Talk:Black people in ancient Roman history

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kaitlinbreen. Peer reviewers: Sakoundi.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Issues with this article

Most Africans in Rome were non-black North Africans. This article ignores that and seems to almost say that North Africans were/are black.

Also, this article claims that there were no issues with looks and race. I do not know what roman's thought about black skin or flat noses, but I know that they hated blond or red hair and blue eyes, so that part is total bunk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.191.0.234 (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Most Romans probably thought about African race relations the same way they thought about the hiking geography of Mount Everest. The average provincial Roman probably never even saw a subsaharan african in their life. Yet this article implies some mythical actively racially egalitarian society based upon speculative sources with zero actual evidence.

Jarwulf (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

You are lying. The Romans and equally the Etruscans depicted very much even so black phenotypes in their art work. They were even spoken of as being a part of Hannibal Barca's army. North Africa was a compilation of West Asiatics and black phenotypes. All the classical writers of ancient times bore witness to it. You are seriously speaking from a bias outsider other,....eurocentric aspect void of the contextual reality of Africa. The Ancient Egyptians prior the Ptolemaic dynasty were a black Afro-Asiatic phenotype as can be found in portions of Current day Chad, Sudan, and the bulk of the Horn of Africa(Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and Somalia). Culturally Herodotus even spoke of in shock the Ancient Egyptians were quite drastically opposite to all other peoples he knew of the ancient world, that being Europe and the Middle East. Also, the much darker in hue Nilo-Saharan consistently kinky haired phenotype which you would like to cast aside as "this foreign other" was NOT foreign to them either. Even Nubians whether of the Nilo-Saharan extract, or the Afro-Asiatic Cushitic were intermarrying and interacting with them(Egyptians) as early as the Old Kingdom. Cedrickdwhite (talk) 00:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but ancient Egyptian weren't black.

You speak about black depiction in Roman/etruscan work. But sorry I've never seen so much depiction.

Gelias01 (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but ancient Egyptian weren't black.

You speak about black depiction in Roman/etruscan work. But sorry I've never seen so much depiction.

Gelias01 (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Initial Thoughts

This article is very short, but based on a source with a large amount of information. I would like to read the source myself and see if I can expend on what information it provides.

The current information in the article is not neutral because it compares social issues with black people in Ancient Rome with slavery in later European societies. That is drawing conclusions, not stating facts from the source.

I would also like to read other sources about Black people in Ancient Rome and create a rough draft of topics regarding black people in Ancient Rome that should be discussed in this article.

--Kaitlinbreen (talk) 00:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kaitlinbreen: It's a great idea to work on this article, and it would be good to add more sources, too (although the existing source is, as you observe, quite content-rich). I don't quite agree with your statement about "drawing conclusions" though - the article says "In contrast with some later European history they were not always slaves; most of the Romans’ slaves were white" which is in fact what the source discusses, in some depth. Thus, I don't think you need to worry about the neutrality of that statement, as it appears to me to be summarising a (very) small part of what the source actually says, rather than drawing inferences that are not directly supported by the source. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 13:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Bonadea: thank you! and you are right. i made that comment before reading through the article myself. I am now realizing that the article is making those connections and the original author was just summarizing them. However, I don't think it should be the only thing is this article. so I will keep reading the source and then find some other as well. Thanks for your input! --Kaitlinbreen (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Review: Hey, Katie. This is going to be a truly interesting article to revise and add more to because, as you said, there are definitely sources and a lot of information on this topic. I also think that the previous review makes a good point, in that the article is not necessarily drawing conclusions when discussing Roman slaves and comparing them to European slaves. I am very intrigued to see what you will do with this article and the major points you will choose to highlight. Markdferreira —Preceding undated comment added 13:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Markdferreira: hey mark! thanks for the feedback. I agree with you and the previous review. I will finish reading the ouriginal source and expand on it in this article and then find some other sources to include as well. Thank you! --Kaitlinbreen (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Potential Topics

In addition to removing the biased social comparison, I would suggest expanding this article to include when black people began to appear in Rome, what social class they were typically found in, whether there were any prejudices against them, and if possible, important black people who have influenced Rome.Cky8675309 (talk) 00:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cky8675309: thank you for your input! this will be extremely helpful as I find information to add to the article. These are really good points to focus on. --Kaitlinbreen (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Another Wikipedia "editorial". Oy vey.

This article is focused entirely on "Roman Britain", and makes heretofore unproven (by given refs) claims about the status of African and African-descended people in the Roman Empire. It should be nominated for AfD immediately. 76.70.117.16 (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Highly disputed claims of blackness

The article claims that North Africans such as Lusius Quietus or Septimus Severus were black. It cites for instance Dio's history of Rome. Cassius Dio however does not mention that Lusius Quietus "black" in our modern sense. He stated that he was "dark", which would likely correspond to the skin color of many North Africans even today. Some scholars argue that this meant that he was black, but this a highly disputed claim. Lusius Quietus would have been referred to as Aethiopos, rather than Maurus, if he truly was black in our modern sense of the word. The same would apply to Emperor Septimius Severus. I suggest adding the scholarly pro-blackness interpretation, but mentioning clearly that the overwhelming majority of scholars do not endorse it.

--Ideophagous (talk) 10:41, 06 November 2020 (UTC+1)

I would suggest taking it out. It appears to be based on unreliable sources that confuse (a) modern definition of "blackness" with Roman categories, which weren't the same and didn't carry the same social implications. We can use the sources to describe ancient Romans as "dark-skinned", or as "Aethiopes" though. In fact, I wonder if we should rename the article, perhaps to "Dark skinned people in the Roman empire". This would leave obvious room for the article "Light skinned people in the Roman empire", with discussion of attitudes to the northern "barbarians". I'll start by taking out the obviously-anachronistic categorizations. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:24, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

That would be good as well. I think with the new title, the article would have to be redacted, but that would be a step in a good direction. It makes no sense to project our "racial" categorizations on the past. Sometimes they don't even apply well in different regions today, let alone in other historical periods. --Ideophagous (talk) 23:56, 06 November 2020 (UTC+1)

Male individual aged over 45

The article currently says :’ Analysis of autosomal DNA from four individuals from Roman London found that one had African ancestry, with brown eyes and dark brown or black hair. Bone isotopes suggested that this individual, a male aged over 45 years, had spent his childhood in the London region.’

But the source says: ‘The damage to the grave meant that the human remains were limited to a highly fragmentary axial skeleton (skull, thorax, spine and pelvis). Analysis estimated this individual to be a male (supported by the genetic results), aged over 45 years old, who had Black ancestry, while the HirisPlex analysis found that he had brown eyes and dark black/brown hair. His maternal haplotype was V16, which is evenly distributed across Europe and North Africa (c. 500 years ago), with the stable-isotope results showing that he had spent his childhood in the London region.’

This is completely different from the statement in the article. According to the source, the genetic inf supported the fact that he was male, and that his maternal haplotype was European/North African. It is unclear what the basis is for saying he had ‘Black’ ancestry (the source is very badly written). My guess is that it means that it is the bones which were used to assess this. The current wording in the article is completely misleading.

I would suggest that the wording be changed to: ‘Analysis of the bones of an individual indicated that this man, estimated to be over 45 years old, might have some ‘Black’ ancestry. However, his maternal haplotype was of a kind common in Europe and North Africa. Isotope results showed that he had spent his childhood in the London region.’ Alternatively, since the source is so unclear, all reference to him should be deleted from the article. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Ivory Bangle Lady

The main article on this person says that she was ‘potentially of North African descent’ and criticises the FORDISC technique for determining descent. There is no suggestion in the main article that this woman had ancestry from sub-Saharan Africa, and the evidence of North African (i.e. ‘white’) ancestry is dubious. Therefore, the statement here that this woman might have mixed ‘white/black’ ancestry is completely wrong, and all reference to her should be deleted from this article. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Craniometry study and proposed deletion of the 'In archaeology' section

@Richard Keatinge: You have changed the wording on the craniometry study to say that the study found people of North African origins. But that’s not what the study says – see p7. The comparison groups are ‘African (AD 19th century East and West Africans); Asian (AD 19th century Chinese and Japanese); and, European (AD 19th century German, Holland, and American White).' The study definitely says that the majority of the human remains for which a definite result is given are non-European, and that two of them are definitely of Chinese/Japanese appearance. I do not find this credible, and therefore the exact quote should be given, as I added previously, or reference to this study should be deleted entirely. The inf on the Ivory Bangle Lady is also wrong, and should be deleted. This would leave nothing in the ‘archaeology' section. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Scope of the article

User:Sweet6970, thanks for your comments. We may have a problem with the scope of this page. No modern definition of black people is identical to the Roman concept of Aethiopes or indeed of Afri; Roman Africa is approximately what we'd now call North Africa. And, if I understand you correctly, you have made a constructive suggestion, namely that we should limit this page to people whom the Romans did call or would have called "Aethiopes", that is to say anyone whose physical appearance suggest recent origins in sub-Saharan Africa. At present its scope seems to be anyone living in Roman times who might at modern times in some social circumstances identify themselves or be identified as "black", plus anyone identified as "Africanus", that is, as coming from North Africa or having a connection to North Africa. We could explicitly exclude them, or possibly give them brief mention - our present paragraph on them isn't very long. How would you feel about words like:

Romans used the word Aethiopes for dark-skinned people from, or with recent origins in, sub-Saharan Africa. People from Roman Africa, modern North Africa, were not identified as Aethiopes though, like other ethnic groups, they were subject to a degree of ethnic stereotyping. During the Republic the name "Africanus" was applied to some elite Romans who had or desired a particular connection to the area. Under the Roman Empire many Romans are known to have originated from North Africa.

Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Richard Keatinge:. Thank you for your reply.

(1) Aethiopes only

Yes, I think that this article should be limited to ‘Aethiopes only’. If we were to include people from North Africa, or called ‘Africanus’, then the article would be very different and much longer. But I also think we need to mention the use of the words ‘Africa’ and ‘Africanus’ by the Romans, as I have the impression that there’s a lot of confusion amongst the general public about this. I have no general objection to the wording you propose, but I would spell it out a bit more:

Romans used the word Aethiopes for dark-skinned people from, or with recent origins in, sub-Saharan Africa. People from Roman Africa which was situated in modern North Africa, and did not include any part of Africa south of the Sahara, were not identified as Aethiopes though, like other ethnic groups, they were subject to a degree of ethnic stereotyping. During the Republic the name "Africanus" was applied to some elite Romans who had or desired a particular connection to the area. For instance, Scipio Africanus did not come from Africa, but was given the name ‘Africanus’ in honour of his victory over Carthage in North Africa. Under the Roman Empire many Romans are known to have originated from North Africa.

(2) Ivory Bangle Lady

As I mentioned in the section on this Lady above, the separate Wikipedia article on this woman is dubious about whether she actually had any North African ancestry. That article says that the FORDISC method is dubious, which is confirmed by this source:[1]) And the present wording about ‘mixed white/black ancestry’ is simply wrong. So, regardless of the scope of this article, I think that all reference here to this Lady should be deleted. Do you agree?

(3) Craniometry study of Southwark burials

See my post of 12:58, 22 March 2021, above. I do not agree with your amendment. The study by Redfern & others claims to have found the remains of sub-Saharan Africans, so, if the claims are accepted, then this study would have a place in this article even if it only covered Aethiopes. But I find the results not credible: according to the quotes I used in my edit (now reverted), more than half of the individuals were supposedly of non-European appearance, including at least 2, and possibly 3 people who were of Chinese/Japanese appearance. The statement on p11 of the source [2] is: ‘‘Due to missing data or an inadequate number of observable traits, ancestry for 29% of the sample could not be estimated. Of those with observable trait scores, 28% classified closest to the European sample (one possible European, four definitive), 24% classified closest to the African sample, and 16% classified closest to the Asian [Chinese/Japanese] sample (one possible Asian, two probable Asians).'

This is a primary source, so it might be excluded on that ground, but on the other hand, it says that it is peer-reviewed, which I think would normally make it acceptable as a source. If we are going to include it, then I think we should not make any statement in Wikipedia’s voice, but just give the relevant quotes, as per my edit of 21 March. What is your view on this?

Sorry this is such a long post – there’s a lot to discuss. If the formatting is wrong, please feel free to correct it.

Sweet6970 (talk) 11:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Sweet6970, thanks again. After reviewing your useful link on FORDISC, I agree, we should mokusatsu both of the craniometric studies. At present they're not worth the cautions we'd have to include to make them suitable for an encyclopaedia, and the quotation is ill-written as well. I also agree that a suitable disclaimer on people from Roman Africa, and people with the name Africanus, will be useful. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Richard Keatinge:

(i) Just to make sure there’s no misunderstanding – the Redfern (Southwark) study did not use the FORDISC method, but another method which she reckons is better. But to me, the results Redfern obtained with ‘her’ method are as improbable as the results which caused the FORDISC method to be abandoned. If you agree, then I will delete the whole of the ‘In archaeology’ section.

(ii) Is it your intention that the general wording I proposed above should replace the current lead? And that the paragraph starting: ‘People from North Africa were not described as "Aethiopes"….’ should be deleted?

Sweet6970 (talk) 15:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Richard Keatinge: I've just seen your amendments to the article - I am happy with the amended article. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Afer and Terence

@Ideophagous: (1) If you are going to say that African descent could be referred to by the term Afer, then you should provide a source for this.

(2) You cannot use Terence as an example of Afer meaning someone of (north) African descent, because it is not certain that he was of African descent, and it is not certain that he was born in North Africa. The article on him says that he may have been born in Greek Italy, and ...it is possible that ancient biographers' reports that Terence was born in Africa are an inference from his name and not independent biographical information and ...it is not known with certainty whether Terence was given the cognomen Afer as denoting his origin, or if it was solely based on later bibliographers' reports based on the terminology of their day

(3) So, in fact, Terence would be an example of the fact that, like Africanus, the term Afer does not necessarily give an accurate indication of an individual’s birthplace or ancestry.

Sweet6970 (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Replacement of article

This article has been completely replaced by Fleet Admiral Ali without any discussion. This is not the proper way to engage in editing on Wikipedia. The previous article (which I am reinstating) is a factual article about the evidence for the existence of black people in the Roman empire (and was not, as FAA claims, racist in any way). The replacement is an essay about the use of ethnic terms in antiquity. An abbreviated version of this might be added: FAA should suggest a paragraph or two. But it seems to me that FAA’s writing would be better as a completely separate article. By the way, that’s a very interesting picture – what is its provenance? Sweet6970 (talk) 11:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I’m sorry, but the existing article is incredibly racist and misleading, and it doesn’t sound like you have the skills to identify that. The Aethiopes discussion is false and tropey, the Africanus part clarifies something that is both irrelevant and misleading, the whole article is clearly written in a pedestrian, facile way. If it were possible to make incremental changes, I would have, however I cannot stand by as a whole generation of potential future classics professionals have to read the kind of drivel that is causing the current crisis in classics. Fleet Admiral Ali (talk) 16:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I don’t know if you read the article, but I suggest you do before jumping to conclusions. “Sub-Saharan African” is such an obnoxious misnomer in the old version. And read the talk page for a second to get an idea of the shady types that have defined this article since inception. Fleet Admiral Ali (talk) 16:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Wow, I'm realizing after reading the talk page more carefully that you are among the shady types who has been perpetuating myths on this page. I'm sorry for the terseness of my remarks, I'm at work, if you want to discuss specific issues with the new article, I'd be happy to. As for the old one, misnomers abound, an obsessive, anachronistic division between "North" and "Sub-Saharan" (would make K.J. Beloch proud), the absurd denial of racial prejudice, the constant misquoting and misattribution of sources (re: Isaac, and my great-uncle: Ed Snowden, Jr.), red herrings (re: Africanus) that are even then poorly discussed, etc. I agree that the article will now need to be expanded, however, it is currently in unspeakably better shape than it used to be. As for the fresco, its source is in the description, like all wikipedia photos. Fleet Admiral Ali (talk) 16:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

You have not said anything specific about what is wrong with the article, nor have you answered my points that (1) You should not have replaced the wording without prior discussion (2) Your wording is about a completely different subject from the original article (3) What is the provenance of the picture you added? All it says is ‘Roman fresco fragment’. And please sign your posts. Sweet6970 (talk) 17:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

For your first question, I'm not sure what exactly you're looking for. Do you expect me to write an additional essay in the talk page? What's wrong with the article is that it's fundamentally flawed, this goes at (2) as well, but what, pray tell, is the "subject" of the original article? It presents as cut-and-dry a notion that is anything but, and is (on average) half a century behind in terms, literature, and evidence. As for my response thereto, that is in the form of the new article, which problematizes the old one by presenting a flavor of the structuralist, emic history that is current in ancient Mediterranean studies. Finally, for (3), "roman fresco fragment" is the image caption, if you click "more details", you'll see that it is from the Villa of Catallus. One of my personal friends is an archeologist and he was on the excavation team that discovered a bunch of new frescos and mosaics in the grottoes of Northern Italy. I feel like you are either being willfully ignorant or are trying to rile me up, I want to assume the best, but you can't be serious if you think there weren't terrible flaws to the point of unreadability in the old article. If I showed this to a single classicist, they might even cry. Please, make incremental changes to the new article if need be, I'd be happy to see your additions accommodated because it sounds like you care about Classics (which is totally valid!) but let's not fool ourselves about the state of the field, and the immeasurably worse state of public understanding of the field. Fleet Admiral Ali (talk) 16:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying the provenance of the picture. (Sorry – I had missed the ‘More details’ tab.) I suggest that you add these details in the caption. It’s fascinating. Do you have any more inf on this which could be added to the article?

Saying ‘the article is fundamentally flawed’ is not sufficient – you need to say what the flaws are.

As I said originally, the original article is about the evidence for the existence of black people in the Roman empire. This is completely different from your article, which is about the Roman use of terms relating to black people. The original article is aimed at the general public with an interest in Roman history. That is, for instance, why I think it is important that we explain that if someone is called ‘Africanus’, it does not necessarily mean that they came from Africa, and still less, that they were black. It is not aimed at classics students – surely such students would have access to materials with more depth than Wikipedia (?)

Since your article is about an entirely different subject from the original article, I suggest that you create a new article about the Roman use of terms relating to black people, with your wording, and reinstate the original article (but including your picture). Sweet6970 (talk) 18:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD I suggest that it's time for some constructive and detailed discussion. Fleet Admiral Ali, thanks for the discussion of identity and ethnocentricity, also of the use of the term Aethiopes in myth. I do feel that the article is improved by the image (a great one, much obliged to your friend) which does represent a dark-skinned person in ancient Roman history. However, I also feel that we should use the rather slight written evidence of living Aethiopes in ancient Roman history, and should also include a limited account of the use of "Africanus" in nomenclature. (Indeed, rather few of the people called Africanus would now be identified as Black - which is an important point to make in this article.) I propose to put these sections back in. I'd also suggest that your current lede would be better as a main paragraph, and that the previous lede or an amended version of it would be a better summary of the article for the average reader of an encyclopedia. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

"Rather slight written evidence of Aethiopes" --> my point, Richard, is to problematize the 1:1 mapping of "Aethiopes" to "Black People," that is not what the word means and to interpret it that way is an abuse of philology. Aethiopes as a category is mythic, and it has very little to do with the existence of dark skinned people of all shades all over the Mediterranean in the classical and pre-classical world. Romans and Greeks weren't stupid, and they represented dark skin in so many ways from the famous Memnon to the more innocuous artists, gladiators, bureaucrats, and others that are found in ancient iconography. To the account of Africanus as a term of conquest, of course, one might include that but it should be framed in its proper context ("capitolanus", "germanicus", "numidicus") as an honorific as opposed to an identity. Injecting Blackness where it doesn't belong and removing Blackness from the picture where it does have a place is textbook classical racism, and one reading the old article could be forgiven for jumping to many false conclusions about being Black in antiquity. We must admit, before we contend, with our complicity in the perpetuation of white nationalist mythology in the public understanding of ancient Mediterranean studies, and it is crucial in our roles to thusly engage. The old article can be worked in, in the few parts where it contains kernels of truth, into the new one, but I think fundamentally the questions of ethnic, cultural, and sociological bounds are integral to answering the question of "Black people in ancient Rome", literally that opening sentence has 5 or 6 points of contention embedded in it! Fleet Admiral Ali (talk) 16:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

All I'm doing is imploring you to realize that the old article rested on incredibly faulty assumptions, a generally poor reading of the sources, and a lack of critical engagement with the subject in question. With how strictly we've defined "Black people" for the purposes of the old article, one might make the argument that "White people," too, were very rare in ancient Rome, and we should have another two paragraph wiki page about the spectacle of aheno-barbus and "pale barbarians" of the northern reaches. I am arguing that the discussion of ethnocentricity and language is crucial to approaching an understanding of Blackness in antiquity, and it thusly behooves the reader to see "Blackness" as vector through which to analyze our linguistic, philosophical, sociocultural, and associated differences with the past. If anything, I would keep the old article just to present what objectively bad history looks like: full of pedestrian assumptions, lay-terminology, and facile engagement with the subject matter. I want us to do better, and here I am trying to make that happen. I see you have experience writing the "fall" of the Western Roman Empire article, so you cannot be a stranger to the monumental historiographical concerns that are embedded in even more regular Roman history, let alone the contended spaces of self, identity, and being. Fleet Admiral Ali (talk) 16:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC) this time stamp is in error - this was posted at 20:43 Sweet6970 (talk) 21:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

You had no right to completely erase a well sourced article and change it to your liking. You seem much more worried about contemporary politics and social militancy, including the fear that white nationalists will use history for their own purposes, than about revealing truths about antiquity, irrespective of their repercussions for current society. Most of your reasons for the complete erasure of the previous article relate to it being supposedly racist (not a factual argument) and on being certain of the of moral depravity of well established terminology such as "Sub-Saharan". As a Wikipedia editor you have no right in deciding in favour of a certain type of academic tradition (race studies) instead of others.

You, and we as Wikipedia editors, need to decide if this article will be about, racial standards in Ancient Rome compared to contemporary ones (North American ones apparently). Or about the presence of black Africans in Ancient Roman society (as was the case before).

Anyway, the Wikipedia article "Black People" claims that the term "is mostly used for people of Sub-Saharan African descent and the indigenous peoples of Oceania". Which seems to show in any case "black" should be restricted in the Roman case to "Aethiopes", and the other mentioned terms are used to refer to the spectrum of skin colour found in Mediterranean populations, some of them (Maurus), being akin, and etymologically ascendant, to the Portuguese and Spanish term "Moreno", which does not mean black. Yes, many Romans would probably not be considered white by traditional USA racial standards, but that is irrelevant, they probably would in Italy, Egypt, Libya, etc. The article therefore needs precision in its language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knoterification (talk • contribs) 08:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

You also contradict yourself, first by claiming that "blackness" is not an appropriate term for studying Roman history, than claim that "removing" blackness from Ancient Rome is wrong. Even if we could perhaps talk about "blackness" in the Ancient World, we certainly could not apply it to Mediterranean populations, such as a Berber like Septimus Severus (a "Maurus", who had darker skin than an average Italian). Algerian Berbers do not percieve themselves as blacks, or are percieved as black by Sub-Saharan Africans. It is also worth mentioning that North Africans are generally genetically closer to Europeans than to Subsaharan Africans, because there has been constant gene flow between the two (specially in the Iberian Peninsula) for thousands of years, while North Africa and the regions South of the Sahara have remained for a long time isolated from each other (with the exception of Egypt I suppose).

Yes I’ve been copying and pasting the same time stamp. Sorry teach! Fleet Admiral Ali (talk) 23:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I support Richard Keatinge’s proposal. I see that PericlesofAthens has reinstated a large part of the original article, and I support this. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Reinstating “in the written record” is silly and misleading. Not only is this a very cursory two examples from written sources, but the first is from historia Augusta (a notoriously unreliable and incredibly misleading source) and the other (as well of the first) comes to dubious conclusions thereto. Thus, I’ve removed the section. Once someone writes an exhaustive, or at least comprehensive, review of the written record relating to “Black people” not just ctrl+f “Aethiopes”, then it will be reinstated. Fleet Admiral Ali (talk) 01:30, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Let's take this gradually. You have removed this statement and reference: Black people were not excluded from any profession, and no stigma or bias against mixed race relationships is recorded in Antiquity.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Snowden|first1=Frank M.|title=Misconceptions about African Blacks in the Ancient Mediterranean World: Specialists and Afrocentrists|journal=Arion: A Journal of Humanities and the Classics|date=Winter 1997|volume=4|issue=3|pages=28–50|jstor=20163634}}</ref>

From the same source I find "The only Greek or Latin word, and I emphasize only, that most frequently referred to a black or Negroid type from the sixth century BC onward is Aithiops or Aethiops (Ethiopian), literally a person with a burnt face. These Negroid peoples, who exhibited various shades of pigmentation and whose facial features encompassed a variety of types, came from either the south of Egypt (Kush, Ethiopia, Nubia) or the interior of northwest Africa. Ancient sources also differentiate clearly between people who lived along the coastal areas of northwest Africa (i.e., modern Libya to Morocco) and those who inhabited the interior. "Aethiops," it should be emphasized, with few exceptions, was applied neither to Egyptians nor to inhabitants of northwest Africa, such as Moors, Numidians, or Carthaginians."

Is there any factual element of Snowden's remarks with which you disagree? If so, what, and on what basis? Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Wow, there are several things wrong with that passage. To begin, this isn't a rag against the great FM Snowden, however, it is important to recognize the individual as a product of his time and experiences growing up in an intensely racist environment. For one, the idea of a single "negroid type," besides being plainly unscientific today, is anachronistic in the context of antiquity and ancient conceptions of etic identity formation (but would obviously be top of mind for someone in his circumstances). This is expounded upon by RF Kennedy, Benjamin Isaac, HL Gates, Malvern VW Smith, and many other eminent classical scholars (many of which are quoted in the current article), but the basic principle (as explained in the opening of "Race and Ethnicity in the Classical World: An Anthology of Primary Sources") is that the division of humanity into basic, separate types that would conform to early modern conceptions of "negroid," "caucasoid," or others precludes the multifarious identity-building and destroying that undergirded human difference in the context of ancient Greco-Roman literature (take Deucalion and Pyrrha, or even Prometheus, not to mention the countless variations on such polychromatic tales). Furthermore, the translation of "Aethiops" to "burnt face" is a dubious etymological claim at best, resting on folk mythology and casual racism over serious linguistics (it would behoove us to defer to the legendary linguist, RSP Beekes, on this one). The idea that "Aethiops" did not apply to Egyptians or other inhabitants of North Africa is correct, but this is again because if a dark-skinned person lived in North Africa (or even Italy for that matter) they would rarely be referred to as Aethiops, but instead (if referenced) according to somatic differences: niger, ater, fuscus, etc. Fleet Admiral Ali (talk) 23:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

To me the interesting thing about Snowden, writing decades ago, is the way that he manages to overthrow the assumptions of his social and academic environment. He makes very clear (e.g. Art and the somatic norm image, pp 79-82 in Before Color Prejudice, Harvard University Press 1983) that racist assumptions about ancient representations of black people are simply wrong; the Romans and Greeks did not share those assumptions. He points out that "the ancients did not fall into the error of biological racism; black skin color was not a sign of racial inferiority...ancient society... for all its faults and failures never made color the basis for judging a man". There was no ancient social category of blackness (though there was one for barbarians, often particularly pale-skinned but in no way defined by skin color). And, while Aithiops generally referred to the physical characteristics associated with populations south of the Sahara, nevertheless "All blacks did not look alike to the Greeks and Romans, who made careful note of differences in the Ethiopians' pigmentation" (and other physical characteristics of different populations).(Who were the African blacks?, p 8 in Before Color Prejudice).

If you or even Robert S. P. Beekes disagree with Snowden on the etymology of "Aithiops", please let's have the references.

I wonder if it would be better to change the title of this article to something like "ancient Greek and Roman attitudes to physical differences between populations"? Having "Black (people)" in the title may set us up for unproductive arguments on the basis of anachronistic categorizations. We can still refer to the rather scanty written records of actual dark-skinned Aithiopes, and the more widespread representations of such people in Frank M. Snowden Jr. (1970). Blacks in Antiquity: Ethiopians in the Greco-Roman Experience. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap Press. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Scope, title, and language of article

Thanks Knoterification and others. I feel that we have identified a potential problem, namely that the term black people in modern times and (some) modern societies carries a wide range of social implications, which in classical antiquity the equivalent did not. Also, in modern times and some modern societies, Black people can refer to individuals with a rather wide range of skin tones; in antiquity, the equivalent words just described very dark skin tone without reference to any other bases of description.

Can I have comments on the following draft for the start of the lede: People with very dark skins are recorded in classical antiquity. Greek and Roman writers were acquainted with people of every skin tone from very pale (associated with populations from Scythia) to very dark (associated with populations from sub-Saharan Africa (Aethiopia). Other words were used for other skin tones. People described with words meaning "black", or as Aethiopes, are occasionally mentioned throughout the Empire in surviving writings, and people with very dark skin tones are depicted in various artistic modes. None carried social implications and there was no social identity either imposed or assumed, on the basis of skin color; though black was associated with ill-omen in Roman religion, "the ancients did not fall into the error of biological racism;... ancient society... for all its faults and failures never made color the basis for judging a man." Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I am generally supportive of RK’s aim, and of the proposed new wording for the lead. As a detail: in ‘None carried social implications…’ it is not entirely clear to me what ‘None’ refers to. Thanks to RK for his efforts. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. With that clarification, I have made the change. I hope this makes clear what the subject of the article is. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Major rewrite

At this edit I have tried to incorporate and organize all the useful content that has been suggested recently. I look forward to further improvements. In the meantime I'd like to thank all those who have contributed so far, and in particular those who have avoided biting the newcomers. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Image origin and copyright

This image is described as the own work of User:Fleet Admiral Ali. At this edit, they describes it as "from the Villa of Catallus. One of my personal friends is an archeologist and he was on the excavation team that discovered a bunch of new frescos and mosaics in the grottoes of Northern Italy." Which rather suggests that it was someone else's work. I'd hate to lose this image to the Wikimedia copyright police, and I hope that Fleet Admiral Ali can supply the appropriate details of who took the image. Separately, location metadata of the original photo would be useful too. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Seneca, De irae

At this edit I have reverted interesting edits that used Seneca's De irae as a source.

XX.

Something of the same kind would have befallen the Æthiopians,[7] who on account of their prodigiously long lives are called Macrobiotae; for, because they did not receive slavery with hands uplifted to heaven in thankfulness, and sent an embassy which used independent, or what kings call insulting language, Cambyses became wild with rage...

Unfortunately, this primary source really doesn't support the interpretation put on it, which was "he discusses how it is unjust to judge anyone based off their looks or colour. this seems to indicate that while no large social implications may have been had by people of colour socially, that nonetheless acts of racial discrimination or superstition may have occurred". In Wikipedia terms this is original research, something that we really should not do here. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)