Where do the white kablye of north africa come from

Do you honestly believe that Libyans and Semites looked that white-skinned as in the portraits? You yourself just said they are "stereotypes." That is exactly what I meant. The only accurate descriptions are of the Egyptians because they were black to brown in complexion. The only candidates for that description are Germanic or Celtic peoples of the north sans the braided and wooly hair.

Do you know were the the term "Maurus" comes from? It means black or very dark. This was the description of the North Africans by Greeks and Romans. NO greek or roman ever mentioned white skinned Libyans or North Africans for that matter.

Stereotypes are exaggerations based on actual facts. Obviously the Egyptians came to stereotype the Libyans as having such fair features for an actual reason. These fair types must have been pretty common among them for the Egyptians to have branded them with the stereotype, sort of like modern day Scandinavians are also stereotyped as being blonde and blue eyed, yet we can also plainly see that by no means all of them fit the bill.

The Egyptians consistently painted themselves as not black, this is very clear as well. Darker than the Syrians and Libyans, but definitely not black. Also, their facial features are like those of the Libyans, not Negroid like that of the sub-Saharan Africans they portrayed.


The word "Maurus" just means "dark" and the Greeks themselves used it as a proper name. Do you think this implies anything? Besides, in a North African context it was only applied to the Mauretanians, who were a specific tribe. You might have been reading too many Afrocentric sources.
 
Yes, Drac, we know: the Iberians are exemplars of "pure", "white", Europeans, and they also have significant amounts of North African dna, and therefore the "Libyans" of antiquity had to all have been blonde, redhaired, and blue eyed people. It's so obvious that one wonders why you need to repeat it over and over again. Do you perhaps think people are unpersuaded?

There do indeed appear to have been fair haired Libyans. I just posted to that effect. There were also darker Libyans. Does it appear to you that the "Libyan" in the original frieze is fair haired? If, by the prior, you are trying to imply that there was no SSA in the Libyans of that period, then I think that is highly unlikely. It's not like a minority SSA component is a stain that always shows through, you know.

Have you seen the film "The Human Stain" by the way? It's based on a true story. You might find it informative.

Sorry for the digression.

Look who is talking. Perhaps you think that we don't notice that you want the Syrians to be lighter and more like Europeans because you are afraid that it will imply that Italians are also not "pure", "white" Europeans since Italians have significant amounts of Middle Eastern DNA (not to mention they also have North African, which apparently you don't want to recognize)? Sorry about your strange accusations, but I am merely stating what the Egyptians did, and has been observed by a bunch of people. If you don't like it, take it with them, not me.

PS: and I never said that all Libyans looked that way, let alone all North Africans (which includes the Egyptians themselves), only that they must have been common enough among them for the Egyptians to have stereotyped them as such.
 
Look who is talking. Perhaps you think that we don't notice that you want the Syrians to be lighter and more like Europeans because you are afraid that it will imply that Italians are also not "pure", "white" Europeans since Italians have significant amounts of Middle Eastern DNA (not to mention they also have North African, which apparently you don't want to recognize)? Sorry about your strange accusations, but I am merely stating what the Egyptians did, and has been observed by a bunch of people. If you don't like it, take it with them, not me.

PS: and I never said that all Libyans looked that way, let alone all North Africans (which includes the Egyptians themselves), only that they must have been common enough among them for the Egyptians to have stereotyped them as such.

Do not, and I mean DO NOT ever attribute racist attitudes and agendas to me again. I don't give a damn about pigmentation or direction of gene flow into Europe and any idiotic supposed superiority based on it. That's anthrofora filth to which I don't give head room, and anyone who has ever honestly read any of my posts would know that.
 
Wrong, and besides the different pigmentation of hair, eyes and skin given to these different peoples we can also see that the Egyptians portrayed themselves and the Libyans as having different facial traits than the "Semites", who are given more "aquiline" features. Berbers are not "Semitic".

I never said Berbers were Semites. All I said is that they were similar in skin pigmentation. Don't split hairs!
 
Stereotypes are exaggerations based on actual facts. Obviously the Egyptians came to stereotype the Libyans as having such fair features for an actual reason. These fair types must have been pretty common among them for the Egyptians to have branded them with the stereotype, sort of like modern day Scandinavians are also stereotyped as being blonde and blue eyed, yet we can also plainly see that by no means all of them fit the bill.

The Egyptians consistently painted themselves as not black, this is very clear as well. Darker than the Syrians and Libyans, but definitely not black. Also, their facial features are like those of the Libyans, not Negroid like that of the sub-Saharan Africans they portrayed.


The word "Maurus" just means "dark" and the Greeks themselves used it as a proper name. Do you think this implies anything? Besides, in a North African context it was only applied to the Mauretanians, who were a specific tribe. You might have been reading too many Afrocentric sources.

You make no sense or you seem confused. How can you believe that Libyans must have had large numbers of lily-white and blue-eyed numbers for the Egyptians to have "stereotyped?" How can a fair-skinned people living in scorching heat of the Sahara be lily-white and be represented as lily-white??? You made me laugh again. If you believe they were that way then we are entering the realm of fantasy. I am sure there were some red haired Berbers and Semites with fair skin, but the vast majority were dark skinned. The same for Libyans. Yes the word "Maurus" means dark but what does dark mean to you? Are you trying to make dark into light? What does Morocco mean to you?
 
Stereotypes are exaggerations based on actual facts. Obviously the Egyptians came to stereotype the Libyans as having such fair features for an actual reason. These fair types must have been pretty common among them for the Egyptians to have branded them with the stereotype, sort of like modern day Scandinavians are also stereotyped as being blonde and blue eyed, yet we can also plainly see that by no means all of them fit the bill.

The Egyptians consistently painted themselves as not black, this is very clear as well. Darker than the Syrians and Libyans, but definitely not black. Also, their facial features are like those of the Libyans, not Negroid like that of the sub-Saharan Africans they portrayed.


The word "Maurus" just means "dark" and the Greeks themselves used it as a proper name. Do you think this implies anything? Besides, in a North African context it was only applied to the Mauretanians, who were a specific tribe. You might have been reading too many Afrocentric sources.

Here are some examples of what I was talking about: pictures of ancient are simply representations of categories for simple folk to understand. Most people were illiterate. Thus they needed thus:
ETb-Amphora.jpg


Greeks are depicted as black. Does that make them black???

a2.jpg

How about this one? Is one black and other white? Is this reality?
 
Perhaps you should read the paper in the provided link again. The Egyptologist, who, as I pointed out above, has undoubtedly seen the paintings in person, sees no such difference in skin pigmentation. The Egyptians had a limited range of pigment. Anything you perceive as a difference is either in your imagination or the result of differential weathering.

In addition, you seem to be unaware that fair haired and light eyed people do exist in both the Near East and North Africa, although they are indeed in the minority. I have a feeling you might be someone who has an interest in the work of the traditional physical anthropologists. Look up the plates.

Also, you might investigate things like the cave art from Tassili (3,000 BC).
tassili_ladies-3000bc.jpg

Please give me the link again. I cannot find it. I agree totally what you said. But dont you think that the use of color would make it easier to categorize so that simple people would understand? I mean this is for the bureaucracy in Egypt! -- the same for the Greeks!
 
I never said Berbers were Semites. All I said is that they were similar in skin pigmentation. Don't split hairs!

I never said Berbers were Semites. All I said is that they were similar in skin pigmentation. Don't split hairs!

What on earth are both of you talking about? Semitic is a language. Berber is a language. Both of them are languages in the Afro-Asiatic group of languages.

Regardless, do you think there is no large genetic similarity between the "Berbers" of today, even the ones who aren't Arabic speaking, as many North Africans are, and the people of the Levant? Who do you think populated North Africa? Yes, perhaps there is some minor component from the paleolithic and some more from the Mesolithic. Some recent mathematical modeling shows that they possess some percentage of ancestry from WHG hunter-gatherers. However, much of their ancestry is Neolithic from the Levant*, part of the gene flow from there that spread north, east, west and south. That's the same ancestry that created the "Semites" in case you don't know it or have forgotten it. The only major difference would indeed be some minority WHG in the western part of North Africa and the ANE which flowed into the Levant after the Neolithic but which is at low levels in North Africa.

Again, please acquaint or re-acquaint yourselves with some of the basics of the genetics, history, archaeology, and linguistics of he region before presuming to make pronouncements on these matters.

ED. *and pre-Neolithic from the Levant
 
Last edited:
I wonder why it's so important to make the Libyans "whiter" than the Syrians?

Regardless, I don't see any difference, and nor do Egyptologists who I'm sure have actually seen the painting.

See: The Meaning of Skin Color in Eighteenth Dynasty Egypt:
https://www.academia.edu/353602/The_Meaning_of_Skin_Color_in_Eighteenth_Dynasty_Egypt

If this is a veiled discussion of "race", I think it strains the bonds of credulity to think that North Africans did not contain an SSA before the modern era. I would agree that it may not have been as large as it is today for most North Africans, but that is another matter.
Agreed

We had to discuss this a few times already. Egytpians were most likely just like Egyptians nowadays of course with some admixture nowadays both from Arabia and Sub Saharan Africa.

Ancient Egyptian language is part of the Afro_Asiatic family. Inside this family it's closest cousins are in this order 1. Semitic 2. Berber 3. Cushitic/Chadic

And therefore it is save to say that the seperation went this way. Afro Asiatic => Cushitic, Proto Semito-Egyptic-Berber
Semito-Egyptic-Berber=> Semito-Egyptic, Berber
Semito-Egyptic=> Semitic, Egyptic.

Egypt was in the middle between Semites, Berbers and Ethiopic people.

Therefore it is save to assume that they would have looked like a mix of mostly Semites and Berbers with some Ethiopic characteristic.

The drawings are good indiciation how they looked like based on pigmentation however I wouldn't take the pigmenation for comparison as 100%. We need to see these depictions as a simple description in a extaggerated way of how these people differed. Libyan and Syro_Palestians as "light" in probably olive skinned with obvious Caucasian features. The Nubians simply as East African , Sub Saharan Blacks. And Egyptians as a brown people with Caucasoid facial features.
I honestly doubt that Libyans or Berbers in general would have looked light haired.

Overall the Libyan and Syro_Palestinian depiction are almost identical. Only the hair coloring on the Libyan is slightly odd and probably a individual observation of some "Egyptian artist".
 
Last edited:
The colors were used to categorize the large amounts of peoples the Egyptians encountered. This did not reflect reality. The contrast was made to make a clear distinction between races or peoples. The Libyans and Berbers were probably similar to Semites but perhaps a shade darker. "Maurus" means black in Greek.

^This. It is just to make the differences more clear.
 
Stereotypes are exaggerations based on actual facts.

Stereotypes are an exaggerations of Attributes which are more prevelant among one population compared to others.

If it is an attribute you know in general only in low frequency, It could be just 5% more occurance of a specific attribute compared to other populations and people would start to stereotype this people that specific way.

I doubt that you can take the depictions too literal. They were probably meant to exaggerate , to make the differences more clear.
 
Please give me the link again. I cannot find it. I agree totally what you said. But dont you think that the use of color would make it easier to categorize so that simple people would understand? I mean this is for the bureaucracy in Egypt! -- the same for the Greeks!

Here is the link:
See: The Meaning of Skin Color in Eighteenth Dynasty Egypt:
https://www.academia.edu/353602/The_..._Dynasty_Egypt
[h=2]Description[/h] One of the most obvious stylistic features of Athenian black-figure vase painting is the use of color to differentiate women from men. By comparing ancient art in Egypt and Greece, Tan Men/Pale Women uncovers the complex history behind the use of color to distinguish between genders, without focusing on race. Author Mary Ann Eaverly considers the significance of this overlooked aspect of ancient art as an indicator of underlying societal ideals about the role and status of women. Such a commonplace method of gender differentiation proved to be a complex and multivalent method for expressing ideas about the relationship between men and women, a method flexible enough to encompass differing worldviews of Pharaonic Egypt and Archaic Greece. Does the standard indoor/outdoor explanation—women are light because they stay indoors—hold true everywhere, or even, in fact, in Greece? How “natural” is color-based gender differentiation, and, more critically, what relationship does color-based gender differentiation have to views about women and the construction of gender identity in the ancient societies that use it?
The depiction of dark men and light women can, as in Egypt, symbolize reconcilable opposites and, as in Greece, seemingly irreconcilable opposites where women are regarded as a distinct species from men. Eaverly challenges traditional ideas about color and gender in ancient Greek painting, reveals an important strategy used by Egyptian artists to support pharaonic ideology and the role of women as complementary opposites to men, and demonstrates that rather than representing an actual difference, skin color marks a society’s ideological view of the varied roles of male and femal

- See more at: http://www.press.umich.edu/3080238#sthash.D1NS4JUd.dpufhttps://www.academia.edu/353602/The_..._Dynasty_Egypt


The way that people are portrayed in ancient art is not about making stereotypes for simple people, or at least not in the way that you mean if I understand you. Their art reflects their world view, the symbolic meaning of certain colors or forms, their aesthetic sense, or what they considered beautiful, their social and gender class structure, the value given to certain techniques etc.

So, for example, when looking at ancient art people have to be aware that certain conventions were followed whereby women were almost always portrayed as having lighter skin than men, and the wealthy were portrayed as lighter than field workers, for example. As I've pointed out before, ancient people weren't stupid. They could see that work in the fields made people get tan. Ergo, tan skin equals lower status...well, unless the man was a warrior, who would be expected to be hardened by the elements. Today, it's reversed. A tan indicates you're wealthy enough to get away from cold and grey skies in winter and go broil in the sun on a Caribbean Beach. Many things change, but the hunger of the human animal for status symbols never changes, even when the symbol is baked into his own skin.

See: http://www.press.umich.edu/3080238
Tan Men/Pale Women

Then, one also has to consider that certain finishes were very prized because of the difficulty in achieving them. For both the Greeks and the Etruscans, the so called "black figure" pottery was a stylistic and aesthetic choice partly based on the fact that this method was extremely difficult and sophisticated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-figure_pottery

Within that style, they observed certain conventions:
http://www.ancient.eu/Black_Figure_Pottery/
"Certain colour conventions were adopted such as white for female flesh, black for male. Other conventions were an almond shape for women’s eyes, circular for males, children are as adults but on a smaller scale, young men are beardless, old men have white hair and sometimes stoop, and older women are fuller-figured. Some gestures also became conventional such as the hand to the head to represent grief. Another striking feature of the style is the lack of literal naturalism. Figures are often depicted with a profile face and frontal body, and runners are in the impossible position of both left (or right) arms and legs moving forward. There was, however, some attempt at achieving perspective, frontal views of horses and chariots being especially popular."

So, it's a mistake to look at Greek vases and think that Greek men were black and Greek women were white. Likewise, Egyptian portrayals of other ancient people has to be cautiously interpreted, although it's clear that they wanted to indicate a difference between Sub-Saharan Africans, themselves, and people like the Libyans and Syrians. We also have written documents, as Drac pointed out, to the effect that there were some fairer "Libyans".

The bottom line is that I think you can get some clues about the phenotypes of ancient peoples from their art, but it has to be done cautiously and with an understanding of their art and culture, including all the issues discussed above.
 
These Europid phenotypes among some Berbers are just the remnants of ancient North African stock IMO.
 
These Europid phenotypes among some Berbers are just the remnants of ancient North African stock IMO.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Europid" features. The North Africans are classified as "Caucasoids" even in old anthropological formulations, regardless of their "SSA" component, which may indeed be larger now than it was in the days when they were being depicted in ancient Egyptian art.

Regardless, other than blue eyes, possibly, those among them who possessed pale skin or fair hair probably didn't get it from the WHG, among whom we've yet to find any of the European specific de-pigmentation genes. The best bet is some minority component among the Neolithic peoples if we're talking about the Libyans depicted by the Egyptians, or perhaps some remnant of the "Sea Peoples" who diffused into the area, and if we're talking about the North Africans of today in isolated pockets like the Rif mountains, for example, I suppose one could add in the European slaves sold in huge slave centers such as Tangiers. In this particular case women were specifically targeted and stolen for sexual purposes, and their offspring were certainly not killed.
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/whtslav.htm

This of course doesn't even cover the much earlier Saracen slave trade. My coast is dotted by "Saracen" towers where look outs could sound the alarm when Saracen ships were sighted. In my husband's regions the coastal areas were virtually abandoned and towns moved inland to better defended promontories.
 
This legend of White North Africans is the biggest joke of the Universe. Ancient Romans depicted all North Africans as extremely swarthy. The modern ones are the same with additional massive Arab and Sub Sahara admixture. I would even say that North Africans overlal more with Caraibbean mulattos than with Europeans.
 
This legend of White North Africans is the biggest joke of the Universe. Ancient Romans depicted all North Africans as extremely swarthy. The modern ones are the same with additional massive Arab and Sub Sahara admixture. I would even say that North Africans overlal more with Caraibbean mulattos than with Europeans.

Hardly...

The accepted definition of mulatto is 50% SSA. The average for most modern North Africans seems to be around 20%.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...9aHzr7DLEnVq5q-wnTsfpe2a9Jg/edit?pli=1#gid=24

There are, however, isolated communities in the north who have quite a bit less, going by results from 23andme, among other sources.


We don't know what the percentages were during the Bronze Age.
 
This legend of White North Africans is the biggest joke of the Universe. Ancient Romans depicted all North Africans as extremely swarthy. The modern ones are the same with additional massive Arab and Sub Sahara admixture. I would even say that North Africans overlal more with Caraibbean mulattos than with Europeans.

A Mulatto is 50/50 mix. North Africans are at max 20% SSA. This peaks in Morocco and gets less when you reach towards Northeast.

But than this 20% of SSA admixture is melted part of the overall Caucasian genetic ancestry of North Africans and therefore it has created a stable Caucasian look with sometimes showing SSA characteristics.

You can see a similar case with North Indians. North Indians are even a slightly more extreme example of this. They are ~30% Southeast Eurasian people yet physically look Caucasoid.
 
I see Moroccans on daily basis and more than a third of them look clearly SSA influenced like Dominicans or darker Puerto Ricans...
 
Do not, and I mean DO NOT ever attribute racist attitudes and agendas to me again. I don't give a damn about pigmentation or direction of gene flow into Europe and any idiotic supposed superiority based on it. That's anthrofora filth to which I don't give head room, and anyone who has ever honestly read any of my posts would know that.

Then I suggest you do likewise and do not try to project those attitudes on other forum members.
 
You make no sense or you seem confused. How can you believe that Libyans must have had large numbers of lily-white and blue-eyed numbers for the Egyptians to have "stereotyped?" How can a fair-skinned people living in scorching heat of the Sahara be lily-white and be represented as lily-white??? You made me laugh again. If you believe they were that way then we are entering the realm of fantasy. I am sure there were some red haired Berbers and Semites with fair skin, but the vast majority were dark skinned. The same for Libyans. Yes the word "Maurus" means dark but what does dark mean to you? Are you trying to make dark into light? What does Morocco mean to you?

The "contradiction" is purely imaginary on your part. In fact, if anything you are the one who is entering into contradictions. You seem to have no problem accepting that many Near Easterners can be light skinned, enough so for the Egyptians to have stereotyped them as being lighter than them, yet you have problems accepting the same for North Africans who also lived in similar climates. Skin pigmentation is not an exact science and does not follow strict geographical patterns, only generalized ones. You can find "swarthy" types among the natives of countries of even such climates as that of the British Isles and Norway, just like you can find fair types in such climates as that of the Middle East and North Africa.

And we are talking about how the Egyptians perceived these peoples who were their neighbors. To them the Libyans seemed like a fairer people, very likely because they had more of these fair types among them than the Egyptians had. If we look at where the majority of fair North African types are still found (Kabyles, Riffians) today we can see that it is indeed in lands west of Egypt.
 

This thread has been viewed 75001 times.

Back
Top