Archaeologica.org

Simon21 wrote:Meaning there was regular traffic between black Africa and the Mediterranean where the Romans lived.

And there is no reason to assume black Roman s could not have been citizens and therefore could have joined the legions

Perhaps after 212 when Caracalla granted citizenship to all free citizens of the empire. Before that a person would have had to be wealthy enough to merit the honor.

Minimalist wrote:

Simon21 wrote:Meaning there was regular traffic between black Africa and the Mediterranean where the Romans lived.

And there is no reason to assume black Roman s could not have been citizens and therefore could have joined the legions

Perhaps after 212 when Caracalla granted citizenship to all free citizens of the empire. Before that a person would have had to be wealthy enough to merit the honor.

Grants of citizenship were made for many reasons - St Paul for serving the roman army, towns or people which had shown loyalty or where an emperor was born.

But money always helped of course, and some black romans may have been rich.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/201 ... y-britain/

Might be interesting except for this

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/201 ... d-univers/

Which seems to put the cart before the horse - how do we know the "borders" of the Anglo Saxon kingdoms, this was long before land surveying.

circumspice wrote:Welcome to the board Andy!

Your family history sounds fascinating. Couple that with your Y-DNA results, it seems that you've got more genealogy info than the average person.

Thanks. Actually it may be a case of "less genealogy" is "more genealogy" considering the rarity of my yDNA haplogroup. There is only one place in the world where it exists in quantities of >1% today, Crete. And it has been identified in bronze age burials in Crete. And DNA analysis places is as either originating in Crete around 3100 bce or wholesale migrating there at that time from Anatolia. This is in stark contrast with some genealogy projects such as Scottish DNA where they cannot even distinguish some families from each other with DNA.

Simon21 wrote:https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/201 ... y-britain/

Might be interesting except for this

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/201 ... d-univers/

Which seems to put the cart before the horse - how do we know the "borders" of the Anglo Saxon kingdoms, this was long before land surveying.

One interesting point about this of course is how you actually define what "tribe" means. It seems to have become a pejorative "we are a community, they are tribal". In Gildas Vortipor is called tyrant of the Demetae, on the other hand Constantine is cited as the ruler of Damnonia, not the Dumnonii, so what these derivations meant in the immediate Roman British period remains a mystery. There is the theory that all the tribal identities revived and this disunion aided the invaders, but this founders on the notion that the Anglo-Saxons themselves were united, which they weren't.

And we haven't got a Brigantia or Siluria.

From your example it would seem to depend on if the speaker was talking about a people or a territory.

kbs2244 wrote:From your example it would seem to depend on if the speaker was talking about a people or a territory.

That is the very point, no one is certain what exactly is meant. The situation is more vexed with the Anglo Saxons. Firstly the only reason the name Anglo-Saxons was used was to distinguish them from the Germans of Saxony, also called Saxons and secondly going by Bede the angles and Saxons were only two of a wide varity of peoples who were not remembered so clearly like the Frisians. But the arcvhaeology makes it very hard to distinguish one group from another.

There is always that fundamental question that if you were transported to this period would you be able to tell what territory or whose you were in? The British language is different from the Teutonic granted, but could the Brigantes tell if someone was a Decleangi? Could you tell a jute family from an anglian one?

St Paul for serving the roman army,

Seriously?

Minimalist wrote:

St Paul for serving the roman army,

Seriously?

So says the Book of Acts, it is presumed because his family made tents for the Roman army.

And he didn't hesitate to claim it when things started to cut up rough and it looked like he might undergo a flogging, it is also the reason he wasn't crucified.

Never one to miss out on a privilege was Paul.

Acts is one miracle tale after another. For that reason I dismiss it as bullshit, not history.

Ok Flavius Josephus then. The point is you could become a roman citizen for services to the state - even if you had been a rebel.

But I don't think you could raise an entire cohort of auxillia from traitors who surrendered their armies and became the future emperor's mouthpiece. There just weren't enough of them.

Whenever you say "how did the Romans do something" you have to add on a date. The Roman Republic/Empire lasted for 1,000 years in the West and another 1,0000 years after that in the East. They did not cling stubbornly to the old ways of doing things. They evolved. For instance, it was not until the early 1st century BCE that most ( but not all ) of the Italian cities were granted citizenship and most of them had been Roman allies for centuries. It was called the Social Wars and it was a sobering wake up call to the Romans. But still, it was not universal citizenship.

Minimalist wrote:But I don't think you could raise an entire cohort of auxillia from traitors who surrendered their armies and became the future emperor's mouthpiece. There just weren't enough of them.

Whenever you say "how did the Romans do something" you have to add on a date. The Roman Republic/Empire lasted for 1,000 years in the West and another 1,0000 years after that in the East. They did not cling stubbornly to the old ways of doing things. They evolved. For instance, it was not until the early 1st century BCE that most ( but not all ) of the Italian cities were granted citizenship and most of them had been Roman allies for centuries. It was called the Social Wars and it was a sobering wake up call to the Romans. But still, it was not universal citizenship.

Er Josephus wasn't a traitor, he was a rebel like Bouddica. And as the Iceni (Eceni) and Trinovantes found the Romans did not suffer rebellion.

I was making the simple point that in the 90 millions that made up the Roman Empire for much of its history there would have been black citizens(and others) who could easily have joined the army and been posted to Britain. Mary Beard herself identified several grave markers near HW (she seems to specialise in Epigraphy) that shows soldiers coming from all over the Empire. The stones however do not record skin colour.

Paul had his Roman citizenship due to being born in Tarsus.

Over a hundred years previously, the Roman politician Anthony had conferred Roman citizenship upon all the inhabitants of Tarsus, and later Emperor Caesar Augustus confirmed those privileges.

Tarsus was the principal city of the region of Cilicia in the southeast corner of Asia Minor. It was a large, prosperous trading city, strategically located along a prime E-W overland trade route). The city also maintained a harbor that connected the Cydnus River with the Mediterranean Sea.
A number of noted personalities visited Tarsus, including Mark Antony, Cleopatra, and Julius Caesar, as well as several emperors

Roman statesman and writer Cicero was the city’s governor from 51 to 50 B.C.E.
Tarsus was famous as a seat of learning in the first century C.E., and according to the Greek geographer Strabo, as such it outranked even Athens and Alexandria

It was because of this city’s history that Paul, before his conversion to Christianity, was proud to be known as “Saul of Tarsus”

The Romans did not care that he had changed religions.
Once a citizen, always a citizen.

Er Josephus wasn't a traitor, he was a rebel like Bouddica.

He might have started out as a rebel like Boudicca.... but she didn't go over to the Romans and didn't it ever seem odd to you that the story of how Josephus was the last man alive in Jotapata was very similar to the Masada story of how the rebels killed themselves?

And kb, I don't put much stock in anything written in "Acts." Just much later bullshit.