3 ms·

Prof. Beard is hiding behind the bad behavior of her opponents, there is no cogent answer to the question.. where are the genes ?

pja 9y ago
In her article, she points out that the same study failed to find Norman genes either. So I might ask similar questions about them: where are the Norman genes? Is the Norman invasion of Britain a hoax perpetrated by the alt-right of yore? etc. etc. (In other words: it’s a legitimate question, but the way Taleb is using it as some kind of gotcha! query suggests that he isn’t really asking it in good faith.)
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > it’s a legitimate question, but the way Taleb is using it as some kind of gotcha! query suggests that he isn’t really asking it in good faith. Or, more generously (as to Taleb’s character) that the implicit premise (if there were ethnic diversity, we would have robust genetic evidence) justifying his argument is itself not based on a well-informed understanding of the context.
  - emmelaich 9y ago
    Yeah, since he has explicitly argued[1] against such "gotcha" tactics I would presume your inferrence is more accurate. [1] See The Ethics of Disagreement in https://medium.com/incerto/the-facts-are-true-the-news-is-fake-5bf98104cea2 https://medium.com/incerto/the-facts-are-true-the-news-is-fa...
  - dibujante 9y ago
    It really isn't. It's very hard to identify genetic influences that go that far back, especially given the subsequent major migrations to the British Isles. You would be hard-pressed to demonstrate that Romans ever lived there if all you had were the genes of modern Britons.
- tcbawo 9y ago
  This time period is separated by centuries of plague, smallpox, and high infant mortality. I would not be surprised that genetic diversity would simply vanish over time.
- sbmassey 9y ago
  She said "very little" Norman genes, not none at all. Given that the normal story of the Norman invasion is not about mass invasion, but the replacement of one ruling class with another, so relatively few actual people, this would not seem to be surprising.
  - yorwba 9y ago
    She also said that about Sub-Saharan African genes. Given that those were probably not a majority of the Roman forces, and the Romans didn't exactly mass-migrate to Britain either, this is also not surprising.
- cabalamat 9y ago
  > the same study failed to find Norman genes either How would a Norman gene be different from a French or Norse one?
- maze-le 9y ago
  I doubt you could even define "Norman genes" properly. How would they be different to say "Danish genes", wich migrated to Britain between the 8th and 10th century. After all Normans were also just Scandinavian people who relocated to northern France in the 10th century. The Normans integrated quickly into french (frankish) society by adaptding the language and intermarriage. Furthermore "Norman genes" should also be found in southern Italy, since it was the Normans who founded the Kingdom of Sicily, before it was incoorperated into the Holy Roman Empire.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
panzagl 9y ago
As someone who has studied post-Roman Britain as an amateur, I would guess they got on a boat and left Britain the same time the legions took off to play imperial whack-a-mole. That whole period of history is basically about migrations and population displacement, so it hardly seems unlikely that they could have effectively 'disappeared' over the next 3 centuries.
- chippy 9y ago
  This could be seen as framing it as being a Roman Occupation of Britain.
clock_tower 9y ago
Maybe in Wales? Modern England (and most of modern Scotland) is mostly Anglo-Saxon, not Romano-British.
- jasonwatkinspdx 9y ago
  There is genetic evidence of people from the Balkans migrating to Wales during the Roman era: https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/molbev/msm049 https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/molb...
- barry-cotter 9y ago
  That's not true. East Anglia, the region with the most Germanic ancestry, is only ~30%.

pja 9y ago

In her article, she points out that the same study failed to find Norman genes either. So I might ask similar questions about them: where are the Norman genes? Is the Norman invasion of Britain a hoax perpetrated by the alt-right of yore? etc. etc. (In other words: it’s a legitimate question, but the way Taleb is using it as some kind of gotcha! query suggests that he isn’t really asking it in good faith.)

dragonwriter 9y ago
> it’s a legitimate question, but the way Taleb is using it as some kind of gotcha! query suggests that he isn’t really asking it in good faith. Or, more generously (as to Taleb’s character) that the implicit premise (if there were ethnic diversity, we would have robust genetic evidence) justifying his argument is itself not based on a well-informed understanding of the context.
- emmelaich 9y ago
  Yeah, since he has explicitly argued[1] against such "gotcha" tactics I would presume your inferrence is more accurate. [1] See The Ethics of Disagreement in https://medium.com/incerto/the-facts-are-true-the-news-is-fake-5bf98104cea2 https://medium.com/incerto/the-facts-are-true-the-news-is-fa...
- dibujante 9y ago
  It really isn't. It's very hard to identify genetic influences that go that far back, especially given the subsequent major migrations to the British Isles. You would be hard-pressed to demonstrate that Romans ever lived there if all you had were the genes of modern Britons.
tcbawo 9y ago
This time period is separated by centuries of plague, smallpox, and high infant mortality. I would not be surprised that genetic diversity would simply vanish over time.
sbmassey 9y ago
She said "very little" Norman genes, not none at all. Given that the normal story of the Norman invasion is not about mass invasion, but the replacement of one ruling class with another, so relatively few actual people, this would not seem to be surprising.
- yorwba 9y ago
  She also said that about Sub-Saharan African genes. Given that those were probably not a majority of the Roman forces, and the Romans didn't exactly mass-migrate to Britain either, this is also not surprising.
cabalamat 9y ago
> the same study failed to find Norman genes either How would a Norman gene be different from a French or Norse one?
maze-le 9y ago
I doubt you could even define "Norman genes" properly. How would they be different to say "Danish genes", wich migrated to Britain between the 8th and 10th century. After all Normans were also just Scandinavian people who relocated to northern France in the 10th century. The Normans integrated quickly into french (frankish) society by adaptding the language and intermarriage. Furthermore "Norman genes" should also be found in southern Italy, since it was the Normans who founded the Kingdom of Sicily, before it was incoorperated into the Holy Roman Empire.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

panzagl 9y ago

As someone who has studied post-Roman Britain as an amateur, I would guess they got on a boat and left Britain the same time the legions took off to play imperial whack-a-mole. That whole period of history is basically about migrations and population displacement, so it hardly seems unlikely that they could have effectively 'disappeared' over the next 3 centuries.

chippy 9y ago
This could be seen as framing it as being a Roman Occupation of Britain.

clock_tower 9y ago

Maybe in Wales? Modern England (and most of modern Scotland) is mostly Anglo-Saxon, not Romano-British.

jasonwatkinspdx 9y ago
There is genetic evidence of people from the Balkans migrating to Wales during the Roman era: https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/molbev/msm049 https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/molb...
barry-cotter 9y ago
That's not true. East Anglia, the region with the most Germanic ancestry, is only ~30%.