51
52

Was Hannibal Barca black? (self.AskHistorians)

Gender_Terrorist が 投稿

The History Channel's 'Barbarians Rising' portrays Hannibal as having a darker complexion than I am used to seeing him typically depicted.

This video is being spammed around reddit by a user claiming this is part of a Jewish war on white history (obviously ridiculous), and saying this portrayal is akin to depicting a Viking as black.

I understand race is a social construct and 'Blackness' as we know it today did not exist in the 3rd century BCE. But in terms of complexation, how justifiable is Barbarians Rising's depiction of Hannibal? Is it really comparable to having a black Viking?

全 12 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]AlviseFalierCommunal Italy 66ポイント67ポイント  (11子コメント)

Apart from the "war on white history" which I won't even dignify with recognition, I'll start by saying that there is no surviving physical description of Hannibal Barca, so if History Channel wants to depict Hannibal as being darker skinned they're free to; plus I'm more concerned with their classification of Carthaginians as "Barbarians" as at the time of the Punic wars, Carthage was a much older and more cosmopolitan city than Rome! If anything, the Romans were the "Barbarians"!

Patrick Hunt at UCL affirmed in a paper in 2014 that not only are we unclear of Hannibal's ethnicity, it can't even be framed within modern concepts of race and ethnicity.

There might be coins depicting Hannibal's father minted in Carthaginian colonies in Iberia which we can use to get an idea of what he looked like (we also have coins depicting his brother Hasdrubal). But as for his skin color? Hunt affirms that the Barcids were said to descend from Phoenician aristocracy, but affirming that Hannibal would look like the inhabitants of modern-day Lebanon might be problematic; as they had been living in Africa for centuries by the time he came around. Conversely, we have absolutely no indication as to what extent the Barcids or other members of the Carthaginian aristocracy intermarried with the indigenous Garamantes (the predecessors of the Berbers). My guess? He probably looked something like Zinedine Zidane with a beard, as Zidane is an ethnic Berber.

Edit: I don't even remember where I first read Hunt's analysis, this is all I could find written by him that pretty much sums everything up.

[–]ebowner 9ポイント10ポイント  (3子コメント)

I feel as if the whole classification of Carthaginians as "barbarians" is to sensationalize and get viewers. But I digress. Hunt's statement can also be applied to pretty much most peoples living in the Mediterranean world during this period as well. I actually had a longer response planned out but when I was typing it, it didn't sound nearly as good as I thought it did.

[–]mountedpandahead 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

Can't barbarian in this context just mean non-latin?

[–]Steko 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

I find the whole thing mildly amusing given the etymology of both Barbary and Berber. Moreover Carthage's armies (as opposed to their navy) are known to have relied fairly heavily on troops who were not Carthaginian citizens -- Libyans, Numidians, Moors, Iberians, Celts, Balearics, etc. -- and most of those would seem to nominally meet the Roman or Carthaginian standard for "barbarians".

[–]mrmilitia86 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Interesting. Thanks for this well thought post. Never viewed it in this light

[–]TiakoRoman Archaeology 5ポイント6ポイント  (3子コメント)

Hunt affirms that the Barcids were said to descend from Phoenician aristocracy

Do you know what this is based on? There isn't really anything in the way of Carthaginian evidence, and to use possibly the weakest evidence possible, the Aeneid refers to "Barce" as one of the suitors of Dido, which Servius connects to the Barcids. Pathetically weak evidence, of course, but it could reflect a self presentation of the Barcids as being "indigenous".

I think it is worth making a few statements here might be useful, because I think there is often too ready of an assumption that it functioned the same way the Greek colonies did, hat is, that Punics behaved just like Greeks, or worse yet, European colonialists. There isn't really any justification for this, and from all of our evidence the Phoenicians seem to have been cultural omnivores, so there isn't really reason to think they had prohibitions of intermarriage or ethnic segregation. Furthermore, the Berber ethnicity is almost the ideal example of a "constructed ethnicity" given that it is a catch all name for a variety of highly heterogeneous groups in the Sahara, made somewhat real through colonial policy.

So I think the historical and archaeological conclusion for the question is a pretty resounding "eh".

[–]Steko 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

assumption that it functioned the same way the Greek colonies did, hat is, that Punics behaved just like Greeks, or worse yet, European colonialists. There isn't really any justification for this, and from all of our evidence the Phoenicians seem to have been cultural omnivores, so there isn't really reason to think they had prohibitions of intermarriage or ethnic segregation.

Just to follow up on this point, here are a few things we do know about Carthage and the native inhabitants:

We know from archaeology that Carthage from very early on was outstanding among Phoenician colonies in terms of the population growth and complexity and the area directly under it's administration. (Source: HG Niemeyer, page 104)

Justinus (18.5) recounts, as part of the creation myth: Elissa, arriving in a gulf of Africa, attached the inhabitants of the coast, who rejoiced at the arrival of foreigners, and the opportunity of bartering commodities with them, to her interest...The people of the neighbourhood subsequently gathering about her, bringing, in hopes of gain, many articles to the strangers for sale, and gradually fixing their abodes there, some resemblance of a city arose from the concourse... An inclination to detain the strangers was felt also by the Africans; and, accordingly, with the consent of all, Carthage was founded, an annual tribute being fixed for the ground which it was to occupy. ... In a short time, as the surrounding people came together at the report, the inhabitants became numerous, and the city itself extensive.

Note above the tributary relationship where Carthage is paying the local tribes, an arrangement which Justinus says continued halfway through the 5th century, the sort of longstanding onerous arrangement they might try to minimize in various ways including marriage between ruling families and hosting them in your lavish city. To that end we have later evidence of both, Massinissa, a Numidian king was raised in Carthage and Hasdrupal's daughter Sophonisba was promised to him. As alliances shifted she was later married to another Numidian king, Syphax, and as Syphax and Carthage lost the Second Punic War she begged marriage with the victorious Massinissa. None of this is presented as unusual or surprising in Polybius, Livy or elsewhere that I'm aware of.

[–]AlviseFalierCommunal Italy 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

I've been looking but I can't find where Hunt sources his claim (or mentions Hannibal's Heritage outside of his notes on the Britannica entry for that matter); he limits himself to saying the "Barcid family (if that’s even the right name) has been generally understood as descending from Phoenician aristocracy [...]." It's actually bugging me enough that I might send an e-mail.

In any case, precisely because we can't know to what extent families like the Barcids intermarried with Garamantes I think we might as well assume that Hannibal looked like a "Generic North African," which is what I intended to express with my semi-humorous aside, "He probably looked something like Zinedine Zidane with a beard."

[–]Rodrommel 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

So he beat all those Roman armies with headbutts, is what you're trying to say?