GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-09 > 1158890145


From: "Dora Smith" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Roman genetic footprints
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 20:55:45 -0500
References: <7862.10.250.10.1.1158858703.squirrel@sq02.pol.net><BAY105-F369914A2BE5109B7202A35CC200@phx.gbl><246baaff0609211325h44f1d9aw387a5c11c75a951a@mail.gmail.com>


They're vuhhy Romantic.

Yours,
Dora Smith
Austin, TX

----- Original Message -----
From: "Havelock Vetinari" <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: [DNA] Roman genetic footprints


> What is this thing that so many here have about the Sarmatians?
>
> Regards,
>
> Paul D.
>
>
> On 9/21/06, Steven Bird <> wrote:
>> > >> > Although the Romans ruled from AD 43 until 410, they left a
>> > >> > tiny genetic footprint. For the first 200 years occupying
>> > >> > forces were forbidden from marrying locally.
>> > >
>>
>>
>> Sorry, but what is the factual basis for this statement? (I think that
>> you
>> must be quoting Sykes?) There were 5,500 Sarmatian cavalry ALONE, and
>> that
>> was only ONE out of hundreds of alia and cohors stationed to the British
>> Isles over 300 years' time. Only 500 Sarmatians have been accounted for,
>> leaving 5,000 cavalry unaccounted. See www.roman-britain.org for
>> detailed
>> lists of military units found in Britain during the Roman period. (No
>> individual names, sorry!)
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>



--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.3/395 - Release Date: 7/21/2006


This thread: