Was Septimius Severus the 1st Black man to rule England?
Did you know that Black and Asian people first came to the North East in Roman times? Or that England was once ruled by a Libyan? These and many more historical facts were revealed as part of BBC Black History Month.
Early Black History
Emperor Septimius Severus wasn’t the only Black Roman in Britain. There were other African officers, soldiers … stationed on and around Hadrian’s Wall in the 3rd century.
From the 9th century onwards, there are records of Vikings bringing Moroccans to the region.
There’s a gap in the recording of black presence in the North East of England for nearly 400 years until the start of the 16th century.
Black and Asian presence in the North East of England can be traced back to Septimius Severus, a North African Libyan, who ruled England as Roman Emperor between 193-211 AD.
Severus was unique amongst the Roman emperors as being the first Black citizen to hold the highest office in the empire.
The most celebrated example of an early Black presence in Britain is the case of the Roman military garrison on Hadrian’s Wall in Cumbria.
A 4th century inscription tells us that the Roman auxiliary unit, Numerus Maurorum Aurelianorum, was stationed at Aballava, modern day Burgh-by-Sands.
This unit had been mustered in the Roman province of Mauretania in North Africa, modern Morocco.
Genetic evidence
It was recently suggested that African DNA might be found to be present in the local populations near to Hadrian’s Wall.
However, this would not conclusively show that the Black Roman soldiers on the wall intermarried with the local population because of the problem of ‘admixture’.
Admixture is a process whereby the DNA of a population becomes diluted over time and it cannot be shown at what period in time that dilution took place.
African Legacy
During his time in office, Septimius Severus legalised marriage during military service.
There is also evidence that that some Black Romans married, had children, and remained in Britain after their tour of duty.
Skeletons unearthed in a Romano British Cemetery outside York revealed the limb proportions of some of the men suggested that they were Black Africans.
Perhaps they might be considered to be Britain’s first Diaspora people, making Cumbria the birthplace of Black British history?
Austria and there, too, St. Maurice and the Black Virgin are highly revered.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggRj10Gt3NU
learn something you never seen before black moors in european art
done posting and putting some education on this topic…
I read and must respond! Herein I will avoid repeating some commentary that I have already made on the technological, molecular biological, archaeological, and logical arguments that clearly support the fact that the first modern people were black Africans, and that all present-day civilization rests on a black African foundation – please see my comments in response to “The Black Greeks” elsewhere on this website. But, here, to repeat just a bit, so-called “white” people demonstrate a failure to recognize certain basic principles and to actually think them through to a logical conclusion using basic human logic. It is a fallacy to assume that present-day populations in a given area necessarily look the same as ancient populations. The first anatomically modern humans, if they could somehow be transported to today, would be categorized as black: they looked more like modern “sub-Saharan” black Africans than any other modern-day group. How do we know? There is plenty of evidence. For instance (I cite other evidence elsewhere on this website; see above), it is possible to examine skeletal remains and determine whether the person was black: certain features of the long bones (e.g., the femur) as well as the skull, jaw, and arrangement of teeth are characteristically black African. Well, the oldest fossilized remains of modern humans found in what we call Europe were found in the Grimaldi caves in what is now France. These remains were examined about 100 years ago by “white” European scientists, who declared that the skeletons were indeed “Africoid.” Thus, the first modern humans in what is called “Europe” would be today categorized as black. But, that is not the case today. Clearly, at some point, “white” people arrived/appeared in Europe and interbred with (and perhaps also killed a good number of) the original black inhabitants. If the “white” newcomers are sufficiently numerous, well, the original black genetic contributions to populations of descendants would be overwhelmed (but not completely erased). In other words, in relatively few generations, ancient black populations can have “white” descendants. The problem is that in the US (for example), the definition of black (for the most part) follows the one-drop rule (the history of that is another discussion). So when a so-called “white” person (e.g. “TheTruth,” presumably…) spends his life looking at images of seemingly “white” people (e.g., ancient Romans) and then is told that these “white” “Romans” had black ancestors, his mind uses the one-drop rule to conclude that you have just called “Romans” black. To “TheTruth” this is an irreconcilable conflict, so one of the two statements must be rejected – and of course “TheTruth” – as do almost all so-called “white” people — rejects the statement that would force him to think critically, and embraces the fallacy that makes him feel better. Critical thought is hard work. And thus too, do almost all “white” people refuse to recognize physical signs of black African ancestry in so many so-called “white” people. The “olive skin” so often attributed to modern-day “Italians” (Which kind of olive? Hell, folks can’t mean the GREEN ones, can they?), the “curly” or “corkscrew” hair that can be found in any subgroup of “white” people (please do not forget the “frizzy” hair that so many “white” Jewish women hide by perming), the ability to “tan,” all derive from ancient and recent black African ancestry. Simple human logic: in the USA alone, tens of thousands of Africans “passed” into the “white” population over the past couple of centuries alone – they have “white” descendants. Now figure out how many – one person passes say, one hundred years ago. Assuming twenty-five years per generation, and underestimating a mere two children per couple per generation, that amounts to 16 “white” people today who do not know of their black African great-great grandparent. Multiply that by tens of thousands of times in the USA alone. Then ask yourself where you end up when you travel due south from say, Spain, Portugal, France, Italy, and Greece – Africa. Ask yourself how many black Africans (not slaves, but free, rich, and powerful, or just free and hard-working) lived in Europe and had children whose descendants today call themselves white. “TheTruth”, you may not invoke the word “Moor” as something other than black African. Allessandro deMedici, the first hereditary duke of Florence, was the son of Giulio deMedici (who later became Pope Clement VII) and a black woman named Simonetta daCollavecchio. His contemporaries nicknamed him “il Moro.” Clearly, to “Italians” even then, “Moor” meant “of black African ancestry.” “Moor” did not mean some mythical “swarthy but nevertheless white” population. Then ask yourself how one would categorize the “Moors” who ruled almost all of Iberia for over seven centuries. Ask yourself how many European/”white” people today have the surname “Moore” or “Maurice” or something of similar etymological origin. One reason surnames arose in “Europe” was to distinguish a John in one family from the fifty other Johns living in the same town. John the smith, as opposed to John the baker, became John Smith. So why would one man be named Moore? Or Black? Or Schwarz? What could possibly have distinguished the first Mr. Moore from his neighbors? Heh. Ask yourself about the” Arab”-run slave trade (ironically, “Arab” itself includes so many people of ancient and recent black African ancestry) that brought enslaved black Africans to “Europe” before “Europeans” even learned of the existence of the Americas. The “Portuguese” and “Spaniards” brought black Africans to live in Iberia, very often as concubines, BEFORE 1492. Where are the descendants of these black Africans? How many of them are there after 500 years? What do they look like? What about DNA analysis way back in 1989 that identified sub-Saharan African markers in over 4% of Sicilians tested (see Ann. Hum. Genet. 53(Pt 2):193-202)? The real percentage must be higher, as sample size was small, and any genetic markers, African or otherwise, can recombine out in as little as one generation. I repeat, modern-day “white” populations can be the descendants of ancient black populations, and can have had a constant influx of black African blood, and still call themselves ”white.” Modern-day “Egyptians” reject their black African ancestry, even when it is evident in their appearance and culture, because outside the USA, the one-drop rule works the other way around: if you can point to one “white” ancestor, then you call yourself “white.” Never mind the fact that statues and carvings of almost all Egyptian pharaohs clearly show black Africans, never mind the fact that Cheikh Anta Diop, a Senegalese physicist demonstrated back in the 1970s that the skin structure of mummified Pharaohs was consistent with black African skin structure, which indeed can be distinguished from non-black African skin structure. It is a fallacy to assume that black Africans never left Africa unless forced to by “white” people. Black Africans populated the world. This is supported by the fact that the modern-day populations of New Guinea, and the islands of “Melanesia”, to name two groups, still look like black Africans today. Other groups of black people changed in appearance (for reasons we have yet to ascertain) and gave rise to different populations whom we today categorize into “races.” Why is it possible to accept the fact that black people crossed large bodies of water 40,000 years ago, but not to accept the fact that black Africans, who built the first high-technology empire in human history, had the technology to repeatedly visit and settle in Europe over the past 5,000 years? There is a reason that “Italians,” though not categorized as black, were not considered “white” in the USA in 1900. There is a reason that Italians are even today often referred to as “guineas:” three countries in Africa are named Guinea – and they all populated by black Africans. “New Guinea” was thus named by the “Spaniard” Yñigo Ortiz de Retez. Why? Because the people there looked a lot like the people in Guinea – like black Africans. There is a reason why in northern Italy even today, many of the predominantly yellow-haired, blue-eyed, light-skinned residents have a saying: “Africa begins at Rome.” (The French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, over three centuries after the completion of the Renconquista of Iberia, asserted an interesting variant: “Africa begins at the Pyrenees.”)
And if there is obviously a lot of black African blood amongst the “Italians” of today (and there is), then of course there were black “Romans.”
Res ipsa loquitur.
You could not have said it better Son Of Imhotep.My the spirit of the ancestors guide you in all you say and do. How do we put this information in a childrens book with pictures so our children can see, as they say pictures are like a thousand words.
The Egyptians were not black, negroid or sub saharan.They were their own race.Not white, yet not balck either.Yes there was a bit of mixing with blacks I’m sure just as there is here in America.The Moors were a berber like people and had some black in their blood but it does not make them “black” They werea hybrid mix of black,Arabic and Iberians mostly of Arabic stock but definately a bit darker.I like blacks, I”m Italian and Spaniard.I actually love Black women, they are quite lovely :).There was blacks with status in Rome as proven by the frecos found in the Pompei excavations.Racism is a sign of weakness and fear…
Ignorance must surely be blissfull.Please take a trip to Cairo Museum, read something different from high school history.The whole of the meditaranean has at least between 1/8 to 1/4 of black blood in them,genetically speaking, the jet black curly hair, ladies with big behinds and thick legs, are all typically negroid. As an Italian you are at best a watered down negro.Do not forget until the late 1900 people from the meditaranean region were discouraged from emigrating to Europe. Check your history.
If the Sahara was lush and green in the past?
The sub Saharan African, would have more ability
To mix with the people of Europe – North Africa.
http://discovermagazine.com/2006/oct/sahara-desert-savanna-climate
The question of Africans in the world community continues to be an issue. Sadly enough writers of modern and quasi middle ages history have continued to distort history. The distortion pervasive as it is, reflects serious lack of logic among a smaller portion of the anglo-ignoramous. Humans have always migrated for several reasons and will continue to do so. That said, idiots, wake up and move on!
Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States of America. A black man leading the “free world”. Now the most powerful man in the world is black. What an achievement! Let us all rejoice. Amen! May Allah be praised. Shalom, may Jesus be praised and all that…! Thats all folks..!!
half-white half-black you mean, and yeah only because basically every black person plus some percentage of whites voted for him because he would be known as “the 1st black president.”