Borders folk may descend from Africans from Hadrian\'s Wall

[Theodosius the Great]

Well said, Taira1180.<br>
<br>
I hope this map will shed any possible ignorance held by some members of this website. It shows the general racial distribution of the world prior to the 1400s (as stated in the caption). Five races are displayed : Mongolians, Caucasians, Ethiopians, Malayans, and Americans.<br>
<br>
Personally, I consider there to be three basic races : Caucasoids, Negroids, and Mongoloids. Anything else to me is a mixture of the three.<br>
<br>
<img src="http://members.aol.com:/rcasti998/racialdistribution" style="border:0;"/><br>
<br>
<br>
Hopefully you can see that 1/4 or 1/5 of the African continent was inhabited by Caucasians all in the north and north east <em>above</em> the Saharan desert.<br>
<br>
Given that White Africa and Black Africa were separated by hundreds of miles of barren wasteland, would anyone care to give the odds that Septimius Severus was black ?<br>
(rhetorical) <br>
<br>
Severus was most likely part Punic, as Taira1180 said, since he was born at an Italian colony in Libya. Just as Trajan and Hadrian were only partially Spanish since they too were born at Italian colonies in the Iberian peninsula.<br>
<br>
<p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=theodosiusthegreat>Theodosius the Great</A> at: 8/19/04 9:23 am<br></i>

[hansvl]

I can't believe that anyone still wants to divide us humans into different biological races.<br>
Man (<em>Homo sapiens sapiens</em>) <strong>cannot</strong> be divided into races in the biological sense of that word! Biologically it is impossible to discern races simply because the biologically difference between black-white.../negroid-caucasian-mongolian... or however you want to name it, is too insignificant to be the basis of a division into races. Biologically the differences between man and woman for instance are far more significant.<br>
For humans the biological sciences don't make a division into races (genetically there is no reason or cause to do so)!<br>
<br>
Of course visually there are obvious differences, but it's no just (biological) basis for a division into races. 'Race' should only be used in the correct biological way, but unfortunately it still gets this strange connotation as if biology backs up a 'natural' division of mankind into several distinct groups almost as if they were different species.<br>
<br>
I'm very glad that there is variation in our species, but just keep it at that: variation, not races.<br>
<br>
Hans<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[Theodosius the Great]

I don't disagree with you, Hans. I wasn't speaking scientifically. At best I think we're just arguing about semantics.<br>
<br>
At any rate, the word "races" is still mainstream. Nothing has replaced it, at least here in the US, although it coexists with "ethnicity" on college applications. And I live in liberal San Francisco. <p></p><i></i>

[Chariovalda]

Well, Theodosius, talking scientifically - ditch that map. Not only is the term "race" meaningless in human genetics, this is one crappy and inaccurate map.<br>
Some human populations ARE more closely related to each other than to other human populations - Europe and the Mediterranean basin, all the way into central Asia forms one such group, eastern Asia another. But these distributions are clearly different from this "racial" map. India is part of this complex of western Eurasian populations; Central Asia is a region of admixture between eastern and western Eurasian populations, and so, to an extent, is much of Siberia.<br>
<br>
The popular concept of race partly derives from bad pseudo-science and is basically an ideological construct, and a fairly modern one at that; and that's my problem with claims that this (insert major historical figure) guy was "black" and that (ditto) gal was "white", as if this makes them part of, say, the "white" or "black" American community. It's really about colonizing the past for present political objectives.<br>
They were Roman, or Greek, or Egyptian, or Trans-Baikalic Tocharians for all I care; as long as they are describes as members of the historical "ethnicity" or culture of which they were part (or identified themselves with).<br>
Septimius Severus wasn't black or white in the modern American sense: he was a Roman provincial aristocrat from Leptis Magna in what is now Libya, who got lucky and became Emperor. That's all. <p></p><i></i>

[Theodosius the Great]

Ave, Chariovalda !<br>
<br>
Yeah I noticed that too about India on the map. They should be caucasian, I don't know why they're under the Mongolian sphere. And you're right that of course there's cross-pollenation among the groups.<br>
<br>
I'll quote the map's caption :<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>Before the advent of advanced transportation and the European settlement of the Americas, people tended to migrate little from the place where they and their ancestors had originated. Races, then, could be characterized by geographic location. Though this is no longer the case, <em>social scientists</em> still use these geographic areas to classify the world’s races. This map shows the general distribution of these five races before the 1400s. <hr><br>
<br>
So apparently this map is valid to social scientists. As for your statement :<br>
<br>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>It's really about colonizing the past for present political objectives<hr><br>
<br>
Amen to that ! I don't like revisionist history one bit.<br>
<br>
Anyway, this is all distracting. My point was Severus was a caucasoid, more specifically, he was probably part Semitic (Punic) and part latin (Italian). So I'll simplify the map to include only Europe, Africa and the Near East.<br>
<br>
Vale !<br>
-Theo <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Genetically, Europeans and asiatics are more closely related between them than to black Africans, who in turn are divided in groups genetically more diverse than they are form "euroasiatics" according to the last findings on chromosome-Y analisis <p></p><i></i>

[drsrob]

More inportantly, colour is but one of the differences between men, that could indicate the existance of races. I've read about recent research on this matter.<br>
Basically, if we divide men according to one of these other distinctions we get "races" of entirely different composition.<br>
<br>
My personal opinion is that geographic isolation has introduced the beginnings of racial differentiation in the early history of modern men. The advent of civilisation and the colonizing movements of peoples have diluted these considerably over the ages, so that many if not most people to date are of "mixed race". <p>Greetings<br>
<br>
Rob Wolters</p><i></i>

[John1]

"The unit is likely to have been composed of Berbers from North Africa, but may also have had darker-skinned soldiers from Nubia." original article.

I think he is conflating Nubia and Numidia, Numidia is certainly "Berber" and we know from the Haddon Hall Alter that the Numidians were in town in the form of Quintus Sittius Caecillianus. Has anyone ever been able to put a date on the Bakewell alter? Does it fit stylistically into any particular century?

http://roman-britain.co.uk/places/bakewell.htm


   

   

ps dna has moved on a long way since this 2004 thread.

[Robert Vermaat]

ps dna has moved on a long way since this 2004 thread.

2004.. talk about thread necrology..

[John1]

ps dna has moved on a long way since this 2004 thread.

2004.. talk about thread necrology..

it's a history study..... just a different period. I was just a child back then.....

[ValentinianVictrix]

I once attended a lecture on Equalities where the lecturer asked us about Cleopatra and chastised most the those present because their view, coloured no doubt by various film depictions, was that she was white. The lecturer said history had deliberately erased the fact that Cleopatra was black as were the other rulers of Egypt. I asked said lecturer what he based this on and did he know Cleopatra's lineage. He admitted he did not, he based this on the fact Africa was populated in the main by 'black people'. I had to inform him to go and read some proper history books and then perhaps reconsider his view!

Were the Moor's dark skinned during the time of the Roman Empire? Would Victor, one of Valen's Magister's have been able to marry the daughter of Queen Mave of the Saraceni if she had been dark skinned?

As to round houses, several years ago we had a bit of a drought down here in Kent where I live and in a field on a slope appeared a line of dark coloured rings which the local archaeology team subsequently investigated and found that the rings were the remains of round houses that appeared to have been destroyed in a fire, hence the dark rings. They had not been known previous to my spotting and reporting them.

[Nathan Ross]

This may be the article from British Archaeology; anyway, it does look as if it gives the gist of it.

..."The Beaumont inscription, which is written in the stylised Latin of a standard Roman military inscription, was carved into an altar stone dedicated to the god Jupiter (king of the gods). It reads:
"To Jupiter Best and Greatest and the Majesty of our two emperors, to the genius (guardian spirit) of the numerus (unit) of Aurelian Moors, Valerianus' and Gallienus' own, Caelius Vibianus, cohort-tribune in charge of the above-mentioned numerus, [set up this altar] through the agency of Julius Rufinus, senior centurion."
As the name Aurelianorum suggests the unit was named in honour of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius (AD 161-180). Recently popularised in the film Gladiator by Richard Harris."

This is interesting... The Emperor Richard Harris's full name was Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (also, confusingly, the real name of Caracalla and Elagabalus) - would a unit raised by him be called Aurelia, or Antoniniana? (Aurelianae occurs on an inscription dating to Aurelian, but he's too late for this Beamont one).

I read a paper recently (I think by Speidel) about the Equites Scutarii Aureliaci, who turn up in Syria in the 4th century but apparently came from the west - the author suggests that the name indicates an origin in Orleans (Aurelianis, or Civitatas Aurelianorum).

So could this unit of Mauri actually come from Orleans? If so, they would be an early example of a 3rd century numerus moved to Britain from the continent - the dedication to Valerian and Gallienus makes this inscription c.AD253-260.

But Vibianus is described as trib(unus) coh(ortis) p(rae)p(ositus) n(umeri) - so either he was a cohort tribune acting as praepositus to a numerus, or the numerus itself was originally, or officially, a cohort...

I think he is conflating Nubia and Numidia

I think so! Very silly all round, anyway. Mauri were not 'black' in the modern sense, as we've discussed before, neither were Numidians and neither was Septimius Severus. Although the HA does mention the emperor meeting 'an Aethiopian' 'near the wall', so there were actual black soldiers (in the modern sense) there.

But if my theory above about this unit is correct, they would not have been there in Severus's day anyway.

we know from the Haddon Hall Alter that the Numidians were in town in the form of Quintus Sittius Caecillianus. Has anyone ever been able to put a date on the Bakewell alter? Does it fit stylistically into any particular century?

Presumably Caecilianus is assumed to be Numidian because of his name Sittius? There was a family of that name in north Africa, descended from a Roman officer of the late republican period I think - but the name could have come from elsewhere.

Stylistically - could be 1st or 2nd century I think. The dedication to Mars Braciaca is unusual - it could be native god, perhaps from the Aquitanian homeland. Although there's a theory on this site that Braciaca was a 'Beer Goddess':

Braciaca - 'Beer Goddess' 

[John1]

The "Sittius" I took to suggest an origin in the area around "Cirta" 
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cirta

which was gifted to the followers of Sittius for their support of Caesar against Pompey;
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publius_Sittius

I'm not sure that implies lineal descent from Sittius himself though.

This is compounded by the name Caecilianus whcih is also the name of the Bishop of Carthage around 311 AD (Donatist Schism and all that)

So between "Sittius" and "Caecillianus" my assumption is Numidia is a good shot at an origin. 

There is also a Caecillianus kicking around as a consul in 75 or 76;
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_undated_Roman_consuls

I also recall one of the fantastic cities around Cirta having a memorial to a local Numidian who commanded the Vardulli. So Numidian's commanding the Aquitanian's and Basques seems like a pattern... maybe?

I am working blind on these names so if the experts say Numidia I tend to go with that as a plausible explanation. I'm a big respecter of the established dogma on all things Roman myself. 

[Nathan Ross]

between "Sittius" and "Caecillianus" my assumption is Numidia is a good shot at an origin.

It's a pretty good bet. There's a Marcus Sittius (Publi filius, Quirina) Caecilianus from Algiers in Mauretania Caesariensis (CIL 08, 09259) that might have been related to the prefect in Britain.

But Caecilianus is a common enough cognomen, and while the Sitti are mostly in north Africa they do turn up in other places too - Italy and Gaul mostly.

[John1]

http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/arch...ricans.pdf