4 ms·

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 wha

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.

foldr 9y ago
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.
- patrickg_zill 9y ago
  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"
  - foldr 9y ago
    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.
vidarh 9y ago
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.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

foldr 9y ago

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.

patrickg_zill 9y ago
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"
- foldr 9y ago
  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.

vidarh 9y ago

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.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]