posted
Are there any known cases where people in Ireland are found to be E3a, and look like the typical Irish?
Posts: 8 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I came across an article some time ago where at one time during English/Irish conflicts, African came to the British Isles and intermarried with the locals. The Irish were more welcoming than the English and the E3a genotype remained as part of that period.
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Thanks for replying! I'm black American and have a white Irish ancestor who was supposedly born in Tipperary Ireland around 1680-1683. I'm E3a/M2, so I'm wondering if it's "possibe" that my E3a come from my white Irish ancestor, or should I consider a more recent colonial African ancestor. I know about the migration pattern of E3a approx. 3,000 + years ago. Is it possible to determine how old my E3a is?
Posts: 8 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Romans had Ethiopian and Nubian soldiers as so did the Carthaginians. That would help to explain E3b but not E3a. E3a would have arrived via Moorish encounters. Essentially some Moors converted to Christianity and became part of the Crusades against Islam. I don't have alot of details but there's a great deal of information about Moorish converts and there participation in the Crusades. Such men would have become part of English and Irish society. However, this is very unlikely to have had any genetic impact but there have been genetic tests showing that Sub-Saharan genes have been found in some English royal families that can trace their lineage back over a thousand years. The explaination for this has been that Romans had Black soldiers.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: The Romans had Ethiopian and Nubian soldiers as so did the Carthaginians.
In what context are you using "Ethiopian" here?
There is of course the 3rd cataract concept of Ethiopia but I was actually referring to the people of Punt which many believe is actually Ethiopia.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
From which period did the Romans use "Ethiopians", as in the people who live in the modern east African country of "Ethiopia", as soldiers? What records from the said period, tell us this? What was the name given to the "Ethiopians" at the time?
-------------------- Truth - a liar penetrating device! Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: From which period did the Romans use "Ethiopians", as in the people who live in the modern east African country of "Ethiopia", as soldiers? What records from the said period, tell us this? What was the name given to the "Ethiopians" at the time?
As you know, Real Ethiopians (based on current geographical regions) employed in the Roman legion is only implied based on the fact that the Kushite kingdom of Meroe included parts of Ethiopia and actually was later absorbed by Aksum. Unfortunately everyone below the 3rd Cataract was referred to as Ethiopians by the Romans so I cannot be specific but I do not exclude the possibility and find it likely.
It is a known fact that genes of Black Roman soldiers can be found in prominent English families who know their lineage for over a thousand years. Surprise surprise for them!
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
general: I do not believe that there existed such a thing as a Black Roman. In antiquity there existed Romans with African ancestry (the first 2 popes). Many times the modern subjective perception of people denies humanity of the individual by resorting to 'epitaphs' of race as some higher raison d'etre. Modern Romans though tolerant, seem less so today than in antiquity!
GO: black AMerican is kind of vague whereas the tribal affiliation may be more apropos (if known). West Africa (Central Africa)is the home to many so the clue may be which tribe/country affiliation.
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
I used the term black American (U.S. black of Colonial African, Caucasian and Native American ancestry) to make a distinction between myself and a modern day African, from the continent of Africa. There seem to be many debates about E3a and its direct tribal affilation. I'll let you experts make the determination. I'm only curious to know if during anytime in history my E3a ancestor could have ended up in what's known as present day Ireland.
Posts: 8 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by yazid904: general: I do not believe that there existed such a thing as a Black Roman. In antiquity there existed Romans with African ancestry (the first 2 popes). Many times the modern subjective perception of people denies humanity of the individual by resorting to 'epitaphs' of race as some higher raison d'etre. Modern Romans though tolerant, seem less so today than in antiquity!
GO: black AMerican is kind of vague whereas the tribal affiliation may be more apropos (if known). West Africa (Central Africa)is the home to many so the clue may be which tribe/country affiliation.
Black Roman Emperor of England?
This marble statue shows the emperor Septimius Severus in military dress. Septimius, who was African, ruled the Roman empire from AD 193 to 211. He was an accomplished general who defeated his internal enemies in a series of civil wars, and went on to victories at the furthest frontiers of the Empire - from Mesopotamia in the east to Britain in the west. He died at Eboracum (York) in AD 211, and his ashes were returned to Leptis Magna (Libya), his ancestral home.
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
GO, E3a is non-European and occurs in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. It would be expected that E3a is representative (regarding frequency) of you background since its origin is Africa.
Not an expert. The best bet is to look at the frequency a specific genotype appears in a population. A West African may express e3a as 95% while in your case it may be 65%. Some countries (Sweden) may show 0.1% Spain may show a 9% and Greece 12%. I keep in mind that degree of recessiveness and dominance of a gene is also a key factor!
osiron, what do you mean by NOT?
I checked that Septimus was an African (his homeland). My question is whether religion and science should mix?
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by yazid904: GO, E3a is non-European and occurs in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. It would be expected that E3a is representative (regarding frequency) of you background since its origin is Africa.
Not an expert. The best bet is to look at the frequency a specific genotype appears in a population. A West African may express e3a as 95% while in your case it may be 65%. Some countries (Sweden) may show 0.1% Spain may show a 9% and Greece 12%. I keep in mind that degree of recessiveness and dominance of a gene is also a key factor!
osiron, what do you mean by NOT?
I checked that Septimus was an African (his homeland). My question is whether religion and science should mix?
To some, Science is religion.
My NOT is that this Emperor is no more Black than myself. He is multiracial but the term Black is probably incorrect. Essentially I was agreeing with you.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whether or not it makes a difference, my Irish ancestor supposedly comes from royalty. I've been told that there is an O'Bannon Castle in existence in Ireland.
Posts: 8 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: He is multiracial but the term Black is probably incorrect.
Thought Writes:
The comments above make little sense.
The term "race" has no biological basis and is nonsensical in a social sense.
The term Black is a North American SPECIFIC term and is utilized to describe people with diverse genetic lineages.
In reality modern Black Americans have a more diverse set of genetic lineages than Greco-Roman era NW Africans.
Posts: 2720 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: He is multiracial but the term Black is probably incorrect.
Thought Writes:
The comments above make little sense.
The term "race" has no biological basis and is nonsensical in a social sense.
The term Black is a North American SPECIFIC term and is utilized to describe people with diverse genetic lineages.
In reality modern Black Americans have a more diverse set of genetic lineages than Greco-Roman era NW Africans.
I agree that Black is a social construct. What I am implying is that if we brought this person into modern day American society he would not be considered socially Black.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: I agree that Black is a social construct. What I am implying is that if we brought this person into modern day American society he would not be considered socially Black.
As you know, Real Ethiopians (based on current geographical regions) employed in the Roman legion is only implied based on the fact that the Kushite kingdom of Meroe included parts of Ethiopia and actually was later absorbed by Aksum. Unfortunately everyone below the 3rd Cataract was referred to as Ethiopians by the Romans so I cannot be specific but I do not exclude the possibility and find it likely.
It is a known fact that genes of Black Roman soldiers can be found in prominent English families who know their lineage for over a thousand years. Surprise surprise for them!
Just wanted to be assured that you weren't passing off your earlier comment as a FACT [but as a possibility], which is the impression I initially got from it. I've heard about North Africans [mainly from historically Roman controlled regions] being incorporated into the Roman legions. Egyptians may well have been among these North Africans, aside from Northwest Africans. Since the Egyptians themselves had made use of Nubian mercenaries, there could well have been Nubians among the Egyptians serving in the Roman army. I however, don't recall hearing about Romans incorporating "Nubians" per se from the so-called "Nubian" regions themselves, much less "Ethiopians" who could have possibly been among the "Nubians" mercenaries. I am open to analyzing any credible material that would strongly corroborate this. You must remember that the Romans were never able to control the Kushites, such that, at some point in time, they ended up reaching some kind of understanding or compromise with the Kushites, so as to avoid further conflict.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: I agree that Black is a social construct. What I am implying is that if we brought this person into modern day American society he would not be considered socially Black.
Thought Writes:
Why not?
Because Severus wasn't black, thats why.
Posts: 29 | From: Barbados | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by yazid904: GO, E3a is non-European and occurs in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. It would be expected that E3a is representative (regarding frequency) of you background since its origin is Africa.
Not an expert. The best bet is to look at the frequency a specific genotype appears in a population. A West African may express e3a as 95% while in your case it may be 65%. Some countries (Sweden) may show 0.1% Spain may show a 9% and Greece 12%. I keep in mind that degree of recessiveness and dominance of a gene is also a key factor!
osiron, what do you mean by NOT?
I checked that Septimus was an African (his homeland). My question is whether religion and science should mix?
To some, Science is religion.
My NOT is that this Emperor is no more Black than myself. He is multiracial but the term Black is probably incorrect. Essentially I was agreeing with you.
There is no proof that Severus was multiracial. He was an African, but African doesn't mean black.
Posts: 29 | From: Barbados | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bruh man from 5th floor:
quote:Originally posted by osirion:
quote:Originally posted by yazid904: GO, E3a is non-European and occurs in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. It would be expected that E3a is representative (regarding frequency) of you background since its origin is Africa.
Not an expert. The best bet is to look at the frequency a specific genotype appears in a population. A West African may express e3a as 95% while in your case it may be 65%. Some countries (Sweden) may show 0.1% Spain may show a 9% and Greece 12%. I keep in mind that degree of recessiveness and dominance of a gene is also a key factor!
osiron, what do you mean by NOT?
I checked that Septimus was an African (his homeland). My question is whether religion and science should mix?
To some, Science is religion.
My NOT is that this Emperor is no more Black than myself. He is multiracial but the term Black is probably incorrect. Essentially I was agreeing with you.
There is no proof that Severus was multiracial. He was an African, but African doesn't mean black.
It is highly unlikely that he wasn't multi-racial considering his background as well as depictions (hair texture). North Africans are generally multi-racial people especially during this period. However, it is possible that he is actually of Phoenician origins which would support your position. Based on what information I have seen I would suspect him to be multi-racial.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
As you know, Real Ethiopians (based on current geographical regions) employed in the Roman legion is only implied based on the fact that the Kushite kingdom of Meroe included parts of Ethiopia and actually was later absorbed by Aksum. Unfortunately everyone below the 3rd Cataract was referred to as Ethiopians by the Romans so I cannot be specific but I do not exclude the possibility and find it likely.
It is a known fact that genes of Black Roman soldiers can be found in prominent English families who know their lineage for over a thousand years. Surprise surprise for them!
Just wanted to be assured that you weren't passing off your earlier comment as a FACT [but as a possibility], which is the impression I initially got from it. I've heard about North Africans [mainly from historically Roman controlled regions] being incorporated into the Roman legions. Egyptians may well have been among these North Africans, aside from Northwest Africans. Since the Egyptians themselves had made use of Nubian mercenaries, there could well have been Nubians among the Egyptians serving in the Roman army. I however, don't recall hearing about Romans incorporating "Nubians" per se from the so-called "Nubian" regions themselves, much less "Ethiopians" who could have possibly been among the "Nubians" mercenaries. I am open to analyzing any credible material that would strongly corroborate this. You must remember that the Romans were never able to control the Kushites, such that, at some point in time, they ended up reaching some kind of understanding or compromise with the Kushites, so as to avoid further conflict.
Like I said earlier, there's evidence of Sub-Saharan genes in English families that must have arrived during the Roman period. I will have to look up that research it has been years since it was published.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Like I said earlier, there's evidence of Sub-Saharan genes in English families that must have arrived during the Roman period. I will have to look up that research it has been years since it was published.
Let's clear the fog: I am aware of "sub-Saharan" lineages in Europe; so there's no need to go there. We were talking about "Ethiopians" [as in the Cushitic and Semitic speaking people who inhabit the modern nation of "Ethiopia"] serving in Roman legions.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just a reminder that the term aethiops simply means burnt face people and refered to people that correspond to modern day Sudan. Other groups that lived in northwest Africa were probably described as such too. The Roman army would have incorporated both ''black'' populations in northeastern Africa and northwestern Africa. Yes,there were and still are black populations around modern day northwestern African countries like Tunisa,Morocco,and Algeria. Most live around in the more southern regions around the oasis areas or Sahara. Ancient Romans described these groups.
Getting back to the topic. Ireland was never colonized by the Romans like Scotland and Britain were. Ireland remained relativy isolated. However,the Vikings established port cities like Dublin. In Viking texts there are descriptions of captured African soliders they called blaumen[blue-men]. Most Viking references to ''black'' in Norse would have signified having black hair as opposed to skin color but blaumen meant black skinned.
Most of these blaumen were captured soliders from Moorish Spain.
This is the only way I supposed s halpotype E3a could have ended up in Ireland historically.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Like I said earlier, there's evidence of Sub-Saharan genes in English families that must have arrived during the Roman period. I will have to look up that research it has been years since it was published.
Let's clear the fog: I am aware of "sub-Saharan" lineages in Europe; so there's no need to go there. We were talking about "Ethiopians" [as in the Cushitic and Semitic speaking people who inhabit the modern nation of "Ethiopia"] serving in Roman legions.
The Aksumites of Ethiopia used Roman styled coinage and knew how to converse in Greek. Contact between Rome and Aksum was non-punitive but still extensive enough for there to be a small migration of people into Roman controlled territories and subsequently a possible connection to the British Isles.
The Moorish explaination may work for Ireland but not for England since the families that have been identified with Sub-Saharan genes can trace their lineage back to 600 BC (this may be inaccurate though).
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: The Aksumites of Ethiopia used Roman styled coinage and knew how to converse in Greek. Contact between Rome and Aksum was non-punitive but still extensive enough for there to be a small migration of people into Roman controlled territories and subsequently a possible connection to the British Isles.
The Moorish explaination may work for Ireland but not for England since the families that have been identified with Sub-Saharan genes can trace their lineage back to 600 BC (this may be inaccurate though).
The development of coinage in the African Horn was most likely the outcome of trade relations prevalent at the time, than any Roman “military” matters in the area, which was the focus of our exchange. Also, it should be noted that it is not a simple matter of the Aksumite coinage adoption of the Roman weight system implying some sort of extensive “direct” Roman-Aksumite contact…
“Aksum was the only African state in ancient times, outside the Roman dependencies, to issue its own national coinage (for references on coinage questions see Anzani: 1926, 1928, 1941; Munro-Hay, loc. var: Hahn 1983; much of the following chapter is based on Munro-Hay 1984iv)…
It is much more likely that the immediate origins of the coinage of Aksum were influenced by Roman trading in the Red Sea, though perhaps the awareness of Kushana and Persian coinages also inspired the Aksumites to emulation…
The Aksumite coinage followed the Roman/Byzantine weight system, and this and certain other factors add probability to the suggestion that Rome was the primary region to which Aksum looked when the issue of a coinage was planned. At any rate, adoption of a coinage would have immensely facilitated exchange of products and all other public and private business in which it was employed, and must have given considerable impetus to the economy.
[**BUT** here is the more likely motivation for the “further” development of Aksumite coinage]
Few African societies possessed a market or exchange system so evolved as to require a universally accepted form of currency; the need for such a currency stands in a direct ratio to the complexity of the society which has developed, and the ultimate expression of the requirement for currency in the ancient world was a coinage system. Use of a general purpose money evidently simplifies the system in representing the medium of exchange, the standard of value-measurement, a means of holding wealth at discretion, and a means of payment for services, all in one form. As Plato commented, `money reduces the inequalities and immeasurabilities of goods to equality and measure'. A coinage, fashioned from a precious metal, and of convenient size for representing large sums with little weight and bulk, was also much more broadly recognised than other types of currency in the international framework in which Aksum's trade became involved. Coinage gave the economy a central emphasis from which every aspect of the state's functions could spring. Wealth could pass easily in both local and external transactions, so long as the standard conformed, and **Aksum accordingly linked its coinage with the Romano-Byzantine monetary system.…
Within the area of Aksum's control, circulation of the coinage could have been encouraged by the demanding of coinage payments for certain taxes, by state payments for military and other services in coinage, and by the gradual increase in the number of merchants in the markets using it as the standardised medium of exchange.
At the time of the Periplus, the Aksumite state imported orokhalkos or brass "which they use for ornaments and for cutting as money", and "a little money (denarion) for foreigners who live there" (Huntingford 1980: 21-2). The use of metal as money **before the issue of a minted coinage** certainly hints that the Aksumites were aware even at that time of the advantages of a currency which did not require special care or maintenance and was divisible at need. Neither Zoskales, the ruler of the region at the time, nor his successors for well over a century, issued their own coins and it would seem as if the kingdom was only beginning to orient itself towards the use of coinage. The use of Roman money among foreign residents and merchants is not surprising, but the Aksumites' or Adulites' use of cut brass is; possibly brass was a relatively costly item in Ethiopia at the time.
This comment in the Periplus, seeming to imply that **Aksum was already using metal pieces as money**, was one of the points which made Jacqueline Pirenne's suggestion (1961) that the Periplus was of third-century date seem plausible.
**Now**, however, the accumulation of evidence for an earlier date seems conclusive, and it must be accepted that the conditions preparatory for ***Aksum's move to production of THEIR OWN COINAGE existed long before they were put into action. Eventually, however, Aksum, with its outlet to the Red Sea at the port of Adulis, decided to produce its own coinage instead of importing it; both Roman (Anfray and Annequin 1965: 68-71) and Indian (Mordini 1960, 1967) gold reached the country, as attested by archaeological evidence. The Indian material consisted of a hoard of Kushana gold coins of kings Vima Kadphises II, Kaniska, Huviska, and Vasudeva I found at the monastery of Dabra Damo, and dated to around 220AD, while the most dramatic find of Roman gold consisted of coins and jewellery of the time of the Antonines found at Matara. A number of Himyarite coins have also been found at Aksum (Munro-Hay 1978). Archaeological finds of this sort are rare, and the amount of foreign money circulating was probably relatively restricted.” - courtesy of S, Munro-Hay
For all we know, the kind of reasoning you are using as a basis for your earlier claims, even people as far as Nigeria, just on the account of infrequent encounters with Romans, could have served in the Roman army. Bottom line is that, you need much more than this line of reasoning, so as to attach significance to the “probability” of Ethiopians serving in Roman legions.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GO: Are there any known cases where people in Ireland are found to be E3a, and look like the typical Irish?
Borders folk may be descended from Africans By David Derbyshire (Filed: 11/06/2004)
Families who have lived in the English-Scottish Borders for generations could be descended from African soldiers who patrolled Hadrian's Wall nearly 2,000 years ago.
Archaeologists say there is compelling evidence that a 500-strong unit of Moors manned a fort near Carlisle in the third century AD.
Richard Benjamin, an archaeologist at Liverpool University who has studied the history of black Britons, believes many would have settled and raised families.
"When you talk about Romans in Britain, most people think about blue eyes and pale complexions," he said. "But the reality was very different."
Writing in the journal British Archaeology, Mr Benjamin describes a fourth century inscription discovered in Beaumount, two miles from the remains of the Aballava fort at Burgh by Sands. The inscription refers to the "numerus of Aurelian Moors" - a unit of North Africans, probably named after the emperor Marcus Aurelius.
The unit is also mentioned in the Notitia Dignitatum, a Roman list of officials and dignitaries. It describes the prefect of the "numeri Maurorum Aurelianorum, Aballaba".
The unit was probably mustered in the Roman province of Mauretania, in modern-day Morocco, by the emperor Septimus Severus and arrived in Britain in the second or third centuries AD. Aballava lay at the western end of Hadrian's Wall in Cumbria.
Mr Benjamin suspects that the unit would have been blooded in battles in Germany and the Danube where more inscriptions refer to a unit of Moors. Their number is unknown, but the fort could have held up to 500 men.
"There was freedom of movement for civilians and those in administration of the armed forces. Discharge certificates indicate that the veteran soldiers settled in Britain," he said. "Soldiers would have had plenty of money to spend in native settlements on the outskirts of the forts. They would have sought entertainment in brothels. Many would probably have wanted more permanent relationships."
Mr Benjamin is calling for a major study of black Roman Britons. He believes that DNA tests of locals could reveal genetic links with modern-day north Africans, while skeletons of Romans found in the area might contain telltale clues to their childhood origins.
Buildings in the village may have been built from recycled Roman materials. Some might be of African origin, he said.
The unit is likely to have been composed of Berbers from North Africa, but may also have had darker-skinned soldiers from Nubia.
In 1989, archaeologists discovered a 1,900-year-old wooden sculpture of a black African head in London carved in the first century.
Contemporary records also point to Africans living in Britain during the Roman occupation. The emperor Septimus Severus is reported to have been approached by a black African soldier while he crossed Hadrian's Wall on his return from a battle in Scotland.
In South Shields, a Roman tombstone refers to a 20-year-old "Moor by race, the freed slave of Numerians".
quote:Originally posted by GO: Are there any known cases where people in Ireland are found to be E3a, and look like the typical Irish?
Borders folk may be descended from Africans By David Derbyshire (Filed: 11/06/2004)
Families who have lived in the English-Scottish Borders for generations could be descended from African soldiers who patrolled Hadrian's Wall nearly 2,000 years ago.
Archaeologists say there is compelling evidence that a 500-strong unit of Moors manned a fort near Carlisle in the third century AD.
Richard Benjamin, an archaeologist at Liverpool University who has studied the history of black Britons, believes many would have settled and raised families.
"When you talk about Romans in Britain, most people think about blue eyes and pale complexions," he said. "But the reality was very different."
Writing in the journal British Archaeology, Mr Benjamin describes a fourth century inscription discovered in Beaumount, two miles from the remains of the Aballava fort at Burgh by Sands. The inscription refers to the "numerus of Aurelian Moors" - a unit of North Africans, probably named after the emperor Marcus Aurelius.
The unit is also mentioned in the Notitia Dignitatum, a Roman list of officials and dignitaries. It describes the prefect of the "numeri Maurorum Aurelianorum, Aballaba".
The unit was probably mustered in the Roman province of Mauretania, in modern-day Morocco, by the emperor Septimus Severus and arrived in Britain in the second or third centuries AD. Aballava lay at the western end of Hadrian's Wall in Cumbria.
Mr Benjamin suspects that the unit would have been blooded in battles in Germany and the Danube where more inscriptions refer to a unit of Moors. Their number is unknown, but the fort could have held up to 500 men.
"There was freedom of movement for civilians and those in administration of the armed forces. Discharge certificates indicate that the veteran soldiers settled in Britain," he said. "Soldiers would have had plenty of money to spend in native settlements on the outskirts of the forts. They would have sought entertainment in brothels. Many would probably have wanted more permanent relationships."
Mr Benjamin is calling for a major study of black Roman Britons. He believes that DNA tests of locals could reveal genetic links with modern-day north Africans, while skeletons of Romans found in the area might contain telltale clues to their childhood origins.
Buildings in the village may have been built from recycled Roman materials. Some might be of African origin, he said.
The unit is likely to have been composed of Berbers from North Africa, but may also have had darker-skinned soldiers from Nubia.
In 1989, archaeologists discovered a 1,900-year-old wooden sculpture of a black African head in London carved in the first century.
Contemporary records also point to Africans living in Britain during the Roman occupation. The emperor Septimus Severus is reported to have been approached by a black African soldier while he crossed Hadrian's Wall on his return from a battle in Scotland.
In South Shields, a Roman tombstone refers to a 20-year-old "Moor by race, the freed slave of Numerians".
quote:Originally posted by bruh man from 5th floor:
quote:Originally posted by Thought2:
quote:Originally posted by osirion: I agree that Black is a social construct. What I am implying is that if we brought this person into modern day American society he would not be considered socially Black.
Thought Writes:
Why not?
Because Severus wasn't black, thats why.
Thought Writes:
This is a good example of a weak position statement.
Posts: 2720 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: It is highly unlikely that he wasn't multi-racial considering his background as well as depictions (hair texture). North Africans are generally multi-racial people especially during this period. However, it is possible that he is actually of Phoenician origins which would support your position. Based on what information I have seen I would suspect him to be multi-racial.
Thought Writes:
1) Race does not exist in any biological sense.
2) Multiracial does not exist in any biological sense.
3) Race is illogical in a social sense.
4) Multiracial is illogical in a social sense.
5) Black is a North American specific term.
6) The North American specific term Black is utilized to represent a people who have heterogenous genetic and phenotypic lineages. Looking at the range of phenotypes and probable genetic lineages present in Greco-Roman era NW Africans, they would be called Black in a modern North American social system.
7) Genetic analysis of modern NW Africans indicates little genetic impact from SW Asia.
Posts: 2720 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: It is highly unlikely that he wasn't multi-racial considering his background as well as depictions (hair texture). North Africans are generally multi-racial people especially during this period. However, it is possible that he is actually of Phoenician origins which would support your position. Based on what information I have seen I would suspect him to be multi-racial.
Thought Writes:
1) Race does not exist in any biological sense.
2) Multiracial does not exist in any biological sense.
3) Race is illogical in a social sense.
4) Multiracial is illogical in a social sense.
5) Black is a North American specific term.
6) The North American specific term Black is utilized to represent a people who have heterogenous genetic and phenotypic lineages. Looking at the range of phenotypes and probable genetic lineages present in Greco-Roman era NW Africans, they would be called Black in a modern North American social system.
7) Genetic analysis of modern NW Africans indicates little genetic impact from SW Asia.
Science is about standards, language is about transfer of concepts. Either you understand what I mean by multiracial or not. Most people have a concept of what I mean when I say multiracial regardless of its lack of scientific merit.
For you I will say that the Emperor likely was primarily IndoEuropean in origin but with some admixture with PN2 clade. You will not hear me say he was Caucasoid and part Negroid.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GO: Are there any known cases where people in Ireland are found to be E3a, and look like the typical Irish?
Borders folk may be descended from Africans By David Derbyshire (Filed: 11/06/2004)
Families who have lived in the English-Scottish Borders for generations could be descended from African soldiers who patrolled Hadrian's Wall nearly 2,000 years ago.
Archaeologists say there is compelling evidence that a 500-strong unit of Moors manned a fort near Carlisle in the third century AD.
Richard Benjamin, an archaeologist at Liverpool University who has studied the history of black Britons, believes many would have settled and raised families.
"When you talk about Romans in Britain, most people think about blue eyes and pale complexions," he said. "But the reality was very different."
Writing in the journal British Archaeology, Mr Benjamin describes a fourth century inscription discovered in Beaumount, two miles from the remains of the Aballava fort at Burgh by Sands. The inscription refers to the "numerus of Aurelian Moors" - a unit of North Africans, probably named after the emperor Marcus Aurelius.
The unit is also mentioned in the Notitia Dignitatum, a Roman list of officials and dignitaries. It describes the prefect of the "numeri Maurorum Aurelianorum, Aballaba".
The unit was probably mustered in the Roman province of Mauretania, in modern-day Morocco, by the emperor Septimus Severus and arrived in Britain in the second or third centuries AD. Aballava lay at the western end of Hadrian's Wall in Cumbria.
Mr Benjamin suspects that the unit would have been blooded in battles in Germany and the Danube where more inscriptions refer to a unit of Moors. Their number is unknown, but the fort could have held up to 500 men.
"There was freedom of movement for civilians and those in administration of the armed forces. Discharge certificates indicate that the veteran soldiers settled in Britain," he said. "Soldiers would have had plenty of money to spend in native settlements on the outskirts of the forts. They would have sought entertainment in brothels. Many would probably have wanted more permanent relationships."
Mr Benjamin is calling for a major study of black Roman Britons. He believes that DNA tests of locals could reveal genetic links with modern-day north Africans, while skeletons of Romans found in the area might contain telltale clues to their childhood origins.
Buildings in the village may have been built from recycled Roman materials. Some might be of African origin, he said.
The unit is likely to have been composed of Berbers from North Africa, but may also have had darker-skinned soldiers from Nubia.
In 1989, archaeologists discovered a 1,900-year-old wooden sculpture of a black African head in London carved in the first century.
Contemporary records also point to Africans living in Britain during the Roman occupation. The emperor Septimus Severus is reported to have been approached by a black African soldier while he crossed Hadrian's Wall on his return from a battle in Scotland.
In South Shields, a Roman tombstone refers to a 20-year-old "Moor by race, the freed slave of Numerians".
Interesting, thanks for the find on this. I concede to the Moorish connection and a slighter possibility of Nubian and a slim chance of Ethiopian.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Science is about standards, language is about transfer of concepts. Either you understand what I mean by multiracial or not. Most people have a concept of what I mean when I say multiracial regardless of its lack of scientific merit.
Thought Writes:
Language facilitates science when the theoretical underpinnings of the concept being transfered is logical. The term multiracial is illogical because the concept of race is illogical. The term multiracial furthers racism it does not deconstruct racism....
Posts: 2720 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: He is multiracial but the term Black is probably incorrect.
Thought Writes:
The comments above make little sense.
The term "race" has no biological basis and is nonsensical in a social sense.
The term Black is a North American SPECIFIC term and is utilized to describe people with diverse genetic lineages.
In reality modern Black Americans have a more diverse set of genetic lineages than Greco-Roman era NW Africans.
Black isn't just North American specific and its a ambiguous term, especially when people who look completely white to the eye can also be black. I wonder have people forgotten why a person who looks white to the human eye can be called black in America?
Posts: 29 | From: Barbados | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: It is highly unlikely that he wasn't multi-racial considering his background as well as depictions (hair texture). North Africans are generally multi-racial people especially during this period. However, it is possible that he is actually of Phoenician origins which would support your position. Based on what information I have seen I would suspect him to be multi-racial.
Thought Writes:
1) Race does not exist in any biological sense.
2) Multiracial does not exist in any biological sense.
3) Race is illogical in a social sense.
4) Multiracial is illogical in a social sense.
5) Black is a North American specific term.
6) The North American specific term Black is utilized to represent a people who have heterogenous genetic and phenotypic lineages. Looking at the range of phenotypes and probable genetic lineages present in Greco-Roman era NW Africans, they would be called Black in a modern North American social system.
7) Genetic analysis of modern NW Africans indicates little genetic impact from SW Asia.
And who's to say "Black" as defined in North America makes someone black?
Posts: 285 | From: Mississippi | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bruh man from 5th floor: Black isn't just North American specific
Thought Writes:
The word Black is specific to the English language. However, I was refering to the North American specific TERM Black. NOT the English specific WORD Black. Subtleties are not your friend.
quote:Originally posted by bruh man from 5th floor: and its a ambiguous term
Thought Writes:
How so? Please be specific.
quote:Originally posted by bruh man from 5th floor: I wonder have people forgotten why a person who looks white to the human eye can be called black in America?
Thought Writes:
Because the North American specific term Black is NOT a racial term, but a population signifier.
"Then there are the so-called Two Brothers, found in a single tomb. One mummy was pronounced "negroid" by examining anatomists, the other "caucasoid." Yet inscriptions made clear they were siblings."
Posts: 2720 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
Because the North American specific term Black is NOT a racial term, but a population signifier.
Which is why I vehemently disagree with white looking people with no visible signs of black mixture defining themselves as black because of the stupid, racist one-drop rule that was imposed upon us to keep and maintain a perceived white purity.
Posts: 285 | From: Mississippi | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The word Black is specific to the English language. However, I was refering to the North American specific TERM Black. NOT the English specific WORD Black. Subtleties are not your friend.
If this term is North American specific as you state, why are you referring to genes as *BLACK AFRICAN DERIVED*? Can you find any peer-reviewed publication that states or mentions anything about *BLACK AFRICAN DERIVED* genes? No geneticists has referred to E3b1 as *BLACK AFRICAN DERIVED* so certainly that phrase is just merely egyptsearch jargon wothout any scientific backing.
quote:Originally posted by Triple Stage Darkness: Which is why I vehemently disagree with white looking people with no visible signs of black mixture defining themselves as black
Thought Writes:
So your basis of kinship is centered on how much melanin one has or how kinky ones hair is? This, in my humble opinion, leads us down the slippery slope to the "who is Blacker than whom" paradigm. This paradigm in turn is subjective and is really the basis of the "True Negro" paradigm. I perfer the form of self-definition that Black Americans have generated; which incorporates, in a fluid manner, phenotype, geneotype AND culture as the basis of population affinity.
Posts: 2720 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Triple Stage Darkness: If this term is North American specific as you state, why are you referring to genes as *BLACK AFRICAN DERIVED*?
Thought Writes;
Because they were genes that derived among Black people. Are you ok?
quote:Originally posted by Triple Stage Darkness: Can you find any peer-reviewed publication that states or mentions anything about *BLACK AFRICAN DERIVED* genes?
Thought Writes:
Why do I need to? Are you questioning that these genes derived among Black people or are you questioning the existence of Black people?
Posts: 2720 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Triple Stage Darkness: Which is why I vehemently disagree with white looking people with no visible signs of black mixture defining themselves as black
Thought Writes:
So your basis of kinship is centered on how much melanin one has or how kinky ones hair is? This, in my humble opinion, leads us down the slippery slope to the "who is Blacker than whom" paradigm. This paradigm in turn is subjective and is really the basis of the "True Negro" paradigm. I perfer the form of self-definition that Black Americans have generated; which incorporates, in a fluid manner, phenotype, geneotype AND culture as the basis of population affinity.
So that doesn't address my issue about people who are visibly white, who if they didn't identify as black you wouldn't know they had some distant black ancestry. Personally, if you look white you are white, I don't care if the person has a black great-great grandfather or grandmother. I have an American Indian maternal grandfather, yet I look nothing even close to an American Indian, so I would be stupid to call myself American Indian based upon the fact of having a grandfather thats American Indian. Thats why the one drop rule is stupid and should be abandoned. I'm not saying someone should totally deny and disavow themselves from some distant black heritage if she or he has it.
Posts: 285 | From: Mississippi | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Triple Stage Darkness: If this term is North American specific as you state, why are you referring to genes as *BLACK AFRICAN DERIVED*?
Thought Writes;
Because they were genes that derived among Black people. Are you ok?
quote:Originally posted by Triple Stage Darkness: Can you find any peer-reviewed publication that states or mentions anything about *BLACK AFRICAN DERIVED* genes?
Thought Writes:
Why do I need to? Are you questioning that these genes derived among Black people or are you questioning the existence of Black people?
You're the one always talking about peer-reviewed and scientific approaches, but can you find any publication which state any set of genes have been labelled as *BLACK AFRICAN DERIVED*? I'm questioning the terminology and term *BLACK AFRICAN DERIVED* since *YOU* have been criticizing the use of terms and terminology by others in this forum.
Posts: 285 | From: Mississippi | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Triple Stage Darkness: So that doesn't address my issue...
Thought Writes:
Your issue is your issue my friend. I DON'T have an issue with Black people of various shades, hair textures or nasal indices. Likewise I have love for the "Blue-Black" Senegalese person and the light brown Khoisan person. Kanuri with wavy hair is great and Nigerians with wolly hair gets love as well. I do not believe in breaking up families.
Posts: 2720 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
Why do I need to? Are you questioning that these genes derived among Black people or are you questioning the existence of Black people?
Oh, oh! not that "confusing" word again. Lol.
Thought is creating a strawman here, because I was *NOT* questioning whom or where the genes came from but the terminology *BLACK AFRICAN DERIVED* which is not scientific and is *NOT* used by geneticists to refer to any particular set of genes.
Posts: 285 | From: Mississippi | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Triple Stage Darkness: You're the one always talking about peer-reviewed and scientific approaches, but can you find any publication which state any set of genes have been labelled as *BLACK AFRICAN DERIVED*?
Thought Writes:
Your analogy is flawed. I criticize the use of the term Multiracial and the use of the term Race because the theories supporting these terms are debunked. If you are saying that the idea of the existence of an entity known as Black is debunked that is one thing. If you are playing a semantic game simply to WIN an argument is another, especially if you have not thought-out the end result of your position. So again, are you questioning the existence of Black people or are you questioning that these genes derived among a Black people first?
Posts: 2720 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
Thought is creating a strawman here, because I was *NOT* questioning whom or where the genes came from but the terminology *BLACK AFRICAN DERIVED* which is not scientific and is *NOT* used by geneticists to refer to any particular set of genes.
TSD, you are right about the term "black African" not being scientific, it is social. I am sure, from his posts in the past, that Thought is well aware of this too. But now, Thought has already given his understanding of the term "black". It is no accident that bio-anthropologists don't refer to relatively subjective terms like "black", because there is the American social reference to "black", and there is for example, British reference to such. Cultures around the globe, have various social constructs to describe members of their respective societies. So yes, social constructs are subjective. But we know that people traditionally called "blacks" in the U.S. and Britain, are actually Africans, or else relatively recent descendants of Africans, of tropical background. There is such a thing called tropical Africans, and is scientific! My question to you, TSD, is this: Now that Thought has repeatedly told you what he means by "black", when he references it, can you say that the context in which he uses it [which from my understanding, isn't "racial"], is invalid?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Triple Stage Darkness: So that doesn't address my issue...
Thought Writes:
Your issue is your issue my friend. I DON'T have an issue with Black people of various shades, hair textures or nasal indices. Likewise I have love for the "Blue-Black" Senegalese person and the light brown Khoisan person. Kanuri with wavy hair is great and Nigerians with wolly hair gets love as well. I do not believe in breaking up families.
my issue isn't blue-black Senegalese, Khoisan or Kanuri, its with white looking people who identify as black. The one drop rule, which was created by white racist is no good.
Posts: 285 | From: Mississippi | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic