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.
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"?
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.
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."
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.
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.
Ethiopians were black. The majority in ancient Rome were not like that, not even the majority of people in the northern Africa countries.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"
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.
And arguing about whether north Africans where "black" or not seems just odd is he gong to say Sub saharan African actors should not play Othello.
Was Libyan leader Gaddafi, black?
Also, nothing is "well known" about the skin color of populations thousands of years ago, for obvious reasons.
Perhaps the problem is that scientists are not particularly interested in skin colour, for which I wouldn't blame them.
Gaddafi was Bedouin, but their skin color varies greatly. I'll go out on a limb and assume that Gaddafi spent decades spending a lot less time outdoors in the sun than many other Bedouin would. Here is an example of a much darker Bedouin man [2]. Note, however, that the main Arabization of Libya happened after the Romans moved out.
Berber men in Morocco [3].
Ghurara Berbers in Algeria [4]
Toubou man - The Toubous traditional area stretch into Libya [5].
In case you would assume the Berbers whose main areas were in Southern Libya would not make it North, consider that Septimius Severus' hometown of Leptis Magna on the mediterranean coast was frequently raided by berbers until the Muslim conquest of the Maghreb in the 7th century. During Septimius rule a whole Roman legion (Legio III Augusta) was stationed there to protect against Berber raids (the legion was also been stationed in present day Algeria for a long time)
Septimius also extended roman rule to Garama - one of the main homes of the Garamantes Berber people who shared Fezzan (the South West of Libya) with the Toubou, Arabs, Berbers, Tuareg and Dawada.
Here's a Dawada man [6].
Now, I'm not an expert on the region, and I don't know the exact mix of Roman Libya and other Roman holdings in North Africa at the time, but the above is enough to at least suggest that unless you are an expert (in which case I welcome sources), there is sufficient reason to at least not jump to the conclusion that there were no dark skinned Africans in Libya in Roman times on the basis of Gadaffi - a person from an ethnic group that most certainly had a far lower presence in Libya until after Roman times.
[1] https://www.flickr.com/photos/ingetjetadros/4603950662
[2] http://www.gotellitonthemountain.net/wp-content/uploads/2014...
[3] https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/photo/morocco-valley-of...
[4] https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HVIPE5t6qvM/TxCq_VzQpaI/AAAAAAAAA...
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toubou_people#/media/File:Toub...
[6] http://cache1.asset-cache.net/gc/148807060-tuareg-tribesman-...
This is his default style as a polemicist and it distracts indeed from the points he is trying to make.
> And I can't tell what his actual point is!
The first 3 bullet points are his actual message. The rest is a reaction to some preceding drama on twitter.
His point is basically that Africans were a statistically insignificant subgroup among Romans in Brittain, and by adding them so prominently in a short animated cartoon for school children (who hardly know anything about antiquity) the BBC is performing historical revisionism.
He also casts doubt on the assumption that these Africans were black, pointing out that Northern Africa was inhabited by Berbers and Phoenicians.
> He furiously complains that the BBC and Mary Beard are "bullshitters" but I can't figure out exactly what corrections he wants made.
He wants scientific rigor to prevail over political correctness.