PDA

View Full Version : Analysis of Roman Grave Reveals That York Was a Multicultural Society



SaxonPagan
Saturday, February 27th, 2010, 11:26 PM
Analysis of Roman grave reveals that York was a multicultural society

By Steve Bird

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/living/article7042984.ece

Archaeologists have discovered that wealthy black Africans lived in Roman Britain in one of the country’s earliest examples of multiculturalism.

Scientific research techniques have established that a lavish grave containing a woman’s skeleton, an ivory bangle, perfume bottle, mirror and jewellery, belonged to a North African member of York’s high society in the 4th century.

Scientific analysis of isotopes from the teeth revealed that water she drank during her childhood had contained minerals likely to have been found in North Africa. Skull measurements have also established that the “Ivory Bangle Lady” was black or of mixed race.

Her sarcophagus, which was made of stone, a sign of immense wealth in Roman Britain, was discovered in 1901 in Bootham, York. The city was then a legionary fortress and civilian settlement called Eboracum, founded by the Romans in AD71.

Her well-preserved remains showed that she was 1.5m (5ft 1in) and aged between 18 and 23. There were no signs of a violent death, and muscle markings showed that she had not lived a strenuous life, suggesting that she was affluent. Among the goods found in her grave was a bone with the inscription “Sor ave vivas in Deo” (Hail, sister, may you live in God), suggesting that she may also have been a Christian.

A bracelet of jet, probably from Whitby, North Yorkshire, showed that she had access to local trade networks. Researchers from the University of Reading’s department of archaeology believe that the ivory bangle, an artefact rarely found in Roman Britain, may have been kept by the woman as a memento of home.

Hella Eckardt, who carried out the study, said: “Multicultural Britain is not just a phenomenon of more modern times. Analysis of the ‘Ivory Bangle Lady’ and others like her, contradicts assumptions about the make-up of Roman-British populations as well as the view that African immigrants were of low status, male and likely to have been slaves.”

She said that “Ivory Bangle Lady” was very wealthy — “absolutely from the top end of York society”. “The link between slavery and Africans is an early modern one. In the Roman world this simply was not the case. Slaves in Roman times could come from any area.”

She added that inscriptions from that period showed that African people were most often members of the imperialist power’s army. But the latest research on a series of skeletons showed that African men had immigrated to Britain, invariably with the Roman Army, and had brought their wives and children.

Dr Eckardt continued: “We’re looking at a population mix which is much closer to contemporary Britain than previous historians had suspected. In the case of York, the Roman population may have had more diverse origins than the city has now. “This skull is particularly interesting, because the stone sarcophagus she was buried in, and the richness of the grave goods, means she was a very wealthy woman.”

Joe McCarthy
Saturday, February 27th, 2010, 11:33 PM
In the post-modern era 'scholarship' is employed blatantly as a weapon to reinforce the dominant ideology of the ruling elites. This piece is a particularly vulgar example. It's gotten to the point where these people make no pretense of their propagandistic aims.

That the Romans imported blacks into Britain is hardly a great revelation. To assert it somehow equates to modern 'multiculturalism' is comical. One would hope these people would have better things to do with their research funds, but that is a hope too far.

Sigurd
Sunday, February 28th, 2010, 04:28 PM
Archaeologists have discovered that wealthy black Africans lived in Roman Britain in one of the country’s earliest examples of multiculturalism.

On the basis of what, one skeleton? Chances are that the woman to whom the skeleton belonged was perhaps a Roman soldier's wife, but hardly representative for the whole population, let alone the pre-Roman population. One couldn't even categorically exclude the solitary migrant that was accepted into the fold, but it certainly doesn't speak for a phenomenon of "multiculturalism", end especially not for the entire island. :|

Basing an assumption "multiculturalism" on one skeleton alone is ridiculous, typical left-liberal propaganda based on proof short of what is usually considered a "scientifically useful sample". Imagine WRC driver Conrad Rautenbach live to a ripe old age and then get his skeleton found in 1,500 years and someone saying that "Zimbabwe under Mugabe had lots of Whites". ;)


Skull measurements have also established that the “Ivory Bangle Lady” was black or of mixed race.

I thought it's scientifically accepted that "race doesn't exist" and that "all 'racial' differences are by skin colour alone", eh? Sounds like they're arguing this way when it suits them and the other way when it doesn't suit them. :oanieyes


Among the goods found in her grave was a bone with the inscription “Sor ave vivas in Deo” (Hail, sister, may you live in God), suggesting that she may also have been a Christian.

So clearly a Roman's wife, because the skeleton's lifespan predates the Christianisation of Britain by at least 150 years. In fact, it almost proves that they must have been reasonably recent arrivals, as Christianity was not so spread in 300-something that someone living in Britain even third-generation would have been particularly like to be Christian.


“We’re looking at a population mix which is much closer to contemporary Britain than previous historians had suspected. In the case of York, the Roman population may have had more diverse origins than the city has now. “

And that still wouldn't make for a justification of today's multiculturalist agenda. If a certain strip of land was multicultural in the past, there might be diverse and perhaps perfectly good reasons why it was suddenly no longer. ;)

Hauke Haien
Sunday, February 28th, 2010, 05:50 PM
Rome started out extremely Romanocentric, focused on the locally blended populus and a dominating elite that was more pronouncedly IE after the secession from the influence of the Etruscan league. However, military success meant that they became universalist in outlook, thinking that everyone could and should adopt Roman civilization and would thereby become at least quasi-Roman under Roman control.

Although it has become fashionable to praise ancient multicultural empires in order to validate modern ones, Rome's tendency was toward monoculturalism, which was continuously set back because of the annexation and addition of foreign cultures, its multicultural character being the result of this failure. Finally, what it meant to be Roman was subject to negotiation within this dynamic and many elements of the acquired cultures flowed into a common cesspool called Late Antiquity.

While it would be inaccurate to say that there were no efforts toward cultural cohesion, although insufficient and misdirected, racial considerations seem largely absent. In particular, the need to limit racial variation within the overextended populace seems to have gone unrecognised.

Adding to this the Romanist tendency to reshuffle historically grown units, it would not be surprising for an Afro-Roman colonist to migrate to Britain in the entourage of Roman civilization, but it would be speculative to claim that this Roman layer not only outweighed but also outnumbered in such a way that it entirely dissolved the pre-existing and more uniform population beneath.

It is also interesting to note the very thorough destruction of Roman civilization after its departure and the resumption of previous patterns of settlement in the Anglo-Saxon period. This might not only point to the strong appeal of a Germanic way of life and the dominance of its bearers, but also to a genuine desire to get rid of everything Roman.

Hamar Fox
Monday, March 1st, 2010, 05:27 PM
Boring propaganda. I like how the article (and the Eckardt Jew) repeatedly uses "African" to imply Negro, when in most cases the "Africans" were Berberid, it's just that this particular North African was mixed race. Also, nothing much is said of overall numbers, just the ambiguous comment that York may have been more multicultural then than now.

A fairly redundant hypothesis in the age of genetic testing.

Axewolf
Monday, April 5th, 2010, 06:03 PM
This is liberal left propaganda pushing the diversity and multi-cultural agenda. The hypocrisy in the article is hilarious in regards to skull shape as Sigurd has already pointed out. I was under the impression that the practice of measuring skull shape in order to dictate race (which they claim doesn't exist) was supposedly deemed an "evil", "racist", "nazi" system but here they are using the same practice to determine that this female was an African. :thumbdown

Bittereinder
Monday, April 5th, 2010, 07:49 PM
Of course it was, everyone knows the whole world was one big happy family all along, and just we Germanics had it wrong this whole time. Bah!

Deifr
Monday, April 5th, 2010, 08:16 PM
The Romans are also said to have disappeared almost overnight at some point. Maybe their multicultural society got chased out....