Cambridge Classics Faculty speaks
A Faculty statement concerning ethnic diversity in Roman Britain:
Roman Britain has long been an important part of the teaching and research in the Faculty of Classics. The question of ethnic diversity in the province has been getting unusual amounts of attention recently. Professor Mary Beard has been at the centre of some of this attention. In the Faculty we welcome and encourage public interest in, and reasoned debate about, the ancient world, such as Professor Beard has always sought to encourage. The evidence is in fact overwhelming that Roman Britain was indeed a multi-ethnic society. This was not, of course, evenly spread through the province, and it would have been infinitely more noticeable — it can be assumed — in an urban or military context than in a rural one. There are, however, still significant gaps in our understanding. New scientific evidence (including but not limited to genetic data) offers exciting ways forward, but it needs to be interpreted carefully.
We do hope participants in the public discussion and others will want to learn more about this subject. You may wish to consult:
H. Eckardt (ed.) 2010. Roman Diasporas: Archaeological Approaches to Mobility and Diversity in the Roman Empire. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplement 78.
H. Eckardt and G. Mundler 2016. ‘Mobility, Migration and Diasporas in Roman
Britain’, in M. Millett, L. Revell and A. Moore (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Roman Britain. Oxford: 203-23.
http://www.caitlingreen.org/2016/05/a-note-on-evidence-for-african-migrants.html?m=1
http://blogs.reading.ac.uk/the-forum/2017/07/28/how-diverse-was-roman-britain
And a very good evening to you.
There really should be a term for that variety of the Dunning Kruger effect whereby individuals who are knowledgeable in their own fields fail to realise how thoroughly ignorant they are in others. If only the phrase “Intellectual Yet Idiot” hadn’t been claimed by a man with a particularly bad case of it.
E Harper,
Yes, the phenomenon is widespread. Some physicists, for example, seem to be addicted to pontificating on biology, much to the annoyance of biologists. They really don’t know what they don’t know.
In regard to the general public, it’s probably due to the Wiki effect, ie a one page Wikipedia article is all that anyone needs to be well-informed. People are sometimes baffled when I recommend that they read some books on the subject under discussion. Books?
My playwriting group contains two physicists; one of them included a really stupid statement in his play last year about the human brain. I’ve pointed out to a few people that it was inaccurate. The answer? “But…he’s a scientist!”. I reply “So am I…and I’m a biologist, so I have a bit more training in this area than he does”. Does it work? Probably not.
Meanwhile, I write plays about biology which a man with a bachelor’s degree in geology chooses to mansplain to the rest of the group, speaking up before I can so much as start to respond to the question (because he speaks up before they stop speaking, and I try to be more polite, and let them finish their damn question before I answer it!) Next time he does that, I have some choice words to say (I don’t like him anyway, so it helps me be rude if I need to be. I have nothing to lose).
iknklast,
How many climate climate change deniers actually have any relevant qualifications whatsoever? They’re usually economists, lawyers or business school graduates. Of course there’s often more involved in climate change denial than simple ego, there’s an agenda. Economics and statistics are particularly vulnerable to manipulation by ideologues and the voters just love 2+2=4 explanations, even if they’re complete gibberish.
Prof Brian Cox might be an exception to the pontificating physicist, I’d be interested in your opinion as a biologist.