More junk archaeology from the U.K.

Wall painting from the York social register,
Aprilis XVI, CCCXL

Archaeologists today sound more and more like the politically minded scientists spouting hysteria about man-made global warming. I have complained about their poorly founded announcements before -- see here and here. Besides cases of over-enthusiasm about ambiguous evidence and headline chasing, we now have archaeologists who can be suspected of tailoring their discoveries to suit the prevailing multi-culti ideology. And nowhere does it prevail more than in the U.K.

From the Times:

Analysis of Roman grave reveals that York was a multicultural society

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.

It is perfectly possible that a black or mixed race woman lived in Eboracum (modern York) in the fourth century. Why not? The Roman empire was famously far reaching and had cities in North Africa. Travel and trade were still widespread even in the troubled fourth century (if the archaeological dating in the story is correct).

But "wealthy"? "High society"? "Absolutely from the top end of York society"?

Come on. That is quite a stretch from the details included in the story. "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." The archaeological political correctness establishment is going to have to come up with something better than that to convince me. If any reader knows what kind of "muscle markings" exist after 17 centuries, and how they can show the subject had not lived a strenuous life, I'd be interested to hear about it.

Her sarcophagus, which was made of stone, a sign of immense wealth in Roman Britain, was discovered in 1901 in Bootham, York.

One wants to know more. Was the sarcophagus carved with exterior designs, which certainly would indicate immense wealth? If it was just a plain stone box, was that actually so unusual as to be a mark of only the upper class? Did any pre-political archaeologist exclaim, when the sarcophagus was unearthed in 1901, "Great Scott! Gentlemen, we've found the resting place of one of our kingdom's earliest aristocrats"?

I think this quote gives the game away:

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.”

See? Britain has always been multi-cultural! We had African society queens when the ancestors of you Anglo-Saxons, Danes, and Normans hadn't yet learned to walk on two feet! So shut up about immigration, you pathetic traditionalists.