"Blacks" (Africans) in ancient Rome...help me out here

Well, I know a little bit about ancient Rome. You raise an excellent point about whether the Romans looked down on Sub-Saharian Africans in the same way they looked down on Northern Europeans. Based on my own thinking, I don’t see where Romans would have had as much contact with sub-saharian Africa because of—the Sahara desert seperating North Africa (along the Mediterranian) from SUB Saharian Africa. In contrast, Europe was full of forests for a Roman army to hunt, farm, pillage, and otherwise feed itself.

In contrast, a Roman legion would have had a hard time attempting to cross the Saharian desert because there was not as much water or food available for thousands of men. I’m not saying that there was no contact ever, but it was probably limited because of the desert seperating the two civilizations. By the way, I know that the Roman Emperor Septimius Severus was not sub-Saharian African as he is sometimes claimed to be. He was infact born in modern Lybia (which is ofcourse part of Africa) into an aristocratic Roman family which had settled there. But he was no more “Lybian” or “Arab” than the sons of Roman generals who were born in Roman-occupied Britain were “British”.

Lastly, I think it is important to remember that the Romans did not have the same concepts of “Black and White” race that we Americans have today. The indiginous people of Northern Africa (modern Lybia, Egypt, etc) looked different 2,000 years ago than they do today because this predates the foundation of Islam. The Islamic conquests in the 7th, 8th, and 9th centuries changed the genetic makeup of Northern Africa and Southern Europe quite a bit. I am not an expert on that, but it makes sense to me.

Hope this helps.

Since this thread was started Nell Irvin Painter published her monumental The History of White People. The book examines how cultures comprising western civilization have distinguished, excluded, or marginalized others throughout history.

In the chapter on Rome, she documents how the Germanic tribes were subdivided and resubdivided as they were brought under the Roman sphere. The Romans did identify barbarianism with strength and as tribes civilized they were seen as more feminized but they are always part of the “other.”

The one-star reviews on Amazon are fun to read, but they mostly serve to underline how important this book is in exposing hidden cultural racism against anyone not of the dominant group, and the many ways that the best thinkers found to classify what we think of today as whites as something else.

According to wikipedia, he was of Lybian/Punic ancestry on his father’s side.

It’s a silly notion to think that there weren’t black Africans in the Roman Empire. People are not static, they move, migrate travel, look for opportunities, they trade. According to wikipedia, there was a very busy Trans Saharan trade route which a large number of slaves, tradesmen and travelers traversed from the time of Ancient Egypt into the middle ages, when other travel routes became available. The number of slaves and concubine transported north is listed at six to seven thousand per year. That’s a pretty significant number. Though the road was said to take 40 days to travel, I imagine a lot of people didn’t make it.

I just think it’s crazy that everyone else in the whole world is traveling mixing and making contact but some how black Africans are static throughout history.

I understand that there are people that want to say that black Africans are more heavily represented in some areas of history than may be the case, but there is a reason for that. If you are someone that is a descendant of a slave that has no history before landing on this rock and the only history you learn in life is European based, you look for yourself in it. These are people that were traded, that know that you can move a whole lot of people from one place to another if you want to. So if it was possible 400 years ago, why wouldn’t it be possible 1600 years ago? It’s not like they got here (the US) via spacecraft.

While I don’t have time travelling abilities, I am betting that Vikings probably made it around the African continent. People are curious and they are looking to make money, things that never change. If there was an established trade route and I’m sure there was one, then there was probably a heavier concentration of black Africans in the Rome then is imagined. There are a lot of Italian men rocking afros.

When I was looking for trade routes and doing various searches, it was odd seeing how many people are so invested in arguing that black Africans were no where near North Africa or Europe before modern slavery. Also how many nutty afrocentric sites were out to claim anything that mentions the word black in any history. This is such an interesting subject and I’d like to see more actual historical data on Africans in ancient Europe, through migration and trade.

Anyway, I know this topic started 7 years ago. It’s after 4 in the morning and I am out of original thoughts.

You can see black people portrayed in Pompeiian wall paintings. There werre definitely black people known to the Roman civilization. In fact, it’s hard to sed how they could be absent. At its height, the Roman Empire included all the land surrounding the Mediterranean Sea, and certainly there was trade with Sub-Saharan Africa.
I don’t recall any Roman writings particularly about blacks, but then it’s not easy to tell exactly what they’re writing about. When Lucretius complains about a lover blinded to the features of his beloved by his passion, and calls a dark woman “his nut-brown maid”, is he referring to a woman of recent Sub-Saharan ancestry, or to siomeone with a tan as deep as the recent supposed tanning child abuser?

Art collectors & philanthropists John & Dominique de Menil settled in Houston after the Nazis made Paris less desirable. They stayed in our fine city, which benefited greatly.

The images begin in Antiquity…

More on Jean/Jean & Dominique

I’d take that bet. If you read anything about the difficulties the Portuguese had in the 15th century - after hundreds of years of learning more about shipbuilding - exploring the coast of Africa before Dias finally made it around what he called the Cape of Storms (renamed the Cape of Good Hope for purely propagandistic reasons) you would bet against yourself as well.

There is absolutely no evidence to support this.

Depends on what you mean by “around the African continent”. If you mean around the southern end, yeah, that’s unlikely. But if by “around” you just mean “past the western bulge”, which would be enough to put them in contact with black peoples, that’s a lot more plausible.

The Romans did have Nubian axillary regiments and the Romans did rule parts of what was “Black” territory in Egypt and Morocco, so its not that blacks were unknown and I dare say in places not uncommon

. Races based on skin colour is socially an invention of 17th century Europe, not was something that was known in the Roman Empire. The Romans would look down on a white skinned German and look up to a Magistrate who was Black African decent. Roman citzenship was what divided people, not their skin colour.

The Phoenicians dispatched by the Pharaoh Necho were supposed to have done it, though (although there are skeptics). And the Phoenician Hanno made it partway around.

I’m skeptical, too. But that says nothing about the Vikings.

Just wanted to point out something : the difference between the Roman Empire and modern Europe makes unlikely that they could have come up with a perception of races similar to what we’ve been accustomed to.

If you take, say 19 century Europe, where racial/racist concept were formally formulated, you have a peculiar situation :

-Europe isn’t merely “more civilized”, which might be subjective, it has an overwhelming, staggering, technical advance, and it has ben so for centuries (in fact, the more time had passed, the more staggering the advance). Any people, country, culture outside Europe can be crushed at will. It’s only an issue of logistics. A millenia old other culture might be submitted with a couple gunboats. In these circumstances, European superiority isn’t a debatable subjective opinion, it’s a blatant, ovious, fact.

-All white Europeans belong to this civilization.

-No non white European culture/country/people does.
In these circumstances, the demarcation line is easy There are white Europeans on one side and everybody else on the other. Feeling that white Europeans belong to a superior race is an easy step to take, and the rest is only a matter of defining other demarcation lines (white/yellow/black) and subjectively grading other cultures/races (mostly according to their technical know how).
However, none of this is true for the Roman Empire.

-Regardless how Roman might have felt that their (and Greek) culture was “superior”, it was an incontroversial fact that a variety of other civilizations were on par with it. They had exactly as big monuments, exactly as much technical know how, exactly as ass kicking armies. If anything, the Romans were the newcomers in this civilization thing, vastly predated by the Egyptians, Mesopotamians, etc… and they knew it and aknowledged it.

-Civilization had obviously nothing to do with ethnicity, let alone with being a white European. Civilized people would come in a a variety of brown shades, including very dark, as in the already mentioned Nubians. If anything, the most obviously uncivilized people Romans would have been familiar with were precisely those pale-skinned, fair-haired Barbarians to the North. And the “center of the world” definitely wasn’t Europe but rather the Eastern Mediterranean, Italy itself being rather on the outskirts of the civilize world.

-Finally, civilized people weren’t overwhelmingly dominating. They might be perceived as having better mores, might have nicer monuments, etc… But the most uncivilized people around, regardless again of skin shade could (and would) kick the ass of Roman legions if given the chance. Romans didn’t have the luxury of thinking of themselves as invincible, as 19th century Europeans would. They were acutely aware that at any time someone else, civilized or uncivilized, darker skinned or fairer skinned, could crush their armies, ravage their land, pillage their cities and sell them into slavery.

So, it makes no sense to project late European views of races unto the Roman. Making the assumption that somehow they would perceive races the way we do is IMO making an extraordinary claim that would require to be supported by significant evidences, not the other way around.

Doubly so because our concept of race is, franckly, counter-intuitive. I’m perfectly aware that most people currently have a hard time with the seemingly modern concept that there aren’t no races. Stating so will make many people think that you’re just in denial of reality. But reality is in fact on the side of the absence of races and the belief that there are such things is completely cultural (if deeply ingrained) and has to rely on a variety of, again, objectively counter-intuitive intellectual contortions. Not the thread to give a lecture on this topic, but for instance, you need to ignore that southern Indians can be as much or more dark skinned than Africans, to ignore the obvious continuum nature of skin colour, to decide that the current American president is “black” despite him being genetically exactly as much African as European, and raised by white-skinned people to boot, to brand “white” an Anwar el Sadate decidedly darker than a “black” Haile Selassie, etc…
Again, assuming that ancient Romans (or members of others Mediterranean cultures, like say, those often mentioned Egyptians) would have somehow come up with the same kind of intellectual contortions, especially in the absence of comparable historical circumstances is something that would require serious evidences to be worth arguing about.

I thought it was at least accepted by most scholars that Rome did have populations that would now be called black? I’ve seen several documentaries that depict Rome as having religious and immigrant areas too, little Xs if you will.

A few years ago when the claim was made 10% of white Britons have African ancestry(Crick was one and it was news after his famous racist comments) Rome was used the explanation at least in the articles I read.

Sorry I meant Watson is the one who made the racist comments, not Crick:smack:

There was a show on Nat Geo channel last night about blacks in Medieval Britain. It was pretty bad science, because the “black” person at the center of the story turned out to be someone probably from Tunisia, which is about as far north in Africa as you can get.

However there was mention of DNA studies showing a certain number of white Brits who had a African ancestry (that is, relatively recent African ancestry, not in the sesse that we all derive from African populations). They also mentioned that it clustered in a certain group of surnames, but they didn’t say how many had this ancestry and they didn’t say what the surnames were.

I can’t say anything about the 10% figure. It’s certainly possible, but I don’t think it likely.

Very dubious. My understanding is that sailing around Africa from Europe is non-trivial due to currents, etc… and requires sophisticated navigation knowledge.

I took Latin in high school, roughly the time of the Roman Empire.

While studying the language, the teacher also provided us with a smattering of Roman history and culture.

Rome was a CLASS society. And as such, they had slaves, of every flavor. The Roman consensus was that slaves were not human, they were animals who simply had the ability to speak.
~VOW

Certainly not. Anybody could become a slave (say, if captured in a war) and any slave could be freed. Slaves also had frequently highly skilled tasks (teaching was often a slave’s job for instance. Or a slave could be in charge of a major business). You could go right from general to slave or from slave to the equivalent of a modern minister (high ranking “civil servant” were often freedmen).

This wouldn’t be consistent with a belief that slaves weren’t human.
There’s no disputing that classical Rome was a class society though (in fact, classes were specifically defined : senatorial, equestrian, plebs) , but this is an unrelated issue.

No, but it suggests it might have been possible for sailors to have made the voyage before those Portuguese “advanced” ships.