Hacker News Reader

Comment by foldr | Hacker News Reader

We have no reliable evidence regarding what proportion of Roman Britain was "black". We have good historical evidence that there were Romans present in Britain who we'd these days describe as black (e.g. an Ethiopian soldier garrisoning Hadrian's wall). For 101 reasons, the genetic evidence is not very informative, and certainly can't be used to justify that claim that Africans were a "statistically insignificant subgroup" (which by the way doesn't even make sense as a statistical statement). As Beard points out, even Norman DNA is not very well represented in the modern population, and we know for sure that plenty of Normans came over as a result of the Norman invasion.

View on HN

> We have no reliable evidence regarding what proportion of Roman Britain was "black". We have good historical evidence that there were Romans present in Britain who we'd these days describe as black (e.g. an Ethiopian soldier garrisoning Hadrian's wall).

That "evidence" consist of one fleeting mention in a biography about Septimius Severus.

> For 101 reasons, the genetic evidence is not very informative, and certainly can't be used to justify that claim that Africans were a "statistically insignificant subgroup"

The lack of evidence (genetic or historical) puts an upper bound on the proportion of subsaharan Africans in Roman Britain that is several orders of magnitude lower than the BBC animated cartoon suggests.

> As Beard points out, even Norman DNA is not very well represented in the modern population, and we know for sure that plenty of Normans came over as a result of the Norman invasion.

For the presence of the Normans there is plenty of historical evidence. For the presence of subsaharan Africans there is just about nothing. So we should stick to the null hypothesis.

There's quite a bit more evidence than that:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1464209/Borders-folk-...

>The lack of evidence (genetic or historical) puts an upper bound on the proportion of subsaharan Africans in Roman Britain

It does no such thing. Can you point to any reputable scholar who is prepared to state such an "upper bound"?

> There's quite a bit more evidence than that: > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1464209/Borders-folk-...

A unit of "Moors". Again, Mediterranean looking North Africans. Despite the misleading title.

> It does no such thing. Can you point to any reputable scholar who is prepared to state such an "upper bound"?

Of course not. The evidence is so thin it wasn't even up for useful scholarly debate.

There are plenty of people in North Africa who have dark skin. See e.g. the following photo that vidarh linked to in another comment:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/ingetjetadros/4603950662

The term "Moor" does not translate precisely to any modern ethnic term, and is perfectly compatible with dark skin. In fact, the article notes that "The unit is likely to have been composed of Berbers from North Africa, but may also have had darker-skinned soldiers from Nubia."

If peoples from far flung regions had been present in numbers and those people tended to have rank (garrisoned, etc), one would imagine we'd have more bone evidence (from burial sites, given their ranks).

But as portrayed, it looks like there were more people from far flung areas than there were picts in the north.

In any event, it's interesting ironic in that its seen as progressive that an occupying force might have been slightly multi-ethnic, and this celebrated. The English in South Africa were also much more multi-ethnic in that they brought peoples from the Indian subcontinent and other places; let's celebrate that too, then.

>If peoples from far flung regions had been present in numbers and those people tended to have rank (garrisoned, etc), one would imagine we'd have more bone evidence.

We don't have many human remains from that period. So not really.

>But as portrayed

Portrayed where? Not sure what you mean by this.

>and this celebrated.

Who's celebrating it? I'm confused by your comment.

>We have no reliable evidence regarding what proportion of Roman Britain was "black". We have good historical evidence that there were Romans present in Britain who we'd these days describe as black (e.g. an Ethiopian soldier garrisoning Hadrian's wall).

Ethiopians were black. The majority in ancient Rome were not like that, not even the majority of people in the northern Africa countries.

We don't have figures on skin tone for North Africa over two thousand years ago. As far as I know. If we do, then by all means post them here.

We don't need some magical list of figures to know the general distribution.

We have descriptions, from many sources, even before Herodotus, of what this or that country's people looked like. We also have actual depictions of populations in the various hellenistic, then Roman and Byzantine provinces in mosaics and other painted scenes.

Feel free to link to some relevant data or source if you have something. As far as I'm aware, historical data on skin color demographics are extremely scanty. Even in the case of major historical figures like Cleopatra, we just don't know for sure.

Considering the family tree of the Ptolemies, I think we have a good idea

There is no historical consensus on Cleopatra's skin color. Plenty of people have their own favorite speculations about it, but there's no hard evidence.

In the depicted cartoon case of an Ethiopian that has a local Briton or Celt wife, who has multiple children with her, there is the valid question of seeing what is in the genetic record, though, wouldn't you agree?

The reaction, and Beard's answer, was specifically about the family shown and not the narrow question of whether or not an Ethiopian conscript would have ever set foot in Roman Britain.

Beards answer points out among other things that there are exceedingly few traces of Normans in the genetic record as well, and gives a plausible suggestion that most might simply have left, like the Normans did. She also points to more examples than a single Ethiopian conscript.

So the reality is that we know there has been people here that are poorly reflected in the genetic record, and that makes it rather pointless to point to the genetic record to demonstrate the family in question is implausible.

In any case, what troubles me much more than whether or not the depiction is plausible is just how incredibly unprofessional and rude Talebs reaction was. If he wants honesty and a focus on the science, he should grow up and act professionally.

I'm not sure why you assume he would have been a conscript.

There is no reason to think that a few interracial marriages in Roman times would have left much of a trace in the modern genetic record. Surely no-one would get so up in arms about a cartoon that showed a Saxon married to a Norman, but we have no modern "genetic record" of this either. We know with a reasonable degree of certainty that interracial marriages existed in Roman Britain, often involving soldiers.

Talk about the "genetic record" might seem sciency sounding, but its really the historical evidence that's much more informative in this instance.

I think we are not far from each other in what we understand... the issue raised between Beard and Taleb seems to revolve around the meaning of "typical" .

Beard seems to say, "it was possible that it could have happened, here are a few Ethiopians for instance that we know were in Roman Britain, for example".

Taleb seems to say "typical means what is likely to have happened 50% or more of the time; since there was no chance that Roman Britain had 50% of marriages with children that involved Ethiopians/Berbers/etc. thus Beard is very wrong"

Beard's point is that we really have no idea what "typical" ethnic backgrounds were for Roman families in Britain. There's just no reliable data, and it most likely would have varied enormously between different parts of the country.

We have no reliable evidence regarding what proportion of Roman Britain was "black"

We do however know how far into Africa the Romans ventured (what is now Sudan) and what the ethnicity of the people living there was.

Beard addresses that point in her article. (Take home message: don't take lines on maps too seriously.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com