• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Roman Imperial Population

Frideswide

Fortea Morgana :) PeteByrdie certificated Princess
Joined
Jul 14, 2014
Messages
16,318
Location
An Eochair
From The Conversation, good summary and thoughtful analysis, of the latest developments in bioarchaeology from Rebecca Redfern (Museum of London/Durham University): The Roman Dead.

Our knowledge about the people who lived in Roman Britain has undergone a sea change over the past decade. New research has rubbished our perception of it as a region inhabited solely by white Europeans. Roman Britain was actually a highly multicultural society which included newcomers and locals with black African ancestry and dual heritage, as well as people from the Middle East.

For the most part, these findings have been welcomed by public, and incorporated by museums into displays and educational content. But, post-Brexit referendum and in an atmosphere of growing nationalism, they have also been rejected and ridiculed.

Further to this discussion is another The Conversation piece, this time by John-Mark Philo (UEA and Leverhulme): Mary Beard is right, Roman Britain was multi-ethnic – so why does this upset people so much?

The really interesting question here is not whether the Roman empire was ethnically diverse (it was) or even whether there were African people in the British Isles (we think there probably were) – but why it is now so important for some to establish beyond question that there was a time when Britain’s population was white and nothing else. What exactly is at stake in promoting this view of Britain’s past?

Understanding all this is crucial in understanding the paradigm within which our lovely forteana happen. Look at cultural differences in the portrayal of dragons for a simple example. Culture and its expectations are the sea from which our rains of fish come :)





 
<<Roman Britain was actually a highly multicultural society which included newcomers and locals with black African ancestry and dual heritage, as well as people from the Middle East.>>

The extracts you have posted show more about modern preconceptions than they do about Roman Britain. "Multicultural"! "Dual heritage"! Pshaw!

Indeed, your second extract acknowledges this.

Due to the legacy of empire and the slave trade, and the related idea of "white superiority" (or even "supremacy") which was conveniently "justified" by the white European interpretation of one particular religion with middle eastern origins, we now live in a world that sadly is divided into "white" and "people of colour".

I hate that expression because it implies that Pakistani Asians, Chinese, black Africans, and native Polynesians are all "one group" (because they are "of colour") and white English, French, German, American or South African people are all "one group" (because they are white). This is a modern idea and has no place in the study of what happened 2,000 years ago.

We are also habitually free and easy with terms like race, ethnicity, culture, heritage, and religion. We thus have ridiculous situations in which, for example,
  • Discrimination against Muslims is often classed as "racism" despite the fact that Islam is a belief system that can be adopted or rejected by a person of any race or colour.
  • Classification of black people in the USA as "African Americans" even if they are from the 5th or 6th generation to be born in America, and have never been to Africa and never intend to go there.
  • "Heritage" being an issue when a baby is adopted. If you're born black, then there is a presumption that you should somehow be brought up black.
  • The description of people from Pakistani or Indian backgrounds as being part of "the Asian community" when Pakistan and India are very different countries and are often on the brink of war with each other. There is no single Asian community. There are several.
  • Talk of an individual Asian person being "part of the Asian community" even if they choose to have little or nothing to do with anything related to what is meant by the term Asian community.
  • The presumption that your supposed cultural heritage is important, even if it has never been relevant to you.
  • The romantic (or patronising) idea that Asian, or African, or Native American culture is somehow rich, diverse and wonderful whereas white culture (whatever that is) is standard, generic, and unremarkable.
(For the avoidance of doubt, I do not subscribe to or support any of these; I am describing what I observe.)

Even now, there is no single English or British culture. If you believe there is, go into a pub in Devon and ask for a chip cob; or travel 200 miles north or south and see how they serve your beer; or work in a call centre and deal with calls from a Cornishman, a Cockney and a Geordie.

At the height of Anglo Saxon times, England comprised 7 distinct kingdoms, no doubt each with their own feelings of being a distinct culture. Most individuals probably never met someone from the next kingdom along.

Before the Romans, little is known — even the Romans did not know what they would find if they invaded. Point is, there was no single culture in England; indeed, there was no England. There was an island with many tribes and cultures on it. They no doubt shared some beliefs and practices, and also had many differences. It is absurd therefore to suggest that this was a "multicultural society" in the modern sense.

No doubt visible differences such as skin colour or hair colour were an issue, simply because they would mark someone as either an "insider" or an "outsider". However, I suspect that world for most people was divided into only 3 groups:
  • Our own tribe.
  • Friendly tribes/allies.
  • Enemy tribes.
Of course, study of migration patterns is interesting and valid. It is interesting to know that groups moved from one area to another, and even to know that there were ethnic differences.

However, overlaying that with modern ideas about "multiculturalism" and "diversity" and "dual cultural heritage" is every bit as self-serving as applying modern ideas about big game hunting and cruelty to animals to the people who hunted mammoths for food.
 
However, overlaying that with modern ideas about "multiculturalism" and "diversity" and "dual cultural heritage" is every bit as self-serving as applying modern ideas about big game hunting and cruelty to animals to the people who hunted mammoths for food.

The article is written partly to poke fun at people who get upset by an interpretation supported by evidence. Please don't pay too much attention to the presentation and less to the evidence :)
 
NOt that /you/ would Mikeule! but y'know.... SOME people .... ;)
 
ENGLAND HAS ALWAYS BEEN WHITE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, VICARS CYCLING TO WORK ACROSS THE VILLAGE GREEN THROUGH GENTLE AUTUMN MISTS ON ST GEORGE'S DAY IN DAD'S ARMY ON HIS WAY TO VISIT BILBO BAGGINS TO WATCH ANTIQUES ROADSHOW OVER TEA AND CRUMPETS.
Have we met? There are a lot of them round where I live... :)
 
Back
Top