Why is the french individual portrayed seemingly as an african?
Please no bait answers, its actually quite puzzling.
For reference this is the personification of 4 peoples of the Holy Roman Empire offering gifts to Otto.
>>473682
I think it's a stylistic choice. Note the alternating colors.
>>473692
Word.
'Skin color' didn't have the weird connotations of indicating supra regional biology as it did post 1600.
>>473732
You shouldn't generalize
>>473682
>France
>white
>>473740
Why not?
Skin Color was rarely used as an indicator of 'nationality' in the pre modern era, it was considered primarily in terms of class or economic status. If you had lighter skin than others in your community you were more likely to be am aristocrat or other non laboror.
>>473765
Because there are plenty of examples rendering such statements untrue
>>473775
Such as?
I'm not saying skin color wasn't *a* factor in determining geographic origin -- but religion and dress were far more likely to be considered foremost.
>>473682
>Sclavinia
>white
>>473784
Sounds like a load of crap, look at how the Egyptians depicted Nubians vs themselves, or the other ethnic groups.
>>473775
Notice literally all of them have brown / black eyes.
>>474949
and they all have same facial features
Why are there so many bait threads on this fucking board
No the egyptians weren't black, neither were french, stop posting shit threads please
>>473682
They considered black/dark skin inferior since african/worker-in-the-sun times, so i guess thats the artist way to give a FU to the french
>>473682
before this tread devolves into a shitstorm, lets just point out that it realy isnt clear how any of the individuals are portrayed 'seemingly as an african'
neither the skin is out of european range nor the facial featues, nor the hair-eye collor
>>473682
italians can be pretty brown
probably that's just what the figures traditionally looked like in whatever copybook the artists used. given the sugar cane maybe she's supposed to originally be persian not african
They aren't.
/thread
>>475061
Not to mention that the german and the roman are fucking yellow.
>>473682
You know that people can tan right?
>>475503
i can only guess that 'sclavinia' is based on constantinople. that's a city on her head which i guess refers to constantinople. the orb i'm guessing represents sovereignty. the ottonian empire did try to model itself on the byzantine one. not sure why constantinople would be last in the procession if that was the case, so i might be wrong
if that is a hippodrome on the head of 'germania'. it could be nicomedia. if i recall correctly the colour of the clothing is of some importance as well.
tl;dr art copies from byzantine sources, names of provinces in ottonian empire added above
>>473682
Because the Frenchman is a negro turned inside-out.
>>474920
Yes, then look at how Libyans and Syrians are depicted, the correlation is dubious.
Also relying on 2nd millennium b.c. realism as an accurate depiction of reality "hurr durr we all look they same durr."
>>473682
>portrayed seemingly as an african
Doesn't look "african" physiognomy is clearly Caucasian with a tan.
>>473682
>slav swarthier than italian
?????
>>476981
i guess her hair got tanned as well?
>>477000
>frogs can't have dark hair
nigga what are you even saying
>>477003
I think he was referring to how nappy it looks
>>473748
/thread
>>473682
>Why is the french individual portrayed seemingly as an african?
He's not. That's a tanned Latin.
>>477003
and the sugar cane?
>>477152
>477152
It says Gaul in latin right above him and the actual roman is depicted in a yellowish color
>>477174
France was colonized by Latins. That's not a Gaul just because it says Gallia.
>>477178
It supposed to be a personification of the country and the actual latin is much lighter
>>477182
And? The term latin still applies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_peoples#French_people
>>477187
gallia is not represented by a latin person. realistic depictions was not really the goal of medieval art. symbolism and tradition was.
>>477199
>gallia is not represented by a latin person
You propose what, then? That he was a kang?
>>473682
Shockingly people who live in lower European nations with few trees that get blasted by light constantly and bred with Saracen Pirates and Moors in the Early Middle Ages are more swarthy than the English or Danes.
>>477187
You seem to be confusing modern linguistic groups with ancient peoples
>>477216
But he is swarthier than the Roman as well
>>477222
>French_People
>linguistic group
Sounds ethnic to me. Anyways, no, what was once inhabited with Celts was replaced culturally and linguistically with Latins. Maybe I should've used a different term, but still.
Like others have said, I fail to see how the darker women are portrayed as africans. All of them have basically the same face, with white features.
>>477238
Changing languages and culture doesnt change how you look though
>>477251
Yes it does in this case. The Romans colonized the fuck out of Gaul.
Seriously though, why is it damn near impossible for certain people to fathom the possibility of Africans in Europe, especially in the 1st Millennium CE Europe?
>tanned
Cmon now..
>>477224
Yeah, I've seen pretty dark skinned people from both France and Germany. It also depends on whether or not the artist was going off memory or models.
>>477255
Or they're just the descendants of Saracens from the raiders mucking about in the 9th and 10th centuries. Southern Italy for example is chock full of Saracen blood.
>>477254
Interesting how the actual Roman in the picture is lighter than the Gaul
>>477260
But what about the fact that African Roman Legions were stationed throughout the empire, Hadrians Wall for example, or the Theban legion campaigning in Gaul.
The contributions of Africans with regards to the Roman Empire (and HRE) aren't even recognized.
>>477267
Whatever, I used the term because I thought it could apply to most people who speak Latin and live around the Mediterranean. Kill yourself.
>>477267
Lombards.
>>474949
Blue coloring is expensive, btw.
>>473682
the real question is why are they all barefooted like peasants?
>>477159
>>477424
yeah that doesn't really explain anything
here's a copy of a similar manuscript but the inscriptions read, in order from left to right: italia germania gallia sclavania. they can't be seen in the image but i can take a screenshot of the text that gives their inscription. it doesn't make sense that gallia would be represented with darker skin in one manuscript but light-skinned in another. that is unless i am right and they are just based on models and arbitrarily given names of tributary provinces with no relation to what the people looked like in those provinces. the artists probably didn't think that the models were meant to represent the look of the people and personifications were generally just a diverse bunch.
>>474949
Notice how there's a clear distinction between the lighter Varangians and the swarthy Byzantines/Greeks. It's not apt for Racial Science™ but the distinction is there.
>>477511
the inscription
obviously the first refers to the OP image but i didn't bother copy-pasting since we can already refer to it
>>473682
Because your view of Africans is warped because you believe that half blacks like Obama and Beyonce are Africans. There were few half breeds back then as civilized people didn't mate with what were essentially cavemen back then, and the people in the picture have more of a Greek/Mediterranean, or even middle eastern complexion.
>>477563
The whole we wuz kingz meme is based on western blacks seeing an olive complexion Caucasian and saying "woah mayn dat look like a lightskinded nigga." Fact is there weren't many mixes back then, it just didn't happen unless a slave owner was desperate for sex.
>>477563
This. Jesus why is all and any historical reference to even slightly dark skin, personality or even eyebrows being shoved into the 'African' category!
>>478056
And every 'African' is shoved into the 'black' cathegory. The Guardian ran an article about black achievements couple of years ago and it included some ancient Greek guy who lived in modern day Libya.
>>478056
>>478065
Because for some reason people are inclined to think Europe was exclusively white, it's a paradigm many are stuck in, especially within the context of the Roman Empire. If I were to mention the name Marcus Augustus Tacticus, nobody would assume he's dark skinned. Like I said that's the paradigm many are stuck in. Tbh it's a disservice to the study of European history which is quite rich with colored peoples (or however you wish to call them, Herodotus called them Aethiopians)
>>478131
you perfectly proved my point
>>478134
>there were some dark skinned people in the empire
>therefore I'm at liberty to call every Roman dark skinned
Yeah I'm completely sure a claim that a guy from central Italy was dark-skinned has merit considering there's nothing even implying it.
Let me guess, you also think depictions of Jesus are based on Cesare Borgia.
>why u paint me a Fitzpatrick skin type 4, im type 2
>BORDERLINE WHITE-OLIVE SKIN NOT MUDSKIN
>my face tans, sure it maybe is 3, BUT TANS LIGHTLY AND SLOWLY and my feet are always red 100%PURE WHITE FRANK
>EHEU
People then were no haplogroup obsessed autists with a skin complex, there was no nigger-aryan-mudskin paradigm.So a lightly tanned person would end up being painted a bit too much swarthy.
>>478182
but that's not the case for this image
>>478182
>So a lightly tanned person would end up being painted a bit too much swarthy.
Or too white, you filthy Nordicist
>>478153
There wasn't just 'some', there were legions, towns, are temples with dark skinned ASWELL AS lighter skinned Romans.
>Yeah I'm completely sure a claim that a guy from central Italy was dark-skinned has merit considering there's nothing even implying it.
Yet theres nothing to implying he wasn't. Which is the problem precisely I mentioned, the "white Rome" paradigm I think you're stuck in.
>Let me guess, you also think depictions of Jesus are based on Cesare Borgia.
Let me guess, you think Jesus physcially existed.
>>478249
>Yet theres nothing to implying he wasn't.
Modern central Italians aren't dark skinned. Since there wasn't a gigantic population swap, it's safe to assume ancient ones weren't dark skinned either, unless you have evidence to the contrary.
I will never understand this obsession with skin color.
>>478249
>there were black troops in the British empire
>therefore queen Victoria was black
>>478278
Just know that this "obsession" never started with Africans, this whole paradigm of white and black began exclusively with the psuedo science of the 18th century European anthropologists (Blumenbach for example).
>>478275
>Modern central Italians aren't dark skinned.
I would agree with that statement. But I'm speaking within the context of 1-1000 Europe, a very different period in time, in which there was gigantic population swaps especially in Southern/Central Italy.
>>478319
>there was gigantic population swaps especially in Southern/Central Italy.
[citation needed]
>>478319
>there was gigantic population swaps especially in Southern/Central Italy
Except there wasn't and genetic research agrees with me.
>>478319
Saying the ancient Mayan kings were white Nordics is pseudoscience. Saying ancient Italians were black is a similar magnitude of horseshit.
>>478346
>Greece, North Africa
>North Africans moved to Italy, making Italy whiter
Yep that makes a lot of sense.
>>478353
>Saying ancient Italians were black is a similar magnitude of horseshit.
Why exactly? What do you think the ancient Italians looked like?
>>478357
That's your implication not mine. Populations migrations from Greece and NA making Central/Southern Italy more mix than it already was at that time.
>>478385
Like modern Italians more or less.
>>478398
the narrow mindedness of this board is astounding desu, it's just /pol/ attempting to be smart. please spare me of your ignorance
>>478105
>Tanned Mediterranean Caucasians are now "colored peoples."
>Tbh it's a disservice to the study of European history which is quite rich with colored peoples
Bullshit, Europe has always been almost exclusively Caucasian, even if some Southern Italians have olive colored skin.
>(or however you wish to call them, Herodotus called them Aethiopians)
When Herodotus talks about the Aethiopians, he is LITERALLY talking about the Aethiopians. Which is referring to the Nubians and Ethiopians from everywhere south of Egypt.
>>478434
This has got to be bait.
>>478445
That's exactly what I thought when you made that ridiculous claim, completely ignoring thousands of years of history.
>Europe has always been almost exclusively Caucasian
please spare me of your ignorance.
>>478458
>Afrocentrists literally believe Europe was black until a space alien with a giant brain named Yakub bred the white race into existence and then destroyed all the black European kingdoms
You literally have no proof for anything that you are saying. Do you actually seriously believe that Rome and Greece were populated by Sub-Saharan Africans?
>>478458
>WE WUZ EUROPEANS N SHEEIIT
gtfo jamal
>>478479
at some point africans probably were europeans. it's not like people turned white in africa and moved out when they felt they didn't belong
>>478486
This would predate human civilization by like 40,000 years. Also a relatively small human population which migrated out of Africa 45000 years ago probably wasn't a good sampling of the entire native population.
Like everything, there was a common ancestor of both groups. Some people left and became Europeans. Others stayed and became modern Africans. The original ancestor was distinct from both, because both populations have changed since then.
>>477272
You are awfully disingenuous with these statements. I mean, prior to the 3rd century there was no way for a black man to even become a Legionary, let alone for "African Legions" to exist except as a post for an Italian man stationed in Africa. The Roman Legions only accepted full citizens in their ranks. Until the 3rd century that meant only Italians (or in rare cases foreigners granted citizenship status) could join. It was one of the ways that Rome maintained the dominance of Italy over the rest of the Empire, by making citizenship necessary for many things, and then making citizenship almost impossibly hard to get for non-Italians. Until Emperor Caracalla changed that anyway.
So yes, there were some non-Italian legionaries, but they were exceptionally rare during the height of the Roman Empire. Once citizenship was open to every inhabitant of the Empire the Legion lost its special status, and it wasn't too long before the Legion/Auxiliary system was done away with entirely.
>>478606
your entire post is disingenuous..
>prior to the 3rd century there was no way for a black man to even become a Legionary
You're implying there was literally no black men in the Empire prior to the 3rd century? If so, please spare me of your ignorance.
>>478705
Tell me, where did these black Romans come from? What black country had mass migrations into Roman territories?
>>478105
Oh fuck you. Europe is a relatively small continent, and yes it is exclusively Caucasian with the exception of Sicilian shitskins and Finnish Mongoloids. There are not and never were Negroids in Europe.
Skin color =/= race
I don't get why this is so hard for people to understand but Africa is pretty fuckin big continent. North Africa has always been primarily Caucasian, Sub-Saharan Africa is Negroid. Asia, parts of Eurasia, and the natives in North America were Mongoloid races.
I don't know what the fuck the natives in South America were because I've never seen one, but they were probably a Mongoloid race as well.
>>478705
Literally the only province under Roman administration that would have had a black (and I mean Negroid black, not just dark skinned Caucasian) would have been Axsum, and even then that was tenuous at best, Rome never asserted any real power that far south. They most likely would not have served in the Auxilia and most certainly were absolutely never citizens, they were the fringiest fringe of the Empire.
