: "it would have been odd for the primus pilus to receive a promotion while absent in charge of a vexillation" (2010, 52), while conceding "only the presence of the aquilifer would be a cast-iron guarantee that the entire legion was there". The 2010 article misnames him "Lucius Licinius Macer". - **Florentinus:** governor of Arabia c. 127 (papyrus), so legate of VIIII "no more than five years earlier" (2010, 52), i.e. c. 122 or later. - **Karus:** governor of Arabia 142 (confirmed by diploma), cos. 144 (Syme); tribunate "only after AD 120" (Ritterling) (2010, 51); Birley's date 122 is a terminus post quem (RAT 2010); spelled Karus on ILS 1077 (blog 2023). - **Crispinus:** cos. 150, born c. 105; tribunate "could not reasonably have fallen before AD 123" (Ritterling), so "Destruction in a British war of AD 119 was out of the question" (2010, 51). - **Numisius Iunior:** tribune c. 140 (Eck), consul Feb. 161; "unthinkable" that his career began in 119 (2010, 52); Keppie's father/son solution reported without rebuttal (2010, 53); "if there had been no pressure to remove the legion ca. AD 120, we would most logically have seen it surviving up to ca. AD 140" (RAT 2010). - **Asclepiades (CIL X 1769):** Cilician with Hadrian's nomen — "Other explanations are possible" (2010, 53); Keppie's Misenum-fleet alternative called "a plausible get-out"; the praenomen argument and everything else about the lost stone "is conjecture" (RAT 2011). - **Keppie:** treated with respect ("a lifetime's study of the legions", RAT 2018); his two objections (Numisius father/son; Asclepiades via the fleet) are reported as live and unresolved (2010, 53; RAT 2011). Campbell nowhere claims to have refuted them. - **Hodgson:** pre-2021 Hodgson endorsed the book; Hodgson 2021 (per Ross) calls it "a recent fine scholarly monograph"; Campbell's only reply (RAT, 20 Feb 2026) is the "unknown unknowns"/Cappadocia rejoinder to the no-vacant-eastern-base argument. - **Bar Kokhba vs Elegeia:** 2010 — explicitly undecided ("Whether... in Hadrian's Jewish War, or with the ill-fated Severianus at Elegeia in 161, or somewhere entirely different"). Book — Elegeia examined pro and contra at pp. 134–39 (Juntunen); Goldsworthy: "no fixed conclusion"; Spooner: "the most likely conclusion"; readers: "possibly Israel or in Armenia". 2023 blog — "nobody in the last 40 years has suggested" annihilation by the Jews, "whereas Cassius Dio records the destruction of a legion by the Parthians", which reads as a preference for Elegeia over Bar Kokhba, but he states no probability. **No numerical or verbal probability between the options was found in any obtained text.** - **Could the legion have been lost in Britain in the 120s?** Campbell's obtained texts never argue that a loss in Britain in the mid/late 120s is impossible. His case is: (i) the "British war of 119" and the link between VI Victrix's arrival and the Ninth's disappearance rest on Borghesi's assumption and Mattingly's coin dating, for which "there is no direct evidence for any of the required elements" (2010, 50, 53); (ii) the officers' careers push the legion's existence to at least c. 122–3 (Florentinus, Karus, Crispinus) and probably c. 140 (Numisius) (2010, 51–2); (iii) the Nijmegen stamps, the Holdeurn mortarium, the Ewijk pendant and the Aachen prefect place the legion, not a vexillation, in Lower Germany in the early second century (2010, 52; RAT 2011), so that "evidence of the legion's departure from Britain does at least exist, whereas there is no evidence that it remained" (blog 2023); (iv) Richmond's cashiering story is "fantastical", with "no evidence" — and Reid (2023) "has failed to explain why Richmond's offhand comment... does not constitute a credible theory" (his words: the burden is on the proponent); (v) "one departure of the Ninth Legion from Britain is quite enough" (Occam, RAT 2011). He records without answering Ritterling's allowance for "a second British revolt... towards the middle or in the second half of the AD 120s" (2010, 51). --- ## (c) What could not be obtained 1. **The text of *The Fate of the Ninth* (2018 paperback; 2020 Kindle with "bonus material")** — no preview on Google Books (`view_no_pages`), Google Books web blocked (403) from this network anyway; not on archive.org, Open Library (no ebook), HathiTrust (403 here, and no record found), or Google Play; the Amazon Kindle sample (`read.amazon.com/sample/1791768334`) is a JavaScript reader; the "search inside" service endpoint is dead (404). Hence: no table of contents, no verbatim chapter text, no page-referenced quotation of his treatment of the Nijmegen tiles, the Aachen altar, Haalebos 2000, Keppie's objections, or his "different scenario", and no verbatim statement of his stated conclusion or any preference between Bar Kokhba and Elegeia from the book itself. All page numbers given above (18, 21, 122, 134–39) come from the author's blog or Juntunen 2020, not from the book. 2. **Amazon customer reviews** (including the "vitriolic" reviewer Campbell mentions) — login-walled / bot-blocked on .com, .co.uk, .ca, .com.au. 3. **Hodgson 2021's footnote on the book** — the local copy has only abstract and bibliography; quoted here only via Nathan Ross's RomanArmyTalk post of 18 Feb 2026. 4. **Any Ancient Warfare / Ancient History Magazine / Minerva / Current Archaeology review of the book** — the Karwansaray site is behind Cloudflare (403); Wayback CDX for its blogs found only the 2011 "fate of the Ninth" post and a 2024 podcast page by Murray Dahm; no review located. Reviewer of the "VIIII by preference" claim that Campbell fact-checks in 2025 is unidentified (Goldsworthy's endorsement contains the claim). 5. **Any RomanArmyTalk posts by Campbell before 2010 on the Ninth** — the forum search (author filter) returned two pages of results; the second page's items date back to c. 2005 and none of the older hits concerns the Ninth's fate ("Centuriones", "Military Tribunes and their significance", "Centurion" film etc. — not fetched). 6. **Semantic Scholar / OpenAlex** — HTTP 429 / empty responses; Crossref and Google Scholar were used instead. 7. **The 2019 "revised edition"** — no such edition exists in any catalogue consulted; the only later issue is the April 2020 Kindle edition (127 pp.). Files of record (working copies, not included in this folder): `campbell2010_aw.txt` (2010 article) · `blogger_feed.json`, `blog/*.txt` (all 57 posts) · `blog_books_page.txt` · `rat_campbell_posts.txt`, `rat_all_posts.txt`, `rat_t*.html`, `rat_pid_*.html`, `rat_r_*.html` · `classicsforall_review.txt` · `amazon_editorial_reviews.txt` · `goodreads_reviews.txt` · `arctos54.pdf` (Juntunen 2020, text) · `enwiki.txt`, `dewiki2.txt` · `gb_feeds.xml`, `openlibrary_isbn.json`, `ol_search.json` · `wb_kw_fate_blog.txt`, `wb_kw_awa316.html` · `cdx_*.json` · `crossref_*.json`, `s2_author.json`, `scholar*.html`.