Were Ancient Romans Black?

A critique of ‘The whitewashing of Rome’.

Written by Narek Harutun.

Next month will see the release of Christopher Nolan’s The Odyssey, which has already sparked a backlash over perceived historical inaccuracies and unexpected casting choices—such as Lupita Nyong’o as Helen of Troy and Travis Scott as Demodocus. I therefore wanted to revisit an article that was published a few years ago in Aeon, a usually respectable magazine, titled ‘The whitewashing of Rome’. It was authored by Jaime Mackay, a writer and translator living in Italy who’s ostensibly quite the Italophile.

Mackay begins by discussing the history of fascism in Italy, including Mussolini’s adoption of ancient Roman aesthetics. I will skip over this part. My main objection concerns Mackay’s treatment of ancient Roman history. He writes:

There is a case to be made that the Romans, through the Latin language, were the progenitors of Western culture. As members of an ancient Mediterranean society, however, they didn’t have any notion of whiteness.

This is technically true. An ancient Roman wouldn’t have looked at a Gaul or Dacian and believed they were of the same genus (a Latin term) just because they both had a light complexion. But Mackay then goes further, asserting:

One straightforward reason for this is that they weren’t, or weren’t primarily, what we’d now term white.

It’s certainly true that the Romans did not perceive themselves as members of the “white race” in the modern sense. But to assert that they were not what we would call white? That is preposterous. His primary source of evidence is an article covering a 2019 study that analysed ancient DNA from Rome during the imperial period (27 BC to 300 AD). The study found that:

Of 48 individuals sampled from this period, only two showed strong genetic ties to Europe. Another two had strong North African ancestry. The rest had ancestry connecting them to Greece, Syria, Lebanon, and other places in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East.

To state the obvious, we can hardly reach a definitive conclusion that Imperial Rome, a city of over a million people, was primarily non-white/non-European based on a sample of only 48 individuals. Still, I have to concede that the study does count as valid evidence. However, I noticed that Greece was being lumped in with Syria, Lebanon and the Middle East, so I decided to read the paper for myself. And I found other oddities.

When the authors of the study say that only two samples showed strong genetic ties to Europe, what they actually mean is strong ties to Western Europe. Southern Europe—which includes Greece, Southern Italy, Cyprus etc.—is not considered Western Europe, so it gets conveniently added to the broad category “Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East”. Which genetic clusters do the individuals in these categories actually belong to?

Two-thirds of Imperial individuals (31 out of 48) belong to two major clusters (C5 and C6) that overlap in PCA with central and eastern Mediterranean populations, such as those from southern and central Italy, Greece, Cyprus, and Malta.

In actual fact then, more than two thirds of the 48 individuals had ancestry linked to Europeans, while only a quarter had ancestry linked to Levantine and Near-Eastern peoples.

Now, given the history of conflict and trade, as well as sheer geographical proximity, I would have happily conceded that today’s populations from Southern Italy, Greece, Cyprus and Malta have more Middle Eastern genetic admixture than their Western European counterparts. But Mackay and his ilk will not even meet us halfway. Instead, Mediterranean peoples are sneakily cleaved away from the larger European population to which they belong.

Furthermore, writers from the Greco-Roman world did not use the word “African” to refer to the black-skinned peoples that inhabit the lands south of the Sahara, as we do today. In ancient times, “African” usually referred to either Punics, Libyans or Berbers, all of whom had what we would regard as light or olive skin, much the same as the Romans and Greeks themselves had. By contrast, “Aethiopian” was the catch-all term to describe black people (i.e., sub-Saharan Africans) like the Nubians, for example.

Mackay goes on to critique the idea that the Greco-Roman world’s iconic, plain-white marble statues constitute evidence of porcelain skin as a beauty standard:

Like others to this day, he made the mistake of assuming that the abundance of plain marble statues that remain from antiquity are evidence that Roman populations preferred white bodies to Black ones. This is wrong for many reasons. Firstly, because there are plenty of examples of statues that were made from grey, pink and green marble. More importantly, though, because literary sources tell us that almost all such works were originally painted in polychrome blues, reds and yellows.

I agree with the first half of this paragraph. Marble statues are, indeed, not evidence of what skin colours Romans considered beautiful. (The Romans did, however, view white skin as the epitome of female beauty, a point I will return to.) But the latter half leaves me confused. Does Mackay think the Romans were painting the skin of their statues in blacks, blues, reds and yellows? He omits that the polychrome paints would obviously have been applied to the clothing or armour of the statue.

In any case, Mackay continues:

Poets too have left numerous odes celebrating Black bodies: Asclepiades, an Asian physician, likens the object of his desire to a ‘coal’ that, when heated, comes to ‘glow like rosebuds’, and Martial describes a woman who is ‘darker than night, than an ant, pitch, a jackdaw, a cicada’ as an ideal of beauty.

This may be his most egregious paragraph. First, notice how he casually refers to Asclepiades as “an Asian physician”. While technically true, the lack of context almost makes me think he hoped the layman would come away with the impression that people who resembled Jackie Chan were prominent citizens in the Roman Empire. They weren’t.

In the Greco-Roman world, “Asian” was the demonym for inhabitants of Asia Minor or Anatolia, the landmass that constitutes most of today’s Turkey, which was at the time colonised and populated by Greeks, especially in the coastal regions. By the time of the late Roman Republic, “Asian” would essentially have been synonymous with “Greek from Asia Minor”. So, all of this is to say: Asclepiades was Greek.

However, the part I really want to home-in on is where Mackay cites two Roman love poems, which he argues idealise phenotypically “black” features, insufferably describing them as “Odes celebrating black bodies”. This is an example of the oft-seen mistake of failing to account for nuances in language. Consider the legendary 9th century King of Norway, Halfdan the Black. Did he have dark skin and African features? Of course not. He earned that nickname on account of his jet-black hair.

Colours can be literal descriptors of hue, as with Halfdan and his hair. Or simple means of differentiating two people who share the same name, as in the case of Alexander’s generals Cleitus the Black and Cleitus the White. But in many areas, particularly art, they are symbolically associated with abstract concepts. Predating any modern form of “racism”, humans throughout history have tended to associate white with purity and innocence and black with death and evil.

The underworld is dark; the bile of depression is black; thieves come out at night. While dark clouds portend danger, white clouds predict peace—and a serene journey for sailors. The dove and the lamb are white. The vestal virgins are clad in white. And so on.

Mackay only cites an excerpt from Martial’s poem, which describes his love interest as “darker than night, than an ant, pitch, a jackdaw, a cicada.” To really understand this you need to read the rest of the poem, which my preferred translation gives as:

She desires me – Procillus, envy me! –
one whiter than a new-wet swan,
than privet, lilies, silver, snow:
but I desire one dark as night,
cicada, black ant, pitch, or crow.
You thought to hang yourself:
I know you well, Procillus, oh, you’ll live.

Here Martial is writing to his friend Procillus, who is envious that a girl “whiter than a new-wet swan” desires Martial. As mentioned earlier, white was purity. It was femininity—the beauty standard of the times. Pale, white skin also signified aristocratic luxury, as working-class Roman women would have developed more of a tan when working outside. Skin whitening cosmetics were often used by Roman women to achieve a paler look.

Martial writes that he is attracted to the darkness of his real love interest. Dark skin may have been enthralling to someone bored by the beauty standards of the time, which were predictable, visible, bright, white. But the description may not even be a physical one. The phrase “darker than night” could very well refer to his love interest’s personality. Perhaps she was mysterious, at times frightening and dangerous, but alluring?

There are various possible interpretations, but simply describing Martial’s poem as an “ode to black bodies” is lazy. While Martial’s love interest may have had dark hair and eyes and tanned or even black skin, that was surely not the crux of his attraction to her.

Mackay proceeds to claim that there were many “nonwhite individuals” who achieved prominence in the Roman hierarchy, citing as an example Lusius Quietus, a Berber general from the 100s.

However, labelling a Berber as “nonwhite” or “African” is tricky and requires nuance. In today’s conception of “nonwhiteness” as “non-European”, a Moroccan Berber does qualify as such. Just like with certain East Asians, their skin may be as light as an Englishman’s, but they are considered non-white because they aren’t European. So, while Berber complexion can range all the way from pale to dark brown, these Berbers would be considered “nonwhite”. Wouldn’t they?

Well, it gets complicated. The U.S. Census would classify Berbers, and all other Middle Eastern or North African people, as “White/Caucasian”. How can this be? It stems from the now antiquated classification of peoples into three major racial groups: Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid. This system ignored skin colour and was instead defined by peoples’ morphological traits. Europeans, North Africans and Middle Easterners all shared Caucasoid features (skull shape, narrow high-bridged nose, etc.) Hence they all fell under the umbrella of “Caucasian” or “White”.

Now, while I’d argue this makes more sense than Mackay’s approach to racial classification, I wouldn’t bother to argue over it. At the end of the day, I think Berbers are Berbers. They’re an interesting and unique people—neither “white” European nor Arab nor “black” African. And they have managed to maintain their indigenous North African culture despite living under the yoke of various foreign empires for much of their history.

Mackay could have simply argued that there were a diverse range of cultures that lived and served under the banner of the late Roman Empire, and in myriad roles—from slaves to military officers. In that case, there would be little to disagree with. But instead he seems fixated on sticking it to “white supremacists”. He wants us to believe the Rome of the 1st century AD was demographically equivalent to contemporary New York City, with large shares of black and even Asian people.

It gets worse. An actual professor of Roman history from the University of London parroted the very same arguments in 2022. In his article at The Conversation, Richard Alston insinuates that emperor Septimius Severus was black because he was from North Africa, although (unlike Mackay) he is humble enough to hedge the claim:

Severus’ Blackness has historically been questioned ... We cannot prove Severus’ skin colour, but it is wrong to assume that he was light-skinned.

Alston then gives his take on the Berber theologians Cyprian of Carthage and St Augustine of Hippo, both of whom were from North Africa. He asks, “Why would we imagine any of these individuals as White?”

Again, there is a distinct lack of context. Germanic Vandals ruled parts of North Africa for a century. Are they part of black history too? Do the Afrikaners who have dwelt in South Africa since the 17th century qualify as black? I have no issue with recognising Berbers as “non-white”. My point of contention is describing olive-skinned North Africans as “black”. St Augustine of Hippo would have likely resembled a modern-day Spaniard. Are Iberians therefore black? Maybe. After all, it was Dumas who allegedly stated, “Africa begins at the Pyrenees.”

Later in his article, Alston seems to contradict himself, concluding with the patronising declaration that:

Black Romans were central to Classical culture and not as an exceptional few or as slaves or servants. They were soldiers and traders, dramatists, poets, philosophers, theologians, and emperors.

Wait. Did he not concede earlier that Septimius Severus being black is something we cannot prove? Plus, the handful of individuals he selected as evidence of “black Romans” were all North Africans/Berbers, i.e., men that probably looked similar to present-day Iberians? How then did he jump to, “Black Romans were central”?

Emperor Septimius was of Punic heritage and likely had a more swarthy tone than the average native Italic or Gallic citizen of the Empire. He was still not “black”. Not in the sense that Mackay and Alston wish to convince their audience of. The most glaring evidence is an anecdote—likely apocryphal, though still relevant—in which Septimius has an encounter with an Aethiopian (i.e., an actual black person). As the Historia Augusta recounts:

After inspecting the wall near the rampart in Britain … just as [Severus] was wondering what omen would present itself, an Ethiopian from a military unit, who was famous among buffoons and always a notable joker, met him with a garland of cypress. And when Severus in a rage ordered that the man be removed from his sight, troubled as he was by the man’s ominous colour and the ominous nature of the garland, [the Ethiopian] by way of jest cried, it is said, “You have been all things, you have conquered all things, now, O conqueror, be a god.”

Why on Earth would the emperor be troubled by the sight of the Aethiopian’s black skin and consider it a bad omen if he himself were black? Because he wasn’t. Septimius Severeus was a North African Punic.

In their quest to expose the supposed “whitewashing” of ancient Rome, Mackay and Alston ironically engage in their own version of “blackwashing”. Yes, there were black Africans in the Roman Empire, but practically all the examples given were actually individuals of North African origin, who presumably had olive skin and broadly “Caucasian” features. What’s more, the Romans did see light skin as the pinnacle of female beauty. And despite being slightly darker than their counterparts to the North, most ancient Romans were genetically European and therefore white.

Narek Harutun is an Armenian-Australian writer interested in history, philosophy, aesthetics, anthropology and psychology.

---

Become a free or paid subscriber:

Like and comment below.